An overdue correction of TurretinFan

Our new Muslim contributor and friend (thegrandverbalizer19), has promised to comment on the following from the previous thread:

>>Seems to me a more flexible picture of a loving family. Father divine, Holy Spirit feminine divine, and the Son. Let US make man in OUR image. Male and Female.>>

Me: Could you explain a bit further how the above formulation would work within an Islamic paradigm? (LINK)

After 138 comments, is seems the great discussion(s) is finally slowing down a bit. GrandVerb has been very active, and I would like to extend my thanks to him for his cogent and charitable contributions. I know from his last comments that he is very busy; as such, I do not want him to feel any time pressure in responding to the above.

So, with all that said, I would now like to address an issue that I have been ignoring way too long now: TurretinFan’s misguided remarks concerning me, and Dr. Charles Hodge.

Back in November, 2009 I started of series of sorts on the issue of whether or not the Catholic Church is a Christian/true/valid church with this thread:

Luther: “I honor the Roman Church”

I continued the series/theme with two subsequent threads:

CHARLES HODGE – “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?”

Steve Hays and Jason Engwer vs. Dr. Charles Hodge

Following his typical modus operandi, the anti-Catholic, epologist, TurretinFan (hereafter TF), rather than responding directly in the comments sections of the threads listed above, instead posted his criticisms on his own blog (Note: TF moderates the comments on his blog, and has chosen not to post a good number of the comments I have submitted; further, to deflect the charge of moderation, he later created a totally separate blog specifically for what he has termed, “criticism of turretinfan”):

Charles Hodge on Rome

From the above post we read:

David Waltz is trying to make something of Prof. Hodge's comments on Roman Catholicism (link to Waltz's post). It is worth noting that Waltz has chosen to selectively present one side of Hodge's coin. The other side is that Hodge viewed Rome as both apostate and antichristian (link to example of such teaching) and also as antichrist and a synagogue of Satan (link to example of such teaching) to which we may add the mystery of iniquity and the man of sin (link to example of such teaching).

TF does not attempt to explain what he meant by, “trying to make something of Prof. Hodge’s comments on Roman Catholicism”; my intent was to bring to the attention of the readers here at AF two insightful essays by one of the greatest Reformed theologians of all time. I provided the links (see below for those links, and further options) to both essays, and selections from those essays that set the tone for Dr. Hodge’s argument. TF opines that I did not present the “other side”, but his charge is baseless: first of all, as I said earlier, I provided the links to both of the pertinent essays (BTW, TF only linked to one of them); and second, one of the selections I provided most certainly touches on the “other side”—note the following from my second thread on this topic:

Fifthly, it is said we give up too much to the papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer, Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says, we favor intemperance, unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery, unless we say slaveholding is a sin; and a third, that we favor popery unless we say the church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake, and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged. They dive the adversary an advantage over them, and they fail to enlist the strength of their own side. Men who are anxious to promote temperance, cannot join societies which avow principles which they believe to be untrue; and men who believe popery to be the greatest modern enemy of the gospel, cannot co-operate in measures of opposition to that growing evil, which are founded on the denial of what appear to be important scriptural principles. It is a great mistake to suppose popery is aided by admitting what truth it does include. What gives it its power, what constitutes its peculiarly dangerous character, is that it is not pure infidelity; it is not the entire rejection of the gospel, but truth surrounded with enticing and destructive error. Poison by itself is not so seductive, and therefore not so dangerous, as when mixed with food. We do not believe that those of our brethren from whom we are so unfortunate as to differ on this subject, have a deeper impression than we have either of the destructive character of the errors of popery, or of the danger to which religion and liberty are exposed from its progress. We believe it to be by far the most dangerous forms of delusion and error that has ever arisen in the Christian world, and all the more dangerous from its having arisen and established itself in the church, or temple of God.

TF then continued with:

Waltz does not explain his motivations for choosing to highlight only part of what Hodge taught, and for doing so in a way that grossly exaggerates the differences between Hodge and some of my friends at Triablogue.

TF is clearly confusing his own methods with mine; it was TF who chose “to highlight only part of what Hodge taught”, not me. As for the charge of exaggeration, once again, it is totally baseless.

And finally, from TF:

Yes, my friends and I may well agree with Thornwell and others that Hodge (no doubt due to the softness of his heart) conceded too much to Rome in places such as those Waltz highlights, but the difference between Hodge and us is a lot smaller than Waltz's article would suggest to the unwary reader.

I linked to BOTH of Dr. Hodge’s essays; TF linked to only the first, and completely ignored the second essay which clarifies much of the content of the first. Further, to make matters even worse, the links that TF gave his readers pertain primarily the “Popish hierarchy”, and not to the issue of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is still a true/valid church.

As for Thornwell, I have read his emotionally charged essay (“The Validity of the Baptism of the Church of Rome”, pp. 283-412, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell – Volume 3. Theological & Controversial) directed at Dr. Hodge—I sincerely believe that one who exercises some objectivity will side Dr. Hodge’s clear, and articulate position, over Thornwell’s, sometimes crass, objections.


LIST OF LINKS TO: Dr. Hodge’s essays:

Discussions in Church Polity (Pages 191- 215.)

The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review Vol. 17 No. 3 (1845) (Pages 444 – 471.)


The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Vol. 18 No. 2 (1846) (Pages 320 – 344.)

The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Vol. 18 No. 2 (1846) (Pages 320 – 344.)

THEOLOGIA - Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?

Anyway, I have taken time away from much more important issues, but in my defense, I did want to correct yet another misguided diatribe from our Reformed brother in Christ.



Grace and peace,

David


NOTE: I did not take the time to enable the links from TurretinFan's post; please go to his blog for the links.