Replies

Thanks, as always, for your post and for the clarification.

And so it is a matter of degree. Though I don't know how one puts a quantity to the degrees. How do we measure the value of the Sacraments for example.

Was it a simple reading that caused these to disappear after 1400 years? We think this is an incredible loss. Of course, you see no loss. We look at the same words and read them quite differently.

For example, one does not need to be ‘learned,’ when reading the Gospels or hearing them read or proclaimed, to discover that they intend to teach that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed mighty miracles, died on the cross ‘as a ransom for many,’ [how I remember this argument from scripture!] and rose from the dead on the third day after death. These things are plain, lying on the very face of the Gospels.

These are the narrative of course. But scripture is more than narrative - I'd argue that if one read it only as narrative, it is not scripture, it's one story among many. What is the plain reading of the narrative of the Beatitudes - "Jesus gave a sermon." Of course, the meat of John's Gospel becomes gibberish in narrative form.

Thus, perspicuity does not mean that interpretation, explanation, and exposition by a Bible teacher are never necessary. The Bible teaches that they are. ...
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.”

Rightfully so as much of their teaching is contradicted by new Reformers.

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.

I don't believe any Protestant would say this is sufficient use and meaning of scripture. Philosophy and ethics are available elsewhere. This is not what makes it scripture. One must see scripture as having a deeper value and truth. Else why not pick a different "scripture's" narrative and words to live by? I agree with the point, but it is like saying everyone who listens to Bach hears some noise.

The idea is to dispel the myth that ONLY men in ivory towers are qualified to interpret the scripture for us.

We shouldn't choose our teachers by where they live. But let's get to the real crux:

a growing number of the interpretations of scripture made by the Magisterium simply bore no resemblance to the actual texts.

Based first on your interpretation requiring sola scriptura - which came from scripture, right?

Second, we look at some of your doctrine as bearing no resemblance to scripture also.

It seems to me that this definition of Perspicuity of Scripture means the average reader can get the story and "words to live by" (but not a Sacramental life). Past that they require Protestant teachers. :)

Which begs the next question: Which one? Based on what and whose criteria?

Rightfully so as much of their [Luther, Calvin, etc.] teaching is contradicted by new Reformers.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "much", but you're right that there are some disagreements. We just wanted to be sure that nobody thought we worshiped them. :)

[From the quote:] 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.

I inferred that the author meant "... clear enough for the simplest person to live a Holy and Christian life by". If that is right, then it might include what you are talking about.

FK: "... a growing number of the interpretations of scripture made by the Magisterium simply bore no resemblance to the actual texts."

Based first on your interpretation requiring sola scriptura - which came from scripture, right?

I was postulating on some of the reasons for the Reformation in the first place, but I do agree with them. Of course the term "Sola Scriptura" does not appear in scripture, but its principles are certainly there. For example, supporting evidence is found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Cor. 4:6, Luke 1:1-4, and Matt. 4:1-11.

Second, we look at some of your doctrine as bearing no resemblance to scripture also.

And I have had the good fortune of being reminded of that occasionally on this very forum. :)

I think the average reader would understand that he should be baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper. But you are right in that I don't think he would understand the Sacramental life as you do.

Which begs the next question: Which one? Based on what and whose criteria?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to.