.
Subsections
Reformed vs. Aquinas
Scholastic Theology
.
.
Order of Contents
.
Article
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 9. ‘Was man created in puris naturalibus, or could he have been so created? We deny against the Pelagians and Scholastics.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 5th Topic, pp. 462-64
.
Quotes
1500’s
Theodore Beza & Anthony Faius
Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591)
15. ‘Of the Faculties of the Soul of Man’, p. 33
“1. God alone is a most simple, and a most mere being. And therefore, although the essence of the soul be a spiritual and no bodily substance, yet it is endued with faculties agreeable unto the nature of it, which, by their own spiritual manner are inherent in the essence thereof, as in their subject.
We do not therefore allow the opinion of the Peripatetics, who taught that the faculties of the soul do not differ from the essence of it in deed, but after a sort.
2. And although the very essence and substance of the soul, does by the grace of God, continue without all change and alteration: yet the powers thereof were created of a changeable nature.”
.
22. ‘Faith’, p. 48
“2. This faith, we do first of all distinguish from that mere agreement of the understanding, whereby it comes to pass that we believe all these things to be true which are contained in the holy Scriptures: the which agreement or assent, we affirm that it may arise from the light of nature also, and the arguments that may be compassed by human reason, without any peculier lightening of the Holy Spirit, seeing the very unclean spirits themselves do believe this.
3. We also distinguish this faith from the assent, whereby some have peculiarly applied some peculiar promises made unto themselves, that were diverse from the promises of eternal life, who notwithstanding were never made partakers thereof.
4. The faith therefore whereof we now speak, we do define to be that assurance whereby, beyond the former assent, the godly are carried unto Christ, and so particularly apply unto themselves the promise of salvation offered in Him.
We do condemn therefore all such sophistry as does confound these two sorts of faith, and especially those who taking faith for the obedience that is yielded unto God’s commandments, do by that means mingle the one of them with the other.”
.
23. ‘The Causes & Effects of Faith’, p. 51
“9. Now that true and lively faith, whereof we speak, is no less made known, by the perpetual and necessary effects thereof, than is the life of the body, by motion and sense.
10. But these effects do not give being unto faith, or
inform the same, as the Sophisters do most absurdly dream, but they are the undoubted and sure signs of it.”
.
26. ‘The Justification of Sinful Man in the Presence of God’, p. 57
“8. The righteousness of Christ profits us nothing, unless it be made ours.
9. Now it becomes ours, not by any infusion, either essential, as Osiander dreamed, or qualitative, as the jangling Sophisters do avouch; but by a spiritual apprehension or applying of Christ, effected in our minds; after the which, follows the free imputation of that threefold righteousness, which is inherent in the man Christ only, as in the subject.”
.
58. ‘Baptism, being the First Sacrament of the New Sacrament of the New Testament’, p. 177
“20. Seeing regeneration, wherof baptism is the pledge, is only begun in the saints, the jangling Sophisters do grievously err, who think that original sin, which is the corruption of nature, is altogether taken away by baptism, and that by the work wrought; that is, by the very action of baptism, and that it is abollished from the very same moment that baptism is received; neither will they have that fire of concupiscence, which remains in those that are baptized, to be accounted a sin.”
.
1600’s
Leonard Riissen
A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary trans. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’, pp. 84-85, 112-13, 121-22
“Controversy – Is God able not only to deprive an innocent creature of life but also to condemn them to the eternal tortures of hell? We deny against certain Scholastics.
Arguments
1. All the ways of God should be mercy and truth to those who keep covenant (Ps. 25:10).
2. Anyone approaching God should believe that He will reward their obedience with a reward not condemn them (Heb. 11:6).
3. In an innocent creature there can be no consciousness of guilt or the just judgment of God, which is the meaning of punishment.
4. No glory to God could arise from this but rather the dishonor of a tyrannical lord.
5. The righteousness of God demands that He acquit the holy, but it does not permit him to condemn someone who has not merited it (Ps. 18:26-27, Gen. 18:25, Ps. 7:11).
Objections
1. He can reduce the innocent to nothing. Reply. Then he only takes away what He gave, but punishment would be to do injury to someone while existing.
2. He acts this way with Christ. Reply. He was our surety, who took our debts on Himself.
3. God can impute to us the sin of Adam. Reply. That is imputed to be ours which is truly ours just as the children of slaves are slaves and the sons of citizens are citizens and are reputed to be such.
4. We are permitted to kill innocent creatures. Reply. 1. Not rational ones. 2. Irrational ones (bruta) for our use (2 Pet. 2:12). 3. It is one thing to kill, another to give to the living the highest punishment according to one’s pleasure.
…
Controversy 3 – Would Jesus Christ have been made m-an and come into the world if men had not sinned? We deny against the Socinians and Scholastics.
Arguments:
1. He was only promised after the fall (Gen. 3:15), and He could not have been born of a virgin except in virtue of the promise.
2. Those who are well have no need of a physician (Mt. 9:13). He only came to save sinners (2 Tim. 1:15).
3. He has been sent on the basis of the love of God toward fallen man (Jn. 3:16), which could not exist in that case. [That is, He would not have had compassion on fallen man, if man had not fallen. This compassion and love for fallen man is given as the reason for the Father sending the Son.]
4. It would not have been necessary for God to be man; therefore, He would have come in vain.
5. Nor would humanity have had any obligation (obligatio) to Him as incarnate.
Objections:
1. Christ is the firstborn of all creatures (Col. 1:15). Reply. ‘Firstborn’ means generated from eternity before all creatures.
2. In all things, He is preeminent (primus) (v. 19). Reply. In dignity and position.
3. All things have been created in Him (meaning “on account of Him”). Reply. All things have been created on account of Him as God not as man.
4. Then we have not been made on account of Christ, but He was made on account of us. Reply. Yes, as man. Objection. Then we should be given thanks since it is on account of us. Reply. That’s ridiculous.”
…
Controversy 3 – Was Christ on account of the personal union so holy that He was not able to sin? We affirm against the scholastics and Arminians.
Arguments
1. The devil could not do anything against Him (Jn. 14:30).
2. Everything He does, He does by the person (hypstasi) of the divine nature, although the actions are of the natures (suppositorum)
(Acts 20:28), but that person cannot sin.
3. Then the union could be dissolved, since God has no communion with sin (Is. 59:2, 2 Cor. 6:14).
4. Christ, as a sinner, could be damned (Gal. 3:10).
5. Then God could lie in promises and predictions contrary to Heb. 6:17.
6. Then Christ could be cut off from the mediatorial office, and thus the foundation of salvation could be overturned contrary to Acts 2:25.
Objection
1. He was free; therefore He was able to sin. Reply. So God and the angels in heaven are free, and will we be free after the judgment.”
.
Latin Articles
Maresius, Samuel – A New Synopsis of Elenctic Theology… (1646-1647), vol. 1, ch. 11
1. ‘Whether the first parents were made entirely whole, just, perfect and immortal? It is affirmed, contra Pelagians and Socinians; and simultaneously it is shown that Jesuits and Scholastics really agree here with Pelagians in contriving in the state of pure nature and many other things.’ 461-67
9. ‘Whether the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, as the rest of men? It is affirmed, contra Scotists and the minor orders and Jesuits of the Papal communion; and Tirinus with them and with other is charged’ 518-36
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Reception of Aquinas in Church History