FT- This sufficiency of Scripture is hard to deny. Nevertheless, those who follow Rome sometimes try to affirm what they term "material sufficiency," while denying what they call "formal sufficiency."
JM – The sufficiency of the scriptures is not established in any of your texts according to the phrase “formal sufficiency”. You merely beg the question by assuming sufficient means formally sufficient. When you cite texts that say the Word of the Lord is . . . this too begs the question to assume the word of the lord is found in a text alone, especially in light of the fact that both testaments were written at times when oral prophecy was normative.
FT- [quoting Congar] in a formal sense, that is to say as the means whereby we know, the constitutive light by which we understand, the principle of the rule of faith, in short, using scholastic terminology, as the object quo. Not only was the whole of faith contained in Scripture, but the Christian, benefiting from the interior witness of the Holy Spirit, could find it there.
JM – Congar’s definitions of the formal sense of scripture is fallacious because he uses a metaphor “the constitutive light” in his definition. This means the formal sense of scripture is nothing more than a vague light in found in the text. Yet this is indistinguishable from the material sense, or merely sufficient. In brief, the formal sense of scripture is not defined in your article.
FT - Whether the exact expression "formal sufficiency" is an invention of Roman theologians is hard to say for sure. Nevertheless, one influential theologian that brought in the term to distinguish the Roman position from the reformed position was the Roman cardinal Yves Congar.
JM – If formal sufficiency is an invention of Roman theologians, then it is not apostolic, so you cannot believe the scriptures are formally sufficient. If the scriptures are formally sufficient, then it must be apostolic and because you believe all the apostolic doctrine is contained within scripture, then the text must teach the formal sufficiency of the text. If the text merely teaches the sufficiency of the text, then you are merely question begging concerning the notion of formal sufficiency of the text. If the text does not teach formal sufficient of the text, then you breach the SS principle by believing the text is formally sufficient. The fact is you are trapped yet again on the notion of formal sufficiency of the text.
Your opening post is full of logical holes . . .
FT – you quote the Westminster confession - 6. 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
JM – So really the above quote from the Westminster confession is really stating the material sufficiency of the text, because truths are deduced from the text using logic and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
JM – The sufficiency of the scriptures is not established in any of your texts according to the phrase “formal sufficiency”. You merely beg the question by assuming sufficient means formally sufficient. When you cite texts that say the Word of the Lord is . . . this too begs the question to assume the word of the lord is found in a text alone, especially in light of the fact that both testaments were written at times when oral prophecy was normative.
FT- [quoting Congar] in a formal sense, that is to say as the means whereby we know, the constitutive light by which we understand, the principle of the rule of faith, in short, using scholastic terminology, as the object quo. Not only was the whole of faith contained in Scripture, but the Christian, benefiting from the interior witness of the Holy Spirit, could find it there.
JM – Congar’s definitions of the formal sense of scripture is fallacious because he uses a metaphor “the constitutive light” in his definition. This means the formal sense of scripture is nothing more than a vague light in found in the text. Yet this is indistinguishable from the material sense, or merely sufficient. In brief, the formal sense of scripture is not defined in your article.
FT - Whether the exact expression "formal sufficiency" is an invention of Roman theologians is hard to say for sure. Nevertheless, one influential theologian that brought in the term to distinguish the Roman position from the reformed position was the Roman cardinal Yves Congar.
JM – If formal sufficiency is an invention of Roman theologians, then it is not apostolic, so you cannot believe the scriptures are formally sufficient. If the scriptures are formally sufficient, then it must be apostolic and because you believe all the apostolic doctrine is contained within scripture, then the text must teach the formal sufficiency of the text. If the text merely teaches the sufficiency of the text, then you are merely question begging concerning the notion of formal sufficiency of the text. If the text does not teach formal sufficient of the text, then you breach the SS principle by believing the text is formally sufficient. The fact is you are trapped yet again on the notion of formal sufficiency of the text.
Your opening post is full of logical holes . . .
FT – you quote the Westminster confession - 6. 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
JM – So really the above quote from the Westminster confession is really stating the material sufficiency of the text, because truths are deduced from the text using logic and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
FT- 7. 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.
JM – Ok so this means the scriptures must tell us the value of every moral act, for it is through the moral act that man is saved. Evidently the scriptures do not cover many moral acts such as IVF, the used of many different types of military equipment, the morality of sex education, cloning, genetic engineering, forms of usury, what a just wage is and so on. The above quote is simply fallacious as soon as you read the text and see its deficiencies.
FT- 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
JM- And of course this is fallacious as well because the statement is foreign to the scriptural text itself. Scripture never says scripture interprets scripture. This is merely part of the SS fallacy, which is only a tradition of men.
FT- Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
JM – Merely another instance of a human authority stating the authority of the text is grounded on subjective human movements of the heart. Nothing new with the same old errors repeated over and over again.
Your article contains several logical errors.
JM – Ok so this means the scriptures must tell us the value of every moral act, for it is through the moral act that man is saved. Evidently the scriptures do not cover many moral acts such as IVF, the used of many different types of military equipment, the morality of sex education, cloning, genetic engineering, forms of usury, what a just wage is and so on. The above quote is simply fallacious as soon as you read the text and see its deficiencies.
FT- 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
JM- And of course this is fallacious as well because the statement is foreign to the scriptural text itself. Scripture never says scripture interprets scripture. This is merely part of the SS fallacy, which is only a tradition of men.
FT- Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
JM – Merely another instance of a human authority stating the authority of the text is grounded on subjective human movements of the heart. Nothing new with the same old errors repeated over and over again.
Your article contains several logical errors.
JM
