The Perspicuity of Scripture: What People Misunderstand

[TheCounselofTrent]

For clarity (ironic given the subject), would you agree with Westminster Confession 7 on the definition of perspicuity?: "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."

[thomascurry]

Perspicuity of Scripture is a noble idea, but it certainly hasn't been reflected in reality. It's not just that people don't realize the same message in scripture - faithful professing Christians don't even see the same message. If there is any doubt about that, I reference the insane amount of churches and denominations.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily see this as a problem for Christianity, but I do see it as a problem for the doctrine of perspicuity. Also, I think this speaks as proof that not just anyone can read the scriptures and figure out what they mean, or discern what God's will is for the world or individuals. This is where tradition and the church comes into play. I'm even fine with churches disagreeing on points as long as they play by the same hermeneutical rules that incorporate historical and linguistic context when interpreting the scriptures. At the end of the day, our salvation is not derived from who knows more "correct stuff", but who earnestly seeks the Lord by faith and tries as hard ass hard as we can following the greatest commandment. If anyone wants to read the whole bible without reading the whole bible, all we would need to read is Matthew 22:37. Too bad we don't get into discussions about who is following Matt 22:37 to the max!

[coolmuso]

I find it disturbing that when RCs and EO mention how there is so much disagreement or unbelief, rather than blaming people (who are sinners, wicked, etc.) they blame God’s Word for being obscure. Like Dr Ortlund just mentioned here, no one is claiming that all things in Scripture are easy to understand. But if one believes himself to be “good” and is truly seeking or has a disposition to teach or explain Scripture, the necessary information regarding salvation will be made clear to them. And it’s also humorous that for RCs, Scripture is obscure, but the existence of God from natural theology is more obvious.

[truthseeker]

I respectfully disagree with Dr. Ortlund's unqualified assertion that people forbade the scripture in the vernacular to the laity because of its obscurity. That is a gross generalization and very misleading. When the Gospel spread abroad, and many people embraced Christianity through the labors of Apostles and missionaries in the first two centuries, it was natural to supply copies of the Scriptures in various languages. This gave rise to translations of the Bible into Armenian Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic for the benefit of the Christians in those lands. For the Christians in Africa, where Latin was best understood, there was a translation of the Bible made into Latin about 150 A.D. St Jerome's Latin Vulgate achieved prominence because Latin was the vernacular of the Roman Empire. We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian for the Christians of those lands before the days of the printing press. We also have historical evidence of English translations dating back to the seventh century. The Catholic Church wisely prohibited Bible translations by any unauthorized person and the reading of any version before it was formally approved. The church did not forbid reading any of the old approved translations or new versions to be made or read if under proper supervision and approval by ecclesiastical superiors. It only banned false and unauthorized translations. This was done to prevent the unlearned and unstable from twisting the scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16-18)

[pepeinno]

If the Bible is not perspiculous enough for the majority, across time and space, then it is not. That was a false doctrine formulated by proud educated elitists men who never thought about the situation of the vulnerable and weak. Pride and selfish. I really can't stand this kind of pride among people claiming to care about the Gospel. This is cruel!

[arsenicrice]

I had well studied theology professors in college who all disagreed on major points like baptismal regeneration, eternal security, eternal conscious torment vs annihilationism. All cited the Bible for their points. The only thing clear is that scripture divorced from an authoritative church magisterium is NOT clear on a lot of important things.

[marcosdisiervi]

If a good portion of christianity agrees that sinful behavior leads to hell, why is it not crystal clear and matter of agreement to every Christian what is sinful? Remarriage, contraception, keeping the Sabbath? And more broadly, the agreement on the very question of whether sin leads to hell or not?

[chaser]

I mean scripture is obscure enough that people who read can lose Faith all together. Such as that who struggle with gender dysphoria and same sex attraction. So is perspicuity adequate for understanding salvation with this context? Protestant Church's seem to be unable to contend with sin when so many have changed their own Church teachings.

[stevenlester]

But if everyone disagrees on fundamental doctrines- what it takes to be saved-that’s significantly different than saying that everyone disagrees. The point made here doesn’t seem to hold because the critique is that disagreements are on the fundamentals. Not on arbitrary things.

[christinacanto]

The sheer multitude of interpretations of scripture make it pretty obvious to me that scripture, without more, is not enough.

[jayv]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 So obvious yet so overlooked (or ignored).

[lebecccomputer]

This is an interesting argument, I’m Protestant already but I haven’t heard it before

[lyterman]

I think the analogy doesn't hold because theists and atheists are not using the same framework. Atheists are often happy to deny the PSR or moral realism or something fundamental metaphysically, whereas Protestants agree on the source material, the Bible, and still can't have consensus confessional agreement about most doctrines.

[shaneseniour]

Does the Westminster Confession clarify what it means when it refers to “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation”? Or is that what Gavin is referring to by saying Westminster doesn’t say all Christians will agree on what these essentials are? If that is the case, how is it possible to make a claim that all things necessary to be known, believed, and observed to obtain salvation are clear in Scripture when those very things aren’t clear enough to be unanimously agreed upon? @truthunites @TheCounselofTrent

[danb]

Calvinism vs non Calvinism, post vs pre millennium. Sola fide.

[truthnotlies]

The analogy doesn’t make sense. Perspicuity of God’s existence and people fundamentally disagreeing on that is not comparable to perspicuity of scripture. In perspicuity of scripture Protestants fundamentally agree the scriptures are clear - but then they go on to disagree about major doctrines. Your analogy would’ve been better suited if it had been that the existence of God was perspicuous to people who believe in God (fundamentally agreeing) but then argue over which God exists.

[kiwisaram]

Philippians 3:8What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in a Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,  11and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

[disguisedcentennial]

Wait so are you no longer a Calvinist? If so, awesome! Because what you said here goes against TULIP.

[davidvernon]

“A person of good faith seeking god will find him” good faith is required? To “find Jesus” you have to someone faithfully looking for him? That sounds like confirmation bias to me. In science we specifically choose to be skeptical (bad faith, if you will). We doubt everything, require not only an extremely high bar bar from observation, but also mathematical theory with predictive ability. When a massive body of data is collected my many independent observers and that data correlates with theory, then it might become accepted.

[josealzaibar]

The God of the Bible? Without Divine Revelation it was literally impossible. The best pagan philosophers were able only to assert some version of Him. It's not clear enough.