/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>582861

Section2

>Athanasius begins (section 2) with a discussion of Creation and general theology. He makes explicit reference to "Holy Scriptures," and there are lots of doctrines obviously derived from Scripture taught in the section. He even quotes from Matthew 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

True but according to the very source used, he also referred to Origen

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vi.ii.i.ii.html (see note 106)

One also have to ask if the following opening statement made is Biblical according to Turretinfan which to him is not

" Nor indeed does it exist even now in those who are holy, nor does it in any way belong to their nature."

Section4

Here ironically, Athanasius would be Turretinfan's own logic, would be unbiblical, as Athanasius affirms that Eve post-fall possesses free will, which is also one in the libertarian sense,

"She moves then, no longer according to virtue or so as to see God, but imagining false things, she makes a novel use of her power, abusing it as a means to the pleasures she has devised, since she is after all made with power over herself. 3. For she is able, as on the one hand to incline to what is good, so on the other to reject it; but in rejecting the good she of course entertains the thought of what is opposed to it, for she cannot at all cease from movement, being, as I said before, mobile by nature. And knowing her own power over herself, she sees that she is able to use the members of her body in either direction, both toward what is, or toward what is not."

Turretinfan's belief in Total Depravity is also rejected here as Athanasius states that the person post-fall have the capacity to hear the Laws and Oracles of God and to "perform works of necessity and to raise to God in prayer".

Section6

The mention of the need to follow the teachings of the Church is left out by Turretinfan when describing what is spoken about in this section. This lies at the very place where he alludes to 1Timothy 1:19

"But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith(this is where it is alluded to), they also wrongly think that evil has a substantive existence"

This poses a problem to Turretinfan, as this gives the impression that what the Church teaches, the laity must follow and that there can be no departure from this. Sola Scriptura may accept the Church has the authority to teach doctrine but given that the Reformation is about going against the teaching of the Catholic Church, one would have to wonder whether what Athanasius written here is indeed acceptable to Protestants or not.

>>582861

Section7

Given what he missed out in Section6, this is in fact the second reference to the Church. Given that reason is employed here as Turretinfan admits, this ironically mean that part of the matrix to argue against the teachings of the Dualists fall also under the requirement of reason and not just Scripture itself. Turretinfan may as a counter, argue that there is nothing wrong with appealing to logic and reason whilst still maintaining Sola Scriptura. However, given that Sola Scriptura means that all things must be judged by Scripture, wouldn't that mean the system of reasoning as well and to use this to argue against something like Molinism is in fact placing a second authority besides Scripture that is going to be a factor in doctrinal judgement?

Section8

The statement about the use of representional images in worship claimed here is misleading, as what is argued here is how idolatry came to be. It does not need to be a statement against iconophiles. Here, one can contend that Scripture and reason are both used to describe how idolatry came to be.

Section9

Turretinfan claims that just because Wisdom is not canonical in his festal letter, it means that he might change his mind on its canonicity. But this does not really prove anything, as no adequate reason is given as to their exclusion from the canonical books. Given that Cyril of Jerusalem could cite books not in the canon as Scripture and he even does the same with Esther. So did Athanasius also change his mind on Esther as well? Or it can be more sensible to accept that he does what is attested in other fathers, that non-canonical books can be indeed seen as Scripture.

For instance see what Evangelical scholar John Meade have to say on Origen's canon:

My question is how do we determine an ancient’s canon or exclusive list of books? In this case, Origen actually provides a list of books, clearly detailing the books of the Jews which probably he intended for the church to adopt (Eusebius understood Origen’s intent in this way). This list itself seems like a good place to begin, since it is the ancient’s own clearest expression on the matter. Now, when this same author cites books as scripture that do not appear in his canon list or possibly includes them in his magnum opus, the Hexapla, what should we conclude? I suggest that rather than redefining the ancient’s canon, which he has already given us clearly in his list, perhaps we should reconsider the ancient’s attitude toward Scripture in general. That is, we may need to consider the probability that an ancient’s canon list does not include all the books which he considered to be Scripture and the ancient’s scope of scriptural books is actually wider than his canon list. In his Hexapla, therefore, he could theoretically include books not in his list alongside books that are. He can cite as Scripture from books that are included in his list alongside books which are not. But his exclusive canon is clear from the list that he has left us.

https://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/a-short-note-on-ancient-canon-theory/

>>582861

Section18

Interestingly, Athanasius cites from Aristotle(note 133) here and seems to me at least to be used in a rhetorical and argumentative manner, showing yet again the role of reason in his argumentation.

Section19

Turretinfan's own observation need not look beyond Athanasius when he uses the illustration of the Emperor and his image to argue for the deity of Christ,

"For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father’s, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that ‘He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father;’ for in the Son is contemplated the Father’s Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor’s image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact2831; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image2832. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, ‘I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what thou seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and what thou hast seen in him, that thou holdest in me2833.’ Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father’s Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son."

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.i.html

Here ironically for him, the germ for the logic that iconophiles will later use

>>582861

Section20

The claim here that "images are not good teachers about God" is a misrepresentation as while Athanasius does start with asking "How does God make answer or become known by such objects? Is it due to the matter of which they consist, or to the form which they possess?", reading the rest would show that his answer would not entail any iconoclasm on his part, as Turretinfan seems to indirectly nod to. As one can easily believe in the use of images as decoration as the Carolingians do and nor would anyone who support images claim that God "manifests Himself solely because of the art" or that the images are means for God to manifest Himself.

Section21

Turretinfan continues indirectly claiming that Athanasius is presenting an iconoclastic view here once again as what is now manifested in the images of the Pagans are lesser powers instead of God. Hence again, presenting an iconoclastic interpretation isn't going to work here.

Section23

This section is interesting as Athanasius' use of reason to argue for a matter of faith relies on the diversity of the Pagan cults. The criterion of unity for truth can be deduced from this. But this also entail a second requirement for the true faith, unity which is not exactly the requirement of the Sola Scriptura doctrine.

Section 26

Regardless of the citation of Scripture, given what is given in the preceding ones, it would appear to prove my point of reason as playing an important role in Athanasius' argument. Certainly Scripture is given the highest place, but in determining and refuting the Pagans, reason is also a norm used in this refutation.

>>582861

Part II

Section 30

Athanasius does not just say "everyone can perceive God". He also makes another statement that contradicts Total Depravity as he begins by saying,

"The tenets we have been speaking of have been proved to be nothing more than a false guide for life; but the way of truth will aim at reaching the real and true God. But for its knowledge and accurate comprehension, there is need of none other save of ourselves. Neither as God Himself is above all, is the road to Him afar off or outside ourselves, but it is in us and it is possible to find it from ourselves"

Section 33

Church teaching is indeed bought up here but the statement that the authority of the Church is not bought up is an inaccurate observation, as the very teaching of the Church described here is something Marcarius must know. That statement there naturally entails that the teachings of the Church ought to be followed. The explanation that is given is also not Scripture here but instead, reason. Sadly for Turretinfan, this section also indicates a key aspect of the system behind the intercession of saints, as Athanasius explains,

" For the movement of the soul is the same thing as its life, just as, of course, we call the body alive when it moves, and say that its death takes place when it ceases moving. But this can be made clearer once for all from the action of the soul in the body. For if even when united and coupled with the body it is not shut in or commensurate with the small dimensions of the body, but often151, when the body lies in bed, not moving, but in death-like sleep, the soul keeps awake by virtue of its own power, and transcends the natural power of the body, and as though travelling away from the body while remaining in it, imagines and beholds things above the earth, and often even holds converse with the saints and angels who are above earthly and bodily existence, and approaches them in the confidence of the purity of its intelligence"

That explanation here does not seem to refer to the state of death.

Section34

Athanasius contradicts Total Depravity and thus would be introducing something unbiblical here to Turretinfan in this section stating:

"Or why, in like manner as they have departed from God, do they not betake themselves to Him again? For they are able, as they turned away their understanding from God, and feigned as gods things that were not, in like manner to ascend with the intelligence of their soul, and turn back to God again. 3. But turn back they can, if they lay aside the filth of all lust which they have put on, and wash it away persistently, until they have got rid of all the foreign matter that has affected their soul, and can shew it in its simplicity as it was made, that so they may be able by it to behold the Word of the Father after Whose likeness they were originally made."

>>582861

Part3

Section35

No denial that Athanasius appeals to Scripture here. However there is still the use of reason in making his argumentation which becomes more evident in the proceeding sections. It is only until Section40 that we actually get Scripture quoted but even then from there on, reason still continues to play a vital role in the point that Athanasius wants to make. If any, it would appear that Athanasius is using reason to lead to Scripture

this is not your blog

>>582992

It is now

that's good, Protestants need to know their faith is nothing like the faith of the Church fathers and that they have no way of explaining the first 1500 years of the church.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.my/2010/10/aside-to-formal-sufficiency-series.html?m=1

Check out here Turretin's definition of Formal Sufficiency,

The question does not concern the perspicuity which does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e., the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily. We only wish to proscribe the darkness which would prevent the people from reading the Scriptures as hurtful and perilous and compel them to have recourse to tradition when they might rest in the Scriptures alone.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 1 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), II.xvii.vi, p. 144.

The problem with his statement here on clarifying the issue of Formal Suffiency is in fact not too far off from what a Catholic would say when perspicuity does not exclude the means necessary for intepretation. Although this contradicts what is said here,

Are the Scriptures so perspicuous in things necessary to salvation that they can be understood by believers without the external help of oral (agraphou) tradition or ecclesiastical authority? We affirm against the papists.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 1 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), II.xvii, p. 134.

While Tradition here is carefully stated as "Oral Tradition", the fact of the matter is that he is still leaving room to say that the Commentaries of Scripture or writings of the Fathers are to be considered as guides in consulting Scripture. And this if only if one is generous.

One can just consider the fathers and councils as Ecclesiastical authorities and hence make the statement on the "means necessary for interpretation" an inconsistency

Some thoughts on Turretinfan's post on Formal Sufficiency

http://turretinfan.blogspot.my/2010/10/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture.html

1)On Congar's definition of Protestant sufficiency of Scripture

>Scripture possesses by itself and in itself, that is, without needing the addition of any other principle, the qualities of a real sacrament of salvation, or rather of saving faith. It possesses authority, making it recognized and developing it unaided; it possesses efficacy, being the principle—and for some the sole—means of Grace; it contains all that is necessary for the Christian; it is clear, explaining itself without help and needing nothing besides itself to make known God’s thoughts.

In light of of the definitions given by Turretinfan, the "formal sufficiency" of Scripture in the Protestant sense as defined by Congar is certainly flawed, but only in the respect of "the necessity of the work of the Spirit of God". Whether Congar is right here will depend on how it aligns with the sources that Turretinfan would cite later to illustrate Formal Sufficiency.

2)Definitions given by Turretinfan and their assessment

a)Westminster Confession of Faith

There are three main points for its definition as quoted by Turretinfan, the necessity of the Spirit, important matters for Salvation clearly propounded in Scriptures, Scripture as the infallible rule of Scriptural interpretation.

The Cathechism of the Catholic Church would be happy to accept the necessity of the Spirit(see paragraph 108 and Section III here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm)

The second point here also is not that far if not objectionable to the very same definition that Congar had provided, making it acceptable as well and may even be seen under the lens of material sufficiency.

Point 3 is definitely objectionable given Catholic consideration of the Infallibility of Tradition. However even then, the WCF could leave room for the role of Tradition especially when in describing the second point which states that the learned and unlearned alike can gain an understanding of Scripture from use of "ordinary means". Although there is no infallibility of Tradition here, it may be seen as "means" to obtaining understanding. But in light of the third point, it would certainly contradict someone like Athanasius, who presume that the Tradition and teachings of the Church are reliable and that which he could relay to Macarius. So one would clearly in light of that and how the WCF contradict the Fathers on a lot of issues, it would appear that whatever role Tradition has, it is not that of the Early Christians and Fathers but instead of what its beliefs are and a judgement of Scripture itself with a sense of diminished role for Tradition in this light.

>>583591

2)Richard Bauckham and Herman Bavinck

These two scholars articulate the definition of Formal Sufficiency in a very careful manner in the sense of clarification and explanation of what it is not. Still, Bauckham's definition is not exactly coherent. While he acknowledges the use of other tools to the end of understanding Scripture, his statement to differ Formal Sufficiency from the Catholic view is that of those tools being "normative". Those "tools" aid in arriving at a particular understanding of Scripture and that particular understanding is going to be taken as what the Norm of Scripture is. Wouldn't that mean those "tools" are also normative in some sense, as they are needed to discern what the Norm of Scripture is?

Bavinck's clarification is more coherent than Bauckham's, but what he presents easily fits in with Material Sufficiency and leaves room for the role of the priest and Church if there is difficulty in understanding a part of Scripture, or that dispute arise. Personal study of Scripture also need not to be excluded from Tradition, as one can refer to the Fathers if one finds difficulty, or is keen on getting insight from the early church. In short, a Catholic can easily fit his views with what he had stated in that passage.

3)Belgic Confession

For this Confession, article 7 is where the main disagreement with Catholicism would lie as the implication from making the concluding statement clear on the need to test Tradition by Scripture coupled with warnings against placing it on the level of Scripture would call for a very diminished role that the writings of the fathers and that of councils or methods of exegesis would play in the interpretation of Scripture. As for one, the authority of the Church while affirmed in article 30 as the means to preserve doctrine and allow true doctrine to take course, it would appear that the early leaders and theologians of this Church will not really have much say or influence in matters of faith.

An argument could be made that they still can, just that they are not "infallible". But in light of the discrepancies between the early church and what Turretinfan believes, one would have to wonder whether tradition is of any meaning to him. At least we do know however that the Reformed theologians are held in an analogous standard to how a Catholic would hold the Church Fathers and Councils, the latter two as the area of contention regarding the implications of what is stated.

>>583591

4)John Owen

Of all the sources stated that illustrated Formal Sufficiency, John Owen is the most extensive one that Turretinfan provided. Owen like the other sources quoted begins with being careful on the matter as shown by the following extracts from the 1st paragraph of the citation given,

>They suppose that it is such a revelation of his mind or will, as is intelligible unto all them that are concerned to know it, if they use the means by him appointed to come unto a right understanding of it.

> They suppose that it is the duty of every man to search the Scriptures with all diligence, by the help and assistance of the means that God hath appointed in his church, to come to the knowledge of his mind and will in all things concerning their faith and obedience, and firmly to believe and adhere unto what they find revealed by him.

These two statements would not be objectionable to a Catholic, as the role of Tradition is clearly not excluded from understanding Scripture. This places Owen in a difficult spot, as a Catholic could simply accept what had been stated here and point out that for Owen, there are still the means of using other authorities which God had appointed to get to Scripture which would also call into question the rest of his argument for Scripture's sufficiency as it is the Catholic insistence of the use of other authorities that he is arguing against, which he had already acknowledged in his first paragraph.Perhaps what Owen really opposes is just the use of the authority of Tradition on par with that of Scripture as Sola Scriptura adherents would commonly say, and this is fine.

However, given the direction of his argument which seems to be addressing the Catholic retort that Sola Scriptura cannot settle disputes and provide unity as indicated by what he is addressing,

>In vain it is that you inquire 'whether the written word can settle any man in a way that neither himself, nor present adherents, nor future generations shall question:' for our inquiry is not after what may be, or what shall be, but what ought to be. It is able to settle a man in a way, that none ought to question unto the world's end: so it settled the first Christians.

To this, Owen's provided a reasonable answer,

>The authority of your pope and church will not do it: themselves are things as highly questioned and disputed about, as any thing that was ever named with reference unto religion.

>If you shall say, But yet they ought not to be so questioned, and it is the fault of men that they are so: you may well spare me the labour of answering your question, seeing you have done it yourself.

This indeed is a valid answer but it can answered by the fact that there are still the Fathers to consult and that the disputes within the Church does not erupt into splintering as it occurs to that of the Protestants. Here the Catholic could use Jesus' promise to Peter in Matthew as the assurance that eventhough there are disputes, God will assuredly guide His Church as He had guided the Fathers before through the old controversies. The very papacy and Church could even be argued to be the "Means appointed" and that Owen is not much different from the Catholic given the use of these "means appointed" which even includes the church to understand Scripture and thus direct that same attack back at him.

If Owen is opposing the authority of the papacy and Church as equal to that of Scripture in this case, then it probably wouldn't work as a Catholic could simply point out that the Pope and Church cannot contradict the deposit of Scripture and Tradition. This seems to be more likely in my eyes given Owen's acceptance of "means appointed" to the end of arriving at the right understanding of Scripture. But if this is so, then whatever Formal Sufficiency is, it is definitely not something that is to be had in the early Church, as they would be closer to Catholicism on the issue of the authority of the Church and while Scripture is certainly the highest authority, it is used in tandem with the Creed and Tradition, both of which inform the understanding of Scripture but would not be the lens that Owen would want to follow, alongside his argument against Scripture's need to be able to secure unity, an argument that the early Christians would not take lightly.

>>583027

>>583591

>>583625

In light of these assessments what could be said of Turretinfan's use of the Church Fathers to prove that the doctrine of Formal Sufficiency existed in them is this, they must be shown to actually go beyond just stating Scripture is clear and one can read it for themselves, as Catholics have no problem with this. The citations would also have to essentially present the teachings of the church and Tradition as one which is not to be followed or one which one cannot depart from. Moreover, although Formal Sufficiency does indeed give room for Tradition, the fact that there are many Church Fathers who place importance on the Creed, reason(by virtue of influence from the Hellenistic systems of their day) and follow a similar mode of Scriptural interpretation, it really does make one question whether what the Fathers speak of is Formal Sufficiency when they speak of the clarity of Scripture.

Also, if one simply states that Formal sufficiency have no problem with Tradition, exegetical techniques and reference to the Creed as the lens to inform Scriptural interpretation, then what Formal Sufficiency is would simply be of no issue to the Catholic side, as it is presented in a manner compatible with it. But this is questionable once one actually look at the differences in belief between the Fathers and someone like Turretinfan. After all, Athanasius denies Total Depravity which Turretinfan affirms. He even affirms a form of free will that Turretinfan would deny. So, the very praxis of Turretinfan's Formal Sufficiency would be different to that of the Fathers themselves who cherished unity, succession, Tradition and the exegetical techniques that run common to them all.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.my/2010/11/formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-early.html

One could easily see how when one considers what Congar had stated and the Catechism's explicit statement on the need of the Holy Spirit to understand Scriptures, the clarity of Scriptures there does not even need to be contradictory to Catholicism at all. It certainly does affirm Formal Sufficiency, but this is in the areas where Formal Sufficiency would agree with Material Sufficiency. This I think is exemplified by David Meyers' comments:

David Meyer said…

I am interested in this article and just need a point clarified. I have looked and I can't seem to find an exact definition of Formal Sufficiency in the article. Could I get that definition? This will help me as I read the article.

While your at it, a definition of material sufficiency would help also.

Also, a definition of what exactly the article is attempting to show concerning these two definitions with regard to the ECFs. I am very interested in seeing what the fathers have to say on this topic.

Ive only got through the Irenaus part, but it seems as if the article might go deeper than the standard one or two Athinasius quotes commonly used to show sola Scriptura belief by the fathers. But some succinct definitions would help me to see where you are comming from.

Thank you.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2010 2:12:00 PM

David Meyer said…

OK missed the link to the intro article. I read it, But more succinct clarification would still be helpful. It still seems as if material sufficiency is what is being described. You seem to grant that there is a distinction between material and formal, but I am having trouble seeing that in the definitions of the two.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2010 2:28:00 PM

What is needed to be proven then, is more than just clarity of Scriptures but that unity and adherence to Tradition is not a necessary requirement, as these two areas will make a distinction between the Catholic view and Sola Scriptura.