The Clarity of Scripture
What is the doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture?
The theology of the Clarity of Scripture is also called the Perspicuity of Scripture. This idea was one of the key concepts pushed for by the reformers like Luther, Tyndale, and Wycliffe. The theology was presented as an alternative to the Roman Catholic belief that the Bible could only be rightly understood by the priests of the Catholic church. Instead, the reformers believed that the Bible could be understood by even the common man. While there are certainly complex parts of scripture, the way of salvation can be clearly understood by even those who are not educated in Biblical studies.
This was a revolutionary concept, and it was an effective weapon to fight against the oppressive spiritual power of the Catholic church at that time. Luther and others understood that the church was adding to the Scripture and taking advantage of the people under them because they didn't think they had the training and expertise necessary to understand the Bible's message rightly. Therefore, they put their trust in corrupt men.
Despite the doctrine being hundreds of years old, it has been refined over time. a more modern understanding of the doctrine is written in Wane Grudem's Systematic Theology published in 1994. This book was written to educate Christians in the foundations of the Christian faith and even the more complex aspects of reformed theology in a well-organized structure. Despite the book's rigorous reliance on the Bible as its source of information, I believe it has made some grave errors in regards to the Clarity of Scripture.
This article is a critique of this book's chapter on the Clarity of Scripture and an explanation for why I believe it is important how we understand this doctrine.
How the Clarity of Scripture is distinct from the Inerrancy of Scripture
The Doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture says that all Scripture is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) In other words, It is perfect as He is perfect. It has no error in it. There is no place where God forgot to have someone add some detail or misplaced a concept or idea. This doesn't mean that every translation is perfect down to the letter and word. Even though translators do their best to translate accurately, we can't trust that the process of translation is divinely inspired like we can trust the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired.
The Inerrancy of Scripture is distinct from the Clarity of Scripture because something can be perfect and without error, yet not clear and difficult to understand in our imperfect minds. Something can also be easy to understand, but lack perfection. It can be easy to confuse the two in the context of Christianity because many Christians hold such a high view of scripture as divinely inspired. It's important to keep these two theologies separate so that we don't fall into the belief that our own understanding is inerrant.
The Shortcomings of Systematic Theology
There are several aspects of Systematic Theology that overstep the original intent of the reformers in defining the doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture. Not only is it a departure from what is "traditional doctrine" but out of the many chapters within Systematic Theology, I found it to be particularly lacking in Biblical foundation to take this overstep.
Let me explain.
According to the chapter, the doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture is defined as follows:
The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow. (Systematic Theology pp. 82 sect. C)
The Westminster Confession of Faith written in 1646, states the following regarding this clarity of scripture.
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 1, Section 6.007)
In other words, historical protestant theology would say that Scripture is sufficiently clear about the way to Salvation. Systematic Theology would also say everything required for growth in the Christian life is clear and able to be understood by everyone willing to seek God's help in finding it.
While the difference is subtle, I believe this difference presented in Systematic Theology is not supported by Scripture. I believe that Systematic Theology takes the concept of the clarity of Scripture and extends it in order to create certainty about things that aren't biblically certain.
Systematic Theology states that not all theologians agree on this extended view of the clarity of Scripture. (see pp. 82, sect. C) The chapter doesn't however explicitly state that this extended view is not the historic view of this doctrine, it instead says that not all Christians hold to the doctrine the same way.
This leaves the historical precedent of the doctrine undefined throughout the chapter.
Through my own study, I believe part of the reason for this change in understanding the clarity of scripture came about as a response to the changes that occurred in American society in the 20th century. The 1900s saw the evangelical world pressured to move into a defensive position as worldviews opposed to the Bible became accepted as culturally normative.
One of the cultural initiatives leveled at traditional Christianity was the rejection of the Authority of Scripture as Absolute Truth. This would come in the form of rejecting the Bible's Inerrancy but also come as an indirect attack on its clarity. In order to protect the authority of scripture in the Christian worldview, and to prevent the encroachment of Relativism into evangelical theology, the doctrine of the clarity of scripture had to be fortified. This extension of the doctrine allows for statements like "The Bible clearly says..." to be an effective argument against opposing views. This emphasis on all of Scripture being clear effectively turns any disagreement or differing viewpoints into a volley of scripture "proof texts." Instead of disagreements becoming a constructive discussion, they quickly disintegrate into accusations of not accepting what the Bible says to be true.
To oppose a charismatic authority figure on his or her view of what the Bible "clearly says" becomes synonymous with questioning the purity of Scripture itself. This is the confusion of Biblical clarity with that of Biblical inerrancy.
I realize that these observations don't prove or disprove the truthfulness of the theology itself. Just because theologians may have come up with some new ways of looking at the Bible doesn't necessarily mean the Bible doesn't support this view, right?
Let's look further.
Some Specific Weak Points
There are some specific weak points in the reasoning that I see in reading Systematic Theology. Below are a few of the core errors that I believe exist within the arguments presented in the chapter. I believe that these errors are the foundation on which systematic theology rests its case for the clarity of Scripture extending beyond simply the way of Salvation.
The error that misunderstanding the Bible is a moral issue
First, one of the central points within the chapter says that when something in the Bible is misunderstood, the reason is always with the person reading rather than the Bible itself. (pp. 83, para. 3) This is a kind of defensive statement against the introduction of "self-defined", relativistic, biblical theology.
The Bible must remain inerrant, so if there is seems to be a contradiction or some imperfection in it, the error must be with us, and not with the Bible itself.
I want to make this really clear: I am in full agreement with this statement. The Bible is perfect and any perceived error in it is indeed our own error.
The question becomes, is that error a result of sin?
Systematic Theology states that there is a certain moral and spiritual quality necessary for understanding the Bible correctly. (pp. 82, Sect. B) This is true insofar as to say that someone who does not have the Holy Spirit working in them will not be able to comprehend the transforming Truth of the gospel in its full glory.
However, I would disagree that there is a moral or spiritual quality needed to understand any part of Scripture. The scriptural references listed in this part of the chapter (1 Cor. 2:14; cf. 1:18–3:4; 2 Cor. 3:14–16; 4:3–4, 6; Heb. 5:14; James 1:5–6; 2 Peter 3:5; cf. Mark 4:11–12; John 7:17; 8:43) support this distinction because they talk about spiritually accepting the truth of scripture, rather than understanding it mentally or academically.
Systematic Theology implies that sin is the root cause of our misunderstanding of scripture. The examples that are given throughout the chapter all have to do with sin hindering our understanding of the Bible. There is no other reason presented that someone would not be able to understand Scripture.
In other words, Systematic Theology seems to say that, anytime there is a disagreement about a portion of scripture, the reason is that someone's sin is causing them to see it incorrectly.
I find this concerning because I think it's perfectly rational to say that certain parts of the Bible require a particular level of intelligence to comprehend. We were created with finite limitations. We are created in the image of God, not as duplications of his infinite wisdom and understanding. Therefore, I believe it is accurate to conclude that there is a portion of our intelligence (or lack of which) that is not caused by indwelling sin, but rather by the fact that we are limited, created beings.
Lack of critical reasoning in scriptural references
There was one particular place within the chapter that caught my attention because of what I observed to be a significant lack of thorough understanding of the passages that were referenced.
In a day when it is common for people to tell us how hard it is to interpret Scripture rightly, we would do well to remember that not once in the Gospels do we ever hear Jesus saying anything like this: “I see how your problem arose—the Scriptures are not very clear on that subject.” Instead, whether he is speaking to scholars or untrained common people, his responses always assume that the blame for misunderstanding any teaching of Scripture is not to be placed on the Scriptures themselves, but on those who misunderstand or fail to accept what is written. Again and again he answers questions with statements like, “Have you not read...” (pp. 81, para. 2)
The section was about the way Jesus spoke in the new testament. The argument is that Jesus assumed that people understood the scripture with questions like "Have you never read?", or "You are wrong because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" These statements are taken to mean that Jesus assumed people's ability to comprehend the Bible and even reprimanded people for not being able to do so.
I looked up each one of these referenced scriptures where Jesus states these things. Each one of them is in the context of speaking to the most educated men in Israel. While I know that we can't understand tone from the written word, there is a bit of irony and perhaps sarcasm in the statements made by Jesus here. Jesus is not saying that these things are necessarily easy to understand, instead, he seems to be pointing out the lack of understanding that these men have in the ways of God - despite their years of training and experience.
Whether intentional or simply overlooked, I believe this is a clear oversight and a wrong understanding of these passages presented in Systematic Theology in order to try to build a “biblical” case for a concept that is not biblical.
The diversity of belief in Christian culture
Another thing I noticed in the chapter was a minimizing and almost apologetic tone regarding the diversity of belief within Christianity. Instead of embracing this concept of diversity within Christian belief as evidence pointing toward the lack of clarity in certain parts of scripture, it is minimized and talked about apologetically. (pp. 80, para. 1), (pp. 82, sect. C), (pp. 84, para. 3)
The chapter leaves me - the reader - with the assurance that there is only one right answer and that it's my fault that I don't have the right answer. The main problem I see with this simplistic view is that it leaves us with no clear way of how to interact with people who disagree with us.
This is how I believe an internal conversation would play out based on this theology.
...Am I wrong about this concept? If I am, I must be sinning in some way. Am I sinning? If I'm not, then I must be right. He must be the one sinning. He must not be willing to admit it. It's my duty as a brother in Christ to help him be able to see his sin and repent so he can see the Scripture clearly...
This theology creates a toxic environment where people have to create an entirely new denomination because they can't be in fellowship with those who don't see things exactly the same way.
Instead of looking at disagreement as an opportunity to grow and learn, this wrong understanding of doctrine creates an environment driven by tribalistic self-protection.
The Complexity of Hermeneutics
Mentioned in the chapter was also the concept of Hermeneutics and the associated term of Exegesis. (pp. 83, para. 1-2) I think the chapter falls considerably short of describing the complexity of the topic of Hermeneutics. By doing this, it makes it far easier to digest and accept the idea that moral failure (sin) is the sole reason for misunderstanding Scripture.
Hermeneutics is not enough to "prove" that your understanding of the Biblical text is correct. In fact, the right understanding of Hermeneutics leads you to the opposite conclusion: That you can't understand every detail perfectly.
Hermeneutics teaches you that your understanding of a particular word will be driven by many things unique to you as a person as well as the context that surrounds the word. Personal involvement and context are necessary for your understanding of something and this shapes how you interpret that meaning.
In a concise term: All understanding is context-dependent.
This may sound dangerously close to Relativism so let me explain the difference.
When I say your understanding of the Bible is shaped by you as a person this is not disregarding the Inerrancy of Scripture, but rather viewing it in the correct light of reality.
Let's use the example of looking at how different occupations change how you see the world.
A scientist will tend to look at the world in a way that is quantifiable and mathematical. It will be based on objective evidence, repeated observation, and logical consistency. A tree is a plant. It has bark. It has a root system. It uses photosynthesis to create energy. The amount of energy it creates can be calculated and quantified based on measuring certain things about the tree and how it operates.
An artist will look at the world as a canvas of expressing and experiencing emotions. He may look at objects as things that generate feelings inside him. He will look at a tree and see something that brings peace. Something that represents strength and stability, something that brings joy because it represents life and growth.
A writer will look at the world as a story, like a drama unfolding over time. A friend of mine described this like seeing a tree and wondering who leaned against it? What kind of person may have used it as shelter during a storm? Who had their first kiss under this tree, carving their names in the trunk? What stories would the tree tell?
Each perspective is no more or less true then the others. Each one is a particular angle of looking at the infinite complexity of reality. Reality is like a diamond. It's a solid rock, and sure foundation. However, depending on the way you look at it, it will transform its shape and reflect the light in different ways. It's still the diamond, it's still the Truth, but we only see it through a single perspective at a given time.
This is what I mean when I say that each person has a unique way that they understand the Bible. I'm not saying that we can make the Bible say whatever we want, or whatever "feels good" to us. That's Relativism. What I'm saying is that each person has a different perspective looking at the complexity of the truths presented in the Bible.
A watched a video on Hermeneutics that gave this great summary of why Hermeneutics is not relativism:
It is often thought that [Hermeneutics] insistence on the interpretation of something destroys objectivity. but Hermeneutics is not relativism. To say that interpretation can make us see the world in many different ways doesn't mean we just make up the world - hermeneutics is a critical realism where personal involvement is critical to understanding. We don't construct the world, but instead, the world discloses itself to us based on our angle of vision.
The Holistic Nature of Hermeneutics
Let's go back to what I had said about words and how they need context to be understood. The meaning of a passage of scripture is Holistic. The term Holistic means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In the context of hermeneutics, each word can't be fully understood until it is in the context of the whole.
Take the word "can" for example. What does it mean? Well, it depends on the context that the word is used. Someone "can" take out the trash. It can also be a word that describes the bin to collect the trash. (taking out the trash can.") The word doesn't carry one unique meaning until it is put in the context of other words. (like a sentence)
A meaning of a sentence is also holistic because a sentence can have more than one meaning depending on the context that surrounds it.
What is the meaning of the sentence? You can make some guesses, but you can't be sure until you determine the context in which the sentence falls. What is the writer talking about in the paragraph? What is the point of the chapter? What is the chapter in the context of the book? What is the point of the book? Why is the writer writing the book? On and on you can go, abstracting further and further.
Because we live in a reality of infinite complexity, we can make the following conclusion:
There is no limit to the amount of study that you can engage in to interpret one word, in one text.
If there is no limit to the amount of effort you can put forward to refine your understanding of something, that would logically mean that there is infinite complexity to reality and Truth.
In mathematical terms:
The probability of your understanding of Scripture being wrong in some way is 100%.
To say otherwise would be to conclude that we can know everything there is to know about everything. In order to be 100% sure of the meaning of a passage, we would have to be omniscient! To claim to fully understand the context of the word, sentence, writer, time period, etc. It would be to say that we are God himself!
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying to mean that you can't trust anything. You don't need to be stuck in the infinite loop of uncertainty with no escape! At some point, we need to trust in what we understand the Bible to say enough to act on it. You can still trust in the authority of the Word of God and hold to it as your anchor of Truth. The difference is that this understanding needs to be held with a level of humility that admits it's not perfect. Your understanding can always be refined by asking questions and listening to other perspectives.
In other words,
Just because we believe the Bible to be Absolute Truth, doesn't imply that we understand Absolute Truth with Absolute Clarity.
This article written from a humanistic perspective, doesn't capture anything about God or the Gospel, but it does accurately clarify this point about humility and our finite minds in a great way:
We are still cognitively limited...navigating a world that is overly complex for our brains to grasp. We are fallible and failing to realize that reveals lack of epistemic humility, which is a cornerstone of the scientific method.
This idea was part of the reason for my series on humility. The big picture point I was trying to make is that we need to hold our understanding and perspectives with the proper weight. Our views are a limited and finite representation of the infinite. a sliver of the fractal-like complexity of the world around us.
As a Christian, I believe the Bible is Absolute Truth, but as a human being, I need to be humble, knowing that my understanding of the truth is finite and must continue to be refined over a lifetime.
What happens when you confuse Truth with understanding the Truth?
In closing this article, I want to discuss some of the effects of subscribing to the extended doctrine of the clarity of Scripture as described by Systematic Theology.
This of course is not a scientific cause-and-effect description of what happens. This is my experience of what happens when you believe this theology. In other words, these are some examples of what I believe are the fruits of believing this doctrine about Scripture.
Arrogance becomes virtue
When someone believes that there is only one way to view and understand the world, it becomes a moral obligation for that person to convince others of agreeing with that viewpoint.
This leads to a kind of end-justifies-the-means mentality that can easily make arrogance into a virtue and epistemic humility dangerous. It creates a battleground with warring factions where there should be collaborative engagement to grow and seek a deeper understanding of the Truth using the diverse perspectives of all.
People lose their curiosity and creative ability
When people are locked into a singular way of thinking, it limits their mental capacity for creativity. I don't mean that they are not able to create beautiful works of art. What I mean is that the foundational aspects of the brain that looks for connections in new and unknown places are consciously repressed. This is because things that are outside of the realm of what is "safe, acceptable, and right" are deemed dangerous at best, and more often, evil.
This hinders people from being curious about the world around them. There may be some places that are okay to be curious, but far more will be "off-limits" to any kind of mental engagement because of the potential danger it possesses.
I discussed this in more detail in part 2 of the series on humility.
Creates a fertile ground for spiritual and mental abuse
When you spiritually lock people into a certain way of thinking and don't allow for disagreement, you can be sure that this will become a toxic and abusive environment. Even if people's intentions are good, certain personalities are attracted to the positions of leadership and power within these kinds of belief systems. Narcissists and Psychopaths both strive for positions of power in which they can have their fragile egos stroked and where they can force people to agree with them and follow their wishes. When you have the power of religious belief behind you, and the charisma to convince people you know what you're doing, it is an opportunity too ripe to be passed up.
Of course, I'm not saying that everyone in a leadership position is abusive. What I'm saying is this:
the theology of thinking that scripture is perfectly clear about every detail leads to abusive people finding places of leadership.
These people are accepted and held up as "strong leaders" because they are sure of themselves and what they believe. (Arrogance becomes virtue)
As stated previously, we are not God. To think that we have the answer to everything about the world and how it works with complete perfection is to say that we have the omniscience of God himself.
Our brains can't even always handle our emotions in constructive ways, what makes us think that we can handle an infinite level of cognitive perfection!?
Simplicity is comfortable, but it's a dangerous illusion.
The reason I feel so strongly about this concept, and why I wanted to write such a lengthy post about it is because I believe it is one of the core things that has caused so much damage in the church.
I believe it's one of the foundational beliefs that give a reason for why we see people leaving the evangelical church in droves. The term "exvangelical" is a growing title for people leaving the evangelical church. I wouldn't be so bold as to say that this article details even a fraction of many reasons why people are leaving, however, I think that one of the foundational pillars is that we have lost our ability to hold our understanding humbly, and by so doing, we have lost the ability to engage with people different than us.
Instead of embracing epistemic humility, we have formed theology to serve our purposes of defending our way of thinking and life against perceived threats from the outside.
I want to close by stating clearly and emphatically that I believe this extended theology of the clarity of Scripture is not Biblical, but rather a creation of finite man and should be treated as such.
I would hope to be able to engage with people over this writing, as I do my best to embody the humility that I write about and hold so highly. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I don't claim to always be right.
What I can say with confidence is that I am seeking to grow in a deeper understanding of the Truth. I will continue to seek greater knowledge about the Truth described in the Bible and seek to separate it from man's opinion. I won't stop asking questions in order to continue to grow as a Christian, and as a human being.
I hope my writing will help others to do the same.
Be Humble. Stay Curious
-Josh