The Simplicity Of Scripture

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Budge said in another thread over in the DT that Scriptures were written to be understandable even by the illiterate. I posit that it is in the best interests of once-saved-always-saved fundamentalists to believe this because for them, you read the Bible, believe, and are saved. The Bible, in their worldview, has no need of further depth. In the Catholic view, however, the Bible is infinitely deep and can never be fully explained. This, I believe, works together with our believe in lifelong conversion. Catholics read, believe, live by it, more deeply, believe more, live more perfectly by it, read even more deeply, believe even more, live even more perfectly by it, and so on.

Discuss.

[Brother Adam]

I would still maintain that the Gospel message is so simple "a child can understand it". This has actually been a topic in my own thought lately, something I'm currently working on developing further. My thesis is that Protestants actually get the Gospel message wrong, not so much in the "OSAS, or Sole Fide", but that they are looking in the wrong spot for the Gospel. The mainstream Gospel for the Protestant is the "Romans Road". This is why Protestant pastors typically do not preach out of the four evangelists or refer to them more than in passing. The Gospel however is not Paul's exhortation on rebirth and justification. The Gospel is Jesus Christ - His life, message, passion, death, and resurrection. The systematic Gospel of Fundamentalist Protestants is "simple" because it is "simplistic". It does violence to the scriptures. It doesn't see the same Gospel that Catholics do nor does it see the scriptures as that organic whole we have been taught to view them with. The Gospel, recorded by the four evangelists in four different ways, is simple enough to see on the surface - we can teach little children about Jesus, but as we meditate on the mysteries and pray them we find a wellspring of faith, a depth as you mention absent in the simplistic, systematic Gospel that our separated brethren teach. Just my two cents.

[Apotheoun]

One should approach scripture in a "childlike" way, but illiteracy is not a virtue. The Jews of Christ's own time would have had a fit if anyone had said that being illiterate prepares one for a real encounter with God.

P.S. - How can an illiterate person have any first hand knowledge of scripture? Budge's foolish comment ultimately destroys the Protestant "sola scriptura" doctrine, which is built upon the ability to read.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Yes, I agree with both of you, but what I mean is...can we approach Scripture as if there is nothing complicated about it? I certainly think that a person without any great learning can grasp it, but I think it's also false to say we don't need to do any serious study into it because it's all face-value. Some fundamentalists seem to say that it is all face-value, thus eliminating a need for any further understanding, whereas we say that there is a face-value, and that value is very high, but one must continually delve deeper and deeper into greater understanding, not that it can all be understood at once. Does that make sense?

[Apotheoun]

Scripture is not simple, i.e., it is not perspicuous, and this is especially the case if you are reading a translation of the original text.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There is "value" in the face value, but I think there is so much more inside. We say Jesus is the fullness of revelation. Everything that was said before or after Him is contained in Him. Clearly, in my opinion, a face value reading of the four Gospels does not enable one to recognize the fullness of revelation in Jesus. Honestly, I don't think Protestants would deny this. I think this could be mostly a misunderstanding.