Preliminary Considerations

By confessional churches I mean churches that formally bind themselves to one of the great Protestant confessions of faith, such as the Belgic Confession (1561), the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; hereafter, WCF) or one of its later revised forms, the Savoy Declaration (1658), or the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1688–89; hereafter, 2LCF). In this article, I commend two works to readers who desire a better understanding of our confessions and the old Reformed theology.

What constitutes confessional subscription with integrity in our day is a difficult and disputed question. But we must first understand the original public meaning (OPM) of these historic summaries of our venerable Reformed tradition. Given the richness of the sources, pursuing that OPM can greatly edify students of historical theology. Any attempt to interpret centuries-old confessions as if they were modern documents, without knowledge and appreciation of the times, the controversies which occasioned them, and the Reformed consensus they represent, makes one liable to import modern notions foreign to the framers’ intent. It pours new wine into old wineskins, and thus ruins everything.

We agree that the church of Christ, broadly speaking, advances in her grasp of biblical truth; yet such advances do not undermine truths she has already recognized nor overturn established orthodoxy. Much of modernity is incongruent with, and even opposed to, the biblical and glorious orthodoxy that our venerable historic confessions hold forth. At some points, moderns—even with good intentions—are in error, whereas an excellent confession may be materially free from doctrinal error.

Several years ago I plowed through the multi-volume sets that are the focus of this article. They sharpened my grasp and increased my appreciation for the aforementioned confessions even more than I hoped. I sincerely wished that someone had introduced me to them in seminary, or at least, that I had read them decades earlier in my pastoral ministry. Now I frequently recommend the sets with zeal. I sincerely believe that attention to these and other comparable tomes would go a long way toward rekindling and preserving our love for the old Reformed theology. My advocacy of these volumes in particular is selective and the fruit of my personal experience. My learned readers will doubtless appreciate the value of many other authors and their worthy contributions.

Books for Confessional Understanding

We need books containing the original texts of historical confessions to establish baselines for what those confessions actually say. To discern the OPM of any historic, public document, we must have the publicly known and definitive text.

Beyond books with the original confessional wording, countless others are helpful for confessional understanding. Chief among these are books about the period in which the confession appeared (e.g., the seventeenth century), or primary source materials related to the confessions and their theology in that period.

Two stellar titles that meet these criteria and earn my warm recommendation to you are the following:

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols.) by Richard A. Muller (hereafter, PRRD).[1] This is a modern work describing historical theology in the context of the confessional era, especially the seventeenth century. Its subtitle is “The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725.”

Institutes of Elenctic Theology (3 vols., published between 1679 and 1685; hereafter, IET) by Francis Turretin (1623–87).[2] This is not a systematic theology in the modern sense, but rather a course of instruction that Turretin designed especially to help young ministers recognize error and defend orthodox theology against sophisticated threats from Socinianism, Fanaticism, Arminianism, and Romanism.

I realize that these works are not sources from which the confessions themselves drew. Nevertheless, Turretin’s teaching circulated widely and enjoyed considerable esteem among the Reformed not long after the confessions appeared. Muller’s incisive modern books explain the theology and history surrounding the composition of these confessions and the period soon afterward. They serve us as secondary literature. He lucidly expounds the doctrines the confessions proclaim, especially in theology proper and Trinitarianism. We proceed, then, to examine Muller’s PRRD and Turretin’s IET.

Muller’s PRRD

Richard Muller has written some of the most praiseworthy and helpful books in this sphere. Dr. Muller (b. 1948; Scholar-in-Residence at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) is a leading scholar of his particular academic interests. I read all four volumes over the course of 2018, and I can honestly say that studying them was one of the most important parts of my theological education since my ordination in 1989.

The danger of relative ignorance of the subjects Muller presents is that we imagine we understand our confessions well while holding modern notions that are anachronistic and incompatible with their original, historic sense. My observations suggest this is a widespread problem among confessional churches, including, in many cases, their pastors.

It is important to appreciate the specific project Muller has undertaken in this work. It is not to produce another multi-volume Reformed systematic theology, although it resembles that in a limited way. Muller does not treat most of the standard loci; he treats only prolegomena to theology (literally, “things spoken beforehand”), Holy Scripture, the divine essence and attributes, and the Triunity of God (the four volumes, respectively). For the same reason, calling it a historical theology of the period in the Reformed tradition does not adequately describe it. Its aim is far more ambitious: to trace the development of doctrinal thought among the Reformed from the early Reformers through the period of Reformed orthodoxy spanning roughly two centuries. Muller demonstrates that this development is an organic whole—not an establishment followed by a departure, pitting the magisterial Reformers against the Post-Reformation theologians.

Those two centuries exhibited not mutation but maturation, and not a contest of opposing ideas but a basic continuity. Long ago, the scholarly consensus turned against an old view called the “Calvin versus the Calvinists” thesis. According to this thesis, Calvin’s own theology stood in strong discontinuity with the theological systems of those in his debt a century or two later. If I may speak in broad terms, Calvin’s own “Calvinism” was supposedly more biblical and softer than the Calvinism of later Protestant scholasticism represented by men like Girolamo Zanchi and Puritans like John Owen. Richard Muller was one of the scholars exposing this as a serious misunderstanding. Joining Muller in this judgment are Carl Trueman, Willem van Asselt, J. V. Fesko, and Michael Haykin.

Muller’s PRRD ranges beyond Calvin and Calvinism, both in the theologians it discusses and in the subjects it explores beyond soteriology. He demonstrates that those important centuries in the development of expressions of Reformed theology, culminating in the seventeenth-century confessions, are the growth of the same Reformed tree in doctrine, method, and theological intent. There is a fundamental continuity from beginning to end.

The popular assumption that the early Reformers were biblical, dynamic, and pastoral, while later Reformed scholastics were rigid, speculative, and merely philosophical, is not fundamentally sound.

One great benefit of Muller’s work is the breadth of his survey. Instead of focusing on Calvin alone as the representative of early Reformed thought, it rightly considers many other voices among the early Reformers and continues this more comprehensive approach through the entire period under consideration. Though admittedly important, Calvin was not the only theologian, nor necessarily the best or most representative, in his day. Likewise, we must consider many theologians working together internationally if we would gain an accurate understanding of Reformed theology’s development in those days. This will not only edify us as students of historical theology, but also it will educate us in the doctrinal and philosophical entailments of our beloved confessions as documents that appeared especially in the period of High Reformed Orthodoxy. Modern notions foreign to their thinking, in many cases where they are dissonant rather than consonant, will become conspicuously suspect once we gain that knowledge. We stand to gain the discernment to reject errors that are actually incompatible with our subordinate doctrinal standards, rather than letting them remain hidden beneath the cloak of our ignorance.

Muller’s first volume could stand by itself as framing the entire treatment that follows in volumes 2 to 4. In volume 1, Muller describes how, historically speaking, Reformed theology thinks; in volume 2, he presents its conclusions about Scripture as the principal cognitive foundation for revealed truth; in volume 3, he explores God’s essence and attributes; and in volume 4, he describes the Triune God. We will focus on volume 1 as most relevant to our article topic.

Muller explores Reformed orthodoxy and scholasticism. Orthodoxy denotes the broad consensus among the Reformed which took formal shape in confessions throughout that period. Scholasticism refers to a theological method, not any particular doctrinal positions, that draws good and necessary conclusions from Scripture, employs detailed and precise formulation, contrasts its conclusions with competing notions and defends against their errors, and organizes its materials in a systematic and rational manner. The scholastic method was useful for forming clear doctrinal positions, for instructing men for the ministry, and for framing things in a manner inherently resistant to the challenges of heterodoxy and heresy. The modern assumption that “scholasticism” has necessarily objectionable associations such as detachment from Scripture, rationalistic dependence on the sinful mind of man, and a lack of warmth and zeal is unfounded within the best of the historic Reformed tradition.

Muller shows how the historic Reformed inherited, refined, and developed the Christian thought of earlier centuries. The Reformers indeed received theological riches from the church fathers and medieval scholastics, though not without critical assessment. Their posture was respectful, eclectic, and collaborative. Their literature demonstrates a broad familiarity with historic authors in the Great Tradition. The Reformers often cite them favorably, and their occasional disagreement is typically respectful.

The early Reformers embraced and passed on to the later Reformed scholastics several major ideas, including the distinction between archetypal theology (God’s knowledge of himself, identical with his essence) and ectypal theology (our creaturely, partial, analogical, yet true knowledge of God, patterned after his own).

The historic Reformed also broadly agreed on a doctrine of natural revelation and theology, which they distinguished from supernatural revelation and its theology. Natural theology consists of what we can know through natural revelation coupled with human reflection upon it. It testifies to God’s existence and something of his nature and includes God’s moral law written on the heart of all men; sinners universally suppress it, and it is inadequate for salvation. Supernatural revelation is therefore necessary, for it reveals more of God than we could otherwise know, such as the mysteries of the Trinity, the incarnation, and the gospel. It never contradicts what God truly reveals in nature, since both forms of revelation have the same divine source.

Muller also demonstrates that in keeping with the best of Christian tradition before them, the Reformed made an eclectic use of philosophy. Plato and Aristotle, pagan Greek philosophers, represent sources of concepts that Christian thinkers found useful in the articulation of biblical, doctrinal substance. The Reformed received and built upon early creedal language rich with technical, philosophical terms such as essence, subsistence, and hypostasis, for example—extra-biblical language in the service of biblical truth.

Much of the Reformed tradition, as Muller shows, stands in sharp contrast to modern conceptions of these matters that we encounter even within the Reformed community. But without a close familiarity with the tradition, a pastor or church may be far more removed than they realize, and even unknowingly antagonistic to it.

The irony is that the very confessions to which many of these subscribe remain monuments to pre-critical Christian conviction, prior to various corruptions of thought that Rationalist and so-called Enlightenment philosophies introduced.

Well might we hope and pray for a return to the excellence of the highly developed and codified Reformation orthodoxy that the best historic confessions of faith represent. Reading Muller can help us recover an informed appreciation for that orthodoxy.

When a man in shabby clothes lives among similarly clad neighbors, he may think nothing of his appearance. But imagine his discomfort if he suddenly finds himself among wedding guests in their finest apparel. In their company, he sees how poorly he is dressed. While the church has learned to express biblical truth more amply in some respects over the last few centuries, much of what passes for doctrinal progress looks shabby beside the beautiful attire of historic, confessional theology.

Muller has prepared the ground. Next we turn to a man who worked that ground. In our second section, we will examine Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, a masterpiece of seventeenth-century Reformed scholasticism. There we will encounter High Reformed Orthodoxy in the teaching of one of its foremost exponents.

Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology

In the last section, we considered the importance of discerning the original public meaning (OPM) of our confessions in their historical setting and examined Richard Muller’s magisterial work Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Muller helped us understand the history, philosophy, and theology of the world in which the framers composed our historic confessions. Now we turn from a modern scholar describing that world to a primary source that takes us directly into it: a great work by Francis Turretin.[3]

Turretin’s three-volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology is especially valuable for understanding the confessions’ OPM. Born in Geneva, Turretin served as professor of theology at the Academy of Geneva from 1653 until his death in 1687. He also served as one of the ministers of the Genevan church. He held a prominent place among the Reformed theologians of his day.

The three volumes appeared in 1679, 1682, and 1685, roughly three to four decades after the Westminster Confession of Faith and between the first publication of the Second London Baptist Confession in 1677 and its endorsement by the General Assembly in 1689. Turretin therefore wrote within the same broad confessional era and represented a major stream of Reformed theology. Turretin enjoyed considerable esteem during his lifetime. Afterward, this three-volume work became a standard text for many generations of Reformed ministers. The English translation, published in 1992–97, has made this work accessible to a new generation of readers.[4]

According to Dr. Muller, Turretin stands among the clearest and most mature representatives of Reformed scholastic theology during the period of High Reformed Orthodoxy (c. 1640–1720). Muller consistently treats Turretin as one of the central representatives of the period, alongside figures such as Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1776), Herman Witsius (1636–1708), and Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706). As we noted in the first section, scholasticism concerns method. Muller explains: “‘Scholastic’ indicates an academic style and method of discourse, not a particular theology or philosophy.”[5] Theologians who differed widely in doctrine nevertheless used the same sound scholastic method. Similarly, scholars equally competent in biblical Hebrew and Greek sometimes reach different exegetical and doctrinal conclusions. Such disagreements no more discredit scholastic method than they discredit the study of Scripture in its original languages.

Turretin’s title uses a rare word unfamiliar to many: elenctic. It comes from the Greek verb elenchō, meaning to expose or refute. Turretin’s magnum opus therefore employs biblical reasoning to refute error and establish truths that Scripture teaches either expressly or by good and necessary consequence. This purpose accords with Paul’s description of an elder’s qualifications in Titus 1:9: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” The word “convince” translates ἐλέγχειν (elenchein), an infinitive of ἐλέγχω (elenchō), the verb related to our word “elenctic.” An elder must be able to refute those who contradict sound doctrine. Turretin’s work is a comprehensive handbook equipping pastors and theologians to fulfill precisely this biblical mandate.

Turretin’s main interlocutors are Roman Catholics exalting papal authority, Arminians arguing for a libertarian view of man’s free will, Socinians advocating unitarianism and other serious errors, Amyraldians striking at the Reformed doctrine of definite atonement, and Cartesians or Rationalists who relied upon human reason more than divine revelation. These systems threaten Christian orthodoxy wherever the church fails to recognize and refute their errors. Thankfully, Turretin has rendered a great service to the church by his labors.

Turretin arranges his work systematically, but his particular concern is to defend Reformed doctrine against objections. His purpose helps explain why he treats some subjects more fully than others. Opponents have not subjected every doctrine to equally elaborate attacks. Ministers need to be competent to “convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9, KJV). Here, “convincing” means demonstrating their error, whether or not they acknowledge it. The church’s formal teachers must recognize doctrinal error, understand opposing positions well enough to represent them fairly, and demonstrate where those positions contradict Scripture and sound reasoning.

To this end, Turretin organized his work under twenty principal topics. A brief survey will show its scope. The Institutes ranges from the nature of theology to the last things. Turretin begins with theology itself, defining its nature, method, and authority. He grounds theology in Holy Scripture and defends Scripture’s inspiration, canon, purity, authority, and sufficiency. He then expounds the doctrine of the one and triune God, the divine decrees and predestination, creation, providence, and angels. From there he considers man before the fall, sin and its consequences, and free will in the fallen state, followed by God’s law and the covenant of grace in its Old and New Testament economies. Turretin next treats the person and state of Christ and his mediatorial office. His treatment of the application of redemption includes calling and faith, justification, sanctification, and good works. He devotes substantial attention to the church, including its ministry, discipline, and authority, before turning to the sacraments. He concludes with the last things, treating resurrection, judgment, hell, and eternal life.

Throughout the work, Turretin defines the doctrines under discussion, defends them from Scripture, and answers Roman Catholic, Socinian, Arminian, and other objections. His treatment shows Reformed orthodoxy defending its claims against its principal opponents. Turretin divides these twenty major topics into hundreds of questions across the three volumes. His treatment of these questions generally displays the scholastic method described in the first section, with these characteristic features.

First, Turretin carefully states the question itself, often clarifying what he is not asking as well as what he is asking. This precision prevents confusion and ensures everyone understands exactly what is at stake.

Second, he identifies the status quaestionis, or precise point at issue, distinguishing what both sides concede from what they dispute. We will see him engaging Roman Catholics, Arminians, Socinians, Amyraldians, and sometimes Lutherans or Anabaptists. He takes care to answer his opponents’ actual arguments.

Third, he presents his opponents’ objections to the orthodox position fairly and thoroughly.

Fourth, Turretin gives his response, that is, the Reformed, orthodox answer to the question. He supports his answer with careful exegesis of Scripture, appeals to the church fathers where relevant, and rigorous logical argument.

Fifth, he refutes the objections systematically, showing where the opposing arguments fail biblically, logically, or both.

Throughout this process, Turretin employs careful distinctions. The use of precise distinctions is one of the hallmarks of scholastic theology. Turretin will distinguish between different senses of a term, different kinds of a thing, or different aspects of a doctrine. These distinctions help us avoid confusing different senses of the same term.

These habits of theological definition and argument help us understand the language of our historic confessions. Muller describes their theological setting; Turretin shows us how a leading theologian within that setting reasoned.

Consider this: When the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Second London Confession of Faith speaks of God as “without body, parts, or passions,” Turretin helps us understand what those words meant to seventeenth-century Reformed theologians. When our confessions discuss predestination, the divine decrees, the covenant of grace, or the perseverance of the saints, Turretin helps us understand the biblical arguments, distinctions, and controversies that belong to their theological setting.

Reading Turretin is like having a master teacher from the seventeenth century explain what our confession actually means, not by speculation or modern reconstruction, but by direct access to the theology that produced it. Turretin broadly represents the mature Reformed orthodoxy that the Westminster and Savoy divines and the framers of the Second London Confession sought to express.

Turretin also equips us to examine contemporary teaching with greater discernment. His treatments of the Trinity, the incarnation, and God’s knowledge supply biblical arguments and careful distinctions with which to test modern proposals.

For those of us who are ministers, Turretin serves several vital functions.

First, he trains us in careful theological method. We learn to define terms precisely, make necessary distinctions, present opposing views fairly, construct biblical arguments systematically, and refute error charitably but firmly.

Second, he deepens our understanding of Scripture. Turretin’s work is saturated with biblical exegesis. He does not simply assert doctrines; he demonstrates them from the text of Scripture through careful grammatical, historical, and theological interpretation.

Third, he connects us to the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy. Turretin regularly cites church fathers, medieval theologians, and Reformation-era scholars. He shows us that Reformed theology is not a novelty but stands in continuity with catholic Christianity rightly understood.

Fourth, he equips us for spiritual warfare. The errors Turretin refuted in the seventeenth century often reappear in new forms today. By learning how he engaged them biblically and logically, we become better equipped to guard our flocks from similar threats in our own generation.

We must be honest: Turretin is not easy reading. His sentences are long, his vocabulary is technical, and his arguments require careful attention. The English translation we have, while excellent, reflects the complexity of the original Latin. We will need patience and perseverance.

But the reward is worth the effort. Patient readers can learn much from Turretin’s theological method and clarity of expression. His work displays the biblical depth and precision of mature Reformed orthodoxy and gives us grounds for testing claims of doctrinal progress today.

Keep Richard Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms[6] nearby when reading Turretin. It will help us understand the technical vocabulary. I also recommend reading slowly and carefully, perhaps tackling one question at a time rather than trying to read large sections quickly.

Most importantly, we should read Turretin with confessions of faith open beside us. We may consider how the doctrines he defends correspond to the statements in those confessions, see how the careful distinctions he makes illuminate the precise language they use, and observe how, in many cases, the errors he refutes are the same ones they were designed to exclude.

Much as we esteem Muller as our modern guide and Turretin as our teacher from the past, their authority is not the ground of our confessional subscription. We subscribe because we find in our confessions faithful summaries of the things most assuredly believed among us, doctrines that Scripture teaches expressly or by necessary consequence.

Neglect of the historical theology that Muller and Turretin help us understand leaves us liable to profess doctrines we misunderstand or to read into our confessions notions their framers would not have recognized or affirmed.

Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and “explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Apollos was already eloquent, competent in the Scriptures, and fervent in spirit, but his understanding was incomplete. So these faithful teachers brought him to a fuller, more accurate grasp of Christian truth.

In a similar way, many of us who subscribe to historic confessions may be eloquent, scripturally competent, and fervent, yet our understanding of what we have subscribed to may be incomplete or even distorted by modern assumptions.

We need teachers from the past, such as Turretin, and contemporary scholars such as Muller who introduce us to them, to expound unto us the way of God more perfectly, not to replace Scripture, but to help us understand what Scripture teaches and what our confessions, rightly understood, confess.

Therefore, with such praiseworthy resources before us, let us pursue “the way of God more perfectly.” May God help us to be faithful to the pattern of sound words, to guard the good deposit entrusted to us, and to convince the gainsayers with the elenctic skill of ministers well taught in the whole counsel of God. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Baker Academic, 2003).

[2] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (P&R, 1992–97).

[3] J. Mark Beach, “Francis Turretin (1623–1687): A Commemoration and Commendation,” Ordained Servant 32 (2023): 58–64, https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=1071.

[4] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (P&R, 1992–97).

[5] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Prolegomena to Theology (Baker Academic, 2003), 30.

[6] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2017).

D. Scott Meadows is a Reformed Baptist minister serving as the pastor of Calvary Baptist Church (Reformed), in Exeter, New Hampshire. Ordained Servant Online, November–December, 2026