Helps for Reading Turretin?

[TheInquirer]

I was reading Turretin regularly awhile ago and stopped due to getting bogged down in philosophical terms that I hadn't come across before. Unfortunately, due to Turretin's precision and tight argumentation, not knowing those terms was a huge detriment to following his line of thought.

Any recommended helps or references to have on hand to help decipher Turretin? I do have Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.

 

[Taylor]

Regarding philosophical terms, I recommend listening to R. C. Sproul's series "The Consequences of Ideas" and buying a copy of Philosophy for Understanding Theology by Diogenes Allen and Eric Springsted.

 

[Rom]

I was reading Turretin regularly awhile ago and stopped due to getting bogged down in philosophical terms that I hadn't come across before. Unfortunately, due to Turretin's precision and tight argumentation, not knowing those terms was a huge detriment to following his line of thought.

Any recommended helps or references to have on hand to help decipher Turretin? I do have Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.

Is Muller's Dictionary not particularly helpful to you? Just curious. I haven't had a huge struggle with Turretin and I have Muller's dictionary but rarely use it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Muller helps. Another help is just knowing the philosophical mileu. Ask us some of the questions. I'm a fair hand, but Charles Johnson is the real expert.

I did some outlines here:

Outline of Turretin, Topics 1 and 2

I read through Turretin a few years ago. Now I have time to do a more thorough study. On Natural Theology It is partly innate (derived from conscience) and partly acquired (I.3). God (and divine t…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Outline Turretin, Topic 3 (Doctrine God)

Part 1 Here. First Question: The Existence of God (Turretin goes through the standard pre-modern reasoning). Third Question: The Unity of God Turretin clarifies the question by saying God is one in…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[TheInquirer]

This isn't the best example since it has been awhile since I engaged with Turretin but this might help what I mean: (Third Topic, Ninth Question)

Example 1:

"Three modes of being in a place are commonly held: (1) circumscriptively—attributed to bodies because they are in place and space so as to be commensurate with parts of space; (2) definitively—applicable to created spirits and incorporeal substances (which are defined by certain places, and are so here as not to be anywhere else); (3) repletively—which is ascribed to God because his immense essence is present with all and, as it were, completely fills all places. But although this distinction (when cut to the quick) may be inaccurate and repletion may seem to belong properly to a body occupying place by its extension, yet since it has been by long use received among philosophers and theologians (and can take appropriate sense according to the mind of the Holy Spirit himself, who testifies that “God fills heaven and earth,” Jer. 23:24), it ought not to be rashly rejected (if skillfully explained and understood in a sound sense, especially since we have no proper and accurate terms for explaining the ubiquity of God and are compelled here to use phrases borrowed from finite and corporeal things).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 197."

The terms circumscriptively, definitively, and repletively are not ones I have come across. I understand he gives definitions of a sort but are these typical philosophical terms?

Example 2:

XIV. All perfections belong to God, either formally (as perfections simply such, i.e., which absolutely speaking it is better to have than not to have, and than which no greater perfection can be conceived); or eminently (as perfections relatively, which indeed in their kind indicate some perfection, but necessarily conjoined with some imperfection; and because it cannot have them properly and formally, yet is said to possess them virtually and eminently because it can produce that perfection or because it can perform without it whatever that can perform, all imperfection being excluded).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 196.

Terms - formally, eminently, properly, virtually

I think those examples suffice to show where I typically get lost.

 

[RamistThomist]

The terms circumscriptively, definitively, and repletively are not ones I have come across. I understand he gives definitions of a sort but are these typical philosophical terms?

They aren't the clearest terms. According to Aristotle, one of the subgroupings of "being" is place or location. Turretin is addressing the questino of "how" a thing might be in a location.

Terms - formally, eminently, properly, virtually

This is where it gets tricky. I hope @Charles Johnson weighs in.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Whiskey helps.

 

[RamistThomist]

Whiskey helps.

Not really. I tried him on a few beers before.

 

[Charles Johnson]

This isn't the best example since it has been awhile since I engaged with Turretin but this might help what I mean: (Third Topic, Ninth Question)

Example 1:

"Three modes of being in a place are commonly held: (1) circumscriptively—attributed to bodies because they are in place and space so as to be commensurate with parts of space; (2) definitively—applicable to created spirits and incorporeal substances (which are defined by certain places, and are so here as not to be anywhere else); (3) repletively—which is ascribed to God because his immense essence is present with all and, as it were, completely fills all places. But although this distinction (when cut to the quick) may be inaccurate and repletion may seem to belong properly to a body occupying place by its extension, yet since it has been by long use received among philosophers and theologians (and can take appropriate sense according to the mind of the Holy Spirit himself, who testifies that “God fills heaven and earth,” Jer. 23:24), it ought not to be rashly rejected (if skillfully explained and understood in a sound sense, especially since we have no proper and accurate terms for explaining the ubiquity of God and are compelled here to use phrases borrowed from finite and corporeal things).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 197."

The terms circumscriptively, definitively, and repletively are not ones I have come across. I understand he gives definitions of a sort but are these typical philosophical terms?

Example 2:

XIV. All perfections belong to God, either formally (as perfections simply such, i.e., which absolutely speaking it is better to have than not to have, and than which no greater perfection can be conceived); or eminently (as perfections relatively, which indeed in their kind indicate some perfection, but necessarily conjoined with some imperfection; and because it cannot have them properly and formally, yet is said to possess them virtually and eminently because it can produce that perfection or because it can perform without it whatever that can perform, all imperfection being excluded).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 196.

Terms - formally, eminently, properly, virtually

I think those examples suffice to show where I typically get lost.

The rule of thumb for philosophical terms in scholastic theology, especially those that end in -ly, is to take them according to their etymological meaning, which at times differs quite a bit from their usually sense. As an example, "physically" in common speech means "materially", but in scholastic theology it is often used to refer to the nature (physis) of man, which includes the soul. But it does line up quite well with what Aristotle, or men of the 16th century, would have understood to be covered under "physics".
Sometimes it also helps in parsing these words to substitute the -ly ending for "according to" or "by way of". To take some examples from your quotes here, to say something is in a place circumscriptively means it is there "by way of circumscription"; that is, it is contained, or circumscribed there. God is not present circumscriptively because no place can contain him. "Definitely" means "by way of definition"; that is, its location is defined, or finite. Something that is present definitely is by definition not omnipresent. "Repletively" is a little harder, because the rule of thumb doesn't do much. Saying "according to repletion" is not any clearer. But the meaning is still etymological, from latin replere, "to fill". To be somewhere repletively means to fill the space.
My advice, besides using these rules of thumb, would just be to practice reading things that use this sort of terminology. Rutherford's treatises also contain a fair bit of it, as do many works from the 16th and 17th centuries. And perhaps a dictionary like Muller's would be helpful. It can be overwhelming at first, but the number of terms like this that are actually really frequent could probably be counted on two hands, you if you get those down, you'll almost be good to go. ("formally", "materially", "physically", "actually", "potentially", "efficiently", "finally" together probably account for 80-90% of the metaphysical terminology of the era)

 

[Charles Johnson]

Example 2:

XIV. All perfections belong to God, either formally (as perfections simply such, i.e., which absolutely speaking it is better to have than not to have, and than which no greater perfection can be conceived); or eminently (as perfections relatively, which indeed in their kind indicate some perfection, but necessarily conjoined with some imperfection; and because it cannot have them properly and formally, yet is said to possess them virtually and eminently because it can produce that perfection or because it can perform without it whatever that can perform, all imperfection being excluded).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 196.

Terms - formally, eminently, properly, virtually

I think those examples suffice to show where I typically get lost.

This is more so distinguishing how we know God has perfection x, than how God has it, since God by definition has all perfections as a consequence of his simple, most perfect essence. Think of the three ways (via causalitatis, via negationis, via eminentiae) for another example of what is going on here.

Form refers to the essence of a thing; from Anselm down, theologians talk about how God must have x attribute because it is a perfection, and God by definition is the being with all possible perfections. To that is what is being referred to, I think, by God having perfections formally.

"Eminently" is referring to the via eminentiae mentioned above. If a creature has a perfection, God must have it in the most eminent (excellent, perfect) way, because all creatures are from him. If I see a tree is beautiful, and beauty is a perfection, I can conclude God is beautiful, but in a way far more excellent/eminent than any tree.

"Properly" refers to a manner of speaking, and is contrasted with "improperly". "Properly" means in the strict definition of a thing. Some theologians say that, in general, if we define some positive perfection that a creature has, that definition will never apply to God because God is more excellent. But it can apply to him "improperly". Other theologians find it more pious to say that the perfection applies properly only to God. In both cases, though, a positive perfection cannot be stated properly both of God and creatures. This is where "analogy" comes in.

"Virtually" means "in virtue", which in its original sense is usually "power", and only sometimes "moral virtue". God has in virtue (power) every perfection creatures are said to have.

 

[TheInquirer]

Charles, thank you so much, that was incredibly helpful!