RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
(Turretin did not know of the Campbellites. That was my application.)
I think the below marks of the parameters of a Reformed theological method. A biblicist method, by contrast, rejects this.
When earlier writers spoke of a marrow (medulla) of theology, they meant the core distilled into a succinct summary, often set apart with division markers. In Topic 1, Turretin evaluates the role of reason in theology. For modern day discussions, it serves as a test on whether one is a biblicist or not. If one cannot affirm Turretin’s principia, then one is a biblicist. This outline, or marrow, takes Turretin’s main argument in each of his propositions under Topic 1 and presents them for fast retrieval.
1. Second question: whether there is a theology and its divisions.
2. Whether natural theology can be granted.
3. The object of theology: Are God and divine things the object of theology? We affirm.
4.Is human reason the principle and rule by which the doctrines of the Christian religion and theology ought to be measured? We deny against the Socinians.
5. Does any judgment belong to reason in matters of faith? Or is there no use for it at all?
6. May the judgment of contradiction be allowed to human reason in matters of faith? We affirm.
7. Twelfth question: may doctrines be legitimately proved by consequences drawn from Scripture? We affirm. (I.XII.1).
8. Thirteenth Question: Is there any use of philosophy in theology? We affirm.
I think the below marks of the parameters of a Reformed theological method. A biblicist method, by contrast, rejects this.
When earlier writers spoke of a marrow (medulla) of theology, they meant the core distilled into a succinct summary, often set apart with division markers. In Topic 1, Turretin evaluates the role of reason in theology. For modern day discussions, it serves as a test on whether one is a biblicist or not. If one cannot affirm Turretin’s principia, then one is a biblicist. This outline, or marrow, takes Turretin’s main argument in each of his propositions under Topic 1 and presents them for fast retrieval.
1. Second question: whether there is a theology and its divisions.
- Answer: theology has been divided into three: natural (reason), supernatural (grace), and beatific (glory) (I.II.IX).
2. Whether natural theology can be granted.
- Statement of the question: We are speaking of natural first principles of knowledge from which conclusions both theoretical and practical are deduced (I.III.II). “The orthodox…uniformly teach that there is a natural theology, partly innate (derived from the book of conscience by means of common notions [koinas ennoias]) and partly acquired” (IV).
- Proof: the nature of the thing “proves it because such a work of the law is meant by whose instinct man not only distinguishes between good and evil, but is prompted to perform the one and avoid the other” (V).
3. The object of theology: Are God and divine things the object of theology? We affirm.
- Statement of the question: He is considered “as he is our God (i.e., covenanted in Christ as he has revealed himself to us in his word not only as the object of knowledge, but also of worship) (I.V.IV).
4.Is human reason the principle and rule by which the doctrines of the Christian religion and theology ought to be measured? We deny against the Socinians.
- We distinguish on reason: Reason is ministerial and organic, not despotic (I.VIII.VI). It is an instrument of faith, not its foundation (VII).
- Augustine distinguishes the truth of propositions from the truth of conclusions. The former is axiomatic, the latter discursive (XI). Divine revelation corresponds to the former, right reason to the latter.
- Where does reason fit in the argument? A mixed syllogism contains one proposition of faith and one of reason. Reason then functions as the instrumental premise (XIII).
5. Does any judgment belong to reason in matters of faith? Or is there no use for it at all?
- Two extremes: excess of reason (Socinians) and defect (Anabaptists).
- Statement of the question; the question does not concern the judgment of decision by which controversies are publicly determined. No one of us attributes this to reason, but either to God alone speaking in the Scriptures (if we speak of supreme judgment) or to pastors appointed in the church (if we treat of subordinate judgment)(I.iX.II).
- Man in sin still retains first principles. These first principles are true not only in nature, but also in grace and the mysteries of faith…Although reason and faith are of different classes (the one natural, the other supernatural), they are not however opposed (V).
6. May the judgment of contradiction be allowed to human reason in matters of faith? We affirm.
- State of the question: three things must be distinguished: reason judging, the principle from which the judgment is formed, and the rule of consequence by which it is formed:
- The reason is that which is enlightened.
- The principles are those given in the Scriptures.
- The rule is in application.
7. Twelfth question: may doctrines be legitimately proved by consequences drawn from Scripture? We affirm. (I.XII.1).
- Although the intellect which educes consequences is fallible, it does not follow that the consequences themselves are false and uncertain.
- To prove a consequence of faith, the middle term must be taken not from nature, but from the Scriptures.
- Reason is not the principle of the thing, but of the knowledge of the thing (XXVI).
8. Thirteenth Question: Is there any use of philosophy in theology? We affirm.
- Reason receives the principles from the light of faith, yet (this light preceding) it ought to judge how the parts cohere (I.XIII.V).