As opposed to hard to understand, (and even in some of the most popularly read places!?!)
2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Without knowledge, study, there's a distinct possibility that its generally going to be a kind of pot-luck understanding? eg: They can, but no guarantee they will? So Pentecostals vs. Seventh-Day Adventists, vs. Mormans, etc.... and those who once went by the name "Fundamentalist."
Any one of them can understand it, (and many Mormans diligently read their bible(s), no offense), as do J.W.'s, but they come to drastically different conclusions on points of one wife or three, or "let no man separate what God has Joined", etc, etc. etc. And yet, Adulterers in the present tense are not going to enter heaven.... (pretty basic question.)
So who of these denominations will admit to not having the holy spirit guide them? Mormons, Pentecostals, SDA ? :D
This aspect of the scripture might be assumed by some, but there has been many who rejected the doctrine. Marcion--- Marcion rejected the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) as clear. a Few Other church fathers---- Same as Marcion Possibly Origin --- If the scriptures is not clear, allegorical hermeneutical methods are often used. Roman Catholic apologists ---- Many in Roman Catholic theology deny the scriptures is clear and they favor the idea that only the Church can accurately interpret scripture (Pope and Councils). An obvious problem with this is that Church Councils have interpreted only a very small number of verses in the scripture. Another problem, is if the scriptures is not clear and needs Church authority to interpret it, who then will interpret the interpretation of the Church? postmoderns --- I have talked to certain clergy in main demoninational Churches who deny that the Bible can be read by simply understanding the grammar and syntax and context. He suggested that the Bible can have many different and even contradictory messages to different people.
One man's doctrine in another's apostacy....
Would you happen to have a few links to what these people have actually said; I'm curious and not familiar with most of them in the way you represent them. I had to take college courses, so I'm also wanting to follow up on your initial remark to me here and understand what motivated it in terms of "perspicuity":
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=835216&viewfull=1#post835216
College is possibly a postmodern influence on me, although I absolutely don't believe scriptures contain contradictory messages to people. Oddly enough, I got yelled at by the teacher within a week of theology 101 class because it seems a basic idea in scripture wasn't clear to both of us (no perspicuity common ground). I ended up dropping the class and taking a teacher who didn't deal with anger problems. ( A feminist, but not anti-man ... I was pleasantly surprised/shocked. )
The teachers were both genuine and knew scripture well, it's just that they disagree on most everything except Jesus Christ being the savior of the world ; and the ten commandments being important even today.
Passages in the bible related to perspicuity: 2 Tim 3:14-15 ----- Lois and Eunice were able to teach the scriptures to Timothy, even as a child! Deuteronomy 6:6-7 ---- Israelite men were to teach the words of the Law to their children "You shall teach them diligently to our children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way..." Acts 17:11 ---- The Bereans searched the scriptures to see if the things Paul said were scriptural.
But, isn't it obvious that the scriptures aren't being read with the Holy Spirit alone when they are being taught by mom and dad?
That's more an affirmation of tradition and teaching by human beings vs. scripture alone and perspicuity. ( 2Thessalonians 2:15 )
And many a church, Catholics aside, can teach from a pulpit rather than just from the book.
I like what Reba said, "making wise the simple."; eg: Scripture itself is an ongoing process of improving in wisdom.
That's a better argument toward perspicuity than anything else; although that's a process not a instant transformation.
I find scripture, beautiful -- wonderfully intricate -- surprisingly coherent; but not always easy to understand; even with prayer.
As to the Bereans, that's a people after my own heart. Bible study people. Not anti-tradition, but they DO check the word carefully.
But, even they -- as most converts -- came to Jesus by the aid of a Preacher; Romans 10:14, not from the bible alone, but someone explaining it.
So: When it comes to interpreting, we are SUPPOSED to share with each other what treasures we have found in scripture; whatever is good and true, and meditate on these things. Quite possibly we were taught by mom and dad, or given to by God through another person; it's no shame in my mind to not understand scripture the first time, and pride esp. about "I KNOW WHAT SCRIPTURE MEANS ALL BY MYSELF!!!" is a strong temptation for many people, encouraging them to jump to premature conclusions: Sometimes it TAKES an educated man to realize he doesn't understand what he has read.
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The difference between the scripture and the man, Philip, is that wonderful ability to dialog freely. Just like we do here in the forums.
The Holy Spirit often comes through a prophet, such as Philip was to this Eunuch; telling him what he needed to know and was ready to learn. Perhaps you have been a prophet to someone in their hour of need?
Besides: Where is there a guarantee in scripture, or logic, that everyone will receive the Holy Spirit's direction on scripture without the spirit speaking through another person?; that individual "spiritism" must happen to all of us? ( The spirit, I am sure does speak to some of us directly. )
BUT: I don't see that perspicuity is absolutely necessary, although it would be nice if it were true....
OTOH: Scripture, however, I think, has multiple meanings in some places; which kinda puts me against your argument as I was introduced to it on the other thread; I really don't see how multiple meanings can be avoided. (but I'm listening.)
eg: Allegory, Analogy, prototypes/antitypes, and the literal meaning; among other issues.... ( Galatians 4:24-26 )
And he even says "Hagar is mount Sinai".
Or again:
When the prophecy of the virgin being with Child was made, that prophecy was to be seen by Ahaz.
What, then, was the fulfillment of the prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) to Ahaz who represented the House of David in Isaiah's day? ( The Lord will give to you-all a sign; you!notice! [singular imperative command] a virgin shall be with child. ).
I know the time when it the prophecy was to be fulfilled -- for Isaiah spoke about the child's food:
Isaiah 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
And then, to show that the child lived in that day and not only centuries later, notice what Isaiah says -- whence comes the butter and honey In That Day?
Isaiah 7:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
Isaiah 7:22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.
The butter and honey is for someone who was left (overlooked) in the land during the war. The lack of active farm land, due to war conditions -- leads to an abundance of grazing land for a short period of time. Hence, butter from cows, goats, sheep -- and honey (from wild bees) were the food that's available; and we don't have "herds" but just a cow and a couple of lambs.... it's WAR time, not feast on meat because we're wealthy time -- as opposed to grapes and grain and lots of lamb-chops which are peace time foods for an established people who haven't been robbed of their flocks by a foreign nation.
Notably, grain and wine and sheep (millions of them slaughtered at the last passover) were abundant in Jesus day -- and we aren't told anything special that I remember about Jesus and honey... nor milk from when he was a boy... so, these don't seem to be special prophecy markers for Jesus. ( Do you know of any passage I might have overlooked ?? )
You might perhaps dispute this scripture, but the point is -- a sign was prophesied to Ahaz; and Jesus being born many centuries later would do Ahaz no good. A Virgin ( Parthenos in Greek ) is a woman who is *supposed* to be virgin. But -- In popular Greek usage, the word also connotes a woman who is supposed to be a virgin, but was raped, etc. (Not exactly sarcastic, but the word "virgin" becomes an accusation to such people.). In the Hebrew that we have today, the word is "almah" ( eg: young woman, but as in an unwed woman -- who had better be virgin under the law. ).
The miraculous nature of the prophecy depends on who the woman is -- and how she got pregnant. But I feel obligated to believe that Jesus the Christ came once, by a woman Mary, while she was still supposed to be a virgin; and that whatever woman Ahaz saw that became pregnant as a result of war was a different woman, and a different kind of miracle. But NONE the less, she would have stuck out in an obvious way as being a sign all those hundreds of years before Jesus was conceived -- and the later born Jesus was the maximum miraculousness that such a prophecy could have meant.
The Isaiah passage is a point of dispute between the two religions, Christianity and Judaism, but how can you see a fulfillment of the prophecy for Ahaz in the past without recognizing a double meaning of some kind in the prophecy? And if there was no fulfillment, then the prophecy could be argued false in Ahaz's day and Ahaz justified in his dealings with foreign governments. Isaiah would be a false prophet to Ahaz. Signs are of no value unless seen.
I think it clear that God can work with words which have two meanings, one from the person speaking -- and another from the fullest possible good those words could mean. ( Not even true prophets are always fully informed, themselves, and desired to understand what was to come: Luke 10:24 and 21 is context)
Genesis 50:19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?
Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
John 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
John 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
So it is that the author or historical speaker (originator) of the words may have a totally different intention or understanding than God who inspires the words.
Caiphas was wicked, Joseph's brothers were wicked; but their words brought about good -- although they themselves are not good because of the evil they did.
It's that eunuch from Acts that originally got me thinking about the issue of the multiple fulfillments possible in prophecy, and also got me noticing that the spirit interpreted scripture expressly through opening Philip's mouth, and not speaking to the eunuch directly.
Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
... And the very educated eunuch is the one who noticed the issue in scripture of multiple meanings:
Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Thank God for the preacher whom God pours the Holy Spirit into their mouth.
Peace be with you, and Glory to God this day.
