Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Second Response to Scott Windsor

Scott has posted a response (link to response) to my prior post (link to post).

1) Definition of Sola Scriptura

Scott Windsor denies that there is any standard definition of Sola Scriptura. Then, he claims: "The problem we have is that TF didn't provide us with the 'standard definition,' and left us to assume." How that could possibly be "the problem," is beyond me, but I'll be happy to help Scott identify a standard definition. Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is one standard definition of Sola Scriptura. The first paragraph of that chapter reads:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
(source)

2) Historical Aspect vs. Doctrinal Aspect of Sola Scriptura

Although Scott doesn't specifically state whether he understands and/or accepts the distinction, he nevertheless responds:
TF seems to be unaware of my argument that Scripture itself points us to another infallible source! The bishops! Matthew 18:18 shows us Jesus giving infallible authority to the bishops as a group - that whatsoever the bind or loose on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus gives this same authority to Peter alone (and noting this was two chapters earlier, Peter received this authority not only alone, but in primacy).
This is an interesting argument for two reasons: (1) the power of binding and loosing is understood in Roman Catholicism in reference to the supposed power of the confessional - not to the interpretation of Scripture and (2) there is no mention of infallibility in those passages, nor does Rome claim infallibility in matters of discipline (with respect to which the Confessional relates).

As evidence of the Roman Catholic view of Matthew 18:18, I provide the following catechism items.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) item 1444:
In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."
(source)

CCC 553:
Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
(source)

3) The "You are no better than us" Issue

I had tried to explain to Scott that the "you are no better than us" argument is one that undermines the validity of a criticism (in this case his criticism of us is not a significant criticism because he doesn't offer us an alternative to which the criticism wouldn't apply). He doesn't seem to get it. I'm not sure how I can explain it more clearly. Perhaps a second example would help: If an Anglican were to criticize the Roman Catholics for having an hierarchical episcopate, it would be legitimate for a Roman Catholic to point out that Anglicans themselves have that approach. In this example, the criticism is right (the Roman system is hierarchical) - it's just not significant as a criticism in an Anglican-Roman dialog, because the Anglicans also have a hierarchical system.

4) Canon in Flux?

After complaining that he hadn't suggested that there were many debates over the canon, Scott seems to express confusion about my comment that the canon itself is not in flux. The reason for Scott's seeming confusion appears to be his continual conflation of the canon and the recognition of the canon. The canon itself is simply an objective reality: such and such a number of books were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The recognition of the canon is what varies: sometimes a person or group fails to recognize one or more books that are part of the canon or thinks they have recognized a canonical book when (in fact) it is not a book that the Holy Spirit inspired.

5) Infallible Knowledge of the Canon

Scott also appears not to have understood the fifth section. In the fifth section we had tried to help Scott understand the difference between the Scripture (which is an infallible rule of faith) and us the readers of Scripture (we are fallible men). Scott seems to have trouble following this distinction.

Scott actually goes so far as to write:
So TF is conceding, apparently for both White and himself, that Scripture does not contain infallible knowledge of the canon of Scripture. That satisfies my point! The canon itself cannot be infallibly known to Protestants for their "sole infallible source" does not, by TF's admission here contain "infallible knowledge of the canon of Scripture."
(emphasis his)

This comment from Scott is misleading. What we indicated is that we don't claim an infallible knowledge. However, Scripture itself is infallible. Infallibility is a property of divine revelation, not of the human listener. Whatever Scripture reveals it reveals infallibly - however, whatever we know, we necessarily know fallibly. That is because the Scriptures are infallible, but we are fallible.

6) Canon Closure vs. Canon Recognition

I had indicated that Scott is confused regarding the distinction between canon closure and canon recognition. Indeed he writes:
Here TF again accuses me of confusion, where I have none. He also misstates the closure of the canon as being when the last writer wrote the last book when that is not true!
Scott's wrong. That is exactly when the canon closed. When the Spirit stopped inspiring, the canon closed. The distinction between canon closure and canon recognition has been pointed out repeatedly to Scott (both by me and Steve) and yet Scott argues, as support for a later canon closure date:
The canon process took centuries to "close." Books by St. Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, etc. were included in several "canons" in the Early Church, yet were excluded when the canon process finally ended in the late 4th century. Then this closed canon was made de fide by the Council of Trent in the 16th century to end the discussion once and for all since protestors against the Faith had brought it up again.
This discussion from Scott, however, relates to canon recognition, not canon closure. Trent arguably closed the door on recognition of additional books or non-recognition of books in its list, but the canon itself (the objective fact of inspiration) has been exactly the same from the time of inspiration.

7) KJV 1611 and the Apocrypha

Scott seems to think that the fact that the 1611 KJV contained marginal notes including cross-references to the Apocrypha and cross-references from the Apocrypha to the canonical Scriptures is somehow significant. Why he thinks this is completely mystifying. After all, the KJV was published in light of the 1572 Thirty-Nine Articles, which stated:
And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayth) the Churche doth reade for example of lyfe and instruction of maners: but yet doth it not applie them to establishe any doctnne.Such are these followyng.

The third booke of Esdras. The fourth booke of Esdras. The booke of Tobias. The booke of ludith. The rest of the booke of Hester. The booke of Wisdome. lesus the sonne of Sirach. Baruch, the prophet. Song of the .3. Children. The stone of Susanna. Of Bel and the Dragon. The prayer of Manasses. The .1. booke of Machab. The .2. booke of Macha.
(source)

Likewise, the Scottish Confession of 1560 stated in Chapter 18:
And such kirks we, the inhabitants of the realm of Scotland, professors of Christ Jesus, confess ourselves to have in our cities, towns, and places reformed; for the doctrine taught in our kirks is contained in the written word of God: to wit, in the books of the New and Old Testaments: in those books, we mean, which of the ancient have been reputed canonical, in the which we affirm that all things necessary to be believed for the salvation of mankind are sufficiently expressed.
(source)

The Irish Articles of 1615 (while obviously post-dating the 1611 KJV) still express the contemporary sentiment among the churches that were behind the KJV and its translation/publication (from the section, Of the Holy Scripture and the three Creeds.):
3. The other Books commonly called Apocryphal did not proceed from such inspiration and therefore are not of sufficient authority to establish any point of doctrine; but the Church doth read them as Books containing many worthy things for example of life and instruction of manners.



Such are these following:



· The third book of Esdras.

· The fourth book of Esdras.

· The book of Tobias.

· The book of Judith.

· Additions to the book of Esther.

· The book of Wisdom.

· The book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, called Ecclesiasticus.

· Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah.

· The song of the three Children.

· Susanna.

· Bel and the Dragon.

· The prayer of Manasses.

· The First book of Maccabees.

· The Second book of Maccabees.
(source)

It's puzzling that Scott would think that any reader would be unaware of this context, and yet if they were aware of that context, the cross-references would seem totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Questions

Scott posed the following questions:
Now, how about the significant points from my response to Mr. Hays? Agree or disagree?

1) The teaching of satis scriptura is NOT sola scriptura.

2) Sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Some Protestants will admit to this fact, will Mr. Hays or TurretinFan do so?

3) Nowhere in Scripture will we find the listing (canon) of what should comprise the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

4) Interpretation of an implicit teaching in Scripture is still extra scriptura.

5) Steve resorted to the invalid argumentum ad hominem several times (and I appreciate the fact that TurrentinFan did not).

6) Steve seemed to confuse the Pentateuch with the Canon of the Old Testament, and I quote: "So from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in the 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture." The Pentateuch refers ONLY to the first 5 books of Moses, also known as the Torah.

7) Scripture remains a PART OF Catholic Tradition. No matter how much Steve or TF would like to remove that from OUR Sacred Tradition, they cannot.

There were other points, but these should suffice for now and I would like to know how both Steve and TurretinFan responds to them with a simple (Agree) or (Disagree) before going into an explanation of why they agree or disagree.
I tend to avoid answering loaded questions with a simple answer. It creates confusion for the reader.

As to item (1): "The teaching of satis scriptura is NOT sola scriptura"

I don't agree. Sola Scriptura reduces to Satis Scriptura.

As to item (2): "Sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture."

I don't agree. Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture.

As to item (3): "Nowhere in Scripture will we find the listing (canon) of what should comprise the Canon of Sacred Scripture."

The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand. However, the listing as such is not. I guess that is a "disagree" as well, since I wouldn't use Scott's wording.

As to item (4): "Interpretation of an implicit teaching in Scripture is still extra scriptura."

I don't agree - at least, I don't agree if "implicit" includes things that are properly derived from Scripture but simply aren't explicit in Scripture. It's not completely clear what Scott views as "implicit."

As to item (5): "Steve resorted to the invalid argumentum ad hominem several times (and I appreciate the fact that TurrentinFan did not)."

I'll leave that one for Steve to answer.

As to item (6): "Steve seemed to confuse the Pentateuch with the Canon of the Old Testament ... ."

I disagree. The Canon of the Old Testament began with (the first book of) the Pentateuch and continued to expand as the Spirit inspired more and more books. It closed with the penning of the last book of the Old Testament. (Note that I am referring to the closing of the canon not the recognition of the canon.)

As to item (7): "Scripture remains a PART OF Catholic Tradition."

I disagree. It is (for Rome) made void through human tradition, just as it was for the Jews.

I hope those answers help Scott.

-TurretinFan

26 comments:

John Bugay said...

TF, thanks for the firm yet thoughtful treatment of this.

john martin said...

"As to item (3): "Nowhere in Scripture will we find the listing (canon) of what should comprise the Canon of Sacred Scripture."

The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand. However, the listing as such is not. I guess that is a "disagree" as well, since I wouldn't use Scott's wording."

"The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand." - is a non sequitur statement.

I'd like to see the specific arguments used to derive the canon from the canon itself. Evidentently this is a circular endeavour doomed to fail.

JM

Turretinfan said...

I'm not sure what you've been told "non sequitur" means. It nevertheless very much follows that if one has the 66 canonical books in one's hands, one can easily compile a listing of those books, just as one can easily create a list of one's children, even without one's wife giving birth to a familial table of contents.

Blogahon said...

T fan.

I'd like your thoughts on this article as it relates to the canon question.

natamllc said...

Well, everybody is different.

So, I hope I am not doomed to a "non sequitur" as I open up my thoughts in response.

I would look at the "Finger" of God portion and go from there to look at the "power" and "authority" exercised by Peter and Paul in the Scriptures.

But first I would ask now a disjointed question regarding that matter of the 1611 KJV containing marginal notes including cross-references to the Apocrypha issue you addressed. Isn't it true that the roots of the 1611 KJV find water in the Received Text and has nothing to do with the Alexandrian era writings the RCC holds to there newest addition?

Ok, back to the Finger of God:

Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.
Luk 11:18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul.
Luk 11:19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

We read in the Book of Acts of two such dramatic encounters by some of the Lord's messengers, once with Peter, and once with Paul where God by His power and authority "zapped" and "blinded" that one looking for sordid gain, Peter, Acts 8 and Paul, Acts 13.

Now, we see a couple of unusual "ends" accomplished by the Finger of God by Paul and a couple of Churches he was particularly involved with. One, the Corinthian Church, where we read:

1Co 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.


And, two, here:

1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,
1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Now, consider what ends Paul is after by employing the devil's work. One, he insists the man be turned over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh that "his spirit might be saved". Hmmmmm? How humiliating that must have been for the devil to have to do that seeing he isn't going to be saved himself from the lake of fire?

And, what seems to me to be more egregious for errors is what Paul wants the devil to do to Hymenaeus and Alexander. Satan now has to have a Bible study with them to teach them "not" to blaspheme God, the "chief" blasphemer of God and man!

Huh?

Well, I note all that to point to the erroneous position being put over here by CathApol that Jesus intended for Peter solely to have some primacy of authority not afforded any other of Christ's messengers and with these words by Jesus to refute him and his position held by the Papacy of the RCC:::>

Luk 9:49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us."
Luk 9:50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you."

john martin said...

Here are some examples of non sequiturs that are similar to yours.

My house was built by green goats, given that we have my house.
The telephone is inspired, given that we have the telephone book.
The canon is derivable by subjective and natural means, given we have the canonical books.

The following is not a non sequitur

The canon is derivable by objective and supernatural means, given we have the canonical books.

When you say “The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand.” Seems like it is not a non sequitur, because if we have a canon then it must have been derived. Yet your statement is a non sequitur because you have a false understanding of how the canon was derived. When you use the word “derived” in your argument, you equivocate the meaning of the word and fall into the fallacy of a non sequitur. This is shown below by establishing an objective and supernatural authority is required to determine the canon –

The canon is a collection of inspired books.
Inspiration is a supernatural charism from God, whereby God is the primary supernatural author of the text.
The supernatural is what is above the natural. For example a miracle and the Trinity are above the natural and are therefore supernatural.
God is the prime mover of man when he writes any text.
God is the prime natural mover of any text for God is the first natural mover of all human action.
As an inspired text is also written by God, it is done so with God as the natural and the supernatural prime mover of the human author of the text.
Reason knows natures as they are natures. For example men know the natures of numbers, apples, cows and all natural things through apprehension.
Reason does not know supernatures in themselves as the supernatural is beyond the natural. IOW, as the supernatural is above the natural, the supernatural is therefore beyond reason.
An inspired text is so, in so far as it has been authored by a supernatural agent and therefore its authorship as supernatural is then formally beyond reason.
An inspired text is beyond reason and therefore cannot be recognised as inspired from reason alone.
An inspired text, as it is formally inspired, is beyond reason and therefore can only be recognised as inspired from an authority that is supernatural.
An inspired text is objectively supernaturally authored by God for all mankind and therefore cannot be determined by natural and subjective means, but by supernatural and objective means.
Conclusion - The only supernatural authority that can identify the inspired text as formally inspired is the church that was instituted and protected from error by God as the supernatural agent.
Corollary 1 - The prime supernatural author of the text cannot be identified from a text, because the charism is not natural, but supernatural.

Corollary 1- Those who do not identify a supernaturally instituted church from the time of the apostles with the authority to teach and define doctrine reject the Catholic claims regarding the churches authority and apostolic succession. In short, those who deny the four marks of the church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, means they must find another institution or means that is supernatural and objective to determine the extent of an inspired text that has a supernatural author. As you cannot do this objectively and supernaturally, then you only have a natural and subjective means to determine if a text is authored by a supernatural agent. Therefore when you say “

“The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand.”, you mean this –
The listing as such is derivable through natural and subjective means, given that we have the books in hand.”

However the truth is this – “The listing as such is derivable through supernatural and objective means, given that we have the books in hand.”

You have evidently equivocated on the word “derivable” and therefore committed the fallacy of a non sequitur.

JM

john martin said...

Your definition of SS is fallacious –

“to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

To commit the same ”wholly” unto writing is not the same as to commit the same “only” unto writing. As SS means scripture “alone”, then to commit wholly is not SS, but another form of scriptural doctrine we can coin as “wholly scriptora”.

Conclusion – You have not produced a definition of “sola scriptora” that is internally consistent.

JM

john martin said...

“I'm not sure what you've been told "non sequitur" means. It nevertheless very much follows that if one has the 66 canonical books in one's hands, one can easily compile a listing of those books, just as one can easily create a list of one's children, even without one's wife giving birth to a familial table of contents.”

The family analogy is false because it is based on a natural act, whereas inspiration is a supernatural act.

JM

john martin said...

“(1) the power of binding and loosing is understood in Roman Catholicism in reference to the supposed power of the confessional - not to the interpretation of Scripture”

This is simply not true. Look at CCC 553 that says the power of the keys is concerned with pronouncing doctrinal judgments – . . . The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.


“and (2) there is no mention of infallibility in those passages, nor does Rome claim infallibility in matters of discipline (with respect to which the Confessional relates).”

Infallibility is implied because Jesus is God and the keys confer power to teach. When the church teaches with the institution of the keys by an infinite power (God), then we have the church teaching with the authority of God. This means the keys infer infallibility when the church binds the faithful on anything in faith and morals.

“The canon itself is simply an objective reality: such and such a number of books were inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

But inspiration is a supernatural charism whereby God is the principal supernatural author of a set of texts. From the texts themselves we do not know if a text is inspired, even if the text says it is, simply because inspiration is above and beyond reason and can only be recognised by an authority that has been instituted by a supernatural power to teach in the name of God.

As inspiration is a supernatural charism that is not known to exist in any text, we cannot know that God has inspired any text at all, let alone a set of texts, unless the faithful in both the OT and NT tell the community infallibly that a text is inspired. The statement that the canon is an objective reality is only verified if a divine authority outside the text tells mankind that the text is inspired. This authority must be from go and must have miraculous signs to demonstrate it is from God. For example Moses leadership is from God because Moses was a mediator who performed many miracles and was then able to teach in the name of God. So too in the NT Jesus as the New Moses institutes the new Israel and provides the church with teachers to define the canon and many other doctrines.


“ The recognition of the canon is what varies: sometimes a person or group fails to recognize one or more books that are part of the canon or thinks they have recognized a canonical book when (in fact) it is not a book that the Holy Spirit inspired.”

Recognition is only subjective and not binding on anyone. Only the authority instituted by Jesus in the NT can formally pronounce and bind persons to believe which texts are authored by God. You have not made a valid case that concludes to an objective existence of a canon. This is mainly because you have not taken into account the nature of inspiration of a text as a supernatural charism.

“we indicated is that we don't claim an infallible knowledge. However, Scripture itself is infallible.”

This means you only have a fallible knowledge of the existence of a text you believe is infallible. But this is only your subjective opinion that is against the nature of pubic revelation. Public revelation is not made based upon individuals or groups studying a text and thinking it is or is not inspired. Public revelation is made and published through a divine public authority, which is the church founded by Christ and the apostles. When this pronouncement is made, its members are then certain of the infallible pronouncement.

JM

john martin said...

“Infallibility is a property of divine revelation, not of the human listener.”

Then if its only down to a human authority that determines the extent of the canon then the canon is only a collection of texts that a group of people believe was authored by God. This is common to several other religions and doesn’t allow anyone to determine objectively which texts are and are not inspired.

“Whatever Scripture reveals it reveals infallibly - however, whatever we know, we necessarily know fallibly. That is because the Scriptures are infallible, but we are fallible.”

See above problems. Without an infallible decision to determine the canon you only have a fallible opinion of what texts are and are not inspired. So you can say if a text is inspired then it is infallible. But you don’t know for sure if any particular text is inspired, so you don’t know for sure if it is infallible.


JM

John said...

I think its fair to say Scott is using the word canon in its more historically normative fashion. Canons are formulated standards, not abstract sets.

Still, TF is free to define his own terms, but he can't expect everyone else to be on board with them.

Concerning the 39 articles, it cannot be assumed that most people, and/or the people responsible for the KJV subscribed to them. For example, In 1643, Archbishop of Armagh John Bramhall laid out the core argument against the Articles:

“Some of them are the very same thing that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper list of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths, which are proposed by the Church of England to all her sons, as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed by all Christians 'necessitate medii', under pain of damnation.

Turretinfan said...

"I think its fair to say Scott is using the word canon in its more historically normative fashion. Canons are formulated standards, not abstract sets."

Your sense of fairness is no match for my citation of Metzger.

"Still, TF is free to define his own terms, but he can't expect everyone else to be on board with them."

If you read more carefully, you'd see that isn't what is going on here.

"Concerning the 39 articles, it cannot be assumed that most people, and/or the people responsible for the KJV subscribed to them."

Pick any one of the King James Version translators and show me where he disagreed on any point with the 39 Articles.

I'm glad you brought up John Bramhall. He explains: "Therefore the Scriptures are called canonical, because they are the canon or rule of our Faith." (source).

-TurretinFan

John said...

I think the KJV itself is evidence of the rift in Anglicanism over the articles and the books. The Puritans had been printing some copies of the Geneva bible without the extra books, leading to Archbishop Abbot in 1615 forbidding the printing of any bible without them, and lessons from certain Deutero books found their way into the 1662 Prayer Book.

Were the KJV translators fully signed up to Protestantism in the 39 articles? Lancelot Andrewes was one of the more famous translators. Andrewes, preached that the only way to become a Christian is through the sacrament of Baptism. In his sermon points in one of his sermons, Andrewes said that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. In a sermon on John 20:23, Andrewes taught the doctrine of priestly absolution and confession. THE DICTIONARY OF LITERARY BIOGRAPHY affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism.

Doesn't sound like he was on board with 39 article theology to me.

Turretinfan said...

oh? which one (or more - you can use the numbers for easy reference) did his positions contradict?

John said...

Isn't it enough that he is an Anglo Catholic Arminian and the 39 articles are anti-Catholic and Calvinist?

Saying there is forgiveness of sins in the Eucharist would seem against article 31.

But its interesting to me that you don't think an Anglo Catholic Arminian is in any wise at odds with a document that purports the sufficiency of scripture for all doctrine. Apparently then there is no contradiction between Anglo-Catholic Arminianism and scriptural doctrine.

Turretinfan said...

I'll take that as a "no, I can't point to any article that his position contradicts."

John said...

Which part of "31" did you find confusing?

Turretinfan said...

Ah - so you think his position is (not just seems to be) against 31?

Turretinfan said...

Article 31 states:

XXXI. Of the one oblation of Christe finished uppon the Crosse.

The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propiciation, satisfaction for sinne, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priestes did offer Christe for the quicke and the dead; to haue remission of payne or gylt, were bias­phemous fables, and daungerous deceites.

How exactly did anything that Lancelot Andrewes wrote (or said, if you have some record of his sayings) contradict that Article?

CathApol said...

I want to thank TF for answering the questions I asked, and rather than make a point-by-point of the entire blog (as I often do), since the major points I had were summarized in the questions I asked, I have responded to TF's answers to my questions here:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/qa-with-turretinfan.html

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

John said...

Because he taught remission of guilt in the mass, which is what article 31 condemns.

Turretinfan said...

"Because he taught remission of guilt in the mass, which is what article 31 condemns."

It is interesting that you think Mr. Andrewes accepted the mass, much less that he thought that the sacrifices of the masses remit guilt. Where is your evidence of this?

-TurretinFan

John said...

Because in his Ninety-Six sermons, Volume 5 he says "there is also another power for the remission of sins, in the institution of the holy Eucharist. The words are exceedingly plain "This is My blood of the New Testament for the remission of sins".

In Volume 3 he speaks of "The blessed sacrament is reached to us, and with it is given us that for which it was given, even remission of sins.... when we partake then we have a full and perfect communion with Christ this day... His power to save in the holy Eucharist ministered".

Anonymous said...

Turretin,

So if a Catholic friend says they have more books in their Bible etc... is that a debate to enter into? If so, what are some good articles on the subject?

Turretinfan said...

Articles on the subject of the canon?

The topic can be on that can end up being book length.

I did a debate with William Albrecht on the topic a while ago, but it only really hit on the high points.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/canon-debate-with-william-albrecht.html

ChaferDTS said...

"So if a Catholic friend says they have more books in their Bible etc... is that a debate to enter into? If so, what are some good articles on the subject? "

Yes one should. Read Jerome's specific discussion on that from his writings and that of Cajetan. I believe TF has that somewhere on his blog here. Now for something in book form I would recommend DISPUTATIONS ON HOLY SCRIPTURE by William Whitaker . And also look in to THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas. Those two works would be very helpful considering the claims of some Roman Catholics on this tread concerning Anglicanism in relationship to the Thirty-Nine Articles that were clearly false.