On the one hand, Catholicism is adamantly opposed to the perspicuity of Scripture. Indeed, that’s fundamental to Catholic identity. For if the Bible is perspicuous, then the Magisterium is irrelevant.
On the other hand, Catholics apologists cite a number of stock prooftexts for various Catholic rites and dogmas. So that generates a dilemma: is Scripture perspicuous or not? However they answer, they lose.
Does Mt 16:18 perspicuously teach the papacy?
Does Lk 22:32 perspicuously teach the papacy?
Does Jn 21:17 perspicuously teach the papacy?
Does Jn 3:5 perspicuously teach baptismal regeneration?
Does Tit 3:5 perspicuously teach baptismal regeneration?
Does Acts 2:38 perspicuously teach baptismal justification?
Does Jn 6 perspicuously teach the Real Presence?
Does 1 Cor 11:24 perspicuously teach the Real Presence?
Does 1 Tim 3:15 perspicuously teach the infallibility of the church?
Does Jn 16:13 perspicuously teach the infallibility of the church?
Does Mt 16:18 perspicuously teach the indefectibility of the church?
Does 1 Tim 4:14 perspicuously teach apostolic succession?
Does 2 Thes 2:15 perspicuously teach Sacred Tradition?
Does Rev 11:19 perspicuously teach the Assumption of Mary?
Does Lk 1:28 perspicuously teach the Immaculate Conception?
Does Mt 5:25-26 perspicuously teach Purgatory?
Does Mt 3:8 perspicuously teach Penance?
Does Jas 5:16 teach auricular confession?
Does Jn 20:22 perspicuously teach clerical absolution?
Does Mt 19:12 perspicuously teach clerical celibacy?
Does Rev 5:8 perspicuously teach the intercession of the saints?
Does Jas 2:24 perspicuously rebut sola fide?
Does Gen 38:9-10 perspicuously forbid artificial contraception?
If a Catholic answers “yes” to most-all of these questions (and that’s just a sampling of Catholic prooftexts for various Catholic rites and dogmas), then you have to wonder at what point the Bible suddenly ceases to be perspicuous?
A Catholic can only have his prooftexts at the expense of tacitly affirming the perspicuity of Scripture.
It’s really quite amusing when evangelical converts to Rome try to prooftext Catholicism from the Bible while, out of the other side of their mouth, they point to “33,000” denominations to debunk the perspicuity of Scripture.
Keeping in mind, of course, that the Magisterium has only bothered to infallibly interpret one or two of said verses.
ReplyDelete*chirp chirp*
ReplyDeleteThe perspicuity sword cuts both ways.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is yes and no, all subject to the argument being made.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Muslim apologists often do the same thing with the Injeel (and sometimes the OT). For both groups, the interpretation of passages of the Christian canon are presuppositionally derived from some other source. For RC Catholics, it's the Magisterium. For Muslims, it's the teachings of the Imam or their local sect. The Koran is simply too dubious to be certain of much without authoritative "interpretation".
ReplyDeleteWhere the Bible agrees with divergent belief systems, apologists of these other systems may try to convince Scripture-centric Christians by appealing to such passages. Where the Bible disagrees with them, they must find arguments to dispute the otherwise clear meaning of the Bible. Clearly, such is never an argument from truth.
Likewise, we must be careful not to make the same error. We don't need the Koran or the Magisterium to prove anything, but we appeal to the revelation of God that he gave us and rely on the Holy Spirit who gives to some the life to desire the truth.
“. . . is Scripture perspicuous or not? However they answer, they lose.”
ReplyDeleteHow do they lose? If they say yes, then they are only answering specific questions about specific verses in scripture that are either clear or unclear. This has no bearing only the clarity of the entire scriptures. Evidently you have created a false conclusion.
“If a Catholic answers “yes” to most-all of these questions (and that’s just a sampling of Catholic prooftexts for various Catholic rites and dogmas), then you have to wonder at what point the Bible suddenly ceases to be perspicuous?”
Which means you don’t know of the criteria for perspicuity and as such, you haven’t established that “However they answer, they lose.”
”A Catholic can only have his prooftexts at the expense of tacitly affirming the perspicuity of Scripture.”
Only affirming the perspicuity of some verses in scripture is not affirming the enirety of Scripture as perspicuous.
”It’s really quite amusing when evangelical converts to Rome try to prooftext Catholicism from the Bible while, out of the other side of their mouth, they point to “33,000” denominations to debunk the perspicuity of Scripture.”
This statement doesn’t follow from your argument previously presented. Its only a disconnected rhetorical devise that is internally inconsistent with itself.
To proof text from scripture does not mean every text in scripture is perspicuous. Yet you infer that proof texting requires all of scripture must be perspicuous for a convert to proof text from any verse in scripture.
The claim that “33,000” denominations to debunk the perspicuity of Scripture.” Means there must be some parts of scripture that are not perspicuous and therefore sola scriptora is unworkable in practice. This does not therefore mean that when a convert cites scripture he requires the entirety of scripture to be perspicuous. He only needs to weigh the evidence for a Catholic doctrine as found in some scripture verses, the church fathers and the church councils and reasoned argument to then use scripture as only one source for defending a particular doctrine. This is very different to sola scriptora and certainly does not require scripture to be entirely perspicuous.
JM
Indeed. 2 Peter 3:16 presumes the obvious fact that not all passages of Scripture are equally perspicuous.
ReplyDelete