TRADITION CAN CLOUD WHAT IS OTHERWISE CLEAR

I love the concept of the perspicuity of Scripture.

If you're not familiar with the term, "perspicuity" is the ironically complicated word which the scholars have chosen instead of "clarity".

So the idea is that Scripture, though layered, nuanced, and sophisticated in structure, is accessible and understandable to the average reader. Although the meanings of some passages have been obscured by differences in culture and time, everything that a person needs to understand God's plan of salvation is plain enough to the reader.

I do believe Scripture is generally clear ... and yet I also believe the average believer has a weak grasp of the basics. 

Why?

Scripture can be complex and dense, but lately I have begun to wonder if the real culprit keeping Americans from understanding the gospel on a deeper level is Tradition. 

In particular, I mean the traditions surrounding all the various theological arguments that quietly rage over centuries. 

Most Christians aren't even aware of the points of contention - we only know the viewpoint of whatever tradition we grew up with.

The Bible preachers and teachers we listen to rarely reveal their biases up front. Half the time, they probably aren't aware of their own biases. They are just parroting what they learned in their home church and their seminary. 

Up until recently, I wasn't familiar with "Free Grace Theology" and now I realize a pastoral colleague has bought into it full force. He's recommending books and podcasts and I'm trying to research Free Grace and discern what makes it unique. 

(If you're not familiar, Free Grace emphasizes "faith alone" for the justification of the sinner - good works play no part. And once justified, a person usually goes on to grow in obedience to God, but doesn't necessarily have to. The justification is irrevocable. Proponents on the "hyper" fringe of Free Grace would maintain that a man who put his trust in Jesus as a child could die a drunken, drug-addicted child pornographer 50 years later ... and still gain access to heaven.) 

Now that I've gotten experience researching some of these theological arguments - Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Conditional Immortality, Divine Foreknowledge vs. Molinism vs. Open Theism, and Penal Substitutionary Atonement vs. every other atonement theory - if I want to understand, I kind of know at least where to start:

The proof texts. What verses are employed to prove the validity of their doctrinal pillars? 

(And ... how far have they been removed from their contexts?)

I have learned that some theological viewpoints are held up by bamboo.

And yet defended ferociously with butter knives. 

I'm trying to keep an open mind regarding Free Grace Theology, but so far it doesn't look particularly solid to me. 

Sorting through doctrinal traditions is fascinating, but also exhausting and confusing.

Not exactly perspicuous!