It's tough to make heads or tails of Protestant circular "reasoning" where sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture are concerned.
See the introductory post, New Upcoming Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura.
I am utilizing a copy of the book available at Internet Archive.
Whitaker's words will be in blue. Page numbers will correspond to the above book version.
* * *
. . . In Ps. xix. 9, the word of God is called clear; and Ps. cxix. [119:] 105, it is called a lamp to our feet, and a light to our paths; and Proverbs vi. 22, Solomon says, "The commandment is a lamp, and the law is light." From these and similar places it is evident, that the word is not so obscure as to be unintelligible, but perspicuous and plain. (p. 383)
I'm not sure what Whitaker refers to in Psalm 19. Here is an excerpt:
Psalm 19:7-9 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; [8] the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; [9] the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
I don't see anything in this passage that particularly bolsters perspicuity as Protestants define it. In a search of 63 instances of clear in the RSV, I couldn't find a single time it was applied to Scripture. Of course the Bible is a lamp or light; again, this is far from proving distinctive Protestant claims in this regard. We don't hold that it is completely unintelligible in the first place. For one who complains so much about how Catholics fight straw men, Whitaker sure constructs and battles quixotically against many of his own making.
Our third argument is taken from Matthew v. 14, where Christ thus addresses his apostles: "Ye are the light of the world." Therefore, the apostolic doctrine, and consequently the scripture, hath light in itself. . . . I say that those words also ought principally to be understood of the light of doctrine, inasmuch as doctrine is the principal work and fruit of an apostle. (pp. 384-385)
This is quite a stretch, to take a saying of Jesus to the disciples, and make it an argument for the perspicuity of Scripture, because they wrote parts of the Bible, and then to jump from the concept of "light" to all that is involved in perspicuity. But let's grant the validity of this weak argument for a moment. It is then seen that it proves too much for Whitaker's case, for he himself applies it to "the apostolic doctrine," which goes far beyond Scripture Alone, and cannot be shown (in the Bible) to be restricted only to the Bible (e.g., St. Paul's many mentions of "tradition[s]," etc.).
Does Whitaker really want to contend that apostolic tradition "hath light in itself" (the same quality that he has just been arguing is indicative of Scripture's unique status)? To do that is to virtually concede the Catholic argument, which gives authoritative, infallible status to apostolic tradition, passed down in apostolic succession; whereas Protestants deny the same notion. I don't think he has thought this through very carefully before setting it down to paper. But then again, most of his arguments strike me that way. He's not only often fighting straw men, but grasping at straws as well. It's a wonder to behold.
. . . although the living voice of the apostles, when they preached, had more force in it to move the passions of men; nevertheless, in regard of the sum of evangelic doctrine, the same facility and perspicuity appears in their writings. For if "the word of prophecy" be like a lamp, that is, clear and plain, as Peter expressly affirms, 2 Pet. i. 19, (where he understands the writings, not the preaching of the prophets, as we shall afterwards prove,) then certainly the apostolic word must needs be still clearer and more illustrious. (p. 386)
Whitaker here extends more effort to help prove the case of the Catholic "three-legged stool" of authority, in equating the perspicuity of apostolic preaching (which clearly went beyond Scripture and was part of oral tradition, subsequently passed down) with the Bible. How he can fail to notice that he is shooting himself in the foot and defeating himself by arguing in this fashion, is the marvel.
For thus we reason in the fourth place : It is written, 2 Pet. i. 19, "We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day-spring arise in your hearts." The prophetic scripture is like a lamp shining in a dark place; therefore, it is illustrious and clear. (p. 386)
This simply doesn't follow. Everyone knows what the metaphor of light overcoming darkness means, but it is not by any means "clear" (pun half-intended) that it entails the whole concept of perspicuity. Whitaker seems to forget what he is arguing in favor of. These passages are supposed to be prooftexts for the perspicuity of Scripture. He had previously carefully, painstakingly defined what he means by that, with vociferous objections to Catholic misunderstandings. He defined it as follows (as we saw in part 5):
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. (pp. 361-362)
This is what he means by perspicuity; therefore, what he is attempting to prove and defend from alleged biblical prooftexts. Now, how does a simple description of Scripture as a "lamp" or a "light" prove all this, or even much or any of it? It doesn't contain that much information! This is very typical in biblical arguments for sola Scriptura: usually it is assumed already what one is ostensibly trying to prove, and the prior belief is merely read into any passage that remotely approximates any part of it. The fact that Scripture gives light has no necessary relation whatsoever to how easy or difficult it may be to understand.
In this instance, we can see by analogy, by following the notion of "lamp" and "light" in Scripture elsewhere, that what I am contending is true. Jesus called Himself the "light of the world." Not only did He do that; He also interpreted what He meant, right after saying it:
John 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (cf. 1:9: "The true light that enlightens every man . . .")
The "light" from Jesus represents life: eternal life; salvation. When applied to the disciples (Whitaker's prooftext above) I submit that it means the same: they are messengers of this light of eternal salvation: the gospel, the good news of salvation through the redemption and atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. That's what the "light" means. The source is Jesus, and the light is spread through His disciples and in the revealed word of the Bible (hence the latter is called a "lamp" also). This is a completely different meaning from perspicuity and all that it entails.
Does Jesus calling Himself the "light of the world" mean that every doctrine He taught was clear, one way or another? Not at all. His disciples were often baffled by what He said and taught and did. He explained that He was to suffer and be killed and rise again, and they didn't get it (as we saw in an earlier installment). They didn't understand the Eucharist (just like most Protestants today!). Some of His disciples even left Him because they didn't understand what He was saying about this, or did, and rejected it:
John 6:60-61, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?. . . [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Men are notorious for not grasping God's message or understanding His actions. But God (like Scripture) is repeatedly called a lamp or light (Ps 27:1; Is 60:19; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 Jn 1:5; Rev 21:23; 22:5). Whitaker's argument thus completely fails; it is shattered by Scripture itself, once again. Ignoring all this perfectly plain Scripture, Whitaker prefers to pretend that what he sees in Scripture is actually there. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true:
The Jesuit applies precisely the same answer which he used before, namely, that the words of the prophets are compared to a lamp, not because they are clear and plain and easy to be understood; but because then, when they are understood, they give us light and shew us the way to Christ, who is the sun of righteousness. I answer: it is nevertheless certain that scripture is compared to a lamp, because it hath light and clearness in it, which it also shews to men, unless they are either bhnd or turn away their eyes from it, as was said before. For as the sun is obscure to no one, nor a lamp when lit and set in the midst, save to the blind and those who shut their eyes; so also is the scripture. (p. 386)
This is amazing stuff. It's not enough for Whitaker that Jesus Christ, in a plainly analogous use of the metaphor of light, explains His own meaning. That's insufficient. He doesn't care about it. He goes on to make his eisegetical claim that has no apparent support in the Bible itself. It comes from Protestant man-made tradition, in an effort to escape from an authoritative Church and a passed-down apostolic tradition and doctrine (which they -- like heretics all through history -- sadly reject at many points).
Jesus Himself interpreted being a light to mean spiritual life and eternal life (Jn 8:12). St. John does the same in John 1:9. The metaphor is pretty much the same all through Scripture. It is used of John the Baptist. Note how it is interpreted as his giving "testimony" to Christ:
John 5:35-36 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. [36] But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.
In 1 John, it is again referring to salvation, not "perspicuity":
1 John 2:8-9 Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. [9] He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. . . . [12] I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake.. . . [14] I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
After Jesus calls His disciples "the light of the world" (John 5:14) -- one of Whitaker's alleged prooftexts -- , He interprets and expands upon its meaning, as well:
Matthew 5:15-16 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Whitaker somehow misses all this, because he doesn't know how to properly exegete Holy Scripture. It's not a matter of seizing on some word of phrase and making it mean whatever we want it to mean, as if the Bible were clay in our hands, to be shaped however we like (eisegesis). Hence, Whitaker gratuitously concludes that "light" means "perspicuity" and an easy-to-understand Bible.
No! We are following the correct method of biblical hermeneutics that St. Augustine taught (in his treatise, On Christian Doctrine), and which Whitaker gives lip service to but doesn't really apply. We're allowing Scripture to interpret itself, by comparing relevant passages to each other, and interpreting less clear passages in light of more plain ones. We allow our Lord Jesus the prerogative to explain His own meaning to us. The same is apparently not good enough for Whitaker.
Holy Scripture makes it so crystal-clear that the metaphor of "light" consistently refers to the gospel and salvation (not "broad clearness or plainness of message" or perspicuity), that is states precisely that in no uncertain terms, at least four times. It's so manifestly obvious that even Whitaker (with all his false premises and inability to exegete properly) couldn't possibly miss the meaning of it:
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? . . .
Isaiah 49:6 he says: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
John 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Acts 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth."
The apostle says that it shines in a dark place: therefore it dispels the shades. So the scripture dispels the darkness from our mind, by propounding a clear and luminous doctrine, which refutes our errors and shews to us the certain paths of truth. (p. 387)
It does indeed do so, but not by itself, so that Scripture Alone is formally sufficient to lead men to true doctrine. Interpretation and authoritative teaching is also required, because the same Scripture states as much (as we saw last time).
I'd like to conclude this section with a great observation made by "Adomnan," a regular on my blog:
As I see it, the problem is not so much that heretics misinterpret what is obscure, but that they misinterpret what is plain.. . . it's not (pace Whitaker) the obscure stuff that gets them into trouble so much as the plain stuff. (9-15-11)
We have seen that before our eyes, in how Whitaker used special pleading and extreme rationalization to ignore how Scripture regularly utilizes the metaphors of lamp and light. It's plain as day, but he doesn't comprehend it. How delightfully ironic . . .
Regular Paul Hoffer also contributed a superb analysis in the same combox for the previous installment, in two comments (one / two), of the numerous recorded instances of disputes about the Mosaic Law and the judging of cases and competing claims; thus illustrating yet again that the Law was not plain as day merely by hearing or reading it, and that it had to be studied in great depth, and required trained authorities whose word (like that of a judge today) was unassailable.
The analogy is obviously (once again) to the Catholic Church, and not to Protestant sola Scriptura and perspicuity: with every man (ultimately) for himself, as his own final arbiter.
.jpg)
