Turretin continues to rail against Mark Shea by next quoting St. Augustine on understanding the word of God. Somehow Turretin Fan comes to the conclusion that not all things in Scripture are easy to understand, but only the "necessary" things. For someone who hails himself as loving Scripture, and someone who claims it as his only authority, I find his position quite flimsy. So where does the Scriptures tell us what things in it are essential? Is it just the things that Turretin finds essential? Because God gave us the entire Biblical Canon for a reason. It is all essential. But not for the Sola Scripturist. It is only convenient to say that the essential texts are easy. This is the flimsiest yet of his arguments.I answer:
1) Notice that Mr. Bellisario doesn't touch the actual quotation from Augustine.
2) Notice that Mr. Bellisario seems confused about what is being argued. Yes, our position is only that the necessary things are clear, not that everything is clear. We reach this conclusion from Scripture, since we are told that in Paul's epistles there "are some things hard to be understood," (2 Peter 3:16) but also that Scripture is able to make one wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15).
3) Mr. Bellisario makes the typical confused response that asks for a list of the essentials. We don't have a list of the essentials or, at least, don't have a clear list of the essentials. That should not be surprising, since knowing which doctrines are essential is not itself an essential doctrine.
4) Mr. Bellisario argues that the entire Biblical canon is essential. This argument is simply backed up by Mr. Bellisario's say-so. We have noted that Chrysostom disagreed with Mr. Bellisario, and - Lord willing - we will shortly examine the response that Mr. Bellisario provides (if any) to Chrysostom's recognition that not everything in Scripture is equally necessary to salvation.
5) But, of course, Mr. Bellisario's argument that every last bit of the Biblical canon is essential is absurd. Hardly anyone could claim to be so familiar with Scripture as to have a complete and accurate knowledge of every last bit of it. We doubt that even Mr. Bellisario would be so arrogant as to assert such a level of familiarity with Scripture.
So, while Mr. Bellisario may think that stating that perspicuity is relevant to the necessary things is a "flimsy argument" it is rather a statement of our position, and a conclusion derived proprely from Scripture.
-TurretinFan
2 comments:
You stated: Yes, our position is only that the necessary things are clear, not that everything is clear. We reach this conclusion from Scripture, since we are told that in Paul's epistles there "are some things hard to be understood," (2 Peter 3:16) but also that Scripture is able to make one wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15).
I ask: What are the essential things? It is one thing to say that Scripture is able to make one wise unto salvation, and surely that is true, but it doesn't state that Scripture alone does this, nor is it implied in Scripture that it alone does this. Without getting into the differences between Catholics and the Reformation crowd, pretend that I am approaching into this from altogether outside Christianity. For example, Scripture alone cannot do this because in order for one to even partly know Scripture that person must a) be able to read it, or b) have someone read it to them. Besides that, a person must be able to determine what is meant, and hopefully their understanding has met what is essential for salvation. What I am doing is getting to the point that if you are going to say that there are certain things essential for salvation, that the Bible is all that is needed for salvation, but that we do not have a list of what those essential things are, then how do you have any certainty that you have met the essentials?
"What are the essential things?"
The things that are necessary for salvation. Some of those things are things like "there is a God" but also there are other things that may be less obvious, such as that Christ was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead.
"It is one thing to say that Scripture is able to make one wise unto salvation, and surely that is true, but it doesn't state that Scripture alone does this, nor is it implied in Scripture that it alone does this."
Yes, it is implied in the construction of the sentence in question.
"Without getting into the differences between Catholics and the Reformation crowd, pretend that I am approaching into this from altogether outside Christianity."
...
"For example, Scripture alone cannot do this because in order for one to even partly know Scripture that person must a) be able to read it, or b) have someone read it to them."
This looks like a trivial objection to me ... but yes.
"Besides that, a person must be able to determine what is meant, and hopefully their understanding has met what is essential for salvation."
Well, if Scripture is written in a clear way as to the essential points, then the Scripture will be able to make them wise unto salvation.
"What I am doing is getting to the point that if you are going to say that there are certain things essential for salvation, that the Bible is all that is needed for salvation, but that we do not have a list of what those essential things are, then how do you have any certainty that you have met the essentials?"
Salvation is not about us meeting certain requirements, but about us having faith in the crucified and risen Savior. The certainty that believers can have comes from the Spirit bearing witness with our Spirit that we are the children of God.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment