SirPerkins

The Introduction to the Minutes of Wesminster cite this from Thomas J. Crawford as being representative of the thought of Westminster divines behind the topic of God’s decree/ordination, specifically on WCF 3.1 and God not being the author of sin. @glpinkston

@_wereback Do you have a link to this article by chance?

@AngAesthetics Mark Jones made this same critique of the FV hunters back in 2015. We are just stuck in the same debate loop since 2010.

Boomer theologians like R. Scott Clark just need to stop. We are now at a place where the horns of institutional power in Protestantism are held by some stubborn people who just do not know their stuff. "This very thing is no less expressly delivered concerning future glory. Since good works relate to the end as means to an end (Jn. 3:5, 16; Mt. 5:8), as the “way” to the goal (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 3:14), as the “sowing” to the harvest (Gal. 6:7–8), as the “first-fruits” to the mass (Rom. 8:23), as labor to the reward (Mt. 20:1), and as the “contest” to the crown (2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8), it is evident that good works are of the highest and indispensable necessity for obtaining glory. This necessity is so great that glory cannot be reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).” -Turretin (From an article I wrote on this, wrt to Forbes): For every medium with respect to the end proposed, and every way with respect to the goal whereunto it leads, obtains, in the practice or actual use of things, the nature of a cause, as cannot but be evident to every one.” Forbes cites Calvin, Bucer, Alsted, Piscator, and Zanchi in defense of calling works a cause of eternal life. Indeed, for Forbes (as for the aforementioned writers), eternal life itself can be rightly called the reward of good works. He writes, “Certainly works, even the best of them, do not merit properly and of condignity, (i. e. do not equal by their own value) even the lowest degree of heavenly glory, much less the very heavenly glory in itself and life eternal; yet it cannot be denied, that on account of God's gratuitous promise even eternal life itself, and not merely more exalted degrees in it, is rendered to good works.” Rutherford: That they possess an inferior power and an instrumental causality, conferred upon them by the grace of God—so says Gisbertus Voetius in Theses Heautonometerum, section 1, chapter 2: just as a race is the cause of the crown that is obtained, a contest of victory, and a regimen of health. Nor is it permissible here, strictly speaking, to distinguish between a means and a cause, or between a way and a cause. For since good works are means—not passive but active—the “means” here is an inferior cause. Hence our light afflictions produce an eternal weight of exceedingly surpassing glory, καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν (“from surpassing to surpassing”), as the Holy Spirit speaks in Second Epistle to the Corinthians 4:17. Nor can we here distinguish between causes and signs; for mere signs have no causality. The dawn is in no way the cause of the day, nor is smoke the cause of fire. Rather, our course—through good works—acts actively with respect to the actual possession of eternal life. — Samuel Rutherford, Examen Arminianismi (Utrecht, 1668), 532.

@Mohsule_ I’ve had this in my library for some time. Worth the read?

“The authority of Scripture is the authority of the church's Lord and his gospel, and so cannot be made an immanent feature of ecclesial existence. Scripture's authority within the church is a function of Scripture's authority over the church.” -John Webster, p.46.

Baxter, Voetius, Le Blanc, et al. We’ll be fine.

Christ was made sin as a sacrifice for sinners, not formally or inherently; for God never imputed sin to Him so as to esteem Him truly guilty, but remained well pleased with Him.

Since the Orthobros decided to spend the weekend misrepresenting me personally, along with several other Western Christian traditions on the atonement: youtu.be/_34VGqKUng4?si…

@DordtyHylemorph @dgh5391 Will watch the vid! Im sure you guys cover some sources but any essential reading on this subject?

@dgh5391 It’s old and there’s a lot I’d add to it, but here’s an intro concerning this: youtu.be/j-L17byQ3ws?si…

Discuss...

@YourCalvinist You should come on the show and have a debate with a moderate Calvinist on this topic ;)

Louis le Blanc’s Theological Theses are now available as two hardcover volumes from the Lulu bookstore! Links below.

Was Stephen Charnock a Amyraldian Hypothetical Universalist? Check out my first article to find out! open.substack.com/pub/reformedre…

@mattcmcdaniel Unable to DM you but I’d like one!

If you would like a free link to the article, just DM me.

@theo_bruv I see. I’ll have to read more on these issues to have better dialogue with you. But I understand your point. Give me a few more months lol

@PerkinsGhost I hold to an “age of accountability” (although it’s more like a stage of accountability as the exact age varies by individual), at which point a person has meaningful control over his/her sinful actions.

TULIP is easily disproven simply by debunking original sin because if there is no inherited guilt, there is no need for U-L-I-P. Ezekiel 18:20, Genesis 4:7, Psalms 51:5, Ecclesiastes 7:29, and Romans 5:12 debunks original sin and shows people can respond positively to God. 🧵

@theo_bruv interesting, how do u avoid this in corruption only? If u have no control over u being corrupt and that corruption will ultimately lead to death and separation from God, and u werent responsible for said corruption. Wouldnt that have the same problem? I may misunderstand ur view.

@PerkinsGhost @_DHDS @themendelbrain It’s the notion that if I have no control over whether P and also have no control over whether P => Q, I cannot be MR for Q when P.

@theo_bruv @_DHDS @themendelbrain No sir, not familiar with it brother I’m a young novice in all things logic and philosophy lol still learning tho but I just became less convinced of the immediate view by turretin and started trying to read and understand guys like vermigli and amyraut who hold to mediate view.

As I understand it, under that view we are still being held morally responsible for the corruption we inherited. I find the consequence argument to be compelling, which not only refutes compatibilism (the relevant variety anyway) but also any view that would have us be MR for consequences of actions that are both outside of our control. Are you familiar with it?

@theo_bruv @_DHDS @themendelbrain Curious, why is mediate highly implausible?

@_DHDS @themendelbrain Based on the chart he provided, I’m basically corruption-only but am open to the idea of Erickson’s conditional imputation. All the other conceptions of original guilt I’ve seen are highly implausible IMO.

Favorite theologian of all time: William Perkins (slowly changing) Theologian I dislike: Jacob Arminius Theologian that grew on me: Vermigli/Charnock Most overrated theologian: Idk tbh Most underrated theologian: Richard Baxter/John Davenant The G.O.A.T: Augustine

@JLSteffaniak Existence and attributes of God - Charnock

I've got two extra copies of my forthcoming book (available in Feb amzn.to/49anwTE). Just reply with your favorite work on the doctrine of God prior to the 19th century. I'll pick two winners and ship to you. No need to RT unless you just want to. 👊

Favorite theologian of all time: John Calvin Theologian I dislike: David Bentley Hart Theologian that grew on me: Richard Baxter Most overrated theologian: Thomas Aquinas Most underrated theologian: The Aberdeen Doctors The G.O.A.T.: Augustine

Richard Baxter on the Natural Infallibility of Tradition.

@jonathanramont Thank you 🙏

@PerkinsGhost Gale is a little idiosyncratic iirc. Not saying you shouldn't read him but try to learn the basics before you read people who want to revise things

Reading list for those interested in learning Scholastic Philosophy/Theology: Franco Burgersdijk: Logic Henri Grenier: Thomistic Philosophy Allan Wolter: Philosophical Theology Scotus Franciscus Junius: True Theology William Ames: Marrow of Theology Bernard Wuellner: Dictionary