David

The Father of Modern Day Hypothetical Universalism.
I cannot say everything all at once all the time, but damn it, I'll try my hardest to do just that for you.

[David @David651975]

Having a conversation on social media is like two physicists trying to map out a mathematical formula on beach sand while the tide is rolling in.
So can we try for irenic substance instead of thinly disguised hate in our ephemeral and conversational back and forth?

[David @David651975]

@DrInquisitivus I am reading him now. These guys are always in "war" mode. The white hats vs the black hats. That is so exhausting. I think that's why both wars of religion came about, and why Puritanism failed socially. It was just societally exhausting.

[David @David651975]

Appendix. Query 8.

Mr. Baxter, though he had made the marriage consent to Christ, as King and Lord, the formal act of justifying faith, as being an epitome of all Gospel obedience, including and binding to all the duties of the married state, and so giving right to all the privileges: and had thereby, as well as by his other dangerous notions about justification, and other points connected therewith, scattered through his works, corrupted the fountain, and endangered the faith of many; yet, after all, came to be of another mind, and had the humility to tell the world so much; for Mr. Cross informs us (Serm. on Rom. iv. 2. p. 148,) that Mr, Baxter, in his little book against Dr. Crisp's errors, says, "I formerly believed the formal nature of faith to lie in consent; but now I recant it. I believe," says he, "it lies in trust: this makes the right to lie in the object; for it is, I depend on Christ as the matter or merit of my pardon, my life, my crown, my glory." [p344.] [This is quite a ways into the query. I posted better citation details the other day.]

I'd kinda would like to read that by Baxter, but he's too hard to read. 🫣😳 I have made a note of it and perhaps will get back to it if remember.

Any of our Baxterians want to verify or falsify that for me?

Thanks.

[David @David651975]

@DrInquisitivus Thanks too. I am looking at that guy now.

[David @David651975]

@iuczrio That is amazing. Thanks Nick. Trust has to be a part of faith. Trust takes us beyond intellectual assent to actual faith. Thanks again.

[David @David651975]

And immediately following:

He [Rutherford] calls it a light of arguing and of heavenly logic, by which we know that we know God, by the light of faith, because we keep his commandments. "In effect," says he, "we know rather the person must be justified, in whom these gracious evidences are, by hearsay report or consequence, than that we know or see justification, or faith itself, in abstracto; but the light of faith, the testimony of the Spirit by the operation of free grace, will cause us, as it were, with our eyes, to see justification and faith, not by report, but as we see the sun-light." Appendix 345.

The guys are allowing room for the reflex act of faith, and the direct witness of the Spirit, as a bases for assurance as well. They did not see it as a simple binary.

[David @David651975]

Some more:

There are two things further, concerning this persuasion of faith, that would be adverted to: one is, that it is not axiomatical, but real; that is, the sinner has not always, at his first closing with Christ, nor afterwards, such a clear, steady, and full persuasion that Christ is his, that his sins are forgiven, and he eventually shall be saved, as that he dare profess the same to others, or even positively assert it within himself; yet upon the first saving manifestation of Christ to him, such a persuasion and humble confidence is begotten, as is real and believing, and particular as to himself and his own salvation, and which works a proportionable hope as to the issue; though, through the humbling impressions he has of himself and his own guilt at the time, the awe of God's majesty, justice, and holiness on his spirit, and his indistinct knowledge of the doctrine of the Gospel, with the grounds and warrants of believing therein contained, he fears to express it directly and particularly of himself. The other is, that whatever is said of the habit, actings, strength, weakness, and intermittings of the exercise of saving faith, the same is to be said of this persuasion in all points. From all which it is evident, the doubts, fears, and darkness, so frequently to be found in true believers, can very well consist with this persuasion in the same subject; for though these may be, and often are in the believer, yet they are not of his faith, which in its nature and exercise is as opposite to them as light is to darkness, the flesh to the Spirit; which though they be in the same subject, yet are contrary the one to the other. Gal. v. 17. [Appendix, p., 344.]

[David @David651975]

Appendix. Query 8.

Mr. Baxter, though he had made the marriage consent to Christ, as King and Lord, the formal act of justifying faith, as being an epitome of all Gospel obedience, including and binding to all the duties of the married state, and so giving right to all the privileges: and had thereby, as well as by his other dangerous notions about justification, and other points connected therewith, scattered through his works, corrupted the fountain, and endangered the faith of many; yet, after all, came to be of another mind, and had the humility to tell the world so much; for Mr. Cross informs us (Serm. on Rom. iv. 2. p. 148,) that Mr, Baxter, in his little book against Dr. Crisp's errors, says, "I formerly believed the formal nature of faith to lie in consent; but now I recant it. I believe," says he, "it lies in trust: this makes the right to lie in the object; for it is, I depend on Christ as the matter or merit of my pardon, my life, my crown, my glory." [p344.] [This is quite a ways into the query. I posted better citation details the other day.]

I'd kinda would like to read that by Baxter, but he's too hard to read. 🫣😳 I have made a note of it and perhaps will get back to it if remember.

Any of our Baxterians want to verify or falsify that for me?

Thanks.

[David @David651975]

Something I thought of the other day when I was talking with JJA. I cant recall the exact context. It was Gordon Clark on faith. He made this really good point that assurance--I think it was assurance--is not the essence of faith, but it is essential to faith. It might have been something else, but either way, its very good point.

I don't know what book that was from. He was writing about the example of a chair. I see a chair in the room and I have confidence that it will hold me. I trust it will hold me. I know it's more complicated than that, but was in that context I think.

The above comment from the Appendix brought back Clark's comment again tonight.

[David @David651975]

Did you see my reply to your other post PB? I proffered some verses. I did ask questions I admit. I didn't actually rely on a HU guy. I mean, I did mention Calvin but for historical purposes. When making historical claims to orthodoxy, historical sources are important.

Right now I am just replying with verses.

For example: what's is going on in Roms 2:4 and Acts 17:26-27?

[David @David651975]

@Ken_FiveSolas That is not even new. See, Anthony Hoekema: The Bible and the Future. That discussion has been on decades. William Hendriksen: Israel in prophecy.

[David @David651975]

@DININTELNETWORK I am sure God, the Pope, the whole world of Catholics, even all the Protestants in the world are totally shocked by this news. It has to be devastating their minds right now. How will they all cope?

[David @David651975]

@_TheoMed @CelticBaptist You know well how I feel about abuse. You should have been more sensitive. Sheesh.

[David @David651975]

I bet ya didn’t know this about me. I'm actually "conflict averse." Strange right?

[David @David651975]

Hey PB,

You:
Regarding the former, I clearly said the work of the former is to save, which is to say that in and of itself, the gospel is good news to all who hear it,
David: When you mentioned two intentionalities, one for the elect and the other for the non-elect, that is what I picked up on. More below.

Do you believe in the free and well-meant offer of the gospel? (Not intended as a gotcha question but asked for exploration reasons only.)

You: it serves as the occasion by which the sinner, who in this case is reprobate, in rejecting the gospel (good news) and the way of salvation proposed to them, is brought to condemnation.

David: sure. I was picking up on the dual intentionality. You sounded like you were expressing a kind of equal ultimacy.

You cite: Wilhemus àBrakel: "God’s Objective in Calling Men This begets another question: In calling the sinner to Christ, does God aim for the salvation of all? In calling all who are under the ministry of the gospel, is it God's objective that all would become partakers of salvation? Answer: No...."

David: there you go. That's the equal ultimacy again. There are lots of verses which indicate that God's intention is that men find and have life through the Gospel. John 5:39, similar to this: NAS Luke 7:30 "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." This is a huge topic we will not solve here tho. But on intentionality see below.

PB: for God cannot fail to achieve His objective. 

David: Luke indicates otherwise at least in that last verse. See Explanation below. 

PB Then all who are called would, of necessity, have to be saved.

David: Many are called but few are chosen?

PB citing Brakel: "promising him salvation upon repentance and true faith in Christ."

David: But given the fact that God has in no way provided a provision for them, this is an empty promise. Right?

Brakel: "His goodness, presenting all the reasons to him for doing so and promising him salvation upon repentance and true faith in Christ."

David: It's not really goodness if he never really meant that they should take up the offered gospel. It can only be goodness if in some sense he meant it.

cut

Logic.

Brakel: "First, it would be contradictory to the omniscience of God. God knows those who are His. He knows that the reprobate will not be saved, and it cannot be His purpose or objective to save them. Man knows that a dead person will not arise; it therefore cannot be his objective to make him alive by calling him. God also knows this concerning the unconverted and the spiritually dead; this therefore cannot be His objective."

David: Van Til said at least one thing really well. A rationalist predetermines what is and is not logically possible. Something like that.  That actually is genius statement.

But I have expanded that. A Christian rationalist predetermines what is and is not theologically possible for God. <--that's actually very very important.

As soon as someone says such and such is contradictory without exegetical grounds I am instantly on guard. [Sidebar: If course we know that one man called a dead person to arise.]

Brakel: Secondly, it would be contradictory to eternal election....Since He has decreed to condemn them righteously for their sins, it could not have been His objective to save them in having the gospel proclaimed to them.

John 5:39-40 in conjunction with John 6:32.

Brakel: "Thirdly, God cannot be thwarted in the achievement of His objective. He must of necessity accomplish what He has purposed."

If you want to talk about the verses, I am more than willing. And you know, these is a whole website dedicated to this very topic. It documents Reformed guys dating back to Calvin showing that the idea that God desires the salvation of all, and more.

David: the verses I have cited above disprove that. 

Explanation:

There is the secret will, which is secret for a reason, and then there is the revealed will, which is revealed for a reason. 

Arguments that have their starting point in the secret will should be suspect immediately. I know you will disagree, but it should be a cautionary thought.

And so the revealed will is that God desires that all who hear the Word of Christ believe and be saved. In free and well-meant offer Calvinism, there is an intentionality in the secret will and an intentionality in the revealed will. Do you hold the Baptist Confession 1689?
--
"It's a beautiful life when lies give way to truth." Soll

[David @David651975]

@_TheoMed @CelticBaptist No not that one. Im thinking of the one where you buy an argument. It's set in a shop. There is no abuse that one.

[David @David651975]

Molinist that would be the noun.
Molinizer would be the verb.
Molinism the adjective.
A Molinist comes from the country called Molinia
A Molinist speaks Molinian.
A person born at a certain time would be a called Molinial.
Molinization the act of Molinizing.
A Molinitician would be a politician from Molinia
TheoMolingian would be a theologian studying Molinism or from Molinia.
An aMolinialist would be someone who denies the Molinnium.
Molinograph would be an essay or book on Molinism or written by a Molinist.
aMolinutopia would be a paradise, though strictly speaking it would be a non-existent place, eg., non-Molinutopia.
Luis de Molina was the founding father of your country or of you're Theomolingianism.

Just remember all you Molinisizers out there, who ever you are, where ever you are: Be proud of your Molinitage.
Stick your head out of your window and proudly shout out: I am a Molinian!

[David @David651975]

@CelticBaptist @_TheoMed Remember the Monty Python skit of the Argument Shop. It was so good and so funny.

[David @David651975]

Hey PB,

You say: Whereas, with respect to the reprobate, the work of the Gospel - which is to save , does not meet with the God's saving intention, but rather it meets with God's intention to make repentance and faith their duty and for their further just condemnation in their active rejection of the way of salvation. This is why Turretin says it extends to the reprobate secondarily and indirectly.

David:
That just means that the gospel has two intentions. For the elect the gospel is the means of their salvation.
For the non-elect, the same gospel is the means for their condemnation.

I think you need to rework that. That's what I would call Hypercalvinism (PRC variety). Calvin says the gospel is good news, meant to save all men who hear it. But those who reject it, he becomes to them added condemnation. The Gospel itself is the means of life, never the means of death. It is what people do with it that makes the difference.

[David @David651975]

And Socinians, Arminians, Papists, and Baxterians, by holding the Gospel to be a new, proper, preceptive
law, with sanction, and thereby turning it into a real, though milder covenant of works, have confounded the law and the Gospel, and brought works into the matter and cause of a sinner's justification before God.
Appendix to the Marrow with Boston's notes (1837), p327.

Ouch that must have hurt. Lumping Baxterians with Papists, Arminians and Socinians. That whole mental world was so screwed up. Of course it was a stupid thing to say. But that's because they--all sides--lumped everything into the limited categories of Federal Theology, where everything is hinged on a Works-Law axis.

[David @David651975]

@Slewbacca @DavidAFrench Ah yes. That's cos me be a foreigner from the deep south.