Having considered the nature of theology, Grudem’s second chapter begins to consider the doctrine of Scripture, the source of theology. This will be the focus of the next six chapters as well, which complete his Part 1 (corresponding to traditional prolegomena).

Grudem starts here by treating the concept of the Word of God and the different senses this is used in Scripture. In choosing this starting point I suspect he is following John Frame, whereas my impression is that it has been more common in dogmatics to start with the topic of revelation encompassing both special and general (or natural/supernatural). To start with “Word of God” means starting effectively with special revelation, to which the notion of a revelation in nature is then introduced later along the way. I don’t want to make too much of this – Petrus van Mastricht, for example, launches straight into the nature and attributes of Scripture and works out the general/special revelation relation along the way too. Nonetheless, it’s probably fair that this order in Grudem reflects the Van Tilian milieu in which he was trained. Certainly, Van Til emerges pretty soon in the chapter on the necessity of Scripture, where Grudem claims that Scripture “is necessary for a certain knowledge about anything” (119). I wonder if this structuring tends, once again, to isolate the Bible in God’s economy?

I’m not trying to be comprehensive in these posts, so I will pass over the chapters on canon and authority, which I think each give a reasonable treatment (though I note that Van Tilian circularity also pops up in the latter section of the authority chapter). The chapter on inerrancy is probably the best, handling the issues thoroughly and carefully – but then Grudem was involved in inerrancy debates in the 80’s so perhaps no surprise he has well-formed material here.

However, I had significant problems with the chapter on the clarity of Scripture. Grudem defines this as follows:

“The clarity of scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.” (108)

I think this bends the Reformation doctrine of perspicuity out of shape by failing to take account of the context in which it was worked out. Compare the Westminster Confession on the clarity of Scripture:

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” WCF 1.7

The doctrine of the the clarity of Scripture was formulated in opposition to the 16th century Roman church teaching that Scripture should be kept out of the hands of believers and reserved for the clergy, because it was too hard to understand. Contra this, the Reformers argued that Scripture attributed to itself the kind of clarity that made it a good thing to put the Bible in the hands of believers (“the statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple” Ps 19:7). But WCF is careful to only claim that some things in Scripture are clear (“things necessary for salvation”) and to still put emphasis on church context for right reading (“due use of ordinary means”). The first is supported by the assertion both of clarity and of difficulty in Scripture itself (c.f. 2 Pt 3:16), the second by the Scriptural assumption that Scripture will function to mature the church within the economy of the church taught by teachers (Eph. 4).

Grudem on the other hand removes those two big caveats. His doctrine of clarity seems to imply that any division between believers, any interpretative mistake is really the fault of some individual’s ungodliness or lack of effort. For Scripture is so uniformly clear that, again, squeezing hard enough will yield the right Bible Doctrine. And again this is all about a feature of the Bible as it relates to me reading in my bedroom.

In case this seems overly critical, I would point out that I’m not the only one to think this way: Tim Ward chides Grudem for this individualising and lack of caveats to his doctrine of Scripture in his (superb) book Words of Life (p126-9).

The doctrine Grudem teaches here is consistent with and supports his isolated-Bible methodology – but departs from the Reformation version of the clarity of Scripture. The latter, however, is preferable both because of the weight attached to it as a carefully and historically tested doctrine, and because it better accounts for what Scripture says about itself. If so, Grudem’s methodology continues to be called into question.

Next up, the attributes of God.