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 6/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
6. Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?
Short Rebuttal
The most necessary things of Scripture are simple enough not to require someone to be a "theologian" per se, and the right approach is test others' teachings by Scripture rather than relying on one's own wisdom.
Longer Rebuttal
The way to avoid relying on one's own wisdom is to rely on the Scriptures:
Proverbs 3:1-7
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: for length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Furthermore, the Scriptures assist even the simple:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
That's one of the reasons that the Proverbs were written:
Proverbs 1:1-4
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
So one does not have to be wise to nevertheless receive wisdom from Scripture. Scripture is prepared and even specifically provided to help give light to those who are not professional theologians.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Hi TF -- I've noticed a non-argument that is either stated or unstated in all of these "Smudges," and it goes like this:
1. Protestants don't agree, therefore Rome is infallible.
2. Roman Catholics lack confidence in the ability of men to "rightly divide the word of truth," therefore Rome is infallible.
3. Every individual's interpretation is wrong because every individual is a sinner, therefore, Rome is infallible.
4. Perspicuity doesn't lead to unanimity, therefore Rome is infallible.
5. Protestants can't agree, therefore Rome is infallible.
6. People can't become educated enough to correctly understand the Bible, therefore Rome is infallible.
What is missed both by Mr. Armstrong and by his well-meaning critics, is that the Scriptures are not, by themselves, sufficient for salvation in classical Reformed thinking either. For example, in the WCF 1.6-7, what is asserted is only that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation (material sufficiency); not that the Scriptures by themselves are sufficient. This is clear.
1. The words "unto which nothing at any time is to be added" (1.6) make it plain that it is the content of Scripture which is in view, not the means of accessing that content.
2. The WCF 1.7 asserts that the unlearned may attain "unto a sufficient understanding" of Scripture, only through use of "the ordinary means" (note that "the" is deleted in the 1689 LBCF 1.7). The "ordinary means" would necessarily include the Church's ordained teaching ministry (i.e. pastors and teachers), as is made clear by WCF 25.3 (again deleted in the LBCF). It's not a simple matter of the believer reading her Bible.
Another typical example of Roman Catholics and Protestants speaking past each other. Dave is right in what he asserts, but wrong in what he imputes to the Reformed view of the role of Holy Scripture.
Just a thought!
--Paul Owen
Paul Owen:
You seem to have mistakenly concluded the ordinary means are the only means. Those ordinary means are just what they are: ordinary. They are not necessary but additional. Would you agree with that?
If so, then you may wish to rethink your comment.
- TurretinFan
Paul Owen -- on the topic of Catholics and Protestants "speaking past each other," note this:
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/get-out-of-dodge/
Consider also Rome's method of muddying the waters via a deliberate process of "mental reservation":
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/romes-institutionally-sanctioned-lying/
There may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, [and in fact, hoping and expecting that your interlocutor will draw a wrong conclusion], not willing that it happened, that would be lying.
I'm not saying that the Church's teaching office is the only means, though it is a necessary means. Would any right thinking person leave out, prayer, diligent study, and spiritual illumination? See Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 94-95. But if the Church's teaching office is one of the necessary means to accessing the meaning of Scripture, then in essence, Protestants and Roman Catholics should agree. This is the fundamental distinction between sola and solo Scriptura (to use Mathison's language).
"I'm not saying that the Church's teaching office is the only means, though it is a necessary means."
It definitely isn't a necessary means. The proof is fairly simple, if you think about it. If you can't see how, let me know.
"Would any right thinking person leave out, prayer, diligent study, and spiritual illumination?"
Leave them out of what? Certainly no one here is suggesting that the Spirit's illumination is not necessary for a saving knowledge of God.
"See Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 94-95."
hmmm ... I quote: Growth in understanding the faith
94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
- "through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts"; it is in particular "theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth".
- "from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience", the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."
- "from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."
"But if the Church's teaching office is one of the necessary means to accessing the meaning of Scripture, then in essence, Protestants and Roman Catholics should agree."
Again, it should be plain that it is not necessary to have "the Church's teachings office" to obtain the meaning of Scripture. At least, it should be plain that is is not *always* the case that one needs that office. Can any reasonable person read Matthew's gospel and conclude that it does not teach the virgin birth, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ?
"This is the fundamental distinction between sola and solo Scriptura (to use Mathison's language)."
Mathison's language perhaps, but not his way of using that language in his book - a book I can't find myself recommending.
-TurretinFan
1. Your reading of WCF 1.7 seems to make "due use of the ordinary means" optional, rather than necessary, which is plainly contrary to the spirit of the section itself, and 25.3.
2. Your reading also ignores the distinction between "the ordinary means" (WCF) and "ordinary means" (LBCF). The word "the" plainly has in view particular means whereby the meaning of Scripture must be sought after, and according to 25.3 the pastoral office would be a necessary part of that picture. Hence the Bible, by itself, is not sufficient. It is the Bible in the hands of duly appointed teachers that makes the church wise unto salvation.
3. The gospel of Matthew does not "teach" any such doctrines. The Church teaches doctrines, and those doctrines may be found in the right understanding of scripture. The author(s) of Matthew's gospel passes on the Church's teaching (i.e. Jesus' teaching) in his stories. Matthew records events, but the meaning of those events (i.e. the doctrines) forms the content of ecclesiastical teaching.
4. Evidently you have not read Mathison. The distinction between the Bible by itself as sufficient for salvation (solo Scriptura), and the Bible as accessed through the Church's Rule of Faith as sufficient for salvation (sola Scriptura) is the essence of his viewpoint.
Typo on point 2 above. Should say the "scriptures" are wise unto salvation.
Wait a second, no, I meant what I said the first time. The church is made wise unto salvation by the scriptures in the hands of the teaching office. Sometimes I overanalyze my own sentences! Sorry for the clutter!
"1. Your reading of WCF 1.7 seems to make "due use of the ordinary means" optional, rather than necessary, which is plainly contrary to the spirit of the section itself, and 25.3."
The spirit and the letter of 1.7 are that the unlearned can gain a sufficient understanding of Scripture. One way is the due use of the ordinary means, but that by no means excludes either extraordinary means or the possibility that even less than a due use of the ordinary means may suffice. The fact that the ordinary means are frequently effectual isn't in dispute, so 25.3 isn't particularly germane.
"2. Your reading also ignores the distinction between "the ordinary means" (WCF) and "ordinary means" (LBCF). The word "the" plainly has in view particular means whereby the meaning of Scripture must be sought after, and according to 25.3 the pastoral office would be a necessary part of that picture."
You're hanging a lot on that article. The article cannot support the weight of the burden.
A few counter-points:
1) "Ordinary means" without the article is used in 18:3. It would be interesting to see if you would be willing to apply your hermeneutic of the article to that instance.
2) The same paragraph refers to "the unlearned." The article doesn't have any special significance there, as though it is supposed to incorporate some specifically enumerated designation of unlearned people.
3) There is no antecedent usage of "ordinary means" in the document for which "the" to refer back to.
So, there doesn't appear to be any grammatical basis for your conclusion.
"Hence the Bible, by itself, is not sufficient. It is the Bible in the hands of duly appointed teachers that makes the church wise unto salvation."
You're wrong on several levels. The Bible itself is sufficient, and the Bible even in the hands of women can make a person (salvation is individual) wise unto salvation.
"3. The gospel of Matthew does not "teach" any such doctrines."
The only way to justify that kind of comment is to artificially limit what counts as "teaching." Matthew clearly states those things.
"The Church teaches doctrines, and those doctrines may be found in the right understanding of scripture."
The churches do teach (or at least should teach) what the Bible teaches.
"The author(s) of Matthew's gospel passes on the Church's teaching (i.e. Jesus' teaching) in his stories. Matthew records events, but the meaning of those events (i.e. the doctrines) forms the content of ecclesiastical teaching."
Matthew is God-breathed. The Holy Spirit teaches through the text that He wrote.
"4. Evidently you have not read Mathison."
You're mistaken.
"The distinction between the Bible by itself as sufficient for salvation (solo Scriptura), and the Bible as accessed through the Church's Rule of Faith as sufficient for salvation (sola Scriptura) is the essence of his viewpoint."
Mathison is rather ambiguous about what exactly he thinks the "Rule of Faith" is. One thing is clear, though - his definition is not that of WCF 1:2, which is one of the reasons I haven't found myself able to recommend his book.
Your comment above suggests that you think "the Church's teaching office" is what Mathison thinks the rule of faith is. That's not the sense I got (at all) from reading what Mathison wrote. Do you have any particular citation that you think supports your interpretation of Mathison?
- TurretinFan
The Rule of Faith is what the Church teaches. The Bible is accessed through the Rule of Faith as taught by the Church. That's all I'm saying. See Mathison, pp. 267-270.
"The Rule of Faith is what the Church teaches. The Bible is accessed through the Rule of Faith as taught by the Church. That's all I'm saying. See Mathison, pp. 267-270."
Mathison uses the expression "rule of faith" dozens of times in his book, but not once on those four pages.
And on those pages he writes: "But it is only the scriptural Word she proclaims that carries supreme authority. Apart from the Word, the Church is mute." (p. 269)
I had taken Mathison's comments about "necessary" and "necessity" in a weak sense, e.g. that it is not proper that they be omitted. If Mathison is really making the claim that one could not have a saving knowledge of God without "the Church" in a strong sense, my criticism of his work would be more significant than simply pointing out his non-confessional use of "Rule of Faith."
-TurretinFan
To point out that the phrase "Rule of Faith" does not happen appear on the pages I cited is an evasive answer. Its persuasive power is dependent upon the condition of not knowing the actual content of Mathison's book.
Just go a few pages over, and you find Mathison saying: "The doctrinal authority of the Church is intimately connected with the question of the creeds and the regula fidei or rule of faith" (p. 273). And: "Aside from the use of the Church's common confessional rule of faith, there is no possible way to even begin resolving the multitudes of hermeneutical conflicts" (p. 275). And: "By denying the authority of the corporate judgment of the Church, solo scriptura has exalted the individual judgment of the individual to the place of final authority. It is the individual who decides what Scripture means" (p. 276).
The fact is, biblical interpretation is not the task of the layperson. It is the task of those ordained to the ministry of teaching, pastoring and shepherding the Church, with its respective hierarchy of orders (bishops, presbyters/priests, and deacons). The laity are called to read, confess and believe the Bible. The bishops and presbyters, assisted by their deacons, interpret the Bible for the Church (2 Tim. 3:14-17). That's not just Roman doctrine. That's Reformed doctrine.
"To point out that the phrase "Rule of Faith" does not happen appear on the pages I cited is an evasive answer."
Evasive? I think you meant another word. In any event, when I ask you for where Mathison defines "rule of faith" a particular way, and you point me to pages where he never even uses the term ...
"Its persuasive power is dependent upon the condition of not knowing the actual content of Mathison's book."
You're the one citing to Mathison's book. I didn't tell you where to cite. Feel free to cite other parts, if the parts you cite don't define "rule of faith" the way you think Mathison defines it. I've already stated my opinion of Mathison's use of the term, namely that he is ambiguous.
"Just go a few pages over, and you find Mathison saying: 'The doctrinal authority of the Church is intimately connected with the question of the creeds and the regula fidei or rule of faith' (p. 273)."
ok - we find that.
And then we find him immediately afterward saying that the regula fidei is a "summary of the apostolic doctrine preserved by the church, taught to the catechumens, and gradually inscripturated in complete form in the canonical books by the Apostles."
"And: 'Aside from the use of the Church's common confessional rule of faith, there is no possible way to even begin resolving the multitudes of hermeneutical conflicts' (p. 275)."
ok - we find that too.
"And: 'By denying the authority of the corporate judgment of the Church, solo scriptura has exalted the individual judgment of the individual to the place of final authority. It is the individual who decides what Scripture means' (p. 276)."
ok - we find that also.
"The fact is, biblical interpretation is not the task of the layperson."
That's contrary to Scripture, contrary to the Standards, and contrary to the Fathers. Even Rome permits biblical interpretation by laymen. You're all by yourself here.
"It is the task of those ordained to the ministry of teaching, pastoring and shepherding the Church, with its respective hierarchy of orders (bishops, presbyters/priests, and deacons)."
False dichotomy (and bishops/presbyters and deacons are the proper categories).
"The laity are called to read, confess and believe the Bible."
People have to understand what they read in order to believe it. Understanding involves "interpretation" in the broad sense of the term.
"The bishops and presbyters, assisted by their deacons, interpret the Bible for the Church (2 Tim. 3:14-17)."
a) The role of the deaconate is not the ministry of the Word, but the service of tables, i.e. things temporal not spiritual, such as relief of the poor (Acts 6:1-4).
b) 2 Timothy 3:15-17 doesn't mention either elders (bishops/presbyters) or deacons (or even the church, as such) and the context of that passage makes such a suggestion absurd in the extreme.
"That's not just Roman doctrine. That's Reformed doctrine."
What you are promoting is neither Roman doctrine nor Reformed doctrine. Who knows where you got it from. I hope it's not Mathison's doctrine, but I don't imbue him with any chrism of infallibility.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment