2009-08-13

T-fan shows by a number of citations that for Aquinas, Scripture was the ultimate authority. Even though he held to infallible councils of believers, and a certain primacy to the Bishop of Rome, nevertheless, he did not hint or suggest that either could go beyond what was written. T-fan cites Aquinas pointing out that the Holy Scriptures ("Holy Writ") are the rule of faith, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be subtracted. Other things aside, as to Scripture, Aquinas’ view was quite similar if not identical to that of the reformers. “The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.” Aquinas on Sola Scriptura

DG points to new curriculum for Junior High students. New Curriculum for Jr. High

Hays discusses a fallacy in the ‘futility care theory’ in light of US health care reforms; the idea that there’s no point in pouring resources into a lost cause (e.g. end of life care). He points out that determining what is a lost cause is a retrospective analysis – how do you know that person is in his last year of life, etc? In the ER, resources are poured into ‘lost causes’, since many die. But the number who live are inextricably linked to this effort, and there are those saved precisely by this substantial effort. It it weren’t for the set of resources poured out on both, many more would die. But in their reasoning only those who die are counted, not those who recovering. The rationing of care involved a prospective judgment, whereas futility of care requires a retrospective judgment. The fallacy of futility-care theory

T-fan looks at the older rationale for the Catholic doctrine that Mary experienced no pain in child-birth. It’s often thought of as being part of the immaculate conception, but Aquinas offers a different justification. i) Pain in child-birth is due to the sin of the ‘mingling of the sexes. ii) Mary didn’t have to suffer because Mary didn’t come to atone for our sins – thus rejecting the modern Roman doctrine of the co-redemption of Mary. iii) Aquinas rejects the idea of midwives being present, rejecting the Protoevangelium of James as ‘apocryphal ravings.’ iv) Aquinas mistakenly thought Augustine taught that she experienced no pain. v) Aquinas thought Jesus didn’t come out through the birth canal – she wouldn’t be a virgin after this! Why Do Roman Catholics Think that Mary Didn't Have Pain During Childbirth-

T-fan notes many Roman Catholic authors use the Protoevangelium of James. But what did others think of it? Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings". Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't." Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics…" Hence, Romanist apologists are either ignorant, or don’t care. They could also rely on it because, historically speaking, heretical works were the true sources of Romanist doctrine/ belief. Protoevangelium of James- a Question of Sources

T-fan notes the incongruity in the Romanist identification of the woman of Revelation 12 as Mary, in light of (a) their belief in the pain-free birth of Jesus and Mary’s perpetual virginity, and (b) the painFUL birth of that woman. i) The early church believed this woman was the church. ii) An internal critique of Roman Catholicism shows Rome’s theology is self-contradictory here, should they insist on the identification. Romanist Shea, changing the argument, responds as though the critic of Rome says the birth pains are part of the curse and therefore Mary could not have had them, and then says that to identify these birth pains as such would indict Jesus because He suffered. T-fan points out that Jesus suffered, toiled, sweated, and died, just like Adam because Jesus was bearing the sins of his people. Jesus is our mediator. Mary did not bear sin, and there is no reason for her to suffer unless she was a sinner. So Augustine: “For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.” As previously observed, the lack of suffering pain is a product of perpetual virginity in the extreme, not immaculate conception. And if the birth pangs are to be allegorized into something else, why wouldn't we allegorize the birth into something else? Mark Shea and the Revelation 12 Woman

Piper wants to make some autumn resolutions. Piper encourages us to do self-examination—life-examination, routine-examination, schedule-examination, heart-examination—followed by “resolves for good.” In 2 Thess. 1:11-12 Paul presupposes it is good to have resolves. God enables us to fulfill resolves for good (cf. Prov. 16:9). It is a “resolve for good” because we will it. It is a “work of faith” because we depend on Jesus to give us power to fulfill it. When you resolve something good and trust in the power of Jesus to help you do it, then “the name of our Lord Jesus is glorified.” If you depend on your willpower, your name will be glorified. This sets them apart from the world’s resolutions. We resolve in faith that we are called and loved and justified. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4152_Lets_Make_Some_Autumn_Resolutions/

To the Romanist charge that sola scriptura is a ‘blueprint for anarchy’, Swan has been keeping track of all the times he has come across Rome's zealous defenders disagreeing with each other, and pointing out the lack of clarity within Roman Catholicism as well as the confusion: See Blueprint for Anarchy. Swan then goes on to enumerate a host of conflict, confusion, misunderstanding, and disagreement amongst Romanist e-pologists. Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. [i.e. NO.] The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. Romanists should clean house before making such a charge. Reminding Patrick Madrid of Rome's Blueprints