Those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture often claim that it is clearly taught by the Scriptures, and the only possible interpretation for those who take the Bible at face value seriously. However, the arguments used to prove a pre-trib rapture are extremely complex and difficult for me to follow. Proponents generally acknowledge that no passage of Scripture teaches it plainly, but rather that it is an inference from a collage of different passages. Fair enough; I don't want to go into a full discussion of the arguments for/against here. Rather, I was struck while reading *Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model* by Matt Waymeyer by this argument he presents rebutting a particular amillennialist argument regarding the meanings of "first" and "second" within Rev.20: > The third difficulty with this argument relates to the **perspicuity of Scripture.** Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would ever have taken this approach...prior to its discovery in the second half of the 20th century. How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process?...As Harold Hoehner observes, "The complexity of this view makes it suspect." > > (*Amillennialism and the Age to Come* page 221, emph. added) (*Note: this is not Waymeyer's argument against Amillennialism as a whole, nor any key part of it, but rather against a particular interpretation of the words "first" and "second" used in Rev. 20:5-6*.) Waymeyer is himself a dispensationalist and a believer in a pre-trib rapture. But I cannot see how his argument here does not apply equally to the pre-trib rapture. I am wondering how he might respond to his own argument: - It is difficult to imagine anyone taking this approach prior to its discovery in the 1800s. - How could even the most diligent of Bible students be expected to reach this conclusion? - Why would Jesus and the apostles use such obscure language, demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? - The complexity of this view makes it suspect. To be clear, **I am not asking about the correctness of the pre-trib rapture**. Rather, I am asking **how adherents reconcile this belief with the doctrine of perspicuity of Scripture**, when it is the conclusion of an extremely complex reasoning process, and there is little-to-no evidence that anyone took this view prior to modern times. ---- *Update in response to comments:* The comments have suggested two possible reconciliations: either the perspicuity of Scripture is false or the pre-trib rapture theory is not an important enough issue for perspicuity to be relevant (as perspicuity properly only applies to central doctrines). Both of these would resolve the issue, but I do not think many who believe in a pre-trib rapture would take either option. Waymeyer certainly would not, as he uses perspicuity as an argument against a minute detail in the whole amillennialist argument, demonstrating both that he believes in perspicuity of Scripture and that he thinks it may be applied to issues not of central importance.

LOOKING FOR AN OVERVIEW FROM ALL CHRISTIAN POSITIONS. THANK YOU. If the *Day of the Lord* differs from the *Day of Jesus Christ* based on contextual distinctions (judgment vs. redemption), wouldn’t the same logic lend itself to suggest that titles like the *Son of Man*, *Son of God*, and *Lamb of God* refer to entirely different entities or personas? The pre-tribulational rapture perspective argues that terms like the *Day of the Lord* and the *Day of Jesus Christ* represent distinct events. From my understanding, this argument typically stems from the context of the passages within which the terms are used—the former is used in contexts of divine judgment, while the latter is associated with believers' hope and sanctification. **Day of the Lord** (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3) >”For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” **Day of Jesus Christ** (Philippians 1:6) >”Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” Could these differing emphases simply reflect varied aspects of the same event, tailored to the audience or message being conveyed? Consider how the New Testament employs diverse titles for Jesus. **Son of Man emphasizes the humanity of Jesus** (Matthew 8:20) >” And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” **Son of God highlights His divinity and unique relationship to the Father** (Matthew 16:16) >”Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” **Lamb of God conveys His role as the sacrificial savior** (John 1:29) >” The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” **King of Kings displays His sovereign authority over all of creation** (Revelation 17:4) >” These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings...” This very strategy is used throughout the Old Testament as well when God is given various names which highlight various aspects of his character and deeds he has done: **Jehovah-Jireh highlights God’s provisions when he provides a ram for Abraham** (Genesis 22:14) >” And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen” **Jehovah-Rapha displays God’s ability to heal** (Exodus 15:26) >”… for I am the LORD that healeth thee.” **Jehovah-Tsidkenu emphasizes God’s righteousness** (Jeremiah 23:6) >”In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.“ And these lists could go on and on, but the point remains. It would seem senseless to suggest that these titles are referring to separate entities in the Old or New Testament, as the Bible is clear on there being one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Similarly, Scripture never seems to clearly indicate a distinction between these events, rather, we often see instances where both the redemption aspect (rapture) is directly tied to the destruction aspect (Christ’s judgment and wrath). Throughout Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians we see a connection of these two events - 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to carry over into Chapter 5 without evidence of a *new* event being discussed. Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 1 & 2 seem to do the same, connecting relief being granted in the moment Christ also destroys the wicked. This also occurs in Matthew 24 where Jesus seems to tie destruction of the wicked in the same event as gathering his elect. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the *Day of the Lord* and the *Day of Jesus Christ* could very likely describe distinct facets of a singular event? The *Day of the Lord* might emphasize the cosmic judgment and upheaval accompanying Christ’s return, while the *Day of Jesus Christ* focuses on the fulfillment of believers’ salvation and reward. To argue otherwise risks imposing divisions not explicitly delineated in Scripture, much as insisting on separate entities for Jesus’ various titles would.

It seems some Protestants hold that belief in Trinitarianism is required for salvation. According to those who hold this, is there a distinction between Christians who assent to this and understand what Trinitarianism actually is, as opposed to Christians who assent to it but don't really understand what Trinitarianism is? For ex., I can say "Jesus is God," but the 'is' there is ambiguous. It could be taken in all sorts of senses, one of which is the 'official' Trinitarian sense. Yet it is not clear how many rank-and-file Protestants understand Trinitarianism to the extent that they could articulate it in detail. What's required for salvation in terms of depth of belief, according to Protestants who hold Trinitarian belief is required for salvation?

Many times I've heard suggestions to the effect that *"clearer passages should guide our interpretation of less clear ones"*. This is related to the principle that *"Scripture interprets Scripture"* (e.g. see [What does it mean that "Scripture interprets Scripture"?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/79/38524)) . **Question**: How do Christians who follow this principle handle tricky cases in which two sets of passages, let's call them A and B, which at face value seem to be very clear, lead independently to contradictory doctrines? In situations like this, I see the following dilemma: - Either we choose A as the set of clear passages, establish a doctrine based on them and explain away the apparent contradiction raised by set B, or - we choose B as the set of clear passages, and explain away set A. As an example, let's consider a concrete debate: *Soul Sleep* vs. *Consciousness after death*. - A set of "clear" passages that support *Soul Sleep*: [Gen 3:19, Eccl 9:5,6,10, 12:7, Psalm 6:5, 88:10-12, 115:17, 146:4, Isaiah 38:18-19, Matt 9:24, Mark 5:39, Luke 8:52, John 11:11, 12, Acts 7:60, 13:36, 1 Cor 11:30, 15:6, 18, 20, 51, 1 Thess 4:13-15, 5:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+3%3A19%2C+Eccl+9%3A5%2C6%2C10%2C+12%3A7%2C+Psalm+6%3A5%2C+88%3A10-12%2C+115%3A17%2C+146%3A4%2C+Isaiah+38%3A18-19%2C+Matt+9%3A24%2C+Mark+5%3A39%2C+Luke+8%3A52%2C+John+11%3A11%2C+12%2C+Acts+7%3A60%2C+13%3A36%2C+1+Cor+11%3A30%2C+15%3A6%2C+18%2C+20%2C+51%2C+1+Thess+4%3A13-15%2C+5%3A10&version=ESV) (more passages [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/59747/38524) , courtesy of @Dottard) - A set of "clear" passages that support *Consciousness after death*: [Luke 16:22-24, 23:43, 24:37-39, 1 Samuel 28:1-25, Revelation 6:9-11, 2 Cor 5:8, 12:2-4, Phil 1:21-24, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6, Matt 10:28, Mark 12:26-27, Acts 7:55-60](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A22-24%2C+23%3A43%2C+24%3A37-39%2C+1+Samuel+28%3A1-25%2C+Revelation+6%3A9-11%2C+2+Cor+5%3A8%2C+12%3A2-4%2C+Phil+1%3A21-24%2C+1+Peter+3%3A18-20%2C+4%3A6%2C+Matt+10%3A28%2C+Mark+12%3A26-27%2C+Acts+7%3A55-60&version=ESV) (more passages and arguments [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/59907/38524) & [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56391/38524) , courtesy of @HoldToTheRod, and in the answers to the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/88966/50422) . In this example, we could either focus on the first set of passages, acknowledge that most of them seem to be rather clear and establish the *'Soul sleep'* doctrine based on them, and then simply explain away the second set, OR we could focus on the second set, establish the *'Consciousness after death'* doctrine on the assumption that they seem rather clear, and explain away the first set. **How do adherents to the maxim "clearer passages interpret less clear passages" handle tricky cases such as this one? Are there additional principles/maxims that are commonly employed as "tie-breakers"?** ___________ Closely related, although slightly different: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83846/50422 Also related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83011/50422

Mike Borden provides a thought-provoking answer to the question According to the Protestant denominations that hold to the doctrine of clarity of scripture, is Trinitarianism clear? . He says that > Simply put Trinitarians are convinced from Scripture by natural > apprehension and spiritual illumination of what is written that a > Jesus who is not the only begotten Son of God, the Logos who was God > in the beginning and never ceased to be God during the incarnation, **is > not capable of providing salvation** to all mankind because the chasm > between God and Man is uncrossable to Man. Therefore trinitarian > belief is considered necessary for salvation because a merely human > Jesus cannot save and man, unaided by the Holy Spirit, cannot > apprehend salvation. According to this line of thought, it isn't that Trinitarianism is directly clear from scripture, but rather that it is clear from scripture that salvation from a 'mere man' is not possible, and rather requires the Savior to be God Himself. Therefore, the Savior must not be a mere man. In a more formal style, it is 1. It is clear from scripture that salvation cannot come from a mere man but instead requires the Saviour to be God. 2. It is clear from scripture that salvation comes from Jesus. 3. Therefore, it is clear from scripture that Jesus cannot be a mere man but rather is God. Yet, 1. seems questionable. Consider Romans 5:15-19. > 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the > trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift > that came by the grace of the **one man, Jesus Christ**, abound to the > many! 16 Again, the gift is not like the result of the one man’s sin: > The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift > that followed many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, by the > trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much > more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of > righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! > > 18 So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so > also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all > men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many > were made sinners, so also **through the obedience of the one man the > many will be made righteous.** Similarly, consider 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. > 21 For since death came through a man, **the resurrection of the dead > comes also through a man.** 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all > will be made alive. So, what is the basis for 1. above - what is the scriptural basis for the claim that the Saviour cannot be a mere man? Note: this isn't asking about the scriptural basis for the idea that Jesus is God. For the purposes of this question, I'm taking as given that that isn't directly clear enough to qualify under the doctrine of clarity of scripture. (You can of course disagree with this, but that's another question, namely the one linked at the beginning of this question.) Rather, it's asking about the basis for the Saviour **necessarily** being God, whether Jesus is God (and man) or simply a man.

The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that > "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and > observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some > place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the > unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a > sufficient understanding of them". Westminster Confession of Faith According to denominations which hold to the doctrine of the clarity of scripture, is Trinitarianism something which is necessary to be known and believed for salvation, and therefore clearly propounded and opened such that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain to a sufficient understanding of them?

According to the Catholic Church, if a Catholic's own interpretation of scripture leads to a conclusion regarding what scripture says that the Catholic Church holds is heretical (for ex., denying Trinitarianism), and this Catholic publicly says so, but he also publicly holds that the Catholic Church's position is correct, due to the authority of the Magisterium (so, he concludes that his own reasoning regarding scripture must be mistaken, as plain as it may seem to him), is he a heretic?

One view is that a significant number of theological issues re Christianity are debated because they are debatable. So, this view says, a relevant text might admit of multiple plausible interpretations, or weighing different texts against each other can lead to different plausible conclusions, and so on. Is there a term for a theological principle that if the New Testament texts appear to be unclear about something, therefore that point is not important for salvation? Note: this isn't a question about whether the relevant texts in fact are unclear, whether multiple interpretations are equally valid, and so on. It's a question about whether there's a term for this sort of theological principle.

For instance, the temptation in the desert. It was only Jesus and Satan there. Who could have recorded that? Or the prayers of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane? Jesus went up alone while the disciples slept. Who could have recorded the words He spoke there as an eye witness?

What do protestants mean when they say that the bible is "clear"? I would assume that it would mean that people reading the Bible or any part of it generally come up with more or less the same idea of what it says, but that doesn't seem likely to be what protestants mean, because the different protestant cults regularly and consistently dream up radically different interpretations of the Bible as a whole and even different members of the same denomination rarely agree on the meaning of various passages. I've heard people say that the bible is clear enough that anyone can read it and immediately understand the "Core doctrines", but this is demonstrably false: Protestants don't agree on core doctrines because they don't even agree on what the core doctrines *are* in the first place. Some people read it and conclude that baptismal regeneration and infant baptism is the go, some people read it and come up with transubstantiation, some people read it and come away denying the trinity, some people read it and think that all you need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved, while other people read it and reckon that you need to do works as well. Protestants say that the Core Doctrines are "salvation issues", but they can't even come to an agreement of what those salvation issues are. I've heard people respond to this by saying something along the lines of "Scripture is clear, but we are sinful humans and our sin gets in the way of us understanding it", but to me that seems to just come across as a flat contradiction: If scripture is clear, then it should be so clear that our sin **doesn't** get in the way of us understanding it. However if sin still has the power to cloud our understanding of the bible, then the bible is **not clear enough** to cut through our sin, and is therefore for all intents and purposes **not clear at all**. Taking all this into consideration, what does it mean for Scripture to be "Clear" and "Sufficient"?

I have noticed that adherers to *sola scriptura* that defend biblical inerrancy nearly always argue from a *sensus unum* understanding of scripture as opposed to a *sensus plenior* understanding of scripture. Those who argue for a *sensus unum* will say that a *sensus plenior* contradicts biblical inerrancy. **Are there any schools of Reformed thought (liberal or otherwise) which have rejected the *sensus unum* view and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of *sensus plenior*?** Or for that matter, are there any Reformed persons who argue for such a position?

Fundamentally, Catholics and Protestants read Scripture differently. Catholics believe that any private interpretation of Scripture is subject to the teachings of the church, whereas Protestants, subscribing to the priesthood of all believers, afford more latitude for private interpretation. Within that "private interpretation," however, is the doctrine of [perspicuity](http://www.theopedia.com/Clarity_of_Scripture) – a term that ironically means that Scripture is always clear. (Ask any congregation to define it, and I'll bet 75% can't!) The question, however, is how this doctrine developed. Is it Scriptural, for example, to say that the Bible proclaims itself as having obvious application? (The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing) Or is it more of a historical reaction? (The answer to Pope is not to install a new Pope) In other words, where does this doctrine come from?

From the very limited research that I've done thus far, it seems that the RCC does not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture. I'm not positive that this is true, though it seems to be. The meaning of "perspicuity of Scripture": > Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Wikipedia ) Am I right, and if so, why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to such a belief?