With all due respect David, you must be reading something into Turretin that I simply do not read.

I have read all those exerpts. I have read your blog.

By the way, what is the axe you have to grind against the PRCA?

But what we are interested in is not what Calvin, or Augustine, or Turretin, or Steenblok, or Gomarus, or the fathers of Dordt, or Kersten, all men which I highly esteem, teach. But ultimately, what does the Word of God have to say to us?

And Memento, when are you finally gonna come clean on your comments on this thread, and actually DEFEND your position?

G'day Bert,

Bert:
With all due respect David, you must be reading something into Turretin that I simply do not read.

David: Well Turretin says God loves all men. Turretin says God desires and wills the salvation of those whom he commands to repent, indeed all men. The salvation of men is dear to God.

I am not sure how one can read it any other way.

How do you understand Turretin's expressions there?

Bert:
I have read all those exerpts. I have read your blog.

David: I am glad you read them, but then how do you make those statements fit the PRC claims?

Bert: By the way, what is the axe you have to grind against the PRCA?

David: Yep. I do. I unashamedly do not believe they represent historic Calvinism. But now, I am hoping you can look to the actual documentation, for my axe is no worse than the PRC axe against the free offer and common grace.

Bert: But what we are interested in is not what Calvin, or Augustine, or Turretin, or Steenblok, or Gomarus, or the fathers of Dordt, or Kersten, all men which I highly esteem, teach. But ultimately, what does the Word of God have to say to us?

David: Ah so now what does that mean? Momento made an claim regarding the historicity of the PRC. You challenged him to back that up; or else retract it. I have done that. I have shown that all the classic Calvinists affirmed the very things the PRC call cursed evil fruit. Both blogs are dedicated to displaying the true historic position on these matters. Now, tho, you want to say, lets discuss Scripture. :-)

I would actually love to talk history with you. Did you scope out Calvin, Polanus, a' Brakel, Heppe and others on general love?

Bert: I will leave off your comment to Momento. But would you be kind enough to address the documentation I have provided? It is quite extensive and solid.

Take care,
David

Flynn schreef:G'day Bert,

Bert:
With all due respect David, you must be reading something into Turretin that I simply do not read.

David: Well Turretin says God loves all men. Turretin says God desires and wills the salvation of those whom he commands to repent, indeed all men. The salvation of men is dear to God.

I am not sure how one can read it any other way.

How do you understand Turretin's expressions there?

Bert:
I have read all those exerpts. I have read your blog.

David: I am glad you read them, but then how do you make those statements fit the PRC claims?

Bert: By the way, what is the axe you have to grind against the PRCA?

David: Yep. I do. I unashamedly do not believe they represent historic Calvinism. But now, I am hoping you can look to the actual documentation, for my axe is no worse than the PRC axe against the free offer and common grace.

Bert: But what we are interested in is not what Calvin, or Augustine, or Turretin, or Steenblok, or Gomarus, or the fathers of Dordt, or Kersten, all men which I highly esteem, teach. But ultimately, what does the Word of God have to say to us?

David: Ah so now what does that mean? Momento made an claim regarding the historicity of the PRC. You challenged him to back that up; or else retract it. I have done that. I have shown that all the classic Calvinists affirmed the very things the PRC call cursed evil fruit. Both blogs are dedicated to displaying the true historic position on these matters. Now, tho, you want to say, lets discuss Scripture. :-)

I would actually love to talk history with you. Did you scope out Calvin, Polanus, a' Brakel, Heppe and others on general love?

Bert: I will leave off your comment to Momento. But would you be kind enough to address the documentation I have provided? It is quite extensive and solid.

Take care,
David

Hate to tell you this, but you are not making any sense. And you have not addressed any of the issues here. Did you actually read Turretin, et al yourself? Did you read your own exerpt where Turretin explains his concept of the three fold nature of God's love? Did I ever state anywhere that it would not by pleasing to God if ALL men came to repentance? Indeed, that is His command to all. That is the will of His decree. But God has predestinated only His people for salvation. Others He has predestinated to eternal damnation.

And David, are you Memento? Do you speak for him?

Hey Burt,

Dont take this the wrong way, but so far you have not addressed specifics.

I dont know what the policy is here, but I hope the owners allow me the indulgence, then, of posting Turretin here. If that offends them, I apologise.

Turretin:
Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follows creatures, called “love of the creature” (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called “love of man” philoanthropia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called “he love of the elect“

David: Love to creature, love to man, love to elect. If God only loves the elect, then Turretin would be saying this: God has a threefold love: love to the elect creature, love to the elect man, love to the elect elect. This threefold distinction was classic Calvinist theology (see some links below).

But rather, he is clear:

Turretin: Nor if, in the effects of God’s general love and the common providence by which he is borne to all his creatures (according to the variety of subjects distinguished by a greater or less excellence of nature), there are degrees,

There are degrees within the general love, which is beside and with his general providence.

Turretin:
On the contrary, the latter depends upon common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love...

And then there are the passages where he says God wills and desires the salvation those to whom the gospel comes, indeed, all men.

Burt: Hate to tell you this, but you are not making any sense.

David: ;-) Okay, what part didnt you understand?

Burt: And you have not addressed any of the issues here. Did you actually read Turretin, et al yourself?

David: Sarcasm? I did.

Months ago Momento quoted my response to David Engelsma which I had made on the theology online blog. I show where Engelsma clearly misrepresents and misquotes Turretin. I saw that you said 1) no he didnt, and 2) but I dont yet have Turretin's Institutes. (my paraphrase). Then I saw you finally got a set of Turretin's Institutes. Yet then you made the claim that he was against the well-meant offer. Its to all that I now speak.

Burt:
Did you read your own exerpt where Turretin explains his concept of the three fold nature of God's love?

David: :-) The threefold view of God's love has been the standard manner of explaining God's love in Reformed theology.

Burt: Did I ever state anywhere that it would not by pleasing to God if ALL men came to repentance?

David: Is that the point? Turretin says God desires and wishes that all men come and be saved. Big difference.

Burt:
Indeed, that is His command to all. That is the will of His decree.

David: Well normally the will of command was catalogued under the voluntas signi, or precepti, or euarestias.

Burt:
But God has predestinated only His people for salvation. Others He has predestinated to eternal damnation.

David: Okay, in classic Reformed theology, its not an either/or but a both-and. God loves the elect with an electing love, the non-elect with a non-electing aka general love.

You can scope out some Calvin here: http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... eral-love/

See Polanus here:
http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... ttributes/

a' Brakel here:
http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com ... eral-love/

Burt: And David, are you Memento? Do you speak for him?

David: No, thats exactly what I said: I cannot speak for Momento.

But I can speak nonetheless. :-)

Take care,
David

Sounds like you are speaking to yourself, that is clear. And talking around the issues.

By the way, I have Turretin, I have Brakel, I have Calvin. No need for you to post weblinks to them.

And Turretin, and Brakel, and Calvin agree with the PRCA, and with my position. I do not have any issue with any of those. So call of your dogs.

G'day Burt,

It sounds to me that you just dont want to engage the primary texts. Each time you keep saying I am wrong, but never do you actually show me from the primary sources where I am wrong. Does that not sound even a little hollow to you?

Bert Mulder schreef:Sounds like you are speaking to yourself, that is clear. And talking around the issues.

By the way, I have Turretin, I have Brakel, I have Calvin. No need for you to post weblinks to them.

And Turretin, and Brakel, and Calvin agree with the PRCA, and with my position. I do not have any issue with any of those. So call of your dogs.

The meaning of Moses is then easy enough, namely that albeit God loves all people, yet that his Saints are in his charge or protection, yea even those whom he has chosen. Unless a man will refer these words, “the People”, to the twelve tribes: but that were hard and constrained. Moses then does here compare all men and all the Nations of the earth with the lineage of Abraham which God had chosen: as if he should say, that God’s grace is spread out everywhere, as we ourselves see, and as the Scripture also witnesses in other places. And not only men are partakers of this goodness of God, and are fed and maintained by his liberality: but he does also show himself bountiful even to brute beasts. Even thither does his mercy extend according to this saying of the Psalm, Who makes the fields and mountains to bring forth grass for the feeding of cattle, but God who has a care of them? Seeing that GOD vouchsafes to have so merciful regard of the beasts which he has created, as to given them food; it is more to be thought that he will be a foster father to men, whom he has made and shaped after his own image, which approaches nearer unto him, and which have a thing far excelling above all other creatures: God then does love all people. Yea, but yet not in comparison to his Church. And why? For all the children of Adam are enemies unto God by reason of the corruption that is in them. True it is that God loves them as his creatures: but yet he must needs hate them, because they be perverted and given to all evil. And that is the cause why the Scripture tells us that God repented him that ever he made man, considering that he is so marred. And in the same respect also is it said, that we be banished out of God’s kingdom, that we be his enemies, that he shakes us off and disclaims us, that he abhors us, that we be the children of wrath, and that we be so corrupted, as there remains nothing but utter confusion upon our heads. When the Scripture speaks so, it is to show us that although God for his part be favorable and merciful to us, for so much as we be his creatures: yet notwithstanding we deserve well to be disclaimed and hated at his hand, and that he should not vouchsafe to have a care of us. Now then, whereas God loves us, let us understand that he overcomes our naughtiness with his goodness, which is infinite. Albeit, as I have touched already, his loving other men is nothing in comparison to those whom he has chosen and whom he acknowledges for his children. Now then, does he love all people? Yet we are his hand: that is to say, he will show that we be far nearer to him, and that he has much more familiar acquaintance with us beyond all comparison, than he has with all the rest of the world. For he has called us unto his house, he dwells among us, he will be known to be our Father, he will have us to call upon him with full trust and liberty, so as we need not to doubt but that his power is spread out to defend us. Lo how Moses meant to magnify God’s goodness in this place, after the manner that he has made himself to be felt in his Church and to his Flock…

We see how brute beasts are sustained by his hand: and therein we ought to consider what his goodness is. Again, as touching the wicked which despise him, and do nothing else but provoke his wrath; when yet for all that, we see the sun shine upon them to give them light, they eat and drink, and they be maintained at God’s cost, and by his liberality: let us consider that although men deserve to be utterly forsaken; yet notwithstanding God spares them and bears with them, and overcomes their wickedness with his goodness, in that he roots them not out at the first, but vouchsafes to foster them still, and to show a fatherly care towards them. Calvin Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 91, 33:1-3, p., 1188-9.

We now see why an oath is interposed, while he pronounces that he will take care that the Jews should not ridicule any longer. Behold, says he, all souls are mine; as the sole of the son so the soul of the father, all souls are mine; the soul, therefore, which has sinned it shall die. Some interpreters explain the beginning of the verse thus: that men vainly and rashly complain when God seems to treat them too severely, since the clay does not rise against the potter. Since God is the maker of the whole world, we are his workmanship: what madness, then, to rise up against him when he does not satisfy us: and we saw this simile used by Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 18:6.) The sentiment, then, is true in itself, that all souls are under God’s sovereignty by the right of creation, and therefore he can arbitrarily determine for each whatever he wishes; and all who clamor against him reap no profit: and this teaching it is advantageous to notice. But this passage ought to be understood otherwise; namely, that nothing is more unworthy than that God should be accused of tyrannizing over men, when he rather defends them, as being his own workmanship. When, therefore, God pronounces that all souls are his own, he does not merely claim sovereignty and power, but he rather shows that he is affected with fatherly love towards the whole human race since he created and formed it; for, if a workman loves his work because he recognizes in it the fruits of his industry, so, when God has manifested his power and goodness in the formation of men, he must certainly embrace them with affection. True, indeed, we are abominable in God’s sight, through being corrupted by original sin, as it is elsewhere said, (Psalm 14:1, 2;) but inasmuch as we are men, we must be dear to God, and our salvation must be precious in his sight. We now see what kind of refutation this is: all souls are mine, says he: I have formed all, and am the creator of all, and so I am affected with fatherly love towards all, and they shall rather feel my clemency, from the least to the greatest, than experience too much rigor and severity. Calvin, Ezekiel 18:1-4.

Hold it a minute!

I had a, more or less friendly, debate with Memento.

Memento suggested I consult Turretin.

I ordered Turretin, received it, read it. Enjoyed it.

A number of months elapsed meanwhile, then the other day I posted my conclusion,

and asked Memento if he had proceeded at all on this issue.

Now you come storming in here, quoting all sorts of material which I have read in the past, and in the recent past

Throwing up all sorts of imagenary issues, which are no issues. I have no problem or debate with Turretin, Calvin et al.

Also, I have no debate with anyone known on this forum as either David or Flyn.

If you choose to ask me particular questions, in a polite manner, then I can choose whether or not I wish to answer those. Usually I do, if I deem such a discussion to be in good will, and edifying. You can see my record, and point of view clearly on this forum. Also you can see clearly on this forum who I am. I also know who Memento is. While we do not always agree, I do respect his researched opinion.

BUT WHO ARE YOU? That is not clear either from this forum, or from your blog.

So mind your manners, or else we will not be able to have any meaningful conversation.

Bert Mulder schreef:Hold it a minute!

I had a, more or less friendly, debate with Memento.

Memento suggested I consult Turretin.

I ordered Turretin, received it, read it. Enjoyed it.

A number of months elapsed meanwhile, then the other day I posted my conclusion,

and asked Memento if he had proceeded at all on this issue.

Now you come storming in here, quoting all sorts of material which I have read in the past, and in the recent past

Throwing up all sorts of imagenary issues, which are no issues. I have no problem or debate with Turretin, Calvin et al.

Also, I have no debate with anyone known on this forum as either David or Flyn.

If you choose to ask me particular questions, in a polite manner, then I can choose whether or not I wish to answer those. Usually I do, if I deem such a discussion to be in good will, and edifying. You can see my record, and point of view clearly on this forum. Also you can see clearly on this forum who I am. I also know who Memento is. While we do not always agree, I do respect his researched opinion.

BUT WHO ARE YOU? That is not clear either from this forum, or from your blog.

So mind your manners, or else:

SHUT UP!

I was following your thoughts, but seen your closing remark I'm afraid you are not open to accept meanings different from your opinions.

jvdg schreef:
I was following your thoughts, but seen your closing remark I'm afraid you are not open to accept meanings different from your opinions.

Esteemed brother moderator,

if you wish to discuss matters with ill mannered people, please be my guest.

But I will not engage in any conversation in which I am bullied about.

Mr. (David) (Flyn) has come in here as a new member with the only apparent purpose to stir up this thread, trying to create an argument where there is, and never was, any argument.

If he chooses to mind his manners and ask specific questions, then I can choose to entertain those.

Bert said:

if you wish to discuss matters with ill mannered people, please be my guest.

emph mine.

David: Wow. Now I am ill-mannered. Bert, I dont want to be rude, but you do know what an ad hominem argument is? You have hinted at this, now you have done it explicitly: you have diverted the discussion "to the man."

I am quite happy to leave the discussion as it is. The documentation I have provided stands on its own testimony. It is explicit. It does not need me, as it has its own ability to communicate itselt to engaging minds.

But now you say this:

But I will not engage in any conversation in which I am bullied about.

I have hardly bullied you at all.

Mr. (David) (Flyn) has come in here as a new member with the only apparent purpose to stir up this thread, trying to create an argument where there is, and never was, any argument.

Another ad hominem. Actually I have been subbed here for months, following your posts with interest. I only interjected now because you said that you had finally obtained Turretin. "Now," I thought, "he can read Turretin directly and see how Engelsma misquoted him."

If he chooses to mind his manners and ask specific questions, then I can choose to entertain those.

Mind my manners? Sure, I can see this is not going to get into serious interaction.

But now, the documentation I have supplied is quite self-evident in its refutation of your claims. I dont need to bully anyone. And I dont need to labour this. You are more than welcome to engage me here or in any of the forums I post at.

Ill leave with one more from Calvin, which I am sure you can verify for yourself:

But I will content myself with dwelling on one point only, and let that suffice. Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exists innumerable, all of which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish or come “to perdition.” This fact, however, forms no reason whatever why God should not confine his especial or peculiar love to a few, whom he has, in infinite condescension, been pleased to chose out of the rest. Calvin, “he Secret Providence of God,” found in Calvin’s Calvinism, p., 268.

To the moderators, if you believe I have been ill-mannered, please do speak to me. You can email me privately Flynn [at] Bellsouth.net. I am open to correction. If you believe I have bullied Burt, I will apologise. However, it does seem to me that PRC theology and psychology is very brittle and fragile.

Take care,
David

Bert:

Now you come storming in here, quoting all sorts of material which I have read in the past, and in the recent past

Storming? You sound like a Washington Democrat. ;-)

Throwing up all sorts of imagenary issues, which are no issues. I have no problem or debate with Turretin, Calvin et al.

Emph mine.

What imaginary issues? You see, you never engage in specifics, but just post general accusations or claims.

Also, I have no debate with anyone known on this forum as either David or Flyn.

I dont know what you mean there.

If you choose to ask me particular questions, in a polite manner, then I can choose whether or not I wish to answer those.

emph mine.

Where was I impolite. And I have asked you specific questions.

Usually I do, if I deem such a discussion to be in good will, and edifying. You can see my record, and point of view clearly on this forum. Also you can see clearly on this forum who I am. I also know who Memento is. While we do not always agree, I do respect his researched opinion.

As an academic, I have to say, all this personal stuff has no bearing on the documentation I have supplied.

BUT WHO ARE YOU? That is not clear either from this forum, or from your blog.

I am who I am. Was I supposed to give you my bio? I cant read Dutch. I didnt know that was a rule from the moderators/owners.

So mind your manners, or else:

SHUT UP!

Emph mine.

Do you realise how rude that is? Any discussion can be robust and vigorous. But all discussions have to be carried on in a professional and credible manner.

Take care,
David

]

Flynn schreef:
Do you realise how rude that is? Any discussion can be robust and vigorous. But all discussions have to be carried on in a professional and credible manner.

Take care,
David

]

Point taken. I sincerely apologize for any rude comments I have made. Have deleted that comment.

Bert said:

Point taken. I sincerely apologize for any rude comments I have made. Have deleted that comment

David:

Apology accepted. But Burt, I have not been rude, not been ill-mannered, I have not bullied you at all. You are not a 6 year old in a school sand-pit but an adult able to work through an opposing viewpoint in an adult and professional way.

I am fine with the documentation I have posted so far. Turretin says God loves all men, with a non-electing love; that God wills and desires the salvation of all men by will revealed; and he affirms common grace and general mercy and a conditional free offer, etc etc.

These sentiments are repeated in Calvin, and others. However, the sweeping claims of Herman Hoeksema, his son, Homer et al, down to David Engelsma are simply not sustainable in the light of a public historical examination of the facts.

As I see it, you have about 3 options.
1. You could just insist that Turretin, et al, did not hold to these ideas.

In the light of the evidence, that would just be irrational.

2. You could just assert that by words like, love, favour, and disire, he didnt mean real love, real favour, or real desire, or a conditional free offer. You might say, he used those words but never believed that God was actually well-disposed, or had a disposition of good-will, or was actually well-meaning toward the reprobate, etc etc.

But that would need documentation and evidence from you. I find it hard to imagine that somone would seriously try to say that by desire he didnt mean "desire" in any sense, or by love, he didnt meant affection in any sense, etc etc.

3. You could admit that Turretin and Calvin are not in the PRC tradition, and thus not the proper theological forerunners to the PRC.

That would be the best option given the evidence.

Ill leave it at that. If you want to table a serious historical defence of your position, and thereby engage me, let me know.

Take care,
David
Ps, have you read Ursinus on these issues?

Bert and Flyn, for a good understanding of the dispute arosen, please will you inform us about the "crux" of this dispute?
Please in understandable english.

jvdg schreef:Bert and Flyn, for a good understanding of the dispute arosen, please will you inform us about the "crux" of this dispute?
Please in understandable english.

Geachte heer broeder moderator JvdG:

Ik zal het maar in goed Nederlands zeggen:

Weet ik veel.

Ik heb geen idee waarom hij mij opeens hier, in het engels, over het "algemeen aanbod van genade aan alle hoorders" aan zit te vallen, zeggende dat Turretin, Calvijn, Ursinus, et al dat leerden.

Ik debatteerde, meende ik, met Memento over een punt in de uitverkiezing, in het engels.

Toen haalde Memento iets aan van deze persoon, in een weblog.

Heb ik gelezen, verder niet op ingegaan, behalve mijn reactie hier.

En nu dit?

Hij heeft blijkbaar iets tegen onze kerken, vooral ook als je zijn weblog leest....

En dan beweerd hij te zeggen dat ik persoonlijk wordt hier....

Doe dit maar op slot, mijn vriend.