Your last paragraph doesn’t sit well. It sounds like what Colossians 2:8 warns against. Good hermeneutics need to be at the forefront in order to rein in and (as necessary) alter our presuppositions. And it’s true that many interpreters never analyze their presuppositions.

“Drawing on human philosophy” for “fruitful reflection on Scripture” makes it sound as if Scripture itself is not authoritative over philosophy and human reflection. Is Scripture itself not sufficiently clear? Do we not have hermeneutics sufficient to get to the inspired single meaning? How will Scripture dismantle human philosophy is we say that human philosophy helps us understand it?

Amen. I love the teachings of Scripture. I suppose I can be a little too doctrinal at times, and I need to become more balanced with hearing the Word, and being a doer.

But today it seems in many circles that the Church disregards doctrine, theology, and even the Bible itself. We’re in a heap of trouble. Unless, the Lord pours out a revived hunger for His Word, and a thirst for His Spirit.

“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the Joy and Rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by Thy name, O Lord God of Hosts.” Jer. 15:16

“If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink. … out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” John 7:37-38

1) Doctrine divides: Normally those who mention this see the division as something negative. Yet,it is true that doctrine divides, but it is supposed to do that - it is supposed to separate the true from the false. There are some today that even preach a non-doctrinal Jesus. Even to the point they separate His person from His work. Many were crucified before and after Jesus. What is most significant about the crucifixion of Jesus is that it was God who was crucified. His work divorced of His person is worthless.

2) Let’s focus on what we agree: This is also a common desire. It is true that in certain things we can agree to disagree. Yet what matters is the areas of disagreement, rather than the areas of agreement. We can find many things to agree with Roman Catholicism - Virging birth, diety of Christ, Triune God, etc.; however, it is the areas of disagreement that are telling (i.e salvation, justification, security).

Can truth be divorced of sound doctrine? I don’t think so.

I would tend to emphasize this: “(not that sound theological exposition by good teachers isn’t helpful)” more than this: “I thank God I began reading the scriptures and finished most of them BEFORE going to church.”

Believers are to help believers learn and understand the Scriptures. No one is supposed to go it alone, no one is supposed to figure it out alone. More often than not, when an individual tries to interpret Scripture apart from the church, he moves in the direction of heresy. Certainly this is not always the case. I trust you are one of the exceptions. But while we should indeed read the Bible on our own, we should be involved with the community of faith as we wrestle with the meaning of Scripture and how to apply it to our lives.

1 Timothy 4:13 moves in this direction when Paul tells Timothy, “…devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.”

That said, we are each of us accountable for what we do with the Bible. The community of faith will not be held to account for whether or not I was faithful to the Bible. We must be faithful to Scripture, but part of being faithful means being active in the study of Scripture through the community of faith.

As for the article, I think MacArthur is correct in what he says about discernment, but that he should have said more. Andy offered a good clarification - that there is a supernatural gift of discernment given to some. Does it operate apart from Scripture? No, I don’t think so - so MacArthur’s words still stand. But God can supernaturally enable a person to better discern truth and falsehood, that study of Scripture alone does not guarantee one will have this gift of discernment.

And I think the definition given for discernment needs one additional element. Discernment is not just the right application of truth, it is also being able to “discern” (perceive, recognize, tell) whether or not truth is being applied rightly. But I might be splitting hairs.

On the other hand, without neo-Platonism being the ruling paradigm for “plain reason” in the church’s first centuries, we would have never arrived at the council of Chalcedon, or our nuanced understanding of the Trinity, with all of their subtle distinctions being indebted to philosophical categories they inherited.

So there’s no reason to believe that we shouldn’t be a little suspicious of “common sense” and “plain reason” in our own case any more than we are in theirs. What we think is “plain reason” always comes within a presupposed framework that we’re accepting, which is influenced not only by philosophy, but by culture, historical debates, economic status, personal experience, etc. We can see what those factors were for people like Tertullian, and we should be more ready to see what they are for ourselves.

At the same time there’s no reason to believe that drawing on “human philosophy” (fueled by creation-grace) can’t be a source of fruitful theological reflection on Scripture as long as we’re ready to have our presuppositions challenged (not just by our own understanding of Scripture, but by OTHER CHRISTIANS’ view of Scripture - people who don’t share our presuppositions).

Since some people have seen Genesis as an introduction to the Law which intentionally foreshadows the Mosaic code and story of Israel (i.e. creation of Adam = election of Israel, Eden = promised land, the eating of the fruit = violation of the food laws, exile from garden = exile from land, promise of deliverer = messianic prophecy, etc.), the author may have intended the symbolism and imagery of the first several chapters (i.e. the prologue to the OT) to highlight these things. Others have taken the first two chapters of Genesis to be a parody of ancient near eastern creation stories, taking its cues from and intentionally modifying these other versions to show that God (and not Baal) was really the Creator. These kinds of suggestions are attempts to show how the text would have “plainly” been understood at the time.

What prevents a person from identifying other texts as symbolic or metaphorical is basically EVIDENCE. It could be a combination of factors like how it was historically received by ancient audiences, how later texts make use of earlier ones and more importantly whether a person can show features from the text itself that highlight the intention of the author (talking snakes and familiar Ancient Near Eastern symbolism in Gen. 1-2 vs. the historical detail and forms of ancient biography in the synoptic accounts of Jesus).

Again, all that to say that there are reasons why some orthodox, non-liberal, theologically conservative people don’t take these accounts literally, including some of the most influential and respectable people in church history. Whether we agree or disagree with them, I personally don’t think they can be dismissed as “obviously wrong” or as prioritizing “modern scientific theories” over the Bible.

Agreed. But scripture does present the existence of a Holy Spirit-given gift of discerning of spirits that is, in my view, subject to chapter and verse, but not necessarily dependent on it initially to function. Magic? Not in the classic or theological use of the word. But certainly supernatural.