Romans 8 and the Westminster Confession

 The Westminster Confession was adopted without proof texts.  Nevertheless, it was sent back to the Assembly to include proof texts.  Accordingly, the Assembly did include proof texts after the fact -- not as though the doctrines were not based on Scripture, but simply because that format of the Confession was not the original vision.  The proof texts were not subject to the same level of debate as the text, and consequently one should be very careful about putting too much weight on the interrelationship between the text of the Confession and the associated proof texts.

That said, it is interesting to see how often Romans 8 was selected and for which points of doctrine.  In the following, I've highlighted references to Romans 8:28 and following, though there were additional references to the first half of the chapter.

Some of the uses will not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.  The passage relates to God's Eternal Decree, to Providence, to Effectual Calling, and to Perseverance of the Saints.  What may be of greater interest is the passage's relationship to consolation.  WCF III(VIII) explains: "So shall this doctrine afford matter ... of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel," citing Romans 8 among other passages.

Chapter III. Of God's Eternal Decree

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,(i) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto:(k) and all to the praise of His glorious grace.(l)

(i) Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30; II Tim. 1:9; I Thess. 5:9.

(k) Rom. 9:11, 13, 16; Eph. 1:4, 9.

(l) Eph. 1:6, 12.

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto.(m) Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,(n) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,(o) and kept by His power through faith, unto salvation.(p) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.(q)

(m) I Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:4, 5; Eph. 2:10; II Thess. 2:13.

(n) I Thess. 5:9, 10; Titus 2:14.

(o) Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; II Thess. 2:13.

(p) I Pet. 1:5.

(q) John 17:9; Rom. 8:28 to the end; John 6:64, 65; John 10:26; John 8:47; I John 2:19.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,(s) that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.(t) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God,(u) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.(w)

(s) Rom. 9:20; Rom. 11:33; Deut. 29:29.

(t) II Pet. 1:10.

(u) Eph. 1:6; Rom. 11:33.

(w) Rom. 11:5, 6, 20; II Pet. 1:10; Rom. 8:33; Luke 10:20.

Chapter V. Of Providence.

VII. As the providence of God doth in general reach to all creatures, so after a most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof.(c)

(c) I Tim. 4:10; Amos 9:8, 9; Rom. 8:28; Isa. 43:3, 4, 5, 14.

Chapter VIII. Of Christ the Mediator.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake;(x) which that He might discharge, He was made under the law,(y) and did perfectly fulfil it,(z) endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul,(a) and most painful sufferings in His body;(b) was crucified, and died;(c) was buried, and remained under the power of death; yet saw no corruption.(d) On the third day He arose from the dead,(e) with the same body in which He suffered,(f) with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father,(g) making intercession,(h) and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.(i)

(x) Ps. 40:7, 8 with Heb. 10:5 to 10; John 10:18; Phil. 2:8.

(y) Gal. 4:4.

(z) Matt. 3:15; Matt. 5:17.

(a) Matt. 26:37, 38; Luke 22:44; Matt. 27:46.

(b) Matt. 26, 27 chapters.

(c) Phil. 2:8.

(d) Acts. 2:23, 24, 27; Acts 13:37; Rom. 6:9.

(e) I Cor. 15:3, 4.

(f) John 20:25, 27.

(g) Mark 16:19.

(h) Rom. 8:34; Heb. 9:24; Heb. 7:25.

(i) Rom. 14:9, 10; Acts 1:11; Acts 10:42; Matt. 13:40, 41, 42; Jude ver. 6; II Pet. 2:4.

VIII. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same,(p) making intercession for them,(q) and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation,(r) effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit;(s) overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.(t)

(p) John 6:37, 39; John 10:15, 16.

(q) I John 2:1, 2; Rom. 8:34.

(r) John 15:13, 15; Eph. 1:7, 8, 9; John 17:6.

(s) John 14:26; Heb. 12:2; II Cor. 4:13; Rom. 8:9, 14; Rom. 15:18, 19; John 17:17.

(t) Ps. 110:1; I Cor. 15:25, 26; Mal. 4:2, 3; Col. 2:15.

Chapter X. Of Effectual Calling.

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call,(a) by His Word and Spirit,(b) out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;(c) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,(d) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;(e) renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power determining them to that which is good,(f) and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:(g) yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.(h)

(a) Rom. 8:30; Rom. 11:7; Eph. 1:10, 11.

(b) II Thess. 2:13, 14; II Cor. 3:3, 6.

(c) Rom. 8:2; Eph. 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5; II Tim. 1:9, 10.

(d) Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17, 18.

(e) Ezek. 36:26.

(f) Ezek. 11:19; Phil. 2:13; Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:27.

(g) Eph. 1:19; John 6:44, 45.

(h) Cant. 1:4; Ps. 110:3; John 6:37; Rom. 6:16, 17, 18.

Chapter XI. Of Justification.

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth;(a) not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,(b) they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.(c)

(a) Rom. 8:30; Rom. 3:24.

(b) Rom. 4:5, 6, 7, 8; II Cor. 5:19, 21; Rom. 3:22, 24, 25, 27, 28; Tit. 3:5, 7; Eph. 1:7; Jer. 23:6; I Cor. 1:30, 31; Rom. 5:17, 18, 19.

(c) Acts 10:43; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:19; Acts 13:38, 39; Eph. 2:7, 8.

III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.(f) Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them;(g) and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;(h) and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace;(i) that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners.(k)

(f) Rom. 5:8, 9, 10, 19; I Tim. 2:5, 6; Heb. 10:10, 14; Dan. 9:24, 26; Isa. 53:4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12.

(g) Rom. 8:32.

(h) II Cor. 5:21; Matt. 3:17; Eph. 5:2.

(i) Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7.

(k) Rom. 3:26; Eph. 2:7.

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,(l) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:(m) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.(n)

(l) Gal. 3:8; I Pet. 1:2, 19, 20; Rom. 8:30.

(m) Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25.

(n) Col. 1:21, 22; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Chapter XVII. Of the Perseverance of the Saints.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;(b) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ;(c) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them;(d) and the nature of the covenant of grace:(e) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.(f)

(b) II Tim. 2:18, 19; Jer. 31:3.

(c) Heb. 10:10, 14; Heb. 13:20, 21; Heb. 9:12, 13, 14, 15; Rom. 8:33 to the end; John 17:11, 24; Luke 22:32; Heb. 7:25.

(d) John 14:16, 17; I John 2:27; I John 3:9.

(e) Jer. 32:40.

(f) John 10:28; II Thess. 3:3; I John 2:19.

Chapter XX. Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.

I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;(a) and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;(b) from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grace, and everlasting damnation;(c) as also, in their free access to God,(d) and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.(e) All which were common also to believers under the law.(f) But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;(g) and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,(h) and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.(i)

(a) Tit. 2:14; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13.

(b) Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 6:14.

(c) Rom. 8:28; Ps. 119:71; I Cor. 15:54, 55, 56, 57; Rom. 8:1.

(d) Rom. 5:1, 2.

(e) Rom. 8:14, 15; I John 4:18.

(f) Gal. 3:9, 14.

(g) Gal. 4:1, 2, 3, 6, 7; Gal. 5:1; Acts 15:10, 11.

(h) Heb. 4:14, 16; Heb. 10:19, 20, 21, 22.

(i) John 7:38, 39; II Cor. 3:13, 17, 18.

Origen on the Golden Chain

 Rufinus (d. 411) provided Latin translations of many of Origen's works, including his commentary on Romans (published in two volumes in the Fathers of the Church series).

Origen, of course, predates the Calvinism/Arminianism debate by more than a millenium.  Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear his comments on the text.  Origen agrees with my point that those who God foreknows are a specific group of people - a subset of humanity.

Origen makes a connection to 2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Likewise, Origen contrasts with Matthew 7:23:

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Of course, we affirm both the universal prescience of God as well as general omniscience, but there is an important sense in which God knowing or foreknowing refers to God's special love and care. 

Origen puts the challenge this way:

"He says, 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.' Let us not pass over what he has said: 'he foreknew and predestined.' For I think that just as he has not said concerning everyone that they have been predestined, so he has not said concerning everyone, 'those whom he foreknew.' For not according to the common opinion of the multitude should it be thought that God foreknows good and evil, but we should think in accordance with the custom of Holy Scripture. For, let the person who is diligent in the Scriptures observe where he finds Scripture to say that God foreknows the evil, in the same way it plainly says in the present passage concerning the good, that 'those whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.' For if it is those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, and yet no evil man can be conformed to the image of the Son of God, then it is obvious that he is only speaking of the good, 'whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed the image of his Son.' Of the others, however, God is said not only not to foreknow, but not even know them. For 'the Lord knows those who are his.' But to those who are not worthy to be known by God, the Savior says, 'Depart from me, because I have never known you, you workers of iniquity.' Therefore, in the same way, even in the present passage, whomever God foreknew he has also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son."

(Book 7, Chapter 8, section 7(5), FotC vol. 104, pp. 85-86)

Origen also expressly disagrees with the idea that to "foreknow" here means to foresee.  Origen expresses it this way:

"Above he said, 'Those whom he foreknew, these he also predestined.' Now he adds, 'And those whom he predestined, these he also called; and those whom he called, these he also justified.' And if we interpret 'foreknew' and 'predestined' in the general sense, it will surely seem that the one who is justified is justified because he has been called; and the one who has been called is called because he has been predestined; and the one who has been predestined is predestined because he has been foreknown. Yet once more, the contrary is to be understood. Whoever is not justified is not justified because he has not been called; and the reason anyone is not called is because he has not been predestined; and the reason one is not predestined is because he was not foreknown. And behold, into what an absurd interpretation would they fall who understand in this case the foreknowledge of God, as if only someone who knows beforehand what will come to pass afterwards. For through the things we have set forth above, it is found that God did not foreknow those whom he has not predestined. And again, if to this popular understanding is applied that which says that 'those whom he called, these he also justified,' we shall be opening a huge window to those who deny that it lies within man's power to be saved. For they say: If it is those whom God has foreknown that he has also predestined, and it is those whom he has predestined that he has also called, and it is those whom he called that he has also justified, those who are not justified are not to blame. For they were neither called, nor predestined, nor foreknown."

(Book 7, Chapter 8, section 8(2), FotC vol. 104, pp. 87-88)

Origen then immediately goes on to object that Judas was called but not justified, and certainly not glorified.

To resolve the tension that Origen sees in the text, Origen appeals to "And Adam knew his wife" (Genesis 4:1) and the description of Rebecca as "She was a virgin, a man had not known her." (Genesis 24:16).  Likewise, in a different sense, the sons of Levi were said to be punished because none of them "knew" his own father or mother (Deuteronomy 33:9). 

"Furthermore, you will discover many things said in the Scriptures about "knowing" with this sense; and therefore, it is established that in the present passage as well the Apostle had set down this word 'knowing' in accordance with the custom of Holy Scripture. His aim is to show that those who are foreknown by God are those upon whom God had placed his own love and affection because he knew what sort of persons they were."

(Book 7, Chapter 8, section 8(3), FotC vol. 104, pp. 89)

You will notice, I hope, that this is a slightly different understanding than I've proposed.  If anything, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that God had placed his own love and affection on them despite the fact that he knew what sort of persons they were.  

Ultimately, Origen is not a Calvinist nor a proto-Calvinist. Nevertheless, he is interesting because of his fluency in Greek, his nearness to the apostles, and the fact that he records people disagreeing over these sorts of issues already in his day.

When Origen encounters the choice of Jacob over Esau in chapter 9, he will be quick to agree that the election was not based on works done by the people.  Nevertheless, it seems as though Origen's resolution is that some people are better and more worthy by virtue of who they are.  That position also seems to fall short of the Apostle's doctrine.

Exegetical Thoughts on the Golden Chain in Romans 8

Our text for consideration today is Romans 8. The passage is a marvelously Trinitarian passage, with the activities of the Father, Son, and Spirit shown to be in harmony throughout.  The passage is part of a larger passage designed to comfort the Romans reading this letter, because the Trinity is on their side.

Romans 8:28-30
8:28  οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν 29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς· 30  οὓς δὲ προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν 

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The point of this text is that God works all things together for the good of the elect.  Not simply that they work together on their own, or in the abstract, but that they work together harmoniously because God is behind it.  From beginning to end, it is all God.

The chain begins with "foreknow." This verb (προέγνω, a form of the verb proginosko) is used five times in the New Testament, in four different forms.  The next use in Romans will come in chapter 11, when Paul wraps up his objection that he will first raise in Romans 9. 

Rom 11:2-8 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Romans 11 is, of course, a few pages later in the letter.  That said, it's in the New Testament, in a book by the same human author, in the very same book as the text under discussion, and connecting to the discussion of Romans 9:1-6, which comes only a few verses after the "Golden Chain."  So, the usage in Romans 11 is more relevant than the usage in other books of the NT, books by other humans authors, and certainly then usage in books by uninspired writers.

In Romans 8 and in Romans 11, the object of foreknowledge is people.  The object is not deeds.  The object is not works.  The object is not faith.  In Romans 8, one might think that the issue is ambiguous.  After all, much of Romans is about the difference between obtaining salvation by faith as distinct from works.

Romans 11 puts that interpretation of Romans 8 to rest, because it explains that the election obtained and the rest were blinded, quoting from Isaiah 29:10, which states: "For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered."  We also see Paul's reliance on Isaiah 29 in Romans 9, where Paul borrows an analogy from Isaiah 29:16.

Now, the idea that the elect were foreknown because they were not blinded nor given the spirit of deep sleep is absurd.  God cast away people, yes, Paul admits, but God did not cast away those he foreknew, whom Paul equates with the elect.

The next New Testament usage, which is far less significant, is Luke's report of Paul's words in Acts 26, there, Luke records Paul as saying:

Act 26:4-5
My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

This is plainly a very different usage of the word.  Paul is speaking about human knowledge, not divine knowledge.  On the other hand, one important grammatical point remains constant.  The object of the foreknowledge was Paul, the man.  In this case, it also rolls over into his deeds.  The point, however, is to call these people as character witnesses: people who had an intimate knowledge of him and were his close associates and friends from his youth.  They previously knew him, though now they are not acquainted with him.  

The next two usages of the verb foreknow are found in Peter's letters, one in each.  Peter writes:

1 Peter 1:19-20
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Some translations will translate the verb as "foreknown" here instead of "foreordained," but the consistent point is that it was Christ himself, the person, who was foreknown.

Finally, in his second epistle, Peter writes:

2 Peter 3:17
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Here we finally have an example of knowing things, rather than people.  It's certainly a different usage, but it shows that the object of foreknowledge can be things, rather than people, even though it is always people in Paul's usage.

These are, of course, the five uses of proginosko (Strong's number 4267) as distinct from prognosis (4268).

Prognosis (4268) is used twice, both times by Peter, once as reported by Luke in Acts: 

Act 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

In this instance, Christ is said to have been delivered by God's counsel and foreknowledge.  The object of the foreknowledge is not explicit in this verse. Nevertheless, it is grammatically parallel with God's counsel.  Thus, it logically precedes the events to which it relates, rather than logically following them.

And prognosis is used once in Peter's first epistle:

1 Peter 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

This incredibly Trinitarian passage, provides a triple action of God: election according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.

Once again, in this passage, foreknowledge cannot refer to foreknowledge of the actions of the people, because the foreknowledge leads to the election, which leads to the other things, including obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ.

Returning to the golden chain passage, we see this progression:

(1) For whom he did foreknow, (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω )
(2) he also did predestinate (καὶ προώρισεν)
(3a) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·)
(2) Moreover whom he did predestinate, (οὓς δὲ προώρισεν)
(3b) them he also called: and whom he called, (τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν)
(4) them he also justified: and whom he justified, (τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν)
(5) them he also glorified. (τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν)

The discussion hinges largely on the question of foreknowledge.  In this text itself, it seems clear that the object of foreknowledge is people.  After all, it is not foreseen actions that are glorified, nor foreseen actions that are justified, nor foreseen actions that are called.  It is not foreseen actions that are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that foreknowledge is a knowledge of the person in advance, not a vision of their future action.

After all, vision of their future actions runs into immediate conflict with link (3a) of the chain.  Their actions are predestinated.  In particular, they are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son.

Notice as well that even in this passage designed to comfort the Romans, Paul points to the adoption of sons (something he had mentioned earlier in the passage) as having the objection of providing many brethren for Jesus.  The purpose is not to reward those who are foreseen as being more deserving (or less deserving) or to reward good and punish evil (though God certainly does do such things).  Instead, the purpose is God-centered, like everything else in salvation for Paul.

Returning to the point about foreknowledge, notice a point that is often overlooked in these discussions.  The same group that is mentioned in link (5) has to be the same group in link (4) and so on.  That extends all the way back to link (1).  God foreknows certain people, and not others.  This is one defeater for the argument that foreknowledge is foresight of faith, works, or anything else.  After all, those who God foreknows, he predestinates, but we do not claim God predestinates all. Universalism is wrong.

Moreover, this interpretation of the golden chain is confirmed by the verses that immediately follow:

Rom 8:31-39

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The point of the golden chain is the love of God.  Moreover, the use of the term "know" to mean "love" or the like is well within the semantic range of the word.  Paul's own usage in Acts 26, in a completely different context, confirms this kind of usage as reasonable for foreknow.  It's not controversial that Paul is talking about people who were close to him in that passage.  Likewise, it should not be controversial to accept that Paul is talking about God having an intimate love and connection with people that extends back.  

If Romans 8:31-39 is an explanation of the passage that precedes it, then the most logical understanding of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 is of God loving certain particular people.  After all, if we were merely speaking of God's prescience, surely God's prescience extends to all creation, not just some people.  Furthermore, while much of Romans is about faith, Paul's point in this passage is not about the triumph of faith over works, but rather about the triumph of the love of God against everything.

Look back over Romans 8:1-27.  The theme there is one of comfort.  There is no condemnation (vs. 1), the Spirit makes free from sin and death (vs. 2), God condemned sin (vs. 3) and we should walk in righteousness (vss. 3-6).  The flesh can do nothing (vss. 7-8) but if you have the Spirit and Christ you have life (vss. 9-11), we are debtors to the Spirit not the flesh and are sons of God (vss. 12-16), as children we will get all the benefits children get including glory after the present sufferings which we endure in hope (vss. 17-25), the Spirit helps us and intercedes to the Father for us (vss. 26-27).

Notice that within these words of comfort we have another important point, the contrast between what God accomplishes and what we would be apart from God.  That point is brought forth in vss. 4-10:

Romans 8:4-10 

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh,
-- but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
-- but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death;
-- but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
-- But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
-- And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The startling contrast in this text demonstrates the important difference between the "foreknown" group that Paul is about to discuss and the others.  The difference is the Spirit and Christ.  After all, those who do not have the Spirit have just the flesh, they are carnally minded, and most critically are not just not subject to the law of God, but they cannot be.  They cannot please God.

By contrast, the elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.  The elect are debtors to live in righteousness, not in order to obtain a reward from God, but because they have been blessed beyond their ability to repay.

Thus, once again, it would be impossible for those who are "foreknown" logically prior to predestination to be "foreknown" as anything other than displeasing to God.  Without the Spirit, they are in the flesh, carnally minded, and so forth.

On the other hand, if God foreknows us, we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son.  We will be called, justified, and glorified.

Because of the linking among the links of the chain, the justification that the called receive will inevitably follow.  After all, if Christ died for us, God will give us all things.  It would make no sense for God to sacrifice Christ for us and then give us a calling, but not justification, or justification but not glorification.  Yet again, all things work together for good to those who are the called according to the purpose of God.  

The called are the same group that are ultimately glorified.  That's why we sometimes refer to this as effectual calling. We could call it other names instead, but the point is that the call leads inevitably to justification and ultimately glorification.  It's part of God's predestination.  Moreover, God's predestination is founded on God's foreknowledge of particular people.  More could be said on this point, but the main thing to be said is that this is, in context, love for those people, not foresight of their deeds. 

Trinitarian Harmony in Romans 8

There is a Trinitarian harmony that shines forth in Romans 8. This can be seen if we highlight the references to each of the person of the Trinity:

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In particular, notice that the Spirit intercedes for us (vs. 26) and so does the Son (vs. 34), moreover the Spirit is the Spirit of God (vs. 14) and the Spirit of Christ (vs. 9).  Moreover, the mission of the Son and the Spirit, while it includes intercesssion with the Father is not at odds with the father.  Instead God sent his Son (vs. 3) and the Spirit makes intercession according to God's will (vs. 27). We are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (v. 17) via adoption brought about through the Spirit (vs. 15).

Romans 8 - Textual Issues

In preparation for tomorrow's exegetical debate, I reviewed the text to compare for textual issues. As you know, I mostly prefer using the KJV. On the other hand, some folks will point out that the ESV is based on a better Greek text. As it turns out, there are few translatable differences between the texts. In one place the KJV omits "Jesus," while in another place the ESV omits "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." For the debate about Romans 8:29-30, these differences are not particularly significant. 8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ESV omits "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" here although it has it in verse 4 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. ESV has "you" being freed instead of "me" and the ESV makes "in Christ Jesus" modify "free" rather than "life" 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. ESV has the longer reading "Christ Jesus" instead of the shorter reading "Christ" 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope ESV connects "in hope" to the next verse, though the meaning seems to be approximately the same 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Here the ESV makes explicit that the one who makes intercession is the Spirit 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. The ESV footnotes point out that some manuscripts make explicit that God is the one working all things together for good 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. 31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 36 As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Marriage and Theonomy

1) Marriage is for both believers and unbelievers.

2) Marriage is not a sacrament, although marriage does provide a spiritual illustration.

3) In Scripture, particularly in the Old Testament, the civil magistrate is given jurisdiction for policing marriage including criminal prosecution of adultery.

4) The general equity of the OT civil law on marriage is at least that the civil magistrate has authority and duty to regulate marriage.

5) Jesus himself makes a distinction between moral principles around marriage and civil law rules. For example, Jesus explains that the moral principles around divorce are more strict than the OT civil law.

6) We Christians have to obey both the moral rules and the civil law rules (unless doing the latter comes into conflict with the former). So, even if we live in an "easy divorce" location, we should not treat marriage lightly.

7) If you're a copy-and-paste theonomist who thinks the only legitimate civil laws are those of the Torah, keep in mind that you are going to have a very different set of laws. There was, for example, no prohibition on bigamy by men.

8) Assuming you're not a copy-and-paste theonomist, then we are not stuck with the OT civil law found in the Torah.

9) In that case, the civil law (whether American or Texan or Mexican or whatever place one finds oneself) matters. Since the general equity of the OT civil law on marriage is that the civil magistrate has a duty to police it, then it follows that the civil law of one's current residence matters.

Thoughts on Blogging at Alpha and Omega Ministries

Apparently as far back as 2004, I was blogging at Alpha and Omega Ministries' team blog. I really don't recall it being before 2006 or 2007, but that's what the time stamps seem to say. For around a decade (give or take), I was a fairly active contributor to the blog. In 2016, after the first quarter, I basically didn't blog. Then in 2017, 2018, and 2019, I think I had about one post per year. I hadn't posted anything new this year either. I'm not a contributor to that blog any longer. Nevertheless, I wish them all the best. I have no idea whether they plan to keep my articles up or take them down (link to articles here). I think I have a mirror copy of most of the articles here, although perhaps not all.

Kenneth M. Wilson's "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-Free Free Will'" - Calvinism Discussion

Since one vocal contra-Calvinist has been relying on Dr. Wilson's materials to bash Calvinism, it makes sense to discuss every single place that Dr. Wilson mentions John Calvin in his book.

Based on a text search for "Calvin" within the book, there is exactly one hit:

Kolakowski argues that the Church's repeated anathemas on the teachings by Luther, Calvin, and the Jansenists also condemned Augustine's novel teachings on 'double predestination,' total incapacity of 'the will' for good, irresistible grace, "non-free free will," and limited atonement.[12]
[fn 12: Kolakowski (1995), 3-33.]

Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009) was a Polish anti-Marxist philosopher. Kolakowski's "God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal's Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism," is evidently the work Wilson was citing. He apparently refers to Kolakowski's work a couple more times.

Kolakowski's book begins with part one, "Why did the Catholic Church Condemn the Teaching of Saint Augustine?" (pp. 3-112) The sub-section boldly titled, "What Was Wrong with Augustine?" begins at page 30.

I couldn't figure out from looking at Kolakowski's material what Wilson's quotation mark convention meant. It feels like the single marks are non-adoptive quotations of individual words or phrases (aka scare quotes) and double quotations are Wilson's own paraphrase. In any event, the usage is - at best - distracting.

At page 5, Kolakowski fires this salvo:

This is an odd paradox for the "provisionalist" crowd, who don't want to be considered Pelagian, but nevertheless don't want to accept Augustine.

From what I can tell, Kolakowski does not opine on whether Augustine was the originator of the doctrines he taught. Kolakowski, at page 4, explains:

All of these, per Kolakowski, "defined their doctrinal stance first by giving their own interpretation of the canonical texts, in particular Paul's letter to the Romans...."

In any event, I'll end this meandering post here.

Benedetto Plazza's Help(?) in the Immaculate Conception Debate

In Mr. Albrecht's debate with Tony Costa on the immaculate conception, Mr. Albrecht raised a question as to the popes who denied the immaculate conception during one of the cross-examinations. Tony pointed to Schaff, who in turn pointed to Launoy. Mr. Albrecht followed up by asking if Tony had a citation to where John XXII said what he is identified as saying. He went on to insinuate that Launoy was just making things up, calling him a Socinian and so on (we addressed some of that ad hominem in a previous post).

I respond:

1) Note that Launoy himself identified this as John XXII or Benedict XII. He was not certain which pope wrote this. This is actually a mark of honesty, integrity, and caution on the part of Launoy.

2) Benedetto Plazza is about the only author I could find (possibly this reflects more on my searching than on extant disputations) who tried to discuss Launoy's assertions. In itself, this is a massive argument from silence, but it also explains why Schaff was willing to pass on the list without presenting counterpoints.

3) BP (in his Cause of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 226) points us to Codex 4163 in the Royal Gallic Library, which contains manuscript sermons of Pope John XXII. Launoy pointed us to a manuscript sermon in the library of Cardinal Mazarin. The sermon evidently was a sermon on the feast of the assumption of Mary - the first sermon on that subject in the collection. Thanks to the French National Library, and BP's help, I was able to locate the very manuscript that corresponds to these indicators:

Here's the entry:

Cote : Latin 3290
Ancienne cote : Mazarin 1031
Ancienne cote : Regius 4163
Johannes XXII papa , Sermones.

The page with the quotation can be found here (link to page)(related link)(another related link), which also provides context for the quotation (highlighting of the original Latin is mine):



Evidently Launoy as uncertain as to whether the title page indication of authorship was correct, which attributes the sermons to John XXII (though note that the original hand of this manuscript identifies it as a papal sermon). The scholar Noël Valois, in "Jacques Duese, pape sous le nom de Jean XXII," concludes that the sermons in this manuscript are John XXII's, and I see no other more recent scholarship to the contrary. To be fair, John XXII isn't the most notable pope of all time, though part of the Avignon papacy.

There is also a manuscript collection of John XXII sermons in the Vatican library if you are interested (link 1)(link 2). I don't think that this particular sermon is in that collection, but I have not fully read the Vatican manuscript.

Schaff and Launoy Pre-Response

Another area that Mr. William Albrecht may choose to attack in our debate scheduled for tomorrow is the veracity of the historians from whom the list of popes came, Philip Schaff. Schaff is neither omniscient not infallible, and his conclusions and findings (like those of any historian), are open to challenge. That said, he is a leading Protestant historian, and has been accused by some of being too "Pro-Catholic." That said, he was quite definitely Protestant, and for some Roman Catholics that might be too much to handle.

Someone might say that, in any event, a historian is only as good as his sources. In this case, the source Schaff cites is another notable historian, Jean de Launoy. Launoy was the myth-buster of his time and an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church. His work was not well received by those who love their traditions, and the traditions he attacked included the claim that Mary Magdelene spent time in Provence, France. He got the reputation of being excessively skeptical of the miraculous, a charge that led to him being described having a sort of Socinian rationalism. But wait, there's more.

Launoyle - le dénicheur de saints ('the Sainthunter') - managed to vex the Carmelites and Pope Benedict XIV, the latter of which ended up attacking Launoy's character in a papal bull (De Festis). How did Launoy do this? As "A Catholic Dictionary," (Addis and Arnold eds.) reports on the entry for "Scapular," Launoy proved that the Sabbatine bull of Pope John XXII was, in fact, a clumsy forgery, and that one attributed to Pope Alexander V was another forgery designed to cover the first. As the Sabbatine Bull provided an indulgence in association with the use of the scapular, as well as because it recounted an alleged Marian apparition, it was much beloved by folks like Pope Benedict XIV.

Benedict XIV has negative comments for Launoy ("impudentissime, turpissimeque mentitum"), but the dictionary mentioned above refers to his debunking of the forgery, "a dissertation of wonderful learning."

As Sherry L. Reams described it: "Launoy--a priest and doctor of theology whose major offense was to demonstrate the absurdity of such famous medieval legends as those casting Dionysius the Areopagite as the first bishop of Paris and crediting the foundation of the church in Provence to Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene--aroused such passionate opposition among his countrymen that he gained a lasting reputation as an impious enemy of the saints." (The Leganda Aurea, University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 32)

As icing on the cake, Launoy was Gallican as opposed to being an ultramontanist. Gallicans took the position that papal power was limited by the authority of the bishops and temporal governments. Whether this was the cause or effect of Benedict XIV execrations, who knows.

Suffice to suggest that the extant criticism of him is more about a disagreement with his conclusion than an attack on his historical methods. Like Schaff, he is neither omniscient nor infallible. Neither of those, however, should prevent us from benefiting from his historical insights.

I should point out that Benedict XIV would not have liked Launoy's list of popes that denied the immaculate conception. Reportedly his "golden bull," Gloriosae Dominae, was one of the stepping stones toward the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (and toward a future definition of Mary Co-Redemptrix), and referred to Mary as "Queen of Heaven" (compare Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19&25).

"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott regarding the Immaculate Conception

In "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," Ludwig Ott describes the historical development of the dogma (link to starting page of discussion). Ott traces the dogma back to Eadmer, a twelfth century British monk. Shortly thereafter, Ott tells us that Bernard of Clairvaux "warned the faithful that this was an unfounded innovation, and taught that Mary was sanctified after conception only, that is, when she was already in the womb." Likewise, Ott acknowledges that "Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary." Nevertheless, Ott argues that they taught the immaculate conception implicitly by teaching Mary's most perfect purity and holiness and the similarity and contrast between Mary and Eve. Nevertheless, though Ephraim the Syrian may be brought forth as an example of these high views of Mary, they still fall short of teaching the immaculate conception. That is why it is not until the 12th century that we see -as Ott puts it - the first monograph the subject. Moreover, that view was met with immediate resistance. As Ott explains: "Under the influence of St. Bernard, the leading theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Petrus Lombardus, St. Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas cf. S. th. III 27, 2), rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."

As Ott points out, John Duns Scotus (died 1304) finally proposed a version of the doctrine that received wider acceptance and ultimately seems to have been embraced in the papal definition of the dogma.

I mention this partly because I have heard Mr. Albrecht cite or quote from Ott a number of times, though he does not seem to quote these statements of his. It seems to be inconvenient to his view of history to acknowledge that this dogma is a doctrinal innovation. Unlike some errors about Mary, this is one whose relative modernity we can trace back from its conception in the twelfth century, to its birth in the late 13th, to its childhood struggles through the late medieval and modern period, until its final dogmatization in the middle of the 19th century.

We could fault Ott for failing to note the popes against the dogma in the developmental period:

• Innocent III (c. 1216)
• 
  
• Innocent V (d. 1276)
• 
  
• John XXII / Benedict XII (c. 1342)
• 
  
• Clement VI (d. 1352)

Nevertheless, we understand that there may be various reasons for such a non-acknowledgment.

Pre-Responding to the "Immaculate" => "Immaculate Conception" Argument

It's hard to know exactly how Mr. Albrecht intends to defend against the fact that so many popes taught contrary to the dogma of the immaculate conception before its definition in the 19th century. In a previous post, I discussed the specific arguments I expect to hear from Albrecht about certain contra-IC quotations, but Albrecht claimed that he was sitting on a pile of quotations on the other side. What could those be?

My best guess (based on Mr. Albrecht's arguments in other debates on the subject) is that they include quotations like these:

Leo I, Sermon 31 (link)
"After celebrating but lately the day on which immaculate virginity brought forth the Saviour of mankind, ..."

7th Ecumenical Council, Decree (link)
"With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon has promulgated, ..."

6th Ecumenical Council (link)
- Letter of Agatho
"Moreover we confess that one of the same holy consubstantial Trinity, God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before the worlds, in the last days of the world for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, that is to say according to the flesh which was born of her; ..."

- Prosphoneticus to the Emperor
"For as the Word, he is consubstantial and eternal with God his father; but as taking flesh of the immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, he is perfect man, consubstantial with us and made in time."

These and many other writings describe Mary and/or her virginity as "immaculate." A modern reader will be tempted to automatically associate the term "immaculate" with the dogma of the "immaculate conception." This is particularly tempting for Protestants, who reject the idea that Mary was sinless, and consequently would affirm that her virginity was immaculate at the incarnation, and that she had been justified by faith, but not that she was otherwise sinless. Tempting though it may be, it's an equivocation fallacy.

State vs. Event
To avoid this equivocation fallacy, note well the difference between a state and an event. The state of being sinless is one thing, and how a person became sinless is another thing. For example, there is a view of baptismal regeneration that suggests that when a person is baptized, they are made pure from original sin and all preceding actual sins. Likewise, the doctrine of justification by faith alone also teaches that in justification we are rendered guiltless. Without getting into the important distinctions between baptismal regeneration (defined that way) and justification by faith alone, the point is that a person is in some sense sinless in both cases. Likewise, both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that those in heaven are sinless.

So, even if Scripture had said that Mary was sinless (a state) at Jesus' conception, that would not necessarily tell us how she became that way (an event). Scripture does not speak of Mary in that way, while some in the Patristic era and many in the medieval era definitely did speak of Mary as sinless. How could she be sinless if she was not immaculately conceived? She could have been purified from sin rather than being preserved from sin.

What about other possible arguments? It's hard to say. I recall Mr. Albrecht taking the position that Leo the Great exegeted Genesis 3:15 in a way that represents Mary as the New Eve, or something to that effect. Those kind of arguments should readily be seen to be a rabbit trail.

-TurretinFan

Pre-Responding to William Albrecht's Position on Popes Leo and Innocent

It's sometimes hard to pin down one's debate opponent before the debate, as not everyone has published extensively on a given topic.  Thankfully, in a recent debate with an Orthodox opponent, William Albrecht was questioned about the writings of a couple of popes in the list of popes that we hope to discuss in our debate on January 18.  The Orthodox advocate started with Leo.

Leo the Great, Fifth sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 25), Chapter 5.

... when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.

Albrecht responded that he agreed with this because "he is simply talking about the fact that the purification of Mary comes from the Holy Spirit. If you read farther there, it actually says nothing about-- [timer beeped] speaking of Mary's conception, it says nothing about Mary's conception. He viewed sexual intercourse as sinful, and he says the shattering (sic for shadowing?) of the Holy Spirit is a purifying one, not one for sin. There's much more to be said about Leo, but I've got all these quotes in front of me. [time was then called] (approx. 37:30-38:00 debate time)

My rebuttal is this:
1) I certainly grant that Leo is not particularly discussing Mary's conception. Indeed, technically since Leo says "sons," and Mary is a daughter, there's that.
2) Nevertheless, Leo's logic (as explained by Albrecht) undermines Albrecht's point. For Leo, as Albrecht was starting to concede, the issue is whether someone was conceived by sexual intercourse. Mary was so conceived. Therefore, Leo's position logically entails that she contracted the pollution of carnal concupiscence. Again, if someone will point out that Leo does not mention this logic here, I will concede that point as well.
3) And, of course, while the context may not explicitly address conception, the context does say this: "He took an origin in the womb of the Virgin, was placed in the baptismal font; he gave to the water, what he gave to his mother; for the power of the Most High and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, which worked that Mary gave birth to the Savior, also worked that water regenerate the believer." The parallel here does seem to suggest a purification of Mary (as Albrecht stated), but purification is opposed to preservation. If she was preserved as the immaculate conception dogma teaches, she did not need to be purified.
4) And while Leo may say great things about Mary elsewhere, there are also many similar quotations to this as outlined in my post (link to "How Many Popes Does it Take to Deny the Immaculate Conception?).

Innocent III, Sermon on the Assumption, Sermon 2 (aka Second Discourse on the Assumption)(see the alternate translation here)

Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin; Mary was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.

Albrecht was asked if he agreed with Innocent III and Albrecht responded: "Pope Innocent III here says that the Holy Ghost had, before the annunciation, cleansed Mary's soul from original sin. He then says that he, in turn, appeared to cleanse her flesh from the appearance of sin. She was innately cleansed from Original Sin by God well before the Annunciation, so I do agree. There is no hint of Mary sinning here, or even having a sinful nature." 
Albrecht's opponent then reiterated the question, emphasizing the phrase "produced in sin." Albrecht responded: "No, he never uses the word 'produced in sin' here. I disagree with that interpretation - that translation - I disagree with that. And he doesn't say 'produced.' It says 'Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin.' And then he uses a different word for produced with Mary. It doesn't use that word." (approx. 45:00-45:45 debate time)

1) I suspect that Albrecht may not have listened carefully, and began by discussing the quotation from Innocent III in his Sermon on the Purification of the Virgin.
2) Nevertheless, when he switched over to the quotation from the Sermon on the Assumption, his denial of the use of the term "produced," is baffling.  The Latin as provided by Patrologiae Latina (vol. 217 - here) states:

Illa fuit sine culpa producta, sed produxit in culpam; haec autem fuit in culpa producta, sed sine culpa produxit.

Indeed, the PL editors (publishing in 1890) felt it necessary to point out in a footnote that this was said before the definition that now exists. (See footnote 21 at the bottom of the same page.)(see identical Latin here)

So, no. It's the identical word, letter for letter the same.  And the translation "produced" is the right translation from the Latin.  I would like to given Albrecht the benefit of the doubt that his eyes may have skipped back up to the other quotation, though it is mystifying how he could be so wrong.

-TurretinFan

How does "Read Your Bible" Translate into "Formal Sufficiency"?

How does Origen teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture? Pastor David King received a hot response to his position that the following quotation supports formal sufficiency:

The more one reads the scriptures daily the greater one's understanding is, the more renewed always and every day. I doubt whether a mind which is lazy towards the holy scriptures and the exercise of spiritual knowledge can be renewed at all. 

Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, on the words "transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Romans 12:2).

The translation appears in Oden's "Romans" volume in the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" (p. 308, cited as CER 5:32, referring to Heither's 5 volume edition) It comes from book 9 of Origen's commentary.

Thomas Scheck's translation, found in Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6-10 (Volume 2, Book 9, chapter 1, section 12, p. 196) published by The Catholic University of America Press (2002) is this:

(12) Our mind is renewed through training in wisdom and meditation upon the Word of God, and the spiritual interpretation of his law. And to the extent it makes daily progress by reading the Scriptures, to the extent that its understanding goes deeper, to that extent it becomes continuously new and daily new. I do not know if anyone can be renewed who is lazy in respect to the Holy Scriptures and training in spiritual understanding, by which it becomes possible not only to understand what has been written, but also to explain more clearly and to reveal more carefully. [fn39]
FN39: Heither in Origenes, Commentarii, 5:32 n. 17, observes, "The reading of scripture is for Origen the preferred way to make progress in one's Christian life."

These are two different translations of Rufinus' Latin translation of Origen's Greek original. Only fragments of the Greek original have survived. Origen's commentary on Romans is the earliest surviving Greek commentary on Romans by 150 years, and it has survived primarily because of Rufinus' Latin translation. Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia (345-411) was a prodigious translator into Latin from Greek. In 1941, a papyrus was discovered that contained the longest known fragment, a section covering Romans 3:5-5:5. As far as I know, we don't have the original Greek for the paragraph quoted above (just in case Nick, or anyone like him wants to accuse us of "hiding the Greek").

There have been various criticisms of Rufinus' work, but as long as we are not discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, we have good reason to believe that the thoughts are Origen's, even if the expression is Rufinus'.

The Latin, as provided in Migne at PG14:1206C-07A is this:

Renovatione sensus vestri. Renovatur autem sensus noster per exercitia sapientiae, et mediationem verbi Dei, et legis ejus intelligentiam spiritalem: et quanto quis quotidie ex Scripturarum proficit lectione, quanto altius intellectus ejus accedit, tanto semper novus et quotidie novus ellicitur. Nescio autem si potest renovari sensus qui piger est erga Scripturas divinas et intelligentiae spiritalis exercitia, quibus possit non solum intelligere quae scripta sunt, verum et explicare apertius, et manifestare dilgentius.

So, what does it all mean?

Meanwhile, another passage of Origen has been raised namely On First Principles, Book IV, Section 9:

English translation based on Rufinus' Latin translation:

Now the reason of the erroneous apprehension of all these points on the part of those whom we have mentioned above, is no other than this, that holy Scripture is not understood by them according to its spiritual, but according to its literal meaning. And therefore we shall endeavour, so far as our mod­erate capacity will permit, to point out to those who believe the holy Scriptures to be no human compo­sitions, but to be written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be transmitted and entrusted to us by the will of God the Father, through His only-begot­ten Son Jesus Christ, what appears to us, who ob­serve things by a right way of understanding, to be the standard and discipline delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and which they handed down in suc­cession to their posterity, the teachers of the holy Church.

English translation based on extant Greek of Origen:

Now the cause, in all the points pre­viously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agree­ably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.

English translation provided by Peter Martens, an Origen scholar (in Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life, p. 130 - this is shorter because only this portion was translated):

Therefore we must show to those who believe that the sacred books are writings not from men, but that they were composed and have come down to us from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of the universe through Jesus Christ, what are the apparent ways [of interpretation] for those who hold to the rule of the heavenly church of Jesus Christ through the succession of the apostles.

As Martens acknowledges, there is considerable debate over what Origen mean by the "standard" (first two translation) or "rule" (Martens' translation):

As you can see from the quotation above, the ideas range from "the principle of allegorical exegesis" to "the canon of Scripture." Whichever sense you land on, Origen does not simply mean "go ask the church what the text means: the closest to that would be "the ecclesiastical preaching as enumerated in the preface ...." Martens seems to believe that Origen was referring to the church's rule of faith, without a lot of explanation as to what it means. For example, in a footnote on page 131, Martens writes:

As Martens argues: "adherence to the church's rule of faith and a discerning engagement with the Greco-Roman disciplines yielded viable interpretations of Scripture -- or at the very least, safeguarded interpreters from the sorts of doctrinal errors committed in the Gnostic exegetical circles." (p. 131)

Interestingly, it's quite possible to adopt both the "rule of faith" position and the canon of Scripture position simultaneously, if the Scripture is self-interpreting and the rule of faith for the church, and if the Scriptures were handed down by the apostles and those that followed them.

In any event, Origen himself clarifies his meaning two sections later, after discussing the challenges of reading prophesy and the apostles' letters and the need for the mind of Christ and the keys of interpretation:

From the Latin:

11. But, as we had begun to observe, the way which seems to us the correct one for the understand­ing of the Scriptures, and for the investigation of their meaning, we consider to be of the following kind: for we are instructed by Scripture itself in re­gard to the ideas which we ought to form of it.

From the Greek:

11. The way, then, as it appears to us, in which we ought to deal with the Scrip­tures, and extract from them their mean­ing, is the following, which has been ascer­tained from the Scriptures themselves.

So, it is not that there is a deficiency in the form of Scripture that must be made up by the church, but rather the Scriptures themselves provide the key to their understanding.

And that's, of course, one of the key principles of formal sufficiency: Scripture interprets Scripture.  This contrasts with the view expressed at CCC119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." (DV 12 § 3.)

If reading Scripture is the way we renew our mind, this implies that Scripture does not merely contain revelation, but that it does so in a form that permits our proper understanding of it. In other words, the Scriptures are formally sufficient.  Obviously, a person can inconsistently advise us to read our Bibles, even while teaching that the church has the final say (which is not what Origen said, even under Martens' view), but on its face every statement that affirms that reading the Scriptures is the way to make progress in the Christian life is an affirmation of the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Duns Scotus and the Immaculate Conception

In our recent debate (link), Roman Catholic apologist William Albrecht took the position that the dogma of the immaculate conception was ancient and biblical. The careful listener will note that Mr. Albrecht was unable to provide any patristic quotations that actually affirmed the idea of the immaculate conception, and his rather bizarre exegesis of Galatians 3 was an interpretation totally foreign the patristic era. Mr. Albrecht attributed his exegesis to Duns Scotus, a medieval theologian, who overlaps with Thomas Aquinas. I have seen a philosophical defense of this error from Duns Scotus (which you can read here and in a second instance here), but I have not yet seen an exegetical defense.

This should be unsurprising, as the Encyclopedia Britannica suggests that the first clear articulation of the immaculate conception came in the 12th century and then found its explanation in the writings of Duns Scotus (link). Pope Benedict XVI similarly acknowledged Duns Scotus as having, as one of his three main contributions, the following: "Secondly, Scotus argued that our Lady’s preservation from original sin was a privilege granted in view of her Son’s redemptive passion and death; this theory was to prove decisive for the eventual definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception." (link)

Similarly, writing about the doctrine of the immaculate conception, Eugene Lobo, S.J. indicated: "It took a long time for this doctrine to develop. While many Fathers and Doctors of the Church considered Mary the greatest and holiest of the saints, they often had difficulty in seeing Mary as sinless either at her conception or throughout her life. This is one of the Church teachings that arose more from the piety of the faithful than from the insights of brilliant theologians. Even such champions of Mary as Bernard and Thomas Aquinas could not see theological justification for this teaching. Two Franciscans, William of Ware and Blessed John Duns Scotus, helped develop the theology. They point out that Mary’s Immaculate Conception enhances Jesus’ redemptive work. Other members of the human race are cleansed from original sin after birth. In Mary, Jesus’ work was so powerful as to prevent original sin at the outset." (link)

In short, the dogma of the immaculate conception was one of the later errors to develop in Roman Catholicism, which is why it is not surprising that over a half dozen bishops of Rome taught contrary to it (link).

On a tangential note, I would point out without endorsement the interesting discussion that Duns Scotus provides on the Sufficiency of Scripture (link).

Leo I and Gregory I vs. the Immaculate Conception

In an earlier post (link), I provided evidence that the teachings of Leo I aka Leo the Great and Gregory I aka Gregory the Great at least implicitly contradict the modern dogma of the immaculate conception. Luigi Gambero's "Mary and the Fathers of the Church" has a section on Leo I (pp. 302-09) and a section on Gregory I (pp. 366-72). While Mr. Gambero can point to teachings by Leo I and Gregory I that we would not accept (such as Leo's and Gregory's apparent idea that Mary miraculously maintained the physical evidence of virginity despite giving birth), Mr. Gambero does not present any evidence from Leo I in favor of the dogma of the immaculate conception.

Mr. Gambero's subject matter index for the immaculate conception does not point us to any Roman bishop in the patristic period (i.e. up to the time of John of Damascus) as teaching the dogma. Jurgens' "The Faith of the Early Fathers" similarly fails to provide any allegation of teaching on this subject from any Roman bishop (also within that same time period).

In addition to the materials in my previous post, I also located these further examples from Leo's letters:

Letter 31:2 – “For if the New Man had not been made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and taken on Him our old nature, and being consubstantial with the Father, had deigned to be consubstantial with His mother also, and being alone free from sin, had united our nature to Him the whole human race would be held in bondage beneath the Devil's yoke , and we should not be able to make use of the Conqueror's victory, if it had been won outside our nature.”

Letter 35:3 – “For although the Lord’s nativity according to the flesh has certain characteristics wherein it transcends the ordinary beginnings of man’s being, both because He alone was conceived and born without concupiscence of a pure Virgin, and because He was so brought forth of His mother’s womb that her fecundity bare Him without loss of virginity: yet His flesh was not of another nature to ours: nor was the soul breathed into Him from another source to that of all other men, and it excelled others not in difference of kind but in superiority of power. For He had no opposition in His flesh [nor did the strife of desires give rise to a conflict of wishes]. His bodily senses were active without the law of sin, and the reality of His emotions being under the control of His Godhead and His mind, was neither assaulted by temptations nor yielded to injurious influences.”

Ultimately, while a few RC apologists may try to excuse Leo's or Gregory's remarks, a straightforward reading of their words is that they held Jesus to be the lone exception to original sin. Indeed, to the extent they tried to explain it, they did so by reference to the virgin birth. Mary, however, was not virgin born: she was conceived in the ordinary way. Thus, in the mindset of these writers, she would not have been an exception. She could be purified from that sin, but she would have automatically contracted it by the way she was conceived.

-TurretinFan

Miscellaneous notes about the 1549 Ethiopic

Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament is a 2007 Brill book by Robert Wilkinson. Pages 68-70 provide some insight into the background of the printing of the 1548-9 Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Bible. Evidently, the printing was based on a single manuscript that had recently arrived in Rome from Ethiopia. In a footnote, Wilkinson points the reader to Metzger's "Early Versions of the New Testament" regarding the deficiencies of the manuscript.

Metzger, at p. 299, points out that the Latin translation in Walton's Polyglot was repeatedly criticized: "its Latin rendering has more than once been excoriated as being far from accurate." (p. 230). "Novum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum ex versione Aethiopici interpretis in Bibliis polyglottis Anglicanis editum ex Aethiopica lingva in Latinam" by Christoph August Bode (aka Bodius) (1753), may provide some improvements to Walton's translation, but only appears to address the four gospels (link).

Evidently then-Cardinal of Sana Croce, Marcello Cervini (later Pope Marcellus II), was a patron of the printing. The colophon "seems remarkably to claim that Cervini could read Ethiopic. If this were so, it would suggest an involvement in Oriental Studies beyond that which has been previously imagined." (Wilkinson, p. 69, fn. 23)