The other day, when looking at the place of tradition, I referred to something referred to as “the clarity of Scripture” or sometimes known as “the perspicuity of Scripture.” As you read that, you might have wondered “but if Scripture is clear, then why is it that not only I struggle at times to understand it but even learned scholars fall out?” After all, despite this so called clarity, we end up divided over what the Bible teaches about all kinds of things, from the mode and timing of baptism to the nature of Christ’s return and not forgetting how to organise church leadership in the meantime.
So, at this point, we usually talk about the nuances to the doctrine of perspicuity. I talk about this here.[1] In summary, the reformed position is that we do not expect the same level of clarity in all places and we do not expect the same level of clear understanding from all people.
However, I think that we need to be careful with this. What we shouldn’t be saying, and I don’t think this is what those involved in putting those nuances in place, is that the concept of clarity itself only applies to some parts of Scripture so that some parts are obscure, cloudy, unclear. Rather, we want to say this.
First, that the opposite of “clarity” is not “difficulty” or “complexity.” So, when we say that Scripture is clear, we are not saying that all parts are as easy for us to understand. This does mean that some parts will require us to work harder.
Secondly, and I think that the way that at times we’ve qualified the doctrine has risked obscuring this very point. The Doctrine of Clarity, I would argue, applies properly to the whole of Scripture. What I mean is that one part of Scripture taken on may not be immediately clear to us. It is when we see that particular text in the context of the whole of Scripture that things begin to make sense. Indeed, specifically, we need to be reading all of Scripture through Christ. The mystery is now revealed.
Thirdly, when we say that it is specifically those things necessary for salvation (and some like Grudem add “The Christian life” to that), the point is not so much that these verses are more or less clear than others. I’m not sure that Scripture quite works like that where we can split out the Gospel bits from the ethical buts. Instead our point is that Scripture is clear when used for its intended purpose. Often, where we struggle and get into a muddle is when we attempt to use the Bible for unintended purposes and go in with the wrong questions which it isn’t particularly interested in answering.
To give two examples here. First, I suspect the reason we have a lot of controversy over end times teaching is that Scripture was never intended to give us a step by step chronological account of the last days in order to enable us to chart out the timings of what is to come. Secondly, we tie ourselves up in knots over predestination when we look for philosophical answers about exactly how God’s sovereignty relates to our responsibility. I often remind people that when Paul wrote about election and predestination, he was doing so for pastoral reasons.
How clear exactly is Scripture? It is clear enough to do its intended job.
[1] You can also find the relevant section in Dave Williams, How Do you know? 19-20.
Faithroots 