Here is my look at a comment that is instructive because it seeks to show how “Roman Catholics and Protestants do the same thing”, but where really, they are doing something completely different.
In seeking to compare the Roman Catholic doctrine of “the Church” with Reformed doctrines, Erick said:
Just as the expansive explanation for Covenant theology,…
This is only “expansive” because the OT is “expansive”. But this is true revelation, and not something that’s merely assumed.
… the points of Calvinism,…
Again, this is derivative from a doctrine of God based on a thorough study of both OT and NT.
…the rationale for infant baptism …
Again, all based on a thorough understanding of OT and NT in context.
Just as [these other items= require hashing out what seems to be only “implications” …]
Here is where criticisms of Newman and “development” take their full force. The WCF talks about “the consent of all the parts [of Scripture], the scope of the whole [of Scripture] (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it [Scripture] makes of the only way of man’s salvation,…”
Thus, when the WCF acknowledges that its doctrines are “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture], it is talking about something that is completely different with what you are talking about in this next statement:
Just as [these other items= require hashing out what seems to be only “implications”, it is the same with the Fathers.
In the fathers of the Church, fundamentally, they believe in a visible teaching Church which has a perpetual unity based upon Christ’s giving the keys of the kingdom to the Church.
Here is where you are getting this wrong. You are not beginning here with a study of “all the Scriptures” to arrive at your conclusion. You are taking a Roman concept (“the keys”, which supposedly were given to Peter as a kind of seal indicating the later concept of the papacy), and you are reading that Roman Catholic concept back into one single verse.
In the first place, “the Fathers” didn’t hold to that Roman concept of the papacy. That’s been thoroughly analyzed.
And in the 16th century, Luther followed Origen in holding that “the keys” were given to all believers. (Notwithstanding the verb tense in the original Greek).
You are not arriving at your concept of “visible teaching church” from “all of Scripture”. You are beginning with the concept “visible teaching church” and then mining “the fathers” for kinds of proof texts that suit your needs.
Finding something “implicit in” is in no way “deducing by good and necessary consequence”.
Your problem is that you are using a faulty hermeneutic.