The Obscurity of Scripture
Nov 26th, 2023 | By Casey Chalk | Category: Lead ArticleEarlier this year, Called to Communion editor Casey Chalk published his second book, The Obscurity of Scripture, a critical assessment of the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity, a doctrine that was central to the story of Casey’s reversion to the Catholic faith in 2010. The article below briefly summarizes the arguments contained in The Obscurity of Scripture, and then addresses several arguments raised by Protestant critics of the book since its publishing. We at Called to Communion hope that this article will provoke further discussion regarding the perspicuity thesis and its shortcomings, as well as a consideration of an alternative means of understanding the interpretation of Scripture as articulated by the Catholic Church. -eds.
I remember the first time I encountered the word perspicuity. I was an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia and a young Calvinist, having been persuaded to adopt Reformed theology by reading the works of the late R.C. Sproul. I had been accepted to Reformed Theological Seminary, and had already taken my first course there. Reading the Westminster Confession of Faith for the first time, I was in awe of Chapter One, Paragraph Seven:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet 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.
I was struck by the confident, succinct wording of the Westminster divines. It encapsulated something I had believed, albeit implicitly, since I was a high-school evangelical. Of course Scripture must be clear, at least on salvation, otherwise how could we have any confidence we were saved? And since our knowledge of Christ and salvation is derived only from Scripture, I thought, then Scriptureâs clarity is de facto presumed. Though I wouldnât have been able to articulate it, perspicuity seemed a linchpin doctrine for Reformed theology.
Yet even if I believed in Scriptureâs clarity, and now had a more impressive, academic word and historic definition for it, there was something troubling about the doctrine. I had already taken a course at UVA entitled âPaulâs Letters,â which introduced me to the New Perspective on Paul, an academic movement begun in the 1960âs among mostly Protestant scholars. NPP adherents argued that Luther had grossly misinterpreted Paul, including on salvation, misreading the âApostle to the Gentilesâ through the lens of Lutherâs own frustrations with late-Medieval Catholicism, rather than trying to understand Paul as a first-century Jew. Most saliently for me as a young, zealous Calvinist, many NPP scholars argued that far from teaching sola fide, Paul believed baptism, among other things, was necessary for salvation and entrance into the covenant. Moreover, they argued, Paul actually believed one could lose oneâs salvation.
Understandably, for me the question of the legitimacy of NPP scholarship loomed largest during my years at RTS. I wanted to know: can we have confidence in our Reformed interpretation of Paul? Were NPP interpretations of Paul credible, perhaps stronger than our own? I took a seminary class by Guy Waters, one of the preeminent Reformed critics of NPP, and read his book Justification & the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, as well as another by Reformed biblical scholar Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. Alternatively, I read NPP advocates E.P. Sanders, N.T Wright and James D.G. Dunn.
Though reading Reformed biblical scholars gave me effective rhetorical ammunition against NPP, I had to confess I remained a novice when it came to biblical interpretation and the various complexities of historical, linguistic, and textual analysis. Though I moved on to other seminary courses and debates, a thought lingered in the back of my mind: if Scripture was so clear, why were so many people, including Protestants, sometimes even Protestants within the same theological tradition, debating not only esoteric issues, but the very core doctrines of the Christian faith? As Iâve written elsewhere at Called To Communion, it was this, coupled with concerns over the canon and interpretive authority â which are intimately related to perspicuity â that ultimately led me to renounce the Reformed tradition in favor of Catholicism.
I. A Brief Summary of The Obscurity of Scripture
Earlier this year, I published a critical assessment of the doctrine of perspicuity entitled The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (Emmaus Road Publishing, 2023). In this present article, I’d like to briefly summarize the main arguments of that book and address some of the Protestant critiques of it that Iâve observed thus far. My hope is that this will encourage further discussion of my book and the arguments therein, as I believe perspicuity is an overlooked, but deeply foundational (and problematic) doctrine in the Protestant (and particularly Reformed) tradition.
In the first chapter of The Obscurity of Scripture, I describe the various definitions of perspicuity within Protestantism, definitions which are themselves in tension: some say Scripture is clear in regards to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, others that most, if not all of it is. As a former Presbyterian, I am (unsurprisingly) inclined towards the definition supplied by the Westminster Confession Faith. However, in its favor I would note that it is one of the narrower conceptions of the doctrine, and thus more defensible â the more of Scripture that one must prove is clear, the harder the task. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the wide variance regarding what constitutes Scriptureâs clarity, as that fact itself reflects the very same type of irreconcilable divergence one finds in reference to all of Protestantism and its many manifestations.
Though the word perspicuity is not well known today among Protestants, I believe it to be the most bedrock of Protestant doctrines. This is because Protestantism at its heart is a theological system originating from a debate over religious authority: specifically, who has it. Who has the authority to define and interpret the contents of the biblical canon? Even Protestants in âhigh-churchâ traditions such as Anglicanism find that authority not in an institution, but in the conscience of the individual Christian. Luther, when pressed at the Diet of Worms, asserted that it was neither right nor safe to violate his conscience, even when confronted with the authority of ecumenical councils. All Protestants, knowingly or unknowingly, inherit that âLutheranâ paradigm of individual interpretive authority, armed with the ability to assess the scriptural veracity of denominations and churches, and free to leave one for another if conscience dictates.
My book addresses what I deem to be four categorical problems with perspicuity. The first of these are the logical and philosophical problems, one of which is the fact that arguments leveled in support of perspicuity presume precisely what is in question (namely, that Scripture is clear), and thus are question-begging. Another philosophical problem with perspicuity is that its adherents must consistently exclude from fellowship or theological consideration those biblical interpretations regarding salvation or the âessentials of the faithâ held by other self-described Christians that do not align with their own particular interpretation of the Bible in order to maintain their clarity thesis. This too is a logical fallacy, called special pleading.
The second category of problems with perspicuity is ecclesial. Perspicuity, I argue, elevates the individual at the expense of the church, by transferring ultimate authority from the latter to the former, since it is ultimately the individual who maintains an interpretive âvetoâ that enables him to depart one church for another, or even found his own, if necessary. Moreover, perspicuity also proliferates opinions among self-described Christians with no means of adjudicating disagreements besides reference to biblical interpretation â which is precisely what is in question â thus creating an irresolvable dilemma within the Protestant paradigm. And perspicuity marginalizes the role of tradition, since the individual Christian is free to choose what traditions he accepts or rejects to aid him in his interpretation of the Bible.
Perspicuity also results in sociological problems. If the Bible is clear, then anyone who disagrees with someone holding to that thesis must have some sort of defect. Otherwise, he would agree with the perspicuity-holding Christian. Consequently, since the earliest days of the Reformation the means of explaining this problem has been to ascribe a problem to the character of oneâs interlocutor, whether that interlocutor is Catholic, Protestant, or something else: either he is willfully obstinate in refusing to accept the Bibleâs plain language, or he is deceived by the devil, or he is culpably ignorant. All of these explanations presume the best about oneself, and the worst about others.
Finally, I argue that the history of the doctrine of perspicuity since the beginning of the Reformation presents a helpful case study in the disastrous effects of the doctrine. Over the last five centuries, we have witnessed countless divisions among Protestants into various ecclesial communities and theological ghettos over any number of religious disagreements, with no means of adjudicating those divisions besides referral to the individual conscience and its opinion over the Bibleâs supposedly plain meaning. These divisions arise from the same âLutheran problemâ: the exaltation of the individual conscience in defining the extent and character of divine revelation, as well as its interpretation.
The second half of my book is devoted to offering a Catholic counter to the doctrine of perspicuity. There is a chapter explaining Catholic dogmatic teaching on the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, and how magisterial interpretive authority provides an effective, objective guardrail for understanding the Bible and Tradition. I discuss how the Church Fathers understood the interpretation of Scripture and address some of the more common Protestant patristic âproof-textsâ in favor of the doctrine of perspicuity. I have two chapters engaging the most commonly cited biblical âproof-textsâ for and against the doctrine of perspicuity, though my goal there is not to decisively prove one interpretation superior to another, but rather to explain to interested readers how the Catholic tradition has understood pro-perspicuity proof-texts, and what biblical texts the Church cites to support its own understanding of biblical interpretation. Finally, I respond to several of the most common Protestant objections to Catholic critiques of doctrine of perspicuity, as well as to objections to the Catholic interpretive paradigm more broadly.
II. Addressing Criticisms of The Obscurity of Scripture
Having summarized the contents and arguments of my book, Iâll devote the remainder of this article to addressing some of the objections I have observed to The Obscurity of Scripture from various Protestant critics. My hope is that this response will encourage further debate over the merits of the perspicuity thesis, and lead Christians from various ecclesial traditions to consider alternatives to this doctrine. I should also note that some prominent critics of Called to Communion, including Baptist apologist James White and Presbyterian historian D.G. Hart, have criticized my book, but I could not identify an argument in their criticism, and thus I will not be engaging with their comments here (though I certainly welcome arguments from them).
A. Am I Clearer Than Scripture?
One counter-argument begins by posing the question that if Scripture needs an interpretive authority to be understood, wouldnât my book, as well? Otherwise, the argument goes, I would be asserting myself as clearer than Scripture. For example, a Twitter/X account titled âOperation St Cyprianâ posted: âNew Catholic book defending the obscurity of Scripture. If the author doesnât come to my home to read it next to me, will I understand anything? Just assume anyone who takes this position is b/c theyâre spiritually dead themselves.â
This retort, I think, derives from a misunderstanding of my argument. My argument is not that all of Scripture is so hopelessly obscure that Christians cannot understand any of it, nor benefit from it. Nor do I argue that individual Christians are incapable of rightly interpreting specific verses of the Bible. Rather, my argument is that Scripture, even if we desire to submit to it as the inspired, inerrant word of God, cannot effect a unity of belief among self-professed Christians regarding what counts as dogma or the essentials of the faith. Thus these two writings (i.e. my book and the Bible) stand in different relations to two different purposes: the former to articulate an argument criticizing the doctrine of perspicuity; the latter as to whether or not it is capable of unifying Christians (as a Catholic, I argue it is not, because God did not intend Scripture to do this absent a magisterial authority).
An example from the history of Christian theological development may help clarify this distinction. The early Church required multiple ecumenical councils to articulate the trinitarian conception of God that many Christians â be they Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox â taken for granted today. Prior to the councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Chalcedon (451 A.D.), there was considerable debate on the nature of God, so much so that for a time Arianism, according to which Jesus is not co-eternal nor co-equal with the Father, was a popular position held by many Christians, including some bishops. Arian Christians cited many biblical passages to support their understanding of God. And, even after Chalcedon, Arianism remained popular among some Christians, as it does today, for example, among Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, and several denominations within the Sabbatarian tradition, as well as many others.
A Protestant today may claim that he is Trinitarian because it is the clear teaching of Scripture â but the history of the Church, and the continued existence of many non-Trinitiarian self-described Christians undermines that thesis. Indeed, as I studied the historian of Trinitarian theology when I was a seminary student, I realized it was unlikely that I, on my own, without recourse to an authoritative theological tradition, would have been able to formulate the Trinitarian doctrine (e.g. three persons, one nature) promulgated by Nicea and Chalcedon. Thus even if a Protestant today is correct to interpret Scripture as Trinitarian, that Protestant has no means of authoritatively confirming that interpretation apart from reference to his own conscience. And if the Protestant grants that Nicea and Chalcedon have authority over his conscience vis-a-vis religious truth, he would have to provide some principled reason why those ecumenical councils possess that power, and not all ecumenical councils.
I am not claiming in The Obscurity of Scripture that I am clearer than Godâs word. Indeed, anyone reading my book without any knowledge of Church history or Catholic-Protestant theological debates would probably find my book somewhat difficult, even obscure. I do my best to present my arguments in a lucid, accessible manner. I readily acknowledge the possibility of failing in that endeavor, especially given that my book is attempting to unite various streams of history, theology, philosophy, and even sociology. Nevertheless, my book is making arguments accessible to human reason, something all persons possess, and over which they exercise a certain natural authority via their will. The perspicuity thesis, in contrast, presumes individual Christians have not only an authority to exercise their intellect to reason about nature, but a certain religious authority: namely, to interpret Godâs Word. Moreover, I am not adopting some form of deconstructionism that makes the meaning of texts up to the reader. Rather, I am arguing that Scripture is not perspicuous with respect to a particular purpose: the unity of the Church with regard to doctrine.
B. Responding to Kyle A. Dillon
The most extensive critique of my book thus far has been from Kyle A. Dillon, an assistant pastor at Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church in Germantown, Tennessee, and theology teacher at Westminster Academy in Memphis, Tennessee. In a lecture uploaded to YouTube, Mr. Dillon devotes an hour to engaging (quite charitably) with The Obscurity of Scripture.
i. Do Protestants Affirm Not the Individualâs Authority, But Accountability to God?
In response to my argument that perspicuity necessitates a paradigm in which the individual is the ultimate authority over Scriptural interpretation, Dillon responds: âProtestants affirm not the individualâs authority but accountability to God.â By this, Dillon means that God will hold individual Protestants responsible for their interpretation of the Bible. He adds: âWeâre not the ultimate authority, God isâ; and âWe are only bound to the Word of God.â Dillon asks, by way of comparison, if individual citizens have the right to exercise civil disobedience against unjust laws, does that mean that he/she has authority over the civil government? In other words, per Dillon, just as citizens retain the right to disobey unjust laws â and this does not mean they possess authority over civil government â individual Christians retain the right to reject the teachings of churches which they believe to be erroneous, as long as their reasons are biblically-grounded.
In response, I want to emphasize that I understand that many Protestants, including Dillon, do not believe their theological system places ultimate interpretive authority in the conscience of the individual Christian, but rather they are subject to God as He has revealed Himself through His word. Yet the claim that the individual Protestant is simply obeying God when he reads and interprets the Bible, both presumes the very issue in question (namely, the doctrine of clarity), and collapses the Bible and its interpretation into one another, as if they are the same thing. But they are not the same thing. Scripture is a text, and the reader of Scripture is an individual person attempting to understand the meaning of that text. Thus every time a Protestant reads the Bible and subjects himself to it, he is not necessarily obeying God, but his interpretation of the text.
What of Dillonâs argument comparing how individual Christians relate to their ecclesial communities to the way individual citizens relate to their governments? The premise of this argument is that the way Christians relate to the church is in some respect analogous to the way citizens relate to governing authorities. However, this premise is disanalogous, because citizens do not have ultimate interpretive authority over civil law, which is the point in question with regard to my claim that the doctrine of perspicuity entails a paradigm in which the individual retains ultimate interpretive authority of Scripture. The answer to Dillonâs question â if individual citizens have the right to exercise civil disobedience against unjust laws, does that mean that he/she has authority over the civil government? â is of course no. Citizens must not comply with unjust laws, because they are subject to a higher power, God. And that’s true regardless of the form of civil government. But this obligation not to comply with unjust civil laws does not give citizens interpretive authority over the meaning of civil laws. To be analogous, Dillonâs example would have to make civil law perspicuous in the sense that individual citizens have the authority to decide for themselves what civil laws mean, and establish for themselves legislators and judges who interpret them the way individual citizens do.
There is a further problem with Dillonâs analogy: the citizen, posits Dillon, recognizes that secular authorities exert a coercive power over the individual citizen, but that the citizen reserves the right to disobey those authorities if he determines that those authorities are compelling him to do something that is unjust and a violation of his individual conscience. Thus, it would appear, governing authorities only have as much authority as a citizen willingly grants them. Perhaps you can perceive the tension here.
Dillonâs argument has created a (presumably unintentional) dilemma: having first asserted that perspicuity does not necessitate a paradigm in which the individual has ultimate interpretive authority but rather is subject to a true authority (namely, the word of God), the analogy he uses to press his point is one in which the individual is subject to an authority derivative of others (namely, the consent of the governed). Thus Dillonâs analogy implicitly acknowledges that churches only have as much as authority as their members are willing to grant them. Otherwise, Dillon would have to concede that churches retain the right to coerce their members, even if those members disagree with church teaching. Yet that would violate the very principle of the âfreedom of the Christian,â as Luther described it, a concept that rests at the center of Protestantism. This is so because, in the Protestant paradigm, individual Christians are free to reject doctrines or disobey ecclesial teachings they disagree with if those doctrines or teachings are in conflict with their personal interpretation of the Bible. Otherwise, this would violate the individual Christianâs conscience.
In sum, if the authority Protestant churches possess is no different than that possessed by secular civil governments, this only reinforces the claim that perspicuity facilitates a paradigm in which the individual Christian possesses ultimate interpretive authority. The Church, or churches, would be institutions comprised of autonomous individuals, free to change these religious institutions to suit their personal opinions, or disobey, reject, and change them as conscience dictates. Godâs Church, it would seem, would be no different than, for example, France and its five republics since 1789.
What if there is a different way to understand the relationship between Christians the Church, one that is not analogous to the way citizens relate to civil government? What if, for example, the Church is not a voluntary association of autonomous individuals who are free to conscientiously object to Church teaching when that teaching is contrary to their personal interpretation of the Bible? Instead, what if those individuals are compelled to obey Church teaching, even if they disagree with it, because they recognize, based on other criteria besides individual biblical interpretation, that the Church has a divinely-originating authority that gives it the right to compel submission of intellect and will?
The Churchâs power to do this, of course, would be derived from God, rather than independent of Him. But it would require assent, because of the nature of the authority of the institution. Thus for example, we read in the Catholic Code of Canon Law (¶752):
Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisteriumâŠ
The question, of course, is whether or not the Church has such a divinely-originative authority, which is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say for now that Dillonâs argument comparing obedience to churches to obedience to civil authorities fails because it supports, rather than contradicts, the idea that Protestantism is individualistic. Moreover, it would only obtain if we had some reason to believe our obedience to civil authorities is indeed analogous to our obedience to ecclesial institutions, a premise Dillon does not prove.
ii. Does âThe Rule of Faithâ Resolve Disagreements Among Protestants?
In response to my argument that perspicuity demands a paradigm in which there is no objective criteria by which to resolve interpretive disagreements, Dillon cites the ârule of faithâ as an âobjective, empirical guardrail,â one that is an âauthoritative yet subordinate summary of apostolic teachingâ that have been handed down through church history. This ârule of faith,â explains Dillon, relying on the work of Calvinist scholar Keith Mathison, developed from apostolic oral teaching to an uninspired summary of apostolic teaching to fixed formulas for baptismal instruction to semi-formal and later formal creeds, and eventually advanced formal creeds such as the Nicene Creed of the fourth century.
Yet appeals to a supposedly objective and empirical ârule of faithâ create more problems than they purport to solve. For starters, there is the issue of what constitutes the rule of faith, and how does one determine what is included therein. For example, it is unclear from Dillonâs presentation what criteria he uses to assess which early church documents or creedal formulas are included in the rule of faith, and which are excluded. Nor, alternatively, is it clear if any of the writings of the early church fathers are included, and, if so, on what grounds.
To take but a few examples, there are the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, or the Shepherd of Hermas, all of which scholars assess to have been either in the first half of the second century, or perhaps even earlier, at the end of the first century. Presumably Irenaeus of Lyon would also have some authority, given his writings include the first historical reference to a ârule of faithâ (e.g. Against Heresies 1.10 and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 6). Yet Irenaeus also speaks of the âauthorityâ of the Christian tradition coming from the Apostles (Against Heresies 1.10.2.; 2.9.1), that this apostolic authority was handed down to bishops, the successors of the apostles (Against Heresies 3.3.1), and that the Church of Rome is preeminent (Against Heresies 3.3.2). Indeed, Irenaeus even asserts that if the Apostles had not left writings, the Church would still be able to âfollow the order of tradition⊠handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churchesâ (Against Heresies 3.4.1). Among these traditions include the belief that Mary is the new Eve and that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice. If Dillon is not willing to assent to all of what Irenaeus teaches about apostolic authority and tradition, what standard would he apply by which he evaluates what is legitimately part of the ârule of faithâ or not?
Moreover, there is the question of the basis for our confidence that the Nicene Creed is an accurate representation of apostolic teaching, especially given that the creed was itself a refutation of beliefs held by other self-professing Christians in the early church. Indeed, the very end of the Nicene Creed anathematizes as heretical various teachings popular among some Christians. On what basis should we subscribe to the teachings of the council fathers at Nicea â because they possessed some extra-biblical authority, or because their teaching aligns with what is deemed to be the âclearâ meaning of Scripture? If the former, how does that authority relate to Scripture? If the latter, the rule of faith seems superfluous given Scriptureâs supposed clarity â as Michael Liccione argued in a 2011 CTC essay responding to Mathison â and also to undermine clarity, given so many early Christians disagreed with Nicene doctrines.
The ârule of faithâ does not solve the problem of interpretive disagreement stemming from the perspicuity thesis. Rather, it is an ad hoc, arbitrary means of claiming an extra-biblical authority which is supposedly true, not because it itself has authority binding on the conscience of the Christian, but because, according to Mathison and Dillon, it delineates the essentials from the non-essentials (though, notably, the Nicene Creed is silent in regards to what is ânecessary for salvationâ). It is an example of the arbitrary use of tradition as a supposed authority within the Protestant paradigm, since it is the Protestant who decides what tradition he will label authoritative. Moreover, the rule of faith as presented by Dillon lacks any method for determining what constitutes authentic and inauthentic development of apostolic teaching post-Nicea.
iii. Are All Appeals to an Absolute Authority Circular?
Finally, Dillon claims that all appeals to an absolute authority, and thus my argument that Protestants question-beg in their use of proof-texts to defend perspicuity fails. Dillon declares: âYou could say all reasoning is circular.â He cites Protestant thinker Matthew Barrettâs book Godâs Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture, in which Barrett argues: âAny appeal to an ultimate authority is necessarily circular. After all, there is no higher authority to appeal to. If there were a higher authority outside of Scripture to appeal to, then Scripture would no longer be the highest authority (and Sola Scriptura would be compromised).â Moreover, Dillon argues, âyou could say there is a circular argument for accepting magisterial authority, too.â
Dillon then says: âWe should expect its [Scriptureâs] clarity to be self-evident,â and says that clarity is âself-evidentâ for those who use âordinary meansâ â such as relying on biblical preaching, reading Scripture within a Bible-believing community, and consulting various biblically-faithful extra-biblical sources â and are guided by the Holy Spirit. Dillon compares this âself-evidentâ quality to the type of certainty that one has regarding the knowledge that the total degrees of a triangle is 180 degrees.
Letâs first consider Dillonâs and Barrettâs argument regarding circular reasoning. Are all appeals to a higher authority necessarily circular, and thus to presume the perspicuity of Scripture is an âacceptableâ form of question-begging? One immediate problem with this argument is that it grants that there is no means of actually debating the veracity of the perspicuity of Scripture, because Dillon is arguing that adherents to the perspicuity thesis are permitted to commit a logical fallacy. This is so, argues Dillon, because Scriptureâs clarity is âself-evident.â Yet that amounts to nothing more than simply asserting that Scripture is clear, as if oneâs interlocutors are simply supposed to accept oneâs opinion despite whatever concerns they have.
To wit, Scriptureâs clarity is quite obviously not self-evident to all those who disagree with the perspicuity thesis, which would seem to suggest that Scripture is not self-evidently clear. And the only way to explain this problem, as I argue in my book, is to impugn some sort of character defect to everyone with whom one disagrees, thus explaining why so many people do not recognize something that is purportedly âself-evident.â Yet on what basis does one presume oneself to be the one to whom God has revealed what is self-evident, while all oneâs interlocutors are wrong, be they willfully ignorant, obstinate, or deceived by the devil?
Moreover, the claim that all appeals to an ultimate authority are circular amounts to nothing more than fideism, the idea that faith is not informed by reason, but simply an exercise of the will. Yet if all arguments are mediated to us through our intellects, they must be evaluated based on reason, which is composed of the human powers of intellect and will. Thus, for example, we believe that the three sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees because it conforms to reason, and our intellects, properly formed, are capable of grasping that truth. It is not because the nature of triangles is âself-evidentâ to us. Or, alternatively, we believe in the existence of God because His existence conforms to reason communicated via arguments, not because He is âself-evident.â Indeed, the classic Thomistic arguments for the existence of God (âthe Five Waysâ) are appeals to an ultimate authority that are not circular, but rather argue from effects to God as first cause.
Granted, there are things in the Western philosophical tradition called âfirst principlesâ â foundational propositions or premises that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or premise, at least not directly. First principles include such axioms as the whole is greater than the parts, or that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time (the law of non-contradiction). To argue otherwise would be self-defeating for any attempt to think reasonably. Belief in Holy Scripture as an ultimate authority that operates in the same way as reason is also self-defeating. Christians should believe in the veracity and divine origin of Scripture because they are persuaded by reasonable arguments â demonstrating, again, that it is reason that is the operative authority â about the Bibleâs veracity and origin, not simply because we assert the Bibleâs veracity and origin based on our interpretation. Otherwise, why not believe in the Quran or Upanishads, Buddha or Odin, if their veracity or divinity is established by mere arbitrary assertion? If we abandon reason as the means by which we evaluate arguments regarding Scripture or God, all we have left is either emotivism (e.g. âI believe X because X feels right to meâ) or purely random arbitrary choice, a cast of the dice.
Dillonâs claim that âyou could say there is a circular argument for accepting magisterial authority, tooâ fails for similar reasons. The Catholic Church does not argue that people should trust in her authority simply because it asserts that it represents God. Rather, it teaches that people should accept its authority because it is grounded upon evidence accessible to human reason, such as the motives of credibility. We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church §156:
So “that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.” Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.
Granted, the Church understands that accepting the Catholic Church to be who she claims to be requires an act of faith, which itself requires the assistance of the Holy Spirit. But it is a faith informed by reason. The Catholic Church does not claim people should accept its claims because it is an ultimate authority, because it says so â that would be circular and self-defeating. Rather, one assents to the Church because he or she has come to be convinced (both by reason and by the motives of credibility, as well as by grace) that the Church is who she claims to be.
Dillon and Barrettâs argument also elides the problem that the proof-texts cited by pro-perspicuity adherents to affirm scriptureâs clarity are interpreted differently by those who do not affirm perspicuity. Why must Dillon and Barrettâs interpretation be right, and not someone elseâs? Thus all that Dillonâs argument amounts to is this: âMy interpretation of these proof-texts demonstrates that scripture is clear to me and those who agree with me.â Yet, as Iâve argued above, to argue this way collapses the text into oneâs personal interpretation of that text, as if they are the same thing. This would consequently mean either that Dillon and Barrett are themselves God, or that they have been given some manner of divinely-derivative authority to rightly interpret the Bible on Godâs behalf. I know Dillon and Barrett would reject the former. The latter is precisely the paradigm necessitated by perspicuity, placing religious authority in the conscience of the individual.
Please permit me one more observation before I close. Dillon, channeling Barrett, argues that if one granted there to be an authority outside of Scripture to which one could appeal, this would vitiate sola scriptura. Yet this argument presumes sola scriptura, which is another issue of fundamental disagreement between Protestants and Catholics, and is thus yet another form of question-begging. It is to effectively say âwe cannot grant X, because to grant X would be to undermine Y, which cannot be questioned.â Yet such an argument is antithetical to both reason and ecumenical dialogue, since it refuses to evaluate the legitimacy of a contested presupposition, and because it de facto refuses to identify common ground from which one can debate an interlocutor. Anyone seeking to argue in good faith must reject such self-serving assertions.
III. Concluding Remarks
I would like to thank Kyle Dillon for reading and engaging with my book. It is, thus far, the most substantive response to my arguments regarding perspicuity. Indeed, I have sincere respect for any person who attempts, in good faith, to understand and engage with the arguments I have offered in The Obscurity of Scripture. Indeed, I believe Pastor Dillon, to his credit, has very much sought to charitably present and refute my arguments against the perspicuity thesis.
Nevertheless, Dillonsâ arguments in favor of perspicuity fail. They fail not because of any defect in Dillon himself, but because the perspicuity thesis fails, and has failed, for five centuries of Protestant history. Late in my time as a Presbyterian seminarian, I recognized that failure. My prayer is that Dillon and many other Protestant Christians, Reformed and others, will, through the arguments presented in my book, come to the same conclusion. Until they do, I very much welcome further critiques of The Obscurity of Scripture.
Casey,
Thanks for the informative and thought provoking article. I too have had similar hesitations with this notion as laid out in the WCF. One thing in particular that has caught my attention for a while is its emphasis on the âmeans of graceââas you pointed out, biblical preaching. But this seems to me to be a horribly meaningless definition of perspicuity then. It seems like it is basically saying: âIf you listen to someone tell you what scripture means every week, then youâll know what it means.â Let me know if Iâm off in my understanding on that. That said, hopefully you can see why that is really, if Iâm understanding it right, a pretty useless doctrine. Of course Iâll know what it means if someone is explaining to me what it means every week. To me, the only real purpose of the perspicuity of scripture would be to determine what actually IS biblical preaching. The WCF definition seems to presuppose youâre sitting under biblical preaching with no real way of knowing whether you actually are or not. (Iâm PCA)
Hi Jack,
Thank you for reading the article and your kind words. Yes, I think the problem with the “ordinary means” cited in the WCF in regards to perspicuity is that it is an exercise in circular reasoning. According to the WCF, the way that an individual Christian comes to understand Scripture’s plain meaning is, in part, by identifying a church that features biblically-sound preaching that informs an individual’s interpretation. But how can one determine if such a church features biblically-sound preaching? By evaluating that preaching based on one’s personal interpretation of Scripture, implying that it’s really the individual Christian’s interpretation of Scripture that is the decisive element that presupposes everything else. So the “ordinary means” cited in the WCF becomes nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias (e.g. “I want biblical preaching to help me understand what Scripture means, but I’m the one who decides what constitutes biblical preaching”). Hope that’s helpful to you. in Christ,
Casey
Dear Casey,
Thank you for the article and also the book.
I’m a Lutheran from Malaysia and as such have to say that Luther is not only much maligned but precisely also much misinterpreted. Even confessional Lutherans (by the way there’re no confessional Lutherans in Malaysia as unique among all the Southeast Asian countries except for a small ministerium involving Lutheran ministers belonging to a non-confessional denomination based in East Malaysia; I’m in West) don’t follow Luther on his most essential understanding regarding the absolute distinction between the Preached and Unpreached God – what more other confessional Protestants who altogether claim identity with that 16th century Protestant Reformation.
The solas of the Reformation as understood by Luther doesn’t actually mean what Protestants mean especially as embodied by the non-Lutheran confessions such as the WCF and 3 Forms of Unity, etc.
Firstly, sola scriptura doesn’t mean propositional revelation constituting the regulative principle for the life and witness of the Church. This would mean then that sola fide is disentangled from sola scriptura as correlate/co-efficient. Sola scriptura refers to both the enscripturated text as well as the recontextualisation and recapitulation and repetition of divine revelation under a different *form*, namely *proclamation* of the *external* Word, orally and sacramentally. This means that sola scriptura is centred on a person and not book specifically the person of the priest standing in persona Christi. It’s a dynamic concept involving the interaction between theology and liturgy. The proclamation of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments (which presupposes and implies the proclamation of the Law) as *embodied* by the priest *is* sola scriptura so that ecclesial *authority* is understood not in the legal sense but evangelical – as that of the binding and loosing commission of the Church in freeing and liberating bound consciences and wills – bondage of the will as correlate of justification by faith alone – so that sola scriptura as proclamation is correlated to faith as created and re-created anew by way of hearing and, by extension, receiving the Word & Sacraments (including Absolution as the 3rd Sacrament) …
Secondly, following on from this, the perspicuity of Scripture, therefore, means the clarity or *external* clarity of the preached Word, i.e., ***for you*** … clarity therefore results in *certainty*, i.e., the absolute guarantee of the infallible and efficacious and unthwartable *promise* of Christ in Baptism, Absolution & the Sacrament of the Altar. Again, perspicuity and clarity (co)relates to first language discourse and not second which is to say, the discourse of “I-to-you” … in other words, propositional revelation as applied in an event (i.e., proclamation by the Ministry of Word & Sacrament of the authoritative office of the ministerial priesthood) which occurs in the living present … the performative Word that does what it says and says what it does … so that Scripture doesn’t remain a text but comes alive and extends to us and we in turn are interpreted *by* Scripture so that our live stories become enmeshed with the biblical stories and narratives … so that salvation history doesn’t remain historical or in the past but becomes part of our Christian life as “bracketed” by Baptism …
Thirdly, this means that the concept of Scripture being its own interpreter has to be understood as not we interpreting Scripture but the other around, i.e., Scripture interpreting us … Scripture has feet, eyes, lips, voice, etc. and is also at simultaneously eschatological … Scripture brings the future into our lives as much as the past … sola Scripture which entails some terminus point marks the end of the hearer and a new beginning … a rewriting and overriding of our personal histories … perspicuity of Scripture, therefore, has to be understood in terms also of its *function* and *impact* upon the hearer … as undergirded and driven by the absolute distinction between the proclamation of the Law and of the Gospel as polar opposites or opposing and contradictory Words, both formally as well as materially … Scripture is perspicuous and clear when we can distinguish between what is the Law and what is the Gospel … between what’s in us and what outside of us (i.e., the extra nos) … between experience versus faith … and hence back to the absolute distinction between the Hidden and Revealed God …
Fourthly, sola Christus & sola gratia are then precisely correlated with sola Scriptura & sola fide as faith (in the Revealed or Preached God) versus experience (of the Hidden or Unpreached God) … that is no mere concepts but existential and experiential and practical realities as embodied by the simul “composition” of the Christian, i.e., both saint and sinner at the same time … which then brings us to “crux sola est nostra theologia”, or âthe cross alone is our theology” … again not as theology as such but being *theologians* of the Cross … where the perspicuity of Scripture *contests or is in conflict with* experience – not as between the intellect and lower faculties but as between the Old Adam/Eve versus the New Adam/Eve …
So that perspicuity of Scripture therefore takes on a Christological dimension and is indeed Christo-centric … it means that the Word of God is hidden under the form of opposites (sub contrario) and in such as way as to contradict our experience (sub contradictio) … so the perspicuity of Scripture then contrary to the Protestant misconceptions doesn’t mean intellectual (propositional) but existential (personal).
Fifthly, does it mean then there’s no room for Tradition? There is where Tradition is understood as the proclamation of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments which is passed on by way of ordination and the liturgy as set within the life and witness of the Church … this means that the creeds of the Church represents both the Gospel as well as simultaneously the Church’s response (confession and witness) to the Gospel which is constitutive of the Church (the Church as creature of the Gospel) … in this sense, the authority of church councils as constituting part of Tradition then expresses the regulative part to safeguard the Church from error by ensuring the right and correct and true understanding of the substance of the Gospel, namely Jesus Christ in Whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily …
In this sense, Christ is not only the substance of Scripture but also of Tradition, i.e., directly and immediately by way of proclamation by the priest standing in persona Christi as exercising the highest authority in the Church (evangelical – binding and loosing) with the authority of church councils as correlate as corresponding to the two/dual natures of the Church as eschatological and ontological, right-hand and left-hand kingdoms …
So, Scripture makes sense and is very clear and perspicuous – indeed divine revelation and tradition are very clear when Christ is the centre of everything.
In the final analysis, for Luther, Scripture doesn’t trump Tradition precisely because divine revelation exists under two forms, i.e., Scripture & Tradition (proclamation as constitutive, conciliar authority as regulative) … co-equals but different functions and roles in the life and witness of the Church …
Hi Jason,
Thanks for taking the time to consider the article. I lived in Thailand for several years and visited Malaysia on two occasions — it’s a beautiful country.
You wrote: “So, Scripture makes sense and is very clear and perspicuous.” But I don’t see any evidence to support that assertion anywhere in your comment. If you believe there is evidence that Scripture is “very clear and perspicuous,” could you please provide it so we can dialogue about it?
You also wrote:
“Thirdly, this means that the concept of Scripture being its own interpreter has to be understood as not we interpreting Scripture but the other around, i.e., Scripture interpreting us ⊠Scripture has feet, eyes, lips, voice, etc. and is also at simultaneously eschatological.”
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “Scripture interpreting us,” or that Scripture has various body parts. Could you explain what you mean by this?
in Christ,
Casey
Dear Casey,
So glad that you’ve visited Malaysia twice before and lived in Thailand :-)
By scriptural perspicuity, I mean in the external sense, i.e., by way of proclamation of the Word of God as two words, namely Law (command) and Gospel (promise).
Hence, perspicuity for me as a Lutheran is unlike other Protestants for whom Scripture is understood in the propositional and, by extension, regulative sense. In other words, it’s what Scripture does to us in coming alive when it’s proclaimed and preached – Scripture’s impact on the hearer. Does the Word terrify the conscience necessarily? Or does the Word comfort the conscience necessarily?
As you know, for the Reformed & Presbyterian, for example, Scripture is regulative of worship (notwithstanding differences on the “extent”) . Thus, perspicuity is understood in that sense. But for us Lutherans, particularly, Lutherans who are evangelical catholics and interpret the Book of Concord in accordance with the spirit and teachings of Luther (as contained in the Bondage of the Will, especially), perspicuity is understood, in the final analysis, as how it impacts the Christian under the judgment of the Law and justification of the Gospel which takes place by way of the first language discourse of “I-to-you” (e.g., I absolve you). So that the clarity of Scripture, at the end of the day, isn’t confined or bound to the text itself (the syntax, grammar, authorial intent in its historical-specific context, etc.) but transcends time and space and intrudes into the living present day o that “I” as the *hearer* (rather than reader as such) is placed in the same situation as the original recipient of divine revelation.
Meaning that Scripture always *includes*/presupposes/implies the hearer (reader). So that it’s not we who “internalise” Scripture but Scripture is the one which internalises us into its story – salvation history.
In other words, for us Lutherans, perspicuity of Scripture can only be properly understood in light of the Word as divine revelation divided into Law (command) and/or Gospel (promise).
Here, the “initiative” or the active participation of the interpreter is wrested from him and placed squarely with Scripture as active and living so that the interpreter is rendered passive. This also has to do with the understanding that interpretation is not a *”neutral”* task — faith seeking understanding — but a conflict or confrontation between the hearer and the Word, i.e., faith enduring attack (Luther’s tentatio) which means that for the Christian, it’s a matter of believing in the promises despite or in contradiction to experience of life in this old creation.
So, by “Scripture interpreting us”, it’s meant that Scripture as *proclaimed* to us.
Therefore, by Scripture having body parts, it’s a metaphor or alleosis to refer to its embodiment by the priest standing in persona Christi.
In other words, to reiterate, scriptural perspicuity doesn’t take place from the external clarity of Scripture in terms of its proclamation as both Law and Gospel. This calls to mind the passage in Hebrews 4:12, where God’s Word is declared to be âquick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword”. According to Greek scholars, it’s said that the original Greek for “powerful” means “full of energy, energized, active, effective”. This is precisely our meaning that Scripture interprets us – as the Word of God renders us passive by *judging* (analytic “interpretation”) us as sinners and at the same time (albeit in temporal sequence) *justifying* (synthetic “interpretation”) us anew by raising up the New Adam/Eve (as per Romans 6).
Unlike the Reformed for whom the Spirit precedes the Word (and hence the uncatholic notion of revival and revivalism), for us Lutherans, the Word precedes the Spirit and is the sole active Subject whereby the hearer is completely passive (due to the bound will).
In short, sola scriptura doesn’t mean the text alone. As an evangelical catholic and Lutheran who follow Luther (i.e., including his anti-scholasticism, with all due respect, nonetheless), sola scriptura entails both Scripture as the textual Word *as well as* Scripture as the external Word (proclaimed, preached, ministered) as one, indivisible and unified whole. Like the Incarnation, Scripture is a composite or “theandric” of two natures and energies (namely written and spoken) so that one cannot be conceived or understood without the other. So, yes, to reiterate I (as a Protestant) *reject* sola scriptura as understood by confessional Lutherans who subscribe to the Book of Concord (per quia) rigidly (Lutheran Orthodoxy) and the rest of Protestantism as not in keeping with character of Scripture, Tradition and Luther’s evangelical catholic understanding.
I agree with Catholicism that Scripture doesn’t exists on its own but always alongside Tradition.
The exceptions being that:
1. Sacramental authority and power (auctoritas, potestas) as constitutive and immediately traced back to Our Lord as the Primal Sacrament is elevated over institutional authority and power as regulative – the church is creature of the Gospel and not the way around. Furthermore, sacramental authority is eschatological (i.e., the proclamation concerns the final judgment, Last Day) so that it’s impossible/an impossibility for institutional authority to override or be higher than the former.
2. I understand “doctrinal development” differently. I agree with the necessity of doctrinal development, especially in the context of “pious opinions” which for me include the Immaculate Conception, the role of BVM at the Eucharist (or rather Sacramental of the Altar), etc. sans the commons errors of the laity, as part of ongoing context-specific life and witness of the Ecumenical Church in giving non-essential/local expression to the essentials of the Faith.
Thank you for your time, Casey.
In Christ,
Jason
Hi Jason (#5),
Thanks for the response. OK, please tell me if I am understanding you correctly. Based on the following comments of yours:
and,
I interpret you to mean that, for you, the doctrine of perspicuity is to be understood subjectively, in that Scripture is impressed upon the Christian either via reading or hearing, and the clarity of Scripture’s meaning occurs in the Christian’s subjective, personal interaction with the Bible. Is that accurate? I want to make sure my interpretation of your understanding of perspicuity is accurate before commenting.
You also wrote:
I think I understand what you are saying here, and, at least in the Catholic tradition, there is also a sense in which the individual Catholic – and even broader Church — seeks to understand himself/herself as participating in salvation history, and by extension see himself/herself in the story of Scripture. Nevertheless, I’m confused as to why you present this is as an either/or. As humans, we are individual agents with intellects and wills, and we must thus grapple with the nature and meaning of Scripture. We, as individual subjective beings, are not the same thing as Scripture, and the ontological distance between us and Scripture necessitates an interpretive process. Moreover, if we believe Scripture to be divine revelation, and consequently want to properly understand and apply it to our lives, I do not see how we can avoid internalizing Scripture. We may desire, in some analogical sense, to “enter into” the story of Scripture, but the reality is that we remain independent, autonomous beings who must engage in a process of interpretation and application. Therefore you, as Jason Loh, may desire to be “internalized” into Scripture’s story, but you nevertheless remain Jason Loh, who independently must wrestle with the meaning of Scripture and its application to your life.
Finally, you wrote the following:
What is the basis for the premise that Scripture be understood within the paradigm of Law and Gospel?
Thanks for the conversation. in Christ,
Casey
I lost my view as a Presbyterian on the perspicuity of Scripture due to reading the canon question. In hindsight though, if Scripture is so perspicuous as the WCF asserts, why did Calvin, Poole, Henry and other Presbyterians need to write commentaries? And why did the Anglican Church revert from the WCF back to the 39 Articles? Once the lens is removed, one cannot un-see what has been seen, and must necessarily resort to fideism (either consciously or unconsciously) to maintain their belief.
I remember, nearly ten years before I entered the Church, asking our pastor and his brother, who later became our pastor, about the canon of Scripture. How did we know what books were Scripture.
Perhaps 30 seconds of silence, then: “It has to be presupposed.” (we were big on presuppositionalism, and the notion that trying to bring evidence into religious questions was placing God under our intellect. We would be creating an idol and calling it God).
I do think that was a critical step in my becoming a Catholic.
Dear Casey,
A belated Blessed Christmas and Happy New Year!
Thank you for taking the time to engage and respond.
You wrote:
>>I interpret you to mean that, for you, the doctrine of perspicuity is to be understood subjectively, in that Scripture is impressed upon the Christian either via reading or hearing, and the clarity of Scriptureâs meaning occurs in the Christianâs subjective, personal interaction with the Bible. Is that accurate? I want to make sure my interpretation of your understanding of perspicuity is accurate before commenting<<.
The subjective presupposes and implies the objective and vice-versa. The subjective is none other than the object of interpretation by the subject which is the interpreter. In this, the object is the Christian hearer (primacy of hearing, not reading) and the interpreter is, as alluded to, Scripture as embodied by the preacher or priest. This means Scripture as text is just half of the "story". Scripture is incomplete without proclamation and preaching. And proclamation is incomplete without the Sacraments of which I as an evangelical catholic Lutheran regard Absolution as the 3rd Sacrament.
So that when Scripture addresses me as *object* (hearing – passive activity), it does as irreducibly objective because as address, the proclamation of Scripture comes from the outside (and hence its objectivity). So subjectivity is then understood differently – not in individualistic terms as in *private* judgment and every man for himself – but the *I* as the unique, unrepeatable and particular self. This coheres with the understanding that Scripture understood in its totality, i.e., written and spoken (which also entails and includes and incorporates the performed/acted/enacted) word mediates and effects an exchange between the divine Subject albeit hidden under, with and through created forms and the human object.
And hence, pure subjectivity is avoided. Contrary to misunderstandings, Luther doesn't bid one to look inward – that is, the myth of the introspective conscience.
In the encounter with Scripture (again understood as the Word of God – divine and human), one can only look outward – so that again the irreducible objectivity is there. The external word of the priest when pronouncing the Absolution is unmistakably objective. And by extension, sure and certain and guaranteed.
What is mediated by Scripture is none other than the outward extension of the communication of properties grounded in Our Lord's own communicatio idiomatum firstly in His Incarnation and later in His Crucifixion.
This means that in hearing Scripture or the Word of God as embodied also in the priestly sacramental acts of giving grace understood as the Word attached to or in things of nature especially as embodied in the sacramental union between the flesh of the God-Man and the species of bread and wine, we thereby receive Our Lord Himself – which recalls the maxim of St Athanasius that God became man so that man can become God. Of course, such exchange is not based on Aristotelian philosophical framework which Luther rejected – substance ontology.
It's an exchange that presupposes and implies the simul.
That is, the dual nature or character of the Christian as totally new Adam/Eve and totally old Adam/Eve.
So that the exchange means that Christ takes our old away together with our original and actual sins and give us His Own Self without in anyway destroying our self-identity. To die, then, to the old is as objective as can be.
Practically and pastorally, instead of the Christian hearing his sin and conscience bearing witness against him/her, the Christian hears "only" the Absolution as the Gospel of justification.
Again, this is what is meant by instead of us interpreting and internalising Scripture, Scripture interprets and internalises us.
Scripture understood as the Word of God which is Christ not only speaks to us but *gives* to us – and this by also taking us into to the historical events of salvation history. Joseph's absolving his guilty siblings are just as the words of Christ absolving the apostles and disciples who betrayed Him prior to the Crucifixion – Joseph's peace is the same as Christ's peace and by extension the same peace uttered by the priest to his flock or congregation. Joseph's story and Christ's story becomes ours because we become part of those stories of salvation history.
So, as an evangelical catholic Lutheran, I agree with the Catholic rejection of private judgment.
The priesthood of all believers doesn’t necessarily mean private judgment or isn’t equivalent.
In the absence of a Magisterium, how then do Lutherans ensure that scriptural perspicuity and clarity don’t run afoul of the Catholic Faith, received truths and the established dogmas, etc.?
Firstly, as shared, I agree that the typical Protestant notion of sola scriptura (including even as understood by confessional Lutherans, i.e., the mainstream who don’t owe confessional allegiance to Luther) is misguided. Scriptural perspicuity can only be understood within the context and framework of Tradition.
So that the beliefs and the faith of an individual Christian is not his own but the common faith and common possession of the Church comprising of both the ministerial and lay priesthood. But the Church doesn’t need to be in communion with one another for catholicity to exists. The common possession is simply guaranteed by one Lord, one faith and one Baptism as per Ephesians 4:4-6.
In other words, common faith is ensured and thereby guaranteed by the common proclamation of the Gospel as per the Great Commission.
It’s true that the beneath the superficial commonality are critical differences which represents the division of Christendom, not to mention the emergence of Donatists and the Montanists and sects.
But their existence since the earliest of days, that is to say, predating the Reformation – that great and momentous event which shook Western Christendom to its core – proves that the existence of the papacy is no guarantee that there’ll be no schisms.
Or at least, the existence of Orthodoxy proves that being outside the fold of Rome doesn’t necessarily mean being cut off from the Catholic Faith.
For those like me who as an evangelical catholic can be desirous of submission to the Roman Pontiff, the stumbling block are the Tridentine Decrees and Dogmas, Vatican 1 and 2, etc. …
Dear Casey,
>>Nevertheless, Iâm confused as to why you present this is as an either/or. As humans, we are individual agents with intellects and wills, and we must thus grapple with the nature and meaning of Scripture. We, as individual subjective beings, are not the same thing as Scripture, and the ontological distance between us and Scripture necessitates an interpretive process. Moreover, if we believe Scripture to be divine revelation, and consequently want to properly understand and apply it to our lives, I do not see how we can avoid internalizing Scripture. We may desire, in some analogical sense, to âenter intoâ the story of Scripture, but the reality is that we remain independent, autonomous beings who must engage in a process of interpretation and application. Therefore you, as Jason Loh, may desire to be âinternalizedâ into Scriptureâs story, but you nevertheless remain Jason Loh, who independently must wrestle with the meaning of Scripture and its application to your life<>What is the basis for the premise that Scripture be understood within the paradigm of Law and Gospel?<<
Scripture is self-interpreting in the sense that all of Scripture is divided into the Law and the Gospel. By that it's in turn meant that in the sense of how the proclamation of Scripture *impacts* us. Scripture confronts us as either Law (command) or Gospel (promise).
Medieval scholascticism has flattened out the distinction by talking about analogies of faith. Analogies by default implies conformity. Which is movement on my part. Doing. Which presupposes a demand upon me. This is command and, therefore, Law.
Justification is turned into a legal process which makes all hearings and readings of Scripture as commands even when/where the promise is in view. That is, the promise becomes *conditional* and hence effectively functions as a demand.
As to the ontological distance between Scripture and us, such distance has been overcome in Jesus Christ as the Word of God and the Promised One. His arrival in the Incarnation renders all ontological distance moot. As the Word of God, that is Preached/Spoken/Deed-Act, His Word does what it says and says what it does, infallibly.
This is why the priest who pronounces the Absolution always does so infallibly (if he understands it).
As to the dogmas and doctrines of the Church, the distinction between Law as in *Moses* and promise as in ***Christ*** as per John 1 brings final clarity and strips away the veil and hiddenness of the divine revelation as embodied by the Old Testament.
As the Council of Jerusalem and subsequent church gatherings in apostolic times demonstrate, the absolute distinction between Moses and Christ clarifies and explains the true meaning of Scripture without the need for recourse to the papacy sitting over and above the Church.
In the final analysis, *application* of the absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel with the attendant and concomittant implications (the Hidden/UnpreachedGod versus Revealed/Preached God, the right-hand and left-hand kingdoms, divine and human righteousness, etc.) allows one to finally understand Scripture for what it is — minus the philosophical presuppositions – Aristotelian and Platonic that one brings to bear as embodied by the Thomistic synthesis which is so popular among Protestants).
So, at the end of the day, Scriptural perspicuity happens (as with Luther) when one understands that Scripture is meant to be understood as either Law or Gospel — either as in the context of the priest standing in persona Christi proclaiming the Gospel or God outside of His Word for which He has not bound Himself, divine or human righteousness, the kingdom of this world of the old creation or the world to come, i.e., in reference to the aeons, etc.
To gives some examples:
1 Timothy 2:4: "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" – Reading this verse with philosophical framework as one is conditioned to do will lead to the conclusion that this salvific desire refers to God apart from the concrete proclamation of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments. That is, this refers to the doctrine of God's "being". For those who are Augustinians (Catholics and Protestants alike), they either have to interpret it in the particular sense (all without distinction) in order to save their interpretation (by default) or otherwise simple appeal to the mystery of paradox which is essentially a conceptual or philosophical one (abstract), again to save their understanding of the nature and "being" of God. So God is omnipotent and cannot be resisted but also can be resisted in this instance.
The bottomline is that God as undifferentiated, i.e., "within His own Being" has two contradictory wills here.
But this will not do in pastoral situations, especially when one is confronted with the realities of life – existence of evil, etc.
For Luther, the verse refers to the Preached or Clothed or Incarnate God as He sacramentally embodied by the priest in proclamation of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments. God is described in one manner here and another manner outside His Word where His will cannot be resisted.
The omnipotence of the Hidden or Unpreached God Who does all in all, therefore, when the transition or movement is made to the Revealed or Preached God in the preaching or proclamation as when one leaves the world to return to the church, becomes the absolute and unconditional guarantee for the promise of the Revealed or Preached God to the elect.
So, the Preached God does sincerely desires the salvation of all in line with Scripture (all without exception – within an earshot). And the Unpreached God does all in all without due regard. But it's same omnipotence. Just that its expressed in one manner as the Hidden God Who does all in all and in another manner in the Revealed God Who has bound Himself to His promises which He will surely keep.
1 Timothy 2:6 states: "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (KJV). The NIV states: "This has now been witnessed to at the proper time" or "This is the message that was given to us at just the right time" (ERV – Easy-to-Read) which precisely indicates *proclamation*.
Romans 3:25-26: " God presented Christ as a sacrifice {propitiation] of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodâto be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunishedâ 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus".
If God is propitiated (leaving aside as to whether divine wrath is averted or satisfied) through the atonement, then why *add* faith here? And what does it mean to demonstrate His righteousness? And what's the purpose of mentioning of forebearance here?
Where the Cross/atonement is understood in terms of the absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel (i.e., as both Law and Gospel – proclamation), then the verses make sense. Propitiation takes place when there is faith. St Paul expressly joins propitiation and faith together. These two seemingly "distanced" terms can only be seen together in the proclamation of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments, particular in the giving of the Body & Blood of Our Lord. God is satisfied when His Son's Body & Blood are received in faith. Propitiation takes place both at the Cross and in the Cross's recaptulation and extension in time and space into the living present. In doing so, as alluding to the exchange (which is essentially the joyous exchange) as mediated by Scripture and hearer a while ago in the preceding post, Christ demonstrates that He is righteous in giving us His righteousness which is none other than His Blood which is received by faith.
Meaning, Christ demonstrates His righteousness when faith is present. Faith makes God righteous as Luther says. And God makes us righteous by faith again as Luther says. That's what the text implies and says one and the same. This is the evangelical justice that Luther "rediscovered" overagainst the scholastic or Aristotelian justice – the commutative and distributive justice of the legal framework.
"… [H]e did it to *demonstrate* his righteousness at the *present time* [***proclamation*** of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments], so as to *be just* and the one who *justifies those who have faith in Jesus*".
Again, the absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel tells of the aboslute distinction between the OT dispensation and the NT dispensation. So that forebearance here means the conditions under the OT which is the framework of the Law – demand or command – of which John the Baptist is the epitome as preaching repentance.
Repentance under the Law is understood as I'm given time and space to repent.
Repentance under the Gospel is now the reverse. God *comes to you* – which is Who Christ is – the Incarnation – and therefore it's Christ that repents in us. If Christ is here, in the living present, as in the here and now, then there's *no* space and time to repent. That is, Christ's presence which is near is our *end*.
This comports with St Paul's argument in Romans 6 where he speaks of our dying and rising *in* Him. Repentance is us dying to sin in Baptism which of course overlaps with the Gospel as us rising in Christ.
In the final analysis, the absolute distinction between the Law and the promise – between Moses the Lawgiver and Christ the Saviour allows us to comprehend Scripture's true meaning *whilst* allowing for inner coherence in theological thought.
Thank you very much once again for your time and attention, Casey.
In Christ,
Jason
Hi Jason (#9, 10, 11),
Thank you for the response. You’ve written a lot, and much of it wanders far afield from the subject of my article, which is regarding the perspicuity of Scripture. I’d humbly ask you to please keep any future comments focused on that topic. You wrote:
and
I do not see how arguing that the text is the subject, and the readers (or auditors) of the text are the object, resolves the problem of subjective interpretation. Even if I were to agree with you that Holy Scripture is exclusively the subject and the interpreter of Scripture is the object (which I do not), we would still have the problem that people come to different understandings as to what Scripture is communicating to them. This, as I’ve argued in my article and book, is a significant challenge to the doctrine of perspicuity. Nothing you’ve written in your comments offers a resolution to this problem. Moreover, you’ve asserted that Scripture communicating to you as the “*I* as the unique, unrepeatable and particular self” somehow does not equate to private, individual interpretation, but you haven’t provided any argument to substantiate that assertion. It’s still ultimately a subjective experience of you reading and interpreting Scripture. Yours *may* be the correct interpretation of Scripture, but on what basis do you determine that it is correct? Its adherence to the Lutheran Law/Gospel method? If so, that would be question-begging, since the correct method of Scriptural interpretation is precisely what is contested within this debate re: perspicuity.
You also wrote:
and
You seem to be arguing that Scripture is clear to those who affirm the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction for how to understand Scripture. But that is merely to claim that Scripture is clear to those who agree with your personal understanding of how to interpret Scripture, namely the Lutheran Law/Gospel method, which is itself a method not accepted by all those seeking to interpret and obey Scripture, including not only Catholics and Orthodox, but those of many other Protestant traditions, as well. Besides being question-begging, this claim is what is sometimes called the “Texas sharpshooter fallacy” or “confirmation bias,” meaning arbitrarily drawing the target around where one has aimed, and excluding anything that would undermine one’s own position — in this case, all who do not interpret Scripture within the same paradigm as you. in Christ,
Casey
Dear Casey,
>>>Youâve written a lot, and much of it wanders far afield from the subject of my article, which is regarding the perspicuity of Scripture. Iâd humbly ask you to please keep any future comments focused on that topic<<<.
Thank you for your kind patience and understanding. Yes, I understand. It's the case that Luther's thinking is akin to a wheel whereby the hub (as the representing the nub or heart of the issue) is that which turns all the spokes altogether. Or to quote Calvin to the effect: "Justification is the hinge by the which true religion turns". For Luther then, justification as the central matter is the basis and boundary, the lord and master of all of theology and the "article by which the Church stands or falls". All other matters are simply reflections or refractions of justification as expressed in different dimensions.
So that for Luther, perspicuity, for example, is (co)related to justification. And, by inclusion, infallibility is (co)related to justification. It's only by understanding that justification rests upon the absolute distinction between the proclamation of the Law & of the Gospel that there's perspicuity and clarity of Scripture. And when the authority that proclaims and interprets Scripture as Law and Gospel, thereforei does so infallibly which again comes back to the matter of whether the promise of the Gospel is sure, certain, guaranteed, effective and, therefore infallible (without any part or role or participation or contribution from me).
That said, I take note and will be mindful to ensure that the discussion stay focussed.
TQ
In Christ,
Jason
Dear Casey,
You wrote:
>>>I do not see how arguing that the text is the subject, and the readers (or auditors) of the text are the object, resolves the problem of subjective interpretation. Even if I were to agree with you that Holy Scripture is exclusively the subject and the interpreter of Scripture is the object (which I do not), we would still have the problem that people come to different understandings as to what Scripture is communicating to them. This, as Iâve argued in my article and book, is a significant challenge to the doctrine of perspicuity. Nothing youâve written in your comments offers a resolution to this problem. Moreover, youâve asserted that Scripture communicating to you as the â*I* as the unique, unrepeatable and particular selfâ somehow does not equate to private, individual interpretation, but you havenât provided any argument to substantiate that assertion. Itâs still ultimately a subjective experience of you reading and interpreting Scripture. Yours *may* be the correct interpretation of Scripture, but on what basis do you determine that it is correct? Its adherence to the Lutheran Law/Gospel method? If so, that would be question-begging, since the correct method of Scriptural interpretation is precisely what is contested within this debate re: perspicuity<<<.
Yes, I concede that the application of the theological, hermeneutical and pastoral "principle" of the absolute distinction between the Law and Gospel doesn't preclude the existence of multiple interpretations in the absence of an authoritative figure or body. Lutherans such as the late Dr Jenson & the late Dr Braaten have acknowledged that and hence their preference for the historic episcopate (as the starting point) which is also my predilection too.
The question of how does one arrive at such a conclusion as with Luther can only be answered on the basis of Scripture and Tradition (both West and East). Leaving aside Luther's hermeneutical rediscovery, and looking at Luther's basic theological orientation, his approach is to start from the Cross and work backwards and then only work forward from creation and the fall.
This is all simply to say that Luther posited or postulated Christ at the centre of all of theological reflection. The difference between Luther and the patristics, especially vis-a-vis the East, is that he simply heightened and unrelentingly pursued the logical consequences and implications of Christ as the centre, pressuposition, paradigm and summit of all of theology to the "very end" – even to the point of breaking the "acceptable limits" – pushing the boundaries of pre-existing theological consensus and knowledge further – all for the sake of the pastoral "for you" (pro te).
That is, for Luther, Christ as the Person of the Incarnate God cannot be separated or even distinguished anymore than Christ pro nobis – Person & Work are conceptually the one and same. In short, all of theology and the heart of theology, namely justification is all about Christ. Justification is merely applied Christology.
Who is Christ then in Luther's understanding? Jesus is not only God Incarnate but He is not Moses the lawgiver. Our Lord fulfilled the Law but He Himself is not the lawgiver but Saviour.
To be Saviour by dying on the Cross means *not* conformity to the Law, ultimately, for otherwise how can the Law condemned Him? But the other ay around, i.e., St Irenaeus's recapitulatio. Christ conforms to us, firstly in the Incarnation and later, by extension, in acquiring our sins (and of the whole world without exception). This then is the meaning of the Sacramentum and hence the Sacraments, The Gospel then is about Christ giving of His Own-Self, holding nothing back, for otherwise He wouldn't have died and taking our sins. And that is what the proclamation of the Word & Sacraments do/does.
That being the case, the Gospel can only be *absolutely* distinct from the Law whereby threats and conditions and demands are made, not only materially but functionally (formally) too. To die and rise in Christ is to die in Christ on the Cross as per Romans 6 and to passively participate in His resurrection again, as per Romans 6.
Baptism then cannot be and, hence, function as the Law or New Law. Otherwise, Baptism is severed from the Cross and becomes only a simulation thereof.
The Absolution is what it is – embodying the exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven – so that whatever is loosed on earth is likewise loosed in heaven. To say that what is loosed on earth is also loosed in heaven is simply to say that the loosing is final and cannot be overridden since heaven is in agreement. There's nothing that's more ultimate than heaven. One doesn't reach higher than heaven. This is not the Law for which, again, loosing is not a characteristic, let alone the central characteristic thereof and as such cannot be regards as New Law.
The Gospel as embodied in the giving of the Body & Blood of our Lord is even more vivid – since this is God's own Flesh which He communicates without any interposition as embodied by a spiritual presence. This is why for Luther, Our Lord's Body or human nature cannot be trapped in "heaven". For Our Lord to say that This is His Body broken and Blood shed for you, i.e., again, to die for you and in the context of a meal all the more expresses non-legal nature of the Sacrament.
In short, the Gospel gives by way of Our Lord's death on the Cross whereas the Law can only demand but never accomplishes that which is demanded (i.e., according to the basic and entire understanding wherein the Law claims the entire person which includes the whole of the person's life – past, present and future).
The difference between the Moses and Christ, Law and Gospel, OT rituals and the Sacraments cannot be more stark.
In short, the absolute distinction between the Law and Gospel, then, is simply about Who Christ the eternal Word is and how He works ("actus purus").
If that's the case, then the absolute distinction between the Law & Gospel, that is, how both are to be proclaimed and understood when they're proclaimed and which are as objective as can be ("irreducible objectivity) becomes the hermeneutical tool to interpret Scripture since there's no disconnect between what's proclaimed by default and as inherited from Tradition via the divine liturgy and the reading, i.e., interpretation of Scripture.
That is, the absolute distinction between Law and Gospel simply brings out what implicit and incipient in the first place, namely that the interpretation of Scripture takes place and, therefore, can only take place within the context of Tradition as mediated and transmitted via the liturgy.
And hence, there's perspicuity since Scriptural clarity in terms of the liturgy as the common possession of the Church is confirmed and clarified by the interpretation of Scripture in terms of the absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel and hence the displace of consistency and coherence as "attributes" of the perspicuity.
That the interpretation of Scripture whereby, e.g., the salvific will of God, i.e., His optative desire to save all without exception is understood as the Incarnate God (Revealed or Clothed God) coheres and is consistent with the understanding of the Church's ministry of reconciliation: "And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christâs ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christâs behalf: Be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5).
The ministry of reconciliation is none other as embodied by the person of the priest standing in the Person of the Incarnate God making the evangelical declaration in the Church in the context of the divine service or liturgy. Hence, the clarification and ultimately perspicuity.
But where in the absence of the absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel understood not only in material but also formal or functional terms, complications arises.
To reiterate, the Catholic and Protestant Augustinian will have to posit and postulate two distinct wills within the "being" of typically understood as God-in-general (where the Persons are relative subordinated to the divine attributes of the Essence) which, of course, runs the risk of undermining their own scholastic understanding of absolute divine simplicity (whereby all distinctions are merely nominal). This would imply that the both wills represent God ad intra, i.e., in Himself.
So then, God in the same context – without any differentiation in terms of the absolute distinctions (ad intra versus ad extra and the distinctions within ad extra) will and doesn't will the salvation of the non-elect. And hence the need for further clarification in the form the scholastic notion of the antecedent and consequent wills, or the Reformed's decretive and preceptive wills and, of course, that the universal salvific will is only in effect a mere desire or optative will but which is willed or desired not by God Incarnate, i.e., God in clothed in His Word (external Word) but in His divine nature.
But when the absolute distinction between God apart from the Word versus God in His Word, there's no complication but only perspicuity (grounded in coherence and consistency – that is, with Scripture and Tradition in their entirety).
By extension, when Scripture addresses me on the basis of the two words of Law and Gospel, then there's no other objective standard which can be higher than that.
Because the Law judges which is what the Law does – that's as objective as can be …
And because the Gospel is the final Word, it's eschatological, i.e., from the Last Day … the final judgment which is actually justification – that's as objective as can be.
But when Law and Gospel are mixed as when the Gospel also becomes New Law, then the Cross loses its meaning .
The living proof in terms of church history is …
1. The divergence by the East vis-a-vis the juridicising tendencies of the West.
2. The divisions within the West concerning predestination, grace and free-will.
Dear Casey,
You wrote:
>>>You seem to be arguing that Scripture is clear to those who affirm the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction for how to understand Scripture. But that is merely to claim that Scripture is clear to those who agree with your personal understanding of how to interpret Scripture, namely the Lutheran Law/Gospel method, which is itself a method not accepted by all those seeking to interpret and obey Scripture, including not only Catholics and Orthodox, but those of many other Protestant traditions, as well. Besides being question-begging, this claim is what is sometimes called the âTexas sharpshooter fallacyâ or âconfirmation bias,â meaning arbitrarily drawing the target around where one has aimed, and excluding anything that would undermine oneâs own position â in this case, all who do not interpret Scripture within the same paradigm as you<<<.
But the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction is not alien to Tradition (leaving aside Scripture for the moment). It's rooted in the recapitulatio of St Irenaneus. Recapitulatio is the Incarnate God taking all things in Himself as the Incarnate God. Incarnation means God conforming to us, and not the other way around. That much Tradition is agreed on (leaving aside the intended effects of the Incarnation such as the meaning of deification).
It's also found in the predestinarian succession of the Augustinian tradition. Predestination is Gospel because it's God electing without due regard to one's standing before the Law. And if predestination is how God works in the Gospel, then it certainly affects one's understanding of the Gospel in Scripture and, by inclusion and extension, the Scripture itself.
To accentuate and sharpen the focus – predestination as election of the ungodly as per St Paul is via proclamation as understood in Tradition or calling (leaving aside scholasticism's abstract two-will within God's "being" as well Protestant scholasticism' ordo salutis). Proclamation and calling can only come in time and space and in, under and through the external Word & Sacraments – the ministry of reconciliation committed to the Church. This correlates to the words spoken by the priest standing in persona Christi – e.g., I absolve or forgive you of all your sins …
The words of Absolution recalls Our Lord's own words which does what it says and says what it does and His post-resurrectional commission of the Church in the form of handing over the keys of the kingdom – the binding and loosing authority of the Church transmitted via tactual succession.
As the Word, we can see that Our Lord's Word is effective and performative. This then touches upon his very "nature" (not Essence) as God, i.e., how His energies function outside of Himself, as per the church fathers as epitomised by the Cappadocian and Athanasian and Cyrillian tradition of the essence/energies distinction. Luther himself explicitly rejected the Law as identical to the divine essence; instead he expressly located the law as an energy or work of God – the alien work (opus alienum) in contrast to the Gospel as the proper work (opus proprium). The E/E distinction implies a real distinction within God and, by extension, among the various energies (considered as properties and not attributes as in scholasticism). So, Luther's absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel considered as opposing works or energies of God has roots in Tradition.
In short, Luther's Law/Gospel distinction has deep roots in both the Catholic (West) and Orthodox (East) traditions of Tradition. Therefore, the L/G distinction is not and has never been an innovation.
L/G distinction is simply the flip-side or another way in looking at justification (as the hub of the wheel).
L/G distinction is what justification is – justification apart from the Law – and indeed against and in defiance of the Law.
Defiance of the Law and ending the Law is why Luther doesn't subscribe to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). Luther's understanding and model is Christus Victor which is as patristic as can get.
The difference is that in Luther, CV becomes accentuated and heightened and developed to its logical conclusion, i.e., practically and concretely via the communication of properties of the two natures in one divine Person and, by extension, the joyous exchange which again recalls the Athanasian maxim.
So, whilst non-Lutherans and even Lutherans themselves disagree with Luther's attitude towards the L/G distinction, it cannot be denied that the L/G has deep roots in the Tradition, and of course, Scripture. The disagreement isn't with the L/G distinction itself but with the position and place of the distinction in Scripture and the Church. Or to put it in another way, the disagreement is with the insights that Luther derived from the L/G distinction.
The Reformed disagree with Luther because of the need to preserve it scholastic understanding of the covenant. That is, the Covenant of Grace still functions as law even where it's unilateral because the will still has to act even if as secondary cause. For Luther, there's only the divine cause in line with death and resurrection.
Other Protestants disagree with Luther, again, because of the need to preserve the will – this time in the form of free-will.
The L/G distinction presupposes and implies the utter passivity of the creature which only be judged and justified, i.e,, be put to death and raised up anew as total beings – the simul.
Som whilst the simul hasn't be satisfactorily thought of by the church fathers, the roots of the simul in the L/G distinction which distinction has always been present in the thinking of the church fathers whether implicity (and incipiently) or explicitly.
It's left to Luther to bring what's been formerly disparate and latent ideas and concepts to the fore by radicalising the doctrine of the bound will (again which has roots in St Augustine) and connecting that with the Cross.
So, non-acceptance doesn't preclude and undermine objectivity which I know Catholics are rightly concerned about.
Because the objectivity in the proclamation when applied and "synchronised" and "aligned" and "coordinated" with interpretation results in the same objectivity since it's the same Scripture that does the interpretation in both respects. In the case of the former, it's Scripture with feet and hands and a mouth as embodied by the priest; in the case of the latter, it's Scripture as read and understood by me having been justified by the priest. I who have experienced justification will surely understand L/G distinction absolutely and hence understand Scripture accordingly.
This means perspicuity and clarity – since I can now see the absolute distinction between the Law and the Gospel where before the distinction was muddled.
The highest authority in the Church, therefore, isn't legal but evangelical. This renders the papacy as the interpreter and teacher of Scripture moot. For ecclesial authority as evangelical is, again, Gospel authority or power. Gospel power is the power of God unto salvation, as per St. Paul in Romans. The power of God untol salvation implies finality and totality and hence, the verdict on judgment day, i.e., eschatological. Again, eschatological authority overrides any institutional authority that self-understands its power in legal terms. This means that the humble priest standing in persona Christi possesses the evangelical authority for which there's no higher authority.
The finality of the evangelical authority as embodied in the proclamation of the Gospel in Word & Sacraments introduces and reinforces perspicuity.
Here perspicuity is also understood not in Erasmian terms (in recalling Luther's debate with Erasmus in the Bondage of the Will). But in terms of assurance and certainty.
That is, perspicuity, finally isn't understood in intellectual terms but salvific. This is why evangelical authority is higher than legal authority of the papacy.
If the proclamation of the Gospel is final and cannot be overturned or overridden since it's from the Last Day (predestination – Luther's style which also encompasses the future), then the priest's word of promise is sure and certain since what we have is the conclusion. There's no middle time and space of ambiguity and uncertainty here. This is of course reinforced by the "nature" of the Word which does what it says and says, i.e., divine omnipotence which reinforces the guarantee of the promise. So, God cannot lie when He promises unconditionally. Therefore, there's no need to add layers of interpretation which makes what's unconditional to be conditional for the sake of preserving the free-will.
This then leads to interpreting Scripture whereby applying the same L/G distinction, only this time not in the context of proclamation but of understanding as in getting through one's theological understanding. When God's promise as proclaimed in the Gospel is sure and certain, then I can be sure and certain and hence clear of the intent and meaning of the words that conform to the nature and character of the Gospel.
L/G proclamation from the outside leads to L/G self-application in understanding Scripture by the laity.
For the ministerial priesthood, L/G interpretation of Scripture leads to proclamation which in turn reinforces the L/G application to interpreting and understanding Scripture.
And hence, the perspicuity which finally revolves around the pastoral care of the flock, i.e., perspicuity conceived of, again, in evangelical terms. Not in legal terms whereby the institutional authority imposes legally binding views on the pain of excommunication, for example. That is, perspicuity for the sake of relieving the conscience, not binding the conscience.
So, even where perspicuity understood in legal terms is guaranteed by an institutional authority, this will normally leads to lack of perspicuity, i.e., clarity, in evangelical terms. No absolute and total assurance can be guaranteed to the Christian living under such conditions.
Whereas the L/G distinction guarantees both perspicuity understood in terms of interpretation of Scripture as well as assurance of salvation.
Of course, this serves only highlight the inconsistency between the nature of Our Lord as Saviour and the nature of the papacy as the Vicar of Christ.
That is, the Vicar of Christ doesn't behave like Christ Who's unlike Moses. Instead of binding the conscience as per the Law in order to loose the conscience as per the Gospel, the papacy is more interested in binding the conscience to preserve and upholds its authority understood in legal terms.
So that, the Vicar of Christ is better known as the Vicar of Moses, at the end of the day.
In Christ,
Jason
The question of how can the Church err so seriously given Our Lord’s guarantee of indefectibility and of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth, of course, goes back to the question of authority of which perspicuity is a central matter.
That the Church can and does err is a given. This is clearly shown in Scripture. There’s no question of lack of perspicuity when it comes to the example of whether the Church can err.
That St Peter erred in his personal capacity is irrelevant since if St Peter were to impose Judaizing errors on the Church, it’d still be opposed by St Paul and others. Likewise, the Apocalypse was revealed to St John on the isle of Patmos rather than to the Magisterium meeting in Rome. The Apocalypse represents divine revelation on matters that stand in their own right distinct from the other epistles as the vision concerns the “last days”. One would have thought that on such crucial matters as the condition of the Church in the “last days” would have merited the divine disclosure to the first Pope.
So, leaving aside the errors of the Pope throughout the subsequent history of the church post-apostolic times, infallibility doesn’t rests on the Successor of St Peter but in the Church as a whole which comes together to endorse, again, the insights of various individuals, as seen in church history.
Therefore, Tradition as a lens for scriptural perspicuity doesn’t depend on the papacy much less has the papacy contributed to perspicuity other than endorsing and confirming in his capacity as the Bishop of Rome catholic and orthodox viewpoints and condemning heresies, sometimes after church councils have met and convened. Perspicuity, therefore, doesn’t depend on the papacy (alone).
Again, the EO is living proof of this, as we all can see.
So, perspicuity in terms of the Faith is guaranteed by confession faith as expressed in the creeds which contans the L/G distinction. For example, the Apostles’ Creed begins with the creative activity of God in creation and salvation. Although it speaks of Our Lord as coming to judge on the Last Day, the creed specifically ends with the Gospel – in the form of forgiveness of sins and resurrection of the dead.
Perspicuity in terms of faith is guaranteed when the Gospel is proclaimed accordingly, as in accordance with the Apostles’ Creed where the forgiveness of sins has the last word over judgment.
And from proclamation back to (self-)understanding where God’s creative activity in creation is seen to be replicated in Christ’s re-creative activity in justification. If God’s work is complete and total since that’s what by default is implied in re-creation, then it’s clear my salvation is assured and guaranteed. Furthermore, such works of re-creation mirrors divine omnipotence is creation which is also a basis for the Hidden versus Revealed God distinction which ties back in full circle to L/G distinction. Meaning if God is omnipotent as Creator who creates and also destroy, then the same God is also equally omnipotent in re-creating even where both creative and re-creative energies are opposed to each other. The only difference being that the re-creative energies are final and everlasting, as per St Paul where the old has passed with the arrival of the new in 2 Corinthians 5).
Incidentally, talk of the old passing away with the advent of the new comes in the passage as the ministry of reconciliation. In fact, as can be read, just right before.
That is, the character of proclamation as the ministry of reconciliation is the doing away with the old by introducing the new – death and resurrection.
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
All *this* is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ *and* gave us the ministry of reconciliation …”.
This is scriptural perspicuity without the need for an infallible institutional interpreter.
The question comes back: How is it possible that the Church had to wait for Luther’s arrival to full appreciate this clearly?
Because, again, perspicuity, is ultimately not understood in terms of propositional statements. This is secondary Perspicuity, as per Luther versus Erasmus, is all about clarity and hence certainty.
This is in line with what Our Lord Himself said: The Truth will set you free (i.e., loosing of the conscience from bondage to the Law).
John 8:
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, âIf you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.â
33 They answered him, âWe are Abrahamâs descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?â
34 Jesus replied, âVery truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin [precisely Our Lord’s response]. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” [the meaning of Truth – that is not in propositional terms but in terms of the Person of our Lord Himself as the Saviour and not Moses the lawgiver)].
In Christ,
Jason
Dear Casey,
This shall be my final post. I have thoroughly enjoyed the engagement and thank you once again for giving me the space to share my views on perspicuity.
To finally sum up:
In the final analysis, perspicuity in Luther’s evangelical catholic understanding (overagainst scholasticism, Catholic and Protestant) is intimately and inevitably bound up with the L/G distinction, proclamation, the E/E distinction, the absolute distinction between the Hidden God versus the Revealed God, the ministerial priesthood, predestination, justification, Christology, Triadology, Pneumatology, eschatology, etc. ***all the same***.
Perspicuity isn’t part of some hierarchy of truths and only one criterion of doctrine among others but grounded and rooted and underpinned by justification or the promissio (Promise) as the lord and master, basis and boundary of all of theology and article by which the church stands or falls in turn understood abstractly not as a formulaic doctrine in legal sense as embodied by PSA but concretely as the proclamation of the Gospel as the specific words of the forgiveness of sins given out unconditionally by the priest to the hearer as well as in sacramental forms of water, bread and wine.
So, understanding justification (i.e., sacramentally and unconditionally and absolutely) guarantees perspicuity (which is the same the L/G distinction understood firstly as proclamation which is the irreducible objectivity which comes from the outside – with *no* need or requirement for self-understanding and then only as interpretation for self-understanding so that what we have first received we now understand in reading the Scripture).
That is, free to see Scripture for what it is – perspicuity – as Law and Gospel with the Gospel as the final Word.
Galatians 5:
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery”.
In Christ,
Jason
Hi Jason (#13-17),
Thanks for the comments. However, in none of them are you engaging with my arguments or seeking to refute them, either by identifying which premise in my arguments in the above article are false, or how my conclusions do not follow from my premises. And that’s what this combox is for: explicit engagement with the material in the above article.
If you would like to write your own article on the Lutheran doctrine of perspicuity, say on your own blog or somewhere else, and then request that I critique it, I’m open to that. However, any future comments on this thread will need to *specifically* address the arguments from my article on perspicuity, or they will not be approved. I’d also request brevity in any future comments on this thread (let’s put the word limit at 500 words), so that we can ensure this conversation stays on point. in Christ,
Casey
Hello Casey
You quote the following passage from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
âAll things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet 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.â
Nowhere in your article do you refute this statement. What may come closest to an attempt of such a refutation is the following quote from your article:
âMost saliently for me as a young, zealous Calvinist, many NPP scholars argued that far from teaching sola fide, Paul believed baptism, among other things, was necessary for salvation and entrance into the covenant.â
Here you present sola fide as incompatible with the view that baptism is necessary for salvation and entrance into the covenant. However, as can be seen from the Lutheran point of view this is not the case. As for me, reading Paulâs letters I donât see any passage in them where Paul says that baptism is necessary for salvation and entrance into the covenant, at least not explicitely. If he really held this view how could he at the same time assert that Abraham was justified by faith and that we as Christians are justified likewise? After all, when Abraham lived there was no baptism. Coming back to the Lutheran point of view in this respect it does not hold the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, as according to it one can also be saved without having been baptized.
As for my view what is common among all Protestant theological points of view concerning salvation and what in my view is also clear from Scripture in this respect can be put as follows:
In order to get oneâs sins forgiven one must repent of them and believe that Christ died for our sins and that he rose from the dead.
This I think is also the view that Paul held (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
You wrote: â[T]he claim that the individual Protestant is simply obeying God when he reads and interprets the Bible, both presumes the very issue in question (namely, the doctrine of clarity), and collapses the Bible and its interpretation into one another, as if they are the same thing. But they are not the same thing. Scripture is a text, and the reader of Scripture is an individual person attempting to understand the meaning of that text. Thus every time a Protestant reads the Bible and subjects himself to it, he is not necessarily obeying God, but his interpretation of the text.â
There are two problems with this view. First, the Catholic is in exactly the same position when he says that he obeys God when he follows the teaching of the Catholic church as is the Protestant who says that he obeys God by reading and interpreting Scripture. The Catholic is also reading (or listening to) and interpreting what is written or what some other person tells him concerning what the Catholic church teaches. Secondly, even you concede that Scripture is not so hopelessly obscure that Christians cannot understand any of it. Now if this is the case at least with respect to those passages that are not obscure it is possible to obey God by reading, interpreting and heeding what Scripture says.
Hi,
I appreciate the article, but itâs hard to read. It seems thereâs supposed to be an outline, but everything is jumbled together. Can that be fixed?
Faithfully,
Charles
Perhaps a 5,000+ word paragraph is provided as an argument against perspicuity, though it cannot compete with 50,000+ word encyclicals, while I will just focus on this:
my argument is that Scripture, even if we desire to submit to it as the inspired, inerrant word of God, cannot effect a unity of belief among self-professed Christians regarding what counts as dogma or the essentials of the faith.
Actually, rather than Scripture being the problem and faith in an institution being the answer, those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, with its basic literal hermeneutic, who have long testified to being far more conservative and unified in polled core beliefs and values than overall those whom Rome counts as members in life and in death (I have the stats).
It is actually remarkable that evangelicals have such a basic unity so as to be the main focus of attack by the likes of “Catholic Answers” (vs. “Bible Christians”), and with a commonly held basic gospel despite the sure supreme authority being document of almost 800,000 words, from about 40 different writers of various occupations, covering two basic covenants, and using two languages (with a third being very limited), and many literary genres (including Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Epistles, Prophecy, etc.) with multitude figures of speech including euphemism, circumlocution, metaphor, allegory, allusion hyperbole, understatement, idiom, sarcasm, personification, pun, simile, synecdoche, etc.), within a vast number of contexts; and compiled over a period of approx. 1600 years while covering vast expanses of time, and existing in thousands of manuscripts of copies of copies of varying qualities.
And by basic gospel, I mean being spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account. And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) who, as believers, shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [âweâ]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff’; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God.
And rather than the RC living magisterium being the solution to division, then it created more, and today you have a vast disparity of beliefs within Roman Catholicism itself among those whom she manifestly considers to be members, from Ted Kennedy Catholics to Traditionalists (providing they do not go too far).
Which is not simply due to the work of a committee (V2) but since as actions define actual belief (James 5:18), then by treating even liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death (besides Obama giving a eulogy), then Rome effectually teaches her flock that such is the correct understanding of her own doctrine (Canon 915) on who can be considered to be a member.
There is actually a type of parallel btwn Traditional Catholics (such “The Remnant”) and devout SS evangelicals, in that both testify to the most unity overall in basic truths yet also engage in the most contention over meanings. Which can get into much detail.
Which does not excuse all divisions, yet the NT church actually began in particular dissent from the historical magisterium (thus being the authority on who and what is of God), and established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power (attestive miracles) For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being “Scripture, (“in all the Scriptures”) (Luke 24:27.44,45; cf. Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)
And thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.
However, this is not contrary to magisterial authority (which the Westminister Confession affirms), and a central magisterium is Biblical and should be a goal. That of wise Spirit-filled men to settle disputes, which actually flows from the OT (Dt. 17:8-13) and is seen in Acts 15 (which James providing the conclusive judgment, affirmative of what Peter exhorted relative to the evangelical gospel he, along with Paul and Barnabas preached.
Which today would deal with the 4 major divisions within devout SS evangelicals, that of predestination (which, as concerns the debate btwn between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, the pope could not settle: see Congregatio de Auxiliis). Which, as btwn Calvinism vs. Arminianism is usually related to Preterism vs. Futurism, and often to Cessationism vs, Continuationism (in which EOS’s oppose RC’s), and to Complementarism vs. Christian egalitarianism (usually associated with Continuationism), and the issue of conditional security vs. OSAS, the latter of which in the latter of which is usually held even by most Western Arminians.
Yet all of which all can preach the same basic evangelical of conversion that Peter and Paul did.
However, Rome has poisoned the very concept of a supreme central magisterium, and nowhere is any magisterial office promised ensured perpetual formulaic veracity in all it asserts is Divine Truth, nor exampled as having. Neither was this ever required for authority.
Neither was this required in order for both writing and men of God to be recognized and established as being so (unless the NT church was invalid).
Yet RC theology teaches that one cannot discover the contents of sacred scripture without having faith in her, which leads (in order to avoid circularity) to referring to Scripture merely as a reliable historical source, whereby (it is presumed) the subject will recognize “The One True Church” as being what is claims to be.
Which is simply not how the NT church began.
Moreover, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Thus, what is needed are such manifest men of God as the apostles were. (2 Co. 6:4-10) and souls who will follow them as the follow Christ. Which excludes distinctive Catholic teachings.
Note that I wrote this even though I expect it also will not be posted, like prior submissions were not. But while I will post on a blog of mine, by the grace of God.
Hi Charles (#20),
It should look fixed now. It’s because WordPress, which hosts our site, recently had an update. best,
Casey
Hi Patrick (#19),
Thanks for the comment. You write that nowhere in my article do I disprove the definition of perspicuity offered in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I’m confused by your comment, as my article summarizes the arguments of my book against the doctrine of perspicuity as understood by the Westminster Divines on a number of grounds: philosophical, ecclesial, sociological, historical. Perhaps you don’t find those arguments persuasive (in which case I’d ask you to offer an explanation as to why you do not), or perhaps you don’t find those arguments to be sufficiently explained (in which case I’d ask you to read the book to consider the arguments as they are more thoroughly presented therein).
You write:
Other Christian traditions than your own, including the Catholic one, would argue that St. Paul argues for the necessity of baptism vis-a-vis salvation in such places as Rom. 6:3-7, Col. 2:12, and Gal. 3:27. Such traditions would also cite in favor of this position our Lord’s words in John 3:3-5, or St. Peter’s words in Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3:20-21). In re: to your comment re: Abraham, God is free to adjust the ordinances and ordinary means of salvation in salvation history as He sees fit. This is why, for example, though He once instituted various sacrifices in the temple as the ordinary means necessary for the forgiveness of sins, He no longer requires such sacrifices, because Christ Himself is the one, true sacrifice. Thus if God has now ordained baptism as the ordinary means for the salvation of souls, that is His prerogative. The Catholic Church also does not teach the “absolute necessity” of baptism for salvation: for example, there is, for example, such a thing in the Catholic tradition as “baptism of blood,” meaning martyrs who died for Christ before they were able to be baptized (c.f. CCC 1258).
You then wrote:
It would be more accurate to say that the above belief is what is common among those people who you personally assess to be true Protestants. Many self-described Protestants would not hold to the above position.
Next, you wrote:
The Catholic is not “in exactly the same position” as the Protestant. It is true, both Protestants and Catholics are engaged in a process of interpretation of information, either written or conveyed audibly. However, the Protestant reads Scripture and must, by virtue of his paradigm, argue that His personal interpretation of what is necessary for salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, or whatever way he has defined to be “clearly taught” in Scripture, is the true one, thus effectively making himself a one-man magisterial authority on divine revelation. The Catholic does not approach divine revelation this way, because he has subjected his conscience to obey what the Church teaches regarding divine revelation. And he can do this rationally, because the motives of credibility, which are accessible to human reason, provide sufficient evidence for him to place His trust in the Church as truly representing Christ and Christ’s teaching. Moreover, the Catholic’s interpretation of magisterial teaching is categorically different than the Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture, for reasons I describe in this article, which addresses your argument, sometimes called the “infinite regress objection”: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2017/11/a-return-to-the-infinite-regress-objection/
Finally, you wrote:
I do concede that it is *possible* for Christians to understand Scripture. But if Scripture is not clear enough to resolve interpretive disagreements over what is necessary for salvation, or the essentials of the Christian faith, that is a significant theological and ecclesial problem. And even if there are some passages are not so obscure as to result in irresolvable interpretive disagreement (say, that Scripture teaches the existence of God and His creation of the world, or that Christ in some sense a representative of God acting with God’s authority), it does not follow that Scripture is clear enough for us to “obey God.” Indeed, the question of baptism you raise in your comment is an excellent example of this: does Scripture teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, or not? Much hinges on the answer to this question, and yet you and I seem unable to agree as to the answer. And even if Protestants accurately interpret Scripture on some matter (e.g. as a Catholic, I would say some do on such matters as Christ’s divinity or the resurrection), the Protestant would have no means to *confirm* his interpretation as accurate, because his only authority is his own personal interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic, in contrast, has an external objective authority to confirm or refute his personal interpretation, namely, the Magisterium. In sum, the Catholic position enables the individual Christian to escape the problem of being one’s own magisterium or pope as it relates to the interpretation of divine revelation. in Christ,
Casey
Hi Daniel (#21),
You wrote:
I did not argue that Scripture is “the problem.” I argued that the doctrine of perspicuity, which is a uniquely Protestant understanding of Scripture, is the problem. And arguing that a subset of Protestants with whom you agree are more unified than all those identified as Catholics is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where one draws the target around one’s preferred opinions in order to create a fabricated sense of unity. There are many Protestants who *do not* agree with you, and excluding them from your “stats” is ad hoc and arbitrary.
You describe the contents of what you define as the “basic gospel,” but of course, this is the gospel as you personally define it, which is an example of the problem of individualism I identify in my article and book.
You wrote:
The “Catholics Are Divided Too” objection has been addressed in great details in this article: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/
You wrote:
If I’m interpreting you correctly, you are claiming that the Church replaced the “magisterium” of pre-Church times, namely, those who sit on the seat of Moses (Matt. 23:2), and that the Church had authority to do that because of the attestation of miracles, presumably, preeminently, the resurrection of Christ. I would agree with that argument. What miracles did the Protestant Reformers perform to demonstrate that they had more authority than the magisterium of the Catholic Church?
I’m afraid I don’t understand much else of what you’ve written or what, if anything, it has to do with my article on the doctrine of perspicuity. And yes, to your last comment, future posts of yours on this article will not be approved unless they actually interact with the arguments presented in my article. in Christ,
Casey
Hello Casey
You wrote: âYou write that nowhere in my article do I disprove the definition of perspicuity offered in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Iâm confused by your comment, as my article summarizes the arguments of my book against the doctrine of perspicuity as understood by the Westminster Divines on a number of grounds: philosophical, ecclesial, sociological, historical.â
The definition of perspicuity offered in the Westminster Confession of Faith you quote restricts it to how we are saved. I donât see where you proved this view to be false.
You wrote: âThe Catholic Church also does not teach the âabsolute necessityâ of baptism for salvation: for example, there is, for example, such a thing in the Catholic tradition as âbaptism of blood,â meaning martyrs who died for Christ before they were able to be baptized (c.f. CCC 1258).â
If in addition to this the Catholic Church also teaches that baptism is not necessary for salvation when a person repents of his sins and puts his trust in Christ, then it basically agrees with the Protestant view in this respect.
You wrote: âOther Christian traditions than your own, including the Catholic one, would argue that St. Paul argues for the necessity of baptism vis-a-vis salvation in such places as Rom. 6:3-7, Col. 2:12, and Gal. 3:27.â
Your response is to the following sentence of mine: âAs for me, reading Paulâs letters I donât see any passage in them where Paul says that baptism is necessary for salvation and entrance into the covenant, at least not explicitely.â. By me writing âAs for me ⊠I donât seeâ and âat least explicitelyâ you can see that I only provide my personal impression in this respect. But what I wrote was in response to your statement that many NPP scholars argued that Paul did not teach sola fide, because he believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Now even if Paul held this view this alone would not prove that he did not teach sola fide, since Luther, who certainly believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, at the same time taught sola fide. Now, if you think that Paul taught that in addition to faith something else was needed for salvation you would have to say what this âsomething elseâ is. Coming back to the NPP, I donât see that with respect to the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the issue of justification it is relevant. The basic issue between Luther and the Catholic Church was whether or not for a Christian to have his sins forgiven the sacrament of penance and the requirement of works connected with it is necessary (see Lutherâs writing âOn the Babylonian Captivity of the Churchâ). Whatever the answer to this question is, it is compatible with the NPP.
You wrote: âIt would be more accurate to say that the above belief is what is common among those people who you personally assess to be true Protestants. Many self-described Protestants would not hold to the above position.â
I think that most if not all Protestant theologians from whatever stripe of Protestantism they come would agree that if a person repents of his sins and puts his trust in Christ this person is saved and is not in need of something else to be saved.
You wrote: âThe Catholic is not âin exactly the same positionâ as the Protestant. It is true, both Protestants and Catholics are engaged in a process of interpretation of information, either written or conveyed audibly. However, the Protestant reads Scripture and must, by virtue of his paradigm, argue that His personal interpretation of what is necessary for salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, or whatever way he has defined to be âclearly taughtâ in Scripture, is the true one, thus effectively making himself a one-man magisterial authority on divine revelation.â
I donât think that a Protestant has to assume that his interpretation of Scripture is in every respect the only true one, and I donât think that most Protestants hold such a view.
You wrote: âThe Catholic does not approach divine revelation this way, because he has subjected his conscience to obey what the Church teaches regarding divine revelation. And he can do this rationally, because the motives of credibility, which are accessible to human reason, provide sufficient evidence for him to place His trust in the Church as truly representing Christ and Christâs teaching.â
I think the Protestant is in exactly the same position as the Catholic. He can subject his conscience to what is or he thinks is clearly taught in Scripture. And he too can be brought to this attitude by rational arguments.
You wrote: âMoreover, the Catholicâs interpretation of magisterial teaching is categorically different than the Protestantâs interpretation of Scripture, for reasons I describe in this article, which addresses your argument, sometimes called the âinfinite regress objectionâ:â
Your argument that the Catholicâs interpretation of magisterial teaching is categorically different from the Protestantâs interpretation of Scripture is based on the assertion that unlike the Protestant, who when in need of clarification concerning doctrinal issues only has a book, namely the Bible, at his disposal, the Catholic can turn to one or more persons. However, this is simply not true. According to the Catholic understanding the only infallible sources of Catholic doctrine are the decrees of the ecumenical councils and the proclamation of a dogma by a Pope. But unless the Pope who has proclaimed a certain dogma is still alive, when there is disagreement among Catholic theologians over the interpretation of the respective documents there is no one who has the authority to give a definite answer, not even the Pope, except when he formulates his answer as a dogma.
You wrote: âBut if Scripture is not clear enough to resolve interpretive disagreements over what is necessary for salvation, or the essentials of the Christian faith, that is a significant theological and ecclesial problem.â
But I think that Scripture is clear about what is necessary for salvation, and if one defines what one has to know about how one is saved as essentials of the Christian faith, then Scripture is clear on the essentials of the Christian faith.
You wrote: âAnd even if there are some passages are not so obscure as to result in irresolvable interpretive disagreement (say, that Scripture teaches the existence of God and His creation of the world, or that Christ in some sense a representative of God acting with Godâs authority), it does not follow that Scripture is clear enough for us to âobey God.ââ
That it does not follow that Scripture is clear enough for us to âobey Godâ is true. However, neither does it follow that Scripture is not clear enough to âobey God.â One can argue that God only expects us to submit to what is written in Scripture to the extent that it is clear.
You wrote: âIndeed, the question of baptism you raise in your comment is an excellent example of this: does Scripture teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, or not? Much hinges on the answer to this question, and yet you and I seem unable to agree as to the answer.â
If it is true that all Protestants agree that repenting of oneâs sins and putting oneâs faith in Christ is a sufficient requirement for salvation and there is indeed an agreement as to the answer.
You wrote: âAnd even if Protestants accurately interpret Scripture on some matter (e.g. as a Catholic, I would say some do on such matters as Christâs divinity or the resurrection), the Protestant would have no means to *confirm* his interpretation as accurate, because his only authority is his own personal interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic, in contrast, has an external objective authority to confirm or refute his personal interpretation, namely, the Magisterium.â
As I pointed out above, both Catholics and Protestants when seeking guidance with respect to what God has revealed to us are faced with the task of interpreting texts. For the Protestant it is the text of Scripture, for the Catholic the texts containing formulations of Catholic doctrines or summaries of them. Moreover both the Catholic and the Protestant have to deal with texts which to a certain degree are clear and to a certain degree are obscure. Now one can argue that the texts the Catholic has to deal with are clearer than Scripture. But even if this is true, the difference is only one of degree and not a categorical difference.
Hi Patrick (#25),
You wrote:
A very brief summary of the argument is this: those in various branches of Protestantism disagree among themselves, and with those outside of Protestantism, regarding what Scripture teaches as what is necessary for salvation. This is of course a serious challenge to the claim that Scripture is perspicuous re: salvation, because those subscribe to the doctrine need to offer some explanation as to why there are varying disagreements over what the Bible teaches is necessary for salvation (e.g. the disagreement is because one’s interlocutors are obstinately refusing to see what is clear, or deceived by the devil, etc.). As I summarize in the article and explain in greater detail in the book, all of these explanations ultimately fail.
You wrote:
I did not say that the Catholic Church teaches that baptism is not necessary for salvation “when a person repents of his sins and puts his trust in Christ.” Indeed, nowhere in Catholic magisterial teaching will one find such a teaching. For example, CCC 1257 reads:
You wrote:
NPP proponents are (perhaps unsurprisingly) not in agreement re: all the particular of their scholarly movement. But of those I’ve read, there is a general consensus that salvation, contra Luther, is not by “faith alone” but by joining and staying in the covenant community, which is done through participation in the sacraments and obedience to the law. Thus good works (in distinction from “works of the law”), though not in themselves salvific, contribute to the salvation of the individual Christian (see, for example, E.P. Sanders and James D.G. Dunn: https://www.theopedia.com/new-perspective-on-paul).
You wrote:
I would dispute that claim. Universalism has become a prominent position across the Protestant theological world, including among some evangelicals: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/march-web-only/michael-mcclymond-devils-redemption-universalism.html. And per this 2015 study from Pew, mainline Protestants, to take an example of just one subset of Protestantism, hold to a diversity of opinions regarding salvation: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-1-the-changing-religious-composition-of-the-u-s/.
You wrote:
I did not say that “a Protestant has to assume that his interpretation of Scripture is in every respect the only true one.” I said “the Protestant reads Scripture and must, by virtue of his paradigm, argue that His personal interpretation of what is necessary for salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, or whatever way he has defined to be âclearly taughtâ in Scripture, is the true one.” This is the second time in a single post you’ve misrepresented my position.
You wrote:
This reflects a misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding of the magisterium. The Catholic Church teaches that the Magisterium possesses a special charism, given by the Holy Spirit, that protects it from error when speaking on matters related to faith and morals. Thus even if all the fathers of a church council or a pope are dead, the contemporary Magisterium, by virtue of its unique, divinely-given charism, can speak authoritatively to clarify earlier teaching and respond to questions regarding that teaching. Moreover, the different degrees of magisterial teaching enable the Magisterium to respond to questions without always making recourse to dogmatic pronouncement (see https://catholicism.org/the-four-kinds-of-magisterial-statement-and-the-various-responses-catholics-owe-to-each.html).
You wrote:
Sure, one could argue that, though that would require evidence. And as our dialogue shows, Christians can’t even agree on what Scripture teaches regarding what is necessary for salvation, let alone whatever other things you or other Protestants may believe are clearly taught in the Bible.
You wrote:
Except all Protestants do not agree on this. Finally, you wrote:
The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants, by virtue of their paradigm, are forced to place themselves in a magisterial position, determining both what constitutes divine revelation and how it is interpreted. Catholics, alternatively, by recourse to the motives of credibility, identify that authority as lying in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Nor are Catholics expected to be authoritative interpreters of Magisterial teaching, as Protestants are expected to be as delineated by whatever version of the doctrine of perspicuity to which they subscribe. Yes, Catholics are still in a position whereby they need to interpret Magisterial teaching, but as I’ve argued in the above cited article on the “Infinite Regress Objection” that is categorically distinct than what it is required of Protestants. If you have objections to that article, please offer them. in Christ,
Casey
Hello Casey
You wrote: âA very brief summary of the argument is this: those in various branches of Protestantism disagree among themselves, and with those outside of Protestantism, regarding what Scripture teaches as what is necessary for salvation. This is of course a serious challenge to the claim that Scripture is perspicuous re: salvation, because those subscribe to the doctrine need to offer some explanation as to why there are varying disagreements over what the Bible teaches is necessary for salvation (e.g. the disagreement is because oneâs interlocutors are obstinately refusing to see what is clear, or deceived by the devil, etc.).â
But my point is that Protestants actually do agree on what is necessary for salvation. This agreement can be formulated thus: âIn order to get oneâs sins forgiven one must repent of them and believe that Christ died for our sins and that he rose from the dead.â
You wrote: âIndeed, nowhere in Catholic magisterial teaching will one find such a teaching. For example, CCC 1257 reads:
⊠Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. …â
This quote from CCC 1257 can serve as an illustration of what might be called âthe obscurity of the Catholic magisteriumâ. When stating that baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament, what exactly does this mean? If to someone the gospel has been proclaimed and as a consequence this person believes the gospel, but for some reason fails to ask for baptism, is this person therefore excluded from salvation? One could also ask what âto whom the Gospel has been proclaimedâ means. Coming back to my comment concerning the âinfinite regress objectionâ, I repeat my point that, as far as I can see, according to Catholic teaching there is no person, who is in a position to infallibly answer such questions, or is there?
You wrote: âBut of those [NPP proponents] Iâve read, there is a general consensus that salvation, contra Luther, is not by âfaith aloneâ but by joining and staying in the covenant community, which is done through participation in the sacraments and obedience to the law. Thus good works (in distinction from âworks of the lawâ), though not in themselves salvific, contribute to the salvation of the individual Christian âŠâ
I donât see that the content of the last sentence follows from what you wrote before. Moreover, I donât see how it can be that good works are not in themselves salvific, but nevertheless contribute to the salvation of the individual Christian. As a matter of fact according to my understanding of salvation, it is not something anything can contribute to. Either one is saved or one is not saved. As for the statement that NPP proponents deny that salvation is by faith alone, the following quote from N. T. Wright seems to contradict it:
â’The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other.â
You wrote: âI would dispute that claim. Universalism has become a prominent position across the Protestant theological world, including among some evangelicals:â
As for the question whether or not Scripture supports universalism this is what the theologian Michael McClymond, who has dealt extensively with this issue, says concerning it:
âNot only at odds with the tradition, dogmatic universalists who insist that all must be saved have always struggled to support their views with Christian Scripture.â
(Source: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/12/opiate-of-the-theologians)
But even if universalism was a view that could be defended by Scripture, this fact would be compatible with what is in written in the quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith you provide in your post. Moreover, there are also Catholic theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, who, without being deemed heretical, argue for the view that it is at least possible that all men will be saved. And there are other Catholic theologians who have held a different view. However, if Catholic theologians cannot agree concerning this question why should such a disagreement be a problem for Protestantism?
You wrote: âI did not say that âa Protestant has to assume that his interpretation of Scripture is in every respect the only true one.â I said âthe Protestant reads Scripture and must, by virtue of his paradigm, argue that His personal interpretation of what is necessary for salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, or whatever way he has defined to be âclearly taughtâ in Scripture, is the true one.â This is the second time in a single post youâve misrepresented my position.â
Even if what you say is true, what exactly is the problem? Why is disagreement among Protestants concerning doctrinal issues a problem, if the different views do not jeopardize the salvation of the persons involved? And this is exactly the case if what the Westminster Confession of Faithâ asserts regarding the perspicuity of Scripture is true.
You wrote: âThis reflects a misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding of the magisterium. The Catholic Church teaches that the Magisterium possesses a special charism, given by the Holy Spirit, that protects it from error when speaking on matters related to faith and morals. Thus even if all the fathers of a church council or a pope are dead, the contemporary Magisterium, by virtue of its unique, divinely-given charism, can speak authoritatively to clarify earlier teaching and respond to questions regarding that teaching. Moreover, the different degrees of magisterial teaching enable the Magisterium to respond to questions without always making recourse to dogmatic pronouncement …â
âTo be protected from error when speaking on matters related to faith and moralsâ is the same as âto be infallible on matters related to faith and moralsâ. But as far as I can see according to the Catholic understanding only the Pope has the charism of infallibility and even he only under certain circumstances.
Hi Patrick (#27),
You wrote:
That is simply inaccurate. Many self-professing Protestants do not believe the above definition re: what is necessary for salvation, as I have already noted in #26.
You wrote:
There is not a single “person” but yes, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can (and has) answered these types of questions.
You wrote:
According to Catholic teaching, good works in-and-of-themselves are incapable of saving the Christian (to claim as much would be the heresy of Pelagianism); rather, in the Catholic understanding, though the first act of the Christian’s salvation is via God’s grace, the Christian cooperates with God’s grace to bring about his salvation. That, according to Catholicism, is the way that good works contribute to the Christian’s salvation.
You wrote:
Whether or not Scripture supports universalism is different than the point in my previous post, which is simply that many Protestants believe Scripture supports universalism. You and I may disagree with their interpretation, but I am responding to your claim that “most if not all Protestant theologians from whatever stripe of Protestantism they come would agree that if a person repents of his sins and puts his trust in Christ this person is saved and is not in need of something else to be saved.” And that claim is patently false, as evidenced by the existence of Protestant universalists, among many other strands of Protestant theology.
You wrote:
Because Catholic theologians are not the same thing as the Magisterium. Within Catholicism, the Magisterium alone, not the individual Catholic theologian, has authority to teach on faith and morals that bind the conscience. That Protestant theologians disagree is indeed a problem, because there is no means of adjudicating those disagreements, besides Scripture itself, which is precisely what they are disagreeing over. And no Protestant theologian possesses any more authority than any other Protestant authority, because there is no Protestant magisterium.
You wrote:
Whether or not these differing views jeopardize the salvation of the persons involved is precisely what is debated. As a former Calvinist seminarian, I can tell you that my former co-religionists had very strong opinions about what one had to believe in order to be saved, and which beliefs were heretical and endangering to one’s salvation.
Finally, you wrote:
That is simply inaccurate. According to Catholic teaching, ecumenical councils, when speaking authoritatively on faith and morals, also possess the charism of infallibility. Moreover, as I explained in my earlier post, there are degrees of magisterial teaching, all of which have authority, but demand different degrees of submission from the faithful. in Christ,
Casey
Hello Casey
You wrote: âThat is simply inaccurate. Many self-professing Protestants do not believe the above definition re: what is necessary for salvation, as I have already noted in #26.â
Who are these self-professing Protestant who do not believe the definition I formulated about what is necessary for salvation? What else do they think is necessary for salvation besides repentance and faith? But even if there are Protestants who think that repentance and faith is not sufficient for salvation, what actually matters is not so much what people think is sufficient for salvation, but what objectively is sufficient for salvation. Letâs assume that repentance and faith are indeed sufficient for salvation. In this case with respect to how we are saved Scripture is indeed clear on this issue, since there are so many passages in it, where repentance and faith are clearly linked to salvation.
You wrote: âThere is not a single âpersonâ but yes, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can (and has) answered these types of questions.â
But there must be such a single person or group of persons. After all in your post âA Return To The âInfinite Regressâ Objectionâ you wrote: âThe âinfinite regressâ dilemma ignores the qualitative ontological distinction between persons and books, falsely assuming that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority, so must a living person.â
Moreover, why assume that Godâs way to communicate is by means of one or more persons who infallibly interpret written texts instead by these texts alone? After all, in the Old Covenant this happened in the latter way. God expected his people to understand and obey his commandments without the aid of a magisterium. One may ask if for getting saved and living a good Christian life an infallible magisterium is actually necessary.
In the post mentioned above you also wrote: âYes, it is true, the Magisterium will not be aware of all possible questions that can be raised. It is also true that very few people will ever have the opportunity to pose a question to the Magisterium and receive an authoritative answer. This is however fully compatible with Cross and Judischâs response to the infinite regress objection, because their argument does not propose that every single question ever asked about Catholic doctrine will be directly answered. Indeed, just because every question will not be answered does not mean or entail that Christ did not or could not have established His Church this way.
This is because, as already observed above, we do not get to establish the Church according to our a priori conception of what it would be like if we were establishing it. Christ is divine, while we are merely human. We should receive the Church as He established it, not as we wish it would be. If the criteria we apply in evaluating different Christian theological or ecclesial paradigms is one of who-has-more-accessibility, then we have already succumbed to what Bryan Cross has elsewhere called ecclesial consumerism. This is a paradigm in which an individual defines the Church (among all the competing candidates) according to the criteria of whichever one gives him the most âxâ he wants. In this particular case, âxâ would include accessibility. Yet this subjective criteria cannot be the means by which we discover or define the Church He established.â
What you are basically saying is that most if not all Catholics must put up with not having all questions answered they may have concerning faith and morals and that this may be how Christ wanted it to be. But cannot the Protestant in the same way argue that a Protestant, having only Scripture as his guide regarding issues about faith and morals, may due to Scripture being to a certain degree obscure not receive answers to every question he may have concerning these issues, and that this may be how Christ wanted it to be?
You wrote: âAccording to Catholic teaching, good works in-and-of-themselves are incapable of saving the Christian (to claim as much would be the heresy of Pelagianism); rather, in the Catholic understanding, though the first act of the Christianâs salvation is via Godâs grace, the Christian cooperates with Godâs grace to bring about his salvation. That, according to Catholicism, is the way that good works contribute to the Christianâs salvation.â
The good works a Christian accomplishes are either done in a state of grace or in a state of sin. If the latter is true, the works cannot cause the Christianâs (or also Non-Christianâs) salvation, because believing so would amount to Pelagianism. However, if the Christian is in a state of grace, he doesnât have to do good works in order to attain a state of grace, because he is already in such a state. In neither case do good works contribute to his salvation.
You wrote: âWhether or not Scripture supports universalism is different than the point in my previous post, which is simply that many Protestants believe Scripture supports universalism.â
But even if Protestants disagree on this issue or on others and use Scripture to support their respect view, this does not necessarily mean that Scripture is completely obscure on these issues, and that it is not possible that one interpretation is more likely to be true that another one.
You wrote: âYou and I may disagree with their interpretation, but I am responding to your claim that âmost if not all Protestant theologians from whatever stripe of Protestantism they come would agree that if a person repents of his sins and puts his trust in Christ this person is saved and is not in need of something else to be saved.â And that claim is patently false, as evidenced by the existence of Protestant universalists, among many other strands of Protestant theology.â
A Protestant universalist definitely agrees with the view that if a person repents of his sins und puts his trust in Christ this person is saved and not in need of something else to be saved. What you would have to present are Protestants who indeed hold the view that such a person is in need of something else to be saved.
You wrote: âBecause Catholic theologians are not the same thing as the Magisterium. Within Catholicism, the Magisterium alone, not the individual Catholic individual theologian, has authority to teach on faith and morals that bind the conscience. That Protestant theologians disagree is indeed a problem, because there is no means of adjudicating those disagreements, besides Scripture itself, which is precisely what they are disagreeing over.â
From the fact that Catholic theologians do not agree on universalism one can draw the conclusion that there is no definitive magisterial teaching on this issue. But, assuming that Scripture is not clear on this issue, both Catholic and Protestant theologians are faced with a source of divine revelation that is not clear on this issue. But again, that Protestant theologians differ about this issue or others doesnât mean that all views are equally likely to be true.
You wrote: âAnd no Protestant theologian possesses any more authority than any other Protestant authority, because there is no Protestant magisterium.â
I think there is the authority of the better argument. By the way this is also the only authority that applies when Christian theologians from the Catholic tradition, such as Catholic theologians and Eastern Orthodox theologians, discuss controversial issues. No side can appeal to a magisterium without begging the question.
You wrote: âWhether or not these differing views jeopardize the salvation of the persons involved is precisely what is debated. As a former Calvinist seminarian, I can tell you that my former co-religionists had very strong opinions about what one had to believe in order to be saved, and which beliefs were heretical and endangering to oneâs salvation.â
What exactly are the doctrinal views some Protestants hold that other Protestants think jeopardize the salvation of the persons involved?
You wrote: âThat is simply inaccurate. According to Catholic teaching, ecumenical councils, when speaking authoritatively on faith and morals, also possess the charism of infallibility.â
But ecumenical councils are not persons. What we have with respect to ecumenical councils that is infallible are texts.
You wrote: âMoreover, as I explained in my earlier post, there are degrees of magisterial teaching, all of which have authority, but demand different degrees of submission from the faithful.â
But what is the point is that all these instances of magisterial teaching only exist in the form of texts, and when there is any disagreement over what they mean, there is no person who can infallibly resolve the issue except the Pope and even he only under certain circumstances.
Daniel said “It is actually remarkable that evangelicals have such a basic unity…”
Patrick said “But my point is that Protestants actually do agree on what is necessary for salvation.”
I find it difficult for either of these statements to be serious. Here’s why: Most Protestants would agree that while to an outsider, the Mormon belief that Jesus is God/YHWH and the Protestant belief that Jesus is God/YHWH means at least the Mormons and Protestants agree on this single essential that is necessary to salvation. But as the late Dr. Walter Martin endlessly reminded us, this agreement is insubstantial because it is in word only, not meaning. That is, the Mormons define God/YHWH differently than the Protestants do, which apparently forces the conclusion that the Mormons worship a Jesus different from the Protestant Jesus.
If we keep in mind that what matters is not two people using the same words, but two people defining those words the same way, then Daniel and Patrick are demonstrably wrong to say Protestants have a basic unity. The Arminian and Calvinist each say “Christ’s death is entirely sufficient to atone for sin”, but that agreement of words means nothing, because the Arminian will say Christ died even for the non-elect, and that Christ’s atonement for a person does not benefit them until they first accept him by faith, yet these two definitions are denied by the Calvinist. If you cannot differ on the meaning of “Jesus is God” and fellowship together, Calvinists and Arminians cannot both say “Jesus died for sinners” and fellowship together.
The Easy Gracer and the Lordship Salvationist both say “all people need the Lord Jesus to save them from their sins”, but this agreement is in word only, as EG denies that salvation necessarily produces any moral commitment, while the LS insists genuine moral commitment is the inevitable product of a true faith. This is a serious problem because each group accuses the other of likely lacking salvation the EG say the LS are teaching a gospel-denying legalism. The LS say the EG are teaching a gospel-denying Antinomianism.
One has to wonder: if the fact that Mormons mean something different than Protestants when saying “Jesus is God” is supposed to mean the Mormon should not be considered to be saved, how can we discern how much difference of opinion on Jesus’ nature CAN be tolerated within Protestantism? But even on this, Protestants are divided. Walter Martin denied the Eternal Sonship of Christ, but James White affirms it. If then Martin says “The Word was not the Son before the incarnation”, and White says “The Word was the Son before the incarnation”, should we conclude at least one of these two men had the wrong Jesus?
If one Protestant says “Jesus the Son of God” and means that Jesus was eternally subordinate to the Father, and another Protestant says “Jesus the Son of God” and means that Jesus didn’t become subordinate until the Incarnation…how can we say these two Protestants serve the same Jesus? If we must concern ourselves with the meanings and not merely the terms, then Protestant unity would be a farce.