No Teacher Needed

I am always intrigued by what seem to be conflicts in the Bible between what the Text says in one place and in another.  I noted just such a conflict in 1 John 2.   The conflict is both an internal and external one.  Here are  the verses, 1 John 2:26   I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.  

Now compare this verse to Acts 2.42:  "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching...."  

The external conflict seems to be between needing teachers in Acts 2 and not needing anyone to teach us in 1 John.  The internal conflict is that as John tells these people they don't need to be taught that John is sending them a letter which teaches them.

So what do we do with this and why is it important?  I believe it's important because if we get these conflicts in scripture wrong it can lead us in bad directions.  For instance, if I believe that I don't need teachers, then I can start to interpret Scripture on my own (sometimes called Solo Scriptura), rather than listening to the wisdom of those who have come before me and understanding the Scriptures through the lens of the historic and orthodox Christian faith (an understanding called Sola Scriptura).  

So what do we do with the conflict of John and Acts?  We need to deal with it in two ways.  One is the practical.  Practically we know from Acts, the writings of Paul, John and all the rest in the New Testament that they take teaching and having teachers very seriously.   Since that is the case the words about not having to be taught can't mean dump your teachers.  The other way to deal with this passage is in context.  John is dealing with false teachers who are destroying the faith.  His word about teaching would seem to refer to our not needing a new teaching from these false teachers that leads us away from the truth.  What John's audience has already in terms of knowledge about the faith is enough.  All that conflicts with it doesn't add to this faith, but destroys it. They have no need for this teaching.

It strikes me that to properly read the scriptures we need at least three things.  First, we need to read them through the eyes of the historic Christian faith (the early church called this "the rule of faith", truth that came out of the Scriptures and yet becomes the eyes through which we read the Scriptures, an early rule of faith is the Apostles' Creed).  Second we need to see how a text falls into the practice that we find in other parts of scripture.  This keeps us from grabbing a text and declaring something that simply doesn't fit what we see going on in other parts of the Bible.  Finally, we need to carefully discern context so we see what the text means in the midst of what is going on in a certain time and place.