What do you think?
Rate this book
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2: Eleventh through Seventeenth Topics
Treats God's law, the covenant of grace, the person and state of Christ, his mediatorial office, calling and faith, justification, and sanctification and good works.
Endorsements"If ever a great theological work has been unjustly neglected it has been Francis Turretin’s masterful volumes on the whole of Christian doctrine. . . . I heartily . . . commend [them] to preachers, theological students, and lay persons everywhere."
—James M. Boice
"The larger availability in English of Turretin’s complete Institutes is a welcome contribution . . ."
—Carl F. H. Henry
". . . a noteworthy event for the Reformed churches and for all who take an interest in the history and development of Reformed theology. . . ."
—Sinclair B. Ferguson
Endorsements"If ever a great theological work has been unjustly neglected it has been Francis Turretin’s masterful volumes on the whole of Christian doctrine. . . . I heartily . . . commend [them] to preachers, theological students, and lay persons everywhere."
—James M. Boice
"The larger availability in English of Turretin’s complete Institutes is a welcome contribution . . ."
—Carl F. H. Henry
". . . a noteworthy event for the Reformed churches and for all who take an interest in the history and development of Reformed theology. . . ."
—Sinclair B. Ferguson
744 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 9, 2022
2 people are currently reading
1 person want to read
About the author
Francis Turretin
31 books22 followersFrancis Turretin (also known as François Turretini) was a Swiss-Italian Protestant theologian.
Turretin is especially known as a zealous opponent of the theology of the Academy of Saumur (embodied by Moise Amyraut and called Amyraldianism), as an earnest defender of the Calvinistic orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and as one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus, which defended the formulation of double predestination from the Synod of Dort and the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Turretin is especially known as a zealous opponent of the theology of the Academy of Saumur (embodied by Moise Amyraut and called Amyraldianism), as an earnest defender of the Calvinistic orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and as one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus, which defended the formulation of double predestination from the Synod of Dort and the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 17, 2024
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
Yes, this is largely just a reworking of my post about Vol. 1. It's not like I'm going to have a lot of different things to say about this, so why torture myself by trying? I reckon the same will be true in December/January when I write about Vol. 3. Still, it's different enough to justify my time. Hopefully yours, too.
WHAT'S ELENCTIC THEOLOGY ANYWAY?
Elenctic refers to a logical method involving asking questions, of defending a position (or arguing to persuade people to accept it) by proposing alternatives and asking a series of questions—practically cross-examing the alternatives, to show the problems of the alternatives. A good deal of what we call the "Socratic method" is elenctics.
Therefore, Elenctic Theology is a form of defending the truth of Christianity or Christian dogmas by suggesting alternatives and demonstrating their lack by way of asking and answering questions about them. Or by asking a question about a true dogma and asking questions that affirm them. Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles is one example. This book is another.
WHAT'S INSTITUTES OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY THEN?
For a long time, it was the standard textbook to train Presbyterian and Reformed ministers in various parts of the world—including the U.S.—until Charles Hodge's systematic theology overtook it in popularity (Hodge, it should be noted had his students read Turretin's Institutes).
Turretin wrote it at the height of Protestant Scholasticism, defending the Reformed understanding of Christianity in a post-Synod of Dordt and post-Westminster Assembly-era. He interacts with the best of Roman Catholic theology of the era, as well as Socinians, Remonstrants (read: Arminians), Lutherans, and others.
He examines the big issues of the time—and several smaller issues, as well. In this volume, of the 20 topics these volumes cover, we get topics 11-17. Yes, the last three topics get an excess of 600 pages devoted to them—he's going to really get into the details with those. But I'm not thinking about that yet. The topics in this volume are:
TURRETIN'S METHOD
I think the best way to show how Turretin approaches these discussions is to show you the list of questions from one of the topics. Here's what he looks at in the roughly 130 pages of The Fifteenth Topic: calling and Faith:
I. Are decrees in God, and how?
Il. Are the decrees of God eternal? We affirm against Socinus.
Ill. Are there conditional decrees? We deny against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Jesuits.
IV. Does the decree necessitate future things? We affirm.
V. Is the fixed and immovable end of the life of each man with all its circumstances so determined by the decree of God, that he cannot die in another moment of time or by another kind of death than that in which he does die? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.
VI. Ought predestination to be publicly taught and preached? We affirm.
VII. In what sense are the words “predestination,” prognōseōs, eklogēs and prosthesōs used in this mystery?
VIII. Was there a predestination of angels, and was it of the same kind and order with the predestination of men? The former we affirm; the latter we deny.
IX. Whether the object of predestination was man creatable, or capable of falling; or whether as created and fallen. The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
X. Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? We deny against the Arminians and Lutherans.
XI. Is election made from the foresight of faith, or works; or from the grace of God alone? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
XII. Is the election of certain men to salvation constant and immutable? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
XIII. Can the believer be certain of his own election with a certainty not only conjectural and moral, but infallible and of faith? We affirm against the papists and Remonstrants.
XIV. Is the decree of reprobation absolute, depending upon the good pleasure (eudokia) of God alone; or is sin its proper cause? We distinguish.
XV. Is infidelity, or unbelief of the gospel, presupposed as a cause of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
XVI. Is the will of God to save persevering believers and condemn the unbelieving, the whole decree of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
XVII. Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny.
XVIII. Is any order to be admitted in the divine decrees, and what is it?
Like I said last time, I texted a friend saying that I wish I could break down an idea like Turretin. He made me feel a little better by replying, "You and everyone else born in the 20th century." Because from these questions, he'll spend a few pages breaking down the idea further, systematically working his way through the question and seemingly every possible angle of it.
There's part of me that wants to abandon this re-read and just focus on observing his method and trying to replicate it in my life. I'm not going to, but it's a thought.
There are times, however, where I wonder why Turretin would spend time on something like, "Was Christ caught up into heaven before beginning his public ministry in order to be taught there by the Father? We deny against the Socinians." The answer is, obviously, that these were topics being discussed in the Church, and it seemed necessary to Turretin. It's just so far out of our experience to think of.
SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT INSTITUTES OF ELECTIC THEOLOGY VOL. 2?
Let me get this out of the way first: This is dry. Dry like a stale crouton. I know most people think that about Theology in general—and sure, bad theology is usually dry, but not the good stuff. This is one of those exceptions that proves the rule.
There are moments, I should note, that some of Turretin's personality shows through, some moments expressing the awe appropriate to the topic, the emotions stirred by the Gospel, and even a little humor/snark at the thoughts of his opponents. But those moments are brief and rare. But they're golden. There were segments in this book where Turretin focused on the gospel and some of those practically sung. It was just great.
As it's dry, it's a little harder to read than others (say, Calvin or Bavinck). But it's absolutely worth the effort—and after a little while, you won't notice the effort. It's so crisp, so clear, so helpful that you relish getting to read it. Giger and Dennison likely are due as much credit for this as Turretin is. Giger's also likely due some credit for the arid language (he was translating in the early Nineteenth Century, not one an era known for punchy prose).
I can't recommend this highly enough.
---
Yes, this is largely just a reworking of my post about Vol. 1. It's not like I'm going to have a lot of different things to say about this, so why torture myself by trying? I reckon the same will be true in December/January when I write about Vol. 3. Still, it's different enough to justify my time. Hopefully yours, too.
WHAT'S ELENCTIC THEOLOGY ANYWAY?
Elenctic refers to a logical method involving asking questions, of defending a position (or arguing to persuade people to accept it) by proposing alternatives and asking a series of questions—practically cross-examing the alternatives, to show the problems of the alternatives. A good deal of what we call the "Socratic method" is elenctics.
Therefore, Elenctic Theology is a form of defending the truth of Christianity or Christian dogmas by suggesting alternatives and demonstrating their lack by way of asking and answering questions about them. Or by asking a question about a true dogma and asking questions that affirm them. Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles is one example. This book is another.
WHAT'S INSTITUTES OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY THEN?
For a long time, it was the standard textbook to train Presbyterian and Reformed ministers in various parts of the world—including the U.S.—until Charles Hodge's systematic theology overtook it in popularity (Hodge, it should be noted had his students read Turretin's Institutes).
Turretin wrote it at the height of Protestant Scholasticism, defending the Reformed understanding of Christianity in a post-Synod of Dordt and post-Westminster Assembly-era. He interacts with the best of Roman Catholic theology of the era, as well as Socinians, Remonstrants (read: Arminians), Lutherans, and others.
He examines the big issues of the time—and several smaller issues, as well. In this volume, of the 20 topics these volumes cover, we get topics 11-17. Yes, the last three topics get an excess of 600 pages devoted to them—he's going to really get into the details with those. But I'm not thinking about that yet. The topics in this volume are:
* The Law of God
* The Covenant of Grace and Its Twofold Economy in the Old and New Testaments
* The Person and State of Christ
* The Mediatorial Office of Christ
* Calling and Faith
* Justification
* Sanctification and Good Works
* The Covenant of Grace and Its Twofold Economy in the Old and New Testaments
* The Person and State of Christ
* The Mediatorial Office of Christ
* Calling and Faith
* Justification
* Sanctification and Good Works
TURRETIN'S METHOD
I think the best way to show how Turretin approaches these discussions is to show you the list of questions from one of the topics. Here's what he looks at in the roughly 130 pages of The Fifteenth Topic: calling and Faith:
I. Are decrees in God, and how?
Il. Are the decrees of God eternal? We affirm against Socinus.
Ill. Are there conditional decrees? We deny against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Jesuits.
IV. Does the decree necessitate future things? We affirm.
V. Is the fixed and immovable end of the life of each man with all its circumstances so determined by the decree of God, that he cannot die in another moment of time or by another kind of death than that in which he does die? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.
VI. Ought predestination to be publicly taught and preached? We affirm.
VII. In what sense are the words “predestination,” prognōseōs, eklogēs and prosthesōs used in this mystery?
VIII. Was there a predestination of angels, and was it of the same kind and order with the predestination of men? The former we affirm; the latter we deny.
IX. Whether the object of predestination was man creatable, or capable of falling; or whether as created and fallen. The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
X. Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? We deny against the Arminians and Lutherans.
XI. Is election made from the foresight of faith, or works; or from the grace of God alone? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
XII. Is the election of certain men to salvation constant and immutable? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
XIII. Can the believer be certain of his own election with a certainty not only conjectural and moral, but infallible and of faith? We affirm against the papists and Remonstrants.
XIV. Is the decree of reprobation absolute, depending upon the good pleasure (eudokia) of God alone; or is sin its proper cause? We distinguish.
XV. Is infidelity, or unbelief of the gospel, presupposed as a cause of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
XVI. Is the will of God to save persevering believers and condemn the unbelieving, the whole decree of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
XVII. Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny.
XVIII. Is any order to be admitted in the divine decrees, and what is it?
Like I said last time, I texted a friend saying that I wish I could break down an idea like Turretin. He made me feel a little better by replying, "You and everyone else born in the 20th century." Because from these questions, he'll spend a few pages breaking down the idea further, systematically working his way through the question and seemingly every possible angle of it.
There's part of me that wants to abandon this re-read and just focus on observing his method and trying to replicate it in my life. I'm not going to, but it's a thought.
There are times, however, where I wonder why Turretin would spend time on something like, "Was Christ caught up into heaven before beginning his public ministry in order to be taught there by the Father? We deny against the Socinians." The answer is, obviously, that these were topics being discussed in the Church, and it seemed necessary to Turretin. It's just so far out of our experience to think of.
SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT INSTITUTES OF ELECTIC THEOLOGY VOL. 2?
Let me get this out of the way first: This is dry. Dry like a stale crouton. I know most people think that about Theology in general—and sure, bad theology is usually dry, but not the good stuff. This is one of those exceptions that proves the rule.
There are moments, I should note, that some of Turretin's personality shows through, some moments expressing the awe appropriate to the topic, the emotions stirred by the Gospel, and even a little humor/snark at the thoughts of his opponents. But those moments are brief and rare. But they're golden. There were segments in this book where Turretin focused on the gospel and some of those practically sung. It was just great.
As it's dry, it's a little harder to read than others (say, Calvin or Bavinck). But it's absolutely worth the effort—and after a little while, you won't notice the effort. It's so crisp, so clear, so helpful that you relish getting to read it. Giger and Dennison likely are due as much credit for this as Turretin is. Giger's also likely due some credit for the arid language (he was translating in the early Nineteenth Century, not one an era known for punchy prose).
I can't recommend this highly enough.
We have now said enough on this subject. God grant that, dismissing a vain confidence in our own merit, we may rest in the most perfect merit of Christ alone and so keep faithful to him and fight the good fight even unto the end that we may receive a crown of righteousness; due not to our merit, but most graciously promised to us from the heavenly rewarder. To him, the author and finisher (archēgō kai teleiōtē) of our salvation, the one and triune God, “from whom, by whom and to whom are all things, be praise and glory world without end.” Amen.
October 18, 2025
I read Fourteenth Topic: The Mediatorial Office of Christ, questions ten and eleven, roughly twenty pages in all.
Tenth Question: The Necessity of the Satisfaction
Was it necessary for Christ to make satisfaction to divine justice for us? We affirm against the Socinians.
AND
Eleventh Question: The Truth of the Satisfaction
Did Christ truly and properly satisfy God’s justice in our place? We affirm against the Socinians.
Turretin, a Reformed Scholastic, inherited the framework of the Reformers, especially John Calvin from whom he developed a more granular account of Penal Substitution. Such theory includes more detail of forensic/legal concepts related to the atonement.
Unlike Anselm who assumed that God’s retributive justice could be satisfied by compensation, Turretin (assuming the Reformers’s theory of atonement) argues for God’s punishing Christ.
Turretin argues that there is what he labels a “threefold relation” whereby sin is debt, enmity, and crime. Debt to God—owing him the fulfillment of moral obligation that we have not repaid. Enmity—hostility that exists between God and man. Crime—sin carrying with it the penalty of eternal death, rendering us criminally liable.
Mirroring the three categories of sinners is the threefold relation of Christ, whereby Christ is creditor, appeaser of divine wrath, and supreme judge. Creditor—Christ’s paying the debt contracted by sin. Appeaser—Christ’s propitiating divine wrath. Supreme judge—Christ’s expiating the guilt of sinners.
Furthermore, Turretin lays out five conditions within the bounds of his answer to the tenth question, responding to the objection that God was unjust to punish Christ due to his innocence. Each of these conditions, Turretin insists, is satisfied, rendering God just.
Question eleven pertains to Christ as our substitute, wherein (according to what I found to be of most interest) Turretin presents a reductio for what would be logical entailments known to be false if it were the case that there were no atonement. Additionally, he speaks how despite Christ’s death being temporally three days, it does not follow therefore that his death did not pay for would would have been a deserving death of infinite punishment for redeemed sinners.
10/17/2025
I read Fourteenth Question: The Object of the Satisfaction
Did Christ die for each and every man universally or only for the elect? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
Not easy reading, but Turretin relies heavily on Calvin's understanding of passages from Scripture that have a universal note, understanding "all" to be "all without distinction." He has a variety of complex theological arguments in favor of particular redemption that are worth revisiting.
Tenth Question: The Necessity of the Satisfaction
Was it necessary for Christ to make satisfaction to divine justice for us? We affirm against the Socinians.
AND
Eleventh Question: The Truth of the Satisfaction
Did Christ truly and properly satisfy God’s justice in our place? We affirm against the Socinians.
Turretin, a Reformed Scholastic, inherited the framework of the Reformers, especially John Calvin from whom he developed a more granular account of Penal Substitution. Such theory includes more detail of forensic/legal concepts related to the atonement.
Unlike Anselm who assumed that God’s retributive justice could be satisfied by compensation, Turretin (assuming the Reformers’s theory of atonement) argues for God’s punishing Christ.
Turretin argues that there is what he labels a “threefold relation” whereby sin is debt, enmity, and crime. Debt to God—owing him the fulfillment of moral obligation that we have not repaid. Enmity—hostility that exists between God and man. Crime—sin carrying with it the penalty of eternal death, rendering us criminally liable.
Mirroring the three categories of sinners is the threefold relation of Christ, whereby Christ is creditor, appeaser of divine wrath, and supreme judge. Creditor—Christ’s paying the debt contracted by sin. Appeaser—Christ’s propitiating divine wrath. Supreme judge—Christ’s expiating the guilt of sinners.
Furthermore, Turretin lays out five conditions within the bounds of his answer to the tenth question, responding to the objection that God was unjust to punish Christ due to his innocence. Each of these conditions, Turretin insists, is satisfied, rendering God just.
Question eleven pertains to Christ as our substitute, wherein (according to what I found to be of most interest) Turretin presents a reductio for what would be logical entailments known to be false if it were the case that there were no atonement. Additionally, he speaks how despite Christ’s death being temporally three days, it does not follow therefore that his death did not pay for would would have been a deserving death of infinite punishment for redeemed sinners.
10/17/2025
I read Fourteenth Question: The Object of the Satisfaction
Did Christ die for each and every man universally or only for the elect? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.
Not easy reading, but Turretin relies heavily on Calvin's understanding of passages from Scripture that have a universal note, understanding "all" to be "all without distinction." He has a variety of complex theological arguments in favor of particular redemption that are worth revisiting.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews