Francis Turretin

Partial Debate Review - Perpetual Virginity Debate (Salih vs. Hink) | CIC 2026-11 x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

This is what we call “baloney.” God willing, later this week, I’ll provide a more in-depth rebuttal than just this baloney-calling. In short, though, Pope Leo X (the opponent of Luther on so many things) didn’t disagree with Luther on the canon.

@TheOtherPaul2 @apologistlayman @grok define “rely”

@apologistlayman Define 'rely'

We did a space talking about this. If you rely on AI for anything, you are doomed

@uav_guy_79 I think the “ταύτῃ” rules out Peter as a referent here. But even if it did not, and even if we ignored 1 Peter 2:5, there is nothing here about an office, successors, jurisdiction, authority, primacy, etc.

@TurretinFan "On this rock" has at least 3 exegetically plausible referents. 1. Peter 2. Jesus 3. Peter's confession I dont lose any sleep on this because none of these establish some perpetual office of a papacy.

He was called “Son of Jonas” because of his flesh and blood relationship and he was called Peter because of his spiritual relationship by faith to Christ, the Rock (1 Cor 10:4; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

@drkenalford Because you don’t consider such people Christians? Or because you’re reinterpreting what “initiating factor” means?

For the record, I have never met or heard from any non-Calvinist Christians who believe that “their fallen wills were the initiating factor for their salvation.”

@cbankston7 @1984_nate @cbankston7 - I looked for this tweet during the episode to give you credit, but I could not locate it then.

@cbankston7 @1984_nate I appreciate you trying not to assume deceit, even if it is hard. Let me explain: turretinfan.blogspot.com/2026/03/from-y… youtube.com/watch?v=L6j9B_…

Francis can only get to this conclusion by presupposing that his misinterpretation of Genesis is correct, by begging the question. Once you see these tactics you can't unsee them.

There's a difference between what they can do (inasmuch as they are men with wills, and arms and legs, and so on) and what they will do (inasmuch as they are predictable human beings with lusts, desires, appetites, instincts, fears, and so on). What they will do, is always what God has determined before, but he has not determined that they will do it apart from their will, nor apart from their arms and legs, nor apart from their desires and appetites, etc. etc.

So what? So you are appealing to man? What is man Free to do Turretin? Free to do other than Gid determined? Will they or can they do other than God determined? Out of all the million of choices can they do other than the very specific one He determined before the foundation?

If God unchangeably ordained everything that will happen, then every human choice was fixed before creation. Calling that “free will” is just semantics. You can’t meaningfully choose what was eternally predetermined. That’s not freedom. It’s scripted inevitability.

The Imagination of Man's Heart is Evil from his Youth x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@JohnathanP27567 @rootcausesleuth @RisingDisciples Let me guess, in your view faith is not a gift of God?

@TurretinFan @rootcausesleuth @RisingDisciples Salvation by predestination, not by faith. How very Satanic.

If Calvinists truly believed their so-called doctrines, they would preach and speak like the TRUE Calvinist below. Instead, they constantly speak and preach as if they were non-Calvinists, because they are rightly worried about driving rational people away.

@JohnathanP27567 @rootcausesleuth @RisingDisciples Puppets? The Bibles calls us pots and sheep. Puppets is quite grand!

@TurretinFan @rootcausesleuth @RisingDisciples Translation: Humans are just puppets.

@JohnathanP27567 @RisingDisciples Well, what you’re saying isn’t true, so …

@TurretinFan @RisingDisciples The Calvinistic redefinition of "free will" is about as meaningless as their gospel. It's nothing but a lie and we all know who the father of lies is. Calvinism is satanic at it's core.

@rootcausesleuth @RisingDisciples God does not tell us how He does it.

@TurretinFan @RisingDisciples How is it controlled?

@rootcausesleuth @RisingDisciples In many ways. For example, it’s not being coerced (by threats), taken away (by sedation), or over-ridden (by hypnosis).

@TurretinFan @RisingDisciples How is his will free if God is controlling it?

@ShawnMathis1972 I’m assuming that publishing charges that haven’t been proven true is a very unwise approach to handing the 9th commandment.

If I were charged with a crime by the local DA, that would be known by all. Why is this not the case in our churches? "Contumacy" does not tell us what the original charges were.

@ProtPhilosopher It’s trivially easy to show the 66 book canon before Luther. St. Jerome and the majority of Western canonical tradition following him. Pope Leo X criticized Luther for lots of things, but not this: he himself authorized Cardinal Ximenes work that endorsed Jerome’s view.

Doing their best Jerry Maguire impersonation, Catholic apologists demand, "Show me a 66-book Bible before Luther!" This is supposed to make the Protestant sheepishly think, "I can't show you the money :(". There wasn't a physical Bible containing only 66-books before Luther. It appears the Protestant canon was a late innovation. It was created by "one guy in Germany." Yet, there's a false assumption baked into the Catholic demand. It's that canonical status is determined by what's physically bound between two covers. There's a key distinction underlying this error. It's the difference between a codex and a canon. A codex is a physical object. A canon is a theological judgment about which books have doctrinal authority. The canonical judgment that the deuterocanonical books lack doctrinal authority was the main position for a thousand years prior to Luther. As the Catholic Encyclopedia's article "Canon of the Old Testament" explains: "In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion." (newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.…) That's a Catholic encyclopedia saying "few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity" and that "the prevailing attitude" matched the Greek Fathers who excluded them. So Luther didn't invent the canonical judgment about the deuterocanonical books. He inherited it. What he did was to stop including the deuterocanonical books in the same binding with the canonical books. That's a change in bookbinding, not a change in canonical judgment. The canonical distinction existed. The 66-book printed Bible came later. The 66-book canonical judgment came first. So Luther didn't remove 7 books from the Bible. Trent added them. And it took them 1,546 years to do it.

If you think that a great excuse from judgment would be: “I’m so evil that every imagination of the thought of my heart is only evil continually and has been from my youth,” you might have Provisionism. Depravity is blameworthy, not excusable. Read Genesis!