Saint Thomas Aquinas

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Surpised by Idiocy: Luther's Addition to Romans 3


“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.” Martin Luther

I find it interesting to watch Protestants come up with excuses to defend their founding hero's actions like those of Martin Luther for example. People like James Swan get upset when a Catholic points out the fact that Luther wanted to add the word 'alone' to the text of Romans 3:28. They claim that Catholics take him out of context, and then offer up a variety of reasons that we should all find acceptable as to why he thought that the Scripture passage was not clear enough the way it was written in the first place. The above text is the reason that Luther gave to adding the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. He insists it belongs there, yet he has to admit that it was not originally written that way. This is absolutely amazing to me. Guys like James Swan over at 'Beggars All' insist that Sacred Scripture is perfectly clear, and that God wrote it in a fashion as to be easily understood, yet he backs Luther's reason for adding in words to the text which are not there, for the exact opposite reason. The reason being that the original text was not clear enough to begin with. The problem of course is that the original text of the passage, or a close literal translation of the text never conveys the meaning that Luther wants to attribute to it. His "faith alone" doctrine does not stand without adding the word 'alone' to the text. He insists that the original text conveys the sense of "faith alone" but if that is the case, then why add the word in the first place? Oh, I know! For people like Luther and the pretended "reformers" it is OK to add words to their translations of the Scriptures so that their interpretations can be forced upon their readers.

The pretended "reformers" love to attack Catholics for supposedly adding to God's Written Word with Tradition, yet we see here a clear and admitted example by Martin Luther of adding to God's Written Word. There is no getting around this fact. Of  course Luther, like the rest of the pretended "reformers" were either ignorant or obstinately opposed to understanding the difference between "works of the Law", and works united in faith to God's grace. So for Luther, the only way to invent his new "faith alone" doctrine was to add the word 'alone' to the text of Romans 3, which he freely admits was never there to begin with. Now we all have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. If God wanted that passage to be interpreted as "faith alone", would He not have written it that way to begin with? Secondly it would seem that the arrogant Luther thought himself to be wiser than God, because by Luther's assessment, God was too stupid to realize that the Catholics were going to misread this passage for 1500 years without the word alone in the text, so obviously it was up to Luther to add it. Of course I am sure that Luther and the pretended "reformers" would protest to the fact that Catholics were around for 1500 years, but that is another debate for another time. I could also prove that Luther's interpretation was bogus by looking at the ancient commentaries of this passage. Maybe I will do that in another post. Any way you slice it, Luther did not trust in Holy Writ as it was given to him by God. Instead he arrogantly insisted on adding to God's Holy Writ, the word 'alone' to Romans 3. 

Additional Note:
I thought it might be helpful to shed some light on this passage with the wisdom of Saint Thomas Aquinas. 


"At first glance it would seem that by the law of works is meant the Old Law and by the law of faith the New Law, through which the Gentile is made equal to the Jew.
But there is some doubt about this distinction.


For even in the Old Law faith was necessary, just as it is in the New: “You who fear the Lord believe him” (Sir 2:8); “I believed; therefore I have spoken” (Ps l16:l0). And indeed, works are required in the New Law, namely, the works of certain sacraments, as commanded in Luke 22(:19), “Do this in memory of me” and of moral observances: “Be doers of the word and not hearers only” (Jas 1:22).


Consequently, it should be said that what he calls the law of works is the law outwardly presented and written, through which men’s external works are directed, when it prescribes what he ought to do and forbids what ought to be avoided. But what he calls the law of faith is the law inwardly written, through which are directed not only external works but even the very motions of the heart, among which the act of faith is first: “Man believes with his heart” (Rom 10:10). Of this second law he speaks below (8:2): “The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.”
317. Then when he says, For we hold, he shows how the Jews’ boasting is excluded by the law of faith, saying: For we apostles, being taught the truth by Christ, hold that a man, whomsoever he be, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith: “He cleansed their hearts by faith” (Ac 15:9). And this apart from the works of the law.


Not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, as stated in Titus 3(:5), “Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness.” This, of course, means without works prior to becoming just, but not without works following it, because, as is stated in James (2:26): “Faith without works,” i.e., subsequent works, “is dead,” and, consequently, cannot justify."

From St. Thomas Aquinas' Lectures on Romans.


64 comments:

scotju said...

I remember when I was a Lutheran 15 years ago, I watched the infamous propaganda film "Martin Luther". I recall the one scene where ML is translating Rom 3:28. He hesitates at first, then with a great florish of motion and msic, he adds the word 'alone' to the German text. When I recall that scene now, I'm ashamed at my ignorance of who and what Luther really was. I'm also angry that the pastors I had must have lied to me. I can't see how these men could have been ignorant of the real Luther. They certainly had ascess to all of Luther's works at their seminaries. They had to known what the man was really like.

The Calvinists ministers certainly do the same thing. They have to lie big time abot their hero JC. After all, a guy who was a psychopathic monster isn't going to be too great a draw for new converts!

Ben M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alexander said...

But...but...there were German translations already in existence which used the word alone...right?

Stupid papist!

scotju said...

Alexander, there were no earlier German verisons that slipped the word "alone" into Rom 3:28. If there were, the Church would have raised hell about it, just like it did when Luther did it.

Alexander said...

scotju,

I was being facetious. :)

scotju said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
scotju said...

Sorry Alex, but you sounded soooo serious!

Robert said...

Hi,

My name is Rev Robert Wright, Editor for Christian.com, a social network made specifically for Christians, by Christians. We embarked on this endeavor to offer the entire Christian community an outlet to join together and better spread the good word of Christianity. Christian.com has many great features like Christian TV, prayer requests, finding a church, receiving church updates and advice. We have emailed you to collaborate with you and your blog to help spread the good word of Christianity. I look forward to your response regarding this matter. Thanks!


Rev. Robert Wright
rev.robertwright@gmail.com
www.christian.com

Turretinfan said...

Scotju:

You may need to check out this discussion of Romans 3:28 (link). It provides an in-depth discussion of the question of whether Luther added "alone" there.

- TurretinFan

scotju said...

Turretfan, I know your Protestant trickery. Initial justifiction has to come from faith because a sinfull, unconverted man can not please God. He's already been condemned by the law. However, a converted man is justified by his faith and his works. Rom 3:28-31 and
James 2:14-28 show justification must come from both or faith is dead. You and your Luther/Calvin loving buds can have your dead faith, I prefer a loiving one.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Turretin, I have read that link to Swan's nonsense. The "context" argument does not change anything. All you are doing is trying to justify your filthy pretended "reformer's" actions in insisting that the word 'alone' belongs in the text, when obviously it was never there to begin with. We can see who the true heretics are. Those adding words to Sacred Scripture to get it to mean what you want it mean are perfect examples.

Turretinfan said...

"Turretfan, I know your Protestant trickery."

I hope you'll read the post, which has to do with a question of truth and history, particularly with respect to the issue of prior German translations.

"All you are doing is trying to justify your filthy pretended "reformer's" actions in insisting that the word 'alone' belongs in the text, when obviously it was never there to begin with."

So, why did people put it there before Luther? Something in the German water?

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

Also what is interesting to note in Swan's post that TF linked to, is that Swan takes the quotes he uses out of context. For instance did anyone notice that he quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas in that post, yet left out the most important part of Thomas' exposition on Romans where St. Thomas refutes Swan's and Luther's conclusion? Read what St. Thomas wrote in its entirely in his commentary on Romans. James Swan is dishonest for putting up the quote like he did without what came immediately after it. You can read that at the bottom of this original post. This once again shows how dishonest the pretended "reformers" are.

Alexander said...

James Swan is dishonest for putting up the quote like he did without what came immediately after it.

I've heard that this is also the Webster/King approach to citation. James Swan and Webster/King are friends. Consipiracy perhaps?

Turretinfan said...

Alexander: LOL

Alexander said...

OOPS! I have no idea what I was thinking. I meant to say quotation, not citation.

Alexander said...

Alexander: LOL

I thought so.

scotju said...

Turretinfan, even if those German translations had "alone" in them, it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to me. "Alone" isn't in the original Greek text, and the content of those passages would show it didn't belong there.

scotju said...

A word to Turretinfan. If you don't want to waste your time, don't try to get me to read Luther as a primary source for understanding the Bible. I lost respect for Luther many years ago, when I realized the man was a egotistical maniac. He was also suffering from an untreated bipolar disorder that influenced his understanding of God and his word. His obsession with feces is also a classic sign of mental illness. I've known several mentally ill persons who had this hang up, so it's safe to say Luther was in the same boat. He also talked about seeing the devil all the time. The poor guy was either demon possessed or was hallucinating quite a bit. So I'll stick with the sane teachings of the Mother Church and you can have your wild and crazy guy.

Turretinfan said...

"Turretinfan, even if those German translations had "alone" in them, it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to me."

I find that hard to reconcile with your previous remarks, but ok.

"A word to Turretinfan. If you don't want to waste your time, don't try to get me to read Luther as a primary source for understanding the Bible."

Why on earth would I try to do that? Who makes Luther a primary source for understanding the Bible?

-TurretinFan

scotju said...

Turretinfan, I looked at those pre-Lutheran translations of Rom 3:28 on Beggers. I do not know who the translaters were. They could have been orthodox or heretics. They could have been explaining to their readers how somebody else interpeted the passage. However, what I do know is 'alone' isn't in in the Greek text. Until I see some competent explaination of those German texts, I'm not going to bow to Crazy Marty's sola fide poppycock.

"Who makes Luther a primary source for understanding the Bible?" Oh, judging by how many times yo and your associates have to quote him or defend him, I would say a large majority of Protestants use him as a primary source. Face it, without Loony Lu, you don't have Protestantism.

Turretinfan said...

Scotju: I think these questions may be for you. Consider answering them.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Scotju, that is Turretin Fan's way of saying, "I can't handle the truth so quit picking on us." Since he does not have a good argument for his beliefs he will go to any measures to keep the truth silent. Anyways, was that an infallible statement he quoted?

Turretinfan said...

No, it's my way of saying that all you have is scoffing, and you shouldn't have that.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Keep crying TF, we all can see how bad your arguments are and how dishonest you and your friends are when it comes to attacking the Catholic faith. It has been proven over and over that you are not equipped intellectually to argue against the Catholic faith, because you simply do not understand it, or you refuse to present it honestly. Someone for example who constantly tries to turn St. Thomas Aquinas into a proponent of Sola Scriptura is simply either dishonest, delusional or an idiot and cannot be taken seriously. So your only defense is to cry that you are being unjustly attacked. Cry me a river. You have a track record of ad hominem attacks, so I wouldn't go pointing the finger so fast at others.

Turretinfan said...

"Keep crying TF, we all can see how bad your arguments are and how dishonest you and your friends are when it comes to attacking the Catholic faith."

We keep demonstrating the truth, and you keep calling it lies.

"It has been proven over and over that you are not equipped intellectually to argue against the Catholic faith, because you simply do not understand it, or you refuse to present it honestly."

If your positions were stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to these sorts of personal attacks. I encourage folks to check out your and my past dialogs to confirm or deny your report. I think they demonstrate that your accusations are false, but I'm willing to let the reader decide for himself.

"Someone for example who constantly tries to turn St. Thomas Aquinas into a proponent of Sola Scriptura is simply either dishonest, delusional or an idiot and cannot be taken seriously."

That's what you seem to think, yet you have no good answer for the fact that Thomas uses expressions like "only canonical scripture is the rule of faith" (See body of documentation here).

"So your only defense is to cry that you are being unjustly attacked."

Really? That's my only defense? I could direct scotju to the numerous articles that have been written debunking the false accusations of Luther's supposed lunacy. James Swan has written a number of them himself. Aren't you overselling yourself here?

"Cry me a river."

Your attitude is clear.

"You have a track record of ad hominem attacks, so I wouldn't go pointing the finger so fast at others."

I doubt I would agree with your assessments as to what constitute personal attacks.

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF says, "yet you have no good answer for the fact that Thomas uses expressions like "only canonical scripture is the rule of faith"

That is a lie, read here.
http://www.catholicchampion.com/page67/page67.html

Turretinfan said...

I would respectfully disagree that you've provided any good answer for the fact that Thomas uses expressions like "only canonical scripture is the rule of faith" even at the page you've linked. Perhaps I need to provide a detailed response to your post to demonstrate that - perhaps it is evident without further demonstration on my part.

I realize that you view the page you've linked as providing an answer. I just don't think it's a good answer.

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF, of course you don't because you are blinded by hatred. I am sure you can twist more quotes of his out of context and then claim you are victorious, which is what I am sure you will do. Instead of admitting that Aquinas did not hold to your belief the only ridiculous answer you had to counter his other quotes supporting Tradition and the Church is that he wasn't consistent. If that is the best you have then I am not too worried.

Alexander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Turretinfan said...

"TF, of course you don't because you are blinded by hatred."

Hatred? Hatred of what or whom? How does that hatred supposedly affect my judgment about whether you have a good answer? I disagree with Thomas on lots of things - why should I care if the truth was that Aquinas didn't hold to some form of the principle of sola scriptura? Have you stopped to consider that?

"I am sure you can twist more quotes of his out of context and then claim you are victorious, which is what I am sure you will do."

I've already provided a mountain of evidence when it comes to Aquinas. Just accusing me of "twist[ing them] out of context" isn't a good answer.

"Instead of admitting that Aquinas did not hold to your belief the only ridiculous answer you had to counter his other quotes supporting Tradition and the Church is that he wasn't consistent."

I don't think that's a very accurate summary of my responses.

"If that is the best you have then I am not too worried."

What would worry you?

-TurretinFan

Alexander said...

This should get interesting.


"only canonical scripture is the rule of faith"

Isn't the operative word here: canonical?

Who and what was St. Thomas addressing?

Thanks

By the way, I took a few psychology courses in college, so in my professional opinion I would have to say that Luther's psychological state was

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF says, "Hatred? Hatred of what or whom? How does that hatred supposedly affect my judgment about whether you have a good answer?"

Hatred of Christ's Church, which is the Catholic Church, and hatred of Catholics who present arguments about the Catholic faith that you cannot refute effectively. It affects your judgment because your hatred blinds you to being able to rationally judge an argument to be true of false. It also blinds you spiritually to able to discern truth.

"I've already provided a mountain of evidence when it comes to Aquinas"

No you have not, and you have no clue as to the context in which St. Thomas was writing, and as usual you do not take his writings as a whole. Rather, you cut and paste quotes out of context. The writing that I did on St. Thomas on Sacra Doctrina far exceeds any of the cut and paste jobs you have done on the subject, say what you will. It is also worthy to note that no well respected Thomistic scholar agrees with your or Webster's absurd claims.

scotju said...

Turretinfan, I'm of Marrano Crypto- Jewish descent, and I was a member of the WorldWide Church of God (the Armstrongt cult) so I'm very well equiped to answer yor questions.

1. "Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convections and practises". If their convictions and practises are not dangerous to those who are not of their sect, and agree with the moral standards of the host commnity, I don't see why not.

2. "entitled to their own place of worship" If they are not using their place of worship as a cover for criminal or illegel activities, I don't see why not.

3. "their founding figres and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicle" If they are man and women of high moral charater and their symbols stand for something edifying, I don't see why not.

However if a religious minority is sing it's faith as a cloak to commit thievery, acts of violence, swindles, ridicling the faith and morals of people they live among, they should not expect their "religion" and it's teachings to be respected, their houses of worship will be reguarded as the seat of an illicit enterprise, and their leaders and founders would/should be held p to rightous ridicule. Your founders Luther and Calvin were evil men. Luther was a flaming psychotic who had an obsession with excretment, and Calvin was a sadistic sodomite who was a control freak. Luther's inflamatory writings were a major cause of the Peasent War that killed 100,000 thousand people and Calvin and his disciples encouraged rebellions against Catholic rulers. And you demand respect for these guys!? I'll respect them when I can respect Herbert W Armstrong, who raped his own daughter, and I'll respect the Jews when they remove the blasphemies against Christ, his mother BVM, the Christians, and the cross form the Talmud. Have I answered yor qestions to your satifaction Turretinfan?

Turretinfan said...

"Hatred of Christ's Church, which is the Catholic Church, and hatred of Catholics who present arguments about the Catholic faith that you cannot refute effectively."

You're mistaken in several ways:

1) Rome is not Christ's Church.

2) I don't hate people who currently align themselves with Rome.

3) Obviously, I am opposed to your church, but I think "hate" is an inaccurate way of portraying that opposition.

"It affects your judgment because your hatred blinds you to being able to rationally judge an argument to be true of false."

Your argument can't really be that I can't judge any arguments, and my question was why my bias (real or imagined) would lead me to think Aquinas was a good guy with right views rather than a bad guy with wrong views (to try simplify things a little)? I'm able to figure out that you don't hold to a form of sola scriptura ... so why do I think Aquinas holds some form of it?

"It also blinds you spiritually to able to discern truth."

I understand what you're saying here, though obviously I don't agree. Hopefully the question of whether or not Aquinas taught a particular doctrine is not itself a spiritually discerned truth. If you disagree, let me know.

I wrote: "I've already provided a mountain of evidence when it comes to Aquinas"

You responded: "No you have not ..."

Oh, come on. You know that I have provided a mountain of evidence. You may disagree with my assessment of the evidence, but I have provided it. Check again, if you have forgotten.

"... and you have no clue as to the context in which St. Thomas was writing ..."

You assert this - repeatedly - but you are mistaken.

"... and as usual you do not take his writings as a whole."

Again - this is your assertion. It's valid only to the extent that I don't quote the entire book when I quote him. My quotations are not "out of context" in any normal sense of the word.

"Rather, you cut and paste quotes out of context."

See above. Same response. Furthermore, providing the quotations is providing the mountain of evidence I talked about. How you can say "no you have not" when I point this out is hard to understand.

"The writing that I did on St. Thomas on Sacra Doctrina far exceeds any of the cut and paste jobs you have done on the subject, say what you will."

LOL

"It is also worthy to note that no well respected Thomistic scholar agrees with your or Webster's absurd claims."

Are you trying to claim you've read all the well respected Thomistic scholars and found none of them agreeing with the idea that Thomas held to some form of sola scriptura?

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Have I answered yor qestions to your satifaction Turretinfan?"

Yes, thank you for answering.

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF wirtes, "You're mistaken in several ways:

1) Rome is not Christ's Church."

Yes it is, you are wrong.

"Oh, come on. You know that I have provided a mountain of evidence. You may disagree with my assessment of the evidence, but I have provided it. "

Evidence is something that provides proof of your argument. Yo did not present evidence of your belief regarding St. Thomas, but only cut and pasted quotes out of context.

"My quotations are not "out of context" in any normal sense of the word."

Yes they are. I refuted the exact quotes that you used and put them in the correct context of which Aquinas presented them in.

"Are you trying to claim you've read all the well respected Thomistic scholars and found none of them agreeing with the idea that Thomas held to some form of sola scriptura?"

Don't play games with me. Did I say I read every Thomistic scholar? Right now I have over 50 volumes on my shelf on Aquinas alone, written by many Thomistic scholars. None of them agree with you or Webster. How many volumes do you own on Aquinas?

Turretinfan said...

"Yes it is, you are wrong."

I'm aware of your position.

"Evidence is something that provides proof of your argument. Yo did not present evidence of your belief regarding St. Thomas, but only cut and pasted quotes out of context."

I disagree with your characterization of my evidence as well as your definition of evidence.

I wrote: "My quotations are not "out of context" in any normal sense of the word."

You wrote: "Yes they are."

Thanks for informing me of your position.

"I refuted the exact quotes that you used and put them in the correct context of which Aquinas presented them in."

I don't agree with your characterization.

I asked: "Are you trying to claim you've read all the well respected Thomistic scholars and found none of them agreeing with the idea that Thomas held to some form of sola scriptura?"

You replied: "Don't play games with me. Did I say I read every Thomistic scholar?"

No, you didn't even claim you read one Thomistic scholar. Hence my question.

"Right now I have over 50 volumes on my shelf on Aquinas alone, written by many Thomistic scholars. None of them agree with you or Webster. How many volumes do you own on Aquinas?"

LOL - I don't give out personal information, of which that would be part.

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF writes, "I don't give out personal information, of which that would be part."

This is your deranged way of telling us that you don't own anything on Thomistic scholarship. Which explains why you don't know anything about him or his writings beyond cutting and pasting it from the internet.

Turretinfan said...

"This is your deranged way of telling us that you don't own anything on Thomistic scholarship. Which explains why you don't know anything about him or his writings beyond cutting and pasting it from the internet."

I'm still not going to tell you, despite the goading.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Thanks for confirming the fact that you have no knowledge of Thomistic scholarship.

Turretinfan said...

"Thanks for confirming the fact that you have no knowledge of Thomistic scholarship."

Still not going to tell you!

Matthew Bellisario said...

I don't really care. If you had any number of Thomistic works you would have told us because you are way to arrogant no to do so. It is apparent based on your quoting of St. Thomas that you don't know the first thing about Thomistic scholarship. You have told us that you own Webster's books so you have already told us personal information about books you own, so we all see the BS tactic you are trying to pull here.

Turretinfan said...

"I don't really care."

I know. You're just haranguing me for the fun of it.

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF, you have told us that you own Webster's books so you have already told us personal information about books you own right? I mean have you not revealed such information on your blog before? Now it is a great secret about your private life? Give us all a break! You spend all day attacking Catholics on your blog. You make audio/video recordings and now all in the sudden you are afraid to tell us how many volumes you own on Aquinas? Please!

Turretinfan said...

Afraid?

LOL

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF, did yo not say the following regarding how many books on Aquinas you own?

"I don't give out personal information, of which that would be part."

Yet, do you not give out similar private information on your blog regarding other books that you own? If you are not going to be honest then go away. Why don't you just admit for once that you do not have a well rounded understanding of Thomistic scholarship, and that you do not own any number of books on the subject?

Turretinfan said...

"If you are not going to be honest then go away. "

Where being honest equals giving you the personal information you request? You must be joking.

If you want me to leave, no problem, it's your blog.

Matthew Bellisario said...

That is it, don't answer the question, just run away! You know that you are contradicting yourself here and that you have in the past revealed books that you own on other topics. So claiming that it is private information is BS and you know it. If you are content to use this as an excuse then so be it. You can't rightfully make a categorical statement saying that revealing books is too personal for you when you have already revealed that you own on other books like that of Webster's. Please do not leave. This only further demonstrates how dishonest you are in your statements. I am glad that my readers can see you for who you really are. You expect me to believe that you will not give out information regrading what books you own, yet you do it all the time on your blog.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Let me be clear. It is BS that you claim that you do not give this type of information out, since you have done so in the past.

Turretinfan said...

"That is it, don't answer the question, just run away!"

I'm still around, but you're accusing me of dishonesty for not giving you the information you want ... so what's the point of trying to talk with you?

Matthew Bellisario said...

"but you're accusing me of dishonesty for not giving you the information you want ... so what's the point of trying to talk with you?"

No, I am accusing you of dishonesty because you told me that you do not give out this type of private information, yet we all know that you do give this type of information out on your blog. If you want to be honest, just tell me that you do not want to give me the information, but do not act as if you never give this type of of information out as a rule.

Turretinfan said...

My comment was: "I don't give out personal information, of which that would be part."

I'm sorry, but how is that dishonest?

Matthew Bellisario said...

OK. Have you not revealed that type of private information before on your blog? Yes or no? If you can reveal that you own Webster's books, why can't you tell us what books you own on Aquinas? Why do you have a rule on that, and not on other books you own?

Turretinfan said...

"OK."

Yay, a sort of positive comment! This is progress.

"Have you not revealed that type of private information before on your blog? Yes or no?"

I may have said I own King/Webster's books. I don't recall saying it, and I certainly don't make a habit of talking about my library. Perhaps I have said that I own this or that book, over the years.

"If you can reveal that you own Webster's books, why can't you tell us what books you own on Aquinas?"

I don't reveal - not I "can't" reveal. Obviously, I have the ability to reveal it.

"Why do you have a rule on that, and not on other books you own?"

My sense is that my general rule is that I don't talk about my library, with the exception being (perhaps ... and I'm basing this on your report that you think I have said something about the Webster/King series) Webster/King's series. Oh, and Turretin's Institutes. I have probably admitted to having a copy of them. And a Bible - I may have admitted that at some point.

Of course, as far as you know, that's my whole library, so it's hard for you to know whether I have an exception or a rule going on here.

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

So I guess you can break your rule whenever you see fit to do so. I guess it does not benefit you to do so in this case as you think it does when you reveal that you own Webster's books. So be it. In the meantime you have a lot of explaining to do make your case stick with St. Thomas on Sola Scriptura. So far you have not demonstrated any in depth knowledge of him or his works. In the end it doesn't matter if you reveal your Aquinas books or not.

Turretinfan said...

"So I guess you can break your rule whenever you see fit to do so."

Uh -- yeah! It's not a moral law.

"So far you have not demonstrated any in depth knowledge of him or his works."

Well, there's the evidence of the depth (or lack thereof) of my knowledge on the subject. I haven't offered anything more than that, and I don't mind being judged on the basis of that.

"In the end it doesn't matter if you reveal your Aquinas books or not."

I'm glad we agree on that!

Matthew Bellisario said...

Here is a question for you TF. Can you give me one or two Thomistic scholars that agree with you and Webster regarding St. Thomas and Sola Scriptura? I can name several that do not, and I have revealed some of them in my previous writing on the subject.

Turretinfan said...

"Here is a question for you TF. Can you give me one or two Thomistic scholars that agree with you and Webster regarding St. Thomas and Sola Scriptura? I can name several that do not, and I have revealed some of them in my previous writing on the subject."

Obviously, Webster is quotes from Geisler on the same page where you quote from Webster. Geisler is a scholar and a big fan of Thomas, though not necessarily a "Thomistic scholar." I've been putting together some materials for a blog post on that subject with more of the scholarly quotations that say that Thomas held to some form of sola scriptura. The scope was originally scholarly quotations on the subject, not just specifically "Thomistic" scholarly quotations. From what I recall, at least one or two fall into that category.

But, so far, all I've presented you with is Geisler - and until I finish the blog post, or you happen to read the scholars I'm planning to quote, you can reasonably say that you're not aware of any other scholars who share my assessment of Thomas.

Turretinfan said...

"is quotes from"??
Blah - I meant "is quoting from" or "quotes from" ... sorry for the typo

Matthew Bellisario said...

OK fair enough. For the record, Thomistic scholars include theologians in the caliber of Matthew Lamb, Matthew Levering, Fr. Lagrange, Ralph MCinenry, Jean Pierre Torrell, Brian Davies, Thomas G. Weinandy, etc. You know, guys who actually have spent their lives studying St. Thomas. Perhaps you can give me one or two of the Thomistic scholars that you are going to use so I can study up on them? Or is that top secret info?

Turretinfan said...

Florent Gaboriau will be one.

Matthew Bellisario said...

One of the "New Theologians." Not surprising to see him come up again.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Gaboriau's work however is not primarily based in Thomistic research as those I have listed. It would certainly be questionable to call him a "Thomistic" scholar.