Institutes of Elenctic Theology
Vol. 1: First through Tenth Topics
by Francis Turretin, George Musgrave Giger (Translator), James T. Dennison, Jr. (Editor)
DETAILS: Series: Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1 Publisher: P & R Publishing Publication Date: October 1, 1992 Format: Hardcover Length: 685 pg. Read Date: January 7- April 28, 2024
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 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, he covers the first 10 of the 20 topics he’ll cover in the three volumes (which suggests something about the length he’ll discuss the second half of the topics in the following volumes). The topics in this volume are:
Theology The Holy Scriptures The One and Triune God The Decrees of God in General and Predestination in Particular Creation The Actual Providence of God Angels The State of Man Before the Fall and the Covenant of Nature Sin in General and in Particular The Free Will of Man in a State of SinTurretin’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 120 pages of The Fourth Topic: The Decrees of God in General and Predestination in Particular:
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?
I’m not sure if it was while reading this topic (I think so), or something a little later, but I remember texting 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.
So, what did I think about Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 1?
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.
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.
This post contains an affiliate link. If you purchase from it, I will get a small commission at no additional cost to you. As always, the opinions expressed are my own.
