Here's a recent post by Called to Communion. Ironically, instead of constructing a successful analogy to sola scriptura, the OP inspired an argument against Roman Catholicism.
On the one hand, the RC magisterium is perspicuous. On the other hand, the Scriptures which the apostles wrote - yes, the same apostles who RCs argue constituted the RC magisterium in Acts 15 - are not perspicuous.
Is the RC magisterium necessarily perspicuous or not? If not, then how can one determine which teachings are and are not perspicuous? If so, then why isn't Scripture perspicuous?
7 comments:
Ryan,
You seem to be asking "Why is a teaching from Scripture more perspicuous than Scripture?"
Do you think "There are 7 Sacraments" is more perspicuous than trying to figure out how many Sacraments there are from Scripture alone?
The only way your distinction works is if the Scriptures were intended to be received a part from a divine teacher (Magisterium). It also requires that the content supplied by the Teacher and its source for teaching are the same.
The point is not whether or not a Teacher is perspicuous. The point is that a Teacher can be more perspicuous. Ex:
Statement A.
(student: "I need help!")
Statement A clarified.
(student: "I still don't understand "x". Help!)
Statement A clarified more.
(student: I get it!)
Without a Teacher (Magisterium), it goes:
Statement A.
(student: "I need help!")
Statement A.
(student: "I still don't understand "x". Help!)
Statement A.
...
Why isn't Scripture perspicuous?
Why did Jesus only explain to his disciples the meanings of his parables? Or better, if the Scriptures cannot be read apart from the Church (and teaching Office) Christ left us, then it is not the fault of Scripture not being perspicuous, it is our fault forcing Scripture to act in a way it was never intended.
//You seem to be asking "Why is a teaching from Scripture more perspicuous than Scripture?"//
I am asking why, assuming the position of RC, a RC would think that certain statements promulgated by the RC Magisterium are perspicuous and why others are not. To make that judgment presupposes the ability to distinguish what is perspicuous from what is not wholly apart from the RC church. So then how do you distinguish what is perspicuous from what is not? Nothing you say answers this question. However, I will answer your other points.
//The point is not whether or not a Teacher is perspicuous. The point is that a Teacher can be more perspicuous.//
To know that "a Teacher can be more perspicuous" presupposes your ability to recognize what is perspicuous and what isn't. How do you do that?
You are trying to change the subject to the conventional RC apologetic. You frame your apologetic by using an example you believe puts RC in a favorable light. But even if we follow this rabbit trail, it can easily be turned around. Suppose the student never understands the clarifications of the teacher. Does that necessarily mean the teacher isn't teaching perspicuously? I would assume you would agree that it doesn't.
But if that's the case, suppose that one has a textbook without a teacher. At first, he doesn't understand the material. But as he studies and reviews it, he grasps it. Or suppose he hardly ever studies and reviews, and he never understands the material. Or suppose he relies to heavily on supplements which, while acknowledged to be perspicous (cf. "There are 7 Sacraments"), are contrary to what the material actually states. Does any of this necessarily mean the material in the textbook isn't perspicuous? Does any of this necessarily mean the textbook was not perspicuous at one point in time but perspicuous at another? Again, no. So this is not only a red herring, it's arbitrarily prejudicial.
As for your statement:
//The only way your distinction works is if the Scriptures were intended to be received a part from a divine teacher (Magisterium).//
We have explicit testimony from the authors of Scripture that what they wrote should be understandable apart from any need for exposition:
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
//Why did Jesus only explain to his disciples the meanings of his parables?//
He explicitly tells them it was to fulfill a prophecy.
//Or better, if the Scriptures cannot be read apart from the Church (and teaching Office) Christ left us, then it is not the fault of Scripture not being perspicuous, it is our fault forcing Scripture to act in a way it was never intended.//
But the "if" premise is false, so this is irrelevant.
Just came across this entry....
great point. Thanks.
Ryan's comment here responding to Brent is masterfully done. Bravo.
Ryan,
For the sake of time and personal commitments, I want to respond to just a few of your comments. I hope my newest comment finds you in good health and doing well.
To know that "a Teacher can be more perspicuous" presupposes your ability to recognize what is perspicuous and what isn't. How do you do that?
I compare my understanding to the understanding of the Teacher (expert). Someone is an expert either by the order of nature or grace. In the case of the Church, by the order of grace (holy orders/apostolic succession).
You are trying to change the subject to the conventional RC apologetic. You frame your apologetic by using an example you believe puts RC in a favorable light. But even if we follow this rabbit trail, it can easily be turned around. Suppose the student never understands the clarifications of the teacher. Does that necessarily mean the teacher isn't teaching perspicuously? I would assume you would agree that it doesn't.
No, I'm not. The point I was making is that a Teacher, in the course of their instruction and guidance, can by course of their purpose help the student to a more "clear" understanding of something (thereby making what is not perspicuous, perspicuous). If the student never understands the clarifications of the teacher, then there is either a defect in the teacher or student (moral or physical), or simply not enough time or interest to learn. However, a text acts differently than a teacher. A student cannot ask a text to "re-state" or explicate for the purpose of understanding.
So this is not only a red herring, it's arbitrarily prejudicial.
It is far from a red herring. Instead, it directs us to the entire point of having a teacher to begin with. Neither is my comment about a Teacher having the capacity for bringing clarity ad hoc or with prejudice. It is grounded in the presupposition of the pedagogical approach of most of your educational experience (i.e., you had a teacher which was preferable to not having a teacher -- even given a text book). Moreover, our fundamental disagreement (as your arguments assume) is not whether or not perspicuity is necessary (we both think we should understand), but whether or not Scripture is itself perspicuous regarding those doctrines for which we disagree. You say it is. I say it isn't (See Christian Smith's The Bible Made Impossible). Further, the passage in John you site is interesting, but it is far from clear that the passage implies that all of Scripture is perspicuous. I think the Gospel of John (and this passage) is perspicuous within the scope of the terms it employs (Messiahship of Jesus, and the gift of eternal life through Him). However, I'm not sure that the Gospel of John is perspicuous regarding the doctrine of Justification, the Eucharist, and Baptism. If it was, so many learned, holy, men would not disagree so fundamentally on these subjects. That last point seems rather clear to me. : )
But the "if" premise is false, so this is irrelevant.
One can exclude any "if" clause by asserting it is false. Of course, any false "if" clause would be concomitantly irrelevant, so stating that a false statement is irrelevant is only for effect (meaning it is redundant). To prove my "if" clause is false, or at the least per impossible, you would need to demonstrate that the Bible was intended to be read a part from the Church. Of course, I don't think you would want to, because Calvin certainly would not make that argument (but maybe you would!). The problem is that there is nothing in my premise that excludes the possibility of my conclusion.
If the Scripture cannot be read apart from the Church, then the lack of perceived perspicuity on the part of Scripture for the one who reads Scripture apart from the Church would not be a deficiency on the part of Scripture but a mishandling on the part of the reader.
//Moreover, our fundamental disagreement (as your arguments assume) is... whether or not Scripture is itself perspicuous regarding those doctrines for which we disagree. You say it is. I say it isn't...//
It follows then, that since you think Scripture was penned by the RC Magisterium, not everything the RC Magisterium says is necessarily perspicuous. That means this question from the original post now applies: how can one determine which teachings are and are not perspicuous? I can only infer it is because you are an “expert” by the order of nature:
//I compare my understanding to the understanding of the Teacher (expert). Someone is an expert either by the order of nature or grace.//
Are you indeed saying that you consider yourself to be an expert by the order of nature and, hence, able to distinguish what is perspicuous from what is not? If so, what criteria have you fulfilled such that you can justifiably believe yourself to be an expert by the order of nature, and why do you regard that criteria as true, exhaustively sufficient, and authoritative?
//If the student never understands the clarifications of the teacher, then there is either a defect in the teacher or student (moral or physical), or simply not enough time or interest to learn.//
Analogously, then, material in a textbook can be perspicuous despite a reader’s failure to grasp it.
//It is far from a red herring. Instead, it directs us to the entire point of having a teacher to begin with.//
Remember, this part of the conversation was just a rabbit trail. My original post dictates with what I am concerned: whether or not everything promulgated by the RC Magisterium is necessarily perspicuous. Whether the RC Magisterium is more perspicuous in some places than in others isn’t relevant. I’m not interested in your attempted re-direct nor presumptions of my preferences.
//Further, the passage in John you site is interesting, but it is far from clear that the passage implies that all of Scripture is perspicuous... I'm not sure that the Gospel of John is perspicuous regarding the doctrine of Justification, the Eucharist, and Baptism. If it was, so many learned, holy, men would not disagree so fundamentally on these subjects.//
Or you need to recheck your premise: those men may not have been as holy as you think. It would be queer for John to think that not writing perspicuously would assure and persuade, and as for its scope, you are free to read other posts I've written on the subject.
//To prove my "if" clause is false, or at the least per impossible, you would need to demonstrate that the Bible was intended to be read a part from the Church.//
Actually, it would be sufficient to demonstrate only that the Bible can be read and understood apart from the “church,” as is evident in the case of the Bereans. They measured the words of the newly commissioned teachers by preexisting Scripture, not Scripture by the teachers.
So the problem is the premise of your argument. An argument may be valid but unsound.
//If the Scripture cannot be read apart from the Church, then the lack of perceived perspicuity on the part of Scripture for the one who reads Scripture apart from the Church would not be a deficiency on the part of Scripture but a mishandling on the part of the reader.//
Either Scripture is perspicuous or it isn’t. You've already said it isn't, so I don't see the point of constructing a fallback defense. I don’t think so little of you as to think you actually expect me to believe the tone or inflection a “teacher” uses in the recitation of Scripture has any import on the meaning of the text. But this being the case, why, then, do you think a teacher needs to “read” Scripture to me in order for me to understand it? You may go to your seeming stock reply that a teacher can be more perspicuous than something else which is perspicuous, but that just grants my point – Scripture, the “something else,” is perspicuous – without actually engaging my question.
Ryan,
I won't have any more time for this conversation. Life is just too busy. I hope you explore further our conflict regarding philosophy of nature. I, unfortunately or fortunately, will not be your interlocutor. Don't take this as a concession, just as an armistice. (full time job, 4 kids and 1 soon to be here). I only wish we could have this conversation over a pint.
God bless,
Brent
Post a Comment