‍ 

Dialogue on the Perspicuity (Clarity) of Scripture (Part 2)

 

If the Bible’s so clear, why didn’t you understand it 

without an “external interpreter”?

 

Gary Hoge

 

[I’m] frustrated that what seem to be such basic points about verbal communication don’t seem to figure into your system of theology. I can’t figure out for the life of me why you act like a skeptic about GOD speaking, but a total believer about the Church speaking. It just doesn’t make sense.

 

It doesn’t make sense to you because you’re not seeing it from my perspective. I view Scripture, and Tradition, and the teachings of the Church as together comprising the totality of what God has spoken, and taken together, the one shedding light on the other, I think they’re very clear.

 

Yes, and so do all the “traditionalist schismatics” like the SSPX. If Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching of the Church are so clear, how come there are LeFebvrites?

 

The problem with the SSPX isn’t that they don’t understand the teachings of the Church, it’s that they don’t agree with some of them. They understand them just fine, they just reject them. It is part and parcel of the Catholic faith that the Magisterium of the Church is the proper and authentic expositor of Scripture and Tradition. The LeFebvrites apparently no longer believe that, and think themselves more competent than the Magisterium. Thus, from the point of view of traditional Catholic ecclesiology, they are simply right-wing Protestants.

 

But this whole “argument from Catholic dissenters” is very disappointing. I’ve come to expect so much better from you. To argue that Catholic ecclesiology doesn’t work because there is disunity among those who reject that ecclesiology is like arguing that seatbelts don’t work because there are deaths among those who don’t wear them.

 

Oh, I know! Anyone who disagrees with what you and the faction you belong to think about the Catholic Church must be “stupid”, “blinded by Satan”, or else must be a “wicked deceiver”.

 

Please stick to the topic, Tim. We weren’t talking about disagreement, we were talking about misunderstanding. Protestant groups all think that the Bible teaches something different, but that is not the case with Catholic dissidents. They aren’t squabbling about what they think the Church really teaches. They know full well what the Church teaches, and they want it to teach something else. Catholic dissent would only be analogous to Protestant doctrinal diversity if Protestants were going around saying, “We know what the Bible teaches, but the Bible is wrong!”

 

Yes, those must be the only alternatives given how “very clear” the teachings of the Church are.

 

As I said, all sides understand what the Church teaches. You think the feminists who are pushing for female priests don’t know that the Church teaches that only men can be priests? You think they don’t grasp that concept? Of course they do, they just vehemently disagree with it. And what about the liberal modernists who want the Church to be “pro-choice”? You think they don’t know that the Church is pro-life? You think they’ve never figured that out? Of course they know it. Procuring or participating in an abortion is one of the only things in all of canon law that incurs an automatic excommunication. These people know what the Church teaches, and they want the Church to change those teachings.

 

Come on, Tim, you’re much better than this. You know that there is a big difference between not understanding a teaching, and rejecting a teaching that is understood. I have never argued that the disunity of those “Protestants” who reject the authority of Scripture proves anything about the workability of a Scripture-alone ecclesiology. I have never once pointed to the bizarre doctrines of the Mormons, for example, as evidence that sola Scriptura doesn’t work, because the Mormons don’t follow sola Scriptura. Neither should you argue that the dissent of those “Catholics” who reject the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church proves anything about the workability of that ecclesiology. If you want to prove something valid, try to prove that those Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can’t agree on what its defined teachings are. If you can do that, then you will have proved something. But pointing out that the Church has rebellious members who reject its teachings doesn’t advance your cause, and it doesn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know.

 

* * * * *

 

But what you’re doing, from my perspective, is taking one part of what God has spoken, the written part, and trying to use it as if it were a self-contained, stand-alone “Manual of Christianity.” I don’t think it was meant to be used that way, and I think that the failure of those who do use it that way to agree on what it means, is proof of that.

 

Well I think that you are confusing the issue of Scripture’s perspicuity in itself with the idea that the Church exists as a subordinate rule of faith. I don’t think that Scripture is a “stand alone Manual of Christianity”, but the premise that “the Church has an authoritative place in faith and practice” does not entail the conclusion “therefore Scripture is unclear”.

 

Nor have I argued that it does. My argument is simply based on the observation that those who rely on Scripture alone for their doctrines don’t have the same doctrines. And I ask myself, why not? If Scripture were clear (i.e., “easily understood”), then I would expect these people to easily understand it. The fact that they all seem to think Scripture is teaching something different suggests to me that Scripture must not be all that clear, that is, assuming these people are interpreting it in good faith and sincerely trying to follow its teachings.

 

As a matter of fact, it is precisely because I do believe in God’s ability to communicate that I reject the doctrines of sola Scriptura and Perspicuity. If God had meant to convey His revelation solely through Scripture, then he would have done so with such clarity that only the mentally incompetent could fail to understand it. Good writers can do that, you know. D. James Kennedy, for example, who is far less talented than God, has no trouble writing a book in which his theology is plainly spelled out. God could too, if he wanted to. Therefore, the disunity and disagreement that is epidemic among those who profess to believe “only what the Bible says” is strong evidence, in my opinion, that God did not intend for the Bible to be a self-contained manual of Christian doctrine and practice.

 

Again, I don’t believe it is a “self-contained” manual (at least not in ordinary situations where people have access to both it and communities of believers to fellowship with). But I think you’re ignoring the fact of the disunity and disagreement that is epidemic among those who profess to believe in “the Bible plus an infallible interpreter”.

 

Again, such illogic is puzzling coming from you. You seem to think I believe that every group or individual that claims to be able to interpret Scripture infallibly actually can do so, and therefore should be unified. But the fact that “disunity and disagreement” are “epidemic among those who profess to believe in ‘the Bible plus an infallible interpreter’” only proves that their claims to infallibility are false, which I already knew. I don’t think that the Mormons, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Joe Pentecostal Who is Personally Guided by the Holy Spirit, have any advantage over any other group or individual when it comes to interpreting Scripture, so their disunity only provides more evidence for my argument that the Bible must not be all that clear if all of these people can’t understand it just by reading it.

 

Your argument would be very strong indeed if there was only one claimant to being the infallible interpreter, but that is not the case.

 

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with how many (if any) organizations or individuals claim to be able to interpret Scripture infallibly. Right now I’m not even arguing that such an organization exists, but if I were to make that argument, I would insist that the organization actually be able to interpret infallibly, not merely claim to be able to.

 

If God meant for everyone to understand that Rome is the infallible interpreter, why don’t they?

 

If God meant for everyone to follow Jesus, why don’t they? If God meant for everyone to understand that some people are predestined to Hell, why don’t they?

 

I mean, after all, Scripture, Tradition, and Church are “very clear” in their united witness.

 

Yes, they are, but since Protestants reject two out of the three, and misinterpret the third, it’s not surprising that they would fail to grasp this point.

 

* * * * *

 

If it is true that I don’t understand what you were trying to say, then perhaps your own definition of perspicuity of a document means that your documents are not perspicuous! Or maybe sin is just clouding my mind....... :-)

 

My definition of the perspicuity of a document is simple: A document is perspicuous if its target audience can understand it with ease. That is the standard, every-day meaning of the word “perspicuous.” So, you’re right: if you, my target audience, did not understand what I was trying to say, then my document was not perspicuous by itself.

 

No. You are still confusing the objective quality of the document with the subjective faculties of the interpreters. I won’t repeat my glasses / room analogy from last time, but I will note that even Dave Armstrong agreed that a similar analogy I used with him was valid. “Perspicuity” means nothing more than “able to be understood”.

 

No, it means “able to be understood with ease.” The precise definition is: “plain to the understanding esp. because of clarity and precision of presentation.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.), 1985, 878). If the Bible were written so clearly that it was “able to be understood with ease” then I would expect those Christians who rely on it alone for their doctrines to be able to “understand it with ease.” That’s logical enough, isn’t it?

 

This has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not this or that person actually does understand the document.

 

Nor have I said that it does. The fact that a specific individual doesn’t understand it, doesn’t prove anything. Maybe that individual is an idiot. The problem is that millions of individuals, of all levels of faith and intelligence, don’t understand it. If the phrase “able to be understood with ease” means anything at all, this is a problem.

 

Nor does it take into account the distinction between bare linguistic meaning and saving understanding, which is evident even in the Bible’s own words.

 

I have always acknowledged that man must be assisted by God to understand the things of God. But I’m not arguing that the Bible is unclear because unbelievers don’t understand it. I’m arguing that it’s unclear (i.e., “not readily understood”) because millions of faithful believers don’t understand it.

 

* * * * *

 

[If] you, my target audience, did not understand what I was trying to say, then my document was not perspicuous by itself. But if I rephrase my message and clarify it, you may eventually understand what I was trying to say. If you then go back and read my original document, it may make sense to you. Reading the Bible is like that, I think. If you already understand the Gospel (as all of the New Testament’s original audience did), then you can usually see what the author was trying to say, because you read it with the same presuppositions and background knowledge that the author had when he wrote it. But if you come at the Bible cold, having no knowledge of the Gospel, I think your chances of being able to correctly reconstruct the Gospel from the New Testament alone are very slim.

 

Thank God that He isn’t bound to the methods of teaching you place all your trust in, then! Are you so afraid of “Mormon subjectivity” that you can’t admit the Spirit of God could teach a person saving understanding of the Gospel simply by his picking up a Bible and reading the words (which he can linguistically understand)?

 

Of course not. Depending on how low the threshold of “saving understanding” is, I think God could teach a person such an understanding without using the Bible at all. The Christian tract that someone left under my windshield wiper might be sufficient. But that is not the issue. If your concept of “perspicuity” simply means that the Bible is clear enough to get across the idea, “Jesus is Lord,” then I have no problem with it. But I suspect that it means much more, at least you argue as if it does.

 

You said on Steve’s board that words mean things. And yet, your definition of perspicuity appears to be completely divorced from the normal meaning of the word. For you it appears to be some ethereal, intangible quality that the Bible possesses simply because you say it does.

 

No. I say it possesses it for the same reason that I say the details of my living room are clear despite the fact that when I’m not wearing my glasses, I can’t see them properly.

 

If you can’t see them properly, then they are not “clear.” It doesn’t matter why you can’t see them properly, they’re still not clear. If Christians cannot understand the Bible properly, then the Bible is not clear to them. It doesn’t matter whether the fault lies with them, or with the Bible, the fact remains that the Bible is not “able to be understood with ease” by them.

 

The “glasses” one wears when reading the Bible are the ordinary means of linguistic interpretation for the language one was reading.

 

It’s much more than that. It’s also all of the background knowledge and theological presuppositions one brings to the table. That’s why I think that the Bible was probably very clear to the ancient Christians to whom it was addressed. It was written with them in mind, and it used their common cultural assumptions and figures of speech. Also, it was tailored to their background knowledge. Its authors knew what its audience already knew, and they didn’t have to explain that stuff all over again. A modern reader has none of those advantages.

 

If I tried to read the Bible in English by using the grammatical rules of Latin, I would totally fail to understand anything in the book. But if I use the grammatical rules of English, who are you to say I don’t understand what I’ve read simply because I come to a conclusion that is different from Rome’s conclusion?

 

I am nobody. But if you come to a conclusion that contradicts something that was clearly believed by the ancient Christian communities that were taught by the apostles, e.g., that water baptism is the usual instrument of regeneration, who are you to say that you understand Scripture better than they did. Such a claim would be manifestly absurd. As C.S. Lewis wrote,

 

The idea that any man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous. There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and no evidence could counterbalance. (Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” from Josh McDowell, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (San Bernadino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers), 1981, 377).

 

Rome doesn’t have any greater insight into the grammatical rules of English than I do, I assure you.

 

Really? There’s not one linguistics scholar in all of Rome who knows as much as you do about English grammar? That’s quite an arrogant statement. Did you mean it literally?

 

* * * * *

 

And because that quality [perspicuity] is completely unrelated to the ability of the Bible’s target audience to understand its message, your definition is conveniently not falsifiable. Obviously, it is a premise, not a conclusion. And it will always be a mere assertion on your part, since no evidence can possibly overturn it.

 

Ok, ok, I admit it! I believe that words mean things and that using ordinary rules of interpretation for the language one speaks enables one to decipher the basic meaning of documents written in that language!

 

Right. So when the Bible says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24), what this means, using the ordinary rules of English interpretation, is that a man is justified by faith alone and not by works.

 

Yes, this is a premise, not a conclusion. But it’s a premise that’s much like the premise that the laws of logic are true. I can’t prove them without using them in my proof, but if I don’t assume them to be true, I can’t even start thinking about trying to disprove them. The Law of Noncontradiction is “conveniently nonfalsifiable” too. Does that mean when I use it I’m doing something wrong? Besides, you automatically assumed the same thing when you opened my e-mail! You assumed that you would be able to read what I’ve written and get some kind of understanding from the words I wrote. Why did you assume that? Because communication is impossible if you don’t. And that is why we must assume that the words of the Bible mean definite things and that by using ordinary methods of interpretation, we can come to a linguistic understanding of the Bible.

 

Great. When will you Protestants be doing that? I want to watch.

 

This is eminently reasonable.

 

And completely unattainable, it would seem. I hate to keep bringing up this minor point, but in 480 years you guys have yet to come to a common linguistic understanding of the Bible. When can I expect this to happen?

 

Far more reasonable, I think, than trying to prove a document is unclear by using the unproveable assumption that the human mind is a neutral seeker of Truth and cannot fail to understand something that is clearly presented to it. It’s interesting that your response didn’t even deal with this charge.

 

I hope that I have dealt with it sufficiently now. If something is “clearly presented” it will be “clearly understood,” not necessarily by everyone, but by most people. If most intelligent people can’t understand it, then it was not “clearly presented,” by definition. Words do have definite meanings, Tim, including the word “clear.”

 

So I guess I really don’t understand what you mean when you say the Bible is “perspicuous.” It appears to be a completely content-free word.

 

No, it’s a word whose content refers to the document and not to the mind of the interpreter. I actually give a definition of the perspicuity of a document; what you give is a theory about how the human mind works.

 

Saying that a document is “clear” is analogous to saying that a crossword puzzle is “easy.” It is a subjective judgment. The document is “clear” if most people readily understand its meaning, and the crossword puzzle is “easy” if most people can solve it without much effort. But if most people can’t solve the puzzle, it would be nothing but special pleading to insist that the puzzle is nevertheless “objectively easy” in some invisible way. If most people can’t solve it, it’s hard. Period. If a few people can solve it, that doesn’t make the puzzle easy, it makes them smart. And if most people can’t understand the teachings set forth in a written document, then the document is unclear. Period. Words do mean things.

 

 

Part 1, Part 2