I would not have been able to understand the title of this blog five years ago. It wasn't until my Junior year in college that I read Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will". Luther served me well by explaining very simply and succinctly the doctrine of the perspecuity (clarity) of Scripture. He says,
"I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture...If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another...I know that to many people a great deal remanis obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer."
God has given us His Word, so naturally He intends for us to understand it. This truth is so intuitive and presuppositional, that I don't feel the need to pull out individual verses to try and prove it (these verses are available however: Ps.19:4, 2Tim.3:16, 2Cor.3:15) The perspecuity of Scripture means several things:
1. The assertions of deconstructionists, Postmoderns, Neo-Orthodox-ers, and some Emergents that Scripture is something less than 'reliable propositional truth'--that is, WORDS which CORRESPOND with real TRUTH, are doomed.
2. As Christians, we can't shirk doctrinal responsibility by appeals to "mystery". It's true that Deuteronomy 29:29 says there are "secret things that belong to the Lord", but only after it talks about "the things that are revealed" being for us. Now don't get me wrong, we should never confidently affirm a belief that isn't represented in Scripture, either explicitly, or from clear implication--in other words, we should be extremely slow to speculate. I have no interest in trying to answer a doctrinal question which Scripture never asks/answers. However, it is our responsibility to hang on the every Word of our Savior, exhausting all our resources to understand His intended meaning.
3. Our rule for life and doctrine, faith and practice is found totally and only in the Bible. Church history is a wonderful resource for interpretation of those verses. My spiritual fathers give me precedent for so much (and this is an understatement!!) that I believe the Bible teaches. But at the end of the day, I am responsible to this book and this book alone. I shouldn't be scared (definitely cautious!!!) to part ways with Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or J.I. Packer for that matter. I am responsible to this Book alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well said, and great Luther quote. We too rarely think of our own thinking as blind and dull. But sin has surely smeared every aspect of our being.
One thought (from the pseudo-Historical Theologian): I wonder if it would be more helpful to add to point 3 that one should also be very slow to part ways with those aforementioned heavy hitters. Do you think that is necessary?
A very good point!!! How about "Cautious, but not scared"?
Following John, wouldn't we want to say that the Bible teaches the ordination of teaching offices within the church for a reason?
woot woot
Dave, I wrote this new post which kind of addresses what you're talking about (i think). Once again, a helpful excercise for me. Writing is good!
Luther was finding our ignorance on the meaning of Scripture (at least partly) in our ignorance of grammatical and historical content. My point was that much of this could only be understood with the aid of teachers (either live or dead). Certainly, some is clear. Thankfully, the knowledge necessary for saving faith is clear. However, the Bible ordains teachers so that I can grow in my understanding past where my weak faculties would take me. This does not preclude difference of opinion, because the teacher is not perfect and the student is not a blind participant.
God never intended me to read His Word alone. Goldsworthy used a great phrase: the ontological inability of the sinner and the epistemological priority of the Holy Spirit. As a partial extension of this, could we claim the epistemological necessity of the church?
Without a doubt!! So well said! My comments on diverging from the leadership presuppose someone searching the Scriptures in community (believers around them in their church and other local churches and those throughout church history), but still thoughtfully coming to a different conclusion. Make sense?
Hi,
Interesting blog. I agree on the Doctrine of Clarity; however, how do you defend this doctrine? In other words how do we know when we have arrived at the correct interpretation? How do we judge this?
Post a Comment