Knowing Scripture

by R.C. Sproul

and if any still insisted on reading it I should lure them into assuming that the benefit of the practice lies in the noble and tranquil feelings evoked by it rather than in noting what Scripture actually says.

Our best intentions, however, are often weakened by our moods and caprice. Bible study often falls by the way.

No, I can’t make the Bible come alive for anyone. The Bible is already alive. It makes me come alive.

Martin Luther, for example, was convinced that what was obscure and difficult in one part of Scripture was stated more clearly and simply in other parts of Scripture.

Some parts of the Bible are so clear and simple that they are offensive to those suffering from intellectual arrogance.

If primitive is an appropriate word to describe the content of Scripture, obscene is even more so. All of the obscenities of sin are recorded with clear and forthright language in the Scripture. And what is more obscene than the cross? Here we have obscenity on a cosmic scale. On the cross Christ takes upon himself human obscenities in order to redeem them.

You may find that in Eastern religions where insight is limited to some guru who lives in a shanty high in the Himalayas. Maybe the guru has been thunderstruck by the gods with some profound mystery of the universe. You travel to inquire and he tells you in a hushed whisper that the meaning of life is the sound of “one hand clapping.” That’s esoteric. That’s so esoteric that even the guru does not understand

Biblical ignorance is not limited to laypeople by any means. I have sat on church boards responsible for the examination of seminarians preparing for the pastoral ministry. The degree of biblical ignorance manifested by many of these students is appalling. Seminary curricula have not done much to alleviate the problem. Every year many churches ordain people who are virtually ignorant of the content of Scripture.

In biblical terms, wisdom has to do with the practical matter of learning how to live a life that is pleasing to God.

expiration. In that case we would see the significance of the passage not so much in providing us with a theory of inspiration—a theory of how God transmitted his Word through human authors—but rather a statement of the origin or source of Scripture.

We may pick up the Bible and be “inspired” or moved to tears or other poignant emotions. But our greatest profit is in being instructed.

My immediate reply is, “Who is Jesus?” As soon as we begin to answer this question, we are involved in doctrine and theology. No Christian can avoid theology. Every Christian is a theologian.

The Christian who is not diligently involved in a serious study of Scripture is simply inadequate as a disciple of Christ.

But with all the skills of knowledge that we have at our disposal in this world, there is no one who can speak to us from a transcendent perspective, no one who can reason with us, as the philosophers say, sub species aeternitatis (from the eternal perspective). Only God can provide us with an eternal perspective and speak to us with absolute and final authority.

Pragmatism may be defined simply as the approach to reality that defines truth as “that which works.”

The modern world breeds pragmatists, whose first question about any idea is not “Is it true?” but “Does it work?”

As in the case of the Christian who wants Christ without theology, so the person who wants practice without theory will usually wind up with bad theories that lead to bad practice.

Sensuous Christians cannot be moved to service, prayer or study unless they “feel like it.”

Their Christian life is only as effective as the intensity of present feelings. When they experience spiritual euphoria, they are a whirlwind of godly activity; when they are depressed, they are a spiritual incompetent.

They usually end up embracing a kind of “relational theology” (a curse on modern Christianity) where personal relationships and experience take precedence over the Word of God. If the Scripture calls us to action that may jeopardize a personal relationship, then the Scripture must be compromised.

In many cases there is the fear that faith will not hold up under intellectual scrutiny, so the defense becomes the denigration of the human mind. We turn to feelings rather than to our minds to establish and preserve our faith. This is a very serious problem we face in the twenty-first-century church.

Strong feelings of joy, love and exaltation are called for again and again. But those passionate feelings are a response to what we understand with our minds to be true.

The fundamental deception of Satan is the lie that obedience can never bring happiness.

If there is a secret, a carefully guarded secret, to human happiness, it is that one expressed in a seventeenth-century catechism that says, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” The secret to happiness is found in obedience to God. How can we be happy if we are not obedient?

I could plead with you to study the Bible for personal edification; I could try the art of persuasion to stimulate your quest for happiness. I could say that the study of the Bible would probably be the most fulfilling and rewarding educational experience of your life. I could cite numerous reasons why you would benefit from a serious study of Scripture. But ultimately the main reason why we should study the Bible is because it is our duty.

He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught.

Luther was aware of the dangers of such a move but was convinced of the clarity of Scripture. Though the dangers of distortion were great, he thought that the benefit of exposing multitudes to the basically clear message of the gospel apart from the pope, church councils and church fathers would bring far more to ultimate salvation than to ultimate ruin.

Subjectivism and subjectivity are not the same things. To say that truth has a subjective element is one thing; to say that it is utterly subjective is quite another.

The application of a biblical text to my life may have strong subjective overtones. But that is not what we mean by subjectivism.

A particular statement may have numerous possible personal applications, but it can only have one correct meaning.

The first such goal is to arrive at the objective meaning of Scripture and to avoid the pitfalls of distortion caused by letting interpretations be governed by subjectivism.

All of us have to struggle with the problem of subjectivism.

The Bible often says things we do not want to hear.

Private views must be evaluated in light of outside evidence and opinion because we bring excess baggage to the Bible.

Though small groups and home Bible studies can be very effective in promoting renewal of the church and the transformation of society, somewhere along the line people must receive educated teaching.

The science of hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation.

In Greek mythology the god Hermes was the messenger of the gods. It was his task to interpret the will of the gods. Hence hermeneutics deals with conveying a message that can be understood.

The primary rule of hermeneutics was called the “analogy of faith.” The analogy of faith is the rule that Scripture is to interpret Scripture: Sacra Scriptura sui interpres (Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter). This means, quite simply, that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.

Some scholars seem to think that the more skeptical they are, the more critical they are. But adopting an excessive and unwarranted skeptical stance is not more critical than gullibly accepting whatever comes along. In my view, a lot of what passes for criticism is not critical at all; it is nothing more than skepticism masking itself as scholarship.

Quite apart from a question of inspiration, the analogy of faith method is a sound approach to interpret literature. The simple canons of common decency should protect any author from unwarranted charges of self-contradiction. If I have the option of interpreting a person’s comments one of two ways, one rendering them consistent and the other contradictory, it seems that the person should get the benefit of the doubt.

One of the most significant advances of biblical scholarship during the Reformation was gained as a result of Luther’s militant advocacy of the second rule of hermeneutics: The Bible should be interpreted according to its literal sense. This was Luther’s principle of interpreting the Bible by its sensus literalis.

To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature. That is, the natural meaning of a passage is to be interpreted according to the normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax and context.

If a person does not believe that miracles are possible, he or she has no grounds to argue that someone else could not say that one took place (unless, of course, it took a miracle to claim a miracle took place!).

At the risk of being repetitious, let me emphasize once more that we must be careful to note the difference between discerning what the Bible is actually saying and the question of whether what it is saying is true or not.

When Luther says the Scriptures never err, he means that they never err with respect to the truth of what they are proclaiming.

Our personal conviction of the truth of Scripture rests not on the external evidences to the Scripture’s truthfulness in and of themselves, but those evidences are confirmed in our hearts by the special work of God the Holy Spirit. The Spirit himself bears witness to our human spirit that the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God. Here God himself confirms the truthfulness of his own Word.

Much of biblical history comes to us by way of understatement and remarkable brevity.

Again, such speculation adds nothing to the authoritative interpretation of what the text actually says, but it gives us a handle on our understanding of it. This is why “reading between the lines” is a legitimate enterprise in preaching.

We are faced with a commonplace human tendency and we are all guilty of it: we tend to view the actions and words of those we dislike in the worst possible light and to view our own shortcomings in the best possible light. When a person sins against me, I respond as if it were purely malicious; when I sin against another, I “make a mistake of judgment.” Because we are by our fallen nature at enmity with God, we have to guard against this inclination when we approach his Word.

If Paul and Peter and the other New Testament authors received their authority as apostles from Jesus himself, how can we criticize them in their teaching and still claim to follow Christ?