Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 7/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
7. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It's the same with Protestants.
Short Rebuttal
The major error in this argument is that it assumes a bogus standard for sufficiency. The minor error is that the analogy to the U.S. Constitution is false.
Longer Rebuttal
For the Scriptures to be wonderful and sufficient, there is no requirement that they eliminate every disagreement about themselves. Such a false standard for sufficiency is strange - Dave's own church includes plenty of internal disagreement over their own standards. We don't claim that the Scripture prevents people from disagreeing - and surely disagreement is an invalid standard of measurement of the sufficiency of any standard.
As for the U.S. Constitution - it is not divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise to lead Americans into a proper understanding of the Constitution, but does promise to lead believers into the truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Likewise there is no American spirit that provides as fruit the analogous equivalent of "goodness and righteousness and truth."
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Thus, while the U.S. Constitution may be as clear as men can make it, the Scriptures are a divine production - they are inspired.
- TurretinFan
Friday, April 23, 2010
10 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
It seems all these arguments have the same idea. If men cannot agree on what Scripture says, Scripture is not clear. Has it not occurred to the author of these comments that the problem could not be with the Scripture but with us, that we are sinners who are not willing in certain cases to hear want the Scripture has to say.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteAnd since that is the case, by what authority would Turretinfan reject Catholic belief? Based upon his own authority which he in an assuming sort of way posits in scripture.
"And since that is the case, by what authority would Turretinfan reject Catholic belief? Based upon his own authority which he in an assuming sort of way posits in scripture."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (aka Blogahon):
Based on the Scripture's authority we reject the false teachings of false teachers, including those of Rome.
-TurretinFan
"Based on the Scripture's authority we reject the false teachings of false teachers, including those of Rome."
ReplyDeleteTurretinfan (aka Anonymous):
Based on your interpretation of scripture. You can't tell me with any certainty that your interpretation is any more valid than mine. The most you can do is say that scripture is your rule, but you are the one applying the rule. We have no certainty that your application is correct, otherwise, you will have claimed that you are the authority.
-Not Blogahon-
Who I am is of no importance.
"Based on your interpretation of scripture."
ReplyDeleteThe authority is Scripture.
"You can't tell me with any certainty that your interpretation is any more valid than mine."
a) I'm not a relativist. I don't know whether you are.
b) I'm content with having knowledge - not certainty - about many things.
"The most you can do is say that scripture is your rule, but you are the one applying the rule."
Right. That's exactly what we say.
"We have no certainty that your application is correct, otherwise, you will have claimed that you are the authority."
See above.
"-Not Blogahon-"
Whatever you say.
-TurretinFan
"The authority is Scripture."
ReplyDeleteYour appeal to scripture as the authority is code for us to understand the reality of the situation, which is the appeal to what you say scripture means. You can appeal to scripture as your rule all you want. However, what you cannot do is say with certainty that you have applied the rule correctly.
"a) I'm not a relativist. I don't know whether you are."
This has nothing to do with relativism, but certainty.
"b) I'm content with having knowledge - not certainty - about many things."
Yet you cannot have any certainty whether or not your knowledge is correct. Your knowledge is only as good as you are at aquiring it.
"Right. That's exactly what we say."
Hence I have defeated your position.
Not Blogahon
"Your appeal to scripture as the authority is code for us to understand the reality of the situation, which is the appeal to what you say scripture means."
ReplyDeleteNo. No code. We say what we mean and mean what we say. When we say "Scripture is our authority," that is exactly what we mean.
"You can appeal to scripture as your rule all you want."
Just as Christians have been doing since the Christ -- we weren't waiting for anyone's permission.
"However, what you cannot do is say with certainty that you have applied the rule correctly."
:shrugs: Our own fallibility is what it is.
"This has nothing to do with relativism, but certainty."
ok ...
"Yet you cannot have any certainty whether or not your knowledge is correct."
I'm content to have knowledge.
"Your knowledge is only as good as you are at aquiring it."
You claim that - but Scripture claims that believers have the assistance of the Holy Spirit. So, I'm not quite on my own. Also, my fellow believers help me. I'm far from being on my own.
I wrote: "Right. That's exactly what we say."
You responded: "Hence I have defeated your position."
There's a difference between stating a position and defeating that position. You can correctly identify that we state that Scripture is our authority, but what appears to be your entire argument against that is that we can't have *certainty*. We're content to have knowledge from the Scripture, so your argument seems to bounce off harmlessly.
"Not Blogahon"
Whatever you say.
-TurretinFan
Not Bloghan,
ReplyDeleteIf you think you can evade the problem of interpretation by appealing to human authority you are wrong. There are no human authorities who do not contradict themselves (as Martin Luther noted popes and councils contradict) and those who follow human authorities have in my observation as much diversity of opinion as those who follow Scripture alone. The authority is in Scripture and we cannot lay it aside for something else that has none.
Sorry to spoil the fun, but again, Dave is right, though he is wrong to imagine that the Reformed tradition submits to the Bible by itself.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy to the Constitution is precisely spot on. That is why the Church needs judges and courts to interpret the Bible for the Church (WCF 31.3). "It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith...which decrees and determinations, if consonant with the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, NOT ONLY FOR THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE WORD, but also for the power whereby they are made" (31.3).
--Paul
Paul:
ReplyDeleteI'll respond once more, but I'm not sure I see the value of your continued participation here.
"Sorry to spoil the fun, but again, Dave is right, though he is wrong to imagine that the Reformed tradition submits to the Bible by itself."
Dave isn't right ... but the Reformed tradition also doesn't submit to the Bible by itself. There are subordinate authorities.
"The analogy to the Constitution is precisely spot on."
No, it is not, for the reasons I've already provided.
"That is why the Church needs judges and courts to interpret the Bible for the Church (WCF 31.3)."
The church does have those things, and they may be needed in some sense, but they are not necessary for a saving knowledge of God.
"It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith...which decrees and determinations, if consonant with the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, NOT ONLY FOR THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE WORD, but also for the power whereby they are made" (31.3).
Putting one part in caps doesn't negate the other part "if consonant with the word of God" and certainly doesn't negate the key distinction provided in the very next paragraph, namely:
IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.
-TurretinFan