The Real Divide: Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 2

Perspicuity Against Erasmus

Luther’s clearest and most developed argument regarding the perspicuity of Scripture is in his diatribe against the humanist theologian, Desiderius Erasmus, called The Bondage of the Will.  Like many of his other writings and debates, the primary issue does not appear to be the perspicuity of Scripture.  However, in order to defend his doctrine Luther is forced to raise the issue.  Both he and his opponent rightly see that though on the surface they are debating one thing (free will), in reality they are debating another (perspicuity).

The issue at hand between the two theologians regards predestination and the freedom of the will, but the issue of perspicuity continued to appear between the two men’s writings.  Erasmus was not one particularly interested in the free will debate and considered debates over such theological issues not worth his time and energy.  In his book, Discourse on Free Will, Erasmus’ “chief point is that it is not a very significant issue, one way or the other; and his main complaint against Luther is simply that the latter shows a defective sense of proportion in laying so much stress on an opinion which is extreme and importable in itself and relates to a subject which is both obscure and unimportant.” [1]  Therefore, Erasmus defended free will by suggesting that “since Scripture is ultimately obscure concerning a great number of matters, especially the relationship of the divine and human will, it is necessary to plead ignorance as well as appeal to the judgment of the church (and its tradition in late medieval theology) to address the question of sovereignty and freedom.” [2]

In his book, Erasmus suggested that for many doctrines the Bible only confesses particular doctrines, but does not clearly explain them. For example, “Scripture simply confesses the Trinity of God and humanity of Christ and the unforgivable sin, and there is nothing here of obscurity or ambiguity.  But how these things can be, Scripture does not say . . ., nor is it necessary to know.” [3]  Therefore, since Scripture only identifies but does not explain such doctrines, it is necessary for the Church (who holds the keys) to define and lay out those doctrines in a clear and precise way that can be instituted and practiced by all believing Christians. 

This argument applies directly to the issue of free will.  Difficult or obscure doctrines, like the Trinity and free will are not clearly defined or explained in Scripture.  As a result, the Church had wrestled and finally laid out the final dogma of the Church.  For Erasmus, such doctrines were subject to the interpretation of the Church.  Because of Scripture’s obscurity, Erasmus offered, it was necessary for the Church to determine what orthodoxy was when it came to the difficult doctrine of free will.

Luther would have none of this.  He found this to be a fundamental attack on his Reformation and on the gospel itself.  As he stated at Worms, the Church and her councils can err.  To suggest that the Pope stands above the Scriptures sounds closer to heresy than orthodoxy.

Luther in his reply to Erasmus is sarcastic, blunt, and biblical.  Luther has little time for Tradition or medieval theology (except when it benefits his own argument) and instead pummels Erasmus with biblical text after biblical text.  In the middle of his onslaught, Luther attacks Erasmus’ faulty Bibliology and offers his own defense of perspicuity.  To Luther, arguing for Scripture’s obscurity and the Pope’s infallibility as a result was empty and stood against the purpose of the Scripture in the first place.  Erasmus argued that Scripture was not clear enough over the issue of free will and predestination to make final and secure arguments forcing us to side with the interpretations of the Church.  Luther is vehement in his rejection of such theology.

Here the two famous theologians are not arguing over free will or predestination, but over the source of authority and final determination of their theology: a perspicuous Scripture or a  perspicuous Church authority.
   
By arguing for a perspicuous Scripture, Luther was not suggesting that all texts of Scripture are clear.  Luther admitted that not all of Scripture was immediately clear to understand. Luther’s understanding of human depravity assumed that Scripture would be difficult (but not obscure) to the average, untrained reader. [4] Luther’s doctrine of depravity directly applies to our difficult to understand Scripture.  However, to misunderstand and to wrongly interpret Scripture (as the Catholic Church had done) is not due to obscurity in Scripture, but to the depravity and man.  As a result, Luther emphasized a twofold perspicuity.  The point was to show that everyone, whether Catholic or Protestant, is limited in his interpretation.  The difference here between Luther and Erasmus is that Luther sees the limitation in the interpreter whereas Erasmus places the limitation on the Scriptures.
   
The first form of perspicuity is an internal perspicuity that “concerns the knowledge of the heart.”  By this, Luther means that without the aide of the Holy Spirit, one cannot see “a jot of what is in the Scriptures.”  In other words, depravity greatly inhibits one’s interpretation of Scripture.  Since Scripture was inspired by the Spirit of God, so too right interpretation is only possible with those who possess the Spirit of God.  As Luther summarized, “The Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture.” [5]
   
The second form of perspicuity is an external perspicuity that “relates to the ministry of the Word.” [6]  Though Luther established that unless one has the Spirit, their depravity prevents them from rightly understand the Word.  This does not mean, however, that the unredeemed cannot understand Scripture at all, but that through means of proper hermeneutics, contexualization, etc., even the unregenerate can have some understanding of the text.  However they will not “have a spiritual understanding,” of the text.  “At best, Scripture is insignificant to him; at worst, it is incredible.” [7]
   
Taken together, Luther argues that Scripture is clear to both the redeemed and the unredeemed, but without the Spirit, one can only know cognitively.  Either way, Scripture remains perspicuous.
   
So if both believers and non-believers can understand the clearly written text of Scripture, then “it is unintelligent, and ungodly too, when you know what the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be, to pronounce them obscure on account of those few obscure words.” [8]
   
Luther then goes on to explain to Erasmus how to rightly understand parts of Scripture that appear more obscure or more difficult to understand and interpret.  He suggests interpreting Scripture with Scripture.  “If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another,” he writes.  “But when something stands in broad daylight, and a mass of evidence for it is in broad daylight also, it does not matter whether there is any evidence for it in the dark.” [9]
   
Later on in the book, Luther returned to the subject of perspicuity reminding us that perspicuity was this is the root doctrine by which the Reformation stood on.  If Scripture was not clear, then no one had any authority to challenge the Catholic Church’s interpretation on anything including justification by faith and depravity.  Therefore, in many of his debates, Luther had to defend the authority of his interpretation based on the assumption that Scripture is clear enough to be interpreted and understood without the aide of the Pope or the Church.
   
At this later point in the book, Luther lays out the biblical proof of Scripture’s perspicuity.  Though a detailed summation of his argument will not be laid out here, some examples will suffice.  Since Christians have been “so long persuaded” that only the Pope can correctly interpret Scripture, “by that pestilent dictum of the Sophists,” Luther was “compelled to begin by proving this very first principle of ours, by which all else must be proved.” [10]  He begins by looking at Deuteronomy 17:8 where Moses tells the Israelites that if anything was difficult to decide, they were to go to the priests who are to make the final judgment based on the Law of God.  Luther then asks:
   
how will they thus judge, if the law of the Lord is not, externally, as clear as can be, so that they may be satisfied about it.  Else it would have been enough to say: “according to their own spirit!” . . . how could they be settled if the laws were not perfectly clear, and were truly as lights among the people?  If the laws were equivocal and uncertain, not only would no issues be settled, but no sure standards of conduct would exist.  It is for this very reason that laws are enacted, that conduct may be regulated according to a definite code and disputes may find settlement.” [11]
       
       
Luther’s point is well taken.  What is the purpose of the Law if it could never be understood by man?  If Scripture, in this case the Torah, is not clear and understandable, then the Torah itself is superfluous and God remains in the dark.  This then begs the question, if Scripture is obscure or equivocal, why need it have been brought down to us by an act of God?  After all, do we not already “have enough obscurity and uncertainty within ourselves, without our obscurity and uncertainty and darkness being augmented from heaven?” [13]
   
Luther then goes on to ask what is obscure or so difficult to understand about verses like God creating the world (Genesis 1:1) or Christ becoming “flesh” (John 1:14), “and all the other items which the whole world has received as articles of faith.”  This begs the question then, “Whence were [such doctrines] received?  Surely, from the Scriptures!” [14]
   
And as a pastor, this issue hits particularly at home to Luther.  For years, Luther had been preaching, not Church dogma, but God’s clear Word.  Preachers, he writes, are to “expound and proclaim the Scriptures.”  Therefore, “if the Scripture they proclaim is obscure, who will assure us that their proclamation is dependable?  Shall there be a further new proclamation to assure us?  But who will make that proclamation?” [15]
   
Here Luther makes the connection between the perspicuity and ecclesiology.  If Scripture is not clear, then should a pastor preach the doctrines of men or God?  This hits at one of the hardest accusations that Luther throws against the Catholics.  If Scripture is not clear, then the Church must stand above Scripture.  Luther considers such a belief as the most disastrous doctrine imaginable. [16]   
   
It is of the highest arrogance and devilish attitudes that the Church believes that one man, the Bishop of Rome, can never err in his interpretation.  And because of such devilish doctrines, the gospel of Jesus Christ has been suppressed for centuries.  For Luther the gospel was central to all that mattered, but by declaring Scripture obscure to the average person, and only fully discernable to the Pope, the Church had blinded the minds of Christians thus robbing them of the gospel.  As a result, the Pope propagated false doctrines that led many astray.  Only a rejection of the perspicuity of Scripture can explain the doctrinal tyranny of the Church.
   
Luther said himself that The Bondage of the Will was one of his most important books and rightly so.  In a diatribe against one of the best known and well-respected Church leaders of his day, Luther made the case against the freedom of the will as propagated by the Catholic Church at that time.  But in it, the heart issue of perspicuity is brought to the forefront.  Nothing that Luther ever wrote, said, preached, or defended would have reasonable or powerful unless Scripture itself was clear apart from a third party (like the Pope) telling believers what Scripture means.


[1]   Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, ed. and trans. J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston (Ada, MI:  Revell, 1990), 41.
[2]  James Patrick Callahan, The Clarity of Scripture: History, Theology, and Contemporary Literary Studies (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 2001), 134.
[3]  As quoted in Ibid., 135.
[4]  Luther wrote, “I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture.” Luther, The Bondage of the Will, 71.  Italics original.
[5]  Ibid., 73-74.
[6]  Ibid., 73.
[7]  Larry Pettegrew, “The Perspicuity of Scripture,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, (2004):  215.
[8]  Luther, The Bondage of the Will., 71.
[9]  Ibid., 71-72.
[10]  Ibid., 125.  Note that Luther refers to Scripture’s perspicuity as the “very first principle of ours.”  This is further proof that perspicuity was the core of all that Luther wrote and believed.  Without it, there would not have been a Reformation.
[11]  Ibid.
[12]  Ibid., 128.
[13]  Ibid., 127.
[14]  Ibid., 127-128.
[15]  Luther wrote, “For by this means ungodly men have exalted themselves above the Scriptures and done what they liked, till the Scriptures were completely trodden down and we could believe and teach nothing but maniacs’ dreams.  In a word, that dictum is no mere human invention; it is poison sent into the world by the inconceivably malevolent prince of all the devils himself!” Ibid., 124.


The Real Divide:  Luther, the Reformation, and the Fight Over Perspicuity - Part 1 


For more:
Theology - Luther:  Right Doctrine and Righteous Living Go Hand-in-Hand - A Message the Church Needs to Recover 
Reviews - Reviews in Brief:  Martin Luther and the Reformation 
Reviews - The Theology of the Reformers  
Reviews - The Unquenchable Flame 
Reviews - Luther: Man Between God and the Devil 
Reviews - The Trial of Luther 
Reviews - Martin Luther:  The Christian Between God and Death  
Reviews - "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church" by John Calvin
Reviews - John Calvin:  A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology 
Reviews - Christianity's Dangerous Idea