“When this term is applied to Scripture, then it means that the Bible as the Word of God is understandable in the sense that the reader of that Word is able to know fully what he reads and gain insight into the truths which are set forth in the Scriptures. While this is not a Scriptural term, it is nevertheless a term which the church has historically used to describe the Bible.”(http://www.reformedwitness.org/pmphltlst/Scripture/Perspicty.html)
Mr. Hoeksema’s opinion notwithstanding, I must boldly and forcefully disagree with him. If the Bible is so easily understood, then why, may I enquire, are there so many and varied interpretations of Scripture? If it is clear and simple to see, why do so many different people hold so many different opinions as to what it means?
One answer often proffered is that some people just won’t interpret correctly because of their prejudices or traditions. But the fact is, no one is free from some tradition. So who can say which tradition most correctly interprets Scripture? The answer to this question, of course, would depend on which tradition you have adopted. How can the Church of God and the Church of Christ read the same Bible, with both believing in the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and come to such opposed conclusions?
Obviously, at least one of them has to be wrong. But which? And then again, both of them could be wrong. If the Scripture is so clear and easily interpreted, should not both groups relying only on the Bible come to nearly identical conclusions? One would think so.
The reason they do not so is manifestly that between Scripture and interpretation the pane of tradition come into play. The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) has the Pentecostal background and thus, the Pentecostal tradition which dictates the manner in which the Bible should be interpreted. The Church of Christ has the Restorationist background and will for that reason, arrive at different conclusions.
This brings up a question: How can one be certain that his/her interpretation is the correct one?
The answer is simple and yet complex: we must have tradition. And in fact, we all do have it. But which tradition is correct?
If everyone is allowed to interpret the Bible willy-nilly in the light of his/her own knowledge, we will have millions of “correct” interpretations. Protestant tradition says that everybody can do just that. This does not solve our problem.
What we have to have is a tradition that is accurate and unified because everybody cannot be right. A famous passage from St. Vincent of Lèrins in his "Commonitorium" narrows down for us the correct tradition as follows:
Moreover, in the Catholic [universal] Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Universality, antiquity, and consent—these sound like pretty good criteria to me. These would have to be much better than say, “emotion, experience, and speculation.”
