🆕 Hermann Hildebrand (1590–1649) on the Extent of the Death and Merit of Christ; With Replies by John Davenant (1572–1641) and Joseph Hall (1574–1656): Credit to both Ansonius (@AnglicanSE) and Michael Lynch (@reformedtexan) for their translation work.

@reformedtexan @John_Barach The Andreae account has Beza denying that God loves the non-elect, while Beza’s account affirms an Augustinian view of God’s love for all. The Andreae account is not trustworthy.

@ferrismattic “If it is true, what does it matter who said it?”—Anonymous

RT @TonyReinke: NEW SERIES ALERT: Historical Texts in Reformed Theology from @wtspress …

Cool.

@AnglicanSE The link says the content is no longer available.

@LloydLegalist “Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?” 😅

Jean Daillé (1594–1670) appealing to lost sinners: “…be certain that God loves you and has given His only Son for you, so that by believing, you may not perish but come out of that hell where you are and have eternal life. It is enough for you to know that you are human to be assured that God loves you, and that His Christ is presented to you for enjoyment.”

Jean Daillé (1594–1670) was brilliant. I don’t think this has been translated before, but here is an AI translation of his sermon on John 3:16 wherein he gives John’s sense of the “world.” Notice that he first accounts for the placeness of the world. The place, however, is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, but the name of the place 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. Very crucial and insightful. Note also that the “world” normally has a bad sense, and so does not signify the righteous, but corrupt humans, as distinguished from the faithful, the church, or disciples. Moreover, the “world” is that corrupt mass that still “lives on earth.” They are not those who have died in their sins, but those who still have hope, or who may be called by the word to repentance. Lastly, Daillé said the “world” is not only Jews, but Gentiles also, who are in an estranged condition. The common dichotomy presented by some (high Calvinists), as though the “world” is either (𝟏) everybody without exception or (𝟐) elect Jews and Gentiles is a false dichotomy. The “world” is corrupt human beings still living on earth, encompassing both Jews and Gentiles. That is its 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. But, since everyone, even believers, were once in that fallen mass, the 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 of the word refers to everyone without exception. For those who keep saying the “world” is everyone without exception, learn to distinguish between the 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 of something and its 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to avoid error and the possibility of rebuttal by the decretalists who ignorantly setup the above false dichotomy. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐥é 𝐨𝐧 “𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝”: “But Scripture, which sometimes takes this word [world] in this sense [as the universe or earth], also often uses it in another to mean the human race by a common figure in all languages that p̲u̲t̲s̲ t̲h̲e̲ n̲a̲m̲e̲ o̲f̲ a̲ p̲l̲a̲c̲e̲ t̲o̲ s̲i̲g̲n̲i̲f̲y̲ i̲t̲s̲ i̲n̲h̲a̲b̲i̲t̲a̲n̲t̲s̲,̲ t̲h̲o̲s̲e̲ w̲h̲o̲ l̲i̲v̲e̲ t̲h̲e̲r̲e̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ w̲h̲o̲ f̲i̲l̲l̲ i̲t̲. For example, when we say 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 for humans, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘬𝘺 for angels, 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 for the French, 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴 for Parisians, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘶𝘷𝘳𝘦 for the Court, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 for doctors and students, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳 for those who frequent it and are usually found there, and an infinite number of similar expressions. But we must note secondly, that since sin has infected the human race, t̲h̲e̲ w̲o̲r̲d̲ w̲o̲r̲l̲d̲ i̲s̲ a̲l̲m̲o̲s̲t̲ a̲l̲w̲a̲y̲s̲ t̲a̲k̲e̲n̲ i̲n̲ a̲ b̲a̲d̲ s̲e̲n̲s̲e̲,̲ n̲o̲t̲ s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲y̲ t̲o̲ m̲e̲a̲n̲ h̲u̲m̲a̲n̲s̲,̲ b̲u̲t̲ c̲o̲r̲r̲u̲p̲t̲ a̲n̲d̲ m̲i̲s̲e̲r̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ h̲u̲m̲a̲n̲s̲,̲ s̲l̲a̲v̲e̲s̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ f̲l̲e̲s̲h̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ s̲u̲b̲j̲e̲c̲t̲ t̲o̲ d̲e̲a̲t̲h̲;̲ c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲r̲e̲n̲ o̲f̲ G̲o̲d̲’̲s̲ w̲r̲a̲t̲h̲, as the Apostle speaks in Ephesians 2, that is to say, criminals and worthy of his curse. Like when Saint John says that the world did not know the Light that made it; and when he elsewhere declares that the whole world is lying in wickedness or in the evil one. And because the Lord delivers h̲i̲s̲ f̲a̲i̲t̲h̲f̲u̲l̲ from this miserable state when he calls them to him, and transports them into his kingdom of light; hence, t̲h̲e̲y̲ c̲h̲a̲n̲g̲e̲ t̲h̲e̲i̲r̲ n̲a̲m̲e̲ a̲s̲ w̲e̲l̲l̲ a̲s̲ t̲h̲e̲i̲r̲ c̲o̲n̲d̲i̲t̲i̲o̲n̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ f̲r̲o̲m̲ t̲h̲e̲n̲ o̲n̲,̲ a̲r̲e̲ c̲a̲l̲l̲e̲d̲ n̲o̲ l̲o̲n̲g̲e̲r̲ t̲h̲e̲ w̲o̲r̲l̲d̲, but the Church. The word ‘world,’ as well as its condemnation, remains for those who reject the Gospel through their unbelief and impenitence, preferring the servitude of sin and the flesh to the liberty of the children of God. T̲h̲e̲ L̲o̲r̲d̲,̲ s̲p̲e̲a̲k̲i̲n̲g̲ o̲f̲ h̲i̲s̲ d̲i̲s̲c̲i̲p̲l̲e̲s̲,̲ s̲a̲y̲s̲ t̲h̲a̲t̲ t̲h̲e̲y̲ a̲r̲e̲ n̲o̲t̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ w̲o̲r̲l̲d̲, meaning they are no longer of it since he has called them, as he adds there himself, that he has chosen them out of the world, meaning he has chosen and separated them from it; and elsewhere, speaking to the Father, he says of those to whom he has manifested his mysteries, ‘You have given them to me from the world.’ H̲e̲r̲e̲ t̲h̲e̲n̲,̲ a̲c̲c̲o̲r̲d̲i̲n̲g̲ t̲o̲ t̲h̲i̲s̲ o̲r̲d̲i̲n̲a̲r̲y̲ m̲a̲n̲n̲e̲r̲ o̲f̲ s̲p̲e̲a̲k̲i̲n̲g̲ i̲n̲ S̲c̲r̲i̲p̲t̲u̲r̲e̲,̲ J̲e̲s̲u̲s̲ s̲a̲y̲i̲n̲g̲ t̲h̲a̲t̲ G̲o̲d̲ h̲a̲s̲ l̲o̲v̲e̲d̲ t̲h̲e̲ w̲o̲r̲l̲d̲ m̲e̲a̲n̲s̲ b̲y̲ t̲h̲e̲ w̲o̲r̲d̲ ‘̲w̲o̲r̲l̲d̲’̲ t̲h̲e̲ w̲h̲o̲l̲e̲ h̲u̲m̲a̲n̲ r̲a̲c̲e̲ i̲n̲ t̲h̲e̲ s̲t̲a̲t̲e̲ i̲n̲ w̲h̲i̲c̲h̲ i̲t̲ i̲s̲ b̲o̲r̲n̲ a̲n̲d̲ l̲i̲v̲e̲s̲ o̲n̲ e̲a̲r̲t̲h̲,̲ b̲e̲f̲o̲r̲e̲ t̲h̲e̲ L̲o̲r̲d̲ a̲d̲d̲r̲e̲s̲s̲e̲s̲ h̲i̲s̲ c̲a̲l̲l̲ t̲o̲ i̲t̲ t̲h̲r̲o̲u̲g̲h̲ h̲i̲s̲ w̲o̲r̲d̲. That is the world that God has loved. … this world, which the Lord says God has loved, is a mass of sinners, rebellious against His Majesty, guilty of a thousand crimes, covered in filth and vile infamies, full of vices and malice, and worthy, in a word, of His hatred and the thunderbolts of His eternal curse. … But what surpasses all our admirations is that this love of God extends to the entire human race. What has He loved? The world, says our Lord; n̲o̲t̲ o̲n̲l̲y̲ t̲h̲e̲ J̲e̲w̲s̲, to whom He had obligated Himself by the promises of the old Covenant to send a Savior, b̲u̲t̲ a̲l̲s̲o̲ t̲h̲e̲ G̲e̲n̲t̲i̲l̲e̲s̲, who had nothing in common with the republic of Israel, being strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and being without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12).” Jean Daillé, 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶 3𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘱. 𝘥𝘦 𝘭'𝘌𝘷. 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘚. 𝘑𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘯 11 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘤é𝘴 à 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯: 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘤 9 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘷. 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘴 (Geneve: Jean Ant. & Samuel De Tournes, 1666), 311–17.

RT @BerithPress: Logic is essential for thinking clearly.

RT @Pjobanion: Zanchi's Confession of the Christian Religion (450pp.) Looks like this is now available for order from @RHB_Books. https:…

“Let not the names of men draw thee one way or the other; nor make thee partial in searching for truth; dislike the men for their unsound doctrine; but call not doctrine unsound, because it is theirs; nor sound, because of the repute of the writer.”—Richard Baxter

@nadineihill @KuiperBelt117 Explanation here:

“Nothing is so fatal to Religion as indifference which is, at least, half Infidelity.”—Edmund Burke, via a Dr. M. LLoyd-Jones sermon

In a Christian’s head, “wrong” is equated with “sin,” whether wrongdoing is 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 (Godward) or 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 (manward). Atheists don’t think God exists, so no wrongdoing is thought of as “sin.” Showing that he thinks some things are wrong does 𝘯𝘰𝘵 answer him. He already believes some things (such as wallet-stealing from him) are wrong. Rather, show him God exists from an argument based on objective morality. What I am saying is that 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘭’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥. It is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 the existence of wrongdoing as such that is being questioned; it is rather that any wrongdoing should be thought of in a 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 sense, i.e., 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 an offense against God, even if the wrongdoing is between men. Rather than sitting there marveling at Sproul’s witty—but off-target—response, those on stage with him should have said, “I am not sure you are understanding what is being questioned. It is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 (1) the existence of wrongdoing that is being questioned, but (2) whether any wrongdoing has a theological dimension to it, since God, in his view, does not exist.” Stealing his wallet is something he already thinks is wrong, so doing that would only make him think you are not understanding him. That is not how the apologist wants those people to feel when he is trying to persuade them. When skeptics used to interact with Francis Schaeffer, they said they came away from conversations with him feeling understood. That is part of our goal as would-be “fishers of men.” What the Christians in the audience should have been taught at that point (but were not) in response to the question, is that the person denying “sin” categorically still thinks wrongdoing exists. He should then be shown that his intuitive grasp that some things are right and wrong means objective right and wrong exists, and that he is presupposing that there are objective, transcultural laws in the universe (𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝟏). One can then use that to argue for a transcendent law-giver (i.e., God) as the objective ground for right and wrong (𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝟐). Sproul, as an apologist, knows all of that, and has shown his competence in arguing that way. But his response in this video is not at all a “mic drop” moment (which warrants fanboys to stand back in awe), but rather a moment of his misunderstanding the issue at hand. Again, the objector is likely an atheist who denies that wrong things should be called “sin,” n̲o̲t̲ t̲h̲a̲t̲ t̲h̲e̲ a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ d̲o̲e̲s̲ n̲o̲t̲ t̲h̲i̲n̲k̲ w̲r̲o̲n̲g̲d̲o̲i̲n̲g̲ e̲x̲i̲s̲t̲s̲,̲ o̲r̲ t̲h̲a̲t̲ t̲a̲k̲i̲n̲g̲ h̲i̲s̲ w̲a̲l̲l̲e̲t̲ w̲o̲u̲l̲d̲ b̲e̲ w̲r̲o̲n̲g̲. Of course he would think that is wrong. What he needs to be shown is that wrongdoing is theological in nature, even when committed between men, since all evil is primarily against the God whom he denies. It is at that point where he can see why Christians equate the “wrong” with “sin.”

Even you do not understand the objector, it seems. 🤦‍♂️ Again, the objector is not saying wrongdoing does not happen between men. He is most likely objecting to the idea of “sin” categorically because he is not a believer in God, so there is no God to wrong—only men.

RT @ssimonnin: Stephen Charnock's final exhortation in "The knowledge of God in Christ." I don't expect to hear something like this from a…

@TheProtestantP @EdwinNunez1646 Don’t t̵a̵s̵e̵ early modern me, bro.

@theo_bruv @ferrismattic @reformedtexan I don’t have a problem with either version of asymmetry, but I think “ordain” may be wiser to use for the decree of pre-damnation than “predestinate” due to 1. scriptural language, 2. concerns against equal ultimacy, & 3. rampant misunderstandings about “double predestination.”