Darius777

Scholastic theology fan, reading and learning

Soli Deo Gloria! ✝️

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@CathRoser @iansenius @logos_asarkos This is very true, and the discussion could have remained at this

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@ChrisRojas4081 @Thomisticae @AngAesthetics And so it cannot be said that the Reformers abandoned an EXISTING consensus at that time as the dominant school of nominalism common in many areas where the Reformation arose and developped already professed agnosticism or outright denial that the professions follow the faculties

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@ChrisRojas4081 @Thomisticae @AngAesthetics This is true, but there are things that were previously deemed consensus and where eventually changed at a later time, as the church matured. As far as late middle ages, there was no consensus on this point and no definition from the church...

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@ChrisRojas4081 @Thomisticae @AngAesthetics But this was beyond my point anyway, whether it's dogmatic or not today is irrelevant to what I was discussing with Astro. To say the psychological analogy was affirmed by all scholastics is very untrue and misleading if we are considering the time of the Reformation.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@ChrisRojas4081 @Thomisticae @AngAesthetics I'm aware certain theologians argue their perspectives are the dogmatic view of the church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent maintains this view but it doesn't absolutely bind the conscience as far as I understand, like the decrees of a council or a papal statement.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@Thomisticae @AngAesthetics This is why you'll see people who affirm that the Son and the Spirit proceed by way of intellect and will, respectively. And others deny this, there isn't a dogmatic consensus in either churches, so bringing this up as an evidence of lutheran heresy or heterodoxy is not strong

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@Thomisticae @AngAesthetics Saying "the protestants went against the scholastic consensus" is simply not true, because the scholastic consensus in the 15th and 16th century was no longer what the earlier common opinion was. The common opinion was divided, as the protestant theologians were afterwards.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

I'm not familiar with the context of Hollaz here, if this was an argument against the Son proceeding by way of intellect, and the Spirit by way of will (in the thomistic sense) then it's bad. However this can't be used to alledge lutherans are heretics on the Trinity

[Anglican Aesthetics @AngAesthetics]

That he had the semi-Arians in mind who affirmed exactly this at the point of departure at the Council of Ariminum

How embarrassing that E-Thomists use their autism and post-hoc distinctions to miss the point of a text? Wouldn't be the first time....

Actually it's worse than that. If Aquinas says "On the contrary, Augustine says, in the same book, that, "the Father begot the Son neither by will, nor by necessity.", E-Thomists punt to what the angelic doctor rightly says next--that one can "will to be a man", not as a productive and prior logical cause, but by concomitance. That obviously isn't what Hollaz is talking about. But of course they'll say "well he should have made the distinction then what a moron" thus playing their hand: they have no intention of reading in good faith. Any "moron" of course would know Hollaz wasn't denying the persons consent to their personal properties and do not oppose them. But that doesn't matter to the E Thomist.

Remember this interaction the next time they try to "debunk" Reformation theologians--this is a great example of how they read them.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@Thomisticae @AngAesthetics 'Sententia communis' is made up of thomists and scotists? Let's not forget that the context in which the Reformation arose was such that nominalism was very common especially in Germany among Roman theologians. But this isn't infallibly defined in Rome as far as I'm aware...

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@Thomisticae @AngAesthetics It is incredibly ahistorical to say the psychological analogy was affirmed by ALL scholastics, the vast majority (if not all) of nominalists denied the Son proceeds by way of intellect and the Holy Spirit by way of will.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@L00seN00se @B2Christendom @Dogmaticist Then one shouldn't lecture people about heresy and teach authoritatively in the name of Rome. It is one think to read philosophy and theology as unbaptized and another to teach without authorization, and find your purpose in slandering other groups. This is evident slop atp

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@7ummumbonum @TomHicks2LCF These are the same people who believe justification is an eternal immanent act of God 💀

[Samuel 🕊️ @logos_asarkos]

How E-Thomists look at you when you quote the Bible and not Thomas de Vio Cajetan’s commentary on the Posterior Analytics.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

This is very reudctionist. Salvation can mean different things, "justification/reconciliation", "sanctification", "glorification". That good works are performed as means to eternal life is non negotiable, but it also is true they aren't meritorious/efficient causes.

[christfollower @JamesHalfo7744]

@7ummumbonum The WCF passage you quoted does not support the point you are making.

In an attempt to avoid ostentatious long breathed wordy language:

we obey because we have been saved, not in order to be saved.

That sentence is entirely consistent reformed Presby and Baptist soteriology.

[Samuel 🕊️ @logos_asarkos]

There are two different questions:

(1) How do I know the canon?
(2) How do I know the things in the canon are true?

These are not the same.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

What's actually lazy is that with the same subjective and fallible interpretation you determine what the infallible magisterium is, but you can't exegete Scripture properly and in conformity with the tradition

[Dogma 🦢 @Dogmaticist]

Three goyim on Netanyahu's payroll.

[Darius777 @DariusMot440938]

@Dogmaticist @cfw_walther Silly goobers, "based thomists" with not the least training in logic

[Dogma 🦢 @Dogmaticist]

"But it[grace] justifies from some special favor of God and extrinsic acceptance, and thus is similar to money, such that the metal corresponds to the physical entity of grace itself, but the value of the coin corresponds to the acceptance or moral being of grace."
- Johann Conrad Dannhauer, Disputation on Justifying Grac, §. 14.