Arguments of the Photinians.
Arguments of the Photinians.
§ 476. The stronger arguments of Schmaltzius are these: (I) “Let Frantzius or anyone else teach that any one statement of Holy Writ conflicts with reason, and then let reason keep silent in the Church” (disp. 4, p. 137). We respond. (1) No statement of Holy Writ conflicts with reason when reason keeps within its own limits, but all the mysteries of faith conflict with reason when it goes beyond its limits, as is obvious from induction. You see, though the Photinians deny that those things are mysteries of faith that we teach from Scripture—such as the Trinity of persons in the divinity, the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, the personal union of the two natures in Christ, the resurrection of the same flesh, etc.—yet because of this nothing falls from the truth of this matter.
(2) Thus there is no contradiction between shoemaking and painting. However, when “the cobbler arises beyond the sandal,” as the proverb has it, and assumes for himself the judgment concerning all the theorems of the painter’s art, it happens by accident that he passes perverse judgment and contradicts the discipline of painting.
(3) On the other hand, just because the utterances of Scripture in and of themselves do not conflict with reason when it stays within its limits, one should by no means infer that they are to be measured according to the norm and judgment of reason; instead, the contrary is true: one must pass judgment on the articles of faith according to the proper principle of faith, Holy Writ, and one must not confuse the distinct principles of distinct disciplines.
(4) If anyone were to counter that “philosophy is a general discipline whose use extends to all other disciplines and thus also to theology itself,” we respond in this way: One must distinguish between the true use—either organic, constructive, or destructive—and the abuse, as we explained in greater detail in our Method. theologici studii.
§ 477. (II) “God wants our worship to be ‘reasonable,’ Rom. 12:1” (disp. post. 8, p. 421). We respond. (1) “Reasonable service” does not at all mean that which is taken from the judgment of reason or that which is examined according to the scale of reason, for it is certain that 
, “self-chosen services,” thought up by human judgment, do not meet with God’s approval (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:22; etc.) and that in the manner and mode of worship one must look only to what the Word prescribes (Num. 15:39; Ezek. 20:19; Jer. 7:31; Zech. 7:5; Eph. 2:10). In Rom. 12:2 the holy apostle adds expressly: “… that you may prove what is the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God.” And as he is about to show in the following chapter how that good will of God is to be proved, he lists the Ten Commandments.
(2) Instead, “reasonable service” means, first, that which is opposed to the Levitical sacrifices. He says, “I appeal to you to present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy, and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.” Therefore there is in the words of the apostle a beautiful antithesis between the sacrifices of the Old and New Testaments. In the Old, as a sacrifice they would offer the bodies of living animals; on the other hand, the devout in the New Testament offer their own bodies, which are temples of the living God. In the Old Testament, they would offer dead sacrifices that they slaughtered before they offered them as sacrifices; in the New Testament the devout offer a “living sacrifice” that lives not only with natural life but also with spiritual life. In the Old Testament, the sacrifices were sanctified merely with Levitical and ceremonial holiness; but in the New Testament, the sacrifice of the devout is “holy” with an internal holiness that comes from the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, sacrifices did not please God unless they were accompanied by faith in the coming Messiah; in the New Testament, however, the sacrifice of the devout is “acceptable to God in Christ through faith.” The sacrifices of the Old Testament were taken from irrational animals; but the service of the devout in the New Testament is “reasonable,” because they offer their mind and all their thoughts to God as a spiritual sacrifice. Second, “reasonable service” means that which by a mind illumined and reformed by the Holy Spirit proves what is the good and God-pleasing will, as the apostle explains: “Look carefully how you walk, not as unwise (and unreasonable) people but as wise (and reasonable)” (Eph. 5:15). Col. 4:5: “Walk in wisdom.” Third, “reasonable service” means that which is sincere and not corrupt. “Desire the reasonable milk [
]” (1 Peter 2[:2]).
§ 478. (III) “[It would have been] completely in vain that Christ taught rationally and wanted us to make conjectural inference about heavenly things on the basis of things that reason supplies” (ibid.). We respond. (1) Here the same ambiguity in the word “rationally” is returning. Christ did not draw His teaching from the principles of reason but from “the bosom of the heavenly Father” (John 1:18). Nor did He teach that it should be examined according to the norm of reason; instead, He commanded that it be judged on the basis of “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29; John 5:39).
(2) His occasional use of parables does not help the case of our adversaries at all. After all, it is one thing to pass judgment on a doctrine of faith according to the dictates of reason, but it is another thing to illustrate heavenly doctrine with parables and comparisons taken from nature.
(3) It is one thing to ask about the faculty of reasoning in man that is necessary to understand the divine mysteries, but it is another to ask about human reason that has been left to itself, indulging in its reasonings and passing judgment on the greatest mysteries of faith on the basis of its own principles.