The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

[Flynn]

I missed this, sorry.

Dear mr. Flynn, don't be upset by Bert's responses. That's the way he reacts, when someone forces him to argue. He only can stick to his own preoccupations and wants to elaborate on his own prejudice.

If he cannot triumph, when time and again his thoughts are proofed to be false, he starts to bring the person in disgrace, as if he has blind eyes of the soul and is a heretic. This way is a characteristic for people who confess that their thoughts are by nature darkened, but show that they by heart believe to be exclusively correct and that all the rest is stupid and blinded.

With respect to the way you argue.

Polemicus.

G'day Polemicus.

With a nic-name like that, I bet you get into some fights. :-)

Just to assure you, I am not upset at all. I am totally fine. I have learnt now that the evidence easily attests to itself, its own truth.

And I have learnt that a conversation--while robust--has to be two-way. If that is not going to happen, thats fine.

These ideas can take a long time to trickle down into the heart and sometimes it takes us a long time to admit that that these guys did actually say what they said.

So I try to be patient. I will, though, point out ad hominemswhen I see it, because sometimes folk dont even realise they are doing it. And generally, ad hominems are just a defensive mechanisms when one feels threatened. So I am fine with what has happened.

Take care,
David

[Polemicus]

Polemicus, I have to warn you about this very negative response about Bert.
Your reaction is just that what you declares Bert to be guilty of.

And you don't warn Bert as well? Mind you!

[jvdg]

Polemicus, I have to warn you about this very negative response about Bert.
Your reaction is just that what you declares Bert to be guilty of.

And you don't warn Bert as well? Mind you!

Bert's reaction was straight and direct to you as disputer.
You were talking about Bert to a third person.
That's the difference.

PLease, if you want to discuss this matter further on, sent your reaction to the moderators by report or personal message.

[Bert Mulder]

Furthermore, my comments were made in Christian love.

If that were not so, point out where, and I will be glad to retract.

And apologize

[Flynn]

Furthermore, my comments were made in Christian love.

If that were not so, point out where, and I will be glad to retract.

And apologize

I guess what Polemicist is getting at are the comments like you calling me, ill-mannered, bully, from yesterday, and today, blind, and even questioning my salvation, such that you had to pray for me.

I really dont see a lot of love there, Bert. :-) Apart from the possibility that you may love telling folk that they are blind. ;-) <==tongue-in-cheek smilie.

Whats interesting is that this part of the board has been inactive for months, and now its roiling with posts. Some of you are really interesting. I hope perhaps some of us can have some healthy cross-cultural interaction, which can stimulate us to think more theologically, historically and biblically.

Take care,
David

[jvdg]

Furthermore, my comments were made in Christian love.

If that were not so, point out where, and I will be glad to retract.

And apologize

I guess what Polemicist is getting at are the comments like you calling me, ill-mannered, bully, from yesterday, and today, blind, and even questioning my salvation, such that you had to pray for me.

I really dont see a lot of love there, Bert. :-) Apart from the possibility that you may love telling folk that they are blind. ;-) <==tongue-in-cheek smilie.

Whats interesting is that this part of the board has been inactive for months, and now its roiling with posts. Some of you are really interesting. I hope perhaps some of us can have some healthy cross-cultural interaction, which can stimulate us to think more theologically, historically and biblically.

Take care,
David

So be it!

[Flynn]

G'day jvdg,

I am not sure if this is the right context, but can I ask where you are from exactly? I gather Holland.

I am currently working in the USA, in whats called the deep south. I have been studying Reformed theology for over a decade. My primary interest is historical theology. Right now I am reading as much as I can from English translations of 16thC Continental Reformed writers. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Thanks for your hospitality,
David

[Polemicus]

Whats interesting is that this part of the board has been inactive for months, and now its roiling with posts. Some of you are really interesting. I hope perhaps some of us can have some healthy cross-cultural interaction, which can stimulate us to think more theologically, historically and biblically.

Take care,
David

David, I read the whole topic about the conditional convenant and Gods general love to all men and am very interested if you have published some lengthy articles about these subjects somewhere.

I am rather aquainted with Calvin and the theology of Ursinus, but the sources you mentioned are very incentive for me. It seems to me that the Americans have brought the discussion on the well meant offer of grace and common grace etc. to a much higher level than here in Holland.

Please provide me with some hints if you are able. I can give you my e-mail by private message.

Yours faithfully,

Polemicus

[Flynn]

G'day Polemicus,

I will try to outline what we are doing. It is a massive project some of us have set ourselves to do. If any of what I write here is confusing or unclear, please feel free to write and ask.

David, I read the whole topic about the conditional convenant and Gods general love to all men and am very interested if you have published some lengthy articles about these subjects somewhere.

Nothing yet. I have a few papers on related issues. I am not sure if they are something you would be interested in.

I am working on examining Calvinist soteriology and looking at the evolution of the Calvinian doctrine of salvation.

My overall thesis is that there is a lot of diversity, differing trajectories within Reformation thought. But yet, there was a lot of unity on key issues between the early Reformers, even the Lutherans, but that all broke apart, and then different areas developed, until the movements to uniformity in the 17thC.

I am rather acquainted with Calvin and the theology of Ursinus, but the sources you mentioned are very incentive for me. It seems to me that the Americans have brought the discussion on the well meant offer of grace and common grace etc. to a much higher level than here in Holland.

1) Well some of us are working on the specifics of the atonement as held by the Medieval Scholastics, which was picked up by Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Farel, Haller, et al, within the Reformed camp. At this point there is a lot of common ground with Luther and Manlancthon. Then when lapsarianism and Federalism began to spread and become developed independent and centra dogmatic points, that early unity broke up.

So some of us believe that the sort of synthesis first developed by Prosper, and by author of "calling of the Gentiles," was passed on and developed by Anselm, Lombard, and Aquinas, and this was picked by by Calvin, Bullinger and the ones I have mentioned.

Did you read the material from Kimedoncius and Paraeus?

Please provide me with some hints if you are able. I can give you my e-mail by private message.

Sure, again my email is flynn000 [@] bellsouth.net

Remove the square brackets of course.

2)
In terms of the free offer, what I have tried to do is locate
1) original latin lexicons from the 16th and 17thCs. They define offero and its cognate expressions as not just "present", but overture and offer. The PRC claims on this do not stand lexical examination.
2) Word pairing. Word pairing is a key tool in historiography, for the idea is how does a given author connect and pair ideas. Thus I have been looking at how men like Calvin pairs words, offer with invitation, for example. Word pairing analysis further refutes the sort of PRC claim that offero (and its cognate forms) meant
"present" or something like that.

Word pairing is also good in terms of Calvin's connection between God's love and goodness to all mankind with the idea of that being a fatherly love and fatherly goodness. Because he pairs fatherly with the attribute of love, it is clear that he means a disposition of love, as a father loves a child. He could not have meant simply doing good to someone, a bare doing good. See what I mean? Calvin is invoking a metaphor which means something.

3) In terms of common grace, the goal has been document from primary sources statements from the classic Calvinists on the issues of divine love, grace, mercy, goodness, longsuffering, and the free offer.

4) The thought has been to engage in 1) a systematic reading of Calvin, for example, and then 2) test the Calvin reading by a hypercalvinist grid (eg a PRC or Gillite grid) to see if the hypercalvinist claims can be sustained.

This "testing" is fascinating. For example, not only have I tried to catalogue all the statements I can find from classic Calvinists on General Love, Common Grace, etc, showing that they did hold properly to both, and more, but also I have set about cataloguing how the classic Reformed exegeted critical verses.

Those verses could be stuff like Ps 81:13, Eze 18:23, Matt 23:37, John 3:16, 12:47, 2 Peter 3:9, and on and on. The idea is: if Calvin, for example, adopted the very position denounced as heretical or Arminian by a anyone claiming to the True Reformed, it becomes unlikely that they are indeed true Reformed. Make sense?

For example, I have been reading Calvin's works systematically, and listing all the times he cites John 3:16 and then comments on it. Then combine all those instances into a file. By putting all these together, we can then get an accurate picture of how Calvin interpreted John 3:16. http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... -john-316/

Then, from that, what is happening in Calvin's thinking that enables him to adopt these specific exegetical constructs. How is it that Calvin could see the world of 3:16 as all mankind and what actually was operating in his thinking.

I dont know if that is helpful or answers your questions.

Take care,
David

[Bert Mulder]

Should have been in a new thread

Sorry.

Find here a sample of ad hominim:

I want to come back to Turretin again. As you may recall I have so far pointed out how David Engelsma in his book "HyperCalvinism and the Call of the Gospel" misrepresents Turretin on the will of God. I have also posted a number of quotations from Turretin on General Love. Today I want to post some of Turretin on free offer of the Gospel.

and at the same time doing violence to Turretin.

[Flynn]

Hey Bert,

Whats happening? You now giving me a third chance?

How does that bear on what I have written? on the general non-electing love?

That looks like a whole new thread.


David

[Flynn]

Should have been in a new thread
Sorry.
Find here a sample of ad hominim:
I want to come back to Turretin again. As you may recall I have so far pointed out how David Engelsma in his book "HyperCalvinism and the Call of the Gospel" misrepresents Turretin on the will of God. I have also posted a number of quotations from Turretin on General Love. Today I want to post some of Turretin on free offer of the Gospel.
and at the same time doing violence to Turretin.

Hey Bert,

No, that is not an ad hominem.I can see you don’t understand what an ad hominem argument is like.

If you were to table some evidence, so say Momento, and then I point out to Momento that the evidence you have tabled has been manipulated, that is not an ad hominem.

Imagine a law court. The lawyer is interviewing the witness. He starts saying to the witness, "you are blind, you are rude, you are ill-mannered." What he is doing is "taking it to the man". Now another lawyer gets up and says to the same witness: "is it not true that the evidence you cited actually says the very opposite to what you have claimed here today." Now that is not an ad homimen.

An ad homimen is when you say things like: you are a blind man, or, telling someone to shut up, or accusing someone of being ill-mannered, in this sense, you have stopped dealing with the documentation or argument, but have switched the argument to statements about the person. You are now trying to attack the person as a person.

What ad homimen does are things like character assassination, or genetic fallacies, or down to just plain insults. If I had said Engelsma was a fool, a blind and illiterate foreigner, then that would be an ad homimen.

But that is not what I said. Bert, you would encourage you to get beyond the personal and respond to the actual documentation I have presented. That’s where you need to show us that Engelsma has not misrepresented Turretin.

Take care,
David

[Bert Mulder]

So this is an ad hominim statement, then?:

Well the leading RPCer whom I critqued, in the space of only about 3 hours said I was ill-mannered, rude, a bully and told me–in upper case mind you–to shut up. And today he has called me blind, and left open the question that I may even be reprobate. He did apologise for telling me to shut up, but the fact that he got to that stage, of shouting at me to shut up, so quickly is surely an embarrassment.

In the space of 3 hours, this fellow unraveled psychologically.

Every time I interact with PRCers, the standard mode of response is exactly the same. They make grand sweeping historical claims. I show that these claims are false, and that the contrary is the case. Then they resort to insults.

There is something about the PRC mentality. Somehow, they think its okay for them to call common grace Calvinists, Janus worshipers, Pelagian, heretics, etc etc. But if a non-RPCer tries to challenge them, somehow they are being rude, and have no right to try and stake a claim to Reformed historical theology. I gotta believe that somewhere out there some PRCer is actually interested in an honest and Christian discussion of the source documentation, to the end of treating it honestly.

David

Oh, by the way, sorry David, but there is only one PRCA member here. You are not beleaguered

[Flynn]

So this is an ad hominim statement, then?:


Oh, by the way, sorry David, but there is only one PRCA member here. You are not beleaguered

Hey Bert,

No thats not an ad hominem either, because 1) what I said was true, not only in terms of what I reported, but also in terms of my wider perception and experience. And 2) it was journaling my experience and reflection on you telling me to shut up, your comment that I was blind, and your even bringing into doubt my salvation. However, I never tabled that as an argument against any of your arguments against me. To be clear, I never used any of that to dismiss you, or your arguments, to you or to anyone.

I didnt present any inaccuracies or untruths. Right?

Btw, and I didnt say or feel beleagured. Far from it, Bert.
As to only 1 PRCer, ah, okay I mistakenly thought Gallio was a PRCer. Sorry Gallio.

Take care,
David

[Bert Mulder]

Maybe this is a better example, then?

I should add too, Clark should have known better. With the "causation" of sin there are only two options: direct or indirect causation. Willing Permission of sin exhausts indirect causation. There is no tertius quid here (if we want to avoid unwilling permission that is). So its a case of either A or B. Clark foolishly says not B.

But then he is bound in an irrational conclusion that it must be A. But then he would step back. Likewise, Herman Hoeksema had the same problem. He rejected willing permission because of his hyperist assumptions. For him God either works in "straightline" causation or else God stops being God. But then he is bound with the problem of praise or blame. You blame the efficient direct cause of a crime. Just as you praise the efficient direct cause of a good deed. For example, you praise/blame the author of the essay, not his pencil. Authorship is the necessary precondition for praise or blame, not bare [ambiguous] causality.

Given that theyve denied that God in any way indirectly causes sin, he must directly cause it. But that puts them flat in the face if their denial that God only causes sin, but does not author it.

When I pressed this problem with the Hoeksemians about 10 years ago, particularly to a PRC pastor Bernie Woudenberg, they resorted to "mystery". I thought it was a lot of crock back then; still do. They started out denouncing mystery and paradox, but then they grasp at it when their own internal logic is exposed.

Clark acutely suffered from the same incoherency.