Edgar Turretini🕊🇲🇽

After long research and careful examination, I decided to publish a video on the Reformed’s rejection of middle knowledge; with a specific emphasis on a less deterministic view taught by many Reformed doctors. Take a listen and tell me what you think! youtu.be/dIJB09qlGbc?si…

Roman Catholics 2026 be like: "concupiscence of the flesh is formally no sin at all, but watching Inquisitor's video on Jerome as a Romanist is mortal sin"

@RefRetrieval x.com/EdgarTurrettin…

There’s no need for Calvinists to trade Calvinism for molinism when we can affirm that God from eternity knows all possible and conditional futures by His natural knowledge, including what creatures would do under any supposition of divine concurrence. Yet the divine decree not being founded upon this foresight but proceeding solely from the free counsel of His will, determining which of those possible orders of things shall obtain.

Calvinists shouldn’t find this problematic. It’s standard Reformed thought. Here is @EdgarTurrettini explaining it a bit from our video critique of “Tulip.”

@DanielRHyde I will look into this further. Thank you for being bold in the truth

@EdgarTurrettini Well, all the info is publicly available. Your elders have all the minutes of church visits and Classis. The Classis clerk can provide it. Trust me when I say this, the elders failed you.

For those new to my page: Too Western to be Eastern Too Catholic to be Roman Too Calvinist to be Lutheran Too Lutheran to be Presbyterian Too Presbyterian to be Anglican But too Anglican to be Presbyterian 🤯 Welcome to the #DutchReformed world 😎 You can thank me later

@DanielRHyde I didn’t know what to believe at the time since it was just accusations, but I had no idea. This was one of the reasons we withdrew from the URC

@DanielRHyde This is shocking wow. Even I wasn’t aware of the full picture. I do remember a scandal that happened when one of the church members publicly confronted the former pastor for plagiarizing his sermons. It was quietly swept under the rug, and little information was ever displayed.

@DanielRHyde I presume you think it was unwarranted? There was little to no context provided to the congregation; other than it was overbearing to the elders

@EdgarTurrettini Ah yes; trust me, we know all about it. What a travesty.

@DanielRHyde Zion Reformed church in Ripon CA! We used to be in the URC

@EdgarTurrettini Where are you located, brother? Church?

@Canonandcreed @MethodMinistry Cooked

This is news to virtually all of the Reformed divines and Confessions. Richard Muller laying out what all the Reformation traditions across the board affirm: “Iustitia inhaerens: inherent or inhering righteousness; viz., the righteousness that is infused into and indwells the believer through the grace of the Holy Spirit following the imputation of righteousness (see iustitia imputata) in the actus forensis of iustificatio.”—Richard Muller; Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Baker Academic; 1985), pg. 165 Zacharias Ursinus expositing the Heidelberg Catechism: “Obj. He that is righteous is conformable to the law. To justify is to make righteous. Therefore to justify is to make the subject thereof conformable to the law.  Ans. We grant the whole argument. To justify is to make the subject of it conformable to the law, either in himself, by a righteousness which is called his own, and which is inherent, infused and legal; or it is to be made righteous in another which is called imputed righteousness, the righteousness of faith, of the gospel, and of another, because it is not inherent in us, but in Christ. This consists also in conformity with the law; for faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. And such we may remark is our righteousness and justification; for we now speak of that righteousness with which we as sinners are justified before God in this life; and not of that by which we shall be accounted righteous in another life, or by which we would have been righteous had we not sinned.”—Zacharias Ursinus; Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (RFPA; 2025), pg. 323 Francis Turretin rebuking the Papists for their calumny against us — which you, ironically, also fall into: “For whatever the opponents may calumniously charge upon the orthodox (to wit, that ‘we allow of no inherent righteousness’), it is surely a most foul calumny. Its falsity is proved from the writings of our divines whether public or private, in which everywhere and with common consent they teach that the benefits of justification and sanctification are so indissolubly connected with each other that God justifies no one without equally sanctifying him and giving inherent righteousness by the creating of a new man in true righteousness and holiness. But the question is whether that inherent righteousness (such as exists in believers on earth) enters into our justification, either as its cause or as a part, so that it constitutes some part of our justification and is the meritorious cause and foundation of our absolving sentence in the judgment of God.”—Francis Turretin; Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R Publishing), Vol. 2, pg. 638 Has nothing to do with being against infused righteousness. Disagreeing with your guys’ errant perfectionism doesn’t therefore mean we reject infusion.

Calvinism’s Sola Fide is an overreacting to Catholicism. Catholicism says justification is the process of making us righteous, whereas Reformed theology states it’s the act where God blindly believes we are righteous. Wesleyanism has the correct view; justification is where God pardons us, and then goes on to actually make us righteous in sanctification.

@theo_bruv @RefRetrieval Precisely. The restoration of those supernatural gifts are then rendered in conversion where those supernatural gifts are actually worked out by the human will in repentance and faith.

@EdgarTurrettini @RefRetrieval Got it. And then regeneration is the infusion of supernatural habits (repentance, faith, etc)?

@theo_bruv @RefRetrieval Indeed. To elucidate, it is the juncture at which the Holy Spirit imparts the common grace bestowed upon humanity, rendering it fruitful within the human heart by facilitating the removal of its hardness and blindness.

@RefRetrieval @EdgarTurrettini Yeah Edgar distinguished between the three in this order—illumination, regeneration, conversion—which is why I separated them. As I understand it, illumination is not just the external preaching of the gospel but an internal work of the Spirit.

@RefRetrieval I see so many tulip bros tweaking in his comments😭

TULIP makes you Calvinistic; the Westminster Standards make you Presbyterian.

@jonathanramont Gonna have to pull out a loan for a Brill publication tho

Get this book. It's very good.

@jonathanramont Sorry too papist for me

An excerpt from French Reformed theologian Louis LeBlanc regarding in what sense actual grace was given to Adam, and for what end.

“What does ‘was not imputed’ mean, except: ‘it was ignored [ignorabatur] and not estimated [non putabatur] to be sin’? For neither was it [sin] regarded as though it did not exist by the Lord God himself,” - St. Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins (1.12)

@ScholasticsFan Wait until he reads the Bible

Delete this video while you still can! 😂

@CatholicNick @_matthewpearson @ToCelestialCity Joseph’s brothers I meant. But quite the contrary; he showed them favor, not merely a non-imputation of sin. It is the same form that God, before our goodness AND despite our wickedness, shows us favor and acceptance.

@EdgarTurrettini @_matthewpearson @ToCelestialCity When Pharaoh or when Joseph? Joseph showed mercy on his brothers, he forgave them, but I wouldn't call this a "formal" cause in any sense. I don't even see imputation here other than non-imputation of sin.

Very interesting notes from @ToCelestialCity “For example, when Turretin discusses Romans 4:5 in the sources of explanation, he writes, “I confess that God in declaring just ought also for that very reason to make just so that his judgment may be according to truth” (p. 770). Not only is he employing the exact same distinction of justification into constitutive justification that Baxter does (though he does not use this term), but he mirrors Baxter’s reasoning as well! In Scripture Gospel Defended, he says, “Constitutive justification is ever first: God never judged a man righteous that was not righteous,” (p. 243).”

@CatholicNick @_matthewpearson @ToCelestialCity Ok so follow me with this example; when Pharaoh showed lavish favor to his brothers (giving them the best land in Egypt, wagons, provisions, and even positions over his livestock), what form of favor was shown to them despite what they did to him?

@EdgarTurrettini @_matthewpearson @ToCelestialCity Catholicism has no problem with a declaration of righteousness along with inner renewal. catholicnick.blogspot.com/2025/11/ins-an…