Wednesday 26 December 2012

The Clarity of Scripture

The starting place for  considering how Christians understand the universal terms that the Gospel uses so liberally must be the perspicuity of Scripture.  To be clear, and as the great confessions of faith are at pains to point out, “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.”[1]  This matter is not in dispute.  Nor does perspicuity mean that Scripture is everywhere equally simple, for some parts are difficult of understanding as Peter discovered with some of Paul’s letters.[2]  Further, this doctrine does not imply that church members do not need trained teachers to help them in their understanding of Scripture; were this the case, the New Testament would not identify as God’s gifts to the church those who are pastors and teachers.  Also, the Reformers such as Luther and Calvin wrote commentaries on most biblical books in addition to numerous treatises on different subjects that were germane to the Christian religion. 

What perspicuity is, then, is implied if not expressly taught in the canonical Scriptures.  Fundamentally, it means that for the least educated person on the planet, the Scripture is clear enough to understand and to live by.  In its basic message, the message of salvation, it is understandable to all.[3]  When the normal canons of interpretation are employed, the likelihood of mis-interpretation is greatly reduced. 

In fact, Davis, in alluding to the issue of the plain meaning of Scripture, criticises critical OT scholars for not “reading the text” in its “more natural way,” concluding that by so doing they are evacuating the text of its “sense.”[4]  He also warns against pulling “more data from the backgrounds than from the text.”[5]  When theologians who believe in limited atonement engage in polemics against theologians who hold to universal atonement, we find that the plain or natural meaning of the text is marginalised in favour of philosophical considerations.

Dale, when expounding Christ’s cry of dereliction from the Cross, correctly states his procedure when interpreting Scripture, and follows Calvin closely in this.  He says, “I take the words in their clear and unqualified meaning.”[6]  It is only when these dreadful words are taken in their natural sense that the preceding passage in intelligible.  To take them otherwise is to evacuate them of the pathos.  Scripture must be dealt with faithfully and by following the normal rules of grammar and syntax their true meaning ascertained and a faithful interpretation will result.    

When Scripture was being written under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, it was completed by ordinary men using normal means of grammar and syntax.  So, when an interpreter follows properly ‘the laws of language,’ he can know what the Scriptures specifically mean.  That means, further, that an unconverted sinner can understand enough of the message of salvation to bring him, by the Holy Spirit, into a reconciled relationship with God through Christ.  He cannot understand the Scripture spiritually, but he can understand the plain meaning of the text.  It will be this level of understanding which will eventually condemn that sinner because he knew enough to be saved, but chose rather to reject the offered salvation.  Indeed, Hodge affirms[7] that because Scripture has been given either to all men promiscuously or to the body of believers corporately, many of whom were slaves, they were capable of understanding their salvific message, as many in fact did.  Indeed, the perspicuity of Scripture means that the obscurity that any Bible reader may find in some parts of Scripture is not the fault of Scripture but is rather the fault of finite and sinful mankind.

Theologians and preachers who give the impression to their people that they cannot understand the Bible without their sermons, lectures, expositions have already set up a Protestant magisterium similar to that created by Roman Catholicism.  Rome’s adherents depend upon the official teaching of the church for them to understand properly the teaching of Scripture.  The role of theologians and preachers is to help their people to love and to study God’s Word for themselves.  They are not the final authority in the interpretation of Scripture, nor are the various confessional formulations (such as, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Savoy Declaration, Baptist Confession of Faith, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, etc) to which they adhere.[8]  DML-J not only stressed the importance of this principle, but demonstrated it in his evangelistic preaching, refusing to allow any human composition, however excellent it might be, to determine or restrict his message. 

Historically, attempts were made to ensure that biblical interpretations cohered with the theological stance described in the Westminster Confession of Faith (and its theological siblings).  In the years immediately following the apostolic era, the church Fathers in a sense ‘denied’ Scripture’s perspicuity by indulging in allegorical interpretations of the OT text.  Augustine following Ambrose took this pathway initially, claiming that it was the allegorical interpretation that freed him to understand catholic faith.  This meant that ‘ordinary’ believers just did not know how to understand the Scripture in keeping with the official position of the church of that time.  Further, they subordinated the Old Testament to the New, and made the latter the key to understanding the former.  There is a sense in which this is a proper approach because revelation is progressive, culminating in the NT, but it in effect negates the theology revealed in the OT.  Thus historic-grammatical canons of biblical interpretation were jettisoned in favour of forms of allegorical interpretation.  The Fathers therefore denied the perspicuity of Scripture by creating sometimes wild interpretations that ordinary people just could not follow or understand.

Later theological developments saw the further denial of the perspicuity of Scripture when the authority to declare what the literal sense of Scripture is rests in the church alone.   Thus, the birth of the Church’s magisterium.  This meant that instead of the literal sense of Scripture being the plain sense, it has become the ‘private property’ of the Spirit endowed Church.  Also, the grammar and syntax of the Bible which are the means by which the intention of the author is expressed, is lost when the plain sense of Scripture is abandoned.  Hence, the elevated place given to the magisteria.

Since, according to this view, God gave to the Roman Church the right to determine what Scripture means, the problem of the perspicuity of Scripture is solved.  Scripture means what the church says that it means.  Or, within Protestantism, Scripture means what the church declares it to mean through her confessional formulations – the Protestant magisterium.  This position differs little from that declared by Rome at the Council of Trent[9] when she said that no one shall seek to interpret the sacred text of Scripture relying on their own skill, in matters of faith and morals, or presume to interpret the text in a way that is contrary to the sense given by the holy mother church.  She alone can give the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Protestant churches believe differently, at least in theory.  Every Christian has the right to search the Scriptures for himself and come to a conclusion about what they teach on certain important matters of faith and practice.  There are no church officers, class of officers, or Bible expositors to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are required to submit as a final authority.  In accordance with the Reformation teaching of the priesthood of believer’s, the perspicuity of Scripture means that every Christian has the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself as guided by the Holy Spirit, so that his faith may rest, not on the teaching of any man or of any Church, but on the testimony of Scripture.  Hodge confirms this when he writes that

there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or to apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.[10] 


The obverse of this is that Scripture is the only authoritative voice in the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is “to be interpreted in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian.”[11]  Christians then are authorised to do this for themselves, and can lean on the expertise and knowledge of more learned and experienced Christians.  However, they have no authority to bind the believer to their particular interpretation of Scripture.  DMLJ enjoyed and utilised this dearly-bought freedom to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and teach others also. 

What of creeds and confessions?  As to form, they bind only those who voluntarily profess or subscribe them.  As to content, “they bind only so far as they affirm what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.”[12]  Where they depart in any respect from Scripture, we must follow Scripture and suspend our allegiance to that subordinate standard.  In other words, we follow a man or a confessional document only insofar as they unambiguously follow Scripture.

To summarize, it is freely admitted that everything in Scripture is not alike plain in itself, nor is it alike clear to all who read it; yet those things are set out clearly that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation.  They are so clearly presented that not only the learned, but the unlearned, as they use they ordinary means of comprehension, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.   What may be unclear in one place may be explained more clearly in another.

The practical lessons from the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture include thankfulness to the gracious God who clearly reveals in the Bible how one’s sins can be forgiven and at the same time righteousness affirmed, how and where to obtain eternal life, and how to live a life that is pleasing to God.  

Clarity of Scripture is denied by every false theology, usually by putting something else between Scripture and the reader.  It may be a priesthood, the teachings of a cult’s founder, an inner light, a critical methodology, a confession of faith, or a postmodern hermeneutic.  These all in their own way deny Scripture’s perspicuity. 

Finally, pastors and preachers may need to be reminded never to give the impression to their people that they cannot understand the Bible without their sermons.  This is timely for the focus of this study because so much of the controversy revolves around whether or not Scripture speaks with a clear voice on what the content of the Gospel actually is.  If it is not clear in its natural meaning concerning the way of reconciliation with God, then it is unclear in what matters most.

The Bible is a precious book, and is able to make people wise unto salvation, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness—and it is abundantly clear.

It is necessary now to examine, from an exegetical point of view, what the relevant Scriptures actually say and teach, what DML-J and his three mentors have said, and also gain a flavour of what those who hold to a different exegesis believe




[1]    See the Baptist Confession of Faith, London, 1688.  Cf.  the Westminster Confession of Faith, 
        London, 1647. 
[2]    2 Pet.3:16.
[3]    Cf. Hodge, 1879/1972:85.
[4]    Davis,    260, n.18.
[5]    Davis,    264.
[6]    Dale, 1875:61, 62.
[7]    Hodge, 1879/1972:86.
[8]    It must be conceded that those churches that have their distinctive doctrines embodied in confessions of 
        faith state clearly that they are subordinate standards, the supreme standards being the Holy Scriptures. 
        However, fine and true these words are, they are observed more in the breech than in the observance 
        by confessional churches.
[9]    1545-1563.
[10]  Hodge, 1879/1972:86.
[11]  Hodge, 1879/1972:87.
[12]  Ibid.

No comments: