Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 4/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
4. I think Scripture is pretty clear (I've always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn't clear enough to bring men to agreement.
Short Rebuttal
The fact that the Scriptures don't bring all men to complete unanimity isn't really relevant to the issue of perspicuity.
Longer Rebuttal
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficiently clear to present the Gospel so that people can hear and believe. The fact that not all believe has nothing to do with the clarity of the message.
The Scriptures make Christ manifest, even if sinners refuse to accept what the Scriptures say:
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Furthermore, there is no need for there to be complete unanimity on every teaching of Scripture. One of the joys of Scripture is that one cannot exhaust all of its treasures. The fact that, in the process of exploration, we are going to disagree with other Christians about some teaching or other is reasonable, especially since we are fallible human beings.
- TurretinFan
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What occurs to me about Armstrong's 'smudge' is first of all that the Holy Spirit helps believers and those He is drawing to Christ to understand, but those who are not believers or are happy in their unbelief will not understand.
Secondly, just because believers see different things in specific passages doesn't mean they are in disagreement, it means, as you said, that the scriptures are inexhaustible and they are seeing different aspects that the Spirit is showing them. We are to share these things with each other so the Body can be built up, not so we can fight with each other about them.
“The fact that the Scriptures don't bring all men to complete unanimity isn't really relevant to the issue of perspicuity.”
Church history is against scriptural perspicuity. Take for example the church councils required to clarify and define the Christological, Trinitarian and Marian doctrines, not to mention the doctrines concerning the canon of scripture, original sin, justification and on and on it goes.
The church in her wisdom required councils to produce statements to clarify what was taught by the apostles as found in scripture and tradition. This is historical fact and shows scriptural perspicuity and sola scriptora are reformed, anti historical myths.
JM
"Church history is against scriptural perspicuity."
Let's examine what support John Martin provides for this:
"Take for example the church councils required to clarify and define the Christological, Trinitarian and Marian doctrines, not to mention the doctrines concerning the canon of scripture, original sin, justification and on and on it goes."
a) Were people saved before those councils? If not, wow. If so, how does the existence of councils prove the necessity of the councils?
b) The bishops at the earliest councils themselves acknowledged the sufficiency of Scripture. So, it seems that John Martin is attempting to use the councils contrary to the intent of the bishops that attended and relied upon those councils.
"The church in her wisdom required councils to produce statements to clarify what was taught by the apostles as found in scripture and tradition."
What makes John Martin think that this is why councils were called?
a) Nicaea was called by an Emperor - not the church.
b) Which council itself claims to "clarify" what is found in Scripture? What's the first council that John Martin can locate that says it is doing this?
"This is historical fact and shows scriptural perspicuity and sola scriptora are reformed, anti historical myths."
If it is an historical fact, we should expect to see it documented. We'll have to wait and see if John Martin returns to document his claims.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment