𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️

Predominantly focused in Reformed thought on providence, free choice, predestination, grace, the extent of the atonement & the well-meant offer.
Retrieval 1.0.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

Tony (@_TheoMed) and I have significantly updated the file on Charnock’s Hypothetical Universalism. It now appears more like a small book, with a table of contents and chapters with an expanded section of Charnock’s Two-fold reconciliation view.

Link in the comments.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“As for the Gentiles, they, at least, were and are called indirectly, i.e., through the Works of Creation and Providence, and the fame of the true Church, which Call Prevenient Grace accompanies. … This indeed does not suffice immediately for Salvation; It suffices, however, for acknowledging God the Creator of Heaven and Earth as One, Eternal, Wise, Powerful, Good, and Just, and for worshiping and glorifying him, and for seeking the true God. Because they neglect to do this, and refer all their thoughts rather to the immortality of their own Name, to Avarice, and to fulfilling foul Pleasures, likewise to forbidden Divinations, than to the Glory of God, and thus they hold back the Truth, and that Knowledge of God, in a lie and in impiety, it thence comes to pass that they are inexcusable, Ps. 191 ff; Acts 17:24, 27; Rom. 1:18, 19 ff.”

—Barthold Holtzfus, Theological Treatise on Predestination, Election, & Reprobation of Men

[Edwin D. Nuñez @EdwinNunez1646]

“However, what God has ordained must come to pass in such a way that it is nevertheless neither absolutely, or of its own nature, necessary. A familiar example is found in Christ’s bones. When He had assumed a body like ours, no sane person will deny that His bones were liable to break, although they were impossible to break. Hence we see again that the distinctions of necessity secundum quid and absolute [necessity], and likewise of the consequent and of consequence, were not invented in the schools without reason.”

— John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis (5th ed. / Geneva: Robert Estienne, 1559), [1.16.9], 65

https://t.co/lJpWx4QvSi

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“God so loved the world, &c. Therefore he did not absolutely hate the greatest part of men.

We grant the conclusion, and more than he asketh: for God did not absolutely hate any one man in the world. Neither will we make advantage of that opinion defended by many Schoolmen,non propriè sed similitudinarie dici Deum odire [that God is said to hate, not properly, but by way of likeness].

But our answer is this: that absolute reprobation, which is nothing else but God’s absolute will of denying the special benefit of infallible direction unto eternal life, and permitting some men, by their own defective free will, deservedly to fall under the misery of eternal death, is not an argument of hatred toward any man, but of a lesser degree of love toward some men than toward others; which lesser degree of love is sometimes expressed by the name of hatred.”

—John Davenant, Animadversions

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“Therefore his meaning is that Jacob and Esau were by nature equal, of the same lot and condition, since they were conceived in a single act of conception in the womb of Rebecca, and before they had done anything good or evil that might make some distinction between them, God loved Jacob but hated Esau; that is, while they were in equal condition, by the most free good pleasure he preferred Jacob to Esau.”

—Jean Claude, The Posthumous Works of Mr. Claude, Tome IV

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“For after God induced by a certain common philanthropia and mercy of the human race, wished to give salvation to all provided they believed, nothing prohibited that by a certain singular affect He segregated some from the rest, so that He might indulge faith to them, from which He ordained them to eternal life. Acts 13:48. Equally, with that once constituted, that it would be that all who believed, with no one from men excepted, would obtain salvation, nothing forbade that God to making a choice from fallen men, equal in every condition, just as Esau and Jacob were, He might treat them in a diverse manner, so that without any regard for good (of which there was none in them) or evil (which was equal in all), He might prefer some over others in distributing the grace of faith. By a similar reasoning, after God so loved all men (Romans 9:11, 12) that He willed for none of them to be rejected from participating in salvation provided they themselves do not reject Christ, nothing in His virtues prevented Him, when it came to that other more vehement and definite affection upon which the donation of faith depended, from loving some according to His free will with no merit on their part, and regarding others with hatred in comparison to them, which their native corruption merited.”

—Moses Amyraut, Specimen of
Animadversions on the Exercitations Concerning Universal Grace

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“From there in vs. 14, he denies that GOD is unjust, even if out of his liberty he prefers Jacob to Esau and elects one sinner while rejecting another sinner, or casts off the disobedient and contumacious Jews and takes up the Gentiles in their place: vs. 15: For he saith to Moses in Exod. 33:19: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.”

—Barthold Holtzfus, Theological Treatise on Predestination, Election, & Reprobation of Men

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

🧵Reformed Authors on God’s Hatred of Esau as Comparative/Preferrential Love and Non-Election.

“For "to love" in that place [Romans 9:13] is said by Paul not simply, but comparatively. For he there compares Jacob with Esau ; he does not therefore mean that God simply either loved Jacob or hated Esau; but he signifies that he preferred the one to the other, and loved him more, whom, of course, having passed over this one, he chose”

—Jean Daillé, Apologia for the Synods of Alençon and Carentan

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“Now truly that the word hatred is usurped for the sole negation of special love in conferring a special benefit, the Jesuits themselves do not deny. Vasquez looking back to these very words of the Apostle, says: To hate is the same as to have loved less. For he holds himself after the manner of one hating who does not grant to another some gift which he gives to one. But thus to hate does not require sin as the cause of this hatred (Vasquez, In 1 Part., q. 23, dist. 95, ch. 8). In this sense Jacob is said to have hated Leah (Genesis 29:31).”

—John Davenant, Dissertation of Predestination & Reprobation

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

“But since this cannot be denied, the thing which the prophet says about the hatred of God toward Esau is not to be understood absolutely, as if it were a total and sheerly hostile hatred — as though Christ (and that without any regard to Esau’s sins, before he had done either good or evil) had shown him no grace and given him nothing good — but only comparatively, in relation to Jacob, toward whom He showed far greater love and grace, and whom He preferred before the firstborn Esau out of His free love; especially in that He chose him as the heir of the promised land (which was a type of the heavenly inheritance), and thus also as the heir of the covenant in the promised Seed, who was to be born from him and not from Esau.”

—Johannes Bergius, The Will of God Concerning the Salvation of All Men

[Oz Marquez 🕊️ @OzMarquezz]

@Soteriology101 Sloppy. The context makes clear he does not mean God infuses sinful desires into men, but that God judicially directs already corrupt wills toward further evil as punishment for prior sin. That itself is not problematic, though the wording (incline) could be more precise.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

I’m moving away from theological X exchanges I’ve engaged in. This account will focus on the promotion of our self-book publishing, our YouTube channel, & theological quotes we find helpful.

Follow my personal @OzMarquezz if you care about my geek posts, and my opinions.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

This is a must read! Seriously, if you haven’t, you need to pick it up. You will not be disappointed.

[Wyatt Graham @wagraham]

This is excellent

[Oz Marquez 🕊️ @OzMarquezz]

Davenant on how God’s decrees establish not only events, but also their modes, so that some things occur necessarily while others occur freely & contingently. Therefore the decree does not destroy liberty, but secures that men act freely according to the mode God ordained.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

@EddyEkofo Crazy to think that some people rely on Ai for theology.

[Oz Marquez 🕊️ @OzMarquezz]

John Davenant on the Decree being what God determined within Himself would or would not exist and come to pass in time. In other words, the decrees are God’s eternal PURPOSES.

Maybe Davenant is also confused and the anti-calvinists are right that the decree = direct causation.

[Oz Marquez 🕊️ @OzMarquezz]

A problem these anti-calvinists have is that they often impose their own definitions onto our terms.

The intro to the Minutes of Westminster quotes Crawford as being representative of the Westminster Assembly regarding the term “decree” and how it’s understood in WCF 3.1.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

@RyanHurst171 @Canonandcreed Who the heck is arguing Turretin is not a limitarian? That’s insane.

[Oz Marquez 🕊️ @OzMarquezz]

Scholar of the Reformed tradition, Dr. Richard Muller, explains the will and free choice in the early modern Reformed thought.

[𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval]

In Reformed thought, the decree of damnation is always in consideration of foreseen sin and impenitence. (This is also true for Supralapsarians)

An absolute decree of damnation (unconditional damnation) is condemned by the Reformed. See the conclusions of the Canons of Dort.