tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post886453389578714467..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Ecumenical Luther and Roman Apologists: Who is a Christian?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54269197171965558622020-07-05T21:28:35.819-04:002020-07-05T21:28:35.819-04:00Sorry for not seeing your reply: notices are sent ...Sorry for not seeing your reply: notices are sent to an email I rarely check. <br /><br /><i>it seems to me that Rome has been wise not to make any final decision about the subject of free-will and predestination. </i><br /><br />It was not wisdom, but exhaustion, while this is certainly not an issue that is settled in Protestantism, and is not usually a cause for becoming one. <br /><br /> <i>, it is hard for me to see how Catholics are going to turn into protestants while the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that many of your doctrines aren't medieval innovations. </i> <br /><br />What? It is distinctive Catholic teachings <a href="http://peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html" rel="nofollow">that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed </a> (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). <br /><br /><i>Take justification for example: the sort of "extra nos" righteousness that Luther believed, and which rejected the ontological transformation of the believer, is nowhere to be found in the Fathers. </i><br /><br />Do you really think most Protestants even understand what you are referring to? Or that sola fide means salvation by a faith that is alone, versus regenerating heart-purifying effectual faith which Peter preached (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9)? <br /><br />Which is in contrast to RC teaching on <a href="https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/06/basically-what-is-roman-catholic.html" rel="nofollow"> salvation via sanctification </a>, of becoming actually good enough to be with God, thru baptism and then (usually) RC Purgatory. <br /><br />Moreover, converts to evangelicalism from Catholicism say this change was due to finding the latter to be spiritually deficient. <br /> <br />71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. (https://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3/)<br /><br />I am one for whom my leaving was partly due to doctrine, but mostly for desire for fellowship with others who had realized the profound basic transformational effects of becoming truly born again, regardless of what you say Luther taught. Thanks be to God.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43324937466783719922020-06-22T17:21:27.177-04:002020-06-22T17:21:27.177-04:00To Peace by Jesus: when I look at some of the deba...To Peace by Jesus: when I look at some of the debates between Calvinists and Provisionalist, it seems to me that Rome has been wise not to make any final decision about the subject of free-will and predestination. Dr Ken Wilson in his book has posed a challenge that Calvinists have not being able to cope with (that it was Augustine that introduced maniquean determinism in the Church while the consensus of the early Fathers affirmed libertarian free-will).<br /><br />So, it is hard for me to see how Catholics are going to turn into protestants while the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that many of your doctrines aren't medieval innovations. Take justification for example: the sort of "extra nos" righteousness that Luther believed, and which rejected the ontological transformation of the believer, is nowhere to be found in the Fathers.<br /><br />No serious Catholic will ever be convinced to become a Protestant, if you don't show that you are consistent with the traditions of the Early Fathers. And that is now in question like never before, in the new edition of Iusticia Dei for example or in the work of Dr. Ken Wilson and his thesis from Oxford.<br /><br />Not that everything is rainbows and butterflies on the Catholic front, but your doctrinal challenges are mounting as well.Hugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09126873503304144942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30642872790862651452020-05-29T09:51:47.675-04:002020-05-29T09:51:47.675-04:001st Vatican Catholics are ranting against Francis;...<i> 1st Vatican Catholics are ranting against Francis; his liberalism is extreme. </i><br /><br />Had I more time, I would love to simply document what the current pope says and how Rome's cyber-defenders interpret it. That would be a fascinating project! James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8018087720429635562020-05-29T09:49:56.036-04:002020-05-29T09:49:56.036-04:00Maybe Francis can settle this like Vatican Two did...<i>Maybe Francis can settle this like Vatican Two did by "clarifying" what the Catholic church has always believed, everywhere..."</i><br /><br />LOL, I doubt it. Rome doesn't really appear to care about defining doctrine these days!James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83047466124143524982020-05-25T22:22:00.162-04:002020-05-25T22:22:00.162-04:00To Peace by Jesus: 1st Vatican Catholics are ranti...To Peace by Jesus: 1st Vatican Catholics are ranting against Francis; his liberalism is extreme. He is not even traditional orthodox like some of the Popes during Augustine's era. Do you really think this Pope should settle doctrinal issues for the Catholic Church when he is so far from traditional Catholicism. Wake Up. Corruption prevails and Luther nailed it with the 95!!! TommyTommyKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13936478497234149842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68470521695896890382020-05-24T22:33:29.587-04:002020-05-24T22:33:29.587-04:00Rome is constantly trying to rationalize their con...<i>Rome is constantly trying to rationalize their conceptions of free will to strive for false ecumenicalism, or to gloat on their human works. </i> <br /><br />Relevant to this, note that after the death of Luther in 1546 there was a fervent debate btwn Dominicans, who seemed to lean towards Augustinian theodicy, and Jesuits on the issue of reconciling the efficacy of divine grace with human freedom. <br /><br />"Finally, after twenty years of public and private discussion, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, was not reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis)<br /><br /> Maybe Francis can settle this like Vatican Two did by "clarifying" what the Catholic church has always believed, everywhere, thereby essentially turning a large swath of Catholics into Protestants, determining the veracity of modern church teaching based upon their understanding of what past church teaching means. <br /> <br /><br />PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64017747824110621312020-05-24T10:52:07.631-04:002020-05-24T10:52:07.631-04:00Rome is constantly trying to rationalize their con...<i> Rome is constantly trying to rationalize their conceptions of free will to strive for false ecumenicalism, or to gloat on their human works. </i><br /><br />Yes, I agree!James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65273498562884077412020-05-22T22:45:25.540-04:002020-05-22T22:45:25.540-04:00James, question if the comment will come through o...James, question if the comment will come through on this 2016 post of yours. Beside a correct conviction of Christian Orthodoxy following Augustine to Luther, the basis hangs on one's conviction of "free-will"; I'll go with Luther on Bondage of the Will; Calvin's Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as Augustine's Defense against Pelagius. Rome is constantly trying to rationalize their conceptions of free will to strive for false ecumenicalism, or to gloat on their human works. TommyTommyKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13936478497234149842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6262792198113953682016-03-17T22:02:28.221-04:002016-03-17T22:02:28.221-04:00This old post must be the longest one ever, while...This old post must be the longest one ever, while what do you think of this (and comments):<br /><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3410362/posts" rel="nofollow">Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther </a> - The Catholic World Report: <br /><br />Rome has found a name for a new Square in the heart of the city, an open space in the middle of a leafy garden park in a choice area near the Coliseum: Martin Luther Square.<br /><br />Almost 500 years after Augustinian monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Cathedral of Wittenberg, Swabia (October 1517), and 494 years after the bull of excommunication issued by Pope Leo X ("Decet Romanum Pontificem", January 1521), the city of Rome has honored the man who sparked the Protestant Reformation, a movement premised on what Luther condemned in that very city, the headquarters of the Catholic Church....<br /><br />In January, it was announced that Francis plans to travel to Sweden in October of this year “for a joint ecumenical commemoration of the start of the Reformation, together with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of other Christian Churches.” PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71179008248252879802013-07-02T18:31:59.963-04:002013-07-02T18:31:59.963-04:00I had suspected you were blowing a lot of smoke
W...<i>I had suspected you were blowing a lot of smoke</i><br /><br />What on earth is THAT supposed to mean ? :-\<br /><br /><br /><i>I think there are a great number of Lutherans that don't know Luther all that well, and I certainly know a great number of Calvinists that don't know Calvin all that well. It would not surprise me at all to find out many Romanists and many Orthodox don't have a clue in regard to "fathers".</i><br /><br />I understand what you're trying to say (and I agree), but I wasn't refering to that.<br />___________________________________<br /><br />Ken,<br /><br />let's just say that my blog has been intelligently designed to briefly and swiftly separate those chosen few that can understand <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldq34CsRXVk" rel="nofollow">my peculiar sense of humor</a> from the large mass of those that can't. It's actually a pretty Calvinistic approach, when you think about it... :-)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88165221224265060772013-07-02T14:13:35.408-04:002013-07-02T14:13:35.408-04:00What does it mean that you go by "the blogger...What does it mean that you go by "the blogger formerly known as Lvka" and you have a picture of a girl; and, last time I checked, some of your articles are about sexual issues, sex change, homosexuality, and one is entitled "the woman in me" ?? <br /><br />Your articles at your blogs are really hard to understand; I give up after a few minutes there.<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32991694155984284552013-07-02T10:09:24.248-04:002013-07-02T10:09:24.248-04:00My idea was very simple: Lutherans don't need ...<i>My idea was very simple: Lutherans don't need "well-meaning" outsiders to tell them what Luther "really" meant: they know it already all too well. The same goes for Calvinists with regards to John Calvin, and Orthodox or Catholic with regards to their Eastern & Western Church Fathers. Such endeavours are revisionist reinterpretations, and -my point- everybody's doing it unto others, but no-one likes it when it is done unto them. (The golden rule, and all that).</i><br /><br />I had suspected you were blowing a lot of smoke, and your comment verifies it. So: before you accuse anyone of "selectively reading" anything or being a "revisionist", be they dead or alive, you should be prepared to actually prove your case. <br /><br />And now on to something completely different: I think there are a great number of Lutherans that don't know Luther all that well, and I certainly know a great number of Calvinists that don't know Calvin all that well. It would not surprise me at all to find out many Romanists and many Orthodox don't have a clue in regard to "fathers". James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81773724909395899292013-07-01T08:37:42.167-04:002013-07-01T08:37:42.167-04:00Whatever.
My idea was very simple: Lutherans don&...Whatever.<br /><br />My idea was very simple: Lutherans don't need "well-meaning" outsiders to tell them what Luther "really" meant: they know it already all too well. The same goes for Calvinists with regards to John Calvin, and Orthodox or Catholic with regards to their Eastern & Western Church Fathers. Such endeavours are revisionist reinterpretations, and -my point- everybody's doing it unto others, but no-one likes it when it is done unto them. (The golden rule, and all that).<br />___________________________________<br /><br />Jugulum,<br /><br />the easiest way in which someone might be able to objectively reconstruct the early patristic teaching with regards to the Eucharist is to simply take all four historic Churches (Catholics, Orthodox, Monophysites, and Nestorians), and compare them. All of these hold Chrysostom in very high regard, and a teacher of true doctrine, and all four have an almost-identical teaching concerning Sacraments, despite the fact that the last two broke off from both each other and the rest around 500 AD, and the other two around 1,000 AD. (There are only three decades between Chrysostom's death and the Nestorian schism, for instance). All of them see in John 6 a distinction between the "material breads" which Christ multiplied in the beggining of the chapter, and the "spiritual bread" of the Eucharist from the later half of the same chapter, whose purpose is not to fill our bellies, but to be raised up to eternal life. You may reject their interpretation, but you may not deny that it is theirs, and the Fathers'.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73601593219792459912013-06-26T15:24:47.070-04:002013-06-26T15:24:47.070-04:00James,
I promise to do my best.
Just to be clear,...James,<br /><i>I promise to do my best.</i><br /><br />Just to be clear, based on what I've seen, I'd expect your <i>normal</i> to be fantastic.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80747651224056509342013-06-26T15:22:44.340-04:002013-06-26T15:22:44.340-04:00Lvka,
I'll add: I do think that what you offe...Lvka,<br /><br />I'll add: I do think that what you offered in your first comment was helpful as far as it went. Thank you, really. But we're still in the first step. From what I can tell, you didn't do much in the category of "<i>you can tell it's selective reading because of [insert the exegetical commentary James was looking for]</i>".<br /><br />You showed us specific writings from a modern Anglican--is that what you meant all along by "Reformer", i.e. including modern Reformed theologians along with the Reformers that James just mentioned? It looks like there was a disconnect on that point.<br /><br />You also explained what you think is the proper interpretation of Chrysostom's teaching on the Eucharist. Great.<br /><br />But the depth of your exegetical commentary was (roughly) "Chrysostom used the word 'spiritual', and that's a 'well-known Orthodox liturgical expression' that only means ____". If that's your argument, then good exegetical commentary would have to include your basis for saying that <i>at the time Chrysostom wrote</i> it was a Orthodox liturgical expression that was specifically well-known to have the limited meaning you mentioned. (That argument would be indirect, but solid.) Or you could point out specific language in the Chrysostom writings that lend support to your limited reading. (It's far better to include that, if not exactly essential. You can make a pretty solid case only from the indirect argument you used--if you back it up--but your case would be far stronger if you can point to the confirming evidence in the rest of what Chrysostom was saying in context.)<br /><br />By the way, I have no particular reason to think you won't be able to make that case. And maybe it's even <i>appropriate</i> to take the statement "it was already a well-established meaning for that phrase when Chrysostom wrote" for granted because it's so well-established & uncontroversial--maybe I'm revealing my own ignorance. (James, what do you think?)<br /><br />But aside from that missing element of your analysis of Chrysostom, I'd also say you had a two unfortunate absences in your analysis of that modern Anglican writer, Brian Douglas: <br />(1) You didn't say what you found "un-Orthodox" about Douglas's "spin".<br />(2) You seemed to over-simplify Douglas's comments. You make it sound like Douglas just argued based on Chrysostom using the word "spiritual" about the bread & wine. You didn't mention or address Douglas's highlighting of multiple things being "done on earth" which are nonetheless really, truly "heavenly". Douglas is arguing that Chrysostom had a clearly-expressed category of "realism" that does not require the concept of "realism" advocated by the other Anglican writer Robert Doyle.<br /><br />So here's a major question for you: What is it in Douglas's concept of the "moderate realism" of the Eucharist that you find to be an "un-Orthodox spin"?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21141406797080257782013-06-26T13:13:33.593-04:002013-06-26T13:13:33.593-04:00Hopefully, Lvka will provide one.
I'm waiting...<i>Hopefully, Lvka will provide one.</i><br /><br />I'm waiting as well.<br /><br /><i>My guess is, Lvka is assuming that for any examples he would raise, anything you do say about them will just be explaining them away/making excuses... Making it less likely for him to want to post a specific example. Vicious cycle.</i><br /><br />I promise to do my best. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14652147223854134802013-06-26T13:06:52.768-04:002013-06-26T13:06:52.768-04:00For instance whenever Saint John Chrysostom refers... <i>For instance whenever Saint John Chrysostom refers either in his catechetic writings, biblical commentaries, or in his Liturgy to the Eucharist as "spiritual" food, sacrifice, etc. the Calvinists of all Protestant stripes (Reformed, Anglican, Evangelical) just can't seem to help themselves to give an un-Orthodox spin to a well-known Orthodox liturgical expression, which simply refers to the fact that unlike common bread or common wine, which are meant for the well-being of our physical body, the eucharistic bread and wine are meant for the well-being of our soul or spirit, cleansing it from sin, guilt and temptation, as opposed to merely filling our bellies and quenching our thirst and hunger.</i><br /><br />Here would be your chance to show where Luther, Calvin, Schaff, and TurretinFan have done this. In fact, I think you should start with Calvin. You might be surprised by Calvin and "the well-being of our soul or spirit" in regard to the Eucharist. Of course, this would mean you would have to figure out what Calvn's view of the Eucharist was, and then see if he ever quoted Chrysostom in regard to it. Then, do the same with the other Reformers, Schaff, and TurretinFan.<br /><br /><i> Here's one such example, apart from those two sites I've already mentioned.</i><br /><br />The link opens to "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." Perhaps I missed something, but what "two sites" did you already mention? You refer vaguely to CCEL, but never give anything concrete as an example. you also mention TurretinFan, so I guess you have his blog in mind? There as well, you didn't give any examples. <br /><br /><i>Another example, also from Saint John Chrysostom's Liturgy, would be the words spoken by the Priest concerning the eucharitic bread and wine "that they might become FOR US the body and blood of Your Christ", these two words, "for us", are taken by Calvinsits from various Protestant confessions as meaning "in our wild imagination", whereas they simply mean "for our sake".</i><br /><br />Once again, you haven't given any specific examples of the Reformers, Schaff, or TurretinFan doing what you say they do. I actually suspected as much would happen. If you can't provide anything meaningful from the Reformers, Schaff, and TurretinFan, then I suggest you simply move on. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13078309997532158632013-06-25T22:57:14.163-04:002013-06-25T22:57:14.163-04:00Another example, also from Saint John Chrysostom&#...Another example, also from Saint John Chrysostom's Liturgy, would be the words spoken by the Priest concerning the eucharitic bread and wine "that they might become FOR US the body and blood of Your Christ", these two words, "for us", are taken by Calvinsits from various Protestant confessions as meaning "in our wild imagination", whereas they simply mean "for our sake".The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72116822662415141442013-06-25T22:21:12.743-04:002013-06-25T22:21:12.743-04:00For instance whenever Saint John Chrysostom refers...For instance whenever Saint John Chrysostom refers either in his catechetic writings, biblical commentaries, or in his Liturgy to the Eucharist as "spiritual" food, sacrifice, etc. the Calvinists of all Protestant stripes (Reformed, Anglican, Evangelical) just can't seem to help themselves to give an un-Orthodox spin to a well-known Orthodox liturgical expression, which simply refers to the fact that unlike common bread or common wine, which are meant for the well-being of our physical body, the eucharistic bread and wine are meant for the well-being of our soul or spirit, cleansing it from sin, guilt and temptation, as opposed to merely filling our bellies and quenching our thirst and hunger. <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YjY2q6aLaMEC&pg=PA360" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> one such example, apart from those two sites I've already mentioned. As you can see, this phenomenon of "teaching the eagle how to fly" or "teaching the professor how to read" is well-worn on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant divide. It is not something isolate (Trail of Blood Baptists, and other hillarious fringe-forms of church-historical revisionism), nor does it belong solely to one side.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34823569276544675602013-06-25T19:07:12.188-04:002013-06-25T19:07:12.188-04:00P.S. My guess is, Lvka is assuming that for any ex...P.S. My guess is, Lvka is assuming that for any examples he would raise, anything you do say about them will just be explaining them away/making excuses... Making it less likely for him to want to post a specific example. Vicious cycle.<br /><br />I <i>really</i> hope my guess is wrong--I hope he gives it a try. And I pray that clear sight will reveal substantive interaction on all sides.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12183897687379113272013-06-25T19:00:09.853-04:002013-06-25T19:00:09.853-04:00James,
"However: I highly doubt it's beca...James,<br />"<i>However: I highly doubt it's because they were being dastardly. There are a number of reasons for a "selective" reading, but I'll suspend expounding on that until (or if) any "for instances" are brought forth.</i>"<br /><br />Certainly. Like you're implying, it has to start with establishing a specific example. Then we can argue the nature of the error and whether it implies anything generally, or establish additional examples that indicate the kind of pattern Lvka perceives.<br /><br />Hopefully, Lvka will provide one.<br /><br />And hopefully, in the ensuing discussion, it will be clear to all parties that everyone is genuinely listening & engaging substantively--not "explaining things away" or "making excuses" or "making flippant claims without backing them up". (It's unfortunate that so many exchanges end up being unnecessarily unfruitful--either because someone actually <i>is</i> doing those things, or because someone checks out when they wrongly <i>perceive</i> that the other is being flippant/unthoughtful.)<br /><br />Prayer: Father, may that not happen here.<br /><br />Also, I see that you had already replied to Lvka before my comment. Argh. You posted that after I had loaded the comment page--and before I posted, I specifically tried to check on whether any new comments had been added. Somehow I missed yours. Oh well.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64098907736967519782013-06-25T17:48:21.850-04:002013-06-25T17:48:21.850-04:00but rather "Here is a specific example of the...<i>but rather "Here is a specific example of them doing it, and you can tell it's selective reading because of [insert the exegetical commentary James was looking for]".</i><br /><br />I think there are a number of reasons why it's indeed possible the Reformers "selectively" read a historical source. However: I highly doubt it's because they were being dastardly. There are a number of reasons for a "selective" reading, but I'll suspend expounding on that until (or if) any "for instances" are brought forth. <br /><br />I will add though, Anthony N.S. Lane's book John Calvin, <i>Student of the Church Fathers</i> (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999) will be the sort of approach i'll be taking. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77505882162737245672013-06-25T17:40:40.091-04:002013-06-25T17:40:40.091-04:00Lvka,
Would you be willing to make that a more sp...Lvka,<br /><br />Would you be willing to make that a more specific "for instance"?<br /><br />In other words, not "<i>the Reformers selectively read the Fathers</i>", or even "<i>the Reformers selectively read the Fathers in their commentary in this translation</i>", but rather "<i>Here is a specific example of them doing it, and you can tell it's selective reading because of [insert the exegetical commentary James was looking for]</i>".Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-150559637141000202013-06-25T17:20:45.583-04:002013-06-25T17:20:45.583-04:00So, OK, you don't have any of your own exegeti...So, OK, you don't have any of your own exegetical evaluations of the Reformers quoting the "Catholic fathers." (It's the Internet, so you could probably cut-and-paste the work someone else did, though this doesn't interest me). Yes, it's indeed possible the Reformers misquoted an historical source. There are a variety of reasons as to why this might be so, and some of those reasons are not because they were being dastardly.<br /><br />In regard to Schaff's footnotes, certainly some of those notes are helpful. Schaff has done some good work. Simply because Schaff inserted a footnote doesn't mean he was wrong in that footnote, though of course, Schaff could be mistaken in some of his notes. No scholar is infallible.<br /><br />In regard to TurretinFan, I would certainly be interested in any "very unique and original (re)interpretations of many patristic and scholastic passages" you can provide from him. He's alive, so we can ask him about his particular "very unique and original (re)interpretations of many patristic and scholastic passages" you provide. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87283194016596600772013-06-25T01:31:52.415-04:002013-06-25T01:31:52.415-04:00Take for instance some Protestant translations of ...Take for instance some Protestant translations of ancient patristic works, and how the translators (eg Schaff and others) just can't seem to help themselves in inserting all sorts of "edifying" footnotes each time someone says something even remotely "Catholic"... (The translation is freely available at CCEL). Or all those Protestant bloggers (like Turretinfan, and others) who offer some very unique and original (re)interpretations of many patristic and scholastic passages. Etc.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.com