Why is it
that so many people are intimidated by the Bible? Some see it as a big scary, judgment-filled
ancient (outdated) book that almost no one has ever finished reading. It contains wild and unbelievable stories,
talking animals and scary apocalyptic scenarios, with many people ending up in
everlasting punishment for committing minor sins, simply because God doesn’t
want you to have fun. Some people say
that it depicts a monster God, who loves punishing innocent people, a God who
claims to be loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, yet He has allowed horrible
things to happen to people throughout the centuries, when He could have stopped
all the death, suffering and carnage.
So, apparently, if He does exist at all, He doesn’t even care what
happens to you.
Is this your view of the Bible? Those of you who think this way have a clear distrust
of God, either because of ignorance of Him, or simply because you believe what
others (unbelievers) have been telling you about Him. You think this way because of a lack of
studying the Bible for yourself, and you fail to make an honest assessment of its
teachings.
But, according
to Catholicism, even if you did read it, who knows if you could understand it,
anyway? Ignorance abounds, but the Bible
is not that hard to understand.
Catholics
and Protestants have been debating the concept of the clarity of Scripture for
a long time, and because of that, there are many highly developed (and highly
nuanced) arguments on both sides.
Fortunately,
both Catholics and Protestants believe that knowing what the Bible says is
extremely important to all of us. At
least we agree on that. We both
recognize it as the Word of God.
Let me
emphasize, from the beginning, I think that it is evident to all of us that most parts of Scripture are clear enough to
understand, while some parts are not as clear. That’s just the way it is. I don’t think that anyone is saying that it
is completely obscure, and I don’t think that anyone is saying that everything in it is easily understood,
but the truth lies somewhere in between.
But one
great concern to Protestants is that the Catholic Church would insist that we
need an “infallible” interpreter of Scripture so that we can have certainty about what it says. And according to the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, that infallible interpreter is the Magisterium (the leaders) of
the Catholic Church (CCC #85).
“Problems” with Perspicuity
The term
that is commonly used to describe Scripture’s clarity is “perspicuity.” Catholics often seem to take offense with
this teaching. But why?
Many
Catholics feel that the doctrine of perspicuity elevates the individual over the Church, thereby
robbing the Church of its authority to interpret Scripture for the people (CCC
#100). They also feel that perspicuity
“marginalizes” the role of tradition. Strangely,
it almost seems like they don’t want
the Scriptures to be clear and understandable to the average person, and that
they don’t mind Tradition or Scripture being shrouded in a fog (so that only
the Church can interpret it for us).
Some
Catholics feel that the people who hold to the doctrine of perspicuity assume
that those who disagree with them have some kind of defect(s)? They feel that those who believe in the
doctrine of perspicuity are automatically assuming the worst about others and
only the best about themselves.
And what if
there are disagreements between two Protestants who both hold to the concept of
perspicuity? Wouldn’t that refute this
concept, since there would be no means of resolving arguments between debaters,
causing countless divisions?
According to
Catholics, perspicuity makes the individual
the ultimate authority. It makes you
your own pope, they say.
Furthermore,
some Catholics will ask, “If the Bible is so clear, then why do some
Protestants make so much money teaching the Bible week after week, and year
after year?” Seems like a good question
to ask. We’ll come back to this question
a little later.
The Catholic
Church would point out that it took several church councils sometimes years to
decide on certain doctrines, so what makes Protestants think that they can understand
the Bible outright? Are you perspicuity
guys so arrogant that you would claim that your understanding is better than
the Church’s?
The Westminster Confession
So, what is
the official teaching within Protestantism concerning perspicuity? As for as I know, there is no “official”
definition on the topic which all denominations agree on, but I think that the Westminster Confession of Faith gives us
a pretty good idea of the concept of perspicuity:
“All
things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto
all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed
for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture
or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the
ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
There may be
an even better definition somewhere out there, but I think this one is
sufficient to demonstrate the idea.
First of
all, note the phrase, “nor alike clear unto all.” This is an admission that not every person is
on the same level of understanding. Some
catch on quicker, some not as quick.
Yet, the Bible is sufficient to enlighten the “learned” and the
“unlearned,” alike.
Note also
that the Westminster Confession also implies that observing the context of Scripture is of great
importance. The phrase “opened in some
place of Scripture or another” speaks of the whole of Scripture. Why is
that important? This is because
Scripture interprets Scripture. If
Scripture is indeed from God (and it certainly is), then God will use the
plainer parts and those principles involved, to help us understand the harder
parts. God is consistent, and therefore,
His Word is consistent.
Let me also note
here that Catholics like to question the idea of “those things that are
necessary to be known,” or the “essentials” of the faith. They’ll say, “What are those essentials and
who determines what the ‘essentials’ are?”
Well, the answer is right there in the Westminster Confession: the things concerning salvation.
But
Catholics will say, “But Protestants don’t agree with each other, even on the
details of salvation. Some believe that baptism
saves and some don’t. Some believe that
babies should be baptized and some don’t.
Some believe that speaking in tongues must be a part of salvation while
others do not. Are good works involved
in your salvation at all? Protestants
disagree on this, so even these ‘essentials’ are not clear.”
It’s funny, but good Catholics will also disagree among themselves, even on
major topics. In fact, they sometimes
even disagree on the supposed infallible
interpretations! Concerning
disagreements in the church, it is interesting that when Catholics argue
amongst themselves, they’ll call it “freedom to interpret.” But when they find disagreements in
Protestantism, they’ll call it divisions.
But we
Protestants don’t claim this as proof that their doctrine is wrong. When it comes to divisions, we are all in the
same boat. So, unity does not guarantee correct doctrine – Scripture is the standard by which doctrine is measured (2
Timothy 3:16-17). But the key to
proper interpretation, I am convinced, is to carefully study context and to let
Scripture interpret Scripture, while maintaining a prayerful and humble attitude
(Isaiah
66:2; Luke 8:15). Continual study of the Word of God will
also go a long way in helping you “rightly divide” (interpret) Scripture.
All men can
have a sufficient understanding of that which pertains to the
salvation of the soul, else God would be unfair. Everyone who stands at the foot of the cross
is on level ground. The gospel of Jesus
Christ does not give special recognition to male or female, Jew or Gentile (Galatians
3:28), and it does not favor the wise, the scribe, or the philosopher (1
Corinthians 1:20). It is the very
simple message of the gospel of Jesus Christ which saves us:
“For I am not
ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans
1:16)
Analogies
When it
comes to interpreting Scripture, I’d like to suggest an analogy and say that
the Bible is very similar to a math textbook.
No one who is just beginning to learn math starts off with calculus or
trigonometry. You start with the easiest
and most basic things (e.g., simple addition and subtraction), and once you
grasp those, the other (harder) things are explained in light of the easier,
well established principles. It is a progressive
type of learning – and so is biblical interpretation. Math is a very deep subject, and just like a
math textbook, the Bible can also get pretty deep. There is an old saying:
“The message
of the Bible is simple enough that a child can understand it, yet deep enough
for a theologian to drown in it.”
I would say
that this is true.
Likewise, when
a child starts to learn the language of his parents, he must start out with
baby talk. Then slowly, he learns more
and more words, and then he learns to put sentences together, until one day, he
reaches a sufficient level of communication to be effective on his own. He may even go much deeper and get proficient
enough to teach the language to others on a professional level.
In other
words, this too is a progressive endeavor, where you learn more and more over
time. It is very similar with learning
to interpret Scripture. The more you spend
time with the Bible, the more you understand its Author. The Bible is like a goldmine – you can never
completely mine all the treasure therein – at least, not in this life. It is a continuous
learning experience (Hebrews 5:12).
What Kind of Father is That?
But this
whole denial of the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture assumes that God purposely made it hard for us (His
children) to interpret Scripture. But is
that indeed His will? What kind of
parent do you think God is? God is able and
willing to communicate His message – just as any good parent does. Jesus Himself said:
“If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things
to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:11).
When it
comes to giving instructions to His children, would He want them to be in the
dark? Wouldn’t it be an insult to God to say that His Word is
garbled to those genuinely seeking Him, to His very own children? This goes against His nature.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 and 2 Timothy 3:14-15 tell us
to teach these things (the Law of God) to
our children. Why would it tell us
to teach our children the Scriptures if they couldn’t understand? Divine promises are irrelevant unless they
are intelligible.
Psalm 19:7 and 119:130 tell us that
God’s Word makes the simple wise. God is able both to hide simple things from
the wise, and also able to cause even the simple to understand His Word (Matthew
11:25). If God is able to feed
physically hungry people, He is certainly able (and willing) to feed the
spiritually hungry through His Word.
Examples in Scripture
Scripture,
itself, implies that it is perspicuous/clear enough for the commoner to understand. Those following
Jesus were mostly the simple and uneducated.
It is no surprise that God expects His children to hear, read, study and
understand the Scriptures. There are many examples of the common people
being expected to understand Jesus’ words.
Here are some of them:
People in
general (Luke 20:17); people in the synagogue (Luke 4:21; Acts 17:2, 11);
the general public (John 7:38); the multitude (Matthew 15:10; Mark 7:14, 16; John 7:42);
the five lost brothers of the rich man (Luke 16:27-29); the reader of
Scripture (Matthew 24:15; John 19:24, 28, 36, 37; Revelation 1:3); the
local Christian churches who received letters/epistles from the apostle Paul
(e.g., the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, etc.);
“whosoever” and “he that has ears to hear” –
used many times in the gospels and Revelation (e.g., Matthew
7:24; Luke 6:47; Mark 4:9; Luke 14:35; John 5:24; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29;
3:6, 13, 22). When Jesus said, “Whosoever…”,
He never, ever meant “Only the leaders.”
Obscurers Since Long Ago
The question
was asked earlier:
If the Bible
is so clear, so perspicuous, then why do Protestants have to teach and expound
on what it says, week after week and year after year, not to mention the fact
that some are making a great deal of money doing it?
Fair
question, but the reason Protestants go to church week after week is not because
they know nothing about the Bible - they go to church to grow and build on the
knowledge they already have. It’s called
“getting to know God better and better.”
The apostle Peter called it “grow[ing] in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).
And by the
way, they don’t just better their relationship with God by going to church
every week – they also tend to get in the Word daily. If they don’t, they should.
But
Protestants, in general, are simply trying to help their members to become dependent
on God in Bible reading, unlike the
Catholic Church, who is trying their best to cause its members to be dependent on
the Church for everything.
But it was
never about the individual’s “authority to interpret,” but rather the
individual’s ultimate accountability
to God.
The Catholic
Church seems to be fond of obscurity, since it gives the Church more power and
leverage. Furthermore, it is highly
interesting (and suspicious) that the Catholic Church, though they are
reluctant to admit it, is historically guilty of keeping the Scriptures away
from the common people for a long time.
See this link:
Funny how
this freedom to read and understand Scripture seems to be somewhat of a threat
to the Catholic Church.
Furthermore,
if you want to see a great example of obscurity, look to their “definition” of
Tradition! See these links:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html
Conclusion
We don’t
mind the Catholic Church saying that some things in the Bible are hard to
understand, but we do have an issue with them saying that that they are the
only ones who can “authentically” interpret Scripture (CCC #85). Saying that
is simply begging the question. They
cannot (and will not ever be able to) biblically prove such an argument.
What better
tactic can Satan use to separate man from God, as He did with Eve? There, in the Garden of Eden, the serpent
said, “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1) In essence, he was
saying, “Let me tell you what God
really said,” causing man’s destruction.
And today, in the Catholic Church, this same serpent is saying, “You
can’t really know what God is saying in the Bible, the Church has to tell you!”
This is the
same exact tactic!
But you Catholics
can’t go around telling everybody that Scripture is obscure, while pretending
your Church has all the “authentic” interpretations – when your Church has decided
to “infallibly interpret” so few
passages of the Bible. So where is that
“certainty” that the Catholic Church brags about?
The bottom
line is that the Bible is clear enough to help you to get right with God and to
live for God, without a particular church or organization having to interpret
that for you. Perhaps asking, “Is the
Bible clear?” is not quite the right question.
We should be asking, “Is the Bible clear
enough and is it sufficient for God’s purposes, especially salvation?” And the answer is yes, indeed!
If the teachings of the Church are not clear enough to convince Protestants, measures of forced conversion may be appropiate to use. "Freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" are modern-day inventions that would have been abhorrant to the ancients.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, we all know that Jesus was all about forced conversions (***Sarcasm***).
That’s why Jesus “forced” His disciples to come back to Him when they walked away in John 6:66, right? No, He let them walk. He even gave His CLOSEST disciples the option to leave in the very next verse, as well.
When the rich young ruler walked away sadly (Matthew 19:16-22), did Jesus force him to come back? Not at all.
If Jesus was ok with forced conversions, why did He instruct His disciples to “shake the dust off your feet” when the villagers rejected the gospel message (Matthew 10:11-15)? He didn’t say to beg them or force them, because He gives us free will.
It is utterly ungodly, unbiblical and disgusting to suggest that “forced conversion may be appropriate” for Christians in evangelization efforts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to publish my comment and respond? If not, you should not put yourself out there to where others can criticize you.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (a.k.a., Perfect Mugwagwa),
DeleteI have absolutely no qualms about “putting myself out there” so others can criticize me. In fact, I’ve been around with this blog since 2009, and I think that the MAJORITY of the comments I receive from Catholics on this blog are negative. I am not afraid of criticism – that comes with the territory and I don’t have an issue with that. In fact, I enjoy having discussions with those who disagree with me, as long as they are civil and respectful. You are neither.
So you need to quit acting like you’re innocent and like you’re somehow a victim. You know good and well that you have been deleted over and over, but you keep on coming back to harass and to badger. Arguing with you has not been productive at all and you can’t seem to realize when your own arguments fail you. I really don’t think that you even read the links I provide, either, and you’ve made derogative comments to me and to my friend Jesse.
I’m not in any way afraid of engaging you, so don’t try to pretend that I’m running away. You have been an incessant trouble maker for me for quite a while. Many of the readers of this blog can testify to that. I have been very patient and civil with you, over and over giving you the benefit of the doubt – yet you continue to throw out the most ridiculous and inane assertions and demands, and you constantly ignore what I said and change topics. You THINK your arguments are valid, but your only “method” is to make assertions (without proper biblical proof) and to badger and demand answers. When I supply answers to you, you ignore what I said. You have lied to me before (is that Christ-like?) and you have tried to cover the fact by switching your name several times.
I have had HUNDREDS of disagreements with others on this blog and elsewhere (mostly with Catholics) and have not been repulsed by any of their comments and attitude as I have with yours. You are a liar, and (by definition) not a Christian at all. Not only are you NOT a Christian, you're not even a good Catholic. I hope that God deals with your heart.
If you would have, from the beginning, approached this blog respectfully (like most of the others that disagreed with me) and maintained a civil and non-condescending attitude, used coherent arguments, and at least TRIED to be faithful to the Bible and its contexts, I would have gladly continued to engage with your arguments. But you refused.
FOR THESE REASONS, I have been deleting your comments. Quit trying to act like a victimized hero.
Note: I could possibly be wrong about your identity (which you like to hide), but the evidence is against you. This is my blog and I have every right to deny you access.