Sometimes Roman Catholics will argue using formal sufficiency without admitting to it.
William Whitaker (1547-1595):
Indeed all the papists in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast everywhere that they can bring arguments against us from the most luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of Scripture . . . For in every dispute their common phrases are,—This is clear,—This is plain,—This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies.
See: A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: The University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 401. See also, this link.
Keep in mind as well, some Romanists will redefine Biblical material sufficiency to mean "Every true doctrine must be in harmony with it. That is not the same as saying that every doctrine must have explicit biblical proof."
In both instances, one needs to be aware of the double standard and redefinition of terms. You'll save yourself a lot of time in dialogue by exposing these presuppositions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
This is an interesting comment, James. I have also noticed that when speaking with Romanists, they tend to use Scripture when it suits them ('this is my body', 'upon this rock', etc.), but where Scripture says 'by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified', all of the sudden the Bible is so deep and mysterious, only those steeped in the traditions of mother Rome could dare to apprehend it.
Hello James,
An interesting quote from Whitaker for sure; however, his criticism of “the papists” is most certainly a ‘double-edged sword’ for non-confessional churches/denominations take the other ‘edge of the sword’ and have unleashed it upon Whitaker’s primary presupposition (i.e. the perspicuity of Scripture on “the essentials”).
Some ‘traditionalists’ like Mathison are cognizant of this ‘double-edged sword’, and have attempted to deflect its attack via a defense of the visible Church’s authority; the attempt though an admirable one, merely ‘moves the goal-post’ for if one accepts Mathison’s view of the visible Church, one must then identify that Church.
Lane’s assessment of Whitaker’s primary presupposition is spot-on, and essentially reveals its inherent weakness:
“By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent.” (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45.
Interestingly enough, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had arrived at same conclusion as Lane, just a few years prior:
“Historical research has done away with the Reformation idea that Scripture itself has one clear meaning, or, rather, that this meaning can only have a relative character, namely within the framework of the kerygma”. [Joseph Ratzinger, “Commentary on Dei Verbum,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969) p. 194.]
Grace and peace,
David
David:
How about you simply admit:
When needed, Romanists will argue the Scripture is clear and no help from the Magisterium is needed.
In order to affirm material sufficiency, some Romanists have redefined it to mean any extra-biblical Romanist doctrine not explicitly found in the Bible is either implicit, or in harmony with it.
As an ex-Romanist, surely we can agree on this.
Hi James,
Thanks for responding: you posted:
>>David:
How about you simply admit:
When needed, Romanists will argue the Scripture is clear and no help from the Magisterium is needed.>>
Me: If qualified by adding “some” (as you do later), I agree with you on this.
>>In order to affirm material sufficiency, some Romanists have redefined it to mean any extra-biblical Romanist doctrine not explicitly found in the Bible is either implicit, or in harmony with it.>>
Me: This is where the issue gets a bit more complex (IMHO); for instance, is infant baptism explicitly taught in the Scriptures? Almost everyone says no, however, paedobaptists argue (with merit) that it is implicitly in Scripture. What about baptism for the dead (which is explicitly mentioned in Scripture)? I read one scholar who stated that over 30 different interpretations have been given over this issue. Anyway, the point that Lane and Ratzinger make concerning clarity and consensus is spot-on (IMHO).
>>As an ex-Romanist, surely we can agree on this.>>
Me: Yes we can; but where we seem to differ concerns the nature of the clarity (perspicuity) of Scripture, and how one arrives at clarity.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment