Perspicuity of Scripture and Understanding

[Gmsod]

Hey again Benadam.

How can a letter protect anything without a teacher to exercise it’s authority?

By this do you mean that the Bible cannot keep apostolic tradition without a visible and infallible teaching authority to make known its meaning to others?

The Church’s existence in contingent on the oral teaching of the Apostles.

I agree. This once again means I have to see if the oral teaching of the Apostles is clear enough in Scripture to not need an infallible interpreter, if it wasn’t necessary but GOD did it for our benefit, if the Apostles’ successors were also divinely protected from error in order to proclaim the Gospel using the Bible as only a helper.
This all makes me think now that the difference between sola scriptura and Catholicism is:

1. Anti-Material Sufficiency Catholics: The Apostles’ preaching is transmitted through Apostolic succession and Scripture contains some of their teachings.
2. Pro-Material Sufficiency Catholics: The Apostles’ preaching is all kept in Scripture, which is unintelligible without Tradition.
3. Sola Scriptura: the Apostles’ preaching is best kept in Scripture, which is interpreted using Church history as a fallible guide.
   Any amendments to these understandings are greatly appreciated.

So let me see if I have this correctly.
The Word of GOD was given in oral form and that was the way GOD intended it to be and the way GOD intended it to be spread, so it stays that way. Also, GOD intended it to be that way because His Word would be corrupted if given to us in another way? Or is it that if it was left to us to interpret individually then it would be corrupted? (I am guessing the latter is what you meant but I just want to make sure going forward).

Sorry for not addressing your points directly yet. I just want to make sure I understand correctly so that I understand correctly.

Thanks for explaining and answering,
GOD bless you!

 

[Gorgias]

Hey Gorgias, thanks for replying so in-depth. I really appreciate your posts on most threads I’ve read you on.
Sorry it is taking a while to get back to you, but your reply was very long and I wanted to get the shorter ones out of the way first.

It’s all good…!

It’s going to take me two posts to reply. Sorry for the length…

As a small but important amendment to your definition of the claim of sola scriptura:

1. No teaching source but the text itself is necessary.
   Only hardcore protestants abide by this.

That’s an interesting take on it, especially in the context of the claim that “the Bible speaks plainly”. Most who make that claim tend to express it as “the Bible says what it means and means what it says.”

That claim explicitly asserts that there is no other source necessary than the Bible, wouldn’t you say? If the Bible is perspicuous – that is, clearly expressed and easily understood – then there is no other teaching source necessary (or even possible), right?

For the sola scriptura at hand, it sees the Bible as materially sufficient (a claim that is not forbidden to Catholics), and that a teaching source is almost always necessary

A couple of sidebars are necessary here, I think:

• If we want to talk about ‘material sufficiency’, I think we need to have a formal definition of what it means, right?
  
  If we mean “all the doctrines of the Catholic faith may be found (even if remotely or by implication) in Scripture, but not to the extent that all doctrines necessary for our salvation are explicitly and formally presented in Scripture”, then I think we’re implicitly saying that an interpreter / exegete is necessary (in at least some cases).
  
  If this is the case, then I think we must reject the claim of perspicuity, since assertions that are expressed clearly and understood easily do not require or even admit external interpretation.
• Second, I think that, for the discussion to continue, we would have to ask the question “perspicuous to whom?” To the everyday Christian on the street? To a non-Christian who picks up a Bible for the first time? Or, perhaps, to the Scripture scholar and exegete (or his students / audience)? I think that, for the claim of perspicuity, we have to define the audience as “any reader of the Bible”. And, as you mention, if your notion of Sola Scriptura implies an interpreter / exegete, then we cannot make the claim of perspicuity.

 

[Gorgias]

Gmsod:

1. No authoritative teaching body is necessary.
   This is partially true because Protestants see the teaching body as a helper and not necessarily an authority. The same comments as above apply here too.

This is just to clear up what kind of sola scriptura we are talking about since you probably deal with it a lot on here and deal a lot with generalizations against the necessity of an authority to guide interpretation. I just want you to know that is not the kind we are dealing with here.

It’ll be interesting to see how you deal with my objections here, because I can’t see how you might harmonize the notion of perspicuity with the assertion of even the utility of ‘guides’ and ‘helpers’.

Your last two paragraphs essentially state that the authority of proclaiming doctrine lies solely in the Apostles, even to the exclusion of the Bible.

Not precisely. The authority lies with the Church, and is exercised first by the apostles and later by their successors. The Bible is one of the means that they utilize in carrying out their mission. We would never exclude the Bible, but we wouldn’t say that we might exclude the “teaching authority” (which is what ‘magisterium’ means, after all) that was given to the Church, and is exercised by apostles and their successors. Removing one of these as authoritative would be nullifying the command of Christ. Moreover, the assertion that these two might be in conflict would be saying that Christ was mistaken, as well!

 

[Gmsod]

Hello and once again thanks for a thorough reply!

That’s an interesting take on it, especially in the context of the claim that “the Bible speaks plainly”. Most who make that claim tend to express it as “the Bible says what it means and means what it says.”

That claim explicitly asserts that there is no other source necessary than the Bible, wouldn’t you say? If the Bible is perspicuous – that is, clearly expressed and easily understood – then there is no other teaching source necessary (or even possible), right?

Some may have the notion that perspicuity means anyone can just pick up a Bible and immediately know what Paul means, but the sola scriptura I have encountered and am trying to sift through defines it differently. In this instance, the Bible speaking plainly means that it speaks in a way that anyone can understand, but not in a way that everyone will. Anyone can understand it using the means they have available (i.e. even having it in their own language), but not everyone will take those means into account. If someone chooses to not read the ECF views of Apocalypse and tries to power through it alone, that is their mistake. It is kind of confusing but essentially just means that the Text itself is clear enough for you to be in a position to decide (without necessitating only a select group to interpret it), but not so much that everyone reading immediately understands it. It was written for specific people in specific situations in a specific culture; so reading it outside of that context and not taking into account how the people accepted it is destructive. It sees tradition as a guide and helper, but not infallible (though sola scriptura Anglo-Catholics or Presbyterians might say that their traditions date back to the Apostles despite being twisted in between then and now).

(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

If we want to talk about ‘material sufficiency’, I think we need to have a formal definition of what it means, right? If we mean “all the doctrines of the Catholic faith may be found (even if remotely or by implication) in Scripture, but not to the extent that all doctrines necessary for our salvation are explicitly and formally presented in Scripture”, then I think we’re implicitly saying that an interpreter / exegete is necessary (in at least some cases).

I agree and thank you for the definition. I think that sums it up well. I even agree that an interpreter is necessary. I do not know whether or not that implies an infallible interpreter telling others or the laypeople interpreting it. Everyone interprets anything they hear and read to some extent, so every communication demands an interpreter. Using exegesis to find the original context is also necessary for anyone trying to understand, so the question I am trying to find an answer to is whether or not that only applies to the Peter and all his successors or to those who search the Scriptures diligently using proper means (Something inside me just feels weird every time I say proper means because it sounds like it is still only an elite group with access to sources that can understand it, but I can’t say that everyone understands it. So I guess it is just a matter of who interprets it: people with access and willingness or the pope). So I guess your claim that we must reject perspicuity because is diametrically opposed to an interpreter makes sense only if the only interpreters are infallible, and ultimately, our acceptance of any interpretation of an interpretation is fallible. As the Jews did not have an actively infallible interpreter (if you disagree, please let me know), so I think GOD does not have to have one (not to say the he doesn’t: I am simply saying I don’t think it’s necessary, which implies neither a denial or acceptance of sola scriptura or Catholicism). If anywhere in that wall of text I assumed too much or erred, please let me know.

(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

Second, I think that, for the discussion to continue, we would have to ask the question “perspicuous to whom ?” To the everyday Christian on the street? To a non-Christian who picks up a Bible for the first time? Or, perhaps, to the Scripture scholar and exegete (or his students / audience)? I think that, for the claim of perspicuity, we have to define the audience as “any reader of the Bible”. And, as you mention, if your notion of Sola Scriptura implies an interpreter / exegete, then we cannot make the claim of perspicuity.

I hadn’t really considered that. Thanks for bringing it up. I do not know what the sola scripturist in question believes, but the most reasonable thing I can think of is people abiding by as much as they can. The ideal audience has access to enough to interpret Scripture correctly, but that is only the case for the modern times. Would you say that the historical lack of access to Scripture and it necessarily being transmitted orally constitutes an argument against sola scriptura? I addressed this in post #7, so I would appreciate you addressing that if you find any errors in there or even just clarifications. However, this question still confuses me because you could use the same argument to say that people around the world nowadays have a Bible, but not the Catholic Church nearby (not everyone- the Catholic Church is universal, but many rural third world countries are being given Gideon Bibles and yet do not have a Catholic Church nearby. Even if they do they may not have easy communication with the pope.). I don’t think that mankind’s lack of access to the source of doctrine in certain places at certain times can discredit that particular source (or method of finding doctrine) because there will always be those with insufficient circumstances.

-To get back on point- Who Scripture is perspicuous to may depend upon who (which sola scripturist) you ask. I can see it not being a reason to reject it because of a possible explanation (namely the one above), but I am still unsure. So to sum, the audience capable for any particular passage is anyone with access to the resources for putting oneself into the receivers social and historical position enough to understand (which is kind of a tautology but more than that a little more specific). This assumes the person has the Holy Spirit since you would agree that understanding the Scriptures for salvation is a gift from GOD (whether the Holy Spirit is indwelling or guiding them).

(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

It’ll be interesting to see how you deal with my objections here, because I can’t see how you might harmonize the notion of perspicuity with the assertion of even the utility of ‘guides’ and ‘helpers’.

I guess a summary of my response (don’t just take this though, take into account all I’ve said too) is that it depends on what you mean by perspicuity. If by that you mean the notion that anyone can pick up the Bible and understand it all, then of course you don’t need helpers. If, however, you see it as the belief that the pope is not the only person who is able to interpret the Scriptures, but rather anyone with access to the Scriptures, guidance from the Holy Spirit, and help from History and the Church (as the fellow at hand believes), then it means you are foolish to not make use of guides and helpers.

Not precisely. The authority lies with the Church, and is exercised first by the apostles and later by their successors. The Bible is one of the means that they utilize in carrying out their mission. We would never exclude the Bible, but we wouldn’t say that we might exclude the “teaching authority” (which is what ‘magisterium’ means, after all) that was given to the Church, and is exercised by apostles and their successors. Removing one of these as authoritative would be nullifying the command of Christ. Moreover, the assertion that these two might be in conflict would be saying that Christ was mistaken, as well!

Ok, thank you for clarifying. This makes me wonder, though: If all the apostles had infallibility in proclaiming the Gospel, did all their authority then transfer to the next Pope when they were all dead? We don’t treat every ordained priest or even bishop as infallible, but only the pope. So when you say the Church and Magisterium, do you just mean the pope? All the arguments I hear for the Church’s necessity of the Apostles’ successors in interpreting Scripture seems to imply that all priests can interpret it, but is this assuming they are in communion with our current Peter, the pope? This seems like it would explain my previous question, but if it is mistaken then I would greatly appreciate it if you explained it to me.

Thanks for bearing with me and reading this much.
I look forward to your reply.
GOD bless you!