TurretinFan: assisting Reformed conversions to the RCC ???

Yes, I am talking about the same TurretinFan (hereafter TF) who once wrote that Thomas Aquinas held to sola scriptura (see following links: first; second). The same TF who edits and/or deletes comments made on his blog he does not like; and same TF whose anti-Catholic bias puts into question much of what he publishes on Catholicism—the following contains the most recent example...

While engaged in online research pertaining to "the rule of faith" (Irenaeus related research), the following thread came up:

"The" Catholic Position on the Rule of Faith

From the above post, we read:

Moreover, Mr. Anders specifically asserted: “The Catholic Assertion: The Church is the Rule of Faith.”

Interestingly, Benedict XVI (Yes, I know he’s German like Kung, Rahner, and Luther, but hear me out) is reported as saying:

The word of Scripture is not “an inert deposit within the Church” but the “supreme rule of faith and power of life”. Benedict XVI wrote this in a message to participants in the annual Plenary Session of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, held from Monday, 16, to Friday, 20 April, at the Vatican’s Domus Sanctae Marthae.

L'Osservatore Romano, 21 April 2012

So, will our Roman communion friends concede what that German prelate who claims to be the successor of Peter and Paul concedes? Or do will they deny that Scripture is the supreme rule of faith?

I mean one might think that “the Catholic position” is better expressed by the pope who says: “The Church has always considered and continues to consider Sacred Scripture, together with sacred Tradition, “as the supreme rule of her faith” (DV 21) and as such she offers it to the faithful for their daily life.” (19 June 1985, General Audience)

And yes, he’s quoting from Vatican II, but I hear that they are planning on making even SSPX finally assent to those teachings.

So, what will it be? Will our Roman communion friends be on the pope’s (I suppose that should be popes’, as the 1985 audience would be the Polish prelate, not the German one) side? Do they agree that he has conceded that the Scriptures are a rule of faith and has further alleged that “Tradition” is as well?

[Note: TF failed to give a link to the original source of the David Anders quote, so I shall do so - link to David Anders post; link to TF's original reply.]

TF seems to think he has created a real dilemma for David Anders; but reality says something quite different. In addition to David's response to TF (link), the full context of Benedict XVI's April 20th, 2012 message should clear the matter up (at least for the objective reader):

To the Venerable Brother

Cardinal William Levada

President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

I am pleased to send you, Venerable Brother, to Cardinal Prosper Grech. O.S.A., to the Secretary and to all the Members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission my cordial greeting on the occasion of the annual Plenary Assembly which is being held to address the important topic “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible.”

As we know, such a topic is essential for a correct hermeneutic of the biblical message. Precisely inspiration, as action of God, makes it possible to express the Word of God in human words. Consequently, the topic of inspiration is decisive for the appropriate approach to the Sacred Scriptures. In fact, an interpretation of the sacred texts that neglects or forgets their inspiration does not take into account their most important and precious characteristic, that is, their provenance from God. Moreover, in my Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini, I recalled that “The Synod Fathers also stressed the link between the theme of inspiration and that of the truth of the Scriptures. A deeper study of the process of inspiration will doubtless lead to a greater understanding of the truth contained in the sacred books.” (n. 19).

Because of the charism of inspiration, the books of Sacred Scripture have a direct and concrete force of appeal. However, the Word of God is not confined to what is written. If, in fact, the act of Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, the revealed Word has continued to be proclaimed and interpreted by the living Tradition of the Church. For this reason the Word of God fixed in the sacred texts is not an inert deposit inside the Church but becomes the supreme rule of her faith and power of life. The Tradition that draws its origin from the Apostles progresses with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and grows with the reflection and study of believers, with personal experience of the spiritual life and the preaching of Bishops (cf. Dei Verbum, 8, 21).

In studying the topic “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible,” the Pontifical Biblical Commission is called to offer its specific and qualified contribution to this necessary further reflection. In fact, it is essential and fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that the sacred texts are interpreted in keeping with their nature: Inspiration and Truth are constitutive characteristics of this nature. That is why your endeavor will be of real usefulness for the life and mission of the Church.

With good wishes to each one of you for the fruitful development of your works, I would like, finally, to express my heartfelt appreciation for the activity carried out by the Biblical Commission , committed to promoting knowledge, study and reception of the Word of God in the world. With such sentiments I entrust each one of you to the maternal protection of the Virgin Mary, who with the whole Church we invoke as Sedes Sapientiae, and I impart from my heart to you, Venerable Brother, and to all the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission a special Apostolic Blessing. (Zenit link)

With polemics like TF's is there any 'wonder' as to why so many Reformed folk are converting to the RCC ???

Grace and peace,

David

"Reformed civil war": the continuing conflict

My recent reception in the mail of two publications, Horton's, The Christian Faith - A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, and the Spring 2012 issue of The Westminster Theological Journal, has prompted me to take a brief break from my Irenaeus research to share a few reflections on some of the data discussed in these works.

Back on May 31st, 2010, I published a post on Williams B. Evans' Spring 2010, Westminster Theological Journal article, DÈJÁ VU ALL OVER AGAIN? THE CONTEMPORARY REFORMED SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

, which spoke of a "Reformed civil war" concerning certain aspects of soteriology. This "Reformed civil war" is showing no signs of ending, for in the most recent issue of The Westminster Theological Journal (Volume 74.1 - Spring 2012), yet another article on this "civil war" was published: William R. Edwards, John Flavel On The Priority Of Union With Christ: Further Historical Perspective On The Structure Of Reformed Soteriology.

Edwards' essay begins with:

A relatively small but significant debate continues within a segment of the Reformed community regarding priority within the structure of soteriology. Although there is a much longer history, the context for the current debate reaches back most immediately to various critiques of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. These movements emphasize union with Christ while objecting to the doctrine of justification as historically understood within Reformed theology. In particular, the role of imputation, whereby Christ's righteousness is attributed to the believer, is openly challenged. (Page 33 - see above link for full article.)

Edwards then writes that, "The response from Reformed circles defending the traditional formulation of the doctrine of justification has, generally speaking, followed along two lines." The first, "continues to assert the central role of union with Christ as the overarching principle in the application of redemption", while the second, "places greater emphasis on the priority of justification for the entire structure of salvation". He lists Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Lane G. Tipton, Mark A. Garcia, and William B. Evans as representatives of the first view, and Michael S. Horton, John V. Fesko, W. Robert Godrey, and David VanDrunen of the latter.

Via an interaction with the 17th century Reformed theologian John Flavel, Edwards end up siding with first group, arguing that their position is, "no new reading of Calvin", and that, "those maintaining the priority of union with Christ are standing well within the Reformed tradition."

In addition to Edwards' WTJ contribution, I found online, the following blog post by him: A Guide to Recent Discussions on Justification and Sanctification.

And before ending, I would like to list a few more resources, that can be accessed and/or obtained online, which are related to the topic of 'union with Christ':

William B. Evans - Sanctification and the Nature of the Gospel

Michael S. Horton - Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ

J. V. Fesko - John Owen On Union With Christ and Justification

More later, the Lord willing...

Grace and peace,

David

St. Irenaeus: a 'modest' bibliography and select online resources

The opening title of this thread suggests to the reader that the following bibliography of Irenaeus will be a 'modest' one. By 'modest', I do not intend to imply that it will not be in a real sense comprehensive, but rather, that it will have certain limitations. The first limitation will be that other than editions of Irenaeus' writings in Greek and Latin, the rest of the bibliography will list only works in English (whether original or translations). Second, the bibliography will mainly focus on works that I myself have actual read (but not exclusively so). And third, there will be an emphasis on works that most readers will be able to obtain (with 'reasonable' ease) online, by purchase and/or through libraries. All this means, of course, that there will be a number of works not included in this bibliography—however, I am more than willing to add to the list suggestions made by readers in the combox. As for the "online resources", it will be a select list of websites on Irenaeus that have not been referenced in the bibliography.

The works of Irenaeus

Detection and Overthrow of the So Called but False Knowledge (Detectionis et Eversionis Falso Cognominatæ Agnitionis) - commonly referred to as Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses)

Greek and Latin editions -

Massuet, R., the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1710; reprinted in, J. P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca, vol. VII, Paris 1857

Stieren, A., Leipzig, 1848-1853, Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, tomus I; Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, tomus II

Harvey, W. W., Cambridge, 1857,  Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, tomus I; Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, tomus II

[Note: I have excluded the Sources Chrétiennes critical edition (9 volumes) due to the lack of online access and high cost.]

English translations (full) -

Roberts, A. and Rambaut, W. H., Edinburgh, 1868/1869, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 5; Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 9; (American edition, vol. 1)

Keble, J., London, 1872, Five Books of S. Irenaeus

English translations (partial) -

Steenberg and Unger, New York, 2012, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies, vol. 3 (Volume 64 of the Ancient Christian Writers series)

Unger and Dillon, New York, 2012, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies, vol. 2 (Volume 65 of the Ancient Christian Writers series)

Grant, Robert M., London, 1997, Irenaeus of Lyons

Unger and Dillon, New York, 1992, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies, vol. 1 (Volume 55 of the Ancient Christian Writers series)

von Balthasar, Hans Urs, San Francisco, 1981, The Scandal of the Incarnation

Richardson, Cyril C. New York, 1970, Early Christian Fathers (pp. 343-354)

Hitchcock, F. R. M., London, 1916, The Treatise of Irenæus of Lugdunum Against the Heresies, vol. 1; The Treatise of Irenæus of Lugdunum Against the Heresies, vol. 2

Deane, Henry, Oxford, 1875, The Third Book of St. Irenaeus Against Heresies

The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

English translations -

Behr, J., Crestwood, 1997, On the Apostolic Preaching

Smith, J. P., New York, 1952, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (Volume 16 of the Ancient Christian Writers series)

Robinson, J.A., London, 1920, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

Ter-Mekerttschian and Wilson, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (pp. 653-731 - Includes the Armenian text with full English trans.)

Fragments

Greek and Latin editions -

Massuet, R., the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1710; reprinted in, J. P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca, vol. VII, Paris 1857, pp. 1225-1263

Harvey, W. W., Cambridge, 1857,  Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, tomus II, pp. 470-511

English translations -

Roberts, A. and Rambaut, W. H., Edinburgh, 1868/1869, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 9, pp. 158-187; (American edition, vol. 1, pp. 568-578)

Major treatments on Irenaeus and his theology (listed from the earliest to the latest)

Beaven, James, London, 1841, An Account of the Life and Writings of s. Irenæus

Hitchcock, F. R. Montgomery, Cambridge, 1914, Irenaeus of Lugdumum - A Study of His Teaching

Wingren, Gustaf, German edition, 1947, English translation, 1959, Man and the Incarnation

Lawson, John, London, 1948, (Eugene, 2006, reprint) The Biblical Theology of Irenaeus

Donovan, Mary Ann, Collegeville, 1997, One Right Reading?

Osborn, Eric, Cambridge, 2001, Irenaeus Of Lyons

MacKenzie, Iain M., England, 2002, Irenaeus's Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching - A theological commentary and translation

Blackwell, Benjamin, Durham , 2010, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria

Lashier, Jackson, Milwaukee, 2011, The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons

Articles/entries in Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, Patrology handbooks  and select Histories (listed from the earliest to the latest)

Smith, William and Wace, Henry, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, Volume III (Published in 4 volumes between 1877-1887; Irenaeus article in 3rd vol., 1882, pp. 253-279 - R. A. Lipsius)

McClintock, John and Strong, James, Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume IV (Published in 12 volumes between 1867-1887; Irenaeus article in 4th vol., 1883,  pp. 647-653 - J. J. Workman)

Schaff, Philip, New York, fifth edition, revised, 1889 (1914 reprint), History of the Christian Church- Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity (pp. 746-757.)

Bardenhewer, Otto, English translation, 1908, Patrology - The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church (pp. 118-123.)

Herzog, Schaff and Jackson, 1910, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religous Knowledge (Published in 13 volumes, Irenaeus article in 6th vol., pp. 28-31 - T. Zahn.)

Tixeront, Joseph, 1st French edition 1904?, English translation, 1910, History of Dogmas, Volume I (pp. 228-240.)

Piercy, William, Smith, William and Wace, Henry, 1911, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the end of the sixth century A.D. (a one volume abridgment of the 4 vol. set, pp. 520-535)

Tixeront, Joseph, first English edition, 1920, second English edition, 1923, A Handbook of Patrology (pp. 77-80)

McGiffert, Arthur Cushman, New York & London, 1932, A History of Christian Thought - Volume I: Early and Eastern (pp. 132-148.)

Quasten, Johannes, Holland, 1950, Patrology - The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Volume I (pp. 287-313.)

Ferguson, Everett, New York & London, first edition, 1990, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (pp. 471-473 - Mary T. Clark.)

Di Berardino, Angelo, English edition, Oxford, 1992, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Volume I (pp. 413-416 - A. Orbe.)

Ferguson, Everett, New York & London, second edition, 1998, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (pp. 587-589 - Mary T. Clark.)

 

[NOTE: this thread is a work in progress and will be updated over the next few days as time allows—the Lord willing.]

Grace and peace,

David

UPDATE (08-12-23) - The following site has a comprehensive bibliography and list of articles on Irenaeus:

Irenaeus of Lyons

St. Irenaeus: his feast day

According to the liturgical calendars of most Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic churches, June 28th is the feast day for St. Irenaeus, martyr and bishop of Lyons (died c. 200 AD). For those unfamiliar with feast days, they are liturgical memorial days for a number of historical Christians who have been designated as "saints" (see THIS WIKIPEDIA LINK for more information).

I have chosen to mention this particular feast day as an introduction of sorts to a series on St.Irenaeus that I would like to publish here at AF, leading off with a comprehensive listing of offline and online resources dedicated to him.

Beginning with my purchase of the American edition of the famous Edinburgh 38 volume "Early Church Fathers" series edited by Roberts and Donaldson (circa 1981/82 - link to info on this series), I have been keen student of Irenaeus, and have since added dozens of articles, books, and essays to my personal library and hard-drive.

So, if you have some interest in Irenaeus, stay tuned, I should have my next post on this extraordinary Christian man up within the next few days (the Lord willing).

Grace and peace,

David

Obnoxious 'evangelism': yay or nay

I found the video imbedded in the July 27, 2012 American Vision News post, Muslim mob stones Christians in Dearborn; police then harass the Christians, and reproduced below, to be quite disturbing:

Without getting into the issue of freedom of speech in America, I would like to ask a simple question: was the type of 'evangelism' displayed in the video an effective means of communicating the Gospel to Muslims?

Grace and peace,

David

Censorship at Triablogue...

Back on June 14th, I submitted a post to John Bugay's June 8th thread, Irenaeus on “Divine Protection from Error”: Scripture Interprets Scripture. Comments submitted to John's threads are moderated, and it seems that John has no intention of publishing my comment, given that it has been well over a week since I submitted it. The following is my 'evil', 'subversive' post (grin):

==Hello John,

Longtime no chat; hope all is well with you and yours. From your opening post:

>>Consider this word from the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”>>

You believe that Irenaeus in a very real sense was a faithful adherent of the above principal; unfortunately, he was not. Please note the following:

There was, however, another aid which he [Irenaeus] looked upon as of the most certain and most important utility, so far as it extended, and that was the baptismal creed, which he regarded as infallible for leading to the right sense of Scripture upon fundamental points, and according to which he thought all Scripture ought to be interpreted. [I.ix.4] It is evident, therefore, that he regarded the tradition of the Church, to that extent, as divine and infallible. (James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr, 1841, p. 139 – bold emphasis mine.)

You have conflated material sufficiency with formal sufficiency—Irenaeus held to the former, but not the later.

See posts under THIS LINK for more on this issue.

Grace and peace,

David==

If ever there was a post the deserves censorship...

Grace and peace,

David

The "gospel" of R.C. Sproul: did Mathew C. Heckel 'get it right'?

In my previous thread, Misreading historical theology, I brought back to the fore an older thread (link) that touched on a JETS essay (link) which explored a number of historical problems with R.C Sproul's assessment of what one must believe in order to experience salvation. In the combox of the above mentioned "previous thread", Ken Temple posted:

David,
I don't have time to go over all this again with a fine-tooth comb, but it seems to me that Heckel mis-understood Sproul.

Also, Sproul's book, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together (Baker, 1999) answers the questions that Heckel seems to be asking after he read Faith Alone.

Especially important are pages 169-172 - these pages show that Heckel is wrong about Sproul because Heckel projects implications that he gets into his own mind into Faith Alone, but Sproul never meant that everyone before Luther or Trent had to be able to articulate justification by faith alone before Luther, in order to be saved.

So, I think Heckel has interpreted R. C. Sproul's book, "Faith Alone" wrongly. (link)

Did Heckel interpret " R. C. Sproul's book, "Faith Alone" wrongly"? Does Sproul's subsequent book, Getting the Gospel Right, correct any misconceptions Heckel may have had? I do not believe that this is the case at all; in fact, I believe Sproul's, Getting the Gospel Right (GTGR), reinforces Heckel's original assessment. I will now turn to chapter 11 ("Trusting in Christ") of GTGR, wherein Sproul describes at length, one of the "necessary condition[s] of saving faith".  To lay the foundation for the rest of the chapter, Sproul cites Article 16 of the document, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, under his heading—"Saving Faith":

16. We affirm that saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the Gospel, acknowledgment of our own sin and need, and personal trust and reliance upon Christ and his work.

We deny that saving faith includes only mental acceptance of the Gospel, and that justification is secured by a mere outward profession of faith. We further deny that any element of saving faith is a meritorious work or earns salvation for us. (Page 167)

Sproul then writes:

The Reformers delimited three essential elements of saving faith: notitia (knowledge of the data or content of the gospel), assensus (the intellectual acceptance or assent to the truth of the gospel's content), fiducia (personal reliance on or trust in Christ and his gospel). (Page 168)

He then goes on to describe two Biblical accounts of "intellectual acceptance" (i.e. demons and Satan) and states:

But the demons lacked saving faith. They had one of the necessary elements of saving faith, but not all of them. Intellectual acceptance is a necessary condition for saving faith, but not a sufficient condition. That is, without intellectual acceptance we cannot be saved, but its mere presence does not bring salvation...

Article 16 affirms that saving faith includes intellectual acceptance of the gospel's content but is not exhausted by or comprised solely of mental assent.

Article 16 denies that one can have saving faith without intellectual acceptance or assent. This would exclude from salvation even those who call themselves Christians but who at the same time reject essential elements of the gospel...

This raises the question regarding Roman Catholics who, though they may affirm other essential elements of the gospel, reject sola fide. If they do not intellectually accept this element  and if this element is essential to the gospel, can they still be saved? The only honest answer I can give to this question is no. This answer raises the hackles of many who seek to affirm unity Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, and it requires further explanation.

Does this mean that we are saved by the doctrine of sola fide? By no means. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and his saving work. Mere belief in the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Intellectual acceptance of sola fide does not constitute saving faith. The object of fiducia must be in Christ and his work, not the doctrine of justification. The problem arises when we ask about the consequences of rejecting sola fide, that person rejects an essential element of the gospel. That poses a problem not only at an intellectual or doctrinal level, but at the spiritual level as well. If a person is trusting not in the imputed righteousness of Christ but in his own inherent righteousness, he will not be saved. He lacks a necessary condition of saving faith. In the final analysis he is trusting in another gospel and remains in a state of self-righteousness. By rejecting an essential element of the gospel, he is under the biblical and thus divine anathema. This is precisely why Martin Luther insisted that sola fide is the article by which the church stands of falls. It is the article by which we stand or fall.  (Pages 168-170 - bold emphasis added.)

Now, a couple of points: first, Sproul incorrectly attributes to Martin Luther the dictum, "that sola fide is the article by which the church stands of falls." (See THIS THREAD for documentation of this error.) Second, Sproul makes it quite clear that, "[m]ere belief in the doctrine of sola fide will save no one", and that "[i]f a person is trusting not in the imputed righteousness of Christ but in his own inherent righteousness, he will not be saved."

Can Sproul get any clearer on this issue? I think not. Even though he later tries to make room for the possible salvation of Roman Catholics who either, "consciously, clearly understand and embrace the doctrine of sola fide and posses a true saving faith"; or, "who do not fully grasp the gospel but who intuitively understand that their only hope in Christ and his work in their behalf and trust him fully" (pp. 170, 171), this proposed concession does not somehow mutate his prior assessments. Bottom line: Heckel got Sproul's "gospel" right.

Grace and peace,

David


P.S. I typed up the quotes from Dr. Sproul's book quite quickly; as such, I suspect there may be some typos, and would greatly appreciate notification of any such spelling errors.