One of Francis Turretin’s (1623–1687) Misrepresentations of Salmurian Theology

Grohman writes:

There is a significant difference between the orthodox and the Salmurians concerning what the object of election is. For the orthodox, the object of election is salvation. God the Father elects some certain people to be saved, and then these same people are given faith.[3] For the Salmurians, however, as Laplanche correctly points out, the object of election is the gift of faith, not salvation itself.[4] The Holy Spirit elects some certain people to receive the gift of faith, and then these same people receive salvation.[5] Both sides in this argument would agree that election is the cause of faith, or to put it the other way around, that faith is the effect of election. However, as we shall see in the next chapter, Turretin accuses the Salmurians of saying that foreseen faith, rather than God's good pleasure, is the cause of election.[6] If the Salmurians understood the object of election to be salvation, as Turretin does, then Turretin's accusation would be a valid one; however, by maintaining that the object of election is faith itself, the Salmurians apparently are not guilty of that particular charge.
_______________
3. See Turretin's presentation of the Reformed order of the decrees, infra, p. 95.
4. Laplanche, p. 258.
5. Armstrong, pp. 218–220.
6 See infra, pp. 66–71.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 47–48.

[Note that regarding the "orthodox" term, Grohman says, "We are using the term "orthodox" in this thesis to refer to the more conservative theologians who were in opposition to Amyraldianism. The term is used in this way by the seventeenth-century theologians themselves and by many modern writers in dealing with this period. We do not mean to imply by this term that all these "orthodox" theologians were in complete agreement among themselves on all issues." Ibid., 2, n.1.]

Grohman also says:

Turretin sees this issue [i.e. Is Foreseen Faith the Cause of Election?] as being a central one. He says that the whole Pelagian controversy, including the revival of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, hinges upon this question.¹ He says that on this matter he is also in opposition to the Papists and the Arminians.² In addition, he names two Saumur theologians, Testard and Cappel, with whom he disagrees.³

Turretin explains that Testard and Cappel believe that God decreed to give faith to man before electing him to life. Thus, they hold that predestination to life is the result of faith, which God foresees as a necessary condition to be met in those who are elected. Turretin makes clear his opposition to these two theologians by quoting each of them. He disagrees with Testard's statement that "no one would have deemed election to justification and glorification, if they had distinctly considered it to be from foreseen faith...."⁴ Turretin also objects to Cappel's statement that "destination to eternal life and glory, or the will of God concerning the glorification of man, is founded upon the condition of faith and repentance, but this condition God himself works in us."¹ Turretin rejects these statements as being too "crude" and "dangerous," and as being a departure from the Reformed position.²
_______________
1. Ibid., IV, xi, 1.
2. Ibid., IV, xi, 5–7.
3. Ibid., IV, xi, 8.
4. Testard, as qouted in ibid. Cf. Testard, Eirenikon..., thesis 289, p. 248. Turretin is actually quoting Testard out of context here. As we pointed out in Chapter I, Testard draws a distinction between election to salvation or justification and election to faith. He admits that election to justification is based upon foreseen faith (and this admission is what Turretin quotes), but he goes on to say that he believes that the proper understanding of election—that is, election to faith—is not based upon foreseen faith (see supra, pp. 47–48). Turretin is undoubtedly aware of the distinction which Testard makes concerning the object of election, since this distinction is rejected by the Helvetic Consensus Formula (which was written shortly before Turretin wrote his Institutio) (see Canon VI of the Consensus, Appendix III, infra, pp. 433–434). Apparently, Turretin considers Testard's distinction to be invalid and simply disregards it. Nicole, also citing thesis 289 of the Eirenikon, makes the same accusation as Turretin does (Nicole, p. 34, n. 56).

1. Louis Cappel, as quoted in Turretin, IV, xi, 8. Cf. Cappel in "Thesis theologicae de electione et reprobatione," pars posterior, Syntagma thesium theologicarum.... II, p. 113, par. 13.
2. Turretin, IV, xi, 8.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 67–68.

Update on 8-27-14: Richard Muller, in one of his lectures at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, said that William Twisse believed election to faith was unconditional, but election to salvation was conditional. If Turretin wants to shoot arrows at Saumur theologians for teaching that, his arrows will also hit Twisse (and possibly Zanchi and Bucer) on the same point. For William Twisse's distinctions between an unconditional or absolute predestination to faith and a conditional predestination to salvation, see his The Riches of Gods Love unto the Vessells of Mercy, Consistent With His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessells of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1553), 1:174–178.

Update on 9-13-14: Here is one passage in Turretin that Grohman refers to above:

VIII. By the unanimous consent of the church, the Reformed maintain election to be purely gratuitous and that no foresight can be granted of faith or of works and merit—neither of congruity (meritum de congruo), nor  condignity (meritum de condigno). Nor is it an objection that some appear to think differently. While holding that election to salvation (according our manner of conceiving) is posterior to election to faith, they think God first decreed to give faith to man before destinating him to life. Thus they hold that predestionation to glory and life is of faith as the condition foreseen by God in him who is elected (as Testard expresses it, "No one would have denied election to justification and glorification, if they had distinctly considered it to be from foreseen faith, and its object to be man believing, inasmuch believing"—Erinekon, Th. 289* [1631], p. 248). Capellus says, "Destination to eternal life and glory, or the will of God concerning the glorification of man, is founded upon the condition of faith, and repentance, but this condition God himself works in us" (Thesis 13, "Thesis theologicae de electione et reprobatione," in Syntagma thesim [1664], p. 113). For although this opinion on the subject of faith differs from those of the Arminians, yet because on others they approach nearer it and depart from the opinion thus far received in our churches (which have constantly contended for a purely gratuitous election without any foresight of faith or works), it is deservedly rejected as too crude and dangerous.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:357.