In the declaration, then, of this doctrine unto the edification of the church, there is contained a farther explanation of
the things before asserted, as proposed directly and in themselves as the object of our faith, — namely, how God is one, in respect of his nature, substance, essence, Godhead, or divine being; how, being Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he subsists in these three distinct persons or hypostases; and what are their mutual respects to each other, by which, as their peculiar properties, giving them the manner of their
subsistence, they are distinguished one from another; with sundry other 379things of the like necessary consequence unto the revelation mentioned. And herein, as in the application of all other divine
truths and mysteries whatever, yea, of all moral commanded duties,
use is to be made of such words and expressions as, it may be, are not
literally and formally contained in the Scripture;
but only are, unto our conceptions and apprehensions, expository
of what is so contained. And to deny the liberty, yea, the
necessity hereof, is to deny all interpretation of the Scripture, —
all endeavours to express the sense of the words of it
unto the understandings of one another; which is, in a word, to
render the Scripture itself altogether useless. For if it
be unlawful for me to speak or write what I conceive to be
the sense of the words of the Scripture, and the nature of the thing
signified
and expressed by them, it is unlawful for me, also, to think or
conceive in my mind what is the sense of the words or nature
of the things; which to say, is to make brutes of ourselves, and
to frustrate the whole design of God in giving unto us the
great privilege of his word.
- John Owen, Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity [source]
Compare that with Francis Turretin's statement:
But it is often found that they who litigate more pertinaciously than others against the words, cherish a secret virus. It is sufficiently evident that those new corruptions of religion condemn the words adopted by the ancients for no other reason that they are unwilling to receive the things designed by them. Knowing that with the words they might abolish the doctrine also, we therefore did right in retaining them and insist on their use being not only lawful, but also beneficial and necessary for repressing the pertinacity of heretics and for bringing them out of lurking places. [Institutes of Eclenctic Theology, vol. 1, 258.]
More Quotations About the Trinity HERE
I'm reading through John Owen's book Vindiciae Evangelicae [some modern editors give it the name "The Gospel Defended"] and Owen [a Trinitarian] quotes Faustus Socinus [a VERY famous Unitarian] as admitting it's permissible to use extra-Biblical theological words [meaning, words not used in the Bible] to express one's meaning.
ReplyDeleteI'll give two of the Latin quotations from Socinus with translations from Meta AI.
I asked Meta AI:
//Translate: Ais igitur adversus id quod a me affirmatum fuerat, in controversis dogmatibus probandis, aut improbandis, necesse esse literam adferre, et id quod asseritur manifeste demonstrare: id quod asseritur manifeste demonstrari debere plane concede; literam autem adferre necesse esse prorsus nego; me autem jure hoc facere id aperte confirmat, quod quædam dogmata in Christi ecclesia receptissima, non solum per expressam literam non probantur, sed ipsam sibi contrariam habent. Exempli causa, inter omnes fete Christiani nominis heroines receptissimum est, Deum non habere aliqua membra corporis, ut aures, oculos, nares, brachia, pedes, marius, et tamen non mode expresse et literaliter (ut vocant) id scripture in sacris libris non est: verum etiam contrarium omnino passim diserte scriptum extat.” — Faust. Socin. Frag. Disput. de Ador. Christi cum Fran. David, cap. x. p. 59//
Meta AI wrote:
//Here's a translation of the Latin text:
"You say, therefore, against what I had affirmed, that in proving or disproving disputed doctrines, it is necessary to bring forth the literal text and to demonstrate manifestly what is asserted. I plainly concede that what is asserted ought to be manifestly demonstrated, but I utterly deny that it is necessary to bring forth the literal text. And that I do this rightly is openly confirmed by the fact that certain doctrines, most widely received in the Church of Christ, are not only not proven by express literal text, but have the literal text contrary to them. For example, it is a doctrine most widely received among all who bear the name of Christian that God does not have bodily members such as ears, eyes, nostrils, arms, feet, and hands, and yet not only is this not expressly and literally (as they say) in the sacred books of Scripture, but on the contrary, the opposite is clearly written everywhere."
This passage is from Fausto Sozzini (Faustus Socinus), an Italian theologian and a key figure in the development of Unitarianism. In this text, Sozzini argues against the necessity of literal scriptural proof for all Christian doctrines, pointing out that some widely accepted beliefs, such as God's incorporeality, are not directly supported by literal scriptural texts and may even seem contradicted by anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible.//
Second quote:
Delete//Translate: Simile quod affers de vocabulis “essentiæ,” et “personarum” a nobis repudiatis, quia in sanctis literis non inveniantur, non est admittendum, nemini enim vere cordato persuadebitis id quod per ea vocabuli adversarii significare voluerunt, idcirco repudiandum esse, quia ipsa vocabula scripta non inveniantur, imo quicunque ex nobis hac ratione sunt usi, suspectam apud nonnullos, alioquin ingenio, et eruditione præstantes viros, causam nostram reddidere.”— Idem, ubi sup. p. 62.//
Meta AI wrote:
//Here's a translation of the Latin text:
"The similar argument you bring forth about the words "essence" and "persons," which we reject because they are not found in the sacred writings, is not to be admitted. For you will not persuade anyone of sound mind that the meaning which our adversaries intended to convey by these words should be rejected simply because the words themselves are not found in Scripture. Indeed, those of us who have used this reasoning have made our cause suspect to some men otherwise distinguished by their intellect and learning."
This passage discusses the theological debate over the use of certain terms like "essence" and "persons" to describe the nature of God. The author argues that just because these specific words aren't found in Scripture, it doesn't necessarily mean the concepts they represent should be rejected. This highlights a methodological difference in interpreting and applying biblical teachings in theological discourse.//
These quotes are taken from the footnotes of the Preface to the Reader of Owen's Vindiciae Evangelicae online here:
https://ccel.org/ccel/owen/vindicevang/vindicevang.i.v.html