Scripture’s Clarity

Deuteronomy 29:29 (The things of God are obscure, but the things of Holy Scripture are perspicuous.^[1])

Deut. 30:11-14; Rom. 10:5-8

(on this, difficult to understand in Hebrew = being far away Ecc. 7:23-24)

Psalm 19:8; 119:105, 130

Prov. 6:23

2 Pet. 1:19, 3:16 (where the “hard to understand” refers not to the epistles themselves but certain eschatological doctrines therein)

2 Cor. 4:3-4

Rom. 15:4, 16:25

2 Tim. 3:15

Gerhard, Exegesis 1, § 435: One must distinguish between Scripture in itself and with respect to us. Scripture in and of itself is a clear light, whether you consider the material or the form, that is, whether you consider the subject matter [res] or the means of handing it down and the words. However, with respect to us, because of the innate darkness of our mind, we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit for a saving understanding of the divine mysteries that are set forth in Scripture quite clearly. Luther, De serv. arbitr., Jena edition, vol. 3, p. 167: “Not even a single jot in Scripture is perspicuous without the light of the Holy Spirit, for all things are obscure to the flesh and keenness of man in this regard and in this respect.” The sun in and of itself is sufficiently bright, but the eyes of the blind cannot gaze upon it.^[2]

Gerhard (II, 329): “The knowledge of those things, which are nowhere plainly and perspicuously revealed in Scripture, is not absolutely necessary to salvation.”

When we assert that Scripture is perspicuous, we wish to exclude neither the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit nor the external work of the ecclesiastical ministry in interpreting Scripture. Our intent is merely this: The dogmas that everyone must know for salvation are presented in the Scriptures so clearly and perspicuously that one need not abandon the Scriptures and run for help to traditions, to the judgment of the Roman Church, to the statements of the fathers, to the decrees of the councils, etc. Instead, one can and should claim something certain about those dogmas from Scripture alone, and the laity, too, can and should be allowed to read them.^[3]

§ 431. (II) In their words, the Calvinists confess along with us the perspicuity of Scripture. Indeed, they battle for it against the Papists with entire chapters and books. Yet if they keep their suppositions, they cannot keep from accusing Scripture of obscurity in the most important articles of faith. The article on Baptism and its efficacy is, as is evident, one of the chief ones. Concerning it, the Calvinists teach: “Baptism is not an effectual means of regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and salvation, but is only a sign.” Nowhere in all Scripture, however, is Baptism taught in proper, clear, and perspicuous words as merely a sign of regeneration, that Baptism only signifies a washing away of sins. Rather, Scripture often speaks about the end and fruit of Baptism: “By Baptism we are cleansed of our sins”; “We are regenerated of water”; “Baptism is the washing of regeneration and renewal” (John 3:5; Eph. 5:27; Titus 3:5, etc.). Therefore they are compelled to claim that Scripture nowhere speaks about the efficacy and fruit of Baptism in proper, clear, and perspicuous words, but only in figurative, improper, and metonymic words. Sohnius says in Method. theolog., vol. 1, Oper., p. 262: “All propositions concerning the efficacy of Baptism that occur in Scripture are figurative, improper, and metonymic except this one: ‘Baptism is a type of the removal of dirt,’ " which he says is in 1 Pet. 3:21. An inspection of the text, however, clearly reveals the opposite. Ursinus, Compend., p. 503: “These are improper or figurative forms of speaking: ‘Baptism is the washing of regeneration,’ ‘Baptism saves us.’ The proper form of speaking is that it is a sign of washing.” (But where does Scripture use this form of speaking?)

So also the article on the Lord’s Supper is one of the chief articles. Regarding it the Calvinists teach: “The eucharistic bread is not the instrument by which the present body of Christ is distributed, but a sign of His absent body; the eucharistic wine is not the instrument through which the present blood of Christ is distributed, but a sign of the absent Christ.” Nowhere, however, does Scripture speak like this: “The eucharistic bread is the sign of the body of Christ.” Instead, it says, “It is the communication of the body of Christ” [1 Cor. 10:16]. In the institution, Christ does not say, “This is a sign of My body,” but “This is My body” [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24]. Therefore they are finally forced to declare that Scripture does not use proper and perspicuous words in teaching this chief article of our religion. Accordingly, Oecolampadius argues in De verbo Dei: “Matthew and Mark wrote obscurely about the Lord’s Supper. Therefore one must look for the meaning from him who wrote more clearly, namely, Luke.” But if you set before them the clear words of Luke, they will respond from Beza: “In his words describing the institution of the Eucharist, Luke committed a grammatical error” (Annot. ad N. T., p. 317). On this point, Beza is supported by Vorstius (Anti-Pistor., part 2, sect. 4), Piscator (Annal. of that passage), and by Goclenius (Problem. grammat., bk. 5, prob. 1, p. 226). So, then, they will never find a place to put their feet, because neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke describe the institution of the Eucharist in such words as would clearly explain their sacramental metonymy.

And what shall we say about the distinction between the will of the sign and the will of good pleasure, about the limiting of the promises of the Gospel? These are revealed nowhere in Scripture in perspicuous words but are added by the Calvinists. Therefore here, too, they are forced to claim that Scripture is obscure in handing down the articles of faith. Consequently, Piscator writes (Respon. apologet. ad Vorstium, part 1, p. 20): “Is it not apparent that it pleased the Holy Spirit everywhere to speak in veiled language to sharpen our reason for concentration and study in searching out the genuine meaning?”^[4]

Gregory, Moralia, Introductory Letter to Leander, ch. 4 (PL 75:515): Diuinus sermo “habet in publico unde paruulos nutriat, seruat in secreto unde mentes sublimium in admiratione suspendat. quasi quidam quippe est fluuius , ut ita dixerim, planus et altus, in quo et agnus ambulet, et elephas natet.” (Quoted by Luther, 77:205.)

Pieper (I:323): At all times, and particularly in our day, the great disagreement among theologians in the interpretation of the words of Scripture has been advanced against the perspicuity of Scripture. Unfortunately this disagreement is a fact. However it is not caused by the obscurity of Scripture, but by the departure of the theologians from the Word of Scripture and by their substituting for it and peddling their own thoughts concerning God and divine matters and taking these thoughts to market. God has so constituted Holy Scripture that one cannot err in the Christian doctrine as long as one continues in simple faith in His Word. Christ teaches that Scripture is a safe guide when He says: “If ye continue in My Word, then … ye shall know the truth” (John 8:31–32). Likewise the Apostle Paul declares (1 Tim. 6:3) that all error in doctrine can be traced to the refusal of the teacher to continue in the wholesome words of Christ. This refusal prompted Luther’s constant warning against substituting an interpretation (gloss) for the Scripture words themselves, for the “nuda Scriptura.” “Be it known, then, that Scripture, without any gloss, is the sun and sole light from which all teachers receive their light, and not the contrary.” (St. L. XVIII:1292 ff.) “The Word they still shall let remain.” It is a characteristic of the Lutheran Church that it does not base its doctrine on any exegesis, not even on the exegesis of Luther, but on the bare words of Scripture, while the Papists and the Reformed in all doctrines in which they differ from the Lutheran Church do not stand on the word of Scripture, but on an “exegesis” of the Pope, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. And modern theology, because of its denial of the inspiration of Scripture, declares openly that it does not stand on the Word of Scripture, but on the so-called “Christian experience…(367): The talk common in our day that all church bodies stand on Scripture and differ only in their interpretation of it is not in accordance with the facts. The Roman Catholic Church does not stand on Scripture, but on the papal interpretation of Scripture. The Reformed Churches, as far as they differ from the Lutheran Church, do not stand on Scripture, but on Zwingli’s, Calvin’s, etc., interpretation of Scripture. The Lutheran Church, however, does not stand on an interpretation of Scripture, but on Scripture itself. This is not a mere assertion. It can be proved by induction in the face of universal contradiction.