Benedict Pictet: Reason teaches us that we can conceive of nothing greater than God

[Reformed Covenanter]

After remarking on how the scriptures teach that there is one God, Benedict Pictet also observed:

Reason itself also teaches us this; for whosoever has any thought and sense of deity, must acknowledge that only to be deity, than which nothing can be conceived better, more sublime, and more perfect; but of such a nature as this, there can be only one; for if such a being could have an equal, we could conceive of some more perfect Being, having none equal to himself, and possessing all the perfections of that other deity in himself alone, and having him dependent on himself.

Again, if there were more Gods than one, there would be more supreme Beings, than one, which is impossible; for if there were several supreme Beings, either one would be greater than the other, or they would be entirely equal; if the former, one of these would be the sole deity, namely, that which excelled the other; if the latter, neither of them would be supreme, because that only is supreme, which is greater than all other beings.

For the reference, see Benedict Pictet: Reason teaches us that we can conceive of nothing greater than God.

 

[Taylor]

I think I've said it before, but I consider Pictet to be the post-reformation Berkhof. His Christian Theology is so helpful and clear.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think I've said it before, but I consider Pictet to be the post-reformation Berkhof. His Christian Theology is so helpful and clear.

That is actually a really good description. A young guy at church has just ordered Francis Turretin's Institutes, but I am nearly sure that I have told him to read Benedict Pictet first.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This is very true. Thanks so much!

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I've been pushing for us to reprint Pictet's Christian Theology. The pushback is that Richard Muller has criticized the translation due to it omitting material.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I've been pushing for us to reprint Pictet's Christian Theology. The pushback is that Richard Muller has criticized the translation due to it omitting material.

Trigger warning: I am going to criticise Richard Muller.

Granted, the translation is an imperfect one. But surely it is better to have an imperfect translation than to have nothing?

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Trigger warning: I am going to criticise Richard Muller.

Granted, the translation is an imperfect one. But surely it is better to have an imperfect translation than to have nothing?

I agree. Muller is a historical theologian rather than an authority on translations.

 

[Taylor]

Here is what the translator says for himself in the preface:

In giving the following edition to the public, the translator has endeavoured to present it to the English reader in as plain, perspicuous, and popular a style as possible; he has fully and faithfully given the sense of his author; he has, indeed, omitted a few passages in the original work, either when (though very seldom the case) they appeared to him a needless repetition; or when such passages consisted of quotations from the fathers or the heathen writers, more curious than useful, or when they contained arguments rather subtle than solid; but these instances are altogether very rare, and, it is presumed, will not be of the slightest detriment to the original performance.​

​

—Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, trans. Frederick Reyroux (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1696), iii-iv.​

Sure, if I were a historian, this would bother me. But I'm not. I just want to read the book for profit.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Here is what the translator says for himself in the preface:

In giving the following edition to the public, the translator has endeavoured to present it to the English reader in as plain, perspicuous, and popular a style as possible; he has fully and faithfully given the sense of his author; he has, indeed, omitted a few passages in the original work, either when (though very seldom the case) they appeared to him a needless repetition; or when such passages consisted of quotations from the fathers or the heathen writers, more curious than useful, or when they contained arguments rather subtle than solid; but these instances are altogether very rare, and, it is presumed, will not be of the slightest detriment to the original performance.​

​

—Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, trans. Frederick Reyroux (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1696), iii-iv.​

Sure, if I were a historian, this would bother me. But I'm not. I just want to read the book for profit.

I mentioned the intentions and that by doing this, it presents itself as a perfect primer for orthodox, Reformed theology, rather than getting bogged down in polemics at the risk of losing those new to the debates.

I have a dear brother that is a gifted Latinist and translator. I'm going to ask him to review the translation. Pictet's work is one I am not willing to give up on.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I have often wondered if there would be enough interest to fund a revision through a crowdsource funding platform.

 

[Taylor]

I have often wondered if there would be enough interest to fund a revision through a crowdsource funding platform.

For what it’s worth, I would happily donate to such an endeavor.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

For what it’s worth, I would happily donate to such an endeavor.

I actually think it was you that put Pictet on my radar a few years ago. I thank you for that, sir.