The initial release of my 2023 book The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity—which presents a criticism of perspicuity, a practically universally-held doctrine among Protestants that holds that the Bible is clear on salvation or the essentials of the faith—elicited a fair amount of derision from Protestants. “Do I need Casey Chalk to sit beside me and interpret what his book means?” was a rhetorical question I regularly saw on 𝕏. “Oh, so Chalk thinks he’s clearer than the Bible,” was another.

Such mockery, though not without its rhetorical punch, demonstrates that such critics didn’t even bother to read the book. I never say Scripture is so obscure that no one can profit from it or that my book is clearer than the Bible. Rather, I contend that the Bible is insufficiently clear to resolve interpretive disputes among self-described Christians over such fundamental matters as salvation absent reference to some extra-biblical authority. In other words, the Bible is obscure on precisely the matter Protestants claim it to be clear, and only some type of extra-biblical, divinely-approved authority (such as a magisterium) can provide the necessary clarity. 

Yet even criticism from more prominent and respected Protestants was a bit, well, underwhelming. Reformed Baptist James White—who has publicly debated such Catholic apologists as Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn—devoted a few minutes to it on his YouTube channel, but only to complain the book lacked an index (it’s true, an oversight) and to note two brief citations in the book to his own work. White then countered by asserting the Catholic Church is wrong because of Pope Francis’ liberation theology (as if that constitutes anything resembling a syllogism).

Though there have been some other criticisms of my book (more on that in a minute), there has been absolutely no formal review of the book in any Protestant publication, nor even an ecumenical one such as First Things (despite me even appearing on their podcast!). It’s led me to wonder: What’s the problem? Perhaps all of the praise my book received in Catholic circles (and from many Catholic converts from Protestantism) was little more than confirmation bias—faithful Catholics who disagree with Protestantism loved a book disagreeing with Protestantism…big surprise! Perhaps my arguments against perspicuity aren’t that good.

Yet if that’s the case, then where are the substantive Protestant critiques of the book? If The Obscurity of Scripture was truly inadequate, there should be at least a handful of powerful attacks on it from Protestants. (Why not go after the easy target?) Certainly, well-known, well-respected Protestants were not ignorant of it. Reformed scholar Carl Trueman, one of the most interesting and intelligent Protestants today, commented early this year: “The arguments of Casey Chalk in his provocatively entitled book The Obscurity of Scripture offer a fine modern statement of this and need to be addressed if Catholics are to be convinced that the Protestant way is better.” Yet Trueman never actually addresses the arguments in my book. 

Nor is Trueman alone. Respected Lutheran pastor and scholar Jordan B. Cooper, on his YouTube channel earlier this year, asserted, “I really do not like the ‘obscurity of Scripture’ argument because it comes across as really insulting to God’s word,” and says that the “Church Fathers don’t argue like Roman Catholics.” And that’s it. (And as I argued in a response to Cooper’s arguments, Church Fathers actually do argue like contemporary Catholics, using a combination of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the magisterium to make their points).

Respected Protestant historian D.G. Hart (who for some weird reason has a special tag for my name on his website) tweeted that the papacy is also obscure (gotta love the tu quoque fallacy!). A Canadian Baptist pastor claimed I misunderstood clarity as “anyone can open the Bible to any place and without the aid of a Christian community, teachers, pastors, or outside authorities, and claim an authoritative and accurate interpretation.” I actually argue that is the least defensible version of the doctrine. A Presbyterian pastor accused me of “gross criminality” for “attacking the Word of God.” (That’s a great example of both the question-begging logical fallacy, since that pastor’s argument presumes that Scripture is clear, and an ad hominem, which is what perspicuity results in when opposing biblical interpretations are presented.)

All that to say, lots of Protestants, including some pretty famous ones, know about my book. And yet, apart from a Presbyterian pastor in Tennessee who did a respectful series at his church on it, not one of them has offered a substantive critique of it. (I responded to this pastor’s critique in an extended essay at Called to Communion.) An Australian Anglican named Paul Facey promised more than two years ago to write an entire book responding to me, but it has yet to materialize. 

What explains the lack of a response to The Obscurity of Scripture? It can’t be that the book didn’t attract Protestant attention—I think I’ve sufficiently proven that’s not the case. It can’t be that the book doesn’t offer strong enough attacks to warrant a response—comments from scholars such as Carl Trueman and D.G. Hart prove that’s not the case. 

As far as I can tell, that leaves only one reasonable explanation: there isn’t a good Protestant response to my critique of perspicuity. I say the history of Protestantism and its manifold internal disagreements about even the definition of perspicuity and which doctrines are clearly taught in Scripture undermines the doctrine. The only response I’ve seen to this is that those “other Protestants” are wrong (as if that’s a sufficient explanation). Other Protestants respond to my book by simply quoting Scripture back at me—this is the logical fallacy of question-begging because it presumes precisely what is in question, namely, that Scripture’s meaning is clear. I note that perspicuity tends to lead its adherents to believe the best things about themselves and the worst things about others—and Protestants respond by telling me they’re guided by the Holy Spirit and I’m influenced by the devil, thus proving the point. The history of Protestantism and its manifold internal disagreements about even the definition of perspicuity and which doctrines are clearly taught in Scripture undermines their doctrine of Sola Scriptura.Tweet This

I don’t intend this as a victory lap. I want Protestants to engage with the book and present their best critiques of it so we can further ecumenical dialogue. Yet so far, the response from Protestants has been more “silence and contempt” than respectful engagement, to borrow a phrase from scholar Daniel J. Mahoney. Such treatment confirms my suspicion that The Obscurity of Scripture identified an “Achilles’ heel” of Protestantism, one with which we Catholics should familiarize ourselves—not only to win arguments but that we might persuade our Protestant friends of their error and spur them to their closest OCIA class.