The underline on scripture references is such a thin pixel width that I accidentally discovered they could be hovered.
Full chapter references in the hover tooltip truncate after a few verses, and the ellipsis it provides does not react to anything. Seems like it would be an expansion?
The style chosen to explain the English form of a Latin phrase is inconsistent throughout the work. Pick a style for all cases.
English inline, followed by the Latin in parentheses - "by essence (per essentiam) or by cause (per causam)"
Latin inline, followed by the English between commas - "ex opere operato, on account of the work itself,"
Latin inline, followed by english after an emdash - "qui bene distinguit, bene docet—he who distinguishes well teaches well."
Hover tooltip for Greek terms
Example: δογμάτων
Sometimes include the text of a verse inline, rather than just the tooltip
Example: the curse of Jeremiah 48:10 (“Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord fraudulently”)
Verse references that exist just as "chapter:verse" do not work, and need to be linked via context. Chapter 15 and 16 contain examples.
Seems to be missing a scriptural citation or theological citation for where we find the union with Christ as being "legal" and "spiritual"
Parallel vocabulary from soteriology is instructive: we speak of our union with Christ as being “legal” and “spiritual.”
Is this the correct use of "effects" as a verb?
The former most immediately effects our justification as our identity with Christ is forensically declared by the Father, and the latter most immediately effects our sanctification as our ingrafting into him is organically wrought by the Holy Spirit.
Punctuation, to sharpen the link between the clauses:
Original - When Peter denied that Simon could buy the Spirit with money (Acts 8:20), he did not merely rebuke his activity but declared it futile. Such an exchange is impossible.
Suggested - When Peter denied that Simon could buy the Spirit with money (Acts 8:20), he did not merely rebuke his activity but declared it futile: such an exchange is impossible.
Punctuation, but this is potentially just stylistic:
Original: For example, someone who sells an ordinance such as baptism is not capable of selling the grace of baptism itself but, by selling the act of baptizing, commits simony.
Suggested - For example, someone who sells an ordinance such as baptism is not capable of selling the grace of baptism itself, but, by selling the act of baptizing, commits simony.
Desire some on "the thesis" that Aquinas handled objections to. This may be a pedantic complaint, but it would be nice to know in a short inline clause what Aquinas's stance was.
Thomas Aquinas devoted an article to the question of “whether it is always unlawful to give money for the sacraments,” handling a number of objections to the thesis.
Improved by scripture reference:
"The church’s power to bind and loose—to discipline and restore—is spiritual."
Just noticed it now, but is the use of the word "we" simply a rhetorical technique while writing something like this? Who is the we? This may just be my own ignorance here, and if so, report back to me what my misunderstanding is.
Example: From there, we will consider the simoniacal nature of withholding spiritual things, whether by silence, false teaching, or refusal to minister. Finally, we will survey the broader circle of guilt, tracing the ways one may participate indirectly in the sin.
Unclear as to what the quote believes can be bought and sold, or sacred things. sounds contradictory to the thesis/deserves explanation as to the author’s particular view.
Quote: He gave several examples: we are to “buy without silver” (Isa. 55:1), teachers are to receive a temporal stipend in the context of their instruction (1 Cor. 9:11), and sacred things may in some cases be bought and sold.
Who is contending that it is fine? Pascal, the Jesuits, or both?
Quote: In a relatively extreme example, Blaise Pascal contended with the Jesuit casuistry that would permit selling spiritual things so long as money was offered as a “motive” rather than a “price.”
Consider having a beginning section to explain the meaning of the word "heresy" by the writers you quote.
We have run into this issue within conversations in our own church where people don't understand "heresy" as meaning the same as one another. Is it just "error", or "damnable error"?
I have run into this issue myself in other circles of professed Christians and "Christian" sects as well, so there is a need for intense clarity.
Conceptually I understand the "reciprocity" stuff, due to familiarity with the teaching
However, I do think people coming to this will easily misunderstand how God functions between the "giver" and "minister", since their money is either being directly given to the minister, or done so via an intermediary entity like a church bank account.
So, how does one avoid "direct obligation" being present in the relationship? How does the church orient itself practically?
Heresy is defined here. That definition may be best also lifted into chapter 13.
Links to verses that do not work because they are bare numbers:
Quote: Second, the proclamation of the gospel is not a mere vessel for its message; the “word of his grace” (Acts 14:3; 20:32)
Quote: It is not merely that the word of God ought to be offered “without money and without price” (Isa. 55:1; cf. Rev. 21:6; 22:17)
Quote: After all, the New Testament regards Balaam as chief among deplorable mercenary prophets (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11), but all his words were true (Num. 22:38; 23:12).