Fortunately, this presumed difficulty is easily resolved.

To begin with, the doctrine of perspicuity is only about SOME truths of the Scripture and relates almost entirely to fitness to by understood by varying levels of education and ability (see WCF below), through means. 1/ https://twitter.com/NeilShenvi/status/1381731108199497732

2/ Second, even many of those truths are ultimately "spiritually discerned." Why? Because of lack of epistemic contact with the mind of God, just as with the minds of men. See 1 Cor. 2:

3/ And let's be honest, EVERYONE believes that millions of different things affect our perceptions and epistemic position re: apprehending truth. Everyone.

What is that being rejected is SPECIFICALLY that group-identity, i.e., race, class, gender, etc., should be included in

4/ this calculus. That is, any and every thinking person knows that a host of real world circumstances dictate what can be known objectively by an individual. Those who oppose "Critical Theory" simply think that social group membership shouldn't be considered relevant to

4/ apprehending objective reality. So the epistemology isn't ball that different, just the racism and sexism get in the way, TBH, from consistently applying.

For example, we can go the the bogeywoman herself (who is not a CRT scholar) to explain what is meant, not because I'm

5/ a fan, but because she seems to be the scariest to you all.

DiAngelo:

“'I’m looking out the window and there’s a rock there, what do you mean there’s no human objectivity? A rock is a rock. I see it with my eyes.' Yes, you see a rock, but the meaning, placement, and

6/ "function of the rock is dependent upon human subjectivity—what you believe about what a rock is and where it should be; what you have been taught about rocks. For example, when is a rock an expensive gem and when is it something you toss aside to clear a path? When does a

7/ "rock add beauty to your home and when does it make your home dirty?" (Sensoy & DiAngelo, p. 27)

The problem is actually simple, and even the scariest of all books explains it just fine:

"If group membership is relevant, then we don’t see the world from the universal human

8/ "perspective but from the perspective of a particular kind of human." (White Fragility, pp. 11)

In short, “humans cannot be 100 percent objective” (p. 81).

With which we all agree, period.

9/ So, no, there is no conflict at all between the perspicuity of the Scripture rightly understood and the claim that there is no universal objective standpoint and that group membership is epistemically salient to grasping objective truth.

10/ The REAL debate here is, should social group membership, like race, gender, and class, be considered epistemically salient to apprehending objective reality?

Anti-racists like me say, yes; anti-anti-racists tend to say, no.

11/11 It has nothing to do with the perspicuity of the Scripture, or any other such pietistic subterfuges.

Oh so MANY typos! Hopefully it still makes sense, ugh.

Not only A LOT of typos, but two tweets numbered as 4?! Hahaha, yikes.