This particular lecture is going to kind of set the stage for you to understand how you should view the history of the Christian Church and its theological importance in the way that you define personally doctrines that you want to understand and that you want to utilize to edify and sanctify yourself as the Holy Spirit works through you, obviously. but to sanctify your mind and the way that you go about understanding theology. Now this is going to be a little longer than some of the regular lectures that we are going to go through, as I said in our first introduction. For the most part I want to keep them short. This one is going to be setting the theological stage of how we should be looking at historical theology and how we should be looking at the history of the Christian Church so as a result this is going to be a little longer than some of the others. Now, I want to introduce you to an idea in which I'm going to label theological traditionalism. And really, that is asking the question, what is the role of the Holy Spirit in and through the student of Scripture? It's going to answer that question. The question not only deals with orthodox hermeneutical exegesis, but the present reality of orthodox truth and whether or not to appeal, and appeal, to theological traditionalism is warranted. Now you might be asking yourself, what is theological traditionalism? What do you mean when you say that? What I mean is to utilize the book of Hebrews and its phrase, confidence in our brethren. we can have confidence in our brethren, especially the pastors and teachers that God has raised up throughout the history of the church. Theological traditionalism is defined in two ways. Erroneously by those against its biblical design, so it's defined wrongly that way. And secondly, correctly by those who recognize the Spirit's providential guidance of historical orthodoxy throughout generations of the church since its inception. Now, theological traditionalism teaches that the Spirit's work through the history of the Church in and through pastors and teachers, those the Spirit has given to the Church as gifts, should be followed as they agree with Scripture. But that's not all. It teaches that they should also be followed as they agree with each other in their interpretation of the Scripture. Now, such a consensus interpretation is found in what we would call the subscriptionist confessionalism of the Orthodox creeds and confessions throughout the history of the Church. In other words, as these confessions agree with one another, these are the things that we hold dear in the Christian Church. As pastors and teachers, teach us things that are of the faith, We want to believe those things. We don't want to believe them because they simply say it, and we don't want to believe them just because five or six of them say the same thing. We want to be sure that it's obviously bound up with Scripture. Yet at the same time, if it is, and as it's so stated, that is a very safe place to be in understanding theology. In other words, if today You come up with your own agenda, your own ideas, some new twist, something that's never been taught. Chances are that you're wrong. God has not left the Christian church without a witness to the truth. Again, Jude 3. Remember, we are studying what God has given us, the faith once delivered to the saints. It's not that somebody's going to come up with new doctrines and new ideas. it could be that certain ideas are refined. We'll talk about that. But erroneously some theologians attempt to define theological traditionalism while simultaneously and unknowingly adhering to the false misconceptions of what I'm going to call the me and my Bible hermeneutic. Now this teaches that every individual Christian has the right and ability to interpret scripture based on the misconceived presupposition that the scriptures are perfectly clear and that all parts are equally plain. Now that's wrong. The scripture is clear. The perspicuity of the scriptures, the clarity of the scriptures, that's true. And the plowboy to the scholar can read it and can find salvation in it. Yet not all its parts are equally plain. So some of these theologians, in trying to discredit theological traditionalism, because they think that all I need is me and my Bible, I just open it up, I read it, I know what it says, and I'm sure that that's the case. Their attempt at defining theological traditionalism in a negative light can be seen in a number of ways. They believe that theological traditionalism teaches that, number one, the individual Christian cannot interpret the scriptures with any degree of accuracy or certainty. since his corrupt nature is naturally drawn towards error. Or number two, a single individual's interpretation of scripture must either be confirmed by or give way to the consensus of a multitude of individuals. Number three, there has existed a special golden age in church history extending from the Reformation to British Puritanism, characterized by exceptional unity among believers, unrivaled spiritual and intellectual giftedness, and special illumination of the meaning of Scripture by the Holy Spirit. And number four, by God's sovereignty the golden age of learning produced a confessionalism that has bound the orthodoxy of the Church of Jesus Christ and therefore must be submitted to by all Christians. Whereas all contradicting interpretations of Scripture have to be rejected as error. Number five, The work of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture is not accomplished on an individual basis, but on the basis of a majority consensus. Number six, the work of the Holy Spirit in illumination is at an end because of this subscriptional confessionalism. In practicum, as one dispensationalist stated in Conversation, it is no good for Presbyterians to waive the Westminster Confession of Faith in front of Baptists expecting them to bow down in front of it. If you can't convince us by scriptures then you won't convince us at all. And your confession carries no more weight than its adherence to the Bible gives it. So what they do is some of these theologians attempt to take this theological traditionalism and pass it off with these six points saying that this is really what it teaches and so that's really wrong. Rather me and my Bible is enough. Well, positively, and in refutation of the ideas surrounding a negative connotation of these points, theological traditionalism stands light years apart from the caricature seen in those other points. Theological traditionalism does not teach that the individual Christian cannot interpret the scriptures with any degree of accuracy or certainty since he has a corrupt nature and is naturally drawn toward error. That's a denial both of the work of the Holy Spirit and the Christian to test what is true, and to have an answer for everyone who asks of him. 1 Thessalonians 5.12, Colossians 4.6, 2 Timothy 1.14, 1 Peter 3.15, be ready to give an answer. It's an oversimplification of appealing to the wickedness of man and a denial of his new nature and new mind in Christ Jesus, which is Romans 12, 1 and 2, to say that. Secondly, theological traditionalism does teach that a single individual's interpretation of scriptures must either be confirmed by or give way to the consensus of a multitude of individuals, but not without first engaging in private interpretation. It is logically impossible to confirm or deny one's theological idea without first having an idea based on private interpretation. Even among Roman Catholics it's impossible for them to appeal to the church for authority without first appealing to private interpretation of someone. Roman Catholics are first Protestants in this regard since they must of necessity privately interpret the scriptures before the Pope can decree a public proclamation on any given subject when he does at ex cathedra. He has to study first You have to have an idea first. Thirdly, theological traditionalism does not make a direct appeal to a special golden age in church history, extending from the Reformation to British Puritanism, characterized by exceptional unity among believers, unrivaled spiritual and intellectual giftedness, and special illumination as a meaning of scripture by the Holy Spirit. Theological traditionalism does make a direct appeal to proper biblical exegesis in any given age. And every confessional stance that aligns itself with a proper biblical interpretation, that's what we're after. Appeal is often made to the Reformation and the Westminster Standards in submission to the Holy Spirit's providence in giving certain men to the church as pastors and teachers that have correctly defined Orthodox Christianity and built upon the Orthodox standards since the time of Christ and the Apostles. To deny following after the teachings of men in this regard, not the men themselves as if these men were to be venerated, be sin against the providential gifts of the Holy Spirit. We're going to discuss a little bit about that later. Fourthly, theological traditionalism does not teach that all Christians are bound by the confession of the golden years. It should be accepted by every Christian that error of any kind should be rejected. Everybody would agree with that. And it also should be accepted by every Christian that confessional Christianity is a necessary part of the church's witness to the world. A church historian by the name of Hetherington states, Thus, a confession of faith is not the very voice of divine truth, but the echo of that voice from souls that have heard its utterance. felt its power, and are answering to its call. And since she has been instituted for the purpose of teaching God's truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message which she has to deliver. Without doing so, the church would be no teacher, and the world might remain untaught so far as she was concerned. Now that's taken from William Hetherington's History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, page 343. Fifthly, theological traditionalism does produce a subscriptionist confessionalism by God's providential sovereignty, but it has hardly come about by the Spirit's work solely accomplished in the Protestant Reformation or Puritan England. Such an orthodox confessionalism should not be rejected, but we should be adhering to it. And every Christian is bound to adhere to the truth if that confession demonstrates the truth biblically. Sixthly, theological traditionalism does not teach that initially a spirit-led exegesis is accomplished by a majority consensus. Rather, private interpretation is the first step and the necessary consequence of confessional Christianity, which is the only spirit-guided Christianity that exists. Theological traditionalism does not claim that the Westminster Confession of Faith or any other confession was the result of just a majority consensus. Rather, the majority conferred as to the truth of the subject matter after private interpretation and exegesis first happened. So we want to remember that it's not just out there because a lot of people say it, but that they've done their exegesis conferred and affirmed it. Sixthly, theological traditionalism does not teach that the work of the Holy Spirit and illumination is at an end because of this subscriptional confessionalism. Illumination will be discussed and defined however. Every Christian is illuminated by the Holy Spirit to some degree and every Christian who is illuminated through the tools of the Spirit and the Spirit's internal witness will come to a knowledge of the truth. But what are the tools of the Spirit? And what does it mean to be illuminated by the Spirit? These two questions set down the heart and the crux of the validity of theological traditionalism and the Spirit's work through illuminating men throughout church history. So let me ask them again. What are the tools that the Spirit uses through us? And what does it mean to be illuminated by the Spirit? Subscriptionism to the Westminster Confession of Faith and theological traditionalism overlap but they're not the same thing. The distinction has to be made before continuing on to understand really the role of the Holy Spirit's illumination of the exegete. These two theological ideas are not simply the same concept or same definition as stated semantically different. Theological traditionalism is directed both towards exegetical results of pastors and teachers So it also relies on the pastors and teachers themselves as being more illuminated in degree, not necessarily in essence though, as any other regenerated Christians. And exercising that greater illumination in the various sermons and treatises and books and confessions throughout history that explain and interpret the truths of the scriptures. That's why these pastors and teachers are gifts from God and are given to the church to teach and care for the church as under-shepherds of Christ. Jeremiah 3.15, God giving pastors according to his own hearts, and Ephesians 4.11, Him giving pastors and teachers. Subscriptionism itself tends only to deal with the confessions at face value, under the propagation of the ministerial vow that's taken to uphold the truth contained in the confessions. Morton Smith In his work, The Subscription Debate, Studies in Presbyterian Polity, he says, The vow requires the adoption of the confession and catechisms, and not just the system of doctrine. It holds that the ordained is subscribing to nothing more, nor less, than the entirety of the confession and catechisms as contained in the system of doctrine taught in the scriptures. So, one describes both the end and the means to that end, and another surrounds the adherence to those confessions. That's the difference between subscriptionalism and theological traditionalism. Now, the illumination of the Spirit is directly related to the role of the Holy Spirit in and through the exegete. The Holy Spirit is not trying to confuse the reader of the Bible and the Word of God, but the Spirit-inspired Word is always not necessarily easy to understand in all its parts with fallen minds. We have fallen minds and sometimes they don't work right. The illumination of the spirit and other exegetical knowledge is needful if the text and its propositions are going to be understood properly and as God intended them. Christians should not think, however, that divine illumination is not a special intellectual paradigm for specially gifted teachers or pastors. Illumination, if you want to define that, could be defined as the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit's supernatural help in clearly delineating the message of the inspired scriptures to the reader. Now that doesn't mean that every reader is able to clearly interpret the scriptures knowing that illumination is not osmosis and given in degrees. We know that it's given in degrees to different people. Illumination is a counterpart to reading, to studying, and exegeting the scriptures using tried hermeneutical principles upon the text to reach its proper meaning. So illumination presses the reader to bridge the cultural gap on the meaning of a given passage to their life situation and translates the biblical message into the language of today. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit changes or improves upon the truth in the Bible. but rather he aids the student of the word to properly understand the already orthodox position of the faith once delivered to the Saints. In this sense there cannot be a dichotomy between orthodox history and orthodox theology. The history of divine illumination for the church is wed to historical orthodoxy because it's the same spirit illuminating the word. This is a confrontational illumination between the word and the reader. The illuminated text not only says something to the reader, but does something to him in conjunction with the text and presses him to act. For instance, Psalm 119, 105 says, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. It presses us to action. Now illumination is not the same thing as a kind of enlightening that's found in Hebrews 6, 4-6, which talks about them being enlightened by the Holy Spirit. That's a general work of the Holy Spirit in convicting some of sin and enlightening them to a better way as they partake of divine blessings surrounding the covenant community in which they're involved in. Divine illumination for true believers, as Jonathan Edwards says, is as a true sense of the divine excellency of the things revealed in the Word of God and a conviction of the truth and reality of them thence arising. This spiritual light primarily consists in the former of these, viz., a real sense and apprehension of the divine excellency of things revealed in the Word of God. A spiritual and saving conviction of the truth and reality of these things arises from such a sight of their divine excellency and glory, so that this conviction of their truth is an effect and natural consequence of the sight of their divine glory. That's in his works in Volume 2, the Banner of Truth edition, page 12. He clearly states that it is not the suggesting of any new truths or propositions not contained in the Word of God. The Holy Spirit's divine illumination of a believer doesn't create new doctrine not already contained in the Bible and believed by the church. divine illumination, as a result of further reflection and study, refines doctrines that already exist. As the student of the Word is illuminated by the Holy Spirit, you have to ask the question, what does it feel like to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit? How does one know whether they're being illuminated by the Holy Spirit or not, in order to be guided into the truth of the Word? Well first, One should understand that illumination does not necessitate new revelation. Remember that. The theory of dogmatic development rests on a false premise that special revelation is an ongoing reality in the Church. But God in fact has given a complete and infallible self-disclosure in Scripture and in Jesus of Nazareth. The Church's growth in knowledge through reflection and dialogue with history must be attributed to Holy Spirit illumination and human interpretation of general revelation, rather than to some new, special, fresh revelation. Secondly, you have to understand that the Holy Spirit illuminates every believer. Jude, verse 19 states, these are sensual persons who cause divisions not having the Spirit. There are some who have the Spirit and others who do not. There are some who are saved, there are some who are lost. In 1 John 4.13, it says that there's a knowledge that goes along with this indwelling and having of the Spirit. He says, By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Now this is a clear delineation between those who have the Spirit and those who don't in terms of their obedience to Christ's command. 1 John 3.24 says, Now he who keeps his commandments abides in Him and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us." The Holy Spirit then witnesses to Christians throughout the Word of God. Hebrews 10.15 tells us that. He works righteousness in them by the Word, Titus 3.5, and pressing upon them the reality that Christians belong to the body of Christ and that they're His, 1 Corinthians 3.16 and 2 Timothy 1.14. He speaks to the covenant community through the Word, 1 Timothy 4.1. The fruit of the Spirit in a believer is the product of adhering to the truth of the Word, Ephesians 5.9. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in that regard is stated plainly in Romans 8.16. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. The Spirit uses both the preaching of the Word and the reading of the Word to affect the soul of the believer toward sanctification. Nehemiah 8.8 states that they read distinctly from the book, and the law of God, and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading. In Acts 26.18, it says the Spirit opens their eyes to spiritual truth. Psalm 19.8 says the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. Even after the disciples' conversion, Luke 24.45 says that Christ opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 2 Corinthians 3, 16-17 also says, nevertheless when one turns to the Lord the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. All believers when they're converted receive the illuminating principle of the Spirit in them to aid them in understanding the Bible but in differing degrees according to the sovereignty of the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12.11 Every believer is then required to read the Scriptures. The Scriptures tell us this over and over. Deuteronomy 17.9, Revelation 1.3, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures. Isaiah 34.16 as well. And every believer is concurrently illuminated by the Spirit as he reads again in differing degrees of illumination. Some believe that because the Christian is regenerate then they subsequently all receive the exact same gift of illumination to the exact same degree. Now that's wrong. If that were the case then the regenerate disciples would not have been further illuminated to the truth of the word more than they were when Jesus opened their mind further in Luke 24 45. And the very role of pastor and teacher or doctor in the church would be immediately undermined since all Christians have the same illuminative ability to come to a perfect unified conclusion about every doctrine. We wouldn't need pastors anymore. In terms of the necessity of the illumination of the Spirit, John Calvin saw this as a great necessity for rightly understanding and receiving the Word. Calvin says that we have no great certainty of the Word itself until it be confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit. He says that in Book 1, Chapter 9, Paragraph 3. Calvin also says, hence, without the illumination of the Spirit, the Word has no effect. And hence, also, it is obvious that faith is something higher than human understanding. Were it sufficient for the mind to be illuminated by the Spirit of God, unless the heart were also strengthened and supported by His power? He says that in Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 32. The Word has no effect in that it does not press one to action without receiving the things of God as both true and good. The Christian must see the excellency of the Word and that which it contains is both true and good. One theologian by the name of Boyd says, Calvin was emphatic on the mutual bond that existed between the word, here meaning scripture, and the spirit, and thus continually emphasized the fact that it's impossible to hear, believe, interpret, and obey God's Word rightly unless one is in personal communion with the Holy Spirit as one encounters scripture. That's in the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society. The title of that article is The Divine Wisdom of Obscurity. In terms, then, in dealing with theological traditionalism, the Westminster Confession also states, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word. So theological traditionalism is going to follow the revealed Word. But in dealing with it then, and the reality standing behind a correct interpretation, the question is not what does it feel like to be illuminated by the Spirit since everybody is illuminated to some extent, but how does one know they have rightly interpreted a given text, or rightly understood a given biblical proposition, a biblical concept, or some systematic idea as an illuminated Christian still under the remnants of remaining sin. Now, since Christians are still fallen beings and have remnants of remaining sin in them, and you can read John 3, 6, or Job 14, 4, or Job 15, 14, or Psalm 51, 5, and easily see that, how might they misapply the illumination that the Spirit has already given them as a regenerated believer as they study? Toretan says, man cannot be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and judge of controversies because he's liable to error. It'd be impossible to say that men have the final authority on matters of faith and practice because they're liable to error. Now Tarleton continues this line of thought towards the crux of the issue. He says, the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause and principle from which I am induced to believe. But the church is the instrument and means through which I believe. The church is the instrument by which men believe the truths delivered once to the saints, not simply truths declared to the individual Christians. So Tartan clarifies it. He says this, Hence, if the question is why or on what account do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I do so on account of the scripture itself, which by its makes proves itself to be such. If it is asked, he says, whence from what I believe I will answer from the Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Now listen to what he says. Finally, if I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I will answer through the church, which God uses in delivering the scriptures to me. And you can read that at Institutes of Atlantic Theology in Volume 1, page 32. Theological traditionalism then, at its core, rests on the scripture's authenticity, the Spirit's witness to its authenticity and authority, and the doctrine delivered to men through the church. Now that doesn't detract from sola scriptura, rather it binds it as necessary. The Westminster Confession states, the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God who is truth itself, the author thereof. And therefore it is to be received because it's the Word of God. That's in chapter 1, section 4. The questions If the individual is unable to come to an assurance of what God's words are, which are without guile, by reading and studying and comparing them, how can he hope to come away with any assurance of what the words of men are, whose hearts are deceitful above all things? How can he come away with an assurance with any effort at all? How can he know that his understanding of the Creed is any sounder than his understanding of the Bible? If you take away the foundation, aren't you left with nothing? That is a helpful critique of theological traditionalism. But to answer this objection, and to understand how the Holy Spirit works by the word delivered and interpreted through men in the church, misconceptions around sola scriptura must be investigated very briefly here. We need to touch on it. Sola scriptura and theological traditionalism lie in direct opposition to what we've deemed today so low scriptura. That is again the me and my Bible hermeneutic. It's imperative that Christians don't commit hermeneutical nihilism with the me and my Bible are enough hermeneutic. At no point in church history except for many of the heretical sects or schismatics that are often appeared on the historical scene with these ideas did the church ever hold to a me and my Bible hermeneutic. The individual Christian was never, and is never, free from the Church to determine on his own what was right and what was wrong concerning about Orthodox doctrines. Let me reiterate that. The Christian was never, ever, free from the Church to determine on his own what was right and wrong about doctrine. Evangelical Christians often completely miss the point in dealing with the doctrine of the Spirit's divine illumination because they're thinking about this wrongly. For some reasons, Christians believe that divine illumination means that the Spirit continually reinvents the biblical wheel with each Christian so that they and they alone may determine what is accepted doctrine and what is not. Now, in juxtaposition, evangelical doctrines are already set by the Word and taught by the Church throughout redemptive history as it unfolded. Christians rather align themselves to the truth as accepted and propagated by the Word through the instrument of the Church. This involved an element of tradition in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit, the Christian, and his Bible are all that's needed to interpret Scripture rightly. Don't think about it that way. That's never what the Church believed, and that's not what Sola Scriptura ever meant during the Reformation. Tradition, when used by the Orthodox Christian Church throughout the centuries, simply designates the complete corpus of truth as the inclusive set of Christian beliefs or the whole of the faith given to the saints in which the church contends for as orthodoxy. Now this kind of tradition is either verbal, such as the teaching that came verbally from the apostles, or written, such as any of the books of the Bible that were penned. Now this does not mean, like the Catholic Church, that there's some secret traditions that were handed down to the church that are shrouded in some mysterious unwritten or secret documents that only a select few recognize. Now that's Rome's position. That's when they say tradition, that's what they mean. Rather, scripture and tradition are paralleled ideas to mean the same thing in Orthodox Christianity. For example, when a Christian says, Jesus is Lord, that is the same thing as quoting John chapter 1 verses 1 through 3. It's a verbal tradition that the church has always believed that it attests to the truth of John 1, 1-3 and other scriptures that we could cite for that. One could look through any of the early church fathers, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and find this type of thinking throughout their writings. Now, Irenaeus used an interesting term called the regula fide to describe the tradition of the church. That places the Holy Scriptures on the same level of confessing the truth of the Holy Scriptures in verbally relatable terms. Again, to use the example, Jesus is Lord, or Jesus is God, is to say, most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am, John 8, 58. Both of those testimonies, one written, Jesus is God, Jesus is Lord, and one inspired, John 8, 58, one is creedal or tradition, one is written and inspired, are in fact part of the regula fide. The regula fide is, as Augustine stated, a summary of Holy Scripture. Without this summary, without sola scriptura explained by the Church, there would be no faith to believe. Christians should rightly have in the back of their mind that Christ has come to build this Church, not individual Christians or lone ranger Christians. He's building a church that's the organically unified covenant community of believers, and you can read that in Ephesians 1.10 or Ephesians 5.23, Colossians 1.18, Romans 15.9-12, and find all sorts of scriptures about that. How then does this church, not the Roman Catholic Church or succession of the apostles in terms of prilocy or having a bishop over all of the people, or a pope over all the people. How does this church interpret the Bible rightly so as to be assured that interpretation is correct? Not that we're appealing to a pope, not that we're appealing to a mass of people, but how do they know they've been led by the Holy Spirit to do so? That's the heart of what this issue is about. Now William Whitaker, a great opponent of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, said For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church. But we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular sea, or succession of men. And you can read that in a Disputation on Holy Scripture, page 411. Now that's a very helpful statement of how the Holy Spirit works through the church. The gift of interpretation that's exercised by qualified individuals, given in specific offices in the church, Ephesians 411, pastors and teachers, prophets, it's used for the edification of the body. Individual Christians, then, do not own the market on a given doctrine of theological truth. One person or one group of Christians does not dictate truth. Rather, it is read, explained, interpreted, and applied by those whom the Spirit has both illuminated as regenerate Christians, and gifted in the science of biblical exegesis. These are people who are ordained by Christ and the Church as ministers of the Word. You can look that up in 1st Timothy 3.2, 1st Timothy 3.6, Ephesians 4.8-11, Hosea 4.6, Malachi 2.7, Jeremiah 14.15, Romans 10.15, Hebrews 5.4, lots of passages. Illumination then is not tied to a specific group or class of Christians in the Church, but it is biblically certain that specific classes or officers are more qualified to engage the text of the Bible critically than others. Throughout the history of the church these men are called prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers or doctors depending upon which area of the church one is studying. Now that doesn't mean that Christians can't interpret passages on their own. And it doesn't mean that salvation is found through apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The Protestant position on Sola Scriptura remains historically that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, we may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. You can find that in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. However, though the church may induce or persuade Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, as they say, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is clearly understood by all illuminated by the Spirit of God. Again, the Westminster Confession states very well, all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. It's a logical fallacy simply based on the providence of God, which determines whether a man will be born with a greater or lesser intellect, and also presupposes the given age of a Christian, whether they're a child or an adult. You can't say that everybody is illuminated in the same way or to the same degree. So the confession continues to say, yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and open in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned and a due sense and use of ordinary means may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." So, that which is necessary for salvation, which the Holy Spirit uses to effect salvation, are clearly seen in Scripture. And a wonderful testimony to this is 2 Corinthians 5, which contains a very concise statement of the gospel, or John chapter 3, that explains election, regeneration, saving faith in the atonement of Christ, That doesn't mean that everybody alike will clearly understand what they're reading in the Bible, even as an illuminated Christian, which includes exegetical nuances. In both of those passages, in both 2 Corinthians 5 and John chapter 3, there are certain things that not everybody's going to see. Certain areas of the prophets are exceedingly difficult to understand, even with much study and aid. And other areas of a translated text from Hebrew into English may lose the initial meaning almost completely, especially surrounding difficult passages to translate, as in the case of Isaiah chapter 28 and verse 13. Aside from regeneration, the greater or lesser degree of skill and ability coupled with a greater or lesser degree of illumination by the Spirit are key factors in determining the exegete's ability to properly interpret a text of the Bible. So these factors, though, are given at the discretion of the Spirit, and are often given a higher degree to those fitted for the task of a church office to lead the people of God. You see that in Numbers 11.25 and Acts 4.8. Let's make this especially practical. So imagine that a man was on a desert island having just his academic knowledge and a copy of the Holy Scriptures. For this example, assume that this man is a great Bible scholar. knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew and in all types of theology. During a given week he studied the Bible and came to a conclusion on a passage. He believed he was right on his final interpretation. The next week he does the same thing with another passage. He believed in his heart that the Spirit of God aided him to the truth of the passages. Now a few days later a box of his books washes up on shore. We'll pretend he was in a boat accident. and just happened to have a box of books on the boat with him. They happen to be commentaries, and you can choose whichever ones you'd like him to have or prefer. He then checks his work. On the first passage he finds he missed a critical verb form of a Greek word, and it throws his theological conclusion into error. On the second passage he found his ideas were almost word-for-word as the commentators. This man thought he had the truth on both passages and he found he had blundered on his first passage. Now how would he have known what the prompting or internal testimony of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with his heart to the truth of the Word felt like to know for sure he was right? The issue here is not whether one is being illuminated by the Spirit, again for all Christians are illuminated to some degree if they are regenerated. But how does one know the Holy Spirit is leading them as a regenerate believer and enlightening him or enlightening him to further understand the truth? Now in this example that I use, which is not necessarily a fantastical case, the scholar is wrong and he was wrong 50% of the time. But if he didn't have someone to check his work, he would not have known he was wrong and he would have thought erroneously that the Holy Spirit was guiding him into all truth. Certainly, he would have been happily mistaken. How would someone tell the difference between what the Spirit was leading him to believe, based on his own study, and whether he was ultimately an error? How does he know he was right? A question, or a better question would be, how can he know he is not wrong? Now, does the Spirit osmatically install in his head the truth? Or does study, proper study, proper exegetical study, come into play? Now, whether a man on a desert island is used or the proverbial plow boy is used, the question remains, how does the plow boy or anyone know that he is being led by the Spirit and how does theological traditionalism fit nicely with that leading experience and with private interpretation? Now, the answer to this inquiry revolves around the way sola scriptura and the illumination of the Holy Spirit work. and inevitably one is led back to the church as a covenantal community for answers. It's the organic body that's linked together. This is in radical opposition to the nonsense of sectarianism or schism or radical individualism. The plowboy ought to find a good church to attend. Now theological traditionalism, which encompasses the work of the Holy Spirit through the life of the church and the doctrine of sola scriptura, answers the dilemma of knowing whether one is right or wrong in an historical orthodox fashion. Reading the Word of God as an individual Christian is an imperative. We are supposed to do that. Understanding truth is imperative, but understanding truth based on personal opinion without consulting the offices of the church, pastors, teachers, doctors, which have been given to the church through its history, is a fatal mistake. The Word of God is not just delivered to Christians. like a Christian. It is delivered to the body of believers through individual exegetes. First Peter 4.1 says, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking. First Corinthians 1.10 masterfully states, I appeal to you brothers by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, that you may be united in the same mind and same judgment. Philippians 3.16 only let us hold true to what we have attained. In contrast to false teachers, Peter says in 2 Peter 1.20, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. It is not by the false prophet's own interpretation that Scripture is given as true and authoritative, but by the Holy Spirit. Collectively, the church is to be of one mind. Now how do pastors and teachers in the church solve the problem of the me and my Bible hermeneutic and establish theological traditionalism. Now without iron sharpening iron, the church would not have sharp swords. They'd obviously just be hunks of iron. The Christian church may have confidence in their brethren who lead them and who have been gifted to teach them the Word of God. This is the way the Spirit has worked in the church, delivering the truth of God to the church since its inception. For instance, Moses in Deuteronomy 32, 46 and 47 states, He said to them, Take to heart all the words by which I am warning you today, that you may command them to your children, that they may be careful to do all the words of this law, for it is no empty word for you, but your very life, and by this word you shall live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess. The words which Moses spoke were written down, that people can and must listen to it, they must learn it, and in the words which Moses spoke there was found life. Moses acted as a faithful messenger, sent by God as a prophet to the people. There is an important sense in which private interpretation is commanded, and another in which it is dangerous. Ultimately Christians have the theological axiom of sola scriptura to lean on, which is 1st John 5.13, these things that are written, so that you may know your eternal life. and the gifted pastors and teachers to guide them. Hebrews 13, 7-9 makes this very clear. Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow. Consider the outcome of their conduct. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Now the sentence, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, is associated with the ruling message of teachers and pastors of the church. those who rule over the church as under-shepherds before Christ. Now these men are gifts by the Holy Spirit in the church as Ephesians 4, 11 and 12 declares. It says this, And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. Why? For the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. This is their obligation by which submission ensues as obedience to the Lord. Hebrews 13, 17 says, Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account. Let them do so with joy, and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. Now, deviation from historical orthodoxy on any point is a very dangerous place to be. It claims the Church has subsequently been without a bit of information for centuries, until it was discovered by someone who thought it would fit well into a new theological scheme, or became a new theological scheme in and of itself, like the Anabaptists of the day of the Reformation, who denied the Trinity and the deity of the sun, but embraced believers' baptism. The problem that Christians have with theological traditionalism, or the orthodox doctrine of sola scriptura, is that it removes the ability to have solitary interpretation that one can be assured by and upon. it causes them to rest solely in the work of the Spirit both in them and through the church. It is certainly a far more significant thing for a man to be regenerated than to have the best Greek, Hebrew, and philological education one can have. But one would have to also agree that apart from the providential work of the Holy Spirit we can have no hope of interpreting the Scriptures properly. And this would include having the best Greek, Hebrew, and philological education one can have. Unregenerate men can have good interpretations of the text, but the inward spiritual reception of the text as true and good would never come about unless the Holy Spirit testified in the heart to that truth. They can know thou shalt not kill. They may not kill somebody, but they are stirred up by self-love in not being arrested for murder, not because they desire to follow God's commandments. That is why the Westminster Confession of Faith states that salvation is found in the Scriptures plainly, but also by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. Deduction is only accomplished through more study than what is plain in and of itself. Christians do not despise the use of means as they study, for without those means they can never come to a greater knowledge of the Bible than they had before. The use of means is not only their Bible, but all the skills that are necessary for proper biblical interpretation. These skills are more or less given to men, and some men are especially gifted to exercise them through the Spirit, Ephesians 4.11 again. It's not that Christians simply need some extra help to interpret the Bible, but that they need the help of those ordained men who have been given as gifts to the church lawfully called to that function. They are authoritatively given power by the Holy Spirit to present the church with a sound interpretation of the Bible. The form of Presbyterian church government in the Westminster Standard speaks of the doctors or teachers of the church in this way. The scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of pastor, who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments. the Lord having given different gifts and diverse exercises according to these gifts in the ministry of the word. Though these gifts may meet in and accordingly be exercised by one and the same minister, yet where be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments according to the different gifts in which each of them moth doth excel. And he that doth more excel at an exposition of Scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application, is accordingly employed therein, and may be called a teacher or doctor. The places alleged by the notation of the word do prove the proposition. Nevertheless, where is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, as far as able, the whole work of the ministry. A teacher or doctor is of most excellent use in schools and universities, as of old in the schools of the prophets and at Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doctors." Now that is found in the form of Presbyterian church government under the section of doctors and teachers. Now there's no contention with the Orthodox that the doctrine of the Spirit's illumination should be an encouragement to ordinary believers that they can read the Bible with profit. Everybody believes that. All Christians can read the Bible with profit. But this is not the same as saying the entire Bible can be read by all believers with equal profit. If that were true, again, there would be no need of preaching, teaching, or encouraging one another in the faith. When it says that a Christian must interpret the Bible for himself, which is quite true, it must be realized that the Christian is dependent on a great many things in order to accomplish this goal with profit. He must have an ability to read in some fashion, an ability to properly remember what other scriptures say as a systematic study through the Bible. An ability to understand and use the original languages or else he is completely dependent on non-ecclesiastical and non-ordained authority, that of the publisher of his translation of the Bible or maybe some book that he's reading. He's got to have an ability to systematize the doctrines of scripture and cohesively interrelate those doctrines in historical orthodoxy through the ages. It is totally erroneous to believe that the Christian opens his Bible and suddenly, by the power of the Spirit, the meaning of the text suddenly jumps out of the pages into his intellect and understanding. Theological traditionalism stresses that the ordinary means of study and intellectual equipment are essential to interpret the word rightly. The Christian is completely and utterly dependent on ordinary providential means to understand the Bible. However, even these are the work of the Spirit. For the ability to think and understand language is the work of the Spirit in ordinary providence. It is then important to ask the crux of the question as to where the Holy Spirit works. What is the Church? Easily stated, it is the aggregate of the work of the Spirit. Next it would be very important to ask, what is the Church's confession or regula fide? This too is the work of the Holy Spirit, and He does it in fallen people, but redeemed men, chosen as vessels to teach the Church. Now that's the covenant community, that is the sum total of God's providential work of regeneration and illumination in the Church, all through the Church. How could it be possible for a Christian to say he trusts the Holy Spirit to illumine him, but not to illuminate millions of others through the history of the Church, and some of those others in a greater mental capacity? There are people in the history of the Church that are far superior in intellect than I have. There are people that are far superior in intellect to what you have. This is where personal illumination and corporate illumination must be compared and contrasted. Personal illumination is the work of the Spirit in every believer as a result of regeneration to the degree that the Spirit chooses. It's up to him. Corporate illumination is the work of the Spirit through the history of the Church as a corporate body, as iron sharpens iron. It's impossible to think then, if that's true, that the Church, the gifted officers, gifted in, given as gifts to the body, can't speak authoritatively on matters of faith and practice. The Church speaks authoritatively about matters of doctrine and faith, not like the Roman Church where doctrine is given by one man's opinion of truth, but on the authority of the Holy Spirit who is continually working in the Church through individuals towards a corporate unity of like-mindedness. Now that doesn't argue the infallibility of the church, but it does mean that the church has authority on matters of interpretation. Otherwise, for the church to discipline its members would be impossible. And this is often the sad consequence of the independent church structure, since one offending person may just leave the church and go to another that's not associated with the first. Unless there is one body and one church, the authoritative structure of the church fails. In dealing with the dangers of rejecting confessional Christianity and theological traditionalism, it is very easy to see how Christians can become novel in their approach to both the authority of the Church and the divine message of Scripture. This should cause every Christian to stop dead in his tracks when offering a new or novel approach to biblical interpretation of any Orthodox ideas already solidified in the Church. As one brother so eloquently said it, It is far more likely that we are out to lunch than that the Holy Spirit has been asleep on the job for a millennia. To discover a doctrine not commonly held for the last 2,000 years is to undermine the authoritative work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. He's working through gifted men to teach. The Holy Spirit has not been lazy for 2,000 years. He's not ineffectual in his ability to illuminate. He continues to illuminate the regenerate mind. As the Westminster Confession of Faith stated earlier, some doctrines are more difficult to deduce from the Bible than others. But that's not because the Bible is unclear, but because basic tools of interpretation may be unknown to the reader, or they're not acknowledged in the science of interpretation, or maybe the person just doesn't have good backing with biblical languages. Peter warns Christians about this emphatically in 2 Peter 3.16 when speaking about Paul's writings. He says, as also, in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scriptures. See, those who are unstable, literally being unsteadfast or unpredictable in their study, destroy themselves because they don't have the proper tools to follow the Holy Spirit's leading and biblical interpretation, and they're often too pig-headed to listen to those who are gifted by the Holy Spirit in those areas. God certainly intended the believer in Christ to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, and Christ doesn't desire his people to remain ignorant. Ephesians 4, 13 and 14, Hebrews 5, 10 to 14, 1 Peter 2. One Presbyterian minister, a good friend of mine, named Fred Greco, said, God does not intend for difficult doctors to remain purposefully enigmatic. although it appears that he has intended for difficult doctrines to be initially enigmatic for his purposes. He notes Matthew 11.25, Luke 10.21-24, John 9.35-39. In attempting to overcome this enigmatic nature of Bible passages that Christians often befuddle, what can you do? What has Christ given average Christians to overcome these enigmatic texts? Well, he's given them, as he has in every age since Christ and the Apostles, in particular to our specific situation, pastors and teachers. He's always given elders to his church from the earliest times through the times of Abraham and Moses, prophets, teachers, elders. In our day, they are pastors and teachers. This is the meaning and the message of Paul's spiritual building in Ephesians 4, 9-16. Christian maturity is done in the context of the church because the church was incorporated with pastors and teachers given by Christ for that purpose. Christ has designed the church so that pastors and teachers are illuminated by the Spirit as textural leaders of the church. He hasn't designated the Christian to grow outside of that context. That is why there is such a heavy historical emphasis upon creeds and confessions of the Orthodox Church. They are the statements of the Bible in succinct form that are to be believed because the Scriptures give them that authority. In the words of Saint Vincent of Lorraine's, the Creed embody that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. The watersheds of historical orthodoxy are fixed. It's now up to the Christian to submit to the work of the Spirit in his theological traditionalism and conform to them. William Hetherington says, For all these purposes, the formation of a creed or confession of faith is imperatively necessary, and thus it appears that the church cannot adequately discharge its duty to God, to the world, and to its own members without a confession of faith. So that is an important element. Shall he create his own or conform to the authority of the church and sola scriptura? What is he going to do? Shall theological traditionalism rule his conscience by the word or will he become an island to himself? It is doubtful that we will gain a true understanding of the scriptures teaching regarding great issues of our time if we don't first have an appreciation of the truth already set down over the centuries. Theological traditionalism correctly demonstrates the Spirit's work through the history of the church and through gifted pastors and teachers. These pastors and teachers, through the history of the Church, they have a solidified Orthodox doctrine in the creeds and confessions. So such Orthodox confessions should be followed as they agree with Scripture, and with each other in the interpretation of Scripture. These consensus interpretations are then found to be coherent in the subscriptionist confessionalism of the Orthodox creeds and confessions throughout the history of the Church, and no Christian has the right to reject them as unorthodox to elevate a schismatic me and my Bible hermeneutic. To do so is to bring reproach against the Spirit's work through history and his illumination of men, and to sin against God. Now, as a result of that concept, theological traditionalism resting in the gifted pastors and teachers of the history of the church, as we move along In this study on historical theology you want to see where the church has moved from doctrine to doctrine in an orthodox manner fighting for the truth and against error. We believe the same things throughout the history of the church and it is a very sad thing to see when certain times and in certain instances these heretics rise up to teach some strange doctrine, and the church begins to believe it for a while. As a matter of fact, as we'll see, much of what's happened to the contemporary church, both from the time of the Enlightenment through all of the modern theologians, as well as through most of evangelicalism today, they're believing semi-Pelagianism, they're believing Arminianism, they're believing heresies that the church has condemned as false. There are certain reasons for this and certain things that have happened in the history of the church that we're going to see as we go over some of these ideas. But understand overall that we, even though we live in the 21st century, we are still looking back throughout the history of the church at those men whom God has given to us. They're ours. We own them as teachers. We own them as pastors throughout the history of the church. They're still ours. And as a result, we learn from them. We don't reinvent the theological wheel every time a Christian is suddenly converted. It's not up to them to suddenly come up with the entire corpus of systematic and biblical theology. Instead, what's going on is they read, they're edified, they study, the Spirit illuminates their mind and helps them to understand point by point new things as new to them But they should also be studying the creeds and confessions of the church, reading books, listening to the pastors being encouraged, in that sense of theological traditionalism. The regula fide, the corpus of understanding that the church has always gained, that's something they should look back on and receive heartily. It is scripture. It's scripture in summary form. So as we move through this series, Think through that, be reminded of it, and utilize that to the best of your ability as we learn more about Christ's Church and the history of theology throughout it. Amen. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video, and printed formats. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes and videos at great discounts, is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email. by phone at 780-450-3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton, that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Kelvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since He condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.