Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak  Matt, two points. One is that reading the Scriptures is not parallel to mysticism, per Hodge's definition that you quoted. Notice that he conceives of mysticism as assuming that divine truth is revealed independently of the outward teaching of God's Word; but that is not opposed to private reading, but rather to an "inward light". If someone says, "I don't need to read the Scripture because God wakes me up at 4:17 a.m. to talk with me," that would be mysticism. |
Sorry, I think I must have come across other than expected. I didn't understand Hodge to be opposed to private reading of scripture. I only inferred from Hodge that since the objective truth of scripture is learned through the rational understanding of it and that if you learn the truth of scripture directly from reading it or from reading others who have digested it, that either way you must learn it through rational understanding and the Holy Spirit is not limited to nor prone too applying the objective truth to your soul just because you read it from the pages of scripture. I didn't so much worry about being woken up at 4:17 it is just that I grew up in the type of church that people often say stuff like "this is what I think the passage means" or "this is what the holy spirit was telling me through this passage" and other mystic understandings rather than "this is what God was actually saying in this passage" My dispy semi-pelagian background would encourage me to read primarily the scriptures because I can't be nourished on what others have digested. I feel like I have been trying to reject this assertion and wonder if I might be going to far but I do know that reading the naked scriptures is not inherently mystic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak And the second ties right in to that observation. It need not be an either or. Should you read the Psalms instead of the Treasury of David? Why need it be an instead? But let me ask, do you read Hodge directly or do you rely on secondary sources? Then again, do you expect to get the benefit of Hodge without any time spent to digest what he says? And so I would say ad fontes, and that it is essential that you would meditate on Scripture for yourself (just as, I hope, you wouldn't let someone else chew your own food, even if you let them cook it for you). |
Sorry, I don't know Latin, although it is in the top 3 that I want to learn in my life. My goal is to meditate on scripture though my memorizing of it and thinking of my memory verses through the day but the verses that I get for memorizing are from sermons that I read from Edwards or ones that come up while reading John Owens. I don't quite understand why you ask if I read hodge directly or through secondary sources but I read his systematic books while as I rotate through my collection that I have started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak More in general, I would ask how anything but a systematic personal reading of the word can guarantee that you are not neglecting some part of what is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness? And I would ask what the attitude of the Psalmist would lead him to do if he had the inestimable privilege of a complete copy of God's word? |
I don't think that systematic reading is essential or even sufficient for guaranteeing not neglecting part of... I might even think that biblical (as in biblical theology) and exegetical method might be better for said purpose but all are useful. I guess I kinda feel that I need to put myself through my own form of seminary before I feel capable of properly understanding the scriptures. Right now I'm reading systematic theology books, biblical theology books, sermons and I aim toward starting to read through books of the bible along with commentaries and I really would like to learn greek and hebrew and I just feel that before all that is complete I feel inept (although I still do it, just not much) at reading the scriptures alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak is there a more straightforward way to arrive at a mastery of it then a consistent use of it, through personal reading and meditation, the use of such helps as one has, and the attendance on the public reading and preaching of God's word? |
I guess I would answer that I believe there is a more straightforward way to arrive at its mastery for I have been under teaching of people that read the bible all the time and even have a substantial, if not majority, of it memorized and, upon reflection now that I am no longer semi-pelagian and dispensational, realize that they no more mastered the scriptures than a cook using a samuri sword to trim the fat off chicken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak No doubt this discussion could be drawn out to great length, and various objections could be raised, and on and on. But here are the facts: we all of us have a copy of the Scriptures. We all of us have liberty to read it. We all of us confess that it is God's word written. We confess that this book is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. The logical next step is that we make a due use of all the ordinary means: those ordinary means include personal study, individual scrutiny, solitary meditation and systematic reading.
Personally, with regard to the balance, I read the Bible more than any other book, because I am constantly reading the Bible. There are many books I have reread and I trust many I will reread; but I read none of them constantly, except the apostles and prophets. |
So do you think that I, a recovering dispy semi-pelagian mystic should also follow in the footsteps, at this point in my life, of reading the scriptures more than I read sermons, theological books, commentaries, confessions, catechisms, etc? because right now I would say it is about 1 part scriptures to at least 5 parts other.
Thanks for the reply,
Matt