Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Turretinfan vs. Francis Turretin

In our recent debate on Sola Scriptura(LEFT CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL DEBATE in MP3 Format! The Sola Scriptura Debate here!), Turretinfan found himself in a bind. When cross examined on whether or not Francis Turretin(the real Turretin) was not in UNITY with Turretinfan on the topic of Mary remaining a perpetual virgin throughout her life, Turretinfan scrambled so much so that he was forced(in order to not answer in the affirmative that Sola Scriptura has caused disunity between him and his hero) to say that Francis Turretin's views on Mary's Perpetual Virginity were taken from Tradition and NOT from Scripture! That's interesting. A GREAT Reformer came to a conclusion based on Sacred Tradition and NOT upon the Scriptures themselves? That makes for an INTERESTING case against Sola Scriptura in and of itself. But what interests us even more is that Turretinfan was wrong about Francis Turretin. When Francis Turretin points out how the EARLY Church believed Mary remained a perpetual virgin. he is referencing the early Fathers as a whole(not just Jerome as Tfan said). Hence he says that it is, "..piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church" It is TRUE that Francis Turretin's final conclusion on this view is NOT EXPRESSLY from Scripture. But what interests us even more is that Francis Turretin's DEFENSE of the arguments levied against Mary having LOST her virginity is a defense completely relying on Scripture! Francis Turretin relies on SOLA SCRIPTURA in his refutation of the arguments put forth to "disprove" Mary had remained a virgin her whole life. In fact, Francis Turretin uses no less than 10 verses of Sacred Scripture to show the folly of those that attempt to prove Mary lost her virginity. Turretinfan could not and WOULD not affirm that Sola Scriptura had caused DISUNITY and DIVISION amongst himself and his hero--the REAL Turretin--on this issue. But the proof is there for everyone to see. Read below!

“This is not expressly declared in Scripture, but is yet piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church. Thus it is probable that the womb in which our Savior received the auspices of life (whence he entered into this world, as from a temple) was so consecrated and sanctified by so great a guest that she always remained untouched by man; nor did Joseph ever cohabit with her. Hence Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites (so-called because they were opponents of [antidikoi] Mary)are deservedly rebuked by the fathers for denying that Mary was always a virgin (aei Parthenon). They held that she cohabited with Joseph after delivery; yea, also bore children from him. As Augustine remarks, they rely on the shallowest arguments, i.e., because Christ is called the ‘firstborn’ of Mary (cf. De Haeresibus 56, 84 [PL 42.40, 46]). For as Jerome well remarks, she was so called because no one was begotten before him, not because there was another after him. Hence among lawyers: ‘He is the first whom no one precedes; he is last, whom no one follows.’ The Hebrews were accustomed to call the firstborn also only begotten; Israel is called ‘the first-born of God’ (Ex 4:22), although the only people chosen of God. Thus ‘the firstborn’ is said to be ‘holy unto God’ (Ex 13:2), who first opened the womb, whether others followed or not. Otherwise the firstborn would not have to be redeemed until after another offspring had been procreated (the law shows this to be false because it commands it to be redeemed a month after birth, Num. 18:16). Not more solidly have they been able to elicit this from the fact that in the New Testament certain ones are called ‘the brothers of Christ.’ It is common in Scripture not only for one’s own and full brothers by nature to be designated by this name, but also blood relatives and cousins (as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban). Thus James and Joses, Simon and Judas are called brothers of Christ (Mt. 13:55) by a relation of blood. For Mary (who is called their mother by Matthew and Mark) is called by John the sister of the Lord’s mother. However what is said in Jn. 7:5 that ‘neither did his brethren believe him’ must be understood of more remote blood relations. Nor is it derived better from this-that Joseph is said ‘not to have known Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn son’ (Mt. 1:25). The particles ‘till” and ‘even unto’ are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e., they so connote the preceding time, concerning which there might be a doubt or which it was of the highest importance to know, as not to have a reference to the future-cf. Gen 28:15; Pss 122:2; 110:1; Mt.28:20, etc.). Thus is shown what was done by Joseph before the nativity of Christ (to wit, that he abstained form her); but it does not imply that he lived with her in any other way postpartum. When therefore she is said to have been found with child ‘before they came together’ (prin e synelthein autous), preceding copulation is denied, but not subsequent affirmed. Although copulation had not take place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith, but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring.” Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 345-346.

I recommend anyone that has some cash to spare to get this set of the real Turretin. It's worth a browse at the least.



No comments:

Post a Comment