As the Confession makes plain,
there are two ways of learning about the truth in Scripture. The Scripture will
either reveal the truth explicitly or it will do so implicitly. While we can
understand how a proponent of Sola Scriptura will claim that all things
fundamental to salvation are clear because of explicit teachings in Scripture,
it is very odd that they would do so when the teachings are not explicit. As
the Confession admits, there are truths in Scripture which are implicit,
which, by good and necessary consequence, may
be deduced from Scripture.
Yet, this begs many questions:
1) How much deduction is allowed?
2) Does not more deduction
make the conclusion less clear?
3) What if someone disagrees with
the conclusion which is derived from logic of the accepted explicit truths?
4) Who decides if the deduction
is to be accepted or rejected?
5) Can we use an implicit truth
as a premise in an argument which forms another implicit truth?
. . . as far as the Westminster Confession goes,
the system of Sola Scriptura (and its principle plank of perspicuity) is
greatly compromised by introducing the principle of deduction. By permitting an
exegete to deduce doctrines, the Confession has put no boundary on how much
deduction is acceptable. In fact, as more deduction is proposed on a question,
a truth becomes less and less perspicuous, even though, objectively speaking,
the proponent of the question may be correct in his conclusion. (John Pacheco,
“The Noose of the Westminster Confession hangs Sola Scriptura,” Catholic Apologetics International,
August 10, 2002, copy of article in my possession)
