IS.Chapter8.docx

CHAPTER EIGHT THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE 1. THE ARGUMENT FOR CLARITY THE dogmaticians teach that the divine origin, the sufficiency and the clarity of Scripture are articles of faith which ought to be accepted with faith because they are revealed in Scripture.1 Scripture is clear and sufficient becaus...

CHAPTER EIGHT THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE 1. THE ARGUMENT FOR CLARITY THE dogmaticians teach that the divine origin, the sufficiency and the clarity of Scripture are articles of faith which ought to be accepted with faith because they are revealed in Scripture.1 Scripture is clear and sufficient because it is God’s Word to men. Unless Scripture is clear, it cannot be said to be sufficient. How can we be saved through faith in the message of Scripture if that message is not clear? 2 Rome taught that the witness of the Church was needed to make Scripture clear. This was also the persuasion of the Lutheran syncretists. The orthodox teachers hold that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture, but in such a way that each Christian searches and interprets Scripture himself. The Bible does not require the interpretation of others. It is not clear merely implicitly: it clearly sets forth all we need know to be saved. The perspicuity of Scripture consists not merely in the fact that it enlightens the person who already understands its literal meaning; Scripture is itself a light, it is inherently clear, making wise the simple, namely, those who allow themselves to be persuaded. The apostle calls this prophetic Word a . It is a medium through which God enlightens us, and hence it is called not only a but also a (2 Cor. 4. 4). If Scripture were lucid only because it gave enlightenment after it was understood, it would not differ from the most obscure enigma or Sibyllan oracle. But it actually illumines our understanding and leads us to Christ, and when He is found we have everything necessary for salvation.3 What is not clearly revealed in Scripture is not necessary for salvation.4 Quenstedt explains the Lutheran position very explicitly.5 The Lutheran thesis does not pertain to the clarity or understandability of the contents of Scripture (evidentia rerum), but to the clarity of the words (claritas verborum) with which the revealed content of Scripture is made known. There are many impenetrable mysteries in Scripture which are unclear in that they cannot be grasped by human intellect, but these mysteries have not been recorded in Scripture in obscure or ambiguous language. The Lutheran thesis does not pertain to the things of God (res Dei) but to the things of Scripture (res scripturae). The things of God are often unknown and obscure to us, but the things of Scripture are clear. 1 It is enough that we accept the of the mysteries contained in Scripture without attempting to search out the . The things of God are obscure in themselves, but they are recorded clearly in Scripture. The Lutheran thesis does not pertain to every verse of Scripture. There is much in Scripture which is obscure and difficult to understand not only because of the rerum sublimitas but also because of the Holy Spirit’s wording in Scripture. However, the fact that articles of faith and precepts are stated in certain passages in a manner obscure to us does not imply that they are dark and obscure whenever they are spoken of in Scripture. In other words, it is the Lutheran position that, although many passages in Scripture are not clear, all necessary doctrines and precepts are clearly revealed in Scripture.2 The perspicuity inhering in Scripture does not comprehend onomastics, chronology, typography, allegory or unfulfilled prophecy, but matters pertaining to history, doctrine and morals. Difficult passages in Scripture can often be clarified by referring to lucid parallel passages and observing the analogy of faith. The hermeneutical rule that Scripture interprets Scripture is based on the clarity of Scripture. If read according to its literal sense 1 Scripture is clear to anyone, whether regenerate or unregenerate. Even an unbeliever is able to comprehend the literal and historical meaning of Scripture. Even an unbeliever is able to acquire what Gerhard calls a ‘notitia literae? 2 But a true spiritual understanding, a notitia Spiritus, of Scripture is attained only by the regenerate and only by means of illumination which the Holy Spirit bestows through Scripture. Scripture itself is clear, and it becomes dark and difficult only per accidens through the blindness and spiritual perversity of man. If the Gospel is obscure, it is obscure to those whose minds Satan has blinded (2 Cor. 4. 3). Of course, if the perspicuity of Scripture is taken as inferring that the mysteries contained therein comply with human reason, then, says Gerhard,3 ‘we reply without scruple, nothing is more obscure than Scripture.’ And the fact that our darkened intellect must be enlightened by the Spirit of God before we can understand Scripture does not militate against the clearness of Scripture. The sun is not less bright because a blind man cannot see it.4 To substantiate their doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture the dogmaticians appeal to Deut. 30. 11-14 and Rom. 10. 8, where the Word of God is said to be nigh to those who read it. It was the Hebrew habit to picture anything which was difficult to comprehend as being far away (Ecc. 7. 23, 24). It is absurd to say that the spoken Word of God is clear, but not the written Word. The purpose of writing is the same as the purpose of speaking. The main proof for their doctrine was to be found in the many Bible passages which speak of Scripture as a light (Prov. 6. 23; Ps. 19. 8). In 2 Pet. 1. 19 the apostle says that Scripture is like a light shining in a dark place, in other words, that it enlightens the minds of men. Therefore it must be clear. If it did not illumine men’s minds, it was written in vain.1 Bellarmine argued that Scripture is called a light not because it is easily understood, but because it enlightens the intellect. He meant that Scripture was not clear in itself, that the interpretation of the Church was needed to make it clear to us.2 Gretzer was more explicit. He said that Scripture was a lamp which was lighted by the Church.3 Dannhauer replies that, according to such a supposition, Scripture is no more clear than a foreign language, than a Delphic oracle. Scripture becomes as dark as the darkness of Egypt. Quenstedt says: 4 ‘Our enlightenment comes either from the inherent light of Scripture or from the foreign and inconsistent light of interpretation and unwritten tradition. If [it is based] upon the inherent light [of Scripture, Scripture is] lucid and not obscure, if [it is based] upon something else, then [Scripture] is obscure in itself and does not deserve to be called a lamp, much less a light.’ The clarity of Scripture is demanded by its inspiration. God is able to speak clearly, for He is the master of language and words. To say that the divine author of Scripture speaks in an obscure manner is to perpetrate blasphemy. What is more, Scripture tells us that it brings forth wisdom and understanding in children and unlearned people (Ps. 19. 7; 2 Tim. 3. 15). It reveals hidden mysteries (Rom. 16. 25; 1 Cor. 2. 9; Col. 1. 26, 27). The purpose of Scripture is that men may be brought to eternal life (Rom. 15. 4; Jn. 20. 31). Why are all commanded to read Scripture if it is not clear? 2. ROMAN AND SOCINIAN SOPHISTRIES The Roman theologians advanced many reasons why Scripture was not clear. Why did the Ethiopian eunuch require the help of Philip before he could understand Isa. 53? Why does Paul say that we see through a glass darkly? Why does Peter say that the epistles of Paul contain some things which are hard to understand? 1 Moreover, why do the Lutherans occupy themselves with writing and reading commentaries if the Scriptures are clear? To this objection the Lutherans reply that the Scriptures can be understood without commentaries or tradition. Commentaries are written for the simple and unlearned. They attempt to clarify, if possible, certain difficult passages. They are not merely written to explain Scripture, but to apply what Scripture clearly teaches.2 Finally, an interpreter of Scripture draws from Scripture nothing other than what the clear words say.3 If tradition is absolutely needed to interpret Scripture, then tradition must be more clear than Scripture. But there is hardly anything more obscure than tradition.4 The Roman theologians attacked the perspicuity of Scripture in order to clear the way for their dogma of papal supremacy. If the interpretation of the Church was essential to a true understanding of Scripture, they had gained their point. There was really only one dispute between Lutheranism and Romanism: is the authority of Scripture greater than that of the Church, or is the Church above Scripture? Aegidius Hunnius is alert to the fact that it was their dogma of ecclesiastical authority which prompted Roman Catholic theologians to oppose the clarity of Scripture and to becloud the issue with every manner of irrelevant objection.5 No one will dispute, he says, that there are present in Scripture many difficult and obscure passages. The question is simply this: Are the doctrines which we must believe for salvation clearly set forth in Scripture? Lutheran theology answers with a decided ‘yes.’ The deity of Christ can be upheld and Arius can be proved a heretic by Jn. i, Col. I, Heb. I and Jn. 5 without outside corroboration. The adversaries have good reason for obscuring the issue. It is done in the interest of their own private interpretation, which the Roman Antichrist arrogates to himself. Here is the real difference between the Lutherans and the papists. Bellarmine contends that Scripture must be obscure because it conveys mysteries which surpass all human understanding. This objection, which has nothing to do with the controversy, serves only to confuse the issue. Pertaining to doctrines of Scripture the is often unclear, but never the . Hunnius says,1 Tt is best to illustrate this truth by an example. That Christ is man and God at the same time is a mystery which utterly transcends not only metaphysical knowledge (about which the Jesuit prattles) but absolutely all philosophy and human reason. This is a simple matter of confession. But now it is asked whether God has revealed this mystery in Scripture obscurely or clearly. I answer, it is clearly set forth in the holy Scriptures not only when John proclaims that the Word was made flesh (where the context indicates what is meant by the term “Word”), but also when the prophet Jeremiah says that the seed of David is the Lord Himself, when Gabriel calls the son of Mary the Son of the Most High, when Peter says that the Son of Man is coeval with the Son of God, and when Paul says that Christ sprang from the Fathers to be over all, God blessed for ever (Rom. 9), and when he proclaims that the second Adam is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15).’ Hunnius then proceeds to speak of the Virgin Birth of Christ which, although above reason and incredible to heathen philosophy, is nevertheless taught clearly as a fact in Scripture and needs no elucidation from the Fathers or the Church. He concludes, ‘If the Jesuit still insists that even such clear teachings stand in need of the interpretation of the Fathers, thinking Christians can only judge him to be an impudent sophist who should be thrown outside like rotten eggs.’ The above argument of Bellarmine’s seems to have bothered the dogmaticians or at least made them angry (as we see from the quotation of Hunnius), although they are convinced it was only a subterfuge to uphold the sovereignty of the Roman papacy. Quenstedt feels that it reveals more than a clever attempt to confuse matters: it indicates an utterly mistaken conception of the nature of faith. He says: ‘It is possible to write clearly of obscure things, to write in an humble fashion of sublime things, to write in a simple manner of difficult things, and to write openly of hidden things. The Incarnation is a great mystery (1 Tim. 3. 16) and yet there are many passages pertaining to it which are clearer than the sun itself. The justification of a sinner before God and the Resurrection are numbered as mysteries. Could you wish for anything clearer than what the apostle writes of the former in his letter to the Romans and of the latter in 1 Cor. 15? As touching mysteries we must distinguish between the that and the how. The former is clearly declared in Scripture; the latter, if not declared, is not necessary to know for salvation. For instance, I read in Scripture clearly that God is one and yet three persons, that the Son of God was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Now if a person is not content with this, but in an officious manner searches into the how and why of it, he has no reason to espouse the obscurity of Scripture, but every reason to condemn his own effrontery. Faith does not rest upon proofs from reason, but upon divine testimony.’1 The Socinians, like the Jesuits, believed that the Scriptures were not clear. They taught that Christ and his apostles purposely spoke ambiguously. In his Socinismus Profligatus Calov combats this view. He says it violates the very purpose of Scripture and of the prophetic office of Christ. Christ came and His apostles were commissioned not to confuse, but to inform and enlighten sinners. Otherwise why should He be called ‘the Light of the World’? The contents and full import of His utterances may well have transcended human comprehension, but His words were never obscure or ambiguous.2 Christ made use of parables and allegories to clarify what He was saying, not to bewilder people. Often we read that He convinced and silenced the Jews (Lk. 14. 6; Matt. 22. 34 ff); this was accomplished only by means of plain language. And the effect of his lucid preaching is indicated by the testimony of his hearers (Jn. 7. 46; Matt. 22. 16; Jn. 3. 2). If many did not understand Christ, it was not His fault, and if many do not understand or appreciate the Scriptures, the blame must be placed where it belongs, on the blindness and perversity of their own sinful hearts, not on the Scriptures, which were written for the sake of their edification and salvation.1 Christ would have made Himself responsible for their sins if He had on purpose spoken ambiguously to the Jews. Socinus taught that God purposely made much of the Bible unclear; this, says Calov, denies gratia universalis.’2’ But why did God allow any passages in Scripture to remain unclear? The dogmaticians make no attempt to answer this question categorically, but they do offer certain reasons which they think may be plausible: (1) that we might the more diligently search the Scriptures, (2) that we might be given no occasion for contemning the sacred writings because of their simplicity, (3) that all human pride and arrogance might be quenched, (4) that we might be reminded of our congenital blindness in spiritual matters, (5) that we might approach Scripture with reverence and with a prayer that we grow in sanctification, (6) that we might strive the more zealously for a fuller knowledge of Scripture.3 3. THE RIGHT OF THE LAITY TO READ SCRIPTURE The Roman Church in the seventeenth century forbade the laity to read the Scriptures; this was perfectly consistent with their doctrine that Scripture was unclear and did not offer all teachings necessary for salvation. This was the practical conclusion to which their doctrine of Scripture led them. If Scripture is not the only source of theology, if the authority of Scripture is derived from the Church, if Scripture is imperfect, obscure, ambiguous and unnecessary, there is little reason for encouraging the laity to read and study it. The Lutherans, on the other hand, would most naturally submit that there is every good reason why all who can read should study Scripture. Their whole doctrine of Scripture—if it were not to degenerate into idle theorizing— demanded such a conclusion. Scripture was written for all people to read and meditate on (Deut. 6. 6; Isa. 34. 16; Jn. 5. 39). Everyone who reads Scripture is approved by God (2 Tim. 3. 15). The epistles of the New Testament were written usually to whole congregations, not merely to clergymen, and it has always been the practice of Christian lay people to read the Scriptures (Acts 8. 30; 17. 11). On the basis of such passages as 1 Cor. 1. 2, Col. 4. 16, 1 Thess. 1. 4, 2 Thess. 1. 1 and Phil. 1. 1 Brochmand1 contends that the Scriptures were addressed to all Christians. He says: ‘As many therefore as are beloved of God, as many as are called to be saints, as many as are sanctified in Christ, as many as are faithful brethren in Christ, can and by all means shoud be allowed to read the sacred writings. Or should we say that only those who are ordained priests and not of the common people are the beloved of God and the faithful brethren of Christ? But notice what John writes in his epistle, “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father” (1 Jn. 2. 12, 13). And so no man, no age, which is capable of devout reading, is to be stopped from reading Scripture.’ When the Scriptures are withheld from the laity the very purpose of Scripture is violated. Everyone who can read is to read the Scriptures. It is the height of presumption, nay, the devil himself, which has inspired the papacy to wrest from believers what God has given them. How strongly the dogmaticians felt regarding this matter is evinced in a statement of Calov’s: ‘What evil spirit has ordered the Pope to place among the prohibited books the holy Scripture which has been committed to all men to read? Who gave him the power to grant one and not another the right to read the books of the Bible? How can he say that the divinely inspired Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation can bring damnation on anyone, without heaping shameful abuse on Scripture, nay, blasphemy upon God, the author of Scripture? The good which God wishes all to enjoy the Church has no right by some legal enactment to take from most people and reserve for a certain number. Whoever does this sets himself above God, and by this very deed he proves himself to be the Antichrist.’ 1 The papists rave in vain that the Scriptures are obscure, that laymen cannot understand them, that the Church is required to interpret them for the laity. Anyone who can understand can understand Scripture when it speaks of his salvation in Christ.2 It is wrong to abstain from reading the Bible simply because there are many passages which want interpretation. To every Christian has been given the gift of reading and interpreting Scripture and the duty of judging all things by it. This does not mean that Christians may judge Scripture according to human standards. It was a stock proposition of the Jesuits that Scripture was a wax nose which could be twisted by any heretic to fit his own preconceived sectarian tenets; thus Scripture could be used as a cloak to cover false doctrines. The dogmaticians reply that to break a law does not make the law void. Abusus enim non tollit usum.1 Laymen are no more guilty of this offence than the clergy. When Bellarmine claims that all sorts of heresies arise when the uneducated read Scripture, he is wrong, says Quenstedt, and denies Eph. 3. 4. Quenstedt says:2 ‘If the laity are to be forbidden reading the Scriptures because of the danger of heresy, how much more the clergy, the bishops and presbyters. Experience has proved this, and Bellarmine himself confesses (De Rom. Pontif. 1, 8), “There has been hardly any archheresy, even among the less notorious heretics, which has not sprung from the clergy.” ’ Lutherans have not taught that every Christian has a right to impose his own private interpretation upon Scripture. It is the papists, not the Lutherans, who degrade Scripture to a wax nose (cereus nasus).3 Certain Jesuits in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries took an extreme position in this controversy. They taught that it was dangerous, even injurious, for a layman to read the Bible. Chief among the protagonists of this extravagant view were Bellarmine and two notable English controversialists of the sixteenth century, Thomas Stapleton and Thomas Harding, who fled England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Bellarmine and Harding go so far as to submit that Bible-reading is harmful to faith and morals. The Lutheran theologians point out that such a teaching makes Scripture a bad thing. It is due to their own rashness and evil nature, not to Scripture, that the laity sometimes take offence at some of the frank and open stories recorded in Scripture.4 Quenstedt says: 5 ‘The prophetic and apostolic Scripture is holy, just, good and salutary. In itself it harms no one, leads no one into error, and is not the cause of any heresy. It shows man his depraved nature, it reveals his failings and accomplishments. It deters him from what is evil and urges him toward what is good. If the occasion of errors or unorthodox opinions is brought about when one reads certain passages from Scripture that is purely accidental.’ Quenstedt says that by reading the Bible the laity is given the right to check on what is publicly preached and taught. Bellarmine protests that lay people have no such right. They are in duty bound to follow their pastor even if he is known to be in error. If they had the right to judge their pastor, they would not need a pastor. In his locus on the ministry Gerhard carefully and thoroughly refutes these objections of Bellarmine’s. His whole long argument is interesting and merits being quoted at this point. He writes:1 ‘Bellarmine objects: “Because the common people are unlearned they are unable to judge the doctrine of their pastors in any other manner than by comparing it with the teaching of former pastors.” We reply that this is proved false by the example of the Bereans who daily searched the Scriptures, inquiring carefully whether these things were so which Paul and Barnabus preached (Acts 17. 11). They set up as norm of judgment not the doctrine of their ordinary pastors, but the holy Scriptures, and they were commended for this by the Holy Spirit. The ignorance of the people under the papacy about which Bellarmine speaks arose because they were forbidden to read the holy Scriptures. For this sacrilege its authors will one day give strict account. But we turn Bellarmine’s argument round: if the ignorance of the people does not prevent them from comparing the doctrine of their pastors with the doctrine of their predecessors or regular pastors, certainly it will not keep them from comparing the doctrine of their pastors with the doctrine of Christ, the prophets and apostles which is presented in Scripture and from judging according to this norm a true prophet from a false one. If the former is true, so is the latter. The inference of the major premise is proved by the fact that Christ, the prophets and apostles could and did teach clearly as did the regular pastors. When Christ, the prophets and apostles performed their ministry of teaching on this earth, they preached not only to the learned but to the ignorant people and in such a way that they were able to be understood. How then are the writings of the prophets and apostles so obscure and complicated that simple people are unable to judge doctrine from them? Certainly the prophets and apostles did not write anything other than what they preached with their mouths. “But,” says Bellarmine, “if the people could by themselves judge the teaching of their pastors they would not need preachers.” We reply: that conclusion is illogical. Both things have been commanded by God, namely, that the people prove the doctrine of their pastors—Bellarmine himself granted this above in express words—and that there be nevertheless certain ordained ministers in the Church, for “they are not all teachers” (1 Cor. 12. 29; Eph. 4. 11). It is one thing to search into the truth of doctrine and to know the difference between heresy and orthodoxy, between false prophets and true teachers; this is a general call which is extended to all Christians. It is another thing to teach publicly in the church; this is a special call. We do not make shepherds of the sheep but insist that they be and remain sheep. However, we do not want them to be brute sheep, who can and should not tell the difference between shepherds and wolves. The papists make their hearers brute sheep, who without any sense follow their pastor, even if he leads them into poisonous pastures or turns into a wolf. They make out of their hearers parrots who hang on the nod of the prelates, and of the prelates they make angels who are infallible and responsible to no one. Luther says, “If a man appears who teaches doctrine contrary to that of other pastors, his doctrine should be subject to doubt.” Later he says we should find out whether his call is legitimate. The conclusion which Bellarmine adds is simply anti-Christian: “When the regular pastor and one who has not been called teach things which conflict with each other, the people ought to follow their pastor rather than the one who is not their pastor, even though it may chance that the pastor has erred.” Now it is wrong to imply here that Luther was not a regularly called pastor. And it is equally wrong to follow a regular pastor even when he errs. This is nothing else than to order sheep to follow their shepherds into noxious pastures, to ask Christians to prefer darkness to light, error to truth, human regulations to divine authority. Bellarmine submits, “It is incredible that God would allow a regular pastor to err so that simple people are deceived.” But he disputes in vain about whether a thing can happen when it is plain that it has happened. Not without brazen impudence can he deny that appointed pastors have often erred and led the unlearned people astray.’