I think the WCF is correct.
Acts 17:11 "the studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were SO"
They did not have a NT. And they were not even Christian. And Paul's teaching included a lot of facts not already in the OT. And it was all confirmed as "Biblical" via the "sola scriptura test" that the WCF affirms.
Take a close look at this -
==================================================
the Bible so strongly affirms "sola scriptura"
Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."
Look closely
Acts 17:11 "
They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"
How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???
Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But
in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the
precepts of men.’
8
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the
tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You
are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to
keep your tradition. 10 For
Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11
but you say, ‘If a man says to
his father or
his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given
to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for
his father or
his mother; 13
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ
Christ shows that "making stuff up" as they were doing - was condemned when it was shown to conflict with Bible teaching.
But that did not condemn Paul's teaching in Acts 17:11 because his teaching was not in conflict with the Bible.
Bruce - I understand your point. But my question is this - is it really true that infant baptism is not refuted using the WCF affirmation of scripture plus tradition that is vetted-by approved-by tested-by scripture?
Their statement is that what is expressly taught by scripture and reasonably deduced from scripture is legit.
Could it be "deduced" that the "Carpenter's son was God"? No Old Testament text says that the Messiah would be a carpenter or the son of a carpenter.
God called Israel out of Egypt - and says "I called my son out of Egypt" but - there is no record at all of an angel speaking to the child Jesus and calling him out of Egypt... or of God' speaking that to Jesus -- as a child ...calling him out of Egypt.
Yet God did tell Moses to take Israel out of Egypt.
Yet NT authors claim that Christ going into Egypt was in fulfillment of the text where God says He called His Son out of Egypt. How could the NT saints ever accept the NT authors using the rule you propose?
Jesus said this in Matthew 23
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say
things and do not do
them.
He did not condemn them flat out simply because they said something. Rather as we see in Mark 7 - He condemned them when he could prove that what they were saying contradicted scripture.
Mark 7 is a great example - because the Jews were not saying "do not honor your parents" or "break the 5th commandment" -- yet what they were teaching amounted to the same thing - and that was enough to condemn them.
The Bible says to "believe" and be baptized Mark 16:15. To repent and be baptized Acts 2. But man-made-tradition says it does not matter if you hear, repent, believe... just as long as someone with the "powers" to mark your soul baptizes you even as an infant, then you would be "changed" or accepted by God.
I think that their rule "expressly in scripture or reasonably deduced from scripture" rules out things like purgatory. The Bible says Christ paid for the full debt of our sin.
IF I come along and say "oh not so - what really happens is that my group has a sort of spiritual bank of merit/suffering/payment. And we write checks against that bank whenever you ask for an indulgence so that your loved one can get out of something we call purgatory via the check we have written". A great many reasonable people could be expected to say of the church-of-Bob that its doctrine is a far cry from what can be said to be a "good and necessary consequence that may be
deduced from the scriptures."
