Quote:
|
The Confession is making an ecclesiological statement. No one doubts that it is appropriate for the Confession to refute transubstantiation in the language of Scripture. Why should it be inappropriate for the same Confession to adopt the language of Scripture to refute the idea of a visible head of the church? It appears to me that the difficulty lies in a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations. Blessings!
|
And, just so we have both your points clearly before our minds:
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Sean, the apostles proved Jesus was the Christ on the basis of a twofold process of argument. (1) What the Old Testament Scriptures foretold. (2.) What Jesus of Nazareth had fulfilled. The first was the major premise, the second was the minor premise. The conclusion was certain. By the same process of reasoning a Christian comes to understand that he is in fact a Christian. The major is found in the Scriptural description of a Christian, and the minor is found in the conscience bearing a person witness in the Holy Spirit that he is what Scripture describes. The exact same process of reasoning is used to determine false believers, false teachers, antichrists, and THE ANTICHRIST.
All deductions of Scripture are based on a consideration not explicitly stated in Scripture, and must therefore be accounted a mere opinion according to your preconceived epistemic commitment. |
Let's take a look at the WCF again:
Quote:
|
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. |
First, since the Apostle Paul was also in the process of completing God's special revelation as were the other NT writers, Paul was arguing from the position of what God had already revealed in Christ. Your analogy fails because both major and minor premises are matters of special revelation.
Second, the Confession also states:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Oddly, nowhere in this rule of interpretations did the Divines see fit to include "concrete historical situations" as a means by which we can arrive at Scripture's true meaning. Yet, you claim it is "a modern reluctance to apply Scripture to concrete, historical situations." Chalk one up for modern reluctance.
Third, you admit above that your minor premise is drawn from "concrete historical situations." Since it follows that these "concrete historical situations" are not expressly set down in Scripture, nor are they derived by any necessary deductions from Scripture, you have done exactly what the Confession forbids and have added to Scripture by raising so-called "concrete historical situations" to a level on par with Scripture and have raised "concrete historical situations" to the Confessional level. I hope that others see the incredible danger of your approach. The doctrine identifying the pope as THE ANTICHRIST, while arguably true, is not a doctrine of Scripture.
Your preconceived epistemic commitment concerning "concrete historical situations" has placed you squarely outside of the Reformed tradition.
Ironically, your method has placed you in the same class as moderns like John Hagee, Hal Lindsey and many other proponents of your method -- including the pope himself -- all of whom freely draw all sorts of inferences from "concrete historical situations" and have made great livings doing so all the while binding men's minds to their teachings.
But what are these "concrete historical situations" from which you draw your minor premise in support of your conclusion? Are we to understand concrete and historical as relating to facts? And, if facts, what are facts? Are facts therefore true or merely presumed to be true? You seem banefully and blissfully ignorant of the problems of historiography. While Scripture provides the only trustworthy account of history, concerning other matters historians are constantly contradicting themselves.
To give but one of thousands of possible examples, like many in my country (certainly anyone who grew up in the North), President Lincoln was hailed as the "Great Emancipator" and the man who was willing sacrifice the lives of thousands in order to free the black man from the bondage of forced servitude. While there may have been occasional hints suggesting the "concrete historical situations" surrounding Lincoln and Civil War that perhaps historians weren't in the concrete business at all. More recent historians are discovering that Lincoln was a white supremacist and a dictatorial tyrant. So which Lincoln comports with the "concrete historical situations" and how would you know? The problems inherent in historiography are insurmountable and basically what you want to compel on a confessional level is, at best, an educated guess.
While I believe the pope certainly fits the bill as a very likely candidate for THE ANTICHRIST, since God did not think it necessary to specifically identify the man or institution, but only provided the means by which we might identify any Antichrist, which would include but is not limited to THE ANTICHRIST, I think amending the Confession had warrant. That does not mean that I am pragmatically opposed to the original wording which identified the pope as THE ANTICHRIST of Revelation. If by it some who are under Rome's bondage might be snatched from the fire, then perhaps raising this minor premise to the confessional level has some benefit . . . however, provided it is understood that this doctrine is unaccounted for in both the explicit and implicit deliverances of Scripture and is an ADDITION to them.