Clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture
January 8, 2008
The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture (i.e., that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense) has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief since the Reformation. The dominant Roman Catholic idea had been that the Bible was obscure and difficult to understand.
For those interested in reading a biblical defense of doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture I would like to point you to this most helpful resource from The Master’s Seminary Journal.
The article is simply titled THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE.
Here is an abstract of the article:
The perspicuity or clarity of Scripture in its relation to alm ost all areas of systematic theology is affected by postmodern hermeneutics that fail to respect the authority of Scripture. The doctrine raises a number of questions difficult to answer in a brief span, but two very basic issues are the meaning of the doctrine of perspicuity and the long-range historical context in which the doctrine has arisen. The basic doctrine means that the Bible can be understood by people through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and that people need to search the Scripture and judge for themselves what it means. Scripture itself attests its own perspicuity, but not to the point that it cannot be misunderstood or is in every point equally simple and clear. The doctrine does not rule out the need for interpretation, explanation, and exposition of the Bible by qualified leaders. The doctrine does mean that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person, deep enough for highly qualified readers, clear in its essential ma tters, obscure in som e places to people because of their sinfulness, understandable through ordinary means, understandable by an unsaved person on an external level, understandable in its significance by a saved person through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and available to every believer whose faith must rest on the Scriptures. Historically, debates about perspicuity have related to Marcion’s attack on the OT, the fathers’ denial of OT perspicuity, covenant theology’s subordination of the OT to the NT, and the medieval church’s attack on biblical perspicuity. The Reformers, the Protestant scholastics, and the German pietists supported the doctrine which is of primary importance for the practice of contemporary Christians.
You may find these links eqaully valuable as a source of study.
(2004) Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture
The Necessity of Scripture | The Sufficency of Scripture
The Rationality, Meaningfulness, and Precision of Scripture
The Perspicuity of Scripture | The Authority of Scripture
Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emergent Approach
Posted in Bible, Bible Study, Doctrine, PDF, Scripture, Sola Scriptura, Theology
content rss
January 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Shane,
I sincerely apologize that I have left comments on your blog that have been argumentative in nature, and I confess that I do struggle with the great sin of pride. I have enjoyed reading your blog and I promise that if I do make any future comments that it will be in the spirit of one who in sincerely seeking the truth of the gospel.
Your post stated that: “The dominant Roman Catholic idea had been that the Bible was obscure and difficult to understand.” My understanding is that the catholic idea has always been that the Bible “CAN BE” obscure and difficult to understand, but I won’t argue our different understandings.
I am curious given the proposed (Doctrine of Perspicuity of Scripture) how you interpret this scripture in the normal, literal sense?
“Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (ESV 2 Peter 3:15-16)
January 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Brett,
Just wondering, did you read the article on Perspicuity of Scripture? In the article, if you read it, you will find the following:
January 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Actually, I did read most it and thought it was very well researched, even though I didn’t comprehend some of it and could not stay awake to read all of it.
Forgive me for saying, but I think the (2 Pet 3:16) section of that article agrees with my understanding that the bible can be “difficult to understand”, which you seemed to denounce as a Roman Catholic idea in your original post, and stated that “scripture is clear enough for the simplest person”. It just seems to me that according to the literal and normal sense of scripture (without ANY qualifications)that some scriptures (Paul’s letters) are hard to understand.