Clarity of Scripture

Ahanu

Ahanu

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,303
Reaction score
566
Points
108
I'm interested in hearing Christian voices outside of the evangelical community tell me their thoughts about the clarity of scripture, a doctrine held by evangelicals. According to Wikipedia, we're told it's a Protestant teaching:

"'...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.'"
​
It goes on to suggest this doctrine isn't accepted by the Catholic Church:

"This doctrine is in contrast to other Christian positions like that of Augustine, who wrote in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus that he "should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." and in On Christian Doctrine, says "Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church…" Vincent of Lérins concurs, "Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."​

It also says Lutherans believe every teaching in the Bible is clear:

"Lutherans hold that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly. God's Word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education. Of course, one must understand the language God's Word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding. As a result of this, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible."
​
I find this teaching strange, considering Jesus taught in parables!

“And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand . . .’” (Mark 4.11–12, 4.33; Luke 8.10)​

The Jewish Annotated New Testament explains those outside "only hear the impenetrable shell."

Thoughts?
 
Hi Ahanu —

If you study typography as I have done, you'll find there's a golden rule:
People read easiest what they read the most.

That is, reading (and seeing) like anything else, becomes a habit. And habits assume expectations. So the idea that any text – let alone sacra doctrina which is unlike any other genre – is self-explanatory and needs to commentary says more about the reader than the text.
 
Ahanu said:
I'm interested in hearing Christian voices outside of the evangelical community tell me their thoughts about the clarity of scripture...
Click to expand...
I think for those who bother to read it in it's entirety, giving due consideration to the context of each verse, the Bible is very clear and understandable for the average person.
 
Last edited:
Further to my comment above ...

If one wants to look into the 'Mysteries' of the Tradition, it is then that 'keys' are required. These are supplied by commentaries, which themselves derive from the secret oral teachings. Scripture was written in an age when the scribes had to be circumspect.

(The problem is tougher today than ever, as Christianity has gone through an accelerating process of 'rationalisation' the mystical out of what is indisputably a mystical religion. An that landscape has been clouded by all manner of fanciful interpretations under the guise of 'esoteric Christianity' and latter-day 'spirituality'.)

Mark then, the earliest Gospel, speaks of 'the Messianic Secret'. Matthew and Luke speak to a Hebrew and Gentile audience respectively. It is John's Gospel, writing late and edited by the Pauline/Johannine school at Ephesus, speaks most explicitly of the Mysteries. This is one reason why Patristic commentary on John is notably less in evidence than the Synoptics, even though Fathers such as Origen held it in such high regard, precisely because much of this was covered by the disciplina arcani.

A good example is the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10.
The exegesis I grew up with, and the one I think most commonly understood, is the one in which we are asked the question 'Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers?' (v36) and thus measure ourselves against the text, and be a good neighbour like the Samaritan. Essentially a moral message. Not wrong, but simply one dimension of the parable.

An earlier exegesis from the Tradition is the spiritual/mystical interpretation and treats the text differently. In this contemplation, 'we' are not one of the three who pass on the road, we are the man robbed, stripped, beaten and left for dead. The first man passes is a priest, the second a Levite, the keepers of the Law ... neither help. Help comes from an unexpected quarter ... the one rejected by the man to whom Jesus is speaking — Himself.

The good Samaritan is Christ, and the mystical dimension of the text unfolds from there..
 
Jesus actually used parables to make things more clear and memorable. Especially to those not yet ready to accept the truth of his teachings. Jesus knew the truly faithful would seek out their meaning and understand on a much greater level than just giving them the facts. That's what Mark 4.11–12, 4.33; Luke 8.10 is all about.
 
It's also worth noting that the parable has a long history in the Hebrew Tradition, but the term in Hebrew is mashal, and it has a broader connotation than the more technically defined and understood Greek term parabole.

It can be anything from a proverb to a story, and can function as a pedagogic device, from a simple life-lesson to a kind of koan.

Hebrew scholars note, in particular, that the use of mashal can be metaphoric, that is explaining something obscure by comparison to something easily perceived; it can be 'dark' in the sense of pointing towards something not easily perceived, and it can be 'pointed' in the sense of a more discreet or roundabout way of putting someone in his place, the good Samaritan is both, as well as a moral message.

In the Christian Tradition there are 'the Four Senses of Scripture' (literal, moral, metaphorical, anagogical) and in the Hebrew world there is the same, which they call pardes (sometimes PaRDeS), a term formed from the initials of the four:
Peshat – surface, straight, literal and direct;
Remez – hints at a deeper allegoric or symbolic meaning beyond the literal sense;
Derash – to seek or inquire into the comparative midrashic meaning;
Sod – secret, mystical, esoteric meaning, an inspired or revealed understanding.

So again, the text is clear and easily understood at one level, but it has many levels and layers of meaning, there for the seeker, but which without the hermeneutic keys, are inaccessible.
 
You asked for Christian opinions, of which I do not qualify. That has never stopped me before though, so why start now. :D

Speaking from outside the community, hasn't history shown that the development of many branching Christian faiths are often related to the very question you are asking. Some stick with the you-need-a-guide (i.e. a priesthood) to understand scripture. Others believe you can understand it on your own, without outside guidance*. Methinks there will always be this schism between the two points of view.

*The third option is to do the homework yourself. Study the texts that are relevant to the basis for scripture, along with guidance from within the church to come to your conclusions. This is essentially what Thomas does. Very, very few people are willing to work that hard though.
 
I look at it this way. My truck is very useful to me. I depend on it daily, but I'm not interested in the history of the manufacturer, their production figures or profit margins. Nor do I need to know any of these things to drive it and benefit from it's use.
 
Last edited:
No. Just saying knowing the stats of the auto maker won't enhance your ability to drive.
 
Last edited:
Aussie Thoughts said:
I look at it this way. My truck is very useful to me. I depend on it daily, but I'm not interested in the history of the manufacturer, their production figures or profit margins. Nor do I need to know any of these things to drive it and benefit from it's use.
Click to expand...
Ah, the parable of the Toyota Hi-Lux. That's from the great book of petroleum isn't it?;)
 
Bring it! As far as guidance with scripture is concerned, I think that depends largely on the individual. Some folks will benefit from scholarly advice. Others just need a nudge in the right direction and some do fine by themselves. Then there's those that need to be taken by the hand and lead every step of the way. It all depends.
 
It all depends what one wants out of it ... is it there for me, or me for it?

Any sacra doctrina is subject to that, and too often is pushed as a kind of panacea.

It's like politics I suppose. One of my good friends is atheist, and very politically oriented. So he gets as aerated about people who demand a lot from politicians, as I could (and used to) about people who really don't get sacra doctrina. His beef is with those who ask/demand/complain but actually contribute nothing.

Same for any human endeavour, I suppose.
 
Men can go corrupted. So if the Jews go corrupted, God will re-assign the Catholics as the authority as His earthly representative. Similarly, if the Catholics go corrupted, God can re-assign the role to the Protestants.

Augustine existed long before the emergence of the Protestants. His comment thus has nothing to do with the Protestants. He only means that only the NT Canon worked out back then by the Catholics is the only authenticated Bible. That's why Protestants shares the same NT Canon with the Catholics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top