Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
There is nothing at all clear about it, friend. One has to ignore the plain reading of the verse and rely on inductive logic to garner support for it.
There are levels of understanding to scripture. I agree that what some of us have been discussing is not what is commonly taught but when you study at a deeper level it becomes obvious, it becomes clear. Eyes and ears are opened. The scriptures given on these subjects are in His Word, they have always been in His Word. They are there for us to understand.
The common term for this rationale is gnosis, as in gnosticism.
The question you raise from (Gen.4:1), I will agree, does sound odd if Adam is not Cain's father but, nevertheless, ALL other scripture tells us that he is not.
So far the only other Scripture I've seen presented in support of it is Scripture that doesn't exist (iow, an argument from silence such as "Cain isn't listed in this geneology"). On the one hand you say it sounds odd, but on the other say it is clear. Hardly a compelling case.
I cannot explain (4:1) any better than has already been given in 2415 and 2234 by Diego1618.
If that's the case then you really do have a problem, because Diego's explanation is sorely lacking. Diego moved quite quickly from "Eve was possibly carrying twins" to "These twins had different fathers" all because of the simple use of a Hebrew word meaning "again." Forgetting just for a moment the obvious context of the verse (in which sex, conception, birth and vocation are run through in the span of a couple dozen words)...which certainly makes plausible the notion that Cain and Abel were NOT twins but were conceived and birthed separately...the fact is that even if Cain and Abel were twins there is NO SUPPORT for the notion that they had different fathers as there is NO INDICATION or even HINT of the notion of Eve's being with someone other than her husband, Adam.
The theory being put forth is simply devoid of anything approaching sound exegesis and does pretty radical violence to fundamental logical and hermeneutical principles.
I read the passages you gave: Adam is a type of "He who is to come" and "the church and Christ shall become one flesh."
Adam was a type of Christ - I agree, it is written. Christ and His church shall become one unit, one family. If Eve is a type of the church, the many membered body, I could also agree with that but like that group, they are not perfect and have sinned.
By saying the Eve was not a virgin when she knew Adam, you do harm to the message of the type.
I didn't say that Seven. I don't know when they first "knew" each other. I did say that she "also" knew Satan. I would assume that Adam and Eve were in the garden for a while before Satan came along. So...If we are sticking with types, maybe that was a type of what some churches have been and what some remain. Following Satan through idolatry instead of staying true to her husband, Adam/Christ.
......Ping
im not sure i see why non chaledonians as not requireing Christmation if they professed an incorrect understanding of the faith...
The internet isn't to replace community.
I don't believe in a corporate Body of Christ and am naturally suspicious of doctrines of men.....and their organizations.
I'm suspicious of university institutions, but they do have some good teachers.
I think there is great value in church, both for teaching and community and sharing worship and each other's trials and triumphs. I think community is a necessary part of our faith.
Our faith must be made real by each person individually, but sometimes I get them impression that some feel this means they have to re-invent Christianity; it's already been done.
Unless your intention is to start a new religion.
thanks for your reply; hope you pet is doing well..
Ping, may I ask you also which church you attend?
No....you are correct, but....it is mentioned that he did have other sons, whereas Cain, a central figure in Genesis, is no where mentioned in Adam's genealogy.
You cannot even include Cain among this other progeny as it transpires after Seth: [Genesis 5:4] And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.
Ah. Time is hanging you up here. First, if God were in time, how long you think four thousand years would seem in comparison to eternity? But God's not in time (eternal also means infinite, unbounded, outside time). He's not "waiting" in time.
Time has an arrow of course and if events "happen" there's time in between. If God's plan is to unfold in time, there will be... time. But that doesn't mean God is tapping his foot impatiently as it unfolds. He knows when events will occur, He's not "waiting". All this is a result of foreknowledge - it's independent of determinism or free will.
It is incomprehensible to me that in order to preserve free will, that all of human history is reduced to mere coincidence..
There's no such thing as coincidence, especially to God.
If it's not random, then someone must be in control, right?
There's something in control of even random events, else you are not in the finite world of time and cause and effect. They only seem random, we call them random because we can't predict them all or control each one. God's physical laws govern physical objects, intellilgence/consciousness is an order above this, but still not random.
My point on humans earlier was purely a logical one. It's not necessary to control each individual object (or human) in order to execute a plan and have it outcome foreknown/predictable. We can account for "random" in our plan as well. We can't approach the level of God in this, but the logical point still holds.
OK, how is free will choice not random across the human spectrum?
Humans do not, usually, make choices based on a coin flip - our usual notion of random. If I put ten teen age boys on one side of a room and ten girls on the other, their locations will change over time, but the resulting grouping will not be random. I can even predict with a high degree of certainty that the two groups will not remain separate, but will tend to form in pairs. God foreknows how many children each will have and what their names will be.
I'm only saying that allowing humans to have free will choices, does not mean that there cannot possibly be a "God's plan." Free will and events unfolding in God's plan are not mutually exclusive. If we also take into account divine foreknowledge before creation, then the contradiction disappears. Knowing what the result of allowing free will would be - foreknowing - God created man with free will.
I didn't say that imo under your view that God has no effect, He does, but only in an advisory capacity.
He has the same "capacity" in our lives as he does in yours. What we believe about God does not change who God is. But physician would be more accurate than advisor.
I don't "think" Apostolics give God the authority to MAKE decisions concerning them, because that would trample on free will...God might advise, or cajole, or nudge, etc., but He is not allowed to "DO".
God doesn't make the decision that I will love and follow Him, no. He doesn't make the decision whether I will pray right now or finish this post. This, IMHO, would be an absurd view of the Gospels and of God's love and make personal experience of reality an illusion. I'm not saying we're perfectly aware, but we're not totally deluded either.
Anyway, the hope for this Apostolic is for God in his grace to make all my decisions or rather that my will become His will. My faith is that as my will decreases His will increases in me. An analogy is waiting for a visitor. He may or may not come, but I have a choice whether to be there, properly prepare for him and wait. To me, this sums up faith - that He will come; or, if He doesn't, stay put, all will be well.
I think there is a key difference in the Apostolic and Protestant view of man's nature. I believe your view is that man is naturally sinful and evil or bad. We see this as "natural" only in our fallen state, but that our essential natural state is the state that saints attain.
God heals us, we can choose to resist the treatment. This is far from saying "God is not allowed to do anything."
God might advise, or cajole, or nudge..
Apostolics are not free from the consequences of sin. I think we both can remember something in our lives a bit stronger than a nudge. :)
We're also not immune from the consequences of love, repentance, compassion, God's healing in our lives. Nor are we immune from pride and temptation. What you see as "born to lose," I see as stubborn, prideful, or not enough pain to change.
Prophecy is very specific, for example, and the whole design that is expressed throughout the scriptures is so intricate, it is incomprehensible that God's plan was on a basic or general level, and it was just luck that all the pieces fit as well as they did.
It's almost like he fore-knew it.
God's foreknowledge is not limited in any fashion by man's free will. If you know the outcome, you know the outcome. If you know what each person will do, you know what each person will do. Foreknowledge, by definition, means no surprises. It does not mean no free will allowed.
Thanks very much for your reply. You guys are keeping this thread worthwhile for me; my sincere gratitude for this.
Genesis 4 gives us Adam's genealogy through Cain. Genesis 5 gives us Adam's genealogy through Seth. This is the same style as Genesis 10 and 11 where we see Noah's genealogy and then it continues with the linage of Christ.
I should have returned the pings on my reply to FK since he pinged, but I didn’t counter-ping his post’s ping before I posted.
I’m really horrible at knowing who to include when on replies where the reply is addressed to many. I forget or get confused who to include.
My apologies if I should have pinged before; apologies if I shouldn’t have pinged now.
[I Chronicles 1:1-4] 1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, 3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Why isn't Cain listed here?
Because he was not of Adam. He was of that wicked one: [1 John 3:12] Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Quite frankly....I don't understand why folks cannot see this. It is very obvious....unless of course...you are steeped in false traditions and doctrines.
But does the Bible ever really SAY that saving the life of a man on a Saturday is a sin? I don't think so. It was called a sin by the Pharisees, who notoriously misinterpreted the scriptures. Jesus illuminated that misinterpretation.
Surely you don't want to put on the same level the words written by mortal men after they came out of a trans, or woke up from a dream, "saw" a vision or "heard" a voice, and then wrote down what they "saw" or "heard," and the words spoken in a living language for others to hear by Christ in Person.
Of course I put them on the same level, they are ALL the inspired word of God. Some are more difficult to correctly interpret than others, but we have to put them on the same level, IF we believe that no human error crept into the original text. I certainly hold that view.
Where would you find "justification" for abortion in the Gospels? Or that it's okay for the people of God to kill the infidels and their infants? But you will find it in the OT without any problems.
What are you talking about? Only the MOST liberal (and false) interpretation of the OT could possibly be seen as to support abortion. The OT is clearly the primary source AGAINST abortion. And, the OT never says it is OK for men to kill infidels on their own authority. It always took a direct communication and order from God Himself. God's creation is His to do with as He pleases. He will show mercy on those whom He will, etc.
We have no proof that 1, and 2 Peter were written by Peter or even in the 1st century. All 1st century references that can be corroborated mention only Old Testament as Scripture.
While the OCA website DOES back you up, this view is in a clear minority. The following is from New Advent:
(1) Extrinsic arguments [for the authenticity of the first epistle:] (a) in writings of the first and second centuries, e.g., Justin's letter to the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the "Didache", the "Pastor" of Hermas, and others. The Second Epistle of St. Peter, admitted to be very ancient even by those who question its authenticity, alludes to an earlier Epistle written by the Apostle (iii, 1). The letter therefore existed very early and was considered very authoritative. (b) Tradition is also unanimous for St. Peter's authorship. In the second and third centuries we have much explicit testimony to this effect. Clement and Origen at Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian in Africa, the Peshitto in Syria, Irenaeus in Gaul, the ancient Itala and Hippolytus at Rome all agree in attributing it to Peter, as do also the heretics, Basilides and Theodore of Byzantium. (c) All the collections or lists of the New Testament mention it as St. Peter's; the Muratorian Canon, which alone is at variance with this common tradition, is obscure and bears evident marks of textual corruption, and the subsequent restoration suggested by Zahn, which seems much more probable, is clearly favourable to the authenticity. Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea does not hesitate to place it among the undisputed Scriptures.
I could not get that answer anywhere. I suppose the EOC feels that Coptic Baptism/chrismation is done properly and therefore needs not a repetition.
You are losing sight of the main character. In a book about Christ, you are looking for Cain. Christ is the second man not the third.
Can you then give me your opinion of [1 John 3:12]? Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Diego moved quite quickly from "Eve was possibly carrying twins" to "These twins had different fathers".
The reason I moved from "there to there" was in order to tweak the curiosity of some who might prefer to think about the concept for a while before having it shown to them in scripture.....which I have subsequently done.
You do have to admit that by having Cain not mentioned in Adam's genealogy.....it causes one to consider the reasons.
Your contribution and that of MarkBsnr are most welcome as out traditional Catholic and Orthodox posters fizzled out or took summer vacations, save for kawaii. Sometimes sheer volume of posts can be overwhelming for one guy, so all of the Apostolic Freepers' help is appreciated as we seem to be outnumbered on this thread.
As I read your reply to Forest Keeper (post 2,488), I knew we speak from the same pulpit and I was amazed that, given a thousand years of our communal separation, and 1,500 years of linguistic separation, our teachings are like one. No coincidence there for sure.
Surprisingly, I disagree - friend.
The common term for this rationale is gnosis, as in gnosticism.
Part of that would be fine with me: gnostic - knowing, a combining form meaning of knowledge, of recognition, as in diagnostic. However, you go too far with gnosticism: A system of mystical religious and philosophical doctrines, combining Christianity with Greek and Oriental philosophies, propagated by early Christian sects that were denounced as heretical.
Before throwing that word in my direction perhaps you should list a few of the doctrines or philosophies I have used that were not taken from the Word of God. Just one would do.
Whether you wish to admit it or not everything I have stated, everything, is written in His Word. It is there for us to understand. If you choose not to I assure you it does not bother me, friend.
If that's the case then you really do have a problem, because Diego's explanation is sorely lacking.
Perhaps you need to go back and reread. I would be happy to list the MANY scriptures again that tell us, without a doubt about the 3 ages and that Cain is not a son of Adam. However, I can tell from the tone of your post that it would be ignored.
The theory being put forth is simply devoid of anything approaching sound exegesis and does pretty radical violence to fundamental logical and hermeneutical principles.
Then turn your back on truth. It is your choice.
Finally, in [Genesis 4:1]......Adam knew his wife!
But.....according to the experts......there is nothing to suggest Cain was not Adam's son.........!
Just what does it take to unwind centuries of mainstream false tradition?
I won't mention that Cain is never found in Adam's genealogy.
“But does the Bible ever really SAY that saving the life of a man on a Saturday is a sin?”
I really enjoy woodworking. I get a lot of satisfaction making different articles of furniture. It brings pleasure and satisfaction and I am exhilirated in doing it and in fact refreshed. Now, the product is useful and saves me money as I don’t have to buy the furniture and people enjoy receiving it as gifts. I don’t consider it work but others do and make a living crafting the same furniture. If I practice my hobby on sabbath is it sin?
No, we will tell you that a child can understand the basics of God and salvation. You are overplaying how we use the word. For adults, the Bible being perspicuous means it is understandable with the leadership of the Holy Spirit. It is also important to know what the concept does NOT mean. I agree with this excerpt from THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE by Larry D. Pettegrew (theology professor and Dean, Shepherd's Theological Seminary):
"What Perspicuity Does Not Mean -- In spite of what Scripture teaches about itself, it is still possible to misunderstand this doctrine, of course. So, what does this doctrine not mean, and what does it mean? First, perspicuity does not mean that all of Scripture is equally clear as to its precise meaning. The Second London Confession of Faith of the Baptists (1677, 1688), reflecting the Westminster Confession at this point, begins its statement on perspicuity: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all . . . .”9 The great church father, Chrysostom, compared Scripture to a river: “In one part there are whirlpools; and not in another,” he wrote. And he concludes, “Why then art thou bent on drowning thyself in the depths?”10
"Second, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that the teaching of Scripture is everywhere equally simple. There is a difference between clarity and simplicity. Scripture is clear, not mystical or hidden. But it often takes work to understand what the biblical authors meant in a certain passage. Commenting on Paul’s writings, the apostle Peter admits, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16)."
"Third, perspicuity does not mean that interpretation, explanation, and exposition by a Bible teacher are never necessary. The New Testament speaks of the gift of teaching and the office of pastor-teacher. In Acts 8, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah the prophet and asked him, “‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31). Our Lord also explained Scripture to his disciples. After His resurrection, for example, He met some of His disciples on the Emmaus road. “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27)."
" Those heroes in church history who emphasized the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture never implied that the teaching ministry is unnecessary. The Reformers, for example, like Calvin and Luther, “wrote numerous exegetical and expository commentaries on the text, and discussed issues concerning the problem of biblical interpretation.”11 One of the qualifications of a pastor, in fact, is that he be “able to teach” the Scriptures (1 Tim 3:2). ...... Thus, perspicuity does not mean that interpretation, explanation, and exposition by a Bible teacher are never necessary. The Bible teaches that they are. ..."
.... So what does the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scriptures mean? First it means that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by. Scripture says, “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130). Wayne Grudem comments, “Here the ‘simple’ person (Heb. peti) is not merely one who lacks intellectual ability, but one who lacks sound judgment, who is prone to making mistakes, and who is easily led astray. God’s Word is so understandable, so clear, that even this kind of person is made wise by it.”14 Robert Reymond explains,"
--------------------
It goes on, but hopefully you get the picture. The idea is to dispel the myth that ONLY men in ivory towers are qualified to interpret the scripture for us. Teachers are good, the scripture is self-contained, all scripture is "clear" and the basics are also "simple", and the Spirit does lead all of us. The doctrine of perspicuity seems to me to be a natural outgrowth of the realization that a growing number of the interpretations of scripture made by the Magisterium simply bore no resemblance to the actual texts. If the Bible was in truth an indecipherable code book, then the Magisterium could maintain its place of preeminence. Therefore, that is how it was marketed, even to this day. The doctrine of perspicuity says that this is simply not the case. Rather, that the Bible was instead meant to be read and understood by all Christians, not just a few.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.