Back on June 14th, I submitted a post to John Bugay's June 8th thread, Irenaeus on “Divine Protection from Error”: Scripture Interprets Scripture. Comments submitted to John's threads are moderated, and it seems that John has no intention of publishing my comment, given that it has been well over a week since I submitted it. The following is my 'evil', 'subversive' post (grin):
Longtime no chat; hope all is well with you and yours. From your opening post:
>>Consider this word from the Westminster Confession of Faith: “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.”>>
You believe that Irenaeus in a very real sense was a faithful adherent of the above principal; unfortunately, he was not. Please note the following:
There was, however, another aid which he [Irenaeus] looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted. [I.ix.4] It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible. (James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr, 1841, p. 139 – bold emphasis mine.)
You have conflated material sufficiency with formal sufficiency—Irenaeus held to the former, but not the later.
See posts under THIS LINK for more on this issue.
Grace and peace,
If ever there was a post the deserves censorship...
Grace and peace,