Part 1 of 3
Fidelis:
Does this Protestant expression grate on others as much as it does me?
Not only that but it is not even a logical approach to interpreting a complex system of knowledge from a written source.
The issue of the logical or philosophical approach to interpretation of any instructional text is one that is widely misunderstood especially amongst the Protestant clergy and laity.
The idea that clear scripture should be used to interpret obscure scripture is illogical. In other words interpreting the complex based on the simple is an incorrect approach to truly understanding a text. A text can be unclear for only three reasons, none of which leads to this required logical jump.
The first reasons I will address are the inherently religious ones. The reason I start here is two fold, first this is primarily a text aimed at the religious debate and secondly we find that this directive made by religious leaders in effect denies the divine inspiration of the scriptures.
The first reason a text might be unclear would be if it were wrong. This is certainly not the claim of those religious leaders who intend us to follow this method, and they would be quick to agree that if the text were in error it could not be divinely inspired. So this option can quickly be eliminated.
The second reason a text would be unclear, would be if the writing were done poorly such that the text as a whole were incomplete, inconsistent or even self contradictory. While this is possible with human texts one could not consider a divinely inspired text to be subject to this type of flaw. So this reason as well can quickly be rejected.
The last reason leads us to the logical problem of their approach and will lead us to the proper method of interpretation for any text. The third reason a text can be unclear is if the reader is not properly prepared to understand it. In this case the problem lies with the reader not with the text. In other words you may not understand a text explaining complex material if you do not properly understand the introductory text of the less complex material. This is the basis for the concept of prerequisites in any curriculum.
One may be asking how this disproves the idea of interpreting complex texts based on clearer texts. In fact some may feel that this approach actually supports the idea put forth by the Protestant clergy. However those who feel this way are mistaking study and learning for understanding and the ability to interpret. One is the process the other is a destination. One is merely the method to arrive at the other. Proper interpretation is not done by the student while they are learning. Proper interpretation is only done by the learned, those who have already been instructed in the discipline and have become expert in the field.
Perhaps an example will help. If we were to approach interpreting a quantum mechanics text based on our understanding of Newtonian mechanics we would be doomed to failure. Now this could be due to the poorly written text (of which many abound) but even with a properly written text the subject matter still could not be understood through this method. However, it is only once we understand quantum mechanics and other higher level subjects in physics that we find we truly understand simple Newtonian mechanics. In any discipline one truly understands any level material (even introductory) only after understanding more complex levels above it.
Within the approach of sola scriptura we have the novice interpreting the complex in light of the simple and in every other field of endeavor to understand a text or subject we have the experts interpreting the simple in terms of the complex. From this one sees that the proper method of interpretation is just the reverse of that practiced in the Protestant churches. Logically we are to interpret the clear portions of the texts based on the complex verses.
This of course takes interpretation out of the hands of the layman and places it back in the hands of the expert, in this case the clergy. Once again this is the exact opposite of the trend within and even the origins of the Protestant denominations. If one holds to the approach that, the student is entirely justified in doing their own interpretation; then we lay the blame, of lack of clarity, on the text and thus deny its divinity. To avoid this conclusion we must therefore admit the logic of the approach of expert interpretation which relies on a complete understanding that only comes from using our understanding of complex issues to illuminate the true subtleties of the simpler statements within the text.
End of Part 1
