Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A. believer said:You clearly are missing the implications of the question.
chilehed said:I've been writing down my thoughts on why I abandoned Protestantism, and part of it is an analysis of sola scriptura as its taught in the Westminster Confession. Im sure theres nothing new here, but it was a good exercise and Im more likely to remember it all now. I'd like to post it for others to review and comment on, especially for helpful bits about logical errors, clumsy phrasing or anything else I've missed.
There's a part me that hopes this will help my family understand why I did it. I'm afraid it's rather long. Thanks in advance.
-------------------------------
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) says that the entire revealed word of God is contained in scripture, and that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.(Clause 1) Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Clause 2) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; (Clause 3) therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; (Clause 4) and afterwards...to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary... (Clause 5)Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: (list of 66 books). (Clause 6)All which are given by inspiration of God, (Clause 7)to be the rule of faith and life....(Clause 8)The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture... (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 1/Article 2/Article 6)
Clause 1 summary: Gods existence and goodness is made known through nature. Catholics agree with this.
Clause 2 summary: That which we can know through nature about God and his will is insufficient to attain salvation. Catholics do not agree with this; insufficiency would be good grounds for an excuse. For purposes of this discussion we can let it pass.
Clause 3 summary: In various ways God revealed himself to us, and made it known that this revelation is his will for us. Agreed.
Clause 4 summary: Gods revelation was written down in its entirety, being completely contained in Sacred Scripture. We do not agree.
Clause 5 summary: The body of work (Sacred Scripture) that contains this revelation is comprised of 66 books. We do not agree, the correct number is 73.
Clause 6 summary: Sacred Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Agreed.
Clause 7 summary: Sacred Scripture is the rule of faith and life. We do not agree, the rule of faith and life is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which together comprise the full deposit of Gods revelation.
Clause 8 summary: The whole counsel of God concerning salvation is expressly written in Sacred Scripture or may be deduced from it. We do not agree.
The WCF says that the task of interpreting Scripture has been entrusted solely to Scripture itself. The only authoritative source and infallible interpreter of Gods Word is the original, untranslated Hebrew and Greek texts.The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them...The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture... (WCF Chapter 1, Article8/Article 10)
And yet at the same time, the WCF proposes as an article of faith that the unlearned, using ordinary means, may attain a sufficient understanding of scripture.All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 7)
The WCF says that in trying to understand the meaning of the text, the individual believer can ultimately rely only on his subjective intuition that the Holy Spirit is guiding him. The very councils that codify doctrines are fallible, and thus cannot declare a rule of faith nor be relied upon to promulgate true doctrine:We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture... yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts...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. (Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF Chapter 1, Article 5; Chapter 31, Article 4)
This is in opposition to the clear text of scripture, which warns of the perils of the ignorant trying to understand scripture without guidance.Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb. 13:17)
We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Pet. 1:1621, 3:2)
In them (Pauls letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Pet. 3:16)
The list of the Canon is not given in scripture: no scriptural text contains a table of contents for the Bible. Thus WCF Ch.1, Art. 2, which proposes a specific list of books as an article of the faith, contradicts WCF Chapter 1 Articles 1, 6, 7 and 8, and Chapter 31 Article 4, which in total say that only scripture is authoritative and that a council cannot declare a rule of faith.
WCF Chapter 1, Articles 8 and 10, which in effect demand that each believer be fluent in ancient languages in order to understand scripture, contradicts WCF Chapter 1, Article 7, which states that even the unlearned can come to a sufficient understanding of scripture.
WCF Ch. 1, Art. 5, which leaves the individual believer to rely solely on his subjective sense that the Holy Spirit is working in his heart, contradicts WCF Ch. 1, Art 10, which demands that he rely solely on the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture.
The list of the canon is a matter of doctrinal dispute between Catholics and Protestants. According to the WCF, the ultimate authority in resolving this dispute can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, with each individual believer ultimately relying solely on his subjective sense that he correctly understands the meaning of texts written in a language he does not understand and has never read. After much study Ive found that the Holy Spirit tells me that the Catholics are correct, and yet after much study Protestants find that the Holy Spirit tells them that the Catholics are wrong. So either God is a God of confusion, or sola scriptura is false. Given that sola scriptura is self-contradictory on at least three key points, and given that God is not a God of confusion, I find that sola scriptura is false.
(continued)
Actually, what you did was impugne my intelligence and motives, tell me that I didnt know what I was talking about, neglect to explaine how it is that you think I got it wrong, and then accuse me of lacking charity.A. believer said:I already corrected chilehed on this point twice. Why are you asking again?...
chilehed said:Actually, what you did was impugne my intelligence and motives, tell me that I didnt know what I was talking about, neglect to explaine how it is that you think I got it wrong, and then accuse me of lacking charity.
I find this to be a less than helpful way of correcting people.
Forgive me for presuming that the writers of the Confession meant what they said. As far as I can tell, in all controversies of religion the Church is to appeal to the Hebrew and Greek texts means that the final appeal is to the Hebrew and Greek texts;
Now you're misquoting. What you quoted before was, "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, not that they are not a rule of faith, like you're claiming now.all councils may err and are not to be made a rule of faith means that all councils may err and therefore cannot promulgate a rule of faith;
and all things which are necessary to be known are clearly propounded so that even the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding means that what one needs to know for salvation is so clear in scripture that even the ignorant can figure it out by reading the texts. This isnt ambiguous stuff.
The only places the Confession comes close to saying how a regular Joe can know that his understanding of scripture is correct is in the phrases The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined...can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture... and our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. You insist that these are referring to something other than a subjective sense, but have studiously avoided telling me that that something else is. Is it the councils that cant be made a rule of faith because they cant ever be fully trusted to speak the truth? Is it the translations from the Hebrew and Greek that arent authoritative, and from among which the individual must determine the best one (which requires him to understand Greek and Hebrew)? How, pray tell, does this inward work manifest itself in a practical way?
The logical structure of the Confession demands that we know what the canon is before we can avail ourselves of the Holy Spirit speaking in it, and yet the canon is itself an article of the faith that is not given in the texts. How, then are we to know what the canon is? First, the Confession offers a list given by a Council that says that it may have the list wrong so you cant take it as a rule of faith, but then they go ahead and include it in the Confession as a rule of faith anyway. This isnt any help at all. What remains is the inward work of the Holy Spirit, which being inward is by definition a subjective matter. I suppose that you may have the idea that one may judge the veracity of this inward work by the guidance of councils, but since that guidance is by definition unreliable then one can only determine which council is correct by turning back again to ones own judgement on the matter, which scripture warns us not to do. And we cant appeal to the text of scripture to determine whether or not this inward work is actually the Holy Spirit and not some other spirit, unless we know beforehand what texts are canonical and which arent.
The whole thing is a muddle. You can call me names until the cows come home, but that doesnt change the fact that the Confession completely destroys any rational way to have ANY objective assurance that we can knew what the true canon is at all.
That's exactly the position the Reformers put themselves in by claiming that the final appeal in resolving any theological dispute is to be made to scripture alone.A. believer said:Surely you're not suggesting that each of these prooftexts, individually, must constitute a stand alone defense of sola Scriptura for them to be valid in conjunction with one another!
chilehed said:One of the parts you're missing is that one cannot use scripture to determine what scripture is without knowing what scripture is beforehand. That's a logical reality that no amount of bluster, rudenss or condescension can change.
chilehed said:That's exactly the position the Reformers put themselves in by claiming that the final appeal in resolving any theological dispute is to be made to scripture alone.
chilehed said:One of the parts you're missing is that one cannot use scripture to determine what scripture is without knowing what scripture is beforehand.
That's exactly the position the Reformers put themselves in by claiming that the final appeal in resolving any theological dispute is to be made to scripture alone.
The Confession gives Luke 16:29/31, Eph 2:20, 2 Tim 3:16, and Rev 22:18-19 as proof texts in support of its determination that the canon has 66 books, which is a matter in dispute. If the final resolution is to appeal to the texts themselves, it is necessary for the texts to include a list of canonical books. Which they don't, either singly or together.
So the books are "presupposed"? thats a pretty big assumption to make, considering the claim no one is infallible, thats makes the canon of scripture just as subject to error as any of the councils.A. believer said:When you say "determine what Scripture is" are you referring to a list of the canon or are you referring to an ontological definition of Scripture or are you referring to whether the given writing one is reading is Scripture?
The list of books constituting the canon of Scripture is presupposed in the Confession. Those verses aren't prooftexts for the canon.
Can you point me to the portion of the Confession which says that these verses (or any verses) prove the extent of the canon?
Catholic Dude said:Concerning the verses that prove the extent of the canon, there arent any, thats the point protestants refuse to recognize. Think of it this way, the men writing the confession were fallible, every word they wrote was subject to error, since the Bible doesnt list what books belong in it the fact that they had to list the individual books of the Bible shows that this list is subject to error because they are fallible.
How do you know? How is this not subjective?Bulldog said:But if scripture is self-authenticating, then it's a moot point.
Catholic Dude said:How do you know? How is this not subjective?
Any religion/person can claim their scriptures are self authenticating.
This doesnt answer the question I asked previously about the decision being subjective, infact it admits to that being the basis for choosing the canon. I asked "How is this not subjective", to which Calvin says something like "youll know when you read it, its as clear as day, as black from white".Bulldog said:Of course. Anyone can claim just about anything.
As for the reason why, I think Calvin put it well:
"But with regard to the question, How shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? This is just as if anyone should inquire, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibits as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste." (Institutes, loc. cit., p. 76.)The smiple answer answer to your first question is that scripture is breathed-out by God. By it's nature, it is beyond beyond authentication from something outside of it (except for God, of course), because otherwise scripture would become subject to and of lesser authority than that.
Catholic Dude said:This doesnt answer the question I asked previously about the decision being subjective, infact it admits to that being the basis for choosing the canon. I asked "How is this not subjective", to which Calvin says something like "youll know when you read it, its as clear as day, as black from white".
And then to say its "beyond authentication", then nobody has the right to claim what books belong in the canon at all.
Based on this to even claim the canon is closed is already assuming an authority "beyond" what man is allowed.
The construct of the confession demands it, since it sets up scripture alone, and not the church, as the final authority in all matters of theological dispute. While one can go on to refer to the guidance of councils or learned individuals, one ultimately cannot rely on them because theres no guarantee that theyll be correct. One of the major points of the Reformation was to reject the infallibility of church councils, and once one accepts that premise then one cant turn around and rely on councils to provide guidance thats guaranteed to be correct.A. Believer said:Can you point me to the portion of the Confession which says that these verses (or any verses) prove the extent of the canon?
Im referring to the first and last, in principle they are inseparable. We all agree that Sacred Scripture is the inerrant revealed word of God (thats not to say its the only revealed word, mind you), the issue Im dealing with is how does one objectively know what texts are Sacred Scripture and what ones are not.A. Believer said:When you say "determine what Scripture is" are you referring to a list of the canon or are you referring to an ontological definition of Scripture or are you referring to whether the given writing one is reading is Scripture?
EXACTLY!!! And since identifying the canon correctly is an absolutely required article of the faith if one must use the texts alone to resolve theological disputes, then this presupposition yanks the foundation out from under sola scriptura. Its a required article of the faith that is NOT taken from scripture.A. Believer said:The list of books constituting the canon of Scripture is presupposed in the Confession.
Not at all, thats like saying that the Chief Steward of the King cant make rulings in the Kings name without the King becoming a subject of the Steward. But thats really fodder for a thread on the sucession of Apostolic Authority.Bulldog said:By it's nature, it is beyond beyond authentication from something outside of it (except for God, of course), because otherwise scripture would become subject to and of lesser authority than that.
chilehed said:The construct of the confession demands it, since it sets up scripture alone, and not the church, as the final authority in all matters of theological dispute. While one can go on to refer to the guidance of councils or learned individuals, one ultimately cannot rely on them because theres no guarantee that theyll be correct. One of the major points of the Reformation was to reject the infallibility of church councils, and once one accepts that premise then one cant turn around and rely on councils to provide guidance thats guaranteed to be correct.
Im referring to the first and last, in principle they are inseparable. We all agree that Sacred Scripture is the inerrant revealed word of God (thats not to say its the only revealed word, mind you), the issue Im dealing with is how does one objectively know what texts are Sacred Scripture and what ones are not.
EXACTLY!!! And since identifying the canon correctly is an absolutely required article of the faith if one must use the texts alone to resolve theological disputes, then this presupposition yanks the foundation out from under sola scriptura. Its a required article of the faith that is NOT taken from scripture.
Where did the Reformers get their presupposition?
Not at all, thats like saying that the Chief Steward of the King cant make rulings in the Kings name without the King becoming a subject of the Steward. But thats really fodder for a thread on the sucession of Apostolic Authority.
Hope yall are having a very blessed and happy Thanksgiving.
Catholic Dude said:So the books are "presupposed"? thats a pretty big assumption to make, considering the claim no one is infallible, thats makes the canon of scripture just as subject to error as any of the councils.
Concerning the verses that prove the extent of the canon, there arent any, thats the point protestants refuse to recognize. Think of it this way, the men writing the confession were fallible, every word they wrote was subject to error, since the Bible doesnt list what books belong in it the fact that they had to list the individual books of the Bible shows that this list is subject to error because they are fallible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "authority" and "authoritative". Sacred Scripture contains that revealed truth which God wished of consign to written form, and it is what it is even if we don't regognise it as such. If by "authority" you mean that it can interpret itself for us and tell us what it means, then no. It can't express itself in words other than the ones written.A. believer said:First off, do you dispute that Scripture has inherent authority regardless of whether we recognize it or not? Or are you contending that Scripture only becomes authoritative when it's recognized as such?
I dismiss it because it deals with both questions in an incoherent manner.A. believer said:Let's first acknowledge the distinction between the ontological question and the epistemological question here because sola Scriptura deals with the ontological question, while you want to dismiss it because it fails to deal with the epistemological question.
Nonsense. The Catholic position isn't that He must have done it by some necessary means, but that scripture and history shows that He did do it in a particular way that is very different than what Protestants believe.A. believer said:...as opposed to the Roman Catholic answer which is to predetermine some supposedly necessary means by which He must do it.
chilehed said:I'm not sure what you mean by "authority" and "authoritative". Sacred Scripture contains that revealed truth which God wished of consign to written form, and it is what it is even if we don't regognise it as such. If by "authority" you mean that it can interpret itself for us and tell us what it means, then no. It can't express itself in words other than the ones written.
But that's not really relevant to the reason I find sola scriptura to be incoherent.
I dismiss it because it deals with both questions in an incoherent manner.
Nonsense. The Catholic position isn't that He must have done it by some necessary means, but that scripture and history shows that He did do it in a particular way that is very different than what Protestants believe.
But again, that's really for a discussion of the sucession of Apostolic Authority.
The bottom line is that when the Reformers presupposed a canon, they yanked the foundation from under sola scriptura: it's a required article of the faith that's not found in Sacred Scripture.
First you say that the canon was presupposed, then that it was derived from Scripture. Make up your mind, it cant be both.A. believer said:No, it's a rule of faith logically derived from Scripture and history--which is precisely what you claim about the Roman Catholic rule of faith.
Im not impressed by ad hominem attack. Most Christians except for you, hmmm?A. believer said:Incidentally, most Christians from every tradition are quite ignorant of church history or are only familiar with the spin their particular tradition puts on it.
You say thing like this, but studiously avoid a real explanation. Irrational arguments dont become rational through the repetition of big words. If you have a rational argument that truly resolves the basic logical errors of the Confession, then present it and Ill respond. So far all youve done is blow smoke.A. believer said:That's because you're still confusing epistemology and ontology.
chilehed said:First you say that the canon was presupposed, then that it was derived from Scripture. Make up your mind, it cant be both.
Im not impressed by ad hominem attack. Most Christians except for you, hmmm?
You say thing like this, but studiously avoid a real explanation. Irrational arguments dont become rational through the repetition of big words. If you have a rational argument that truly resolves the basic logical errors of the Confession, then present it and Ill respond. So far all youve done is blow smoke.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?