The Utter Nonsense of the Clarity of Scripture?

One of my fans writes:

I can’t believe how many times I have been subjected over the years to the utter nonsense about the “clarity” of Scripture. People who believe that Scripture is “clear” such that all Christians can correctly determine Christ’s Doctrines can’t agree about very much with people who also make that claim.

Matthew 22
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not think the Bible was clear and we all disagree about what it says!"

Who should one trust? Those who attack the Bible in the name of Rome or Jesus? This person says the Bible isn't clear and to think it is is "utter nonsense." Jesus says "have you not read what God said to you" and holds those hearing him responsible for what they read. Think about it.

Overview of Luther on the Clarity / Obscurity of Scripture by William Whitaker

The following is an overview by William Whitaker of a section of Luther's argumentation from The Bondage of the Will. This passage is from William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture.

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned, by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All which is perfectly true: for although there is much obscurity in many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. Stapleton, Lib. x. cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of grammar and figures; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome, who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetoric, and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things, and may have erred in many places. We answer, that what he blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood: for he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture, will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures. But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself, although both of them most skilful grammarians, may have erred in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the things themselves are manifest in scripture; and that therefore we need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in many places less manifest. His words are these: "The things themselves are in light; we need not care, therefore, though some signs of the things be in darkness 1." But some persons complain greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our blindness and ignorance. And this he very properly confirms by the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that "the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day, which vail is done away in Christ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where the same apostle says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the similitude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in themselves, are invisible to the blind. "There is nothing," says he, "brighter than the sun and the day: but the blind man cannot even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light 2." Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity, of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of the christian religion: the truth of which (though not of all, yet of those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He is not speaking of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame of blindness on that account.

But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some dogmas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like; and to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom. xi. 33, where Paul says that the "judgments of God are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out." Luther answers, that these doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves; but that they are plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will be content with that knowledge which God hath propounded and conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure, but that the things of scripture are clear; that the judgments of God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable; but that those things which God hath revealed in his word are by no means inscrutable to us; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says, that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, especially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the simplicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate by their traps and devices; but that the scripture must not be falsely blamed on account of men's abuse of it. Luther uses another distinction also in that place. He says that the perspicuity or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external; the internal is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says that not even one jot is in this way clear in the scripture without the internal light of the Holy Spirit; for that all things in this view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men, according to that which is said in Ps. xiv.: "The fool hath said in his heart, that there is no God." But if we understand the external clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the word. And this distinction is very necessary: for although, in the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion, we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philosophy: since it is only the external light of nature that is required to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy; but to understand theology aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit, because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the Spirit, as many impious men and devils do; but we cannot have the irXtipocpop'iat that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge, without the Holy Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally understood; but this is of no avail unless understood internally. Meanwhile Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpretation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many obscurities and difficulties in the scripture, which God hath left us, as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a man must be impudent who would say that he understood even any one book thoroughly: and the same hath ever been the opinion of us all.

The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the papists would have it appear; but our fundamental principles are these: First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we concede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures need explication; and that, on this account, God's ministers are to be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning the state of the question.

[1 Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.— Opp. Witeberg. T. n. p. 459. 2.]

[2 Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi oculos velaret.—Ibid. p. 460.]

The super-duper-uper Magisterial authority (aka Part 3)

First came this post and its combox.
Next came this post and its combox.
Then Paul Hoffer wrote up a lengthy reply, found here.  Unfortunately, as we'll see, he has left most of my argument untouched.  His reply consists mostly of responses of the equivalent strength of "Nuh uh!" and self-repetition in the face of substantive rebuttal.
The way I wrote it is addressed to Paul.

You say:
I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them

It's not question-begging.  It's my contention.



unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation.

A point which I addressed clearly in my ROUND 2 post, in at least two ways.  So far you're just ignoring my points, rather than interacting with them.
Namely, 1) the infinite regress (which tries and fails to solve the "problem" of human fallibility) and 2) the fact that the Magisterium virtually never actually does any clearing up of controversies when it easily could do so.



While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them

Now that begs the question, that you can identify "The Church" and that "The Church" that you identify was in the right to do these things. 
Don't go off on a rabbit trail and ask me whether I disagree with those councils' which have been later identified as Big-E Ecumenical Big-C Councils statements w.r.t. Christology; the point is that the later church identifies as "The Church" those people who actually won the struggle.  The winners wrote the history books in a very real sense here.  This is simply pointing to the position with which you agree today and saying "See?  The Magisterium spoke!"  There'd be no way to falsify the statement "The Magisterium spoke." 



one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them

1) But does one have to decide all over again each time Magisterial proclamations are read what they mean, as the Church has already done that for them? 
2) How can one judge whether the Church spoke correctly in a given case? 
3) How do you know when The Church spoke?  Do you have a list of those infallible proclamations?  If not, doesn't that leave open the very real possibility that you are ascribing authority and infallibility where none exists, and leaves you open to the problem of individual fallibility and error?  And doesn't that mean that "just ask your priest or bishop" would be a completely useless answer?
If so, where is it and does it include itself in the list?

B/c you have no good answers to these questions, what this means for you is that your house is built on sand. Your Magisterium is a paper tiger, a golden gun that's never fired.


Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice sola scriptura could never have.

Such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.


If attorneys were bound by some notion of sola scriptura, we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract

A statement that makes me think you don't even understand Sola Scriptura.  This is a strawman.  I'd've hoped that you, as an attorney, would put more effort into properly representing your opposition. What was it you said earlier?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.”



we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again

How about solving some of the ones that have remained all this time?  I listed quite a few in my ROUND 2 post.  Why don't you go ahead and show us where the Magisterium has cleared all of those up?



I must say though that the James White allusion ("Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law") you use is a bit vague.

I'm a bit of a fanboy, and he has said that numerous times during his Dividing Line webcast, just FYI.  But he first said it in a debate, yes.



as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law

Um, except you just finished telling us we need the Magisterium to understand Romans 8 and clear up disagreements about it, whereas the Code of Canon Law comes from The Church, that body that can clear that stuff up for us!  Why move the goalposts now?



Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority?

If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.



Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE?

B/c of the problem you've been trying to solve yourself!  I've already dealt with this, like I mentioned above.  When are you going to take the next step and actually deal with my response?



And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.

A historically ignorant statement.  This is faithful adherence to Sola Ecclesia! 
"Don't listen; it's the Kool-Aid talking."



we need only one Magisterial authority.

And when ppl disagree about the meaning and application of its proclamations, what then? 
I mean, since ppl's disagreement about the Scr's meaning and application means we need an infallible interpreting authority, let's be consistent, shall we?  Which means you haven't dealt with my points at all. 



Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.

Oh, OK.  Then I'll just say the same thing about any passage YOU bring up and claim that it's unclear.  Unless you're less concerned about consistency than about defending Mother Rome.
For example, you'd said earlier in our interaction the following:
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?

Paul Hoffer's smug argument suffers from more question-begging as to whether the above referenced Scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.


No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above.

No no no no!  YOU introduced the idea!  You did!  It's in your first comments!  I just quoted you. Here it is again.
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?

You still haven't grasped my argument, and it's getting sad.  Do you need to talk over the phone or something, so I can explain it to you?  Maybe this is why you claim (when convenient) the Scriptures aren't perspicuous - you can't even understand my internal critique of your own position, and it's your position.


And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful,

And since you can take any two Roman Catholics and ask them about abortion and get 2 different answers... let me virtually-quote Paul again: 
Where the perspicuity of Magisterial proclamations fall by the wayside is when there are disputes between RCs as the Mag proclamations can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the whether it's OK to dismember babies.  How does reliance on the Magisterium help when both parties rely upon them?
If Paul responds, "But it's not true that BOTH are relying on them!", he needs to tell us why that same answer is not available to me as well w.r.t. the Scripture.  I won't hold my breath.


PH had said:
Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority

I'd responded: How do strawmen help the Roman cause?  Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy?  Is that in Lumen Gentium too?

PH never answers but instead quotes some fallible individual who happens to go to his church, saying:  When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

1) Luke 12:57“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?"
Matthew 22: 29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."
Mark 12:26“But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses"
Luke 6:3And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him"
Mark 12:10“Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; 11THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?”
Matthew 19:4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE"

Hmm, isn't that crazy?  Jesus actually pushed people back to the Scripture to correct when 2 people disagreed! 

2) Unless Paul can produce an infallible list of Magisterial proclamations, he exercises private judgment in figuring what things the Church says that are infallible things to be obeyed and what things the Church says that are fallible and non-binding.  Paul seems not to have yet wrestled with this problem, and I've given him several chances now over the course of this interaction.

3) He never apologises for the strawman or withdraws it.  Doesn't encourage me to take his point very seriously, since he seems to be talking to someone else.


When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion.

How does this address the rebuttal I've already laid out?  It doesn't.


I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter?

1) Ah, the tried-and-true method of lumping me in with flaming liberals!  Maybe Paul would like to be held responsible for everything Mel Gibson does.  After all, he's "Catholic".  He says so!  Just ask him!
2) Again, such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.


As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.

Gosh, I wonder if anyone reading this will stop to wonder whether, when I say "logical argumentation", I mean it in the naturalistic materialist sense, or whether I mean it in the presuppositional Reformed sense, wherein one applies logical and contextual hermeneutics to the final standard of truth - God's Word?  Hmmm... I guess I could go back to my blog and delete all the references to "but, believing in Jesus is more probably true than not b/c the Earth's axis is tilted just right!" 
Oh wait, I don't say that kind of thing.  Never mind.  Then maybe Paul could actually do me the service of remembering to whom he's talking.



After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium.

That sounds like a fallible list to me.  Where is Paul's imprimatur? 
See, that's the thing - to Paul, apparently, the "authority and infallibility of the Magisterium" is a tool to be pulled out of the shed when convenient, say like a screwdriver, but when he needs to cut through a board, he hides his saw behind his back and tries to convince us all he's actually using the screwdriver. Then he shows us the cut board - "See?" 
Buy into the sleight-of-hand at your own peril.

Berkhof on the community-oriented interpretation of Scripture

Roman Catholic lay-apologists enjoy characterizing Protestant Bible interpretation as an event in which an individual runs into a closet, closes the door and reads the text for himself, coming to whatever conclusions he pleases, without consulting any relevant commentary or individuals in his Christian community, let alone the Church in its authoritative teaching capacity. This, it is said, is what generates the endless multitude of denominations within Christianity, as every Protestant acts as his own little Pope.

What I don't understand about this characterization is how it applies to Reformed Protestantism. Since when have the Reformed been known for promoting an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, the kind practiced by various fundamentalists with strong Anabaptist tendencies? Consider how the highly influential Louis Berkhof describes the formulation of dogma (emphasis mine):

The Church does not find her dogmas in the finished form on the pages of Holy Writ, but obtains them by reflecting on the truths revealed in the Word of God...it is not merely the individual Christian, but rather the Church of God as a whole, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that is the subject of this reflective activity. The spiritual man is the only one that is fit for this work, and even he can obtain a proper and adequate understanding of the truth in all its relations, and in all its fulness [sic] and grandeur, only in communion and in cooperation with all the saints...The formation of dogmas is not always a short process, nor is it a simple one. Its course is frequently determined more or less by long-drawn controversies. These are not always edifying, since they often generate a scorching heat and frequently lead to unholy antagonisms. At the same time they are of the greatest importance, and serve to focus the attention sharply on the question in debate, to clarify the issue at stake, to bring the different aspects of the problem into the open, and to point the way to the proper solution. The Church is largely indebted to the great doctrinal controversies of the past for its progress in the understanding of the truth.¹

Note that these profitable controversies could never, of course, occur in the mind of one individual sitting alone in a closet with his Bible. And Berkhof continues after this point to discuss the role of the Church in formally accepting the formulation of dogma, again rejecting the idea of supremely individualistic interpretations of Scripture holding any sort of higher or final interpretive weight.

Roman Catholic lay-apologists should appropriately characterize the Reformed approach to Biblical interpretation by treating it as fundamentally distinct from other groups with certain Anabaptist tendencies. Perhaps then their appeals to unity arguments can be reworked and taken as credible objections to the Reformation and its principles.

_____________________________

1. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition (Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1996), 23.

Defining Perspicuity

In light of a recent discussion with Matthew Bellisario, here is Frame on the perspicuity of Scripture:

29. The Clarity of Scripture

Discussions of Scripture in Reformed theology have often included reflection on certain "attributes" of Scripture, particularly necessity, authority, clarity (or "perspicuity"), and sufficiency....

It is therefore the doctrine of biblical clarity that will occupy our attention in this chapter. The Westminster Confession of Faith formulates this doctrine as follows at 1.7:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: 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.

This is a carefully nuanced statement, with important qualifications. It is directed against the attempts in the Roman Catholic Church of the time to keep the laity from studying Scripture on their own. The Roman Church feared that if laymen were to interpret Scripture for themselves, they would come up with unorthodox, even bizarre interpretations of it. That fear, as we can now observe, was not groundless.

However, Scripture itself (as in Deut. 8:3; Ps. 19:7; 119; Matt. 4:4) says that God’s written word is for everybody. We live by it. The Confession, of course, agrees. Nevertheless, the Confession’s statement does not encourage autonomous or lawless Bible study. It does not make every layman an expert in Scripture. It recognizes that not every part of Scripture is equally clear to everybody. Laymen, indeed all Christians, need to watch their step in studying the Bible. There are mysteries in Scripture beyond anyone’s understanding, and there are many things in Scripture that we cannot understand without more knowledge of the languages of Scripture and its cultural background.

So, the Confession also says that those who would study Scripture should be humble enough to seek help. The kind of Bible study it recommends is not individualistic. One should make "due use of the ordinary means." Those ordinary means include the church’s preaching and teaching. That teaching is not, however, as in the Roman church, an inflexible set of conclusions with which all Bible students must agree. Rather, it seeks to guide believers into paths by which we can progress in our knowledge of God, even beyond the levels attained by our teachers.

Prayer and the Holy Spirit are also means available to every Christian in Bible study. Involvement with God himself, the author of Scripture, draws us toward a greater understanding of the truth. So our understanding of Scripture is not directly proportional to the amount of education we have. It is for "not only the learned, but the unlearned."

A further qualification is that this level of clarity does not apply to everything in Scripture. It pertains to "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation." Now in this book, I have opposed distinctions between "matters of salvation" and "matters of cosmology, history, and science" in several contexts. In Chapter 24, 25, and 27 I have opposed the idea that Scripture’s purpose is redemptive in a narrow sense, so that it is not authoritative on other matters, and I will make similar points in regard to the Comprehensiveness and Sufficiency of Scripture. I do not think that Scripture’s purpose can be defined that narrowly, and, given the nature of salvation in Scripture, I don’t think it is possible to draw a sharp line in Scripture between "matters of salvation" and other matters.

Nevertheless, there is a legitimate distinction to be drawn within Scripture between what a person is required to know for salvation and what he is not. Nobody would claim, for example, that a person will go to Hell if he does not understand the difference between guilt offerings and trespass offerings in Leviticus. These are certainly "matters of salvation," but they are not matters one must know in order to be saved. So the Confession is not making the sort of distinction I have been opposing. I would say that everything in Scripture is a "matter of salvation," i.e. significantly related to salvation. But a person can be saved even if he does not know or understand some things in the Bible. The clarity of Scripture pertains to those fundamentals that constitute a credible profession of Christ.

(Source.)

The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority, part 2

Paul Hoffer was kind enough to comment at length on my last post, but unfortunately between his original comment that spawned the aforementioned post and his comments on the post, he forgot his own argument, and ironically in many places ends up affirming my own point.  For that, I thank him for tacitly disavowing his argument.  I commend the practice, of course, for while it is a common argument, it is also a very bad and stupid one.

Here is my response, first to another commenter named Space Bishop:


Space Bishop,

catholics have disagreement over the meaning of various things the magisterium teaches?

First off, you have to recognise that the Mag is a bit of a phantom target.  They avoid sticking their neck out very far on many topics, so as to avoid getting pinned down.
The problem for RCs is that this renders most of their claims to infallible guidance totally meaningless - if the infall guide doesn't speak, it's useless.
Anyway, your list, off the top of my head - evolution/not-evolution, inerrancy/errancy, Franciscan/Dominican, church should be poor or rich, heliocentrism/geocentrism, whether EOx are heretics and schismatics or not, whether Prots are heavenbound or not, sedevacantism vs not, Augustinian predestination vs not, whether Trent closed the Canon of Scr or not, whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic, whether Luther was right about the bondage of the will, whether logic is a good measure of truth, and quite a lot of others.  There are far, far too many to keep going listing them out.  Bottom line - you need to deal with reality, not the lines that Catholic Answers feeds you.


you have listed are not disagreements about what the magisterium teaches but rather examples of catholics who simply say that the magisterium is wrong.

That's a distinction w/o a difference.  Mere semantics.  If the RCC wants to put some teeth on its Magisterial teaching, maybe it should start excomming dissidents.


is not the magisterium better as if such a case of contradictory interpretations of the magisteriums teachings arose the magisterium alone can say " A is right and B is wrong" and if disagreements arose as to what is the correct interpretation of that ruling another ruling could be issued and so on and so on.

And when has the Mag done that?  How often?  In fact, often it goes to serious lengths to be unclear and obscure.



Protestants however dont have recourse to this

Yep, poor us.  Guess we'll just have to read the Bible or something.


Paul Hoffer,
I'm sorry you didn't understand that I parotted (Edit misspelling: parroted) you for a specific reason, that is, to show how the same "problem" of individual fallible interpretation is true for your position as well.  Positing a Mag only moves the question back a step, which is why I'm saying you'd need a super-super-Mag to fix the problem.  But then you'd need aNOTHER level back to which to move the question, and on and on unto infinity.


there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.

Yes, not everything in the Scr is perspicuous.
What's really funny about this is that the RC doctrines related to salvation and election and all that are pretty much impenetrable in their internal inconsistency, biblical illiteracy, and tradition-bound-ness. As James White likes to say: Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law.


. A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.

Through written documents.  Thus you bolster my point.  Thanks!
Also, in oral proclamations, alot of the time they get written down.  Then, see above.
Oral proclamations, BTW, are not immune to this.  So you need a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-...



SHOW ME as Space Bishop asked where a Magisterial document

Now you're moving the goalposts.  You had originally made PEOPLE AT LARGE the measure of truth, and now you want me to show two Mag docs that disagree.  I probably could, and I know Carrie could easily, but that's not what we're discussing.


So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them.

Unless the Mag infallibly interped those Scr psgs, you're relying on private fallible interp in order to prove your position that the Mag is necessary to correct for people's private fallible interps.  Something is ironic about that...


It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God

So why does it get the Gospel wrong?  And posit Purgatory?  And the Immaculate Conception of Mary?  And the Assumption of Mary?  And worshiping pictures of dead people?  And the treasury of merit and indulgences? And other examples of exceeding what is written all the time?



The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.)

Since YOU were the one who introduced the idea that a teaching authority is apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it, that would be YOUR red herring.
And again, thank you for acknowledging that this argument is stupid.


Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority

How do strawmen help the Roman cause?  Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy?  Is that in Lumen Gentium too?


Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur.

One wonders how you make it work every day with your head stuck that far in the clouds.


Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god.

For those who've not spent much time arguing with atheists (as Paul apparently hasn't), atheism IS pantheism and vice versa, esp when it comes to questions of authority.
Which makes it worse for him - now the RC position isn't just echoing atheism, but pantheism as well.  Wow, have fun with that.


Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “Contra factum non valet argumentum,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth.

Ah, then Jell-O has farley bones and the further they 9 the much.
That reminds me; maybe we should add this to the long list of confusion and internal dissent within Rome - whether logic is the measure of truth or not.

The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority

louis said:
It's almost as if he thinks those scripture passages are perspicuous or something.
He also evidently thinks he understands Marbury v. Madison, but unless an infallible interpreter explained it to him, I'm not sure how he can.

Paul Hoffer said:

Louis, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree upon (sic). Where the perspecuity (sic) of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them? Fortunately, the Scriptures does point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a magisterial authority was established that people could take such disputes to. 

Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree. Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?

One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.  And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority.  And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...

What is really ironic is that in this kind of argumentation that Paul uses here and that RCs ignorantly use all over the place, they echo atheists as well.  Here's a recent example:
Whateverman said:  It matters that other Christians wouldn't agree with your attribution (of God's influence) because that demonstrates the subjectivity of the assertion.
My response there:  You know, there are ppl who think they can float by Yogic meditation. Their mistaken thoughts of gravity's application does not mean that gravity is subjective. You're making man the measure of truth. I'd recommend making logical argumentation the measure of truth, myself.


And that's what I'd recommend for our Romanist friends like Paul Hoffer.  For one thing, when you argue like an atheist, but you're a theist, and when you denigrate the clarity of what God spoke, just like atheists do, shouldn't that raise a bit of a red flag?

Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium

Here's a clear allusion from the Old Testament -- God's own testimony about the perspicuity of Scripture.

There is a clear allusion in this one passage (a) that the Lord formed the Church, and (b) that His Word is open and understandable. The proximity of these two elements is a clear rebuke to those who say that God's word is not clear, and that somehow a Magisterium is needed to interpret it:

"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I did not speak in secret,
in a land of darkness;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
'Seek me in vain.'
I the LORD speak the truth;
I declare what is right.

"Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together,
you survivors of the nations!
They have no knowledge
who carry about their wooden idols,
and keep on praying to a god
that cannot save.
Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.

"Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

"Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me,
are righteousness and strength;
to him shall come and be ashamed
all who were incensed against him.
In the LORD all the offspring of Israel
shall be justified and shall glory."

(From Isaiah 45:18-25)

Note what commentator J. Alec Motyer says: "the world vision of verses 14–17 is to be understood in the light of revelation. In quiet rebuke of the allegation (Is. 45:15) that he 'hides himself', the Lord asserts that he never spoke in secret (lit. 'under cover'): his word was openly available; nor in a land of darkness where one might lose one's way: his word was intrinsically plain and straightforward; and it led them straight to himself: his word was not in vain, [it was] solid ground not shifting sand. What he said was truth and right: the former is 'righteousness', conformity to the absolute norm of divine truth; the latter is 'plain, straightforward', without deviance or duplicity.

(from J. Alec Motyer, "Isaiah," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 290-291)

God’s word does not need a Magisterium to interpret it. He does not speak “under cover”. His word was intrinsically plain and straightforward; it leads straight to himself.