What perspicuity is,
then, is implied if not expressly taught in the canonical Scriptures. Fundamentally, it means that for the least
educated person on the planet, the Scripture is clear enough to understand and
to live by. In its basic message, the
message of salvation, it is understandable to all.[3] When the normal canons of interpretation are
employed, the likelihood of mis-interpretation is greatly reduced.
In fact, Davis, in
alluding to the issue of the plain meaning of Scripture, criticises critical OT
scholars for not “reading the text” in its “more natural way,” concluding that
by so doing they are evacuating the text of its “sense.”[4] He also warns against pulling “more data from
the backgrounds than from the text.”[5] When theologians who believe in limited
atonement engage in polemics against theologians who hold to universal
atonement, we find that the plain or natural meaning of the text is
marginalised in favour of philosophical considerations.
Dale, when
expounding Christ’s cry of dereliction from the Cross, correctly states his
procedure when interpreting Scripture, and follows Calvin closely in this. He says, “I take the words in their clear and
unqualified meaning.”[6] It is only when these dreadful words are
taken in their natural sense that the preceding passage in intelligible. To take them otherwise is to evacuate them of
the pathos. Scripture must be dealt with
faithfully and by following the normal rules of grammar and syntax their true
meaning ascertained and a faithful interpretation will result.
When Scripture was being written under the Holy Spirit’s
guidance, it was completed by ordinary men using normal means of grammar and
syntax. So, when an interpreter follows
properly ‘the laws of language,’ he can know what the Scriptures specifically
mean. That means, further, that an
unconverted sinner can understand enough of the message of salvation to bring
him, by the Holy Spirit, into a reconciled relationship with God through
Christ. He cannot understand the Scripture
spiritually, but he can understand the plain meaning of the text. It will be this level of understanding which
will eventually condemn that sinner because he knew enough to be saved, but
chose rather to reject the offered salvation.
Indeed, Hodge affirms[7]
that because Scripture has been given either to all men promiscuously or to the
body of believers corporately, many of whom were slaves, they were capable of
understanding their salvific message, as many in fact did. Indeed, the perspicuity of Scripture means that the
obscurity that any Bible reader may find in some parts of Scripture is not the
fault of Scripture but is rather the fault of finite and sinful mankind.
Theologians and preachers who give the impression to their
people that they cannot understand the Bible without their sermons, lectures, expositions have already set up a
Protestant magisterium similar to
that created by Roman Catholicism. Rome’s
adherents depend upon the official teaching of the church for them to
understand properly the teaching of Scripture.
The role of theologians and preachers is to help their people to love
and to study God’s Word for themselves. They
are not the final authority in the interpretation of Scripture, nor are the
various confessional formulations (such as, the Westminster Confession of
Faith, Savoy Declaration, Baptist Confession of Faith, Belgic Confession,
Heidelberg Catechism, etc) to which they adhere.[8] DML-J not only stressed the importance of
this principle, but demonstrated it in his evangelistic preaching, refusing to
allow any human composition, however excellent it might be, to determine or
restrict his message.
Historically, attempts were made to ensure that biblical
interpretations cohered with the theological stance described in the
Westminster Confession of Faith (and its theological siblings). In the years immediately following the
apostolic era, the church Fathers in a sense ‘denied’ Scripture’s perspicuity
by indulging in allegorical interpretations of the OT text. Augustine following Ambrose took this pathway
initially, claiming that it was the allegorical interpretation that freed him
to understand catholic faith. This meant
that ‘ordinary’ believers just did not know how to understand the Scripture in
keeping with the official position of the church of that time. Further, they subordinated the Old Testament
to the New, and made the latter the key to understanding the former. There is a sense in which this is a proper
approach because revelation is progressive, culminating in the NT, but it in
effect negates the theology revealed in the OT.
Thus historic-grammatical canons of biblical interpretation were
jettisoned in favour of forms of allegorical interpretation. The Fathers therefore denied the perspicuity
of Scripture by creating sometimes wild interpretations that ordinary people
just could not follow or understand.
Later theological developments saw the further denial of the
perspicuity of Scripture when the authority to declare what the literal sense
of Scripture is rests in the church alone. Thus, the birth of the Church’s magisterium. This meant that instead of the literal sense of
Scripture being the plain sense, it has become the ‘private property’ of the
Spirit endowed Church. Also, the grammar
and syntax of the Bible which are the means by which the intention of the
author is expressed, is lost when the plain sense of Scripture is abandoned. Hence, the elevated place given to the magisteria.
Since, according to this view, God gave to the Roman Church the
right to determine what Scripture means, the problem of the perspicuity of
Scripture is solved. Scripture means
what the church says that it means. Or, within Protestantism, Scripture means
what the church declares it to mean
through her confessional formulations – the Protestant magisterium. This position
differs little from that declared by Rome at the Council of Trent[9]
when she said that no one shall seek to interpret the sacred text of Scripture
relying on their own skill, in matters of faith and morals, or presume to
interpret the text in a way that is contrary to the sense given by the holy
mother church. She alone can give the
true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Protestant churches believe differently, at least in theory. Every Christian has the right to search the
Scriptures for himself and come to a conclusion about what they teach on
certain important matters of faith and practice. There are no church officers, class of
officers, or Bible expositors to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the
people are required to submit as a final authority. In accordance with the
Reformation teaching of the priesthood of believer’s, the perspicuity of Scripture means that every
Christian has the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself as guided
by the Holy Spirit, so that his faith may rest, not on the teaching of any man
or of any Church, but on the testimony of Scripture. Hodge
confirms this when he writes that
there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized,
to interpret the Scriptures, or to apply their principles to the decision of
particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow
Christians.[10]
The obverse
of this is that Scripture is the only authoritative voice in the Church of
Jesus Christ. It is “to be interpreted
in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised
to every Christian.”[11] Christians then are authorised to do this for
themselves, and can lean on the expertise and knowledge of more learned and
experienced Christians. However, they
have no authority to bind the believer to their particular interpretation of
Scripture. DMLJ enjoyed and utilised
this dearly-bought freedom to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and teach
others also.
What of
creeds and confessions? As to form, they
bind only those who voluntarily profess or subscribe them. As to content, “they bind only so far as they
affirm what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.”[12] Where they depart in any respect from
Scripture, we must follow Scripture and suspend our allegiance to that
subordinate standard. In other words, we
follow a man or a confessional document only insofar as they unambiguously
follow Scripture.
To summarize, it is freely admitted that everything in Scripture
is not alike plain in itself, nor is it alike clear to all who read it; yet
those things are set out clearly that are necessary to be known, believed, and
observed for salvation. They are so clearly
presented that not only the learned, but the unlearned, as they use they
ordinary means of comprehension, may attain to a sufficient understanding of
them. What may be unclear in one place
may be explained more clearly in another.
The practical lessons from the doctrine of the perspicuity of
Scripture include thankfulness to the gracious God who clearly reveals in the
Bible how one’s sins can be forgiven and at the same time righteousness
affirmed, how and where to obtain eternal life, and how to live a life that is pleasing
to God.
Clarity of Scripture is denied by every false theology, usually by
putting something else between Scripture and the reader. It may be a priesthood, the teachings of a
cult’s founder, an inner light, a critical methodology, a confession of faith, or
a postmodern hermeneutic. These all in
their own way deny Scripture’s perspicuity.
Finally, pastors and preachers may need to be reminded never to
give the impression to their people that they cannot understand the Bible
without their sermons. This is timely
for the focus of this study because so much of the controversy revolves around
whether or not Scripture speaks with a clear voice on what the content of the
Gospel actually is. If it is not clear
in its natural meaning concerning the way of reconciliation with God, then it
is unclear in what matters most.
The Bible is a precious book, and is able to make people wise
unto salvation, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness—and it is abundantly clear.
It is
necessary now to examine, from an exegetical point of view, what the relevant
Scriptures actually say and teach, what DML-J and his three mentors have said,
and also gain a flavour of what those who hold to a different exegesis believe
[1] See the Baptist Confession of Faith,
London, 1688. Cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith,
London, 1647.
[2] 2 Pet.3:16.
[3] Cf. Hodge, 1879/1972:85.
[4] Davis,
260, n.18.
[5] Davis,
264.
[6] Dale, 1875:61, 62.
[7] Hodge, 1879/1972:86.
[8] It must be conceded that those churches
that have their distinctive doctrines embodied in confessions of
faith state
clearly that they are subordinate standards, the supreme standards being the
Holy Scriptures.
However,
fine and true these words are, they are observed more in the breech than in the
observance
by confessional churches.
[9] 1545-1563.
[10] Hodge, 1879/1972:86.
[11] Hodge, 1879/1972:87.
[12] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment