Perspicuity of Scripture and Understanding

[Gmsod]

Hello everyone,
thank you for taking the time to read this

I have read some people claiming that Scripture is perspicuous because Jesus always taught people and when they were not believing him or not understanding, he would fault them and say “have you not read…”. ‘If the blame was on them then that means they were responsible for hearing the word not someone else’.
Does this make sense (obviously y’all disagree but I would appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut on this).
I thought that he could have been referring to them not believing the Pharisees but he rebukes them too and I’m just not sure if that works.
All (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated: and prayer.
GOD bless!

 

[AndrewAxland]

What you seem to be talking about is a combination of “sola scriptura” and “plain reading”, both of which are Fundamentalist Protestant concepts.

 

[Gmsod]

I would very much appreciate if you addressed those concepts, though you are correct that they are Protestant.

 

[adf417]

Hello everyone,
thank you for taking the time to read this

I have read some people claiming that Scripture is perspicuous because Jesus always taught people and when they were not believing him or not understanding, he would fault them and say “have you not read…”. ‘If the blame was on them then that means they were responsible for hearing the word not someone else’.
Does this make sense (obviously y’all disagree but I would appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut on this).
I thought that he could have been referring to them not believing the Pharisees but he rebukes them too and I’m just not sure if that works.
All (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated: and prayer.
GOD bless!

Greetings Gmsod, Not many people could read back then. In fact its not untill modern times when we experience the relatively high literacy rate that we do now. The reality is back then literacy rate was extreamly low making oral tradition the norm for spreading the Gospel.

Peace!!!

 

[Gorgias]

@Gmsod,

The question comes down to what Jesus told His Church to do, not what the state of extant Scripture was in the 1st century A.D. – after all, back then, He was getting on them for not understanding what God had intended all along, as recorded in the OT.

The claim that you’re addressing – namely, that the Bible teaches plainly and clearly – has two motivations: first, from the perspective of Sola Scriptura, the claim is that no teaching source but the text itself is necessary. Second, from the perspective of Protestant theology, the claim is that no authoritative teaching body is necessary.

To address these claims, we need to look at what Jesus instituted and set up for the creation and formation of disciples for His Church.

To answer the first question, we have to ask “what teaching method did Jesus tell His Church to use?” The answer is found in the Great Commission, “make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19) But… what method of teaching did Jesus have in mind? Mark and Luke tell us that Jesus’ intent was proclaiming and preaching, respectively (Mk 16:15, Lk 24:47). In Mark 16:15, the word used is κηρύξατε, and in Luke 24:47 it’s κηρυχθῆναι, both of which are based on the same root word, meaning “proclaim” or herald" or “preach publicly”.

Even Paul says “Christ sent me to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17), and that he was called to deliver a “speech and message… in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor 2:4). He explicitly makes the point that this teaching is through oral preaching and aural reception of the gospel: “how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14)

Now, I don’t mean to say by this that the Bible is counter to Christ’s intent. Clearly, it is the Word of God, given to us by God to learn His will for us. However, the intent is clear: it is preaching – by mouth, for the ears of listeners – through which the gospel is meant to be learned. Not merely reading, but hearing others preach. That, in itself, would seem to discount the claim that the Scriptures are meant to be the sole source of receiving the gospel message. Are they “profitable for teaching”? Absolutely! Are the the sole means? Not even according to the Bible itself!

But, what about the question of an authority who teaches? We see the answer to that question in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. Authority is given first to Peter, and then to all the apostles. Therefore, teaching authority is given to persons, not to a book. So, in terms of authority, we see that assigning it to a book runs counter to Christ’s intent.

So, on both counts, I think I would respond, “no – Christ commands us to hear and obey authoritative teaching, not to read a book and presume it can be interpreted by just anyone.”

Hope this helps!

 

[Nita]

I believe the times Jesus says “have you not read” (or something similar), He’s almost always - if not always - saying it to the scribes, Pharisees, and/or Saduccees. They were the educated ones who could read. The scribes & Pharisees especially were considered the Scripture scholars and supposedly spent their time reading, studying and teaching the Scriptures. So, it makes sense that Jesus might say to them “have you not read” since that was their responsibility/job!

I don’t have the time right now to read thru all the gospels. Did those who make the claim you cite, give examples of where Jesus said to ordinary lay people or to large crowds that the reason they didn’t understand was because they hadn’t read the Scriptures or heard them read (presumably through their own fault)? If so, could you post some of those examples?

 

[Gmsod]

Hello, Nita.

Thank you for pointing that out, I did not bother to check since I thought I remembered it happening so many times. After checking, however, I found only one occurrence where Jesus was speaking to the apostles: Matthew 21:16. I still think that his point would stand even without it being directly to the apostles, however, because it was presumed that the Pharisees, who dedicated their career to studying the law, would have learned about the important parts (those involving the Messiah) and not only the minute points of the law. They were not infallible though since Jesus often corrects them for their reading of Scripture. So since they were not protected from error and they were responsible for interpreting the Scriptures it seems like they were expected to have read and understood. Their lack of understanding is either due to their hardness of heart (from them or GOD), their overly strict adherence to the tradition of the elders, which was sometimes even either mistaken or superfluous, or their simple misinterpretation of the Scriptures. I do not see why Jesus would hold them accountable if, doing their best, they were not able to properly interpret them themselves since they had no infallible tradition or teachers-at least not back then, so no direct correlation to today I presume. So I think that it wouldn’t matter who Jesus was talking to because either way fallible men are held responsible for interpreting the Scriptures- this is notwithstanding the comment above towards Georgio.

Thanks for reading all that (if you did), and if I have erred somewhere in that block of text please let me know!
.
Prayers are appreciated and reciprocated, GOD bless!

 

[Gmsod]

Hey adf417,
thanks for taking the time to reply. This is really important to me (and to all whether they know it or not).

I realize that today we are more blessed (according to some) to have such easy access to not just the Scriptures themselves, but also commentaries, lexicons, and 2,000 years of insightful (name removed by moderator)ut. I also agree (not that I have a choice to disagree with history) that the Gospel and all its details had to be spread through oral preaching and memory. I think that this does not necessarily discredit the argument at hand, however. During the times when the Bible was not yet complete, revelation was still being granted by GOD to the apostles and prophets. This means that even if people had the apostles’ preaching, it was not necessarily everything. So no source of doctrine could reveal everything: whether it be sola scriptura, reason, tradition, or the magisterium. They all lacked something until the last word of the Bible was penned. From then on, the Scriptures were inspired, no matter what form. Just as it doesn’t matter what language the Scriptures are in, it does not matter the form. Whether they be brail or orally transmitted, the Scriptures are unchanged. So there could possibly have been a sola scriptura because all the information in Scripture could have, and probably was, transmitted through the teachings of the apostles that were handed down after all revelation ceased (whether directly from their mouth or pen). So when the people got a Bible fully, all it would change, if sola scriptura is true, is the form it was in. Whether it was transmitted by word of mouth or by parchment, the words of the Bible were the same. So I don’t think sola scriptura can be discredited just because of a lack of historical access to the Scriptures because the proponent could simply believe that all the information passed orally was contained in Scriptures (proving that may or may not be up to them, depending upon other reasons for and against sola scriptura). Now this might require proof that only that which was eventually recorded in Scripture is necessary for salvation, but I don’t really know yet. This is not to prove sola scriptura, but just to voice my belief that the historical necessity for oral transmission of the apostles’ and Jesus’ teachings does not necessarily rule out sola scriptura as an explanation for how GOD reveals himself.

If you catch anything I might have missed or have differing opinions (obviously you disagree with sola scriptura, but I mean about the final sentence of the preceding paragraph), please let me know!
Thanks for responding originally and now reading this (if you did). All prayers are appreciated and reciprocated.

Thanks and GOD bless you!

 

[Nita]

Hello, Nita.

After checking, however, I found only one occurrence where Jesus was speaking to the apostles: Matthew 21:16.

Jesus was speaking to the priests and scribes in that verse, not the apostles.
Mt. 21:15-17 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant; 16 and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read,…"

If I understand correctly, what you’re saying is that Scripture is so clear in its meaning (perspicuous) that everyone can understand/interpret it correctly ( by reading it or by hearing it read).
If you read the epistles and some of the 2000 yr. history of the Church you’ll discover that such is not the case. If the correct meaning were so clear, there would not have been all the dissension and division that has taken place; we’d all have the same understanding/interpretation of Scripture passages. Even when it was Jesus giving the message, people couldn’t always understand His words and turned away (eg. John 6:22-68).

Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen thru the ages after He ascended - all the conflicts that would arise over differing interpretations of His words. Truth is very important to Him; so much so that He says He is the truth (John 14:6). That is why He established a means (papacy - Mt. 16-19) to ensure that His followers could know the true meaning of His words.

I do not see why Jesus would hold them accountable if, doing their best, they were not able to properly interpret them themselves since they had no infallible tradition or teachers-at least not back then, so no direct correlation to today I presume.

I’m not sure Jesus always held them accountable; sometimes He may just have been teaching them the correct meaning. However, when Jesus chastises, it’s because they were in some way at fault. Unlike us, Jesus could read their minds and hearts, and knew they’re intentions.

 

[adf417]

Thank you profoundly for the blessing Gmsod!

No one will disagree with the importance of the written word. It is God’s inspired word and it is perfect. However, disregarding the living word along with its importance, along with the written word, may be fatal. If the written word would have been completed before Acts chapter 15 the disciples would have never approved noncircumcision as part of Christianity. Now of course you would say here “but they did because of God’s providence to have Acts chapter written”, which brings us to the Trinity which is not explicitly in the bible. The early church nearly gave way to the notion of a non-Trinitarian God and you should say here also “but they didn’t because of God’s providence” but its not because it says so in the bible. We believe it because of Tradition given to the church through the living word, the Holy Spirit.

Peace!!!

 

[Mintaka]

I like the part in Acts 8:30-31 where Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

And the eunuch answers, “How can I, unless someone teaches me?”

And that’s the thing. God is not trying to hide the Bible’s meaning from us, but it’s a complicated bunch of texts. You don’t have to have a doctorate, but you do need to have somebody preaching and explaining it to you.

In fact, God sent an angel to tell Philip to go out on the road, just so there would be a teacher for the eunuch!

The other one that cracks me up is Peter’s comment on Paul’s letters (2 Peter 3:16):

“his epistles… in which are certain things hard to be understood”.

So yeah, if divinely inspired Scripture says that Paul is hard to understand, who am I to argue?

 

[Nita]

…During the times when the Bible was not yet complete, revelation was still being granted by GOD to the apostles and prophets. This means that even if people had the apostles’ preaching, it was not necessarily everything. So no source of doctrine could reveal everything: whether it be sola scriptura, reason, tradition, or the magisterium. They all lacked something until the last word of the Bible was penned……

Scripture says it does not contain everything!
(John’s gospel and epistles are the last of the New Testament books to be written.)

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

 

[Gmsod]

Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply!

Jesus was speaking to the priests and scribes in that verse, not the apostles.
Mt. 21:15-17 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant; 16 and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read,…"

Thanks for correcting that. I was confusing that with another scene. So nowhere does Jesus say “Have you not read…” to the common people or even apostles, but only to the scribes and Pharisees.

If I understand correctly, what you’re saying is that Scripture is so clear in its meaning (perspicuous) that everyone can understand/interpret it correctly ( by reading it or by hearing it read).

If by that you mean that is what the person advocating for sola scriptura using this argument implies, then that is partially true. I am not advocating for sola scriptura; I am trying to understand an argument for it and if it is true. On your understanding of sola scriptura, that is not what the person who made the original argument, or even most well-thought-out sola scripturists, believe. Rather, they believe that through ‘due use of ordinary means’ ‘a sufficient understanding of scripture for salvation can be attained’ (taken from the Westminister Confession, but this is not limited to Reformed theology and is a good summary of what many sola scripturists believe). So no, not everyone can understand Scripture according to sola scriptura. They would say (i.e…) a mentally handicapped person, someone who uses a faulty translation knowingly, or someone who goes into Scripture trying to do hermeneutical gymnastics to defend themselves would not comprehend it correctly. Not everyone is gifted at interpretation either, so that is why having 2,000 years of doctors, priests, popes, monks, reformers (good ones at least), and theologians that have helped discern the more minute points of Scripture is useful- notwithstanding the Holy Spirit’s guidance. (Once again I must clarify I am not a sola scripturist or Catholic- I am trying to discern which one holds the truth) However, the early church had the apostles’ preaching still fresh in everyone’s memory (whether it is divinely protected form error is a different question) and they could interpret the Scriptures in the way they were taught.
[continued in next post]

 

[Gmsod]

They then taught others to do the same, and this happened all down through the ages. So I think that 2000 years of Scripture searching has not come up with anything new that is necessary to believe for salvation; it has simply preserved the apostles’ teaching. The dissension and disagreement can come from some still in the process of discovering the meaning (for it is rare for a reasonable sola scripturist to claim that the Scriptures are immediately perspicuous and plain) that are refusing to dig deeper or leave their comfort zone. It could also just be a misunderstanding. Lastly, a sola scripturist could (and most do) say that the disagreements they have are simply not necessary for salvation, so the Bible does not have to be as perspicuous on those matters. So I do not agree that the dissensions and extreme divisions among Christianity and all its claimants necessarily can disprove the perspicuity of Scripture. Even if the Bible was as clear as a dictionary, there would still be division. Some would lead others astray through clever reasoning to get around certain passages because of their own selfish motives. Others might not take the time to read the correct word in context and (going along with the analogy) equivocate terms. No matter how clear the Bible is, there will be divisions because there are still sinful people and people who simply don’t search well and don’t care to do so (but still choose a denomination).

(continued in next post)

 

[Gmsod]

Even when it was Jesus giving the message, people couldn’t always understand His words and turned away (eg. John 6:22-68).

You are right. Even when Jesus himself gave a message, people still turned away and didn’t understand. However, I do not think this was entirely the case in this instance. If you are going to use this (as 99.99% of Catholics do) as a passage which proves the real presence (which I agree with ), then it means that Jesus meant that they should eat his flesh and blood. Using this as a proof-text normally involves saying “Well the people thought he meant to eat his flesh and blood, yet Jesus did not correct them, but affirmed it, even causing them to leave.” Furthermore, throughout the passage the people slowly come to an understanding that Jesus really means it. They then say “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” and then many of them leave. If they simply didn’t understand, they had no reason to leave, but they must have understood what Jesus meant and were simply hard-hearted and did not accept it. I also believe this because Jesus says to his disciples afterwards, “Do you take offense at this? Will you leave too?” So in this instance the people understood, but they rejected his message.
As far as other passages where Jesus does teach something that the people do not understand, he either explains the parable to his disciples or explains why he does not want the people to understand. I can see something against [Jesus’ message necessarily being plain to the common people-‘sola scriptura’] in Mark 4:12, so any further elaboration on that would help (not to the exclusion of other reasons for sola scriptura, however)!

For your comment on Matt 16:19 establishing the papacy and thereby ensuring that the Church may know the true meaning of Scripture, I think it is best left to different threads to discuss because of how big of a topic this is.

I’m not sure Jesus always held them accountable; sometimes He may just have been teaching them the correct meaning. However, when Jesus chastises, it’s because they were in some way at fault. Unlike us, Jesus could read their minds and hearts, and knew they’re intentions.

Thanks for pointing that out! I guess I was assuming he was holding them accountable, but he may have just been teaching. I will look into this further, GOD-willing, to see if there is any instance where it is not just corrective, but also a rebuke.

Once again, thanks for reading and please pray for us all!
GOD bless you.

 

[Gmsod]

Thanks again for replying. I was still typing the last one when you replied with this!

Yes, that is true. Scripture does not contain everything, but it does say it contains enough to believe in Jesus and have life in his name. So the next question is whether or not Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation after initial justification.
I do not believe (and please correct me and cite a source please if I am wrong) that the Catholic Church teaches that it proclaims or knows everything about what Jesus did either, so either way we are deciding what is necessary.

To rephrase the statement that you have corrected, “After the last apostle died, there was no more new revalation.”
So it is still up to the sola scripturists to uphold that the Apostles did not receive any revalations that were not contained in Scripture and were necessary for salvation. Or, it is up to the Catholics to show that there were things necessary for salvation found outside Scripture that come from the Apostles. Either way, both sides disagree on where their source of doctrine is, so does deciding on this take Catholics showing where the Bible teaches that there was something necessary for salvation outside Scripture? This is more speculative so please tell me if that doesn’t follow and there is another way to resolve this (besides using reason to show how sola scriptura doesn’t work).

Thanks again, and GOD bless you!

 

[Gmsod]

I hope you know how much replies mean, adf417.

I agree with how important the way GOD reveals himself is, which is why I am so desperate to find out how He does so.

Yes, if GOD cut off any sort of revelation at any point, the results would not be good. I don’t think you can use that to show anything against one side or the other because GOD chose to reveal himself a set amount, so cutting him off anywhere during that would be bad. If he cut off revelation to the apostles or Scripture, it would result in less knowledge of him, so I don’t think that you can attribute that to Scripture’s insufficiency (which I am not sure if you are implying- if you are not then you can ignore that paragraph and I apologize).

Yes, the Trinity is not explicitly in the Bible. I don’t think most sola scripturists think that everything has to be explicitly in the Bible though. Most all would agree that it can be implicit too. So something could be deduced from principles in the Bible.

True, the early church did not opposed the Trinitarian GOD because Scripture told them too. Most probably didn’t know Scripture existed. They believed it because it is what the people telling them about the Messiah’s coming, the same people who were accompanied by signs, told them that the Messiah claimed to be GOD and that Holy Spirit that indwells believers is GOD. GOD is still one though, so the people just accepted it. This does not necessarily mean that what they were told that made them believe was not later recorded in Scripture. Once again, I think that sola scripturists’ main burden, if it is theirs, lies in proving that there was nothing necessary for salvation outside Scripture and from the Apostles. Still, it may have been that what the people were told before Scripture was compiled was simply clearer, since it was a real life message, than the Scriptures (though all the Scriptures were also written to people- they still might have had some hazy sections). I guess people who abide by sola scriptura see the Scriptures, a written document that hasn’t changed- only translated- in 2000 years, is a safer guard of the tradition of the Apostles than a line of people who were appointed by them and their successors because they don’t see a reason to believe GOD protected that line of people (who are determined in Catholicism by communion with Rome and in Orthodoxy by [all (name removed by moderator)ut welcome since I have no clue]).

Thanks for reading and prayers are welcomed with love and returned likewise.
GOD bless!

 

[Gmsod]

Hey Mintaka, I appreciate you bringing that up.

However, I don’t think that either 2 Peter or Acts 8 alone can really disprove sola scriptura. They (combined) say that the Bible has things that are hard to understand and that you need someone to teach you to understand the Scriptures. Since they are in the Bible, I don’t think any sola scripturist has a problem with these things. The Westminster Confession acknowledges that all things in Scripture are not equally clear, and anyone who has read the Bible will know that there are hard-to-understand passages. This makes having someone to guide you in interpretation almost universally needed (for hard-to-understand passages: most don’t have trouble understanding John 3:16 or that Jesus rose from the dead), not counting extraordinary circumstances. So is the difference just that Catholics see only certain people as being able to explain such passages, while sola scripturists see anyone who knows about the truth (after guidance from others who were guided by others, etc. back to the apostles- and along with 2000 years of study) as equipped to explain it but not having infallible authority? Does that just mean that, to Protestants, you are helped by others and history, guided by the Holy Spirit, and called to strive to understand yourself? Presumably, anyone at that time who was taught correctly and was a Christian could have explained that passage to Philip. The Holy Spirit chose Philip for GOD’s own reason. Any corrections would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for reading my replies and taking the time to add on to the conversation.
please pray for me in my journey and GOD bless you!

 

[Gmsod]

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.

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. 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 (excluding extraordinary circumstances), but that such a teaching source is not found in a single place and infallible, but is a guide in interpreting Scripture. Tradition has the role of a helper to sola scripturists and the Holy Spirit is the truth-revealer (though I don’t know of any who claim a way to know if you are guided).
2. 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.

Your fourth through sixth paragraphs seems to portray how Christ established earthly authorities; Jesus commissioned the apostles to spread the Gospel and all its details through public proclamation and teaching. The Bible is useful but teaching is how the Gospel should be spread, and scripture can supplement that (but not replace it). This, coupled with the claim that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, shows Scripture to not be the only source of the Gospel.
Your last two paragraphs essentially state that the authority of proclaiming doctrine lies solely in the Apostles, even to the exclusion of the Bible.

Before I address these I would like to ask if these are accurate (exact) portrayals of what you were stating and implying. If not, please make any revisions necessary to the above paragraph before I reply. I don’t want to type out five paragraphs and then realize I misunderstood you.

Thanks again for the reply.
All corrections, comments, and prayers are welcomed and reciprocated.
GOD bless you!

 

[adf417]

If he cut off revelation to the apostles or Scripture, it would result in less knowledge of him, so I don’t think that you can attribute that to Scripture’s insufficiency (which I am not sure if you are implying- if you are not then you can ignore that paragraph and I apologize).

No im not. In fact im not implying He cut off any revelation nor am I implying the apostles did not leave Him someone in which to reveal something to.

They believed it because it is what the people telling them about the Messiah’s coming, the same people who were accompanied by signs, told them that the Messiah claimed to be GOD and that Holy Spirit that indwells believers is GOD. GOD is still one though, so the people just accepted it.

No. They didn’t “just accept it”. Thats the point. They accepted the authority of the church from which the scriptures would come. If they just accepted it there would not have been any division over Jesus’ divinity to begin with.

Once again, I think that sola scripturists’ main burden, if it is theirs, lies in proving that there was nothing necessary for salvation outside Scripture and from the Apostles

I agree - along with putting all sola scripturists in one room and not letting them come out untill they admit this to the point of dissolving all their own differences that say otherwise.

I guess people who abide by sola scriptura see the Scriptures, a written document that hasn’t changed- only translated- in 2000 years, is a safer guard of the tradition of the Apostles than a line of people who were appointed by them and their successors because they don’t see a reason to believe GOD protected that line of people (who are determined in Catholicism by communion with Rome and in Orthodoxy by [all (name removed by moderator)ut welcome since I have no clue]).

I can certainly understand this position. I can also understand the athiest position of “there is no God”. However i choose to believe, i choose to believe in the one true God and that he would never leave us orhpans with only the written word to flounder over its meaning. I choose to believe his Holy Spirit is alive and well and that his revelation of understanding of the written word will come in one voice not many.

Peace!!!