Need Help with an Odd Quote from A Roman Catholic

[SEAGOON]

Hi All,

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate with a Roman Catholic on a local bulletin board, and after I mentioned that I have subscribed to the Westminster Standards she posted the following, and I haven't got the foggiest where she is getting this:

Isn't that what Cornelius Burgess, Doctor of Divinity, Man of Oxford, Political Pastor to the Parliament of England did by writing his Manuscript in 1646 and then published by another author in 1937 and then as is the case with most Churches that were born from "Sola Scriptura" the doctrine of the Westminster was ever changing, evolving into what it is today. William Symington added the three parts of the Devines in the 1800's, and then we have John Murray and his writings and teachings in the 1900's to what makes the Standard today.

Anyone know where this particular piece of confused Roman Catholic mythology comes from?

Thanks in Advance!

- Andy

 

[danmpem]

And I'll be back to talk about them Lutherans!





... I have no idea.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi All,

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate with a Roman Catholic on a local bulletin board, and after I mentioned that I have subscribed to the Westminster Standards she posted the following, and I haven't got the foggiest where she is getting this:

Isn't that what Cornelius Burgess, Doctor of Divinity, Man of Oxford, Political Pastor to the Parliament of England did by writing his Manuscript in 1646 and then published by another author in 1937 and then as is the case with most Churches that were born from "Sola Scriptura" the doctrine of the Westminster was ever changing, evolving into what it is today. William Symington added the three parts of the Devines in the 1800's, and then we have John Murray and his writings and teachings in the 1900's to what makes the Standard today.

Anyone know where this particular piece of confused Roman Catholic mythology comes from?

Thanks in Advance!

- Andy

Andy,

Why should you have to do legwork for a bald assertion? Tell him to back up what he's saying and that you don't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. We've got some people that have worked on the Critical Text of the Westminster Standards (Chris Coldwell being one) and his statement is mythological. The only revisions to the Standards have been the American Revision of 1789 and not all accept those. Ask him if he read it in The Da Vinci Code.

In fact, you might want to ask him how the modern Roman Catholic defintion of trans-subtantiation squares with the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. For all of his claimed "revisions" the WCF still clearly affirms the definitions of Chalcedon with respect to Christ's nature and doesn't mix or confuse the natures as does their doctrine of the Eucharist. It's certainly convenient to claim a static tradition as Roman Catholics assert but it's a fantasy just like his assertion above.

In fact, what would the above prove with respect to Sola Scriptura?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Hi All,

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate with a Roman Catholic on a local bulletin board, and after I mentioned that I have subscribed to the Westminster Standards she posted the following, and I haven't got the foggiest where she is getting this:

Isn't that what Cornelius Burgess, Doctor of Divinity, Man of Oxford, Political Pastor to the Parliament of England did by writing his Manuscript in 1646 and then published by another author in 1937 and then as is the case with most Churches that were born from "Sola Scriptura" the doctrine of the Westminster was ever changing, evolving into what it is today. William Symington added the three parts of the Devines in the 1800's, and then we have John Murray and his writings and teachings in the 1900's to what makes the Standard today.

Anyone know where this particular piece of confused Roman Catholic mythology comes from?

Thanks in Advance!

- Andy

I'd simply tell them they need to do some homework. They haven't a clue what they're talking about.

 

[fredtgreco]

I agree with Patrick. What is with the 1937? How could he have republished it then?

I've never heard this. My guess is that the person is clueless, but is trying to repeat a line from the "Rome never changes" argument.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Ask him if he read it in The Da Vinci Code.

 

[Pilgrim]

For what it's worth 1937 could be a reference to the OPC or perhaps more likely to the Bible Presbyterian Church who amended the standards to make them premillennial in that year.

Although it was phrased somewhat ignorantly and in a confusing way, what this person is probably trying to get across is the idea that various Presbyterian denominations have amended the standards (1789, 1903, etc.) while from their point of view the RCC has never changed its teaching although of course we know that it has many times.

 

[Stephen]

Hi All,

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate with a Roman Catholic on a local bulletin board, and after I mentioned that I have subscribed to the Westminster Standards she posted the following, and I haven't got the foggiest where she is getting this:

Isn't that what Cornelius Burgess, Doctor of Divinity, Man of Oxford, Political Pastor to the Parliament of England did by writing his Manuscript in 1646 and then published by another author in 1937 and then as is the case with most Churches that were born from "Sola Scriptura" the doctrine of the Westminster was ever changing, evolving into what it is today. William Symington added the three parts of the Devines in the 1800's, and then we have John Murray and his writings and teachings in the 1900's to what makes the Standard today.

Anyone know where this particular piece of confused Roman Catholic mythology comes from?

Thanks in Advance!

- Andy

Andy,

Why should you have to do legwork for a bald assertion? Tell him to back up what he's saying and that you don't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. We've got some people that have worked on the Critical Text of the Westminster Standards (Chris Coldwell being one) and his statement is mythological. The only revisions to the Standards have been the American Revision of 1789 and not all accept those. Ask him if he read it in The Da Vinci Code.

In fact, you might want to ask him how the modern Roman Catholic defintion of trans-subtantiation squares with the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. For all of his claimed "revisions" the WCF still clearly affirms the definitions of Chalcedon with respect to Christ's nature and doesn't mix or confuse the natures as does their doctrine of the Eucharist. It's certainly convenient to claim a static tradition as Roman Catholics assert but it's a fantasy just like his assertion above.

In fact, what would the above prove with respect to Sola Scriptura?

Absolutely. This is the problem with the internent. People pull quotes and information that may not even be accurate. Let her present the burden of proof. This is the most crazy thing I have ever seen and I certainly doubt the validity of it.

 

[Galatians220]

Pastor Andy, she's probably trying to draw you into an admission that Reformed Protestantism does, when "the onion is peeled," wholeheartedly support baptismal regeneration: The Language of Reformed Worship: The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants: One Reformed Perspective, which we all know Rome certainly does.

She's getting the camel's nose into your tent re: those utterly heretical Roman Catholic teachings on soteriology. She's repudiating John 3:3-8 et alii. I heard that done ad nauseam when I attended Catholic grade and high schools, and two Catholic universities.

Don't let her get away with it! (It's one of the oldest RC tricks in the book.)

Margaret

 

[Poimen]

The only mythology in Andy's post is the first statement:

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate

Yeah right. Darth Andy is always looking for a fight!

 

[py3ak]

There is an interesting discussion in the 2nd dialogue of Theodoret's Polymorphus, where a monophysite is made to believe in something like transubstantiation (and there is a discussion of substance and accidents) and it comes out at a very non-Lateran view.

 

[Pilgrim]

The only mythology in Andy's post is the first statement:

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate

Yeah right. Darth Andy is always looking for a fight!

 

[fredtgreco]

The only mythology in Andy's post is the first statement:

I've unintentionally gotten into a debate

Yeah right. Darth Andy is always looking for a fight!

And I still want to be Boba Fred!