(From my response to Matthew Schultz in the previous post:)
Here is the quote from Francis Turretin again for reference. As you put it, he is referring someone who disagrees with the decisions of his local church authority:
“...they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother, but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3 [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997], 284).
Refering to my claim that sola Scriptura requires the right of the individual to identify the church You said:
"As for the meat of the matter, it is unclear how this "right" is "required" given what you've said. Perhaps it is because your language is confusing given the stage of inquiry in your critique. To say someone has the right to "identify" the Church suggests a time before one has completed such an identification. Do you mean something like re-identify? Or, really, the right to break fellowship with the Church?
Yes, both. Although for the Protestant I would put it completely in the "re-identify" category because of the need to identify based on "apostolicity". For the Catholic, with apostolic succession, it is nearly all the former "initial" type with a dash of the latter (keeping on the lookout for heretical bishops that break communion with Rome). I mean, the Turretin quote is really clear on this. He puts this "right" squarely in the hands of the individual and it certainly is required to be in his hands considering that adherents to sola S. disagree on the identity of the church. He comes out and says basically that if your conscience says leave, then leave. As far as I can tell Turretin makes my point for me. Perhaps I am not a good communicator here, because it does just seem very clear and non-controversial.
And when you say "the right to break fellowship with the Church?" that is not at all what a Catholic or a Protestant would say. NO ONE would ever think they were doing so. They would think they were moving closer to the true church. This is precisely what Turretin is talking about when he says people should follow their conscience. He is not saying they should be able to in good conscience "leave the church". He is talking about the right to identify the church.
I think Arius could fully agree with Turretin and give him a big high-five. I don't see how Turretin could then fault Arius in any way considering the subjectivity in his (Turretin's) statement.
You said:
"If so, I don't see how that's anything of an "honest" admission, or why it would "influence" your conversion, as if this is somehow damaging to sola Scriptura."
I was referring to the Turretin quote, and it was influential, because it is a very clear, concise, and orthodox (for Reformed theology) description of the nuclear fallout of sola Scriptura. (Keep in mind my view of sola Scriptura as a Protestant has been that it leads to an objective identification of the one true church).
Turretin is being "honest" in this sense: I don't think he is very exited about the prospect of people doing what he says they are able to do, namely to leave their church to follow their conscience in another branch of the "church". That is something no Protestant likes to think about, but it is necessary to think about it, and Turretin gets down to the "dirty diaper" of sola Scriptura when he points out the fact that the whole thing is totally subjective. The fact that you and Keith use this quote as somehow defending sola S. is something I just don't understand. It is exactly this subjectivity that pushes people like me to the banks of the Tiber.
And as for the tu quoque, the initial "identification" of the Catholic Church is just simply an order of magnitude in difference from the subjective "identification" of the church one must by necessity make constantly as a Protestant. Is the Turretin quote damaging to sola Scriptura? No, I found it to be devastating to it. And I spent two days depressed and walking around like a zombie when I realized this. (also Calvin's "let them eat cake" statement where he says a synod of true bishops should be convened to decide matters... uh ok Calvin, how?)
Peace,
David Meyer
Friday, November 19, 2010
Turretin says: "It's all about conscience, dude."
(From my response to Matthew Schultz in the previous post:)
Here is the quote from Francis Turretin again for reference. As you put it, he is referring someone who disagrees with the decisions of his local church authority:
“...they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother, but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. Thus they cannot bind the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the word of God” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3 [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997], 284).
Refering to my claim that sola Scriptura requires the right of the individual to identify the church You said:
"As for the meat of the matter, it is unclear how this "right" is "required" given what you've said. Perhaps it is because your language is confusing given the stage of inquiry in your critique. To say someone has the right to "identify" the Church suggests a time before one has completed such an identification. Do you mean something like re-identify? Or, really, the right to break fellowship with the Church?
Yes, both. Although for the Protestant I would put it completely in the "re-identify" category because of the need to identify based on "apostolicity". For the Catholic, with apostolic succession, it is nearly all the former "initial" type with a dash of the latter (keeping on the lookout for heretical bishops that break communion with Rome). I mean, the Turretin quote is really clear on this. He puts this "right" squarely in the hands of the individual and it certainly is required to be in his hands considering that adherents to sola S. disagree on the identity of the church. He comes out and says basically that if your conscience says leave, then leave. As far as I can tell Turretin makes my point for me. Perhaps I am not a good communicator here, because it does just seem very clear and non-controversial.
And when you say "the right to break fellowship with the Church?" that is not at all what a Catholic or a Protestant would say. NO ONE would ever think they were doing so. They would think they were moving closer to the true church. This is precisely what Turretin is talking about when he says people should follow their conscience. He is not saying they should be able to in good conscience "leave the church". He is talking about the right to identify the church.
I think Arius could fully agree with Turretin and give him a big high-five. I don't see how Turretin could then fault Arius in any way considering the subjectivity in his (Turretin's) statement.
You said:
"If so, I don't see how that's anything of an "honest" admission, or why it would "influence" your conversion, as if this is somehow damaging to sola Scriptura."
I was referring to the Turretin quote, and it was influential, because it is a very clear, concise, and orthodox (for Reformed theology) description of the nuclear fallout of sola Scriptura. (Keep in mind my view of sola Scriptura as a Protestant has been that it leads to an objective identification of the one true church).
Turretin is being "honest" in this sense: I don't think he is very exited about the prospect of people doing what he says they are able to do, namely to leave their church to follow their conscience in another branch of the "church". That is something no Protestant likes to think about, but it is necessary to think about it, and Turretin gets down to the "dirty diaper" of sola Scriptura when he points out the fact that the whole thing is totally subjective. The fact that you and Keith use this quote as somehow defending sola S. is something I just don't understand. It is exactly this subjectivity that pushes people like me to the banks of the Tiber.
And as for the tu quoque, the initial "identification" of the Catholic Church is just simply an order of magnitude in difference from the subjective "identification" of the church one must by necessity make constantly as a Protestant. Is the Turretin quote damaging to sola Scriptura? No, I found it to be devastating to it. And I spent two days depressed and walking around like a zombie when I realized this. (also Calvin's "let them eat cake" statement where he says a synod of true bishops should be convened to decide matters... uh ok Calvin, how?)
Peace,
David Meyer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
it is a very clear, concise, and orthodox (for Reformed theology) description of the nuclear fallout of sola Scriptura.
ReplyDeleteQuite so. Joe Protestant sticks with his chosen denomination or congregation until he considers it objectionable to do so. On the very best of conditions, this means that he stays until he decides that they have deviated too much from the the truth. Which gets us right back to Bryan Cross' saying, “When I submit (only when I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”
The Protestant Emperor has no clothes.
RdP
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the elucidation. I appreciate the time you took to make it. You write:
I think Arius could fully agree with Turretin and give him a big high-five. I don't see how Turretin could then fault Arius in any way considering the subjectivity in his (Turretin's) statement.
I believe I understand your premise, and I understand the conclusion. What I don't see is how you get from one to the other. That Turretin would (presumably) say it is within Arius' "rights" (a term I don't feel comfortable using simply because I don’t feel it rightly captures the essence of this allowable action) to follow his conscience on this matter does not seem to entail that, therefore, Turretin cannot find fault with Arius in any way. As I understand it, you are arguing as follows:
P1 Turretin would allow Arius to follow his conscience and leave Turretin's conception of the Church.
Therefore,
C Turretin cannot condemn Arius as heretical (or false or some equally disparaging ascription).
I do not see how this follows; perhaps you can help me on this point. My concern is that I don't see how Turretin is now left with some kind of subjective interpretation of Scripture. It seems logically possible that Turretin has the correct objective interpretation of Scripture with respect to orthodox Trinitarian formulations, can condemn Arius on the basis of this interpretation/formulation, and can still allow this heretic to leave the communion based on Arius' conscience. The conflict between these facts is not apparent to me.
That is something no Protestant likes to think about,
To be honest, it has not bothered me. The aspects of sola Scriptura which have bothered me in the past have lied in other areas. What sort of data are you drawing from to make this kind of evaluation about all (most?) Protestants?
but it is necessary to think about it, and Turretin gets down to the "dirty diaper" of sola Scriptura when he points out the fact that the whole thing is totally subjective. The fact that you and Keith use this quote as somehow defending sola S. is something I just don't understand. It is exactly this subjectivity that pushes people like me to the banks of the Tiber.
I do not understand what is subjective here with respect to sola Scriptura. Are you denying that objective interpretations of Scripture obtain due to the fact that the Church cannot bind the inner court of conscience? I do not see how that follows. Would you also say that the outer ecclesiastical court is subjective on the same basis? I would also ask why this follows. There is a disconnect here, and I do not know how to fill it in with what would presumably be a clincher reason from the Catholic quarter.
May I have permission to use the graphic?
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
ReplyDeleteWill respond when I can... seriously busy with a house full of kids this week because my wife is gone for the week.
Turretinfan,
Do you mean the graphic of the Virgin Mary on the sidebar?! I am so surprised... I mean you are such a staunch Reformed Baptist guy. But hey, she is your mother too, Jesus gave her to all of us. I certainly have been shocked at what I have seen by asking for her intersession. Wait a minute... do you mean the picture from this post of Turretin all tie-dyed and John Lennoned out? Crud. for a second I thought you were coming over to the "dark side", but I suppose not.
Yeah, you can use it. I wish I had a better program than microsoft paint, I could have done it much better. Out of curiosity, what the hay do you want it for? Dont tell me it will be your new avatar!?
Btw, I have been listening to some debates online between you and gnrhead. You maintain your cool well. Some of the more content-rich debates I have come across. Wish it was video, but good stuff nonetheless. I would like to see a video debate with you or James White and someone from the CtC crowd. That would be awsome.
Beer and Peace.
David Meyer
Haha! Yes, I meant the Turretin one. Perhaps as an avatar, or perhaps in a Youtube video or something like that.
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, while I am friends with a lot of Reformed Baptists (and I consider them my Christian brethren), I'm staunchly Presbyterian, subscribing without exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.