Recovering the Reformed Tradition.
Joined November 2023
- Tweets19.8K
- Following289
- Followers3.1K
- Likes12.7K
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
I'd say no to that, cos that's gonna end up with The Banner of Truth, all over again. Selective reprinting of "approved" works to the eclipsing of the diversity within our wider traditions.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
"Those that dare say, that Christ is an imperfect Redeemer if he do not procure Faith it self for every Man that he Dyeth for... may as well say... that he is an imperfect Conservator because he preserved not man from Mortality, Damnation and Antecedent Calamities;" โ Baxter
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
"It is no part of the Reformed doctrine that God created men in order to damn them. Nor that His treatment of the lost is to be referred to His sovereign will. He condemns men only as a judge 'for their sins, to the praise of His glorious justice.'" โ A. A. Hodge
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Youโre missing the point. The question isnโt whether ipso facto means instantaneously but whether the satisfaction of divine justice necessarily extinguishes the sinnerโs liability to condemnation. Christ has already satisfied divine justice for the elect yet prior to faith they remain justly under Godโs wrath and liable to condemnation. But how can they justly remain liable to condemnation if divine justice has already been satisfied for their sins?
If satisfaction necessarily extinguishes liability to punishment, then the elect cannot justly remain under wrath prior to faith. But if they can justly remain under wrath notwithstanding satisfaction, then satisfation does not, of itself, extinguish that liability.
Consequently, you cannot argue that Christโs satisfaction for the non-elect would make their condemnation intrinsically unjust without also implicating the pre-conversion condemnation of the elect. If divine justice permits the elect to remain under wrath and liable to condemnation notwithstanding Christโs satisfaction for them, then satisfaction itself cannot render such liability intrinsically unjust. Otherwise, the electโs pre-conversion condemnation would itself constitute an injustice.
Therefore, the mere fact that Christ satisfied for someone who remains condemned establishes no contradiction in divine justice.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Both high and moderate Calvinists have historically affirmed Godโs general love for mankind and in His revealed will that all men be saved. But only the classic-moderate Calvinist position carries that principle consistently into the atonement. Out of that general love and salvific will, God gave His Son to die for all men, providing in Christ the remedy by which any sinner may be saved through faith.
After all, if God truly wills the salvation of all, what salvation does He will for them apart from Christ? There is no salvation outside of Christ and no remission of sins apart from His satisfaction. Thus the universal salvific will naturally corresponds to a universal provision in the death of Christ, while election adds the special intention to infallibly save elect.
In @Jon_Balserakโs new and concise book on ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ: ๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต ๐๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ, he includes this excellent quote from John Calvin from one of his sermons on Psalm 119 in Balserakโs section dealing with Godโs love:
amazon.com/dp/0192888900
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
To all the hypothetical-universalist brothers, come join our Discord server and help fan the flames of the universal satisfaction revival and bring it out of scholarship and into the pulpits and pews.
Link in comments.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
I was going to wait, but due to baptism discourse today, now seems as good a time as ever to announce:
I and my family are Presbyterian now.
(Some details below, for those interested).
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๏ธ retweeted
Sufficient and efficient grace are not different in kind, they are distinguished by whether they attain the end or are impeded by the will. So sufficiency means that the will has a genuine potency to believe, such that it would be efficient if the will consented.