Garrett L Pinkston 🦡

@Soteriology101 No point in going in circles again but framing me as a “lower calvinist” is strange. Why do you say that? Why not confessional Calvinist? What did I say there to make me a “lower Calvinist” and were the Westminster Divines “lower Calvinists” too?

@navarro_chaz @RefRetrieval @ReformedCaio Starts here archive.org/details/father…

@RefRetrieval @ReformedCaio @glpinkston Which work of Crawford’s is this? Good find

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

@OzMarquezz @AEM_CA_90 @RefRetrieval The full work of Crawford can be found here (link is to the quoted excerpt) archive.org/details/father…

@AEM_CA_90 @RefRetrieval It’s appealing to Crawford to represent the thought of the divines. Do you agree with him? archive.org/details/minute…

Do the Westminster Divines represent Calvinism? From the Minutes of Westminster:

@ReformedCaio If the Reformed are saying that God’s ordination is not a causative ordination but rather a permissive one, especially in regards to sin, but the anti-Cals want to impose that it has to be causative, the burden of proof is on them to prove that ordination = causation.

"The decrees of God are merely his purposes. He alone, except when they are prophetically announced, is cognizant of them; and he alone, if we may so speak, is influenced by them; at least they have no direct influence on any besides him. They are God's secret designs for the regulation of his own procedure. But they are not rules or laws prescribed for the guidance of others, still less are they powers or agencies exerted for the coercion of others. ... It is not by his purposes at all, but only by his actual procedure, that any influence, whether compulsory or otherwise, can be exerted over us. A further error in reference to this subject has arisen from ignoring or overlooking the fact that the purposes of God are to a great extent only permissive. That they are so, is evidently the doctrine of our Confession of Faith. For while we are there told that God from all eternity did unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, it is adďed immediately after, as a qualification of this statement, yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken awav. but rather established. These words plainly imply that the purposes of God are only permissive in so far as they have respect to those events which are to be brought about by the will of free agents, and more particularly in so far as they have to the commission of sins of which it would be gross impiety respect to suppose that God is in any sense the originator." Crawford archive.org/details/minute…

"I desire to have it punctually observed, that the vessels of wrath are only said to be fitted to destruction, without naming by whom, God, Satan, or themselves; whereas, on the other side, God himself is expressly said to have prepared his chosen vessels of mercy unto glory. Which was purposely done (as I humbly conceive) to intimate a remarkable difference between election and preterition, in that election is a proper cause not only of salvation itself, but of all the graces which have any causal tendency thereunto, and therefore God is said to prepare his elect to glory; whereas negative reprobation is no proper cause either of damnation itself, or of the sin that bringeth it, but an antecedent only; wherefore the non-elect are indeed said to be fitted to that destruction which their sins in conclusion bring upon them, but not by God. I call it a remarkable difference, because where it is once rightly apprehended and truly believed, it sufficeth to stop the mouth of one of those greatest calumnies and odiums which are usually cast upon our doctrine of predestination, viz. that God made sundry of his creatures on purpose to damn them,-a thing which the rhetoric of our adversaries is wont to blow up to the highest pitch of aggravation. But it is soon blown away by such as can tell them, in the words of the excellent Dr. Davenant, 'It is true that the elect are severally created to the end and intent that they may be glorified, together with their head, Christ Jesus; but for the non-elect we cannot truly say that they are created to the end that they may be tormented with the devil and his angels. No man is created by God with a nature and quality fitting him to damnation. Yea, neither in the state of his innocency nor in the state of the fall and his corruption doth he receive anything from God which is a proper and fit means of bringing him to his damnation.' Sedgwick, in his Riches of God's Grace Displayed, says: 'The just cause of a sinner's damnation is of and from himself; never lay it on God's decrees. or want of means or helps.' What could Christ do more? He calls, and cries, and knocks, and entreats, and waits, and weeps: and yet you will not accept of him, nor of salvation by him. Thou must thank thyself for all thy miseries. Thou wilt confess one day, I might have had mercy. I was offered Christ and grace. I felt him knocking by his Spirit; but I slighted him, grieved him, and rejected him, and now it is just with God to shut the door of mercy against me." Arrowsmith archive.org/details/minute…

A while back I wrote an article on Charnock’s Hypothetical Universalism. I’ve since expanded it with three additional excerpts and added a section by @_TheoMed, who addresses two cited objections to the HU reading. If you’d like a copy of the PDF, comment below.

@ReformedCaio Using AI in this way should destroy anyone's credibility, whatever they had to begin with.

I asked Grok a very specific set of questions, leading it to agree with me that Provisionism is interpreting Scripture incorrectly. Isn't that neat! Please clap. Accept this as proof that Provisionism is false. I'm totally doing serious theological work here, guys.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

@MYPBlue @Soteriology101 I saved $50 as he never responded to my offers to buy his book.

@glpinkston @Soteriology101 Nice to know you're incapable of making substantive comments. Sorry you missed out on the $50.

Some accuse me of overstating Calvinism. But what in specific have I said that isn’t true according to the claims of Calvinism? Are all people not born unable to desire to come to God by His decree, or not?

@Jondaphemp @Soteriology101 If God permitting sins makes him a false God, we're all in trouble, bud.

@glpinkston @Soteriology101 Cool. Your god is the god of lies, rape, torture, murder, taxes, the DMV and darkness. Your God is not the God Yahweh of Scripture. Thanks for being Honest! Its refreshing

@Jondaphemp @Soteriology101

@glpinkston @Soteriology101 Go on.... Pull up the definition of Decree/Ordain Paste it here. I can wait.

@Jondaphemp @Soteriology101 God decrees to permit sins. He is not the author of lies or of sin.

@glpinkston @Soteriology101 Dude... Your god decrees abortion and child rape. Your god is the author of lies. Your god by your own standards is NOT the God of the Bible. So who is your God? Who is your ultimate authority? Why are you still in rebellion against I AM THAT I AM ?

@Soteriology101 @ReformedCaio You really are set on taking everything in the worst, hyperist way possible, huh?

@ReformedCaio I will permit you to not come to me for life = I will decree you to be born unable to desire to come to me and then punish you for eternity for not coming.

Billy: Can you come stay the night at my house, Tommy? Tommy: If my mom will let me. Billy: So what you’re saying is your mom will tell you one thing but secretly mean another? Tommy: When did you become a Calvinist, Billy? 😝

@BaptistBavinck @Soteriology101 @5Solas2 God's decree includes permitting man's free acts and his shortcomings and sins. Simple.

@Soteriology101 @5Solas2 Yet you’re still responsible for the way you act, your speech, your demeanor, your ministry, your time, and how you treat the brethren. These things are not mutually exclusive, and you know this, yet for whatever reason refuse to address it.

Every anti-Calvinist.