But maybe that's not perspicuous enough for you?

On another board,

Don said,

October 27, 2014 at 11:38 pm

Notice in 808 De Maria says

But the WCF says the unlearned will study and understand.

whereas the actual text says that they _may_ understand. Presumably those unlearned who may understand are not also unstable, and thus not the subject of 2 Peter 3:16.

But the verse does not say they must be both.  Or is the verse not perspicuous? Here is one Protestant commentary on the matter:

Benson Commentary2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles — From this it appears that Peter had read Paul’s epistles; and, as he speaks not of some but of all of them, it is probable that Paul was dead when St. Peter wrote this, namely, a little before his martyrdom, as appears from 2 Peter 1:14. And seeing that Paul, in his epistle to the Romans 2:4, and to the Hebrews 10:36; Hebrews 10:38, wrote that the long-suffering of God was intended for salvation, by mentioning that circumstance, Peter intimated that he knew Paul to be the author of the epistles to the Romans, and to the Hebrews. Speaking in them of these things— Paul, in all his epistles, hath spoken of the things written by Peter in this letter. For example: he hath spoken of Christ’s coming to judgment, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Titus 2:13; and of the resurrection from the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:22; Php 3:20-21; and of the burning of the earth, 2 Thessalonians 1:8; and of the heavenly country, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; and of the introduction of the righteous into that country, 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Hebrews 4:9; Hebrews 12:14-24; and of the judgment of all mankind by Christ. In which are some things hard to be understood — According to the greatest number of MSS. the apostle does not say, εν αις, in which epistles, but εν οις, in or among which things; namely, the things which Paul had written concerning Christ’s coming to judgment, the burning of the earth, the heavenly country, and the introduction of the righteous into that country. The Alexandrian, however, and six other MSS. read here, εν αις, in which epistles. This, Beza says, is the true reading, because he thinks it would have been improper in Peter to say that Paul had written obscure ly concerning subjects of which Peter himself had written more things hard to be understood than any Paul had written in any part of his epistles, Nevertheless “the common reading may be retained, because the antecedent to the neuter relative, οις, may be a word not expressed, but understood, namely, γραμμασι, which signifies letters or epistles, Acts 28:21. On this supposition Peter’s meaning will be, In which epistles there are some things hard to be understood.” Barclay, in his Apology, explains this of the 9th chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, in which there are some things that seem to be contrary to God’s long-suffering to all, and which are very liable to be perniciously wrested;  

which they that are unlearned — Who are not taught of God, or are unteachable, as Estius translates the wordαμαθεις, here used; namely, persons whose passions blind their understanding, and make them averse to the truth, or whose prejudices, indispose them to admit it: 

and the unstable — The wavering, unsettled, double-minded, or men of two minds, as St. James’s word, διψυχοι, signifies; who have no real, steady love of piety, but sometimes follow it, sometimes desert it, as good or bad inclinations happen to predominate in them. 

Whereas the stable are those who have a firm, unshaken, and warm attachment to the religion of Jesus: wrest — “The original word,στρεβλουσιν, signifies to put a person to the torture, to make him confess some crime laid to his charge, or reveal some secret which he knows. Applied to writings it signifies, by far-fetched criticisms and unsupported senses of words, to make a passage speak a meaning different from what the author intended. Hence in our language we have the expression, to torture words. Of this vice they are most commonly guilty who, from pride of understanding, will receive nothing but what they can explain. Whereas, the humble and teachable receive the declarations of revelation according to their plain, grammatical, unconstrained meaning, which it is their only care to attain, by reading the Scriptures frequently and with attention.” — Macknight. As they do also the other scriptures….

Note how he interprets that as two groups.  One unlearned and one unstable.  And not one group of unlearned who are also unstable.

But perhaps this is one of those non-perspicuous verses.  What do you think?  Is this important enough to lead to one's destruction if they get it wrong?

I would like to think there is not a deliberate misinterpretation of rather basic Protestant doctrines going on here, but based on the evidence in these comments I’m not optimistic.

I would like to hope that you aren't misinterpreting Scripture in order to justify the errors of the WCF.  But I'm not optimistic, either.

I would also like to hope that somebody does not see “due use of ordinary means” and cry “Magisterium!” but again…

I personally think it is very wise of God to have established a Church which He gave the function of being the Teacher of His Word.  As the Scripture says:

Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

But maybe that's not perspicuous enough for you?

Here's another:

Ephesians 3:10King James Version (KJV)

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,