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 due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. –WCF 1.7
The Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture (DOTPOS) in many ways resides at the core of the origins of Protestant and Reformed identity. The above excerpt from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) represents an articulation of DOTPOS directly relevant for many of us in the Reformed world.
For several years I have pondered the implications of DOTPOS for the place of the historical study of the Bible in the church and as part of how the church engages its Bible. My thought has tracked down several related paths, a couple of them stemming from particular parts of the WCF articulation of DOTPOS. I plan to do several posts on DOTPOS, especially its articulation in the WCF, and the historical study of the Bible. In this post I would like to share one of my particular ponderings that remains in an insipient stage. What do you all think of this?
I think a POSITIVE use of DOTPOS is helpful and edifying for the church while a NEGATIVE use of DOTPOS is unhelpful and Spiritually stiffling.
By POSITIVE use I mean, basically, what the DOTPOS teaches positively about how anyone in the church can read the Bible and encounter Christ in a saving way “in due use of the ordinary means” (something I will touch on in a subsequent post). In this way DOTPOS is very helpful. All people in the church should have the confidence that they can approach the Bible—together in community and in private devotional readings—and savingly encounter our Lord. To unpack this further, they do not need (1) to know Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic), (2) to have a seminary or ancient history degree, (3) or to be a ‘priest’ or go through a ‘priest,’ etc.
By NEGATIVE use I mean a use of DOTPOS to rule out readings of the Bible that are not available to all as individuals, especially the ‘unlearned’ (theological, historically, etc). Examples of this abound. I have lost count of how many times I have encountered something along the following lines in Reformed responses to historical readings of the Bible that challenge or would require further nuancing of something in Reformed Theology: “Allowing such historical reading of the Bible as acceptable would mean that only a priest-hood of scholars can interpret the Bible. This would make us like Rome, saying that the regular Christian in the pews does not have a perspicuous Bible that he or she can read. As such, he or she needs a ‘priest-hood’ of scholars to read the Bible for him or her. Thus, clearly, such a way of reading is wrong because it does not square with the [negative use of] DOTPOS.” I find such a NEGATIVE use of DOTPOS to be unhelpful for the church. I have many more thoughts about such negative uses of DOTPOS I frequently encounter in the Reformed world—especially their naiveté and how those who propound such negative-uses-of-DOTPOS logic also functionally advocate a priest-hood of scholars in the church. I will save these further thoughts for either the comments or a later post.
So, I would like to think that this approach—the helpfulness of the positive use of DOTPOS but not its negative use—is ultimately edifying for the church. On the one hand, it preserves the understanding of every Christian being able to encounter our Lord savingly through His Word. On the other hand, this approach still allows historical engagement with God’s Word (in the historical contexts in which God inspired it) to be a part of the church’s reading of the Bible and encounter with her Lord.
Either in the comments bellow, if any materialize : ), and/or in a subsequent post I hope we can explore DOTPOS further. I do not think it was ever intended to mean that every Christian can and should regularly and only read the Bible individually and apart from the church. Also, I want to recognize that to many my distinction between the positive and negative uses of DOTPOS may appear to be splitting hairs. I desire to guard a place for the historical study of the Bible—and church tradition (the WCF, anyone?!)—in the church’s engagement with Scripture. I thus find negative uses of DOTPOS unhelpful–negative uses that, consistently pursued, would rule out the place of historical-academic study of the Bible (and church tradition) being a part of the church’s reading of it.
Stephen (the Foolish Tar Heel)
February 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Hi there! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering which blog
platform are you using for this website? I’m getting fed up of WordPress because I’ve
had issues with hackers and I’m looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.
March 1, 2008 at 2:52 pm
[...] Biblical Theology, Confessional, Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Scripture A couple weeks ago I posted about the Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture (DOTPOS) and uses of it that I find help…. One of the themes of the (short) discussion that ensued was that everyone, even the most ardent [...]
February 12, 2008 at 10:12 am
Tobias,
Do you have any thoughts on the substance of this post?
February 11, 2008 at 10:01 pm
That’s very pastoral of you Justin. Thanks for sharing. Glad to see you progressing further down the path of your own academic self-importance (and irrelevance). The Trinity? Who needs it!
February 11, 2008 at 10:16 am
I actually don’t really believe in the perspicuity doctrine anymore–or if I do, it’s in a heavily truncated version of it. Or perhaps it would be better to say that I think certain things are perspicuous, but which matters are perspicuous and which aren’t is in fact not always perspicuous, and certain things we think are perspicuous probably aren’t, and some things we think aren’t actually are.
One example, I think: the Trinity. Perspicuous? Not at all. Necessary for salvation? I’d say no.
February 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Interesting, Stephen. Thanks. My own thought on this is to question at what point in the historical process of enscripturation would those favor a more heavy-handed use of DOTPOS presume that no cultural understanding should kick in? Were the books we acknowledge to be scripture actually scripture when the original recipients read/heard what was written? If so, they understood what they were receiving in the context of their world. They knew who the Nicolaitans were without further explanation, and that knowledge allowed them to have a full-orbed understanding of John’s point. The Corinthians knew who Chloe’s people were; it communicated something.
We don’t share the specific understanding they had, so while we can infer some general things (Nicolaitans bad; Chloe influential), knowing more might open up new and helpful exegetical links, or bolster some theories and sink others. These kinds of questions raise wonderful research challenges, and invite us to ponder God’s Word more deeply within itself and through documentary, historical, and archaeological work. The more we know about it, the more we know about him.
February 8, 2008 at 11:30 am
I really appreciate both of your comments. In fact, you went exactly where I was hoping some people would go and, as you stole my thunder, where I am planning to go in a subsequent post.
One of the problems with many negative uses of DOTPOS (and sufficiency of Scripture) is that no one really works that way. This is hermeneutics 101. No one approaches the Bible–or anything for that matter–without ‘extrabiblical’ knowledge, assumptions, etc, playing an important role in how he/she understands the text. The question is how conscious of this hermeneutical dynamic are we willing to be? Dangerous handling of the Bible tends to occur when people–academic/historically inclined or not–remain unconscious of their own assumptions. To build a little more on that, dangerous handlings of the Bible especially tend to occur when we come up with theological justifications for remaining not self-critical and not self-conscious of and about our various cultural, theological, and hermeneutical assumptions.
Sorry I have taken so long to comment and that this comment is so superficial. I hope to do more when time permits.
Thank you both for your very insightful comments.
February 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Great post Stephen. I look forward to more on this.
I get this complaint (what you call the negative use of DOTPOS) frequently when leading Bible studies. I remember the last time I did a study on Jude that many were very uncomfortable with my references to extra Biblical material (some of which is speculative).
I suspect the confusion may be deeper than a misuse of the perspicuity of Scripture (Warren seems to hint at this as well). Many seem to believe that they can read the Bible as a blank slate. Those who make Scripture the foundation of epistemology foster this view. It’s as if they think the Bible is written in some neutral culture and when we read it we also read from outside of our own culture. God’s thoughts become our thoughts independent of language and culture.
It’s true, as you suggest, that we don’t need to know Hebrew or Greek to understand our Bible, but somebody needs to understand Hebrew and Greek as well as English or we’re left with an un-translated text.
February 7, 2008 at 6:41 am
Aren’t many negative uses of DOTPOS also negative uses of the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture? There are certainly readings of the canon that involve a sophistication that most Christians will not on their own apply. But many the examples you are thinking of involve looking to things outside of the canon to help in determining what the text says. I have heard some Christians (myself included) object to this practice. But having the some friends who are involved in translating the Bible into languages with no prior familiarity with the biblical story-line has raised the question for me of how much non-biblical knowledge we bring with us to the text that is crucial to our understanding of it. We are rarely conscious of that process, but I wonder if those who argue for the negative use of DOTPOS and the sufficiency of scripture are themselves aware of that dynamic and, if so, where they draw the line for when extra-biblical knowledge goes “too far.”