JOHN WESLEY’S APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

by

Larry Shelton

Various appeals have been made recently for a renewed and vigorous assertion of an historically valid and presently relevant Wesleyan theology.1 It is with the motivation to contribute to this goal that this hermeneutical analysis is undertaken. The way in which John Wesley used Scripture and his understanding of the nature of its authority are foundational issues. This analysis will note major issues in the hermeneutical heritage of the Church, Wesley's kinship to this heritage, and suggestions for the application of these findings in contemporary Wesleyanism.

The focus for research has been primarily in the forty-four sermons and Notes upon the New Testament, sources generally accepted as the "standard Wesley" and which he felt were the most representative expressions of his position.2 More specifically, explicit statements in the Notes which Wesley made with reference to his view or use of Scripture are explored, and his sermon, "The Means of Grace," is examined.

Since his hermeneutical principles closely resemble those of the Fathers and Reformers. a brief historical and hermeneutical survey will be used as a context for gaining perspective on the biblical approach of Wesley himself.

I. Historical Hermeneutical Perspective

Several hermeneutical issues which are relevant to the task at hand are the authority and inspiration of scripture, the purpose of Scripture, key interpretative principles, and the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Scripture. These issues will be examined in the work of several selected churchmen in order to provide a historical framework for the analysis of Wesley himself.

A. Irenaeus

In the patristic period, an era of controversy and serious attacks upon Scripture and the Church, Irenaeus brought competent and balanced theological leadership to bear upon the heretical Gnostics. He asserts that a basic reason for the corrupt Scriptural interpretations of these heretics is found in their immorality and evil intent toward Scripture.3 They use glaring hermeneutical distortions to pervert Scripture to their own devious ends.4 They interpret the obscure passages by other, obscure and ambiguous ones and thus weave "ropes of sand," and ignore the proper context of passages and bring their own interpretative system to the text and thus dismember and destroy the truth.5 Briefly, Irenaeus' principles of authority and interpretation are seven: the redemptive message of Scripture, progressive revelation, the unity of Scripture, historicity, textual study, literary interpretation and perspicuity.6 With regard to the last principle, perspicuity , the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit is necessary within sinful hearts before the truth can be clearly perceived. The spiritual person is guided by the Holy Spirit to discern the unity and clarity of Scripture.7 Thus, it is because presbyters are spiritual men and the heretics are not that the interpretations of the former have merit.8

Furthermore, with regard to authority, Irenaeus notes that Scripture is the written form through which the Holy Spirit speaks. Scripture is trustworthy because of its spiritual origin, and the apostolic tradition of the Church serves to confirm the witness of the Bible.9 Traditions safeguard Scripture from corruption and interprets it in the apostolic sense. In the authentic apostolic Church, the Holy Spirit, as the vicar of Christ, would not permit Christians to hold a different faith from that preached by the apostles.10 Thus, there is a close interaction between Scripture and tradition. They function concomitantly to validate each other. Both are means by which revelation is transmitted to the Church. 11 It is, therefore, the Holy Spirit, working through both the Scriptures and the apostolic tradition, who authenticates the truth of revelation. This he calls the regula veritatis, the truth itself which is ultimately the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and His teaching.12 It is the truth behind both Scripture and tradition, and its authenticity is guaranteed by both the apostolic succession of bishops and the Holy Spirit who endows them with a charisma veritatis certum. 13 Thus the theological teaching of the apostles is guarded by the Holy Spirit who works through the means of the apostles, prophets, and teachers.14 This internal testimony of the Holy Spirit forms the key authority for the maintenance of theological integrity in the Church’s life.15 The authority and interpretation of Scripture for Irenaeus both rest on the vital function of the Holy Spirit working within the Church and through Scripture itself It is thus the function of the Spirit through Scripture which provides religious certainty, not the form of Scripture or its autographs. Heretics are the truth through the Holy Spirit. When Irenaeus speaks of Scriptures "without falsification," he means that doctrine comes to us by reading the Word of God diligently and "without falsification" of the interpretation by the reader or Church.16

B. The Alexandrian School

In response to attacks upon the Christian faith by those who would characterize it as immoral, trivial, and absurd, the Alexandrian School with Pantaenus and Clement of Alexandria developed allegory as a hermeneutic to see the underlying truth in biblical passages when the obvious or literal meaning was ambiguous or objectionable to the orthodox point of view.17 Clement notes that it is the literal sense that was the basis of misuse of Scripture typical of heretics. He distinguished between the body and spirit of Scripture, with each corresponding respectively to the literal and allegorical interpretations.

The most distinguished of the Alexandrian School is Origen, Clement's successor. He continued developing allegories in an attempt to understand the ultimate mystery contained in Scripture. In doing so he concerns himself less with the literal meaning than the mystical meaning which he insists is the intended meaning for all of Scripture. The spiritual sense contains the essence of divine revelation and is of highest importance.18 Furthermore, Origen feels that only through Himself in the exegete does the Holy Spirit reveal the inner, spiritual truth. He sees the need for spiritual illumination in order to understand and apply the meaning of the Spirit of Scripture.

Although attempts were made to show that the literal sense was basic to the spiritual one, allegory remained the order of the day in Alexandrianism. The trend continued toward treating the literal sense as inferior in practice. The Holy Spirit who conveyed the real meaning to the inspired writers of Scripture enabled the exegete to apprehend the spiritual mean The grammatical, literal sense was the husk containing the inner kernel of truth, and the illuminating grace of the Holy Spirit was necessary in order for the exegete to extract the original meaning intended by the Holy Spirit. 19

Although the allegorical method was limited in its understanding of adequate literary canons, linguistic knowledge, and familiarity with Hebrew literary style, it was not without satisfactory results in winning the respect of the secular philosophers who did not wish to forfeit their reason in matters of faith.20 And while allegorism tended to the development of an elite body of interpreters and doubtless contributed to the rise of authoritarianism in biblical interpretation it did point out the importance of the intentionality of the writers and the illuminating role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretative process.21

C. The Antiochian School

In opposition to the allegorical excesses of the Alexandrians, the Antiochian School, founded by Diodorus of Tarsus in the late third century, asserted several basic hermeneutical points. These issues were most clearly represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia, known as "The Exegete." First, he recognizes more clearly the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, and refuses to read Christian doctrines back into the Old Testament. He insists on taking it in its historical sense while the Alexandrians see Christ in every passage of the Bible and call Theodore a "Judaizer." Second, Theodore studies a passage as a whole and in both its narrower and broader contexts. He does not build doctrines on isolated passages. Third, he takes a more independent attitude toward Church tradition, in contrast to the authoritarian tendencies of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the Alexandrians. The Antiochians see Scripture not as one vast mystery, but believe it can be understood if one searches it humbly, patiently, wisely, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here we are able to see the foreshadowing of the principles of sola Scriptura, the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture and the need for the illumination of the Holy Spirit in interpretation-all issues strongly stressed by the Reformers.22 Finally, Theodore and the Antiochians see the distinction between the Jewish and Alexandrian theories of inspiration. Some of the more thoughtful Jews saw inspiration as being ethical in character and consisting of the expansion and ennoblement of the individual consciousness by the Holy Spirit. The Alexandrians were influenced by Plato and viewed inspiration as a pathological suspension of the individual consciousness. Theodore sees the fallacy in the latter and argues for the retention of the individuality and humanity of the biblical writers.23

Thus, Theodore, as well as John Chrysostom and Jerome, does not rule out the spiritual sense of Scripture, but grounds it on the historical.24 As will be seen, these emphases find fruit later in Luther's exaltation of the grammatical sense, in Zwingli's exegetical methods, and in the historical emphasis of Calvin. And although Wesley does not systematically develop a hermeneutical program, it is difficult not to find echoes of these issues in his expositions.

D. Augustine

Labeled by F. W. Farrar as "the oracle of thirteen centuries, Augustine's personal and theological influence has greatly affected the Church until the present. His strengths are as an apologist and theologian, and not necessarily as an interpreter of Scripture. He presents excellent hermeneutical principles in De Doctrina Christiana, but often falls woefully short of implementing them in his commentaries and sermons.25 The principles are, however, quite valuable and useful. First, he points out the need for a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek because of the variety and uncertainty of the Latin versions. The sound interpreter must be able to criticize these versions by comparison with the original. Second, he emphasizes the need for interpreting the obscure passages in the light of plain ones. Third, the serious exegete should be acquainted with sacred geography, natural history, music, chronology, numerology, natural science, dialectics and rhetoric and the writings of ancient philosophers.26

Furthermore, the spirit and attitude of the interpreter must be meek and lowly and not puffed up with much knowledge. He must be purified from pride, for the spirit and intent of the gospel must be reflected in the interpreter if the words are to be rightly interpreted.27

Finally, he adopts the seven rules of Tychonius the Donatist, the best known of which is recapitulation which would explain the Genesis creation accounts as repetitions with different emphases rather than evidence of diverse documents.28

In his concepts of the inspiration and authority, Augustine sees Scripture as "the revered pen of thy (i.e. God's) Spirit. "29 For him, Scripture is so profound that it must be approached in faith if it is to be understood at all. Faith must, therefore, precede understanding. He says, "Understand in order that thou mayest believe my words; believe in order that thou mayest understand the Word of God."30

Faith in Scripture, however, is based on one’s conviction of the authority of scripture. This authority is related to the Church as the key to faith and understanding.31 For Augustine, the Church mediates between him and the Bible. Both revelation and grace are mediated by the Church, so that man in his sinfulness may receive through faith the knowledge of divine truth which brings salvation. The Church thus occupies the role of witness to and interpreter of Scripture, the function which the Reformers ascribed to the illumination of the Holy Spirit.32 This does not mean that the Church is infallible, for bishops and councils may err.33 The Church is greater than the bishops, however, for it is the congregation of believers throughout history.34 It is in the context of the Church that Christ interprets, illuminates, and expounds the Scriptures. It is Christ who is the guarantor and interpreter of Scripture, and He is the witness from which Scripture derives its authority.35 This Christological hermeneutic functions only in those leaders of the Church whose intellectual faculties have been regenerated by grace sufficiently to perceive the depths of divine truth and to teach according to the Scriptures.36 Thus, while Augustine does not formally admit that the Scriptures are vested with authority by the Church, he does functionally and formally ascribe to the Church the final authority in matters of interpretation. All matters of interpretation must be submitted to the regula fidei, which is ultimately the authority of the Church.37 As the summary of the entire teaching of Scripture, the regula supposedly reflected faithfully the teaching of the apostles, but human interpretations within the regula soon found ways of diverging from the Bible, and the process of the authority of the Church usurping the authority of Scripture was accelerated.

Not only is Scripture authoritative because of the Church's attestation and interpretation of it, but because of the function of Scripture in bringing its readers to salvation. Augustine fully believes the Bible to be inspired,38 but sees its purpose as bringing the message of salvation. It is not a textbook for science, but for matters profitable for salvation. He warns Christians not to take their "science" from the Bible, for such appeals would "expose the Bible to ridicule and inhibit non-Christians from hearing the saving truths that Scripture proclaims with authority."39 He realizes that there is need for scholarly investigation of problems in the biblical text, but this is not a problem for faith, for the truth found in Scripture is in the thoughts and intentions of the writers, not simply in the form of the words. He says:

Thus, the intention of Scripture must be discerned in order to understand it, and that intention and the thought conveyed from it is what is authoritative. The purpose of the Bible is bringing the message of salvation. It is authoritative because the Spirit works through it to accomplish this very purpose.

Finally, although some insist that Augustine bases the authority of Scripture on its inerrancy, such a basis is problematic. In a response to Jerome, he declares, "For I confess to your charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."41 As Rogers and McKim point out, the context of this statement relates to Jerome's Commentary on Galatians in which he had represented Paul as lying deliberately for expediency. Jerome was apparently trying to silence Porphyry who had emphasized the quarrel between Peter and Paul to the point of distortion. In doing so, Jerome portrayed the apostles as acting parts at Antioch in regard to the food laws, with both thus deceiving the converts and Paul deceiving his readers. Augustine says he would rather admit that Peter had done wrong and that Paul had honestly told of it, than to believe that he had deliberately written what was not true. In this sense of ethical trustworthiness, the authors of Scripture are free from error, and the integrity of their intentions is a matter of faith for Augustine.42 To ascribe the twentieth century version of inerrancy to Augustine is both anachronistic historically and problematic contextually.

In short, Augustine formalizes a careful approach to biblical interpretation in which the individualistic tendencies of the reader are subordinated to the regula fidei of the Church. He emphasizes strongly the inspiredness of Scripture and the necessity of faith for understanding divine truth. For him, Christ is central both to the message and application of Scripture and the Church is the context in which He functions to illuminate the truth of Scripture. The authority of Scripture lies primarily in its saving function in the Church, and its infallibility lies in the integrity of the intentions of the writers, while the Church fills the role of witnessing to its authority.

E. Medieval Hermeneutics

For the purposes of this study, a brief overview of medieval hermeneutical developments will suffice. From the fifth to the fifteenth centuries the authoritative role of the Church in interpretation of Scripture waxed and waned. In spite of the emphasis of Theodore, Jerome and others on the importance of the literal and historical sense of Scripture as having primary importance for doctrine, the popularity of the allegorical method increased and literal-historical exegesis fell into disuse. The Alexandrian methodology dominated the Middle Ages.

This emphasis on the spiritual-allegorical sense of the text to the detriment of the literal meaning is challenged by Hugh of St. Victor in Paris. He still emphasizes the threefold sense of Origen and Augustine in his textbook on biblical study, the Didascalicon, but differentiates between the three senses in a way which greatly enhances the stature of the historical sense. He does not subordinate the letter to the spirit, but shows that both letter and allegory pertain to knowledge, while the tropological sense pertains to virtue. This relating of the literal sense to truth on the same level as allegory increased interest in the literal meaning.43 For him, the historical-literal method is the basis for grasping the intention of the writer, and it is only the author's intention which can provide any certain clue to such things as prophecy and metaphor.44

The emphasis on the literal sense by Hugh and the Victorines is more precisely and adequately developed a century later by St. Thomas Aquinas. He points out that all the meanings of Scripture must be based on the literal sense, which is the intended meaning of the author.45 This literal sense involves more than merely the outward form of words or the historical meaning as understood by modern critical scholarship.46 The full intent of the writer's original meaning was to convey the whole message of God as he was inspired to write it.47 The spiritual sense, though based on the literal, was the explication of the intention of the divine Author. Aquinas says:

Thus, although he utilizes allegorical interpretations, he establishes the literal sense as primary, and stresses the intentionality of the message of the inspired writer, Furthermore, he emphasizes the cooperation between the human and divine authors. The human author is an instrument of God who responds to divine enlightenment through the means of his own human limitations and imperfections. He expresses the divine revelation through his own thoughts and words. In Aristotelian terminology, God is the Primary Cause (Author), and the human writer is the secondary cause (author). God moves upon own intellect, but which express the revelation through his own natural abilities, activities, and modes of expression. The human author is thus much more than merely a pen in the hands of the Holy Spirit, for he participates in the revelation by expressing or interpreting it through his own faculties. He thus infers a distinction between the event of revelation, and inspiration, the process of interpreting and recording it. Scripture is not simply a divine mystery communicated through the passive agency of an uncomprehending writer. The writer may not know all that the Holy Spirit intends, for the prophet's mind is a "defective instrument."49 Thus, the finished product of inspiration, Scripture, is the communication of the divinely intended message through the interpretation of an admittedly "defective instrument." In spite of the deficiency of the human author, the intended message comes through, for the literal meaning of Scripture is not limited to the outward form of the specific words used by the human author. Although he thus discredits dictation theories of inspiration in this way, he does see that the intention of the writers, both human and divine, can be discerned in the text, thus disallowing the claims of those interpreters who claimed inspiration for their own allegorical exegetical procedures to the neglect of the literal meaning. In his method, the intention of the literal sense is based on context, historical connections, and correspondence between persons, places, things, and events in the Old and New Testaments. He places exegesis and interpretation upon a scientific basis and forms a rational approach for discerning and interpreting truth. He sees revelation as providing divine truth which cannot be apprehended by reason. But some truths which rest only on faith are demonstrable by reason.50 Therefore, reason can be useful in discerning the intended meanings of the literal sense of Scripture. In actual practice, however, Aquinas tended to allow objective exposition to be shaped by his concern for the orthodoxy of canonical dogma and the priority of reason over faith. With this tendency to base his exegetical outcomes on the dogma and a rational system, he placed his interpretations in jeopardy of being discredited if his rational system and the orthodox dogma came into question. Nevertheless, his contributions formed both the apex of medieval Scholasticism and the beginnings of its demise.

The influence of Hugh and Andrew of St. Victor is reflected in the fourteenth century work of the Franciscan, Nicholas of Lyra. He is independent in his exegetical methodology and stresses the primacy of the literal-historical sense. He gained a mastery of Hebrew grammar from the Jewish scholars Rashi and Maimonides. Insight concerning the corruption of the manuscripts, the need for better texts, and the difference between true exposition and the chaos of subjective opinion also came from his application of principles laid down by Rashi.51

Nicholas shows the influence of his predecessors in stressing that God is the primary author of Scripture, and follows Aquinas in noting that the literal sense develops the intention of the author and the spiritual sense expounds the meaning of the things signified by the words of the human author. Although he submitted all his works to the decision and correction of the Church, he effectively broke down the tyranny of ecclesiastical tradition and with the doctrinal and practical soundness of his exposition demolished the reign of bad methodology. Farrar says of him that he was "one green island among the tideless waves of exegetic commonplace . . . the Jerome of the fourteenth century."52

In reaction to the Scholasticism which synthesized faith and reason and eventually made reason the arbiter for evaluating tradition, John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham assert that reason is inadequate to express the living tradition of the Church.53 Duns Scotus' insistence on the impossibility of proving many dogmatic and traditional assertions led to skepticism, the dissolution of the Medieval Synthesis of faith and reason, and a separation between faith and science.54 Since he sees issues of faith as inaccessible to rational examination, he sees the tradition of the Church as the final basis for authority.

William of Ockham, a student of Duns Scotus, continued the attack and denied medieval realism, seeing the concepts behind individual objects as merely mental percepts.55 They are only symbolic "terms," hence he becomes known as a "terminist" or "nominalist." He refuses to allow reason the power to elicit the theological conclusions of faith, and refuses to see theology as a science which can be controlled by principles drawn from metaphysics. Since he believes philosophy to be irrelevant to the substantiation of faith, he asserts that the revelation of Scripture as the infallible Word of God is the basis for faith. This does not require or admit the proofs of reason for its validation.56 Since doctrine is not amenable to rational inquiry, it is to be accepted on the basis of the authority of the Church. However, Ockham's conflicts with a derelict papacy and the absurdities, contradictions, and frivolities in the interpretations of the councils and the popes led him to assert that Scripture alone is the binding authority for the Christian.57

F. Luther

1. Hermeneutical Heritage

In moving from the medieval period into the age of the Reformation, one can observe both a hermeneutical and a theological protest. In addition to theological issues such as justification by faith and the Word of God, there is seen also the culmination of a biblical hermeneutic which sets forth the historical-literal sense of Scripture in contrast to the classical exegesis which was bound to tradition. The principle figure in this hermeneutical revolution was Martin Luther. Although he certainly was influenced by patristic medieval hermeneutics,58 his independence led to the replacement of ecclesiastical tradition with the Bible as the primary basis for faith and life. As his influence spread, the traditional exegesis which relied heavily on Church tradition and the Fathers began to decline.

A survey of the Index to the St. Louis edition of Luther's Works reveals references to many of the Fathers. Although the majority of entries relate to Augustine, it is clear that he is familiar with the work of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and many others. In fact, it is largely through Augustine and the Fathers that Luther is forced back to the Bible as an exclusive authority.59

The principle influence which the medieval scholars had on Luther was the renewal of literal exegesis after Alexandrian allegory had dominated biblical interpretation for centuries. The rise of literal exegesis in this period provided both a precedent and an inspiration for Luther. He brings to maturity the trend toward a sound grammatical-historical hermeneutical method.60

2. Authority of Scripture

What really distinguishes Luther from the Scholastics and Fathers is his tendency to deny the authority of the Church and Pope in matters of interpretation. What makes his speech at Worms revolutionary is not that it affirms the authority of Scripture, which all the Fathers and Scholastics do, but that it denies the authority of Popes and councils as exclusive and final arbiters of interpretation.61 Sola Scriptura thus becomes watch-ward of the Reformation.

Luther's disillusionment with the Church came when he observed the inconsistency between the doctrine taught by Scripture and the doctrine of the Church, indulgences being one example. Further, since the papacy has no basis in the New Testament and since he believes that councils and popes are both subject to error, Scripture was the only authority left as a reliable and irrefutable source of Christian doctrine.62

The authority of Scripture is based on several issues for Luther. He , believes it has been given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not mechanical, however. He does not see the Bible as a stereotyped collection of supernatural syllables. The sacred writers received some of their historical matter by research, and under the grace of the superintendence of the Holy Spirit they sifted and arranged it in proportion to the power and illumination they had received.63 Luther is careful not to use the terminology of dictation and avoids such words as calamus, secretarius, and dictare, which were used by the medieval writers.64

Another issue for the authority of Scripture is its reliability. For Luther, the Scriptures are reliable because they produce in the believer the conviction of God and salvation. This criterion is related to his own search for a gracious God. It was in the Bible that Luther found a God who justified the ungodly, and at the center of Scripture was Jesus Christ who was its theme.65 Luther writes:

Thus, Luther emphasizes that although the Bible reflects genuine humanity, God uses weak and imperfect human speech to communicate adequately his divine message. The Scriptures speak clearly about salvation and the life of faith. He says, "The Holy Scriptures are a spiritual light far brighter even than the sun, especially in what relates to salvation and all essential matters."67 And again, "But such is the power of the Word of God that it restores to life the hearts that have died in this manner; the word of men cannot do this."68

Luther also strongly emphasizes the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as a basis for trust in the authority of Scripture. For him, the Holy Spirit was both the inspirer of Scripture and the one who interprets Scripture in the present. This inner testimony witnesses to Christ and gives authority to Scripture.69 Luther asserts, "It is the internal working of the Holy Spirit that causes us to place our trust in this Word of God, which is without form or comeliness."70 The Word and Spirit must always function together. Since Luther sees a difference between the subject matter (die Sache) and the form of Scripture, the living Word who is the content of Scripture can be mediated through the written form by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Bible becomes the medium of salvation. He says, "The Word is the bridge, the narrow way (semita) by which the Holy Spirit comes to us," and "it is in and through the Word that the Spirit comes and gives faith to whosoever He will."71 Thus, for Luther, the authority of Scripture consists in its ability to accomplish the work of salvation through the Spirit in the hearts of those who hear it. It is Jesus Christ working in and through the Scripture who is the infallible and inerrant Word, and the Scripture faithfully reveals Him through the human instrumentality of the writers inspired by the Spirit.72 It is this content, not the form, of Scripture which is authoritative.

Although some scholars contend that Luther also based the authority of Scripture on the inerrancy of the original autographs, this does not find support in Luther himself. Explicit statements about the autographs were not made by the Reformer, and his statements about Scripture not lying or containing falsehood are made in contexts which obviously refer to Scripture's doctrinal integrity. For example, when Luther says that there is no falsehood in Scripture, he is speaking about its ability to accomplish righteousness in believers. He says:

It is readily seen that he means there is no falsehood in the fact that the Word of God does away with unrighteousness.

Thus, the conviction that Scripture is inspired and the evidence that the Holy Spirit effectively works through it to produce faith and reliably work salvation in the hearer is the foundation for biblical authority. It is the inner sense of the Christological content of Scripture which is infallible. And this sense is mediated by the Holy Spirit through its outer written form.

3. Principles of Interpretation

Luther was forced by his own study of the Scriptures and the history of doctrine to conclude that both councils and popes were subject to error in doctrinal matters. Therefore, Scripture is the only authority left, and his doctrine of sola Scriptura affirms that Scripture is the only reliable and effective source of Christian doctrine.74 In order to apprehend clearly these doctrines, sound principles of interpretation must be applied. And since Scripture cannot be subjected to an external authority, the principles for its interpretation must be inductively derived from within the biblical test. His basic principles are six.

Personal Spiritual Preparation. Competence in languages, history, or theology is not sufficient to interpret Scripture accurately, for without the quickening of the Spirit, the interpreter cannot enter into the inner experience of the writers and discern vital reality instead of just words and phrases.75 Luther says in his exposition on Psalm 68:15, " . . . the gatekeeper, the Holy Spirit, will open the door to those that enter. For if God does not open and explain Holy Writ. no one can understand it; it will remain a closed book, enveloped in darkness"76 He told Spalatin "Therefore the first duty is to begin with a prayer of such a nature that God in His great mercy may grant you the true understanding of His Words."77

Clarity or Perspicuity of Scripture. In contrast to the medieval exegetes, Luther believes that each passage of the Bible contains one clear and definite meaning. He says, "If the words are obscure at one place, yet they are clear at another place.... But if many things still remain abstruse to many people, this does not arise from the obscurity of Scripture but from their own blindness and feebleness of understanding."78 He believes that each Christian has the duty and privilege to search the Scriptures for himself, for it must be released from bondage to the experts.

Scripture Is Its Own Interpreter (Scriptura sui ipsius interpres). This concept results logically from the principle of clarity. If one presupposes that Scripture is essentially clear, then it follows that Scripture should be compared with Scripture, so that obscure passages may be understood in the light of clearer ones. Luther says, "In this manner Scripture is its own light. It is a fine thing when Scripture explains itself."79

The corollary to this principle is the analogy of faith (analogia fidei), which means that all interpretations of parts must be in consistency with the whole tenor of Scripture.80

Priority of the literal sense. He rejects the medieval fourtold sense of Scripture, the Quadriga, which led to ingenious and extravagant interpretations. He often refers to the literal sense as the grammatical or historical sense, and recognizes the figurative nature of language. He closely relates the literal and spiritual senses, pointing out that the latter comes from the illumination of the Spirit and not from fanciful allegory.81

Letter and Spirit (inner and outer Word). Like Augustine, Luther notes the significance of the letter and spirit as it relates to the work of the Law and Gospel. He does not equate Law with the Old Testament, but notes that all of Scripture is Law without the Spirit, and with the Spirit all of Scripture is gospel. The spiritual sense is a new apprehension of the Word in faith, and therefore the Spirit gives a new interpretation which is based on the literal sense and which brings a deeper significance to it.82

Christocentricity. Integrally related to the literal-spiritual principle is Luther's final major hermeneutical principle, Christocentricity. "In the whole Scripture there is nothing but Christ, either in plain words or involved words."83 This principle resolves the tension between the inner and outer Word, the spiritual and literal senses, by synthesizing both through a dynamic understanding that Christ is both and both are one in Him. He becomes the context in which the alliance of letter and spirit is achieved, and in faith the believer's spirit is united with the Spirit of Christ so that the Word becomes internalized and understood.84

The subject matter or inner sense of the biblical text is illuminated by the Holy Spirit to provide the Christocentric or saving meaning. This is necessary in addition to the work of the exegete on the grammatico-historical level. Prenter summarizes Luther's emphasis thus:

Thus, it is only through the Holy Spirit that one arrives at a proper understanding of Scripture. Says Luther, "No one can accept the Word unless his heart has been touched and opened by the Holy Spirit."86 Although this emphasis on the Holy Spirit's illuminating of Christ, the inner sense of the Scriptures, may seem to minimize the objectivity of inspiration, Luther's intention is to point out the blindness of natural man and his lack of spiritual perception without the Spirit.

G. Other Reformers

Huldrych Zwingli's doctrine of Scripture has two basic emphases. With regard to its authority, he points out that it is the Word of God because it has the ability to bring to pass that which it declares, the fulfillment of prophesy and salvation. And with regard to interpretation, he asserts that it has the ability to bring with it its own inward illumination so that it is clearly understood and interpreted by the reader.87 Although he is a learned scholar and is fully aware of the importance of scholarly exegesis, he believes that since the Word of God was mediated through the documents of Scripture, the Holy Spirit needs to direct and apply this divine content to the faithful reader.88 He says, "God reveals himself by his own Spirit, and we cannot learn of him without his Spirit."89

As a theologian and expositor, John Calvin also emphasizes the need for both piety and learning in the study of Scripture. He feels that the Bible cannot be properly interpreted and applied without the illumination sealing witness of the Holy Spirit. He has been called "the theologian of the Holy Spirit."90 It is upon the basis of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, that he forms much of his doctrine of the authority and interpretation of Scripture.

Calvin seems to have developed the doctrine of the testimonium as the basis for biblical authority in the face of three problematic epistemological theories about the Christian faith. First, he objects to the Roman Catholic view that certainty of faith was given by the testimony of the infallible Church.91 Second, he opposes the Enthusiasts who attempted to verify faith by direct revelation. It is a "detestable sacrilege" to separate the Word and Spirit, a union which has been established by God. Revelation comes only by the Spirit through the Word.92 Finally. Calvin objects to a purely rational apologetics of the faith. Reason gives human certainty when divine assurance is needed.93 The authority of Scripture is not based on reason, authority of the Church, nor subjective experience, but on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit which attests to the divine authorship.94

The Scriptures are thus self-authenticating, and the attempt by a number of Reformed scholars to show that rational arguments for Calvin work inseparably along with the Holy Spirit to authenticate Scripture as God's Word to the reader simply finds inadequate support in the primary sources.95 Calvin is unconcerned with normal, human inaccuracies in minor matters. He says:

God's communication is accommodated to man's limited capacity and He often "lisps" in speaking to us as nurses do with infants.97 God has chosen to use human means of communication to meet human beings at their point of need. His purpose is to persuade persons to be saved, and Scripture is quite adequate to accomplish that purpose when the Word and the Spirit are not separated.98

In the Patristic Period, Scripture is seen as inspire by the Holy Spirit and trustworthy because of its spiritual origin. The authority of Scripture is attested to by the witness of the Church and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. There is a distinction between the body and spirit, or inner and outer Word, of Scripture. The inner of spiritual sense of Scripture was often exploited allegorically, although the Antiochians and others attempted to reverse the trend and base doctrine and experience on the literal or grammatical sense. The illuminating role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretative process and the importance of understanding the intentionality of the biblical writers were stressed. The need for careful exegetical, historical, and contextual work was an important element.

In the Medieval Period, the Victorines, Aquinas, and others challenged the allegorical approach and insisted that the literal sense was the basis for doctrine and the historical-literal method was the superior approached for grasping the intention of the writer in the literal sense. For them, the literal sense included more than the outward form of the worlds, but the full intent of the writer to convey God's message. The authority of Scripture and interpretation was based primarily on the attestation and dogma of the Church.

The Reformers based the authority of Scripture on its inspiredness which was attested to by the internal witness of the Spirit and Scripture's reliability in accomplishing the purpose of salvation. While they took seriously the historical interpretations of Scripture, they refused to allow the Church to function as the arbiter of interpretation or the basis for authority. The inner subject matter as it reflected the intention of the inspired writer is authoritative and reason is not accepted as a basis for the authority of self-authenticating Scripture.

II. Wesley's Hermeneutical Orthodoxy

Wesley rests firmly in the mainstream of orthodox hermeneutics. Both his concept of biblical inspiration and authority and his methods of interpretation reflect the basic emphases of the Fathers and the Reformers. His statements about Scripture must be interpreted from within the context of eighteenth-century thought, and efforts to super-impose on various proof-texts the framework of twentieth-century fundamentalist epistemology must not considered legitimate examinations of his positions on the Bible. His theological heritage involves Puritan and Anglican roots with a healthy amount of Patristic and Reformation theology.99 Although he sometimes speaks in ways which may resemble Fundamentalism, his total context of though is broader and more inclusive, as is seen in his sermons, "The Character of a Methodist," and "Catholic Spirit." Furthermore, the canons of biblical authority and interpretation of a rationalistic Fundamentalism had their roots in post-Reformation Protestant scholasticism, which Wesley does not seem to have known, and nineteenth-century Princeton theology,100 which Wesley did not survive to encounter. His cautious approach to Aristotle and the Scholastics seem to suggest that he would not sympathize with theological system which were heavily influence by Aristotelian methodology, such as in Fundamentalism.101

Several areas in his approach to Scripture suggest his consistency with historic Christian hermeneutics.

A. The Holy Spirit and Scripture

Inspiration. Like the Fathers and Reformers, Wesley views Scripture as divinely inspired He writes:

... What the Son of God preached, and the Holy Ghost spake by the apostles, the apostles and evangelists wrote. This what we now style the Holy Scriptures: this it that "Word of God which remainth forever...."102

He continues, "And the languages of His messengers, also is exact in the highest degree."103 He states in his comments on 2 Timothy 3:16: "The Spirit of God, not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists those who read it with earnest prayer."104 He sees, the inspired writers as the "immediate instruments" of God's revelation, for the purpose that "evangelical faith must be partly founded on human testimony."105

Although this seems close to virtually a mechanical dictation approach, Wesley emphasizes the the process involves "impressions made upon their minds," and notes human participation by saying, "For how really soever they were inspired, we need not suppose their inspiration was always so instantaneous and express as to supersede any deliberation in their own minds, or any consultation with each other."106

The nature of inspiration also involves accommodation of the truth of God to the limitations of the human minds. Ramm says, "To be meaningful. . . the revelation had to come in human language, in human thought-forms, and referring to objects of human experience."107 Wesley points out this necessity by indicating that "it is necessary that the Scripture should let itself down to the language of men."108

Authority. The primary basis for the authority of Scripture and the authentication factor of its inspiredness is the "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit." He says, "Then a Christian can in no wise doubt of his being a child of God. Of the former proposition he has a fall assurance as he has the Scriptures are of God."109 Colin Williams says, "He is also at once with Luther and Calvin in relating the authority of Scripture to experience by the living witness of the Holy Spirit." Hildebrandt points out that "Wesley takes his stand with the Classical Protestant view of authority of Scripture to experience by the living witness of the Holy Spirit who brings the gospel to the heart through the record of Scripture.110 Thus, the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, which functioned as an authenticating basis for scriptural authority becomes for Wesley an element in his use of experience as a basis for authority. Although the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England do not emphasize the testimonium, the Westminster Confession of 1647 does so, and it is unlikely that he wasn't aware of the fact. In certainly reflected the prevailing thought on the issue at the time. It reads:

We may be moved and induced by the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture... Yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallibly truth, and divine authority, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.111

It seems ironic that the clearest statements on the testimonium of the Holy Spirit can be found in Reformed creeds and that spiritual bases for the authority of Scripture are more clearly presented in some Reformed seminaries than in Wesleyan ones which emphasize a strong theology of the Spirit.

B. Inerrancy

Because of some of Wesley's statements about Scripture, some have concluded that the inerrancy of the original autographs was a basis for biblical authority for him. However, since this issue of autographs began to develop in Protestant Scholasticism after the Reformation and found its articulated form in the nineteenth-century Princeton Theology, it is problematic whether Wesley's statements can be interpreted within that context. The pedigree of inerrancy of the autographs can be unmistakably traced to the nineteenth-century Princeton dogmatism of A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield which had developed the theology of the Post-Reformation Scholastic, Francis Turretin, into a normative theological authority. And it was A. A. Hodge who first formalized the concept of autographs as the basis for infallibility of Scripture."112 It was on this foundation that Fundamentalism built its system. And, as Paul Bassett points out, Wesleyanism has been trapped into "allowing its emotional ties with the aims of Fundamentalism to saddle it with a Fundamentalist doctrine of the Scripture that is quite out of place in Wesleyanism."113

Furthermore, it is anachronistic historically to project a nineteenth-century epistemology upon an eighteenth-century evangelist whose hermeneutics were strongly influenced by Patristic and Reformation sources.

Wesley makes statements like, "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."114 He also says, "every part is worthy of God and all together are one body, wherein is no defect, no excess."115 These kinds of expressions relate primarily to his verbal dictation tendencies in inspiration, and are not used to establish an inerrantist basis for authority. His epistemology is different from that of Fundamentalism which bases biblical authority on an assumption of the nature of the external text of the autographs. The Classical Christian approach to authority was never to base authority or infallibility on the original autographs and neither was it to base doctrinal issues on even the external text alone. Luther, Calvin, and the Fathers looked at the inner spiritual content, ultimately Jesus Christ, as authoritative. The external text would surely be at one with the internal sense given by the Holy Spirit, but the form of the external text was by no means ever the criterion for infallibility, which was a spiritual issue.

C. Purpose of Scripture

Wesley's understanding of Scripture is most clearly seen in this use of it. For him, it has a saving purpose. That is its reason for being. The primary purpose for Scripture is to function as a means of bearing the message of redemption. His famous "man of one book" statement clearly presents what he sees the Bible's purpose to be:

The intent of Scripture is to provide information for salvation and Christian living. With his fascination with science and natural philosophy and his enthusiasm for the new scientific discoveries of the time, it might seem reasonable to expect him to use the Bible as a textbook to learn science if he felt that to be its purpose. Yet, he does not seem to believe Scripture to have that function.

For Wesley, Scripture functions sacramentally. In his sermon, "The Means of Grace," he defines what he means by the phrase. "Means of grace" are "outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby He might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace."117 These "means of grace" are prayer, searching the Scriptures, and the Lord's Supper. These are means only. He says, "The whole value of the means depends on their actual subservience to the end of religion; that consequently, all these means, when separate from the end, are less than nothing and vanity."118 There is no intrinsic power in these means. He notes:

When the means of Scripture is focused on the need for salvation, its purpose is fulfilled. When one has need of salvation, "We have only to consult the oracles of God; to inquire what is written there; and if we simply abide by their decision, there can be no possible doubt remain."120 God works infallibly through the means of Scripture to bring salvation.

Wesley then adds another criterion to evaluate the effectiveness of the means. In order to use the means, one must trust them. How can one do that? By believing that if I wait in faith for the blessing of God, I will receive it. And when I do receive His blessing I know He is faithful to perform, and the means of grace by which I have received His blessing can be trusted,121 for it is reliable to accomplish what God has promised through it. But there is no opus operatum in the mere using of the ordinances. It is only through the power of His Spirit and the merits of Jesus Christ that the means of grace are reliable. Thus, the authority of Scripture is based firmly on the work of Christ, the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the reliability of Scripture as a channel through which the Spirit applies the grace of salvation. "Scripture is thus a means to this end," says Wesley, "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works."122

If Wesley had considered the inerrancy of the autographs to be essential for trust in Scripture as a means of grace, it would seem that he would have directly connected the two. In fact, he indicates that the opposite is true. In the comment on the genealogies of Matthew 1 in his Notes, he points out that the failure of the writer to correct errors in his sources has no deleterious impact on Scripture's purpose. He says:

It is also relevant that Adam Clarke states a similar position. He notes in his commentary on Matthew 1:3:

Thus, the inspiration and authority of Scripture did not require the correction of error in the sources nor was the inerrancy of autographs a necessary foundation for authority. If by Scripture's having no error or defect or excess means for Wesley that the sources had to be corrected by inspiration, then he contradicts himself by saying errors in the sources do not make Scripture's purpose ineffective. Fundamentalism requires that errors in sources be corrected by inspiration, as is evidenced by the debate between James Orr and the Princeton Theology.125 That Wesley does not function as a Fundamentalist is evidenced by his emphasis on the saving purpose of Scripture, its sacramental function, the testimonium and reliability as canons for authority, and his attitude for catholicity. Therefore, his use of Scripture should not be analyzed by the means of Fundamentalist canons, but by the canons of Classical Christian orthodoxy. Not only is he pre-critical in his approach to Scripture, but he is also pre-Fundamentalist. Inerrancy for him has to do with Scripture's function as a means for bringing the gospel of salvation which is effected in the believer by the Spirit. Even though his statements on inspiration border on a verbal dictation theory, and his pre-critical approach allows him to make statements in which he declares Scripture to be without error in the received text, except where the writers used defective sources, his emphasis was neither on the inerrant nature of the autographs nor was biblical authority based on the form of the biblical text.

D. Interpretative Principles

The hermeneutic behind Wesley’s biblical interpretation is love.126 In examining Scripture from this perspective, his methodology is primarily inductive, historical-literal, and soteriologically motivated. His motivation and method are summarized in the "Preface" to his sermons:

In his "Preface" to the Old Testament Notes, he further explains his inductive approach:

Thus, Wesley exhorts to read the text thoroughly, to examine the context to interpret the obscure passages in light of the clearer ones, to follow the analogy of faith, to seek in prayer the assistance of the Holy Spirit in correctly interpreting and understanding Scripture, and to apply faithfully to life what God teaches through Scripture.

In addition to these principles, Wesley emphasized the primacy of the literal sense:

He notes that the literal sense of every text is to be followed, if it is not contrary to other texts, in which case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly.130 He does not wish to depart from the plain, literal sense unless it implies an absurdity131

Wesley's literal interpretation is not "literalism," but the same kind of literal approach championed by Theodore and the School of Antioch. It deplores allegorism, while maintaining the validity of the spiritual or devotional sense of the Word. It is the same method followed by Luther and the Reformers who refused to base doctrine on the allegorical sense, and emphasizes that the plain rules of grammar and syntax give the meaning of any statement without recourse to any esoteric spiritualizations.132

Wesley’s historical and exegetical techniques come into play as he works to determine the correct literal meaning. In addition to using the original languages, one needs "a knowledge of profane history, ancient customs, natural philosophy, geometry, and the writings of the Church Fathers.133 Further, the application of this literal methodology in, for example, the sermon, "Justification by Faith," bears strong resemblance to Luther's approach and to one of Archbishop Cranmer's Homilies.134

A corollary to the literal approach is his use of the analogy of faith, by which he means the general themes of the Bible as they are correctly interpreted. This provides a balance and control for the literal interpretation and insures that the exegesis of parts of Scripture are harmonious with the entire theme.135 By this analogy of faith, he is able to criticize the Roman Catholic Church for adding doctrines which could not be found in Scripture, such as transubstantiation and purgatory.133

Finally, his emphasis that Scripture must be interpreted in the context of prayer is noteworthy. This awareness of the illumination of the Word through the Spirit is basic to Wesley's hermeneutic, as it was for the Fathers and Reformers. Although the Spirit does not enable the interpreter to intuit meanings which are not inherent in the literal sense itself, as is often done with an allegorical approach, He does make alive the truth already in the text and inwardly applies it. Scripture thus works in harmony with experience.

Thus, although his hermeneutic of love makes his hermeneutical conclusions distinct. Wesley's basic approach to interpretation and to the authority of Scripture is solidly in the historical-literal, Patristic and Reformation interpretative tradition.

III. Implications for Contemporary Wesleyanism

This historical survey speaks to what Mildred Wynkoop calls a need for a resurgence of a "Wesley Wesleyanism,"137 and to the need for recovery of the perspective of the total heritage of the Christian Church. Hermeneutically, the issue involves the basis for biblical authority and interpretation and the distinction between the historic Patristic-Reformation-Wesleyan approach in contrast to the influence of the attenuated and scholasticized Calvinism of Princeton Theology and Fundamentalism upon twentieth-century Wesleyanism. Paul Bassett has shown that the Wesleyan theologians, W. B. Pope, Miner Raymond, John Miley, and H. Orton Wiley resisted the Princeton-Fundamentalist trend to reduce the bases for biblical authority from the classical three-point basis of divine inspiration, the traditional witness of the Church, and the internal testimony of the Spirit in the believer to a single basis, namely, infallibility because Scripture is inspired.138 Ironically, it may be that the emphasis on experience as a basis for authority in theological matters may have been so prevalent in Wesleyan circles in the last one hundred-fifty years, that the resulting lack of theological structure may have predisposed the movement to adapt prevailing theological structures which are antithetical to Wesley’s. The infatuation in many Wesleyan circles with Gothard's hierarchical system, Lindsey's eschatology, Schaeffer's epistemology, and Lindsell's rationalism may be symptomatic of this phenomenon.

Wesley’s emphasis on the historic issues of the inspiration of Script the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the tradition and experience of Scripture’s reliability to "show the way to heaven" direct us recovery of the total hermeneutical heritage of the Christian Church. In gaining this historical perspective, it is crucial that we employ methods of historical study which allow previous historical eras to speak without having twentieth-century presuppositions read back into them. Wesley and Luther, for example, must be interpreted apart from the scholastic bias of Fundamentalist epistemology. Wesley's criteria for doctrine of Scripture, reason, and experience simply cannot be reconciled with methodologies of interpretation which seek to elevate dogmatic principles derived from Scripture by reason alone without the participation of Christian experience.

Finally, the irenic nature of Wesley's motive of love and his soteriological emphasis on the Holy Spirit's use of Scripture as a means of grace to prepare the believer for heaven call us to reject the prevailing trend for shibboleths and divisiveness which exists in American Evangelicalism. Rather it calls us in genuine fellowship to focus on the undisputed Wesleyan reason for existence, namely preaching the biblical message of full salvation to the whole world which is our parish.

Notes

1. Rob Staples, "The Present Frontiers of Wesleyan Theology, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 12 (Spring 1977):12-14; Paul Bassett, "Conservative Wesleyan Theology and the Challenge of Secular Humanism," WTJ, 8 (Spring 1973):74-75; Mildred Wynkoop, "Theological Roots of the Wesleyan Understanding of the Holy Spirit, WTJ, 14:1 (Spring 1979), p. 79.

2. John Deschner, Wesley's Christology (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1960), pp. 7-9.

3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Book I, 11, 2; and 13, 1-6.

4. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I, 26, 1-2; I, 27, 1-2.

5. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 10, 1-2; II, 8, 1, "They strive to weave ropes of sand, which they endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the saying of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support."

6. J. Barton Payne, "The Biblical Interpretation of Irenaeus," Inspiration and Interpretation, John F. Walwood, ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1957), pp. 29-47.

7. Payne, "Biblical Interpretation," p. 46; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 33, 1 and 15.

8. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 32, 1; Payne, "Biblical Interpretation," p. 47; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 33, 8.

9. Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek Church (New York: Partheon Books, Inc., 1955), p. 26.

10. G. W. H. Lampe, "Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church," Scripture and Tradition, F. W. Dillistone, ed. (Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury Press, 1955), p. 45.

11. llen Flesseman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1954), pp. 142-43; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 1, 2; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1960), p. 39.

12. Flesseman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture, p. 127.

13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 26, 2-5; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 37.

14. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 38, 1.

15. Herbert T. Mayer, "Scripture, Tradition, and Authority in the Life of the Early Church," Concordia Theological Monthly, 38 (1967):22.

16. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 33, 8.

17. A. Berkeley Mickelson, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1963), p. 32; and E. C. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation (London: Independent Press, Ltd., 1957), p. 92.

18. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation, p. 100.

19. Don Jean Leclerg, "From Gregory the Great to St. Bernard," The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. II, G. W. H. Lampe, ed. (Cambridge: University Press, 1969), pp. 213f; also Lampe, "To Gregory the Great," Cambridge History of the Bible, 2:163.

20. Robert M. Grant, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (New York: Macmillan Co., 1963), pp. 87-88.

21. R. Larry Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept of Biblical Interpretation in Historical Perspective" (Th.D. dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1974), pp. 81, 84.

22. Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," pp. 87-89.

23. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 103-05; F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1886), p. 217.

24. Grant, A Short History, pp. 93-97.

25. Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 234.

26. David W. Kerr, "Augustine of Hippo," Inspiration and Interpretation, Walwood, ed., p. 70; see Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," for specific references which are numerous and are found in De Doctrina Christiana, II.

27. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, II, 41, 62.

28. Kerr, "Augustine of Hippo," pp. 71-72.

29. Augustine, Confessions, VII, 21, 27.

30. Augustine, Sermones, 43, 7, 9.

31. Albert H. Newman, footnote, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 131, says, "This is one of the earliest assertions of the dependence of the Scriptures for authority on the Church." See Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei Fundamenti, 5, 6.

32. Kerr, "Augustine of Hippo," p. 77

33. Augustine, De Baptismo Contra Donatistes, 2, 12.

34. Augustine, Sermones, CCXII, vii, 7, cited by Kerr, "Augustine of Hippo," p. 78.

35. C. E. Schuetzinger, The German Controversy on St. Augustine's Illumination Theory (New York: Pageant Press, 1960), pp. 15-16.

36. Kerr, "Augustine of Hippo," pp. 78-79-

37. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 47; Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei, 6; De Doctrina Christiana, III, 2, 2-12; Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22, 79.

38. Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 25-30; the authors cite a number of passages which deal with Augustine's emphasis on inspiration and the saving function of Scripture.

39. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 26; Augustine points out that when Christians who are not well-versed in natural knowledge give the impression that the biblical authors are responsible for their mistaken idea, the critics tend to question what Scripture has to say on the resurrection, life eternal, etc.; see citation from On Genesis According to the Literal Sense, I, 39.

40. Cited by Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 30; Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, II, XXVIII, 67.

41. Cited by Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 30; Augustine, Epistle LXXXII to Jerome, 3.

42. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, pp. 30-31.

43. Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952), pp. 88-89.

44. Smalley, The Study of the Bible, p. 101.

45. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 10, Reply, Blackfriers Series, Thomas Gilbey, trans. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964), p. 39.

46. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation, p. 114.

47. Beryl Smalley, "The Bible in the Medieval Schools," Cambridge History of the Bible, 2:213f.

48. Aquinas, Summa, I, q. 1, a. 10, Reply.

49. Aquinas, Summa, XLV, q. 173, a. 4, Reply.

50. David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval Thought (London: Longmens, 1962), p. 261, cited by Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, pp. 46, 70.

51. Farrar, History of Interpretation, pp. 275f.; see Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," pp. 106-08.

52. Farrar, History of Interpretation, pp. 276f.

53. Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Carl E. Braaten, ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 139.

54. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959), p. 251.

55. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 252.

56. Henry Osborn Taylor, The Medieval Mind (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 2:548f.

57. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 252.

58. Grant, A Short History, p. 128.

59. A. S. Wood, Captive to the Word (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 32.

60. For a more specific treatment of the historical hermeneutical influences on Luther, see Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," pp. 118-68.

61. B. A. Gerrish, "Biblical Authority and the Continental Reformation," Scottish Journal of Theology, 10 (1957):342; D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. by J. F. K. Knaake, et. aL (Weimar: Herman Nachfolger, 1966-71 reprint), 42:137f.

62. Herman Sasse, "Luther and the Word of God," Accents in Luther's Theology, Heino 0. Kadai, ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1967), p. 51.

63. Sasse, "Luther and the Word of God," p. 84; Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 340; Johann Michael Rev. Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, 0.: Wartburg Press, 1944; reprint Springfielder, O. F. Stahlke, ed., 24, 1960, pp. 9-111), p. 60 (references from reprint).

64. Reu, Luther and the Scriptures, p. 62.

65. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. and trans., Zwingli and Bullinger in Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXIV (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1953), p. 211.

66. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 48, 31.

67. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 18, 653.28-35, cited by Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 79.

68. Luther's Works, ed. by Jaroslay Pelikan and Helmet Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 4:68.

69. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 79.

70. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 48, 31.

71. D, Martin Luthers Werke, 17, I, 125-26; 18, 139.

72. For an extensive treatment of Luther's hermeneutic, see Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," Chapters III, IV, V.

73. Luther's Works, 23:235.

74. Sasse, "Luther and the Word of God," p. 58.

75. Mickelson, Interpreting the Bible, p. 39.

76. Luther's Works, 13:17.

77. The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, ed. by J. N. Lenker (Minneapolis: Lutherans in All Lands Co., 1903), 1:57.

78. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 18, 609.

79. D. Martin Luthers, Samtliche Schriften, ed. by J. G. Walch (St. Louis: Lutherischer Concordia-Verlag, 1881-1910), 11:2335, cited by Wood, Captive to the Word, p. 21.

80. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 24, 549.

81. Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," pp. 231-34.

82. Wood, Captive to the Word, pp. 31-32.

83. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 11, 223.

84. Shelton, "Martin Luther's Concept," pp. 237f.

85. Regin Prenter, Spiritus Creator, trans. J. M. Jensen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953), p. 102; cf. D. Martin Luthers Werke, 3, 348, 1; 347, 25ff.; 466, 9ff,; 4, 9, 36ff.

86. Luther's Works, 22:8.

87. Bromiley, Zwingli and Bullinger, p. 53; Bromiley's "General Introduction" to this volume and the "Introduction" to the sermon "Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" are very helpful.

88Bromiley, Zwingli and Bullinger, pp. 55-56.

89. Huldrych Zwingli, "Of the Clarity and Certainty or Power of the Word of God," in Bromiley, Zwingli and Bullinger, p. 82.

90. John Murray, Calvin as Theologian and Expositor (London: The Evangelical Library, 1964), pp. lOf.

91. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion in Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXX, John T. McNeill, ed., and F. L. Battles, trans. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), I, vii, 3; see Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 14.

92. Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit, p. 15; Calvin, Institutes, I, ix, 3.

93. Calvin, Institutes, I, vii, 4.

94. Calvin, Institutes, I, vii, 1-5.

95. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, pp. 103-14; note footnotes 225-27 on page 140.

96. Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 3:4, p. 61, cited in Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 109.

97. Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 1.

98. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 109.

99. John Deschner, Wesley 's Christology: An Interpretation (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1960), pp. 5-7.

100. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, Chapters 3 and 5.

101. Timothy Phillips, "The Argument for Inerrancy: An Analysis," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 31 (June 1979):81. See William Sangster, The Puth to Perfection (London: Epworth Press, 1957), p. 105.

102. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Epworth Press, 1966), p. 9.

103. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 9.

104. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 794.

105. US John Wesley, A Compendium of Natural Philosophy, 2:447-49, cited by Robert W. Burtner and Robert E. Chiles, A Compendium of Wesley's Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 23.

106. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 453, cited by Walter Stanley Johnson, "John Wesley's Concept of Biblical Authority" (M. Div. thesis, Western Evangelical Seminary, 1970), p. 50.

107. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Co., 1956), p. 109, cited by Johnson, "John Wesley's Concept," p. 24.

108. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 542.

109. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978 reprint), 5:117.

110. Franz Hildebrandt, From Luther to Wesley, pp. 25-32, cited by Colin Williams, John Wesley's Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), p. 37.

111. Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966), 3:603.

112. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, pp. 279-310. Quenstedt had referred to the original writings, but the concept had not been developed as a basis for authority, Geoffrey Bromiley, Historical Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 320-22.

113. Paul Bassett, "Conservative Wesleyan Theology and the Challenge of Secular Humanism," WTJ, 8 (Spring 1973):74-75, cited by Rob Staples, "The Present Frontiers of Wesleyan Theology," WTJ, 12 (Spring 1977):12.

114. John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. By Nehemiah Curnock (London: Charles Kelly, n.d.), 6:117.

115. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 9.

116. Wesley- Works, 5:3

117. Wesley, "The Means of Grace," Forty-Four Sermons (London: Epworth Press, 1944), p. 136.

118. Wesley, "The Means of Grace," p. 137.

119. Wesley, "The Means of Grace," p. 137.

120. Wesley, "The Means of Grace," p. 139.

121. Wesley, "The Means of Grace," p. 145.

122. Wesley, Works, 1:279.

123. Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 15.

124. Adam Clarke, Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n.d.), 5:36.

125. SE. J. Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), pp. 107-10. Note also Matthew Henry's comment that the biblical writers had no need to correct mistakes in sources, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1 Chron. 8:1-32, cited by Carnell, p. 107. Carnell notes that dialogue between James Orr and the Princeton Theology has never been successfully terminated. The issue of inspiration is still a problem. He then-makes a very apt but disturbing statement: "Contemporary orthodoxy does very little to sustain the classical dialogue on inspiration. The fountain of new ideas has apparently run dry, for what was once a live issue in the church has now ossified into a theological tradition. As a result a heavy pall of fear hangs over the academic community. When a gifted professor tries to interact with the critical difficulties in the text, he is charged with disaffection, if not outright heresy. Orthodoxy forgets one important verdict of history: namely, that when truth is presented in a poor light, tomorrow's leaders may embrace error on the single reason that it is more persuasively defended" (p. 110).

126. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, "A Hermeneutical Approach to John Wesley," WTJ, 6 (Spring 1971):21.

127. Wesley, Works, 5:3

128. Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament, "Preface" (Salem, Ohio: Schmul Publishers, 1975 reprint), l:ix.

129. Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the OT, l:viii.

130. Wesley, "Letter to Samuel Furley," p. 94, cited by Johnson, "John Wesley's Concept," p. 33.

131. Wesley, Works (Sugden), 6:395, cited by Johnson, "John Wesley's Concept," p. 33.

132. John Oswalt, "Wesley's Use of the Old Testament in His Doctrinal Teachings," WTJ, 12 (Spring 1977):40.

133. James T. Clemons, "John Wesley-Biblical Literalist?" Religion in Life, 46 (Autumn 1977):336; see Wesley, Works, 6:218-20;he cannot be accused of isolating the meaning of Scripture from the world in which it was written.

134. Clemons, "John Wesley," p. 337.

135. Clemons, "John Wesley," p. 340.

136. flJohnson, "John Wesley's Concept," p. 31; see Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT, p. 569, comment on Romans 12:6.

137. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, "Theological Roots of the Wesleyan Understanding of the Holy Spirit," WTJ, 14:1 (Spring 1979), p. 79.

138. Paul Bassett, "The Fundamentalist Leavening of the Holiness Movement: 1914-1940," WTJ, 13 (Spring 1978):68f.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2004 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.