Tag Archive | Theology

Repentance Human and Divine

William Greenhill:

In human repentance there is the change of the will; in divine repentance there is the willing of a change, and that in the thing, not in the will or counsel of God, which are unchangeable (Ezekiel, p. 577). ​

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/repentance-human-and-divine.97281/

Thomas Aquinas and Eating Blood

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Titus:

41. Another objection is that in Acts the apostles commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled (Acts 15:29). Consequently, it does not seem lawful to partake of such things. And so, all things are not clean to the clean.

I answer that some believe that this commandment should be interpreted literally, but in a mystical sense, so that by blood is understood homicide, and by strangling, the oppression of the poor. And this is good, but it is not the whole truth. Therefore, I say that literally it is a commandment, but we are not obliged to it. For some things are forbidden because they are evil; and these must simply be avoided. But other things are not evil absolutely, but for a time, and these must be observed so long as a reason exists. But the apostles forbade these things, not because they were evil in themselves, because in Matthew the Lord says the opposite (Matt 15:17). The reason behind them was that some had been converted from Judaism and some from paganism; consequently, it was necessary, if one people was to be formed, that one should condescend to another. In this matter the Jews were to be condescended to, because it was abominable to them to eat blood and anything suffocated. Therefore, to maintain peace, the apostles declared that this law was to be observed for that time.

Thomas Aquinas, Super ad Titum, C. 1, L. 4, 41.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/thomas-aquinas-and-eating-blood.96895/, comment 1

Sola Scriptura and the “Catholic”

Rupert of Deutz (1075-1129):

Whatever may be arrived at, or concluded from arguments, outside of that Holy Scripture . . . does in no way belong to the praise and confession of almighty God. . . . Whatever may be arrived at outside of the rule of the Holy Scriptures, nobody can lawfully demand from a Catholic. . . . With his help let us strive not to fall under the condemnation incurred by the devil. For Almighty God would not free us: he can or will do nothing contrary to the truth of the Scriptures.

~For translation, see George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), p. 13. (The ellipses are Tarvard’s). Cf. De omnipotentia Dei, Caput XXVII, PL 170:477-478.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/an-interesting-comment-about-catholicity.96097/, comment 1

George Tavard:

Whichever formula we prefer, we are led by patristic theology to consider that there is a sense in which “Scripture alone” is an authentic expression of Catholic Christianity, inasmuch as, that is, the Scripture is, in the Church, the apostolic tradition and vice versa.

~George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), p. 11.

George Tavard:

The greatest centuries of the Middle Ages—twelfth and thirteenth—were thus faithful to the patristic conception of “Scripture alone.”

~George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), p. 20.

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/more-comments-on-catholicity-by-a-scholar-from-the-roman-communion.96098/, comment 1

Why There is No Such Thing as the Gift of Tongues

Eric Davis:

As clear from Scripture, this was the miraculous ability to speak an unlearned language that is known by others on earth for the purpose of exalting Christ and building up others, while pronouncing judgment on Israel. This was a critical gift for laying the foundation of the church, and, as such, has ceased.* However, phenomena as previously mentioned and beyond the biblical gift of languages cannot be justified from Scripture. Briefly, here are eleven reasons why there is no gift of tongues.

Read more: https://thecripplegate.com/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-gift-of-tongues/

The Importance of Distinguishing between History and Theology

“Finally, this episode is a good reminder of the importance of distinguishing between history and theology (or ethics). As a matter of theology and ethics we should reject Machen’s prejudices. We should determine to apply our theology (e.g., our doctrine the image of God) consistently. As a matter of Christian ethics, we should determine to love our neighbor as ourselves without regard to ethnicity. We rightly regard this as basic Christianity. As a matter of history, however, we need to interpret figures in light of their time, their circumstances, their location in history and not in light of ours. This too is a matter of basic Christian ethics. This is how Christian historians love their neighbor as themselves. Anachronism is the result of impatience and even intellectual laziness. This is an American disease. We tend to want results now. We tend to agree with Henry Ford, “history is bunk.” Christians, however, cannot afford to indulge their impatience and pragmatism. ” – RSC

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/machen-and-segregation.96374/, comment 25

A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism

HT: https://thegospelvideoblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/a-biblical-refutation-of-dispensationalism/

A Short Response to the Arminian Doctrine of Prevenient Grace …

by John Hendryx

The term “prevenient grace” – a distinctly Arminian doctrine – refers to a universal grace which precedes and enables the first stirrings of a good will or inclination toward God and it explains the extent or degree to which the Holy Spirit influences a person prior to their coming to faith in Christ. The Arminian, together with the Calvinist, affirms total human moral inability and utter helplessness of the natural man in spiritual matters and the absolute necessity for supernatural prevenient grace if there is to be any right response to the gospel. Like Calvinists, Arminians agree that, apart from an act of grace on God’s part, no one would willingly come to Christ. This point is important to distinguish so as to not confuse Classical Arminianism with either Finneyism or Semi-Pelagianism, which both reject the need for prevenient grace. So Christ’s redemption is universal in a provisional sense but conditional as to its application to any individual, i.e. those who do not resist the grace offered to them through the cross and the gospel. Prevenient grace, according to Arminians, convicts, calls (outwardly), enlightens and enables before conversion and makes conversion and faith possible. While Calvinists believe the inward call to the elect is irrevocable and effectually brings sinners to faith in Christ, the Arminian, on the other hand understand God’s grace as ultimately resistible. In short, they affirm that prevenient grace, which is given to all men at some point in their life, temporarily brings the sinner out of his/her condition of total depravity and puts them in a neutral state of free will wherein the natural man can either accept or reject Christ…