tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post5571301810110496279..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Vincent of Lerins on "Development of Doctrine"Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger140125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-73824675466054078732010-10-14T13:39:22.668+01:002010-10-14T13:39:22.668+01:00"Direct revelation is the act of the spirit w..."Direct revelation is the act of the spirit with a direct ontological impression left on the mind of the man receiving the revelation."<br /><br />Usually the mode of revelation is that men hear a voice or see a vision. Hearing a voice is not more direct than reading a printed page.<br /><br />"Mediate revelation does not do this, therefore there is a big difference between directTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65756362502449105482010-10-14T04:10:26.725+01:002010-10-14T04:10:26.725+01:00Direct revelation is the act of the spirit with a ...Direct revelation is the act of the spirit with a direct ontological impression left on the mind of the man receiving the revelation. Mediate revelation does not do this, therefore there is a big difference between direct and mediate revelation with the later requiring an authority to verify the revelation.<br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-69689637620335891462010-10-14T01:13:38.388+01:002010-10-14T01:13:38.388+01:00JM:
With all due respect, you seem to be simply a...JM:<br /><br />With all due respect, you seem to be simply asserting: "Each of these mechanisms is not direct and does not leave an impression on other men like the direct revelation made to the prophet from God. Because of this difference, mediate revelation must be confirmed by an authority set up by God to make decisions concerning the legitimacy of the revelations."<br /><br />That Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-41373479032461034682010-10-13T22:44:47.765+01:002010-10-13T22:44:47.765+01:00Let's grant your distinction for the sake of n...Let's grant your distinction for the sake of not quibbling over semantics. What's the difference in terms of need or lack thereof to prove anything to oneself?<br /><br />-TurretinFan<br /><br />JM - The distinction is real and the need for evidence is different in both cases. Direct revelation from God to an individual, such as say an illumination of the human mind by the HS has the HS johnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-87816793000302322142010-10-08T02:23:33.697+01:002010-10-08T02:23:33.697+01:00TF, Thank you for your answering of the many false...TF, Thank you for your answering of the many false claims that John has made here. You answered them in the same way I would have done. Job well done ! :)Chafer DTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06128689713330849677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-88092918779096875562010-10-08T02:20:20.005+01:002010-10-08T02:20:20.005+01:00"Transubstantiation would be easy to defend f..."Transubstantiation would be easy to defend from the manna narrative in John 6, the institution passages in the Gospels and the passages in 1 Cor 10 and 11 concerning the body and blood of the Lord."<br /><br />That would be impossible since the RCC has not made an infallible interpretation of those passages for Roman Catholics. Therefore they have no interpretation of it. You are Chafer DTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06128689713330849677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-74758003890036246492010-10-08T02:03:11.432+01:002010-10-08T02:03:11.432+01:00"ChafterDTS,I wanted to leave this comment wi..."ChafterDTS,I wanted to leave this comment with regard to your comments in here to encourage you; not to aid you in stumbling or by them they become a stumbling block to you?"<br /><br />Thank you very much for your kind words to me. <br /><br />"Thanks again and continue letting Him use your mouth too! :)"<br /><br />You are very welcome. And glory belongs to God alone. :)Chafer DTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06128689713330849677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10822350369095833862010-10-08T00:01:11.248+01:002010-10-08T00:01:11.248+01:00Let's grant your distinction for the sake of n...Let's grant your distinction for the sake of not quibbling over semantics. What's the difference in terms of need or lack thereof to prove anything to oneself?<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-64433870476543502822010-10-07T22:52:56.154+01:002010-10-07T22:52:56.154+01:00The Bible is direct revelation.
Direct revelation...The Bible is direct revelation.<br /><br />Direct revelation is when God reveals a truth to the individual, such as a prophet and mediate revelation is when the prophet mediates the truth to other men. The bible is mediate revelation.<br /><br />JMjohnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-13864508963882866842010-10-06T01:24:41.740+01:002010-10-06T01:24:41.740+01:00The Bible is direct revelation.The Bible is direct revelation.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-64314987798847275852010-10-06T01:21:08.798+01:002010-10-06T01:21:08.798+01:00FT (previously) -We don't have to prove anythi...FT (previously) -We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.<br /><br />JM – another vague sentence that goes nowhere. <br /><br />I answer: But you seem to have forgotten that my words were modeled on your words: "Abraham doesn't have to prove anything to himself because God has revealed it to him and he johnmartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672413192359113485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10965392648115836242010-10-05T16:31:05.038+01:002010-10-05T16:31:05.038+01:00"Was the council of Acts 15 infallible? Has G..."Was the council of Acts 15 infallible? Has God ever given the gift of infallibility to the church?"<br /><br />The Scriptures, given to the church, are infallible.<br /><br />There is no particular need to decide whether the council of Acts 15 was infallible.<br /><br />- TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-91206994876105484182010-10-05T16:28:12.699+01:002010-10-05T16:28:12.699+01:00"Each Council declared the authority of all t..."Each Council declared the authority of all the previous Councils and the 6th was no different."<br /><br />Which previous councils did Nicaea endorse?<br /><br />How do you explain the contradiction between the 3rd and 4th ECs with respect to the creed (<a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/10/inconvenient-conciliar-truth-part-20.html" rel="nofollow">link to discussion</a>).Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-16988187293436490932010-10-05T13:52:29.042+01:002010-10-05T13:52:29.042+01:00FT (previously) -We don't have to prove anythi...FT (previously) -We don't have to prove anything to ourselves, because God reveals it to us in the Bible, and we know it from experience.<br /><br />JM – another vague sentence that goes nowhere. <br /><br />I answer: But you seem to have forgotten that my words were modeled on your words: "Abraham doesn't have to prove anything to himself because God has revealed it to him and he Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-73536662904105077782010-09-29T22:27:30.580+01:002010-09-29T22:27:30.580+01:00"Remember,I am not Catholic."
Oh? Ok.
..."Remember,I am not Catholic."<br /><br />Oh? Ok.<br /><br />"Neither Rome, nor the EO, or prots would strictly appeal to Vincent's canon (maybe the EO would the most)."<br /><br />ok<br /><br />"He does later discuss development but in a cursory fashion."<br /><br />For example? What do you have mind?<br /><br />"That Vincent and Cassian were likely Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-46655133572788734182010-09-29T22:17:22.803+01:002010-09-29T22:17:22.803+01:00TF,
Remember,I am not Catholic.
Neither Rome, no...TF,<br />Remember,I am not Catholic. <br /><br />Neither Rome, nor the EO, or prots would strictly appeal to Vincent's canon (maybe the EO would the most). He does later discuss development but in a cursory fashion.<br />That Vincent and Cassian were likely perturbed with development in Augustine is known, but I was highlighting his appeal to papal, conciliar, and patristic authority as Canadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320583233909625727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-51053408247852289712010-09-29T21:11:29.952+01:002010-09-29T21:11:29.952+01:00TF, this is brilliant!
I've shown how Vincent...TF, this is brilliant!<br /><br /><i>I've shown how Vincent actually says the opposite, he says that the heretics can be refuted from Scripture alone (particularly the older heretics).</i><br /><br />Oldest heretics=Adam and Eve! :)<br /><br />It seems to me, of the many things <i>sola scriptura</i> assists in embracing is all the kinds of heresy that deceives anyone.<br /><br />The puzzle, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-35756254698711148382010-09-29T20:46:42.312+01:002010-09-29T20:46:42.312+01:00[cont'd from part 1]
"Scripture is not v...[cont'd from part 1]<br /><br />"Scripture is not viewed by the fathers as being in opposition to the church's Tradition as they issue from the same Holy Spirit who leads her into all truth."<br /><br />There may be some sense in which Vincent would agree with this, but keep in mind that his approach is to look for a patristic consensus - the Holy Spirit guiding many individualsTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-86589064749834966352010-09-29T20:46:33.614+01:002010-09-29T20:46:33.614+01:00"Thanks for your time and effort here, I appr..."Thanks for your time and effort here, I appreciate it."<br /><br />Thanks for your interaction as well.<br /><br />"Again, in no way is Vincent, or myself denigrating scripture itself."<br /><br />You don't follow Vincent's canon (nor do I). I don't lump your position and Vincent's together, and I don't think you intend to denigrate Scripture, though yourTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-45462259406653701112010-09-29T20:03:39.054+01:002010-09-29T20:03:39.054+01:00Canadian,
I am not asking you to write a book or ...Canadian,<br /><br />I am not asking you to write a book or do research for one hereon.<br /><br />All I am asking is for your opinion and speculation as to the things you have been convinced of with regard to three things Vincent?<br /><br />One, which Bible, oh, okay. So your belief is Sirach was a part of the collection of Holy Writ he was referring too?<br /><br />Would 1 John be in that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-8559227979223337252010-09-29T19:14:34.901+01:002010-09-29T19:14:34.901+01:00Natamllc,
A response to your line of questioning ...Natamllc,<br /> A response to your line of questioning would require more content than the Commonitory itself, likely. Just read it for yourself. He appeals to papal, patristic, and conciliar authority as well as the "Divine Oracles" which evidently includes Sirach. (Commonitory 21:51)Canadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320583233909625727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-30141086351590339212010-09-29T18:15:56.721+01:002010-09-29T18:15:56.721+01:00Canadian,
if you would indulge me a bit?
You wro...Canadian,<br /><br />if you would indulge me a bit?<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>Natamllc,<br />Vincent is arguing that due to the depth of scripture's true meaning, it is necessary to have the church's AUTHORITY to be sure of it. He says that it has been this way from the beginning! His whole point is to say that scripture IS NOT sufficient to interpret itself, and neither is it Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-25745477661006675072010-09-29T17:49:08.704+01:002010-09-29T17:49:08.704+01:00TF,
Thanks for your time and effort here, I appre...TF,<br />Thanks for your time and effort here, I appreciate it. <br /><br />Again, in no way is Vincent, or myself denigrating scripture itself. Vincent's whole point is to confront the objector's view that scripture OF ITSELF negates the need for the church's AUTHORITATIVE interpretation. Scripture is God-breathed words for a Spirit-filled church. The two go together, inseparably. Canadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320583233909625727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-30695471021470724522010-09-29T13:07:13.578+01:002010-09-29T13:07:13.578+01:00Notice that Vincent does not say, "someone ma...Notice that Vincent does not say, "someone may object," but rather "someone may ask." The reason why they ask is that Scripture is sufficient in itself and more than sufficient.<br /><br /><i>But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80024003763004102972010-09-29T03:06:51.236+01:002010-09-29T03:06:51.236+01:00TF,
Objector:
"Since scripture is sufficient...TF,<br />Objector: <br />"Since scripture is sufficient of itself..." <br />(false premise)<br />....what need is there of interpretive authority?..."<br />(incorrect conclusion)<br /><br />St. Vincent: "For this reason..."<br />(answer to objectors incorrect conclusion based on his false premise).<br /><br />This is evident because Vincent continues on to show that Canadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320583233909625727noreply@blogger.com