𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️ @RefRetrieval

Coming soon!

“In this spiritual eating—which takes place through faith—there consists the true, saving communion of the body and blood of Christ, whereby we, through the power and operation of the Holy Spirit, are united with Him into one body and preserved unto eternal life.” —Johanne Bergius, On The Holy Supper

Barthold Holtzfus on the distinction of the antecedent and consequent wills in God:

@_TheoMed

@_TheoMed

@_TheoMed @David651975 Paul Testard

@_TheoMed mereorthodoxy.com/the-faith-rece…

Both high and moderate Calvinists have historically affirmed God’s 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.

Tony Byrne @_TheoMed

2 days ago

In @Jon_Balserak’s new and concise book on 𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮: 𝘈 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, he includes this excellent quote from John Calvin from one of his sermons on Psalm 119 in Balserak’s section dealing with God’s love: amazon.com/dp/0192888900

2 1 10 910 2

agentc.substack.com/p/calvin-on-go…

@_TheoMed Posts like this should be helpful for those skeptical of Ai translations. You can see how consistent Ai is with its translation. At the very least, you know you’re getting a decent gist of what the author is saying.

Jean Daillé against Spanheim’s elect Jew/Gentile interpretation of 1 John 2:2: “First, what both equally assume, that the name "world" is here put for some university of the elect, this they do not prove; and this signification of that word, whenever it is put simply (as in this place), seems to be entirely alien from the usage of the Scriptures. Since we have already spoken of this matter above, I will repeat nothing here. Secondly, what properly pertains to this passage, it is also arduous what the Exercitator posits, that John by these words, "for our sins," signifies the sins of all the elect from the Jewish nation. For first, since he said "for ours," and not "for mine," it is necessary that he here also understood the sins of those to whom he writes. Therefore, to conclude that "for ours" is here the same as "for the sins of the Jews," you must by all means first establish that all those to whom John writes this epistle were Jews, which is new and, as far as I know, hitherto unheard of. Nor is it proved by what the Exercitator asserts, that those are called "brethren" by John; as if the Apostles did not count any believers from the Gentiles in the place and name of brethren. Nor likewise does it argue that they were Jews that John says that they had heard "from the beginning," and that which he now wishes to remain in them, and the "message that we should love one another." (1 John 2:24 & 3:11) For what prevents these things from being understood of the time when the Gospel was first preached among them, as Calvin and almost all interpreters explain? … Therefore, since the Exercitator [Spanheim] does not prove that those whom the Apostle here addresses were Jews, it is in vain, as it seems, and beside the point that he establishes that the pronoun "our" properly refers to the Jews.” —Jean Daillé, Apology for the Synods of Alençon and Charenton

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

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.

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).

@BaptistBavinck Welcome aboard!

“So although sin necessarily follows the decree, it cannot be said to flow from the decree. The decree does not flow into the thing, nor is it effective of evil, but only permissive and directive. ” —Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology 1.4.4

Soteriology101 🩸 @Soteriology101

5 days ago

Calvinists only: From where did pride and lust originate?

30 2 7 4K 0

“The Brethren of Saumur concede that it does follow from them [Scriptures] that Christ died for all, but they deny that it follows that he died with the same mind and with the same and equal will for all.” —Jean Daillé, Apology for the Synods of Alençon and Charenton

@TheMiguelDJ @OzMarquezz 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.

God’s general love for mankind, His common grace, the well-meant offer of the gospel, God’s universal saving will, God not being the cause and author of sin are standard mainstream reformed views. Those rejecting these views depart from the tradition and go beyond calvinist claims, hence, they are identified as hyper-Calvinists.