Recovering the Reformed Tradition.
Joined November 2023
- Tweets19.8K
- Following289
- Followers3.1K
- Likes12.7K
Tony (@_TheoMed) and I have significantly updated the file on Charnockโs Hypothetical Universalism. It now appears more like a small book, with a table of contents and chapters with an expanded section of Charnockโs Two-fold reconciliation view.
Link in the comments.
French Reformed theologian Jean Daillรฉ refutes Spanheimโs distinction between God and His ministers in the offer of salvation, arguing that when ministers sincerely offer salvation in God's name, God Himself offers it, even to those whom He knows will never believe or be saved.
โSecondly, the Exercitator [Spanheim] distinguishes the ministers from God; by the former, he concedes that both salvation and the means leading to it are offered even to those men who will neither believe nor be saved; by God, he denies that they are offered to others than the elect. But this distinction has also been exploded above and is most clearly refuted from the recited places. For it is God himself who, both in Isaiah and in the Paroemiast and in Matthew and John, offers salvation even to many who will not believe; and who, to all the Laodiceans, wretched, poor, blind, and naked, comprehended under the name and person of the one Angel of the Church of Laodicea, counsels that they buy of him gold tried in the fire, that they may be rich, and be clothed in white raiment, and anoint their eyes with eyesalve, that they may see. I confess that Peter was not God, exhorting the people of Jerusalem in the Acts to faith with the offered hope of grace and the divine gift. But it was nevertheless God who was the Spirit speaking in him, and whatever words were poured forth by him so moved were all the words of God himself, although pronounced by the mouth of a man. Therefore, in these it is plainly necessary to confess that not only the minister, but also God himself, offered salvation to some who were not going to believe. As for what pertains to the other preachers of the Gospel, although it is established that they are not so properly and certainly guided by the Holy Spirit as Peter was, it is nevertheless clear that they are to this extent ministers of God, and whatever in this business they either offer or deny, the Lord also, in whose name they act, either offers or denies.โ
โโJean Daillรฉ, Apologia Pro Synodis Alesonensi Et Carentonensi
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Jesus loves you.
French Reformed theologian Jean Daillรฉ responds to Spanheimโs objection that salvation is not offered, in the gospel call, to those who ultimately perish in unbelief.
โFor it is clear that God offers salvation to those to whom he offers the Son, the prince and author of salvation, in whom alone is salvation, or, as John says, eternal life. But who would deny that Christ is offered to all to whom the Gospel is preached? Paul indeed to all the Galatians, who yet afterwards fell away, considered Christ to have been so offered to them that he did not hesitate to say that he had been depicted before their eyes and crucified among them. But Christ himself even more explicitly and effectively: โMy Father,โ he says, โgiveth you the true bread from heaven.โ Will you then deny that he was offered to the Jews by the Father, whom Christ himself affirms was given to them? But โto be givenโ is, if I am not mistaken, somewhat more than โto be offered.โ Nor should it be overlooked that he contrasts himself, as given to them, with the manna given to their forefathers of old, clearly signifying by this that as manna was once so offered and administered to all the Israelites that no one was not permitted to enjoy it, so now he himself is promiscuously so set forth and extended to all by the Father that there was no one to whom it was not permitted to eat of the divine bread, that is, to be saved, although it is established that very many among those very hearers of his spurned the celestial food with a diabolical fastidiousness.
Moreover, if Christ, and therefore also salvation, is not offered to the unbelieving, why then is he said to be rejected, repudiated, reprobated, and spurned by them? โHe came unto his own,โ says John, โand his own received him not.โ โThe stone which the builders rejected,โ that is, by the Jews; whom Paul also in the same sense says โput it from you [the word], and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life.โ How, I ask, if God had offered neither salvation nor Christ to them? But the same is proved from those very places which we have recently brought forward. For God promises both the remission of sins and eternal life, adumbrated by the enjoyment of the Holy Land according to the custom of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, to all the people of Jerusalem, and wine and milk and the life of the soul, and an everlasting covenant, the sure mercies of David, to all who thirst in Isaiah; and likewise bread and wine, that is, divine life, to any who are simple, in the Paroemiast; and refreshment and rest for souls to all that labor and are heavy laden, in Matthew; and the drink of the Spirit to whomever thirsts, in John; and Peter, the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the whole Jewish assembly; and finally, the other ministers promise blessed immortality in the Lord to all among whom they preach. What, I ask, is to offer salvation, if this is not?โ
โโJean Daillรฉ, Apologia Pro Synodis Alesonensi Et Carentonensi
If Christโs bearing the punishment for sin makes it unjust for God to condemn that sinner, how can the elect remain under Godโs wrath and liable to condemnation before faith?
Christโs satisfaction does not automatically entail the application of pardon. Otherwise, the elect would be justified from the moment of Christโs satisfaction, apart from faith.
Christ merited pardon through His satisfaction, but the actual remission of sins is conditional upon faith. Satisfaction is the meritorious ground of forgiveness, while faith is the divinely appointed condition of its application.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier on 1 Timothy 2:1โ4, rejecting the interpretation that God wills merely some from every class of men to be saved.
โVIII. Others explain the little word 'All' instead. And there are those who, distinguishing the kinds of individuals from the individuals of kinds, say that God wills all to be saved, that is, every kind of man: because there is no distinction before God of Jew and Greek: of free and slave: of rich and poor: of male and female. But yet, not to wish that all be saved, namely by going through individuals, so that no single person is omitted. Just as we say, Every animal was in Noah's ark: even though it is true that there were only certain ones from every species. he wishes all to be saved, who are saved: because no one is saved, except by his will. Thus it may be said: This Master teaches all the boys of this city: not because he teaches every single one: but because no one is taught, unless he himself teaches him.
IX But neither of these distinctions seems suitable. For it is harsh to bend that statement, 'Not wishing any to perish,' to the kinds of individuals: And that statement certainly, 'He does not wish the death of the sinner,' seems to conflict; since death cannot be considered in the kinds of individuals: but in the individuals of the kinds. But also Paul's purpose goes elsewhere. For he commands that prayer be made, not for the kinds of individuals, but for the individuals of the kinds. Kings are an argument, and ฯฮฌฮฝฯฮตฯ ฮฟแผฑ แผฮฝ แฝฯฮตฯฮฟฯแฟ [all those who are in authority], for whom the Church prays individually, for various times and places. For example, for Nero at the time when the Apostle was writing this. It is not a good argument: Pray for Nero: because God wishes some Emperors to be saved. The other [interpretation] hits the same points equally. For, what is more foolish than if you say, God does not wish any to perish, of those who are saved? He does not wish the death of the sinner whom he wishes to be saved: Pray for Nero; because God wishes those who are to be saved to be saved?
X. Therefore, we acquiesce to the distinction of the Will into ฮตแฝฮดฮฟฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ [good pleasure] and ฮตแฝฮฑฯฮตฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ [approval]: First, because it is from the Scriptures, as we have observed elsewhere. Next, because it has nothing that is not consistent with the passages that are objected. For it is well said, Pray for Nero: because God wishes, by that will of ฮตแฝฮฑฯฮตฯฮฏฮฑ [approval], which is the rule of our actions, that all be saved: and, the Lord is patient, waiting for repentance: because the conversion, and therefore the salvation of the sinner, is more pleasing to him than his damnation. And finally, he does not wish the death of the sinner, in this same way: for Ezekiel also used the word ืืคืฅ [to delight in, take pleasure in, or desire], by which is signified, not simply to wish, but to acquiesce to some thing, to take delight in, to desire.โ
โDaniel Chamier, Panstratia Catholica, vol. 3, digital ed., p. 149, English trans. accessed through The Faith Received (Mere Orthodoxy)
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier is spot on in his handing of 1 Tim 2:1-4.
Itโs not enough to say that we should pray for Trump because God wills some presidents to be saved. Rather, we pray for individuals of every kind because God wills their salvation, not merely the salvation of some within their respective classes.
Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier on 1 Timothy 2:1โ4, rejecting the interpretation that God wills merely some from every class of men to be saved.
โVIII. Others explain the little word 'All' instead. And there are those who, distinguishing the kinds of individuals from the individuals of kinds, say that God wills all to be saved, that is, every kind of man: because there is no distinction before God of Jew and Greek: of free and slave: of rich and poor: of male and female. But yet, not to wish that all be saved, namely by going through individuals, so that no single person is omitted. Just as we say, Every animal was in Noah's ark: even though it is true that there were only certain ones from every species. he wishes all to be saved, who are saved: because no one is saved, except by his will. Thus it may be said: This Master teaches all the boys of this city: not because he teaches every single one: but because no one is taught, unless he himself teaches him.
IX But neither of these distinctions seems suitable. For it is harsh to bend that statement, 'Not wishing any to perish,' to the kinds of individuals: And that statement certainly, 'He does not wish the death of the sinner,' seems to conflict; since death cannot be considered in the kinds of individuals: but in the individuals of the kinds. But also Paul's purpose goes elsewhere. For he commands that prayer be made, not for the kinds of individuals, but for the individuals of the kinds. Kings are an argument, and ฯฮฌฮฝฯฮตฯ ฮฟแผฑ แผฮฝ แฝฯฮตฯฮฟฯแฟ [all those who are in authority], for whom the Church prays individually, for various times and places. For example, for Nero at the time when the Apostle was writing this. It is not a good argument: Pray for Nero: because God wishes some Emperors to be saved. The other [interpretation] hits the same points equally. For, what is more foolish than if you say, God does not wish any to perish, of those who are saved? He does not wish the death of the sinner whom he wishes to be saved: Pray for Nero; because God wishes those who are to be saved to be saved?
X. Therefore, we acquiesce to the distinction of the Will into ฮตแฝฮดฮฟฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ [good pleasure] and ฮตแฝฮฑฯฮตฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ [approval]: First, because it is from the Scriptures, as we have observed elsewhere. Next, because it has nothing that is not consistent with the passages that are objected. For it is well said, Pray for Nero: because God wishes, by that will of ฮตแฝฮฑฯฮตฯฮฏฮฑ [approval], which is the rule of our actions, that all be saved: and, the Lord is patient, waiting for repentance: because the conversion, and therefore the salvation of the sinner, is more pleasing to him than his damnation. And finally, he does not wish the death of the sinner, in this same way: for Ezekiel also used the word ืืคืฅ [to delight in, take pleasure in, or desire], by which is signified, not simply to wish, but to acquiesce to some thing, to take delight in, to desire.โ
โDaniel Chamier, Panstratia Catholica, vol. 3, digital ed., p. 149, English trans. accessed through The Faith Received (Mere Orthodoxy)
Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier on 1 Timothy 2:1โ4, rejecting the interpretation that God wills merely some from every class of men to be saved.
โVIII. Others explain the little word 'All' instead. And there are those who, distinguishing the kinds of individuals from the individuals of kinds, say that God wills all to be saved, that is, every kind of man: because there is no distinction before God of Jew and Greek: of free and slave: of rich and poor: of male and female. But yet, not to wish that all be saved, namely by going through individuals, so that no single person is omitted. Just as we say, Every animal was in Noah's ark: even though it is true that there were only certain ones from every species. he wishes all to be saved, who are saved: because no one is saved, except by his will. Thus it may be said: This Master teaches all the boys of this city: not because he teaches every single one: but because no one is taught, unless he himself teaches him.
IX But neither of these distinctions seems suitable. For it is harsh to bend that statement, 'Not wishing any to perish,' to the kinds of individuals: And that statement certainly, 'He does not wish the death of the sinner,' seems to conflict; since death cannot be considered in the kinds of individuals: but in the individuals of the kinds. But also Paul's purpose goes elsewhere. For he commands that prayer be made, not for the kinds of individuals, but for the individuals of the kinds. Kings are an argument, and ฯฮฌฮฝฯฮตฯ ฮฟแผฑ แผฮฝ แฝฯฮตฯฮฟฯแฟ [all those who are in authority], for whom the Church prays individually, for various times and places. For example, for Nero at the time when the Apostle was writing this. It is not a good argument: Pray for Nero: because God wishes some Emperors to be saved. The other [interpretation] hits the same points equally. For, what is more foolish than if you say, God does not wish any to perish, of those who are saved? He does not wish the death of the sinner whom he wishes to be saved: Pray for Nero; because God wishes those who are to be saved to be saved?
X. Therefore, we acquiesce to the distinction of the Will into ฮตแฝฮดฮฟฮบฮฏฮฑฮฝ [good pleasure] and ฮตแฝฮฑฯฮตฯฮฏฮฑฮฝ [approval]: First, because it is from the Scriptures, as we have observed elsewhere. Next, because it has nothing that is not consistent with the passages that are objected. For it is well said, Pray for Nero: because God wishes, by that will of ฮตแฝฮฑฯฮตฯฮฏฮฑ [approval], which is the rule of our actions, that all be saved: and, the Lord is patient, waiting for repentance: because the conversion, and therefore the salvation of the sinner, is more pleasing to him than his damnation. And finally, he does not wish the death of the sinner, in this same way: for Ezekiel also used the word ืืคืฅ [to delight in, take pleasure in, or desire], by which is signified, not simply to wish, but to acquiesce to some thing, to take delight in, to desire.โ
โDaniel Chamier, Panstratia Catholica, vol. 3, digital ed., p. 149, English trans. accessed through The Faith Received (Mere Orthodoxy)
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
โEven the popular apologist James White sounds Hyper-Calvinist in casting doubt on the idea of โa desire on Godโs part that every single person come to repentance,โ alluding to 2 Peter 3:9 [in White, ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณโ๐ด ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฎ, 147โ148].โ
Curt Daniel, ๐๐บ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ-๐๐ข๐ญ๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ: ๐๐ต๐ด ๐๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ๐บ (Founders Press, 2026), 234.
Hint: Itโs more than a mere sound. ๐
Davenant recounts Maccovius being brought before the synod for allegedly denying God wills the salvation of all men, and for positing God ordains men unto sin:
โMaccovius was upon a by-occasion brought before the Synod; and the business between him and Lubbertus was committed to the examination of some few Delegates, according to whose report he was dismissed.
Unto the objection of ordaining men unto sin, his answer was that God did not ordain any man unto sin efficiendo [by effecting it], but permittendo [by permitting it].
As for his denial of a will in God for the saving of all men, he understood it of the absolute effectual operative will, not of the conditional and approbative will of God.โ
โJohn Davenant, Animadversions upon a Treatise Entitled, Godโs Love to Mankind (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1641)
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
To those who interpret โall menโ in 1 Timothy 2:1โ4 as referring to every class or kind of men:
Have you sat down today, identified every conceivable class of humanity, and prayed specifically for each class of men?
๐ค Made with AI
โChrist, therefore, our Surety, by yielding the exact obedience which the law demanded, and undergoing the punishment which was required from violators of the law, did that to which we were bound by this hand-writing, and so blotted out the hand writing itself. For, as says Augustine, shedding his blood without sin, he blotted out the hand-writing of all sin. Christ was made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, Gal. iv. 4, 5.
But it must be observed, that this hand-writing may be said to be blotted out in two ways: First, universally and sufficiently as it respects God: because by the blood of Christ such satisfaction is made to God, that he cannot require that hand-writing of the law from any debtors, when they flee by faith to this Deliverer; but according to the order of his own justice is necessarily engaged to acquit them. Secondly, particularly and efficaciously, when, in fact, it is blotted from the conscience of all believers who lay hold on Christ by faith; according to that declaration of the Apostle, Being justified by faith we have peace with God. But, truly, he cannot have peace who sees himself overwhelmed with debt, and, moreover, entangled by a bond: but as soon as any one takes hold of Christ by faith, thenceforth this hand-writing is blotted out, and his conscience enjoys a blessed peace. And Paul in the most admirable manner hath provided for trembling consciences by a certain beautiful gradation. For, not content with having asserted in the foregoing verse, that all our sins are forgiven us; he subjoins, that the hand-writing itself is blotted out: but lest any one should think that it is not so blotted out, but that a new charge may be raised, he therefore adds, it is moreover taken out of the way: and lest it should be thought to be preserved hidden somewhere, and may be preferred against us hereafter; nay, says he, it is nailed to his cross, i.e. it is torn and rent in pieces by those nails wherewith Christ was affixed, and lacerated upon the cross.โ
โJohn Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport, vol. 1 (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), 465โ66.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Theologians like Turretin, Spanheim, et al., give a horrendous treatment of the will of God. Their formulations introduce unnecessary difficulties and tensions that render the doctrine a contradictory mess.
There are far better treatments within the Reformed tradition itself. I would recommend reading theologians such as Robert Baron, Barthold Holtzfus, and Jean Daillรฉ, whose accounts offer a more coherent understanding of the divine will and its various distinctions.
Jean Daillรฉ addresses Spanheimโs absurd objection that God commands obedience without truly desiring it, an argument illustrated by the case of Pharaoh, whom God commanded to release Israel while supposedly not willing that Pharaoh should obey Him. Daillรฉ rejects this inference, arguing that God genuinely willed Pharaohโs obedience according to his preceptive and approbative will, even though he permissibly decreed to leave Pharaoh to his own hardness.
Daillรฉ explains that Godโs hardening of Pharaoh is understood permissively, that is, as his deliberate refusal to soften Pharaohโs heart and overcome his resistance. But Godโs willing to harden Pharaoh in this sense does not entail that he was unwilling that Pharaoh should release Israel, as he himself commanded. It only signifies that God, though willing Pharaohโs obedience according to his approbative will, nevertheless permitted him to persist in his own hardness rather than soften his heart, while providentially ordering that very disobedience toward the manifestation of His glory and the benefit of His people.
The essential distinction is between willing to permit disobedience and willing the disobedience itself. God may knowingly and freely permit men to act contrary to what he genuinely wills and commands, without thereby approving or desiring their disobedience. So Godโs permissive decree does not negate his genuine approbative will that men obey him, nor does their disobedience imply that his decree has been frustrated. Nor must every genuine divine volition be an absolute and efficacious will that God infallibly brings to pass. To insist that God cannot genuinely will something unless He decrees to effectuate it is merely to assume what must first be demonstrated.
Thus, while Godโs preceptive and approbative will may be crossed by the disobedience of men, it is crossed only insofar as God has freely decreed to permit such disobedience. Consequently, His decretive will is never frustrated, for His decree to permit men to act contrary to His revealed will is itself infallibly fulfilled, just as everything else He has absolutely decreed to accomplish. The violation of His preceptive will, therefore, does not entail the frustration of His decretive will, nor does the infallibility of the latter negate the sincerity of the former.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
This equivocates on the divine will. Certainly, whatever God absolutely decrees to accomplish must infallibly occur. But does God genuinely will that men obey his commandments and abstain from sin? Surely he does. Yet men continually disobey him. Does their disobedience prove that God never genuinely willed their obedience? Or that his will has been frustrated? Neither follows.
Godโs precepts express what he truly wills men to do, even when he permissively decrees to allow them to act contrary to what he wills and commands. Likewise, God may genuinely will the salvation of all men according to his antecedent and revealed/approbative will, while decreeing to allow men to resist his grace, reject Christ, and perish through their own unbelief.
Thus, Godโs permissive decree does not negate his genuine will concerning what he permits men to reject. Many hypers assume that every genuine divine volition must be an absolute, efficacious decree. But that needs to be demonstrated.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
1 Tim 2:1-4 is not referring to some men from every class. And taking the โall menโ at face value does not require us to pull out a phone book, as some silly people say, and pray for every single individual. To suggest one must do this is to miss Paulโs point.
As Chamier argued, โPray for Nero, because God wills some emperors to be savedโ is no sufficient rationale for praying for Nero himself. Paulโs point is that we may pray for particular persons because God wills the salvation of those very persons. We may therefore pray for any individual, regardless of his rank or station, not merely because God wills to save some men from every class of men, but because he genuinely wills the salvation of the individuals for whom we pray.
โHence the Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, Richard, Ockham, Gregory of Rimini, Hervaeus, Biel, and the more recent writers, both Thomists and Scotists, as also Greeks and Protestants, received and employed the distinction of the Divine Will into Antecedent and Consequent, not in the sense that God, His former Will having been changed, should form another Will, and that the Will of God should be one Antecedent in time and another Consequent in time; for this would involve a change of counsel and consequently imperfection; but because the Antecedent Will precedes the consideration of voluntary unbelief, impenitence, and contumacy, God therefore seriously wills, out of natural Goodness and Mercy, the salvation, under the condition of Faith and Repentance, of men rendered miserable in Adam; whereas the Consequent Will follows the consideration of voluntary unbelief, impenitence, and contumacy, and consequently of contempt for offered Grace, and, out of Justice, wills and executes the punishment deserved by man. Hence it is also called Judicial. Here no change whatever occurs in the Will of God. Thomas Aquinas observes that this distinction is not to be understood from the standpoint of the Divine Will itself, in which there is nothing prior or subsequent, but from the standpoint of the things willed; and he explains it by an analogy drawn from a just judge: a just judge antecedently wills every man to live, but consequently wills a murderer to be hanged; similarly, God antecedently wills every man to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, according to the demand of His justice.โ
โBarthold Holtzfus, On Godโs Attributes and Divine Decrees
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
I often find that many Limitarians have a troubling view of reprobation, as though non-election entails the denial of sufficient grace and the means of salvation, and as though God has no sincere desire that the non-elect repent and be saved.
Rather, non-election concerns Godโs decree not to infallibly bring them to saving faith, permitting them instead to freely reject and abuse the means of salvation provided to them, unto their own destruction.
โFourthly, the Will of God is distinguished into antecedent and consequent; for this distinction to be understood; something can in its first consideration, i.e., as it is considered absolutely, be Good, which however when considered with some adjunct (which is indeed a consequent consideration of it) behaves in the contrary way; thus a Prince considering his citizens, absolutely and as they are citizens, wills the salvation of them all; but considering a certain citizen as a murderer, wills his death: similarly God is said to will certain things according to the first and bare consideration of things, as e.g. He wills the salvation of all Men by this antecedent will; but He is said to will certain things consequently, i.e., by a will by which things are considered with their adjuncts, as e.g. the eternal death of impious Men. And although God, when He considers Men as they are Men, does not predestine them to eternal punishment, yet when He considers them as they are sinners, i.e., as they have fallen in Adam, He can justly prepare eternal punishment for them and will to punish them eternally by this consequent will.โ
โ Robert Baron, General and Special Metaphysics, Section XII, Disputation II