Talk:Thirty-nine Articles
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thirty-nine Articles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Catholic Teaching on the Ability to Merit Justification
editThe main article originally said, in it's summary of articles 9-18, that:
"They reject the Roman Catholic teachings on works of supererogation and that performing good works can make a person worthy to receive justification."
However, (to the best of my understanding) the Roman Catholic Church has never taught that performing good works can make a person worthy to receive justification. They *have* taught that a person may merit (in the sense of do what God requires for) eternal life, but that this can only occur as a result of (and after) justification. Additionally, Canon 1 of the Council of Trent Session 6 says, "If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." [1] Consequently, I do not see how it could be argued that they teach that a person can be worthy to receive justification.
I amended the article to simply read "They reject the Roman Catholic teaching on works of supererogation." and deleted the incorrect statement. It would perhaps be possible to merely amend it to "They reject the Roman Catholic teachings on works of supererogation and that performing good works can make a person worthy to receive eternal life." but I am not sure of the Anglican teaching on this specific point.
If someone else has a source for this claim, or a better suggestion for how to amend it, I'm all ears.
Warr40 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with the deletion. The cited source (Martin Davie, Our Inheritance of Faith: A Commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles, page 294) states:
Articles XIII –XVI then consider errors relating to salvation propagated by Medieval Catholicism on the on hand and radical Protestantism on the other. Articles XIII-XIV reject the teaching of the scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages that good works performed prior to justification can make someone worthy to receive it and that good works performed by someone who is justified that go beyond what God has commanded (works of supererogation ) can make them deserving of a spiritual reward than can them be passed on to someone else. Articles XV-XVI reject the ideas put forward by some radical Protestants that it is possible for believers to be free from sin in this life and that sins committed after baptism are unforgiveable.
However, as a point of clarity, I will agree that we should make clear that medieval Catholicism is being referred to and that later Catholic theology may have been changed or clarified in response to the Protestant Reformation. Ltwin (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
References
No page 485 in O'Donovan
edit@Dr.Decapod, you added the phrase "and Apostacy and Unlimited atonement are affirmed"
to the "Content" section under "Articles 9–18: Sin and Salvation". I checked the source you cited O'Donovan page 485; however, that book only has 160 pages. Can you please take a look and add the correct page numbers. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)