Hey, thank you for the video! I have a a question and a possible objection. 1. Does Perspicuity teach that everything in Scripture is clear or simply that which is essential for salvation? 2. If it is everything in Scripture that is clear then how do we approach our intuition that some passages are harder to understand on a technical level than others? Exodus 4:24-26 for example seems to present difficulties of interpretation due to historical and technical features that seem unclear to many readers. It seem plausible, at least by my lights, that such a passage is challenging not because readers are intentionally rejecting the clear meaning in unrighteousness but because the meaning in the passage itself isn't obvious and requires further reflection. At least in my own experience, when I read passages such as the one described I am occasionally confused but I don't seem to think I am intentionally avoiding or obscuring the truth. If perspicuity is meaning referring to essential doctrine then I agree with you on this issue. Thank you again for the video.
To Q1, no it doesn't teach all things are clear. Some parts are clear some aren't, but all things that are necessary for righteous living and salvation are. Which I guess ties into your own on Q2. I'll be doing a lot of work on Perspicuity in the coming months and publishing a large work addressing this and many more topics. Glad you enjoyed it, I hope this can be a very helpful series for you!
Exactly. And then, even when perspicuity is narrowed down to “everything needed for salvation and righteous living”, its defenders still have to do some massaging to get around the fact that clearly, different people read those perspicuous passages differently. In my experience (which is in no way authoritative lol) that problem results in question-begging by implying that all those who disagree with a given interpretation are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” I *want* the doctrine of perspicuity to be true, but it seems to fall apart no matter what. I’ll be following these videos in hopes that they’ll change my mind! 😊
@@TheBillyDWilliams But in my experience most of the disagreements are not on what is necessary for salvation and holy living, unless discussing with those who hold to things like, "you must submit to the bishop of Rome."
@@PracticalChristianLessons thanks for your reply and the videos! I hope they help too, this is a topic I’ve been struggling with for the past few years. 🙏 I’m glad that’s been your experience! Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. As a minister in an evangelical church that was thoroughly Sola Scriptura (to the point of essentially being SolO Scriptura), the amount of disagreements on “salvation and holy living” within just our small congregation was staggering. Baptismal efficacy, whether pouring/sprinkling were valid, soteriology, perseverance of the saints, Christian ethics, the necessity of the Lords Supper, church attendance, what doctrines have to be affirmed to be saved - all of these were points of contention among our leadership, and both sides drew their conclusions from Scripture. I spent so many hours debating my own elders and deacons that could have been better spent elsewhere. If Scripture truly is perspicuous, I find it hard to believe that so many disagreements would be present in a small congregation of people who all have the same fundamental commitment to knowing Christ through His word alone. Hope you can change my mind! 😊
@@vinxit not sure if you are serious. But if you are, are you saying there’s no hope for Christians to understand Scripture? If so, what’s even the meaning of “perspicuity”?
The hart of this, and I'll possibly touch on this more in a later video, man's sinfulness has placed a veil over some things. We don't see everything clearly, and there will be things we just don't agree on in this lifetime. The early Church has countless examples of very important disagreements, some that caused divisions and some that didn't but equally important as this.
@@PracticalChristianLessons but man’s sinfulness is a renowned fact. It’s not a surprise. We cannot claim Scripture is perfectly perspicuous only to realize that man, due to his sinfulness, will never have a chance to fully understand it. What’s the meaning of perspicuity at this point? It just becomes totally meaningless. It just boils down to who is less sinful than others, and who is there to decide?
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Perspicuity gang!
Hey, thank you for the video! I have a a question and a possible objection.
1. Does Perspicuity teach that everything in Scripture is clear or simply that which is essential for salvation?
2. If it is everything in Scripture that is clear then how do we approach our intuition that some passages are harder to understand on a technical level than others?
Exodus 4:24-26 for example seems to present difficulties of interpretation due to historical and technical features that seem unclear to many readers. It seem plausible, at least by my lights, that such a passage is challenging not because readers are intentionally rejecting the clear meaning in unrighteousness but because the meaning in the passage itself isn't obvious and requires further reflection. At least in my own experience, when I read passages such as the one described I am occasionally confused but I don't seem to think I am intentionally avoiding or obscuring the truth.
If perspicuity is meaning referring to essential doctrine then I agree with you on this issue. Thank you again for the video.
To Q1, no it doesn't teach all things are clear. Some parts are clear some aren't, but all things that are necessary for righteous living and salvation are. Which I guess ties into your own on Q2. I'll be doing a lot of work on Perspicuity in the coming months and publishing a large work addressing this and many more topics.
Glad you enjoyed it, I hope this can be a very helpful series for you!
Exactly. And then, even when perspicuity is narrowed down to “everything needed for salvation and righteous living”, its defenders still have to do some massaging to get around the fact that clearly, different people read those perspicuous passages differently.
In my experience (which is in no way authoritative lol) that problem results in question-begging by implying that all those who disagree with a given interpretation are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”
I *want* the doctrine of perspicuity to be true, but it seems to fall apart no matter what. I’ll be following these videos in hopes that they’ll change my mind! 😊
@@TheBillyDWilliams Hope they can be helpful!
@@TheBillyDWilliams But in my experience most of the disagreements are not on what is necessary for salvation and holy living, unless discussing with those who hold to things like, "you must submit to the bishop of Rome."
@@PracticalChristianLessons thanks for your reply and the videos! I hope they help too, this is a topic I’ve been struggling with for the past few years. 🙏
I’m glad that’s been your experience! Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. As a minister in an evangelical church that was thoroughly Sola Scriptura (to the point of essentially being SolO Scriptura), the amount of disagreements on “salvation and holy living” within just our small congregation was staggering.
Baptismal efficacy, whether pouring/sprinkling were valid, soteriology, perseverance of the saints, Christian ethics, the necessity of the Lords Supper, church attendance, what doctrines have to be affirmed to be saved - all of these were points of contention among our leadership, and both sides drew their conclusions from Scripture. I spent so many hours debating my own elders and deacons that could have been better spent elsewhere.
If Scripture truly is perspicuous, I find it hard to believe that so many disagreements would be present in a small congregation of people who all have the same fundamental commitment to knowing Christ through His word alone. Hope you can change my mind! 😊
Does baptism save?
Lutherans and Anglicans say yes.
Baptists and Evangelicals say no.
Which of them is darkened by their evil sinful actions?
All of us.
@@vinxit not sure if you are serious. But if you are, are you saying there’s no hope for Christians to understand Scripture? If so, what’s even the meaning of “perspicuity”?
Do Protestants need rebaptized if they convert? Some in the same tradition say yes some say no, who is darkened by their own sinful actions?
The hart of this, and I'll possibly touch on this more in a later video, man's sinfulness has placed a veil over some things. We don't see everything clearly, and there will be things we just don't agree on in this lifetime. The early Church has countless examples of very important disagreements, some that caused divisions and some that didn't but equally important as this.
@@PracticalChristianLessons but man’s sinfulness is a renowned fact. It’s not a surprise. We cannot claim Scripture is perfectly perspicuous only to realize that man, due to his sinfulness, will never have a chance to fully understand it.
What’s the meaning of perspicuity at this point? It just becomes totally meaningless. It just boils down to who is less sinful than others, and who is there to decide?