Addressing the perspicuity of the Bible, John MacArthur wrote:
I want to speak to you about the
clarity of Scripture. If we’re going to suggest – and we will – that the
Scripture is clear on many doctrines, in fact, on all doctrines, then we have
to establish that the Scripture in itself is clear. Just looking at that
statement, “The commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes,” the
word “commandment” is a word not seen before in the Psalms. It is often used in
the book of Deuteronomy, and it is used repeatedly in Psalm 119. It points to
the whole revelation of God.
So the whole revelation of the Lord is
clear. That is a word that means radiant, bright. Scripture is clear as to what
we must believe. Scripture is clear as to whom we are to believe and in whom we
are to believe. Scripture is clear as to what we must do. Scripture is clear as
to what we must avoid. Scripture is clear as to what we must fear, what we must
worship, what we must hope for. It is a clear revelation, and therefore it
enlightens the eyes. It removes all doubts, misconceptions, prejudices, and
lies. (John MacArthur, “How
to Shine Clear light of Scripture,” March 4, 2020)
In
his The Obscurity of Scripture, Chalk noted that:
The ”ordinary means” required to
determine those necessary salvific doctrines have been interpreted differently
by various Reformed thinkers. Turretin labeled the “ordinary means” as such as,
“the inner light of the Spirit, the attention of the mind, the voice and ministry
of the church, lectures and commentaries, prayers and vigils.” (Institutes
of Elenctic Theology, q. 17, no. 6) Contemporary Reformed theologian Robert
L. Reymond (1932-2013), in contrast defines them as “simply the reading,
hearing, and study of the Word. . . . One does not need to be instructed by a preacher
to learn that he must believe in Jesus in order to be saved from the penalty
his sins deserve.” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith,
2nd ed. [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 87-88). (Casey J. Chalk, The Obscurity
of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical
Perspicuity [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2023], 29-30)
Elsewhere,
Chalk noted that:
another problem for the doctrine of
perspicuity. When Protestants disagree over the interpretation of Scripture,
they often reorganize themselves into a new ecclesia or theological group of
like-minded individuals who share their particular interpretive understanding.
Even intra-Protestant organizations, including that which authorized The Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, formulated by more than two hundred
Evangelical leaders at a 1978 conference, excluded and censured liberal Protestantism
and its adherents. The same can be said for The Gospel Coalition, a fellowship
of Evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition founded in 2005, that criticizes
strands of Evangelicalism that are “diminishing the church’s life and leading
us away form our historic beliefs and practices.” Whatever the enemy within
Protestantism—liberalism, the emergent church, the prosperity gospel—other Protestants
can organize themselves in opposition to that threat and affirm what they
believe to be the authentic, clear witness of Holy Scripture.
Such communities, however noble their
intentions, are inherently ad hoc. By excluding certain groups of individuals
who disagree with their interpretation of the Bible, Protestants can maintain a
veneer of unity regarding the “clear” understanding of Scripture. William
Whitaker could, for example, in his defense of perspicuity assert:
I say that there is the utmost unanimity
amongst the Confessionists (as they call them) in all things necessary, that
is, in the articles of faith, and especially concerning justification; although
perhaps there may be some dissension amongst them about smaller matters, as the
explication of some rather obscure place; which proves not the obscurity of
scripture, but our slowness and inconstancy. (Whitaker, Disputation on Holy
Scripture, 380).
Of course, in order to make a claim to
unanimity, Whitaker necessarily excluded many other seventeenth-century
Protestants who disagreed with him. Yet simply eliminating threats to our
confidence in the Bible’s clear teachings by excluding those with whom we
disagree is a case of special pleading, meaning deliberately ignoring things
that are unfavorable to our point of view.
The perspicuity of
Scripture cannot be demonstrated or confirmed by creating an ad hoc interpretive
“consensus” of like-minded Protestants.
Traditionalist Methodists or conservative Presbyterians cannot declare
Scripture clear on certain teachings simply by finding like-minded
fellow-travelers re-drawing the boundaries of their ecclesial organisms to
exclude progressive Methodists or liberal Presbyterians. To again cite Bryan
Cross’s analogy, this is simply to draw a target around one’s interpretive arrow
and call this exegetical uniformity. (Casey J. Chalk, The Obscurity of
Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity
[Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2023], 94-95, emphasis added)
Further
Reading:
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
