This is an open forum. The rules are:
1) No blasphemy or profanity;
2) Nothing illegal or threatening; and
3) No promises of any kind from the blog owner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Turretinfan
- Reformed Apologist | Male | Adult | Bible-Believing | 5 Solas | 5 Petals on my Tulip | Ecclesiastically Presbyterian | not Federal Visionist | Optimistic in my eschatology, but not dogmatic | Opposed to the errors of Rome | Opposed to the errors of Pelagius | Trinitarian | In favor of Christian liberty | Otherwise Anonymous
Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteplease note that I would prefer to place my comment under the piece to which it refers. However, my code is no longer letting me through. This comment is intended to refer to the post "Aquinas' Affirmation of the Primacy of Scripture".
It seems that you need to study more of Thomas Aquinas before you comment on him, in this case at least the whole Treatise on Faith, if not also the treatises on the Law and Grace (the treatises on God and the Trinity would also be helpful.) You might then discover that the First Truth is God. The formal object of faith is God who is revealing himself, The material object is the propositions which express that revelation. The First Truth is manifest in the scriptures and it is from the First Truth that the teaching of the Church proceeds. Scripture is the material principle and the Incarnate Word speaking through His Ministers whom He has personally sent, His Apostles and Prophets with whom He promises to be with as they bind and loose and teach and baptize the nations until the end of the world, is the formal principle who also manifests himself in the Scriptures.
Bill Zuck
Mr. Zuck,
ReplyDeleteYou raise a good point. I have been in the process of preparing a post on that very issue, i.e. Aquinas' view of the "first truth."
I was originally planning on basing the post simply on the other discussion in Summa Theologica, but perhaps I will expand it to those additional treatises.
-TurretinFan
TF,
ReplyDeleteHow could I ever criticize you, I look to you to point me in the right direction. However, I asked a question under your "natural family planning" post and was wondering if you could address the questions. If the questions were inappropriate that's fine...just let me know.
Kind Regards,
Bill
aka Zog
Hi Bill,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you posted here, as it serves to remind me. If you go to my complete profile you can obtain my email address. Please send me an email so that I can reply by email (or if you have some other confidential way for me to contact you - please let me know). Those two questions seemed to be tangentially related to the post, and I could not find out your contact information from blogger. I would be happy to answer them via email.
-TurretinFan
From TurretinFan’s 6th installment of his ongoing series directed at Matthew Bellisario we read:
ReplyDelete“…it is not unreasonable to think that Athanasius is actually using this passage to mock pope Liberius.”
IMHO, TF has totally misread St. Athanasius: see THIS THREAD for supporting evidence of this charge.
Grace and peace,
David
David:
ReplyDeleteYou might want to pick between "totally" and the "H" in IMHO. The two clash, at least as to sound.
-TurretinFan
Hi TF,
ReplyDeleteFeel free to strike the “H” if you deem it is worth the effort.
Grace and peace,
David
A response to that post has been provided (link). Shockingly, I tend to agree with the gist of the critique, namely that Athanasius was not mocking Liberius in this instance.
ReplyDeleteHello TF,
ReplyDeleteThought I should let you know that I have responded to your Liberius’ Lapse thread in this POST.
Grace and peace,
David
Yes, I know - and I've updated my original post.
ReplyDelete