In the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.7) we read:
This reflects much of Evangelical thinking, both past and present (regardless of whether they are Reformed or not) about the perspicuity of the Bible, or in other words, how “clear” the Bible is in its teachings. Latter-day Saints and others who interact with proponents of the doctrine and practice of sola scriptura (a topic discussed a number of times on this post; simply search “sola scriptura” to find posts exegeting the common “proof-texts” for this doctrine; same for baptism discussed below) often hear the claim that the Bible is formally sufficient and that it is clear/plain in its theological teachings. Such is a nice idea slain by brute ugly fact. In reality, this charge is nothing short of a shell-game from one’s Evangelical interlocutor.
There are many texts that, when taken at face value (as well as when exegeted using the historical-grammatical method), prove that baptism is salvific (e.g., Acts 2:38), resulting in those who hold to a purely symbolic understanding of baptism to engage in much scripture wrenching to save their doctrines; there are many texts that teach both a functional and ontological subordination of Jesus to the Father (e.g., Psalm 110:1; John 14:28; 1 Cor 8:4-6; 15:22-28; Heb 1:3, 6-8), resulting in Trinitarians having to read all sorts of qualifications into these and related texts and come up with nonsensical concepts such Richard Bauckham and the idea of “divine identity.” There are many texts that refute various theologies of eternal security (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26) and yet again, all sorts of grammatical and interpretive gymnastics are used by those who hold to the so-called perspicuity of Scripture.
In reality, the driving force of much of Evangelical theologies these days are based, not on the Bible, but one’s (oftentimes false) a priori assumptions about the nature of the faith and then reading them back into the texts, upholding those that they can easily “proof-texts” as “clear” and “easy texts,” while those that, at both a prima facae and segunda facae reading, refute their man-made traditions as being “difficult” texts that must be subordinated to their so-called “clear” texts.
In short, as stated previously, it is nothing short of a shell-game as well as speaking from both sides of one’s theological mouth.
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); 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 (Ps. 119:105, 130).
This reflects much of Evangelical thinking, both past and present (regardless of whether they are Reformed or not) about the perspicuity of the Bible, or in other words, how “clear” the Bible is in its teachings. Latter-day Saints and others who interact with proponents of the doctrine and practice of sola scriptura (a topic discussed a number of times on this post; simply search “sola scriptura” to find posts exegeting the common “proof-texts” for this doctrine; same for baptism discussed below) often hear the claim that the Bible is formally sufficient and that it is clear/plain in its theological teachings. Such is a nice idea slain by brute ugly fact. In reality, this charge is nothing short of a shell-game from one’s Evangelical interlocutor.
There are many texts that, when taken at face value (as well as when exegeted using the historical-grammatical method), prove that baptism is salvific (e.g., Acts 2:38), resulting in those who hold to a purely symbolic understanding of baptism to engage in much scripture wrenching to save their doctrines; there are many texts that teach both a functional and ontological subordination of Jesus to the Father (e.g., Psalm 110:1; John 14:28; 1 Cor 8:4-6; 15:22-28; Heb 1:3, 6-8), resulting in Trinitarians having to read all sorts of qualifications into these and related texts and come up with nonsensical concepts such Richard Bauckham and the idea of “divine identity.” There are many texts that refute various theologies of eternal security (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26) and yet again, all sorts of grammatical and interpretive gymnastics are used by those who hold to the so-called perspicuity of Scripture.
In reality, the driving force of much of Evangelical theologies these days are based, not on the Bible, but one’s (oftentimes false) a priori assumptions about the nature of the faith and then reading them back into the texts, upholding those that they can easily “proof-texts” as “clear” and “easy texts,” while those that, at both a prima facae and segunda facae reading, refute their man-made traditions as being “difficult” texts that must be subordinated to their so-called “clear” texts.
In short, as stated previously, it is nothing short of a shell-game as well as speaking from both sides of one’s theological mouth.
