tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post2000418422468152991..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Books by Dave Armstrong: "Biblical Catholic Apologetics: A Collection of Essays"Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-57962449544987641372014-08-11T09:48:20.565-04:002014-08-11T09:48:20.565-04:00That would be fascinating to read!That would be fascinating to read!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32667038151238862412014-08-11T01:38:51.771-04:002014-08-11T01:38:51.771-04:00Cool, thanks for the response!
And btw, if you ev...Cool, thanks for the response!<br /><br />And btw, if you ever get the time, check out Wesley's commentary on Romans; he beats N.T. Wright's supposedly "new" perspective on Paul about 200 years to the punch! (And I believe at one point notes a curious use of "Justified" by Paul that he bluntly states includes both Justification and Sanctification, so that could be good polemical ammo for you)Timotheoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848027239405239382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55145360778859809472014-08-11T01:02:42.551-04:002014-08-11T01:02:42.551-04:00Thanks for your purgatory comments. You're pro...Thanks for your purgatory comments. You're probably right, there.<br /><br />I think Wesley wasn't a strict sola Scriptura adherent, because of the strong place he allows for tradition. Material sufficiency? Sure: just like Catholics.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32714392179743597702014-08-11T00:57:54.424-04:002014-08-11T00:57:54.424-04:00(And I should add to my earlier post that we know ...(And I should add to my earlier post that we know for a fact that he didn't believe faults were normally removed in this life because he says this in his work "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection": <br /><br />"To explain myself a little farther on this head: (1.) Not only sin, properly so called, (that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law,) but sin, improperly so called, (that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown,) needs the atoning blood. (2.) I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. (3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. (4.) I believe, a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. (5.) Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned.)Timotheoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848027239405239382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61827911295436010662014-08-11T00:47:11.215-04:002014-08-11T00:47:11.215-04:00And as a slight side discussion, what is your take...And as a slight side discussion, what is your take on Wesley’s view of Sola Scriptura. Despite what he seems to say in some points, I don’t believe he accepted formal sufficiency of scripture; his views on other things seem to require him to believe something more like the material sufficiency of scripture.<br /><br />For instance, he accepts the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and takes the time to interpret all the “difficult” Marian passages accordingly in his Explanatory Notes, yet nowhere appears to take this view from Scripture. And when he confronts the issue of the Deuterocanonicals , he has no qualms with saying that he doesn’t accept them on the grounds that neither the early church nor did the Jews accept them, apparently allowing that he would accept them if they had. <br /><br />And he also stated at one point: "Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers? the most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus?"<br /><br />None of this appears to be very compatible with a view of formal sufficiency, and seems much more in line with a material view, but what are your thoughts?Timotheoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848027239405239382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24712982164808425832014-08-11T00:46:11.073-04:002014-08-11T00:46:11.073-04:00So I picked up a copy of this book for the Wesley ...So I picked up a copy of this book for the Wesley essay. I have to say that you get him almost 100% correct, but I actually think that you slightly misread him against your case! (And I’m speaking as a lifelong Methodist who has believed in Purgatory for quite some time now, so this is no “Catholic bias”, even though I am currently going Catholic, thanks in no small part to rummaging through your website and reading ALOT of Aquinas, Chesterton, and Newman. But I digress…)<br /><br />As far as what I think you misread, you seemed to imply in the essay that Wesley taught that his “dying in a state of perfection in love” is exactly equal to full sanctification in the Catholic sense. It’s actually more parallel to what St. Thomas believed, that one is set in their act of charity at death, and therefore cannot “change their minds”, so to speak. (One must remember that traditionally, the heart was considered the seat of the will, not the emotions, and thus, when one is set in their love, they are set in their will)<br /><br />So Wesley’s mostly considered here with ensuring that we cannot “change our minds” after death, which would introduce all that he found horrid in that “Romanish doctrine concerning Purgatory”. Thus, Wesley’s belief here is concerned with ensuring that we have no mortal sin in our hearts and we are filled with faith, hope, and charity in our souls at the last instant of death, since these are what he considers the requirements for salvation.<br /><br />Nowhere here discussed is what happens to one’s “faults”, which is a technical term for Wesley that runs parallel to venial sins. Presumably for him, these are driven out either at the general resurrections of one’s bodies, or sometime before the resurrection but after death, or some mixture thereof. In any of these cases, we have a belief that could be considered compatible with catholic doctrine, since nowhere has the temporal character of Purgatory been defined (AFAIK at least), and thus, the instant of the resurrection could be the instant of Purgation.<br /><br />And Wesley would have no problem with a metaphorical sense of fire, since the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit and God’s love in this way all over the place, and these both can cause “pain”. And purgatory in no way diminishes the happiness of one’s soul; anymore than the pains that a runner feels after a race diminishes his happiness with winning first place.<br /><br />So I think ultimately what is the problem here is that we’re playing a giant word game; the terminologies may be incompatible, but ultimately there doesn't seem to be any real as opposed to nominal differences between Wesley and Catholicism as regards Soteriology.Timotheoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09848027239405239382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-60639454416757975682013-06-08T18:08:42.041-04:002013-06-08T18:08:42.041-04:00Thanks so much, Shawn. I'm delighted that it w...Thanks so much, Shawn. I'm delighted that it was an aid to you.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24667109065243174742013-06-08T17:42:03.615-04:002013-06-08T17:42:03.615-04:00Dave, I just bought your book on iTunes , Biblical...Dave, I just bought your book on iTunes , Biblical Evidence for Catholicism! I must say thank you!!! You helped me with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and now understand Marys Role!!! I'm a convert of 4 years, baptist for 25, and never could truly understand Mary's role ... Now I do!!!' :) many thanks! God Bless you!<br />Shawn H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05471071252058754581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-11166110476807701722013-03-26T09:22:14.335-04:002013-03-26T09:22:14.335-04:00Hi dave,
I imagine you're very busy, but here...Hi dave,<br /><br />I imagine you're very busy, but here is the links for Sam Shamoun's 4 part text named "Are the Jewish Apocrypha Inspired Scripture?".<br /><br />http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/apocrypha1.html<br /><br />http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/apocrypha2.html<br /><br />http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/apocrypha3.html<br /><br />http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/apocrypha4.html<br /><br />It would be important to present, at least, some words on his claims.<br /><br />Thanks.Fernandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05007502003217435581noreply@blogger.com