What makes a true church?

[TryingToLearn]

I’m having a very difficult time trying to make out from the Reformed Orthodox what essentially constitutes a true church as opposed to a false one. In many ways, they seem to be contradicting themselves.

Turretin tries to argue:

VIII. In vain do our opponents reply here: (1) “that such errors are not fundamental.” The thing itself cries out that the primary heads of faith are attacked by them: as the perfection of the word, the mediation of Christ, the unity of his sacrifice, the efficacy of his grace and other similar things in which the essence of religion consists. Again, although by themselves and separately each would not be capital, they become such conjointly by this very thing—that they are placed by them among necessary articles of faith which are proposed to be believed under pain of a curse, the conscience being forcibly bound to them, nor yet convinced. Finally, although all may not be equally fundamental, it would be sufficient for one or another to be such; nay, sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained.

But if this is so, then why would not indirect subversion of the fundamentals by Lutherans with consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration not be “sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained”

Furthermore, how can Turretin hold that indirect subversion of fundamentals make for a false church “in which salvation could not be obtained” when elsewhere he states the opposite, namely, that indirect subversion is not deadly:

One error directly, at first and immediately overthrows the foundation; another, indirectly, secondarily and by consequence. The former is undoubtedly the greater of the two. Again, an error can overturn the foundation indirectly and by a proximate, evident, necessary consequence; or by a remote, evident and wrested consequence. The former is certainly a deadly error, not so the latter.

And when Rutherford argues:

Fundamentals are safe in Rome materially in themselves, so as some may be saved who believe these fundamentals; but fundamentals are not safe in Rome, Ecclesiastice, Ministeraliter, Pastoraliter [ecclesiastically, ministerially, pastorally], in a Church way, so as by believing these from their chairs so exponed, they can be saved who do believe them.

Again, why cannot this equally be said of the Lutherans? If Rome’s indirect subversion of fundamentals renders it so that none can by believing these from their chairs so exponed, they can be saved who do believe them, why not the Lutheran churches as well? Or if it is so that such errors are indeed deadly, then why not call them a false church along with Rome?

I hope that makes sense. It’s just hard for me to see a coherent view emerging from the sources as they all seem contradictory even within themselves. They seem to want to hold 1-3 below but somehow deny 4:

1)) Catholics and Lutherans indirectly subvert fundamentals.

2)) Subversion of fundamentals suffices for a false church in which ministerially there can be no salvation.

3)) Catholics indirectly subvert fundamentals and therefore 2 applies to them.

4)) But Lutherans indirectly subvert fundamentals and therefore 2 applies to them.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I’m having a very difficult time trying to make out from the Reformed Orthodox what essentially constitutes a true church as opposed to a false one. In many ways, they seem to be contradicting themselves.

Turretin tries to argue:

VIII. In vain do our opponents reply here: (1) “that such errors are not fundamental.” The thing itself cries out that the primary heads of faith are attacked by them: as the perfection of the word, the mediation of Christ, the unity of his sacrifice, the efficacy of his grace and other similar things in which the essence of religion consists. Again, although by themselves and separately each would not be capital, they become such conjointly by this very thing—that they are placed by them among necessary articles of faith which are proposed to be believed under pain of a curse, the conscience being forcibly bound to them, nor yet convinced. Finally, although all may not be equally fundamental, it would be sufficient for one or another to be such; nay, sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained.

But if this is so, then why would not indirect subversion of the fundamentals by Lutherans with consubstantiation and baptismal regeneration not be “sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained”

Furthermore, how can Turretin hold that indirect subversion of fundamentals make for a false church “in which salvation could not be obtained” when elsewhere he states the opposite, namely, that indirect subversion is not deadly:

One error directly, at first and immediately overthrows the foundation; another, indirectly, secondarily and by consequence. The former is undoubtedly the greater of the two. Again, an error can overturn the foundation indirectly and by a proximate, evident, necessary consequence; or by a remote, evident and wrested consequence. The former is certainly a deadly error, not so the latter.

And when Rutherford argues:

Fundamentals are safe in Rome materially in themselves, so as some may be saved who believe these fundamentals; but fundamentals are not safe in Rome, Ecclesiastice, Ministeraliter, Pastoraliter [ecclesiastically, ministerially, pastorally], in a Church way, so as by believing these from their chairs so exponed, they can be saved who do believe them.

Again, why cannot this equally be said of the Lutherans? If Rome’s indirect subversion of fundamentals renders it so that none can by believing these from their chairs so exponed, they can be saved who do believe them, why not the Lutheran churches as well? Or if it is so that such errors are indeed deadly, then why not call them a false church along with Rome?

I hope that makes sense. It’s just hard for me to see a coherent view emerging from the sources as they all seem contradictory even within themselves. They seem to want to hold 1-3 below but somehow deny 4:

1)) Catholics and Lutherans indirectly subvert fundamentals.

2)) Subversion of fundamentals suffices for a false church in which ministerially there can be no salvation.

3)) Catholics indirectly subvert fundamentals and therefore 2 applies to them.

4)) But Lutherans indirectly subvert fundamentals and therefore 2 applies to them.

Is the difference between the two churches not in this, the second sentence: "the primary heads of faith are attacked by them [Rome]: as the perfection of the word, the mediation of Christ, the unity of his sacrifice, the efficacy of his grace and other similar things in which the essence of religion consists"? The errors we identify among the Lutherans do not so far as Rome subvert those essentials of religion.

One such failure in Rome might alone be sufficient (in degree) to utterly compromise the foundation (though T. seems to deny it is the case that any single deficiency achieves this); however Rome combines numerous such failures, and makes accepting her "package deal" the issue of utmost conscience and necessary for salvation. Again, one does not find this level or degree of error in the Lutheran confession.

In short, both parties may partake in the same kind of error(s), and "indirectly subvert fundamentals;" but each in his own way and to different degrees makes the compromise more or less damaging to the foundation.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Is the difference between the two churches not in this, the second sentence: "the primary heads of faith are attacked by them [Rome]: as the perfection of the word, the mediation of Christ, the unity of his sacrifice, the efficacy of his grace and other similar things in which the essence of religion consists"? The errors we identify among the Lutherans do not so far as Rome subvert those essentials of religion.

One such failure in Rome might alone be sufficient (in degree) to utterly compromise the foundation (though T. seems to deny it is the case that any single deficiency achieves this); however Rome combines numerous such failures, and makes accepting her "package deal" the issue of utmost conscience and necessary for salvation. Again, one does not find this level or degree of error in the Lutheran confession.

In short, both parties may partake in the same kind of error(s), and "indirectly subvert fundamentals;" but each in his own way and to different degrees makes the compromise more or less damaging to the foundation.

I take Turretin in that section to be listing various ways they subvert fundamentals rather than a certain list of essentials among fundamentals that if violated make for an apostate church.

But more directly, when he says:

Finally, although all may not be equally fundamental, it would be sufficient for one or another to be such; nay, sufficient to make the religion intolerable and the church false, in which salvation could not be obtained.

I cannot see how else to interpret this than him saying that one fundamental subverted makes for a false church.

(And in case any doubt the Reformed actually do hold the Lutherans to indirectly subvert fundamentals, see Richard Hooker pg 30 here: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781879793125/page/n1/mode/1up?view=theater)