The Protestant Notion of Perspicuity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is why I happily challenge anyone to show me where the Bible teaches sola scriptura. If James White could not best Patrick Madrid on this very topic in their debate, then I don’t think anyone will convince me to the contrary.
As I don’t support it, that will be someone else’s task.
Are you elevating the doctrine of sola scriptura to the level of the Bible? Your words seem to suggest…
No. Rather, I would say that no belief anyone holds is manifestly self-contradictory. If it were obviously incoherent, no free and intelligent person would accept it.
Look, you said you don’t understand it…could it be because it really isn’t coherent?
Yes. But I don’t understand the fundamental principles that govern nature. But I’m pretty sure they’re coherant.
BTW, you’re considering going Orthodox, correct? What is the Orthodox view of sola fide?
Depends on what you mean by “faith”. As one theologian of the Orthodox Church said, Orthodox don’t have the same answers as Catholics or Protestants. We don’t even ask the same questions.
 
To not accept #2…
If you accept merely that Sola Scriptura is consistant but incorrect (it does not correspond to reality), then the burden of proof lies on the person who accepts Sola Scriptura.

If you claim that Sola Scriptura is inconsistent based on the argument provided, then you must guarantee complete soundness of the argument. You must establish that it is impossible to interpret Scripture in such a way that it would support one or all of the tenets of Sola Scriptura. Until someone can do that, saying “self-inconsistent”, “incoherent”, or “contradictory” is just rhetoric. Pretty words with no substance.

Simple enough to say that it’s wrong. And more accurate.
 
As I don’t support it, that will be someone else’s task.

No. Rather, I would say that no belief anyone holds is manifestly self-contradictory. If it were obviously incoherent, no free and intelligent person would accept it.

Yes. But I don’t understand the fundamental principles that govern nature. But I’m pretty sure they’re coherant.

Depends on what you mean by “faith”. As one theologian of the Orthodox Church said, Orthodox don’t have the same answers as Catholics or Protestants. We don’t even ask the same questions.
Noma,

You are an enigma. 🙂
 
If you accept merely that Sola Scriptura is consistant but incorrect (it does not correspond to reality), then the burden of proof lies on the person who accepts Sola Scriptura.

If you claim that Sola Scriptura is inconsistent based on the argument provided, then you must guarantee complete soundness of the argument. You must establish that it is impossible to interpret Scripture in such a way that it would support one or all of the tenets of Sola Scriptura. Until someone can do that, saying “self-inconsistent”, “incoherent”, or “contradictory” is just rhetoric. Pretty words with no substance.

Simple enough to say that it’s wrong. And more accurate.
Hi! When do you find time to do physics? 🙂 👍
 
Hi! When do you find time to do physics? 🙂 👍
I would imagine Noma is a Professor at some University, where he has all the time he needs outside of lecturing. He choice of words seems to indicate that he has years of practice of articulation.
 
As such if there is any perspicuity to the text of the Bible, it must reside in the original autographs which were written in dead languages thousands of years ago. It is entirely possible that we have lost the literary knowledge to fully understand these texts in their original ‘sitz im leben’.
Well, then I guess Jews lost it with the Septuagint and the Roman Church with its Latin Vulgate. It also shoots down the rest of his argument for Magesterium “infallibility.” The man chewed off his own legs. :rotfl:
 
The inerrancy of Scripture is confirmed by the Apostle
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The inerrancy of Scripture is confirmed by the Psalmist
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Notice how Paul instructs Timothy? He didnt say listen to the guy with the biggest hat when his doctrine conflicts w/scripture, now did he? BTW- notice how its ‘through faith’?anyways…Here is a clear description of the Reformed belief from the Belgic Confession

Article 7: The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, to be the only rule of faith.
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.
 
Well, then I guess Jews lost it with the Septuagint and the Roman Church with its Latin Vulgate. It also shoots down the rest of his argument for Magesterium “infallibility.” The man chewed off his own legs. :rotfl:
Would you mind elaborating on this? I don’t follow your reasoning.
 
The inerrancy of Scripture is confirmed by the Apostle
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Notice how Paul instructs Timothy? He didnt say listen to the guy with the biggest hat when his doctrine conflicts w/scripture, now did he?
Catholics agree that the Bible is inerrant. Unfortunately, your interpretation of it does not share in that characteristic - particularly your grasp of Paul’s full instructions to Timothy.

For example, many non-Catholics hold to a doctrine of sola Scriptura which proposes that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. They also look to Paul’s second letter to Timothy as containing a passage that supports this doctrine. But does it? Let’s examine a broader sampling of verses from this epistle to see what the Apostles really taught.

Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

Here we see that the “norm” or “rule of faith” that Paul proposes is not Scripture (since only the Old Testament existed at the time of this letter) nor what Paul has previously written in his first letter to Timothy, but rather “the sound words that you heard from me”. How can we be sure of this? Well, a few verses later, Paul specifies even more precisely:

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2)

This verse provides ample evidence of the concept of Apostolic Succession for in it we see reference to four generations of believers at least three of which have responsibility for teaching – which is the mission entrusted to the Church by Jesus. These “generations” are 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would charge with teaching gospel message to 4) “others”.

A few verses later, Paul gives Timothy one of the keys to successful service to God. He says:

“In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)

In this passage, Paul teaches his young protégé that cleansing oneself from impurities or sins is an important part of preparing for service to God. In other words, personal holiness prepares one to perform good works, too. A little further on, Paul tells Timothy:

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

Here, we find an implicit reference to the Catholic Church’s under standing of Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition. Look again at the passage:

“remain faithful to what you have learned and believed [Paul’s sound words delivered orally – Tradition], because you know from whom you learned it [Paul teaching with authority – Magisterium], and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures (the Old Testament which is all that existed when Timothy was an “infant” – Scripture)

Finally, after giving Timothy clear guidance concerning the “rule of faith” contained in Paul’s oral teaching and instructing him on the importance of Apostolic Succession and the Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium formula, only then does Paul commend and clarify the value of scripture:

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

At no time in these passages does Paul suggest the concept of sola Scriptura nor would Timothy have derived this doctrine from the letters he received from the hand of the Apostle. Indeed, nowhere in all of the New Testament is the doctrine of sola Scriptura taught or implied. The Holy Spirit did not inspire any author to teach this “tradition of men”.
 
When your ‘Magisterium and Tradition’ conflict with divine, inspired inerrant scripture, it is a concern for us. I feel Paul would share in the concerns.
 
When your ‘Magisterium and Tradition’ conflict with divine, inspired inerrant scripture, it is a concern for us. I feel Paul would share in the concerns.
Please feel free to provide an example or two. I am unaware of any conflicts.
 
The Protestant notion of Scripture as perspicuous specifically means that the Bible is sufficiently clear in meaning that no ‘official’ interpreter is necessary. .
I guess the author of Revelation did not get the memo.
 
Well, then I guess Jews lost it with the Septuagint and the Roman Church with its Latin Vulgate. It also shoots down the rest of his argument for Magesterium “infallibility.” The man chewed off his own legs. :rotfl:
I’m still waiting for a reply here whenever you have a chance.

Like I said already, at this point I think it is fair to ask exactly what the difference is between ‘allegory’ and ‘spiritual language’?

I ask because it appears to me that you are in fact doing exactly what you are repeatedly accusing us of doing.

Thanks. 🙂
 
I guess the author of Revelation did not get the memo.
Very good point, puzzleannie. 🙂

I think those who propose the notion of Scripture as perspicuous also forgot to look at the passages of Scripture which repeatedly say that some things are hard to understand-- hard to understand and are often distorted by those who don’t understand these passages to their own destruction. 😦
2 Peter 3:16:
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Interestingly here, Peter seems to be refering to Pauls writings as ‘Scripture’ by comparing them to ‘other Scriptures’. I never noticed that before.

Nontheless, since many who hold to the perspicuous nature of the Scriptures often quote all of Paul’s letters, and since Peter says that all of Paul’s letters are hard to understand, I have to wonder exactly how anyone could hold to the view that the Scriptures interpret themselves perspicuously.

There are so many passages within the Scriptures which speak of false teachers distorting the meaning of the Scriptures, I find it dangerously ironic that many who hold to the so-called perspicuous nature of the Scriptures totally ignore passages like this…
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.
And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Considering that Sola Scripturists repeatedly claim that all these ‘teachers’ must ‘teach’ from the Scriptures, I have to wonder why anyone in their right mind would say these ‘teachings’ are easy to understand when the Scriptures make it so clear that people can misunderstand them without proper instruction.

I think there is abundant evidence within the Scriptures themselves that the Scriptures do not simply interpret themselves for us. In fact, this, along with the apostles’ persistent admonitions to send ‘teachers’ approved by them so that people might ‘understand’, totally contradicts any suggestion that the Scriptures interpret themselves.

Bearing the super-abundance of warnings given in the Scriptures about this, I think anyone quoting 1 John 2:27 to claim they need no man to teach them is pushing the meaning of the Scriptural text well past what the Scriptures imply.

God did send out teachers approved by him. And people who reject their teachings are doing so at their own peril, just as the Scriptures repeatedly state.
 
Randy Carson said: Please feel free to provide an example or two. I am unaware of any conflicts.
Reminder to start a new thread on these examples since they are off topic.
 
The alleged perspicuity in the Bible is a superstition and nothing more. If the Bible were as perspicuous as a bus schedule, everyone would be “on board” with the correct interpretation. Instead, we have numerous interpretations that contradict each other. This can only be seen as a methodological failure falsifying the alleged principle in question.

Furthermore, some Protestants claim that the Scriptures are at least as perspicuous as the Catholic Magisterium. I am stupefied that anyone would be foolish enough to make such a ridiculous claim. Whether or not you accept Magisterial authority, it should be obvious to anyone of average intelligence that a contemporary teacher who can respond to modern questions in modern languages is a superior source of information than a book written several thousand years ago in dead languages using foreign cultural idioms, while the interpreting of such a book requires some authoritative expertise such as that of a translator or an exegete. As such there is still a layer of interpretive authority between the text and the average reader even in the Protestant system. You cannot escape from it. Why settle for a fallible exegete when you can have an infallible teacher?

By Dr. Art Sippo
portions bolded for emphasis

Very well said by the way.

Excellent post. 👍
 
Would you mind elaborating on this? I don’t follow your reasoning.
No one :nope: understands apophasis. I have tried, & I can’t see the forest for all thehttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/3.gif smoke & mirrors…
I think he’s a dispensationalist, but unlike any dispensationalist I have ever met…(And I have met:yup: a few. I actually used to :o be one, until I got serious about reading the Bible, & not the footnotes** in** the Bible).

But this time, I think he was saying that if only the originals texts were inspired, that none of the Bibles we now have can be inspired…A peculiar position for someone who believes in sola scriptura, certainly…
 
No one :nope: understands apophasis. I have tried, & I can’t see the forest for all thehttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/3.gif smoke & mirrors…
I think he’s a dispensationalist, but unlike any dispensationalist I have ever met…(And I have met:yup: a few. I actually used to :o be one, until I got serious about reading the Bible, & not the footnotes** in** the Bible).

But this time, I think he was saying that if only the originals texts were inspired, that none of the Bibles we now have can be inspired…A peculiar position for someone who believes in sola scriptura, certainly…
Yepper, footnotes in my KJV are very anti-catholic. The footnotes are tunnel vision slants to say the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top