What do you think?
Rate this book
The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity
Turn on Christian radio anywhere in the United States and see how long it takes before someone declares that "Scripture clearly teaches [fill in the blank]." There's a reason for that, and it has to do with the very origins of Protestant Christianity more than five hundred years ago. The Protestant Reformation coalesced around five core sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus , and soli Deo gloria . But another founding principle served as bedrock for all of the doctrine of clarity, or perspicuity. According to this doctrine, which was upheld in various forms by all the major Reformers and remains central to Protestantism today, the Bible is clear enough so that any Christian, relying on the Holy Spirit, will be able to determine at least what is necessary for salvation, if not much more. The Obscurity of Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity catalogues and analyzes the historical, theological, and philosophical dimensions of perspicuity and finds the doctrine not only confused but erroneous, destructive, and self-defeating. The Obscurity of Scripture exposes the hopeless dead ends of clarity and, through a consideration of Catholic teaching on the Bible, offers the only way out.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published March 12, 2023
1 person is currently reading
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 18, 2024
This is an excellent book! From the beginning, Chalk argues that the five solas that the entire protest movement rests on is the perspicuity of Scripture.
In rejecting the Church and its teachings, the reformers were left with only the Bible. And to argue that their interpretations were valid, they had to argue that Scripture is sufficiently clear that anyone could interpret it in a valid manner. Of course, the original reformers did not expect hoi poi to be interpreting for themselves, but once the cat was out of the bag, there was no returning it to the bag.
Today, all members of the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox groups are free to hold any interpretation they please and Mr. Chalk takes great pains to emphasize that each individual is free to accept or reject any teachings or interpretations that his particular group espouses. In a way, though all the Bible based groups will claim they accept completely, he argues, they are really only accepting what fits their preordained beliefs. Compare this to someone who is in the Catholic or Orthodox Faiths of good standing, they will accept everything that the Church teaches and obey. Their personal opinions counting for nothing.
One of Chalk’s observations that I have noticed in past encounters with protesters of all kinds is the five solas has create tendency for each side to assume the best about themselves and the worst about their opponents. This has been the case ever since the Luther-Zwingli meeting in Marburg.
In part 2 of the book, Chalk discusses the Catholic approach to Scripture and its two thousand years of Scripture study and commentary.
While Mr. Chalk has hopes that his former Calvinist colleagues will read this book with an open mind, I do recommend it to anyone who wonders why Catholics & non-Catholics talk past each other more often than not. I believe my fellow Catholic Christians will learn a lot about why non Catholics think the way they do. And since the US is culturally secular, Protestant, I think it might explain the American mindset to non Americans in a way as well.
In rejecting the Church and its teachings, the reformers were left with only the Bible. And to argue that their interpretations were valid, they had to argue that Scripture is sufficiently clear that anyone could interpret it in a valid manner. Of course, the original reformers did not expect hoi poi to be interpreting for themselves, but once the cat was out of the bag, there was no returning it to the bag.
Today, all members of the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox groups are free to hold any interpretation they please and Mr. Chalk takes great pains to emphasize that each individual is free to accept or reject any teachings or interpretations that his particular group espouses. In a way, though all the Bible based groups will claim they accept completely, he argues, they are really only accepting what fits their preordained beliefs. Compare this to someone who is in the Catholic or Orthodox Faiths of good standing, they will accept everything that the Church teaches and obey. Their personal opinions counting for nothing.
One of Chalk’s observations that I have noticed in past encounters with protesters of all kinds is the five solas has create tendency for each side to assume the best about themselves and the worst about their opponents. This has been the case ever since the Luther-Zwingli meeting in Marburg.
In part 2 of the book, Chalk discusses the Catholic approach to Scripture and its two thousand years of Scripture study and commentary.
While Mr. Chalk has hopes that his former Calvinist colleagues will read this book with an open mind, I do recommend it to anyone who wonders why Catholics & non-Catholics talk past each other more often than not. I believe my fellow Catholic Christians will learn a lot about why non Catholics think the way they do. And since the US is culturally secular, Protestant, I think it might explain the American mindset to non Americans in a way as well.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 30, 2024
One of the better books I’ve read that attempts to defend the heretical position of an interpretive authority outside the Bible. Chalk recognizes that to defend his view from the Scripture would be self-refuting. After all, to clearly prove that the Scriptures aren’t clear, neither Protestant nor Catholic can find that clearly taught in the Scripture. Chalk acknowledges the circularity of presuming the clarity of the Scripture and then looking at it to see if this is true. However, he doesn’t seem to appreciate that his position is equally circular to but not identical with the presuppositional approach. It is circular because it starts with the presupposition that God’s Word is obscure, but it starts with a circularity of self-assertion, rather than divine assertion. For a presuppositionalist, starting with a presupposition that the Bible requires (e.g., human language is a God-given ability and adequate for interpersonal communication, Gen 1:26ff) he should be standing on ground that the Catholic can appreciate. For Chalk to begin with the a presupposition that goes against the presuppositions of the Scripture is neither safe nor faithful. Nor does Chalk recognize that his presupposition requires God to be unable or unwilling to speak/write clearly (apparently Bellarmine saw a difference here; p. 221).
Because he relies on Newman and calls Christians to resign their own conscience (in the sense of practicing private interpretation) to the will of another (p. 58), he is left in the dark about what Christ actually said. He will arrive there on the last day with only the confidence that the pope was an infallible interpreter with regard to all morals and doctrine. He can never know if he is pleasing to Christ until it is too late. Such is the fruit of an obscure Scripture.
Because he relies on Newman and calls Christians to resign their own conscience (in the sense of practicing private interpretation) to the will of another (p. 58), he is left in the dark about what Christ actually said. He will arrive there on the last day with only the confidence that the pope was an infallible interpreter with regard to all morals and doctrine. He can never know if he is pleasing to Christ until it is too late. Such is the fruit of an obscure Scripture.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews