Jesus is NOT the Foundation of Our Election?! An Evaluation of Turretin

 In this short article (I will try to keep it as brief as possible), we will evaluate Turretins doctrine of Election; in light of Robert Letham's criticism in his "Systematic Theology, 14.1.3, Election in Christ". 

Letham's excerpt provides the context of the proceeding article:
"Election in Christ merits additional emphasis in that it has often been overlooked. Calvin and Zanchius taught it vividly. So too did Thomas Goodwin later. All God’s blessings are received in union with Christ, from before creation. Election must therefore be seen foremost as in Christ from eternity. This is far removed from a cold, abstract display of logic. It is not present in Turretin, whose construction of election in Christ raises questions over his Christology. He was reacting against Arminius, for whom Christ was the foundation of election on which basis God elected individuals whom he foresaw would believe, and against Amyraut, who asserted that the merits of Christ were the foundation of election, the decree relating to the atonement being prior to election." (14.1.3)

It must be noted that I am addressing (alongside Turretin) different parts of the doctrine of Election/Salvation. By no means, am I attempting to divide election as rigorously as the divisions of the lapsarian debate; But considering the parts of election, its placement in Salvation Theology, and its 'inter-election' causalities (that being the causes and effects within the doctrine of election).

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate compatibility with Turretin, Calvin and Zanchius, and point out the unnecessary critique of Turretin from Letham, which I think is due to a simple misunderstanding. To be fair to Letham, he does not develop this critique, but cites Oliver D. Crisp who might have in his article ("The Election of Jesus Christ") in JRT 2; which I do not have access to.

Firstly, Calvin and Zanchius appear opposed to Turretin.

Letham cites Calvin's Institutes (Book 2, 24.5), "Accordingly, those whom God has adopted as his sons are said to have been chosen not in themselves but in his Christ".  Calvin in his 5th article, explains the necessity of being considered as 'chosen in Christ', with the abovementioned citation of Ephesians 1 and the practical implications of salvation assurance. However, Calvin's article does not address election in the same manner as Turretin in his article (Institutio Elencticae 1:314), which we will explain later. 

Calvin is more concerned about the predestination of elect as being considered as "in Christ". So that the Fathers love for his Son and appointing Him as Mediator, is in a sense, the foundation of our election; considering more the efficient cause in the doctrine of Election.

Zanchius, asserts the same thing with the reason "that the Father elected not as the Father only but as God, since election is a work common to the whole Trinity, including of course the Son" (Letham).

This understanding (a trinitarian driven election) may appear more appealing, because "in Christ all the elect were foreknown, loved, chosen, and predestined" (Letham), and it's inter-trinitarian inclusion of the whole trinity in the doctrine of election; However, it seems to posit that the "meritorious" cause of our election lays outside the "good will of God"; so as to say, there is something outside the will of God that caused our election (as Turretin is concerned). With the external cause of our salvation being the merits of Christ.

However, what is not made explicit from either Calvin or Zanchius is disapproval of Turretins point (that Christ is not the meritorious cause and foundation of election). This may be due to to Turretins more technical and nuanced analysis of Election as a 'object', in contrast to Calvin/Zanchius' broader understanding of being predestined in Christ, with a focus on the instrumental causes of salvation in view.

What is Turretin addressing?:

To quote the opening question from his Institutio, "Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? We deny against the Arminians and Lutherans".
Note, Turretin is not placing himself against Calvin, Zanchius, Polanus or the rest of the Reformed tradition. Sure, the opening statement may seem like he is, but he must be addressing another aspect of election...Which he is!

What Turretin is NOT addressing is:
-"not whether Christ was the meritorious cause and foundation of the salvation decreed on the part of the thing"
-"Not, Was he the cause on the part of the effect willed terminatively?"
-"Not, Was he the foundation of election to be executed a posteriori,"
-"Not, Was the decree of election independent of the consequent means (which we acknowledge as necessary) and among them Christ?"

What he IS addressing:
-"the decree of salvation on the part of God."
-"Was he [Christ] the cause on the part of the act of willing formally?"
-"Was he the foundation of election to be decreed a priori?"
-"Was it independent of an impulsive cause and antecedent conditions?"

Turretin reduces the abovementioned points into his simple question; "Was Christ the foundation and meritorious cause, not of salvation a posteriori, but of election a priori; not on the part of the effect in man, but of the act of willing in God? Was the decree absolute, not as to the means, but as to the antecedent cause? This we deny; the adversaries affirm."

The main thrust of the 10th question of his Institutio, is to "maintain that the good pleasure (eudokian) alone has [the] place" of what he calls the "meritorious cause", or the reason of election. Turretin is simply stating that God chose to elect some, purely based on his free good will, not as contingent on the relationship between the elect and Christ. As he expresses; "because election was made from God’s mere good pleasure; therefore, not on account of Christ because good pleasure excludes every cause out of God upon which election may depend." (5th article).

An important note is that, Turretin does not deny Christ role in salvation as he admits that, Christ as the means of election is still necessary; "Was the decree of election independent of the consequent means (which we acknowledge as necessary) and among them Christ?" (3rd article).

Turretin then gives reasons from article 5-8 for why "Christ is not the foundation of election":
The 8th article is our focus. He states "the intention of the end ought to precede the destination of the means. Now salvation is the end, Christ the means". This may be indicative of his similar way of thinking with regards to his Infralapsarianism. He argues that the destination for the elect must be thought of as prior than the means of Jesus achieving that destination. He uses an analogy that: "the intention of healing the sick man ought to precede the physician’s examination and the application of remedies". 

According to Turretin, the thought of election for the elect must be seen as before the thought of electing the Son to "procure" that salvation for the elect... "Otherwise Christ would have come with an uncertain end and would have been appointed Mediator before anything was determined by God concerning those who were actually to be redeemed."

Turretins logicality as demonstrated in the last quotation is most compelling. 

As we can see, Turretin and Calvin/Zanchius were addressing separates things. With Calvin stressing the role of being engrafted 'IN CHRIST', in the broader scheme of salvation, and Turretin merely stating the obvious, that election is solely dependent of God's will. Hence, my conclusion that Letham's comment in the 14.1.3 of his Systematic Theology is simply unnecessary.