Tony (@_TheoMed) and I have significantly updated the file on Charnock’s Hypothetical Universalism. It now appears more like a small book, with a table of contents and chapters with an expanded section of Charnock’s Two-fold reconciliation view.

Link in the comments.

Why translate The Saumur Disputations into English?

@reformedtexan explains three reasons behind the project:

1) The disputations were highly regarded by Reformed theologians of the early modern period.
2) Very little 17th-century French Reformed theology has been translated ademy of Saumur was the leading center of Reformed theological scholarship in France, home to some of its most respected theologians.

Despite their historical significance, these disputations had never been available in English.

Watch Dr. Lynch explain why he undertook the translation in the latest author interview with @parkerkhaines: youtube.com/watch?v=YZh4f-…

👀

Go give him a follow!

“Election and reprobation seem to presuppose the decree of sending the Son into the world, in order to establish a new covenant and to promulgate a new law, namely the law of repentance and of faith.”

—Jean Claude, The Posthumous Works of Mr. Jean Claude Tome IV

Did you know that Moïse Amyraut and other so-called “Amyraldians” faced accusations of doctrinal heresy before three seperate French Reformed National Synods, yet were cleared every single time?

What is particularly interesting is that the Synods examined some of their most ns, heard their theological explanations, and declined to condemn them. Certain expressions were nevertheless restricted or discouraged.

Here are three major controversies and what the Synod actually ruled.

1. Christ dying *equally* for all

Amyraut and Testard affirmed that Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the elect alone effectually. They further explained:

“His Intention was to die for all Men in respect of the Sufficiency of his Satisfaction, but for the Elect only in respect of its quickning and Saving Virtue and Efficacy.”

The Synod’s judgment:

“Whereupon, although the Assembly were well satisfied, yet nevertheless they decreed, that for the future, that Phrase of Jesus Christ's dying Equally for all, should be forborn, that term Equally was heretofore, and might be so again an occasion of stumbling unto many.”

Notice that the Synod was satisfied with their doctrinal explanation, including their affirmation of an intention respecting the sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction made. for all. It objected to the potentially misleading word equally.

Citation: John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, vol. 2 (London, 1692), 354–355, Synod of Alençon, art. 12, §18.

2. Conditional decrees

Amyraut and Testard explained that by a conditional decree they meant God’s revealed will to give grace and life to believers. They also distinguished God’s will to save all who believe from his particular decree to give faith to certain persons. They explained that this distinction accommodated human understanding, while God’s will remained one eternal and immutable act.

The Synod’s judgment:

“The Synod having heard these Declarations of the Sieurs Testart and Amyraud, injoyned them and all others to refrain from those terms of Conditional, Frustratory, or Revocable Decree, and that they should rather chuse the Word Will, whereby to express that Sentiment of theirs, by which they would signifie the Revealed Will of God, commonly called by Divines Voluntas Signi.”

Notice that the Synod did not expressly require them to abandon their conceptual distinction between God’s universal conditional promise and his particular election. It required them to refrain from describing the former as a conditional *decree*.

Citation: Quick, Synodicon, vol. 2, 354–355, Synod of Alençon, art. 12, §§19–22.

3. A divine will of velleity

Amyraut and Testard had employed language attributing to God “Velleity and strong Affections, and vehement desires of things which he hath not, nor ever will effectuate.” They explained that these expressions were figurative and anthropopathic, signifying God’s approbation of faith and obedience rather than literal passions or frustrated desires in God.

The Synod’s judgment:

“The Assembly hearing this their Explication, did injoyn them to use such Expressions as these, with that Sobriety and Prudence, that they might not give any occasion of offence unto any Person, nor cause them to conceive of God in any way unsuitable to his Glorious Nature.”

Notice that the Synod did not categorically prohibit the language of velleity. It accepted their explanation while requiring sobriety and prudence in its employment.

Citation: Quick, Synodicon, vol. 2, 355–356, Synod of Alençon, art. 12, §23.

Amyraut and Testard’s explanations were heard, particular expressions were restricted or qualified, and they were permitted to continue their ministries.

Amyraut was subsequently cleared again at Charenton (1645) and Loudun (1659).

Whatever one’s disagreement with Amyraut, the historical record does not support treating his theology as outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy.

“For the intercession of Christ is concerned not with interceding for those who have not believed in Him nor are going to believe, those whom He designates by the name "world" when He denies that He prays for the world, but with the commendation of those who have embraced the ve been given over to Him on His side, and sprinkled and irrigated with the blood of the new covenant for the remission of sins. Therefore, since the intercession of Christ is chiefly occupied in this petition, that those who are such may always be such and may be preserved from evil, and since the intercession of Christ the mediator cannot be ineffectual, they are insulting to Christ the Priest who assert that the faithful may be overcome by evil. John 17:9.”

—Moses Amyraut, ‘Theological Thesis on the Priesthood Of Christ’ in Compilations Of Theological Theses In the Academy Of Saumur

"you [Grotius] excellently vindicate the arguments of our men from the violent twistings of Socinus, and those which are sought from nature and human authority you refute in my judgment quite fully" — Antonius Walaeus

French Reformed theologian Jean Daillé refutes Spanheim’s distinction between God and His ministers in the offer of salvation, arguing that when ministers sincerely offer salvation in God's name, God Himself offers it, even to those whom He knows will never believe or be saved.
ator [Spanheim] distinguishes the ministers from God; by the former, he concedes that both salvation and the means leading to it are offered even to those men who will neither believe nor be saved; by God, he denies that they are offered to others than the elect. But this distinction has also been exploded above and is most clearly refuted from the recited places. For it is God himself who, both in Isaiah and in the Paroemiast and in Matthew and John, offers salvation even to many who will not believe; and who, to all the Laodiceans, wretched, poor, blind, and naked, comprehended under the name and person of the one Angel of the Church of Laodicea, counsels that they buy of him gold tried in the fire, that they may be rich, and be clothed in white raiment, and anoint their eyes with eyesalve, that they may see. I confess that Peter was not God, exhorting the people of Jerusalem in the Acts to faith with the offered hope of grace and the divine gift. But it was nevertheless God who was the Spirit speaking in him, and whatever words were poured forth by him so moved were all the words of God himself, although pronounced by the mouth of a man. Therefore, in these it is plainly necessary to confess that not only the minister, but also God himself, offered salvation to some who were not going to believe. As for what pertains to the other preachers of the Gospel, although it is established that they are not so properly and certainly guided by the Holy Spirit as Peter was, it is nevertheless clear that they are to this extent ministers of God, and whatever in this business they either offer or deny, the Lord also, in whose name they act, either offers or denies.”

——Jean Daillé, Apologia Pro Synodis Alesonensi Et Carentonensi

Jesus loves you.

French Reformed theologian Jean Daillé responds to Spanheim’s objection that salvation is not offered, in the gospel call, to those who ultimately perish in unbelief.

“For it is clear that God offers salvation to those to whom he offers the Son, the prince and author of e is salvation, or, as John says, eternal life. But who would deny that Christ is offered to all to whom the Gospel is preached? Paul indeed to all the Galatians, who yet afterwards fell away, considered Christ to have been so offered to them that he did not hesitate to say that he had been depicted before their eyes and crucified among them. But Christ himself even more explicitly and effectively: “My Father,” he says, “giveth you the true bread from heaven.” Will you then deny that he was offered to the Jews by the Father, whom Christ himself affirms was given to them? But “to be given” is, if I am not mistaken, somewhat more than “to be offered.” Nor should it be overlooked that he contrasts himself, as given to them, with the manna given to their forefathers of old, clearly signifying by this that as manna was once so offered and administered to all the Israelites that no one was not permitted to enjoy it, so now he himself is promiscuously so set forth and extended to all by the Father that there was no one to whom it was not permitted to eat of the divine bread, that is, to be saved, although it is established that very many among those very hearers of his spurned the celestial food with a diabolical fastidiousness.

Moreover, if Christ, and therefore also salvation, is not offered to the unbelieving, why then is he said to be rejected, repudiated, reprobated, and spurned by them? “He came unto his own,” says John, “and his own received him not.” “The stone which the builders rejected,” that is, by the Jews; whom Paul also in the same sense says “put it from you [the word], and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life.” How, I ask, if God had offered neither salvation nor Christ to them? But the same is proved from those very places which we have recently brought forward. For God promises both the remission of sins and eternal life, adumbrated by the enjoyment of the Holy Land according to the custom of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, to all the people of Jerusalem, and wine and milk and the life of the soul, and an everlasting covenant, the sure mercies of David, to all who thirst in Isaiah; and likewise bread and wine, that is, divine life, to any who are simple, in the Paroemiast; and refreshment and rest for souls to all that labor and are heavy laden, in Matthew; and the drink of the Spirit to whomever thirsts, in John; and Peter, the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the whole Jewish assembly; and finally, the other ministers promise blessed immortality in the Lord to all among whom they preach. What, I ask, is to offer salvation, if this is not?”

——Jean Daillé, Apologia Pro Synodis Alesonensi Et Carentonensi

If Christ’s bearing the punishment for sin makes it unjust for God to condemn that sinner, how can the elect remain under God’s wrath and liable to condemnation before faith?

Christ’s satisfaction does not automatically entail the application of pardon. Otherwise, the elect would be justified from the moment of Christ’s satisfaction, apart from faith.

Christ merited pardon through His satisfaction, but the actual remission of sins is conditional upon faith. Satisfaction is the meritorious ground of forgiveness, while faith is the divinely appointed condition of its application.

Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier on 1 Timothy 2:1–4, rejecting the interpretation that God wills merely some from every class of men to be saved.

“VIII. Others explain the little word 'All' instead. And there are those who, distinguishing the kinds of individuals from the ay that God wills all to be saved, that is, every kind of man: because there is no distinction before God of Jew and Greek: of free and slave: of rich and poor: of male and female. But yet, not to wish that all be saved, namely by going through individuals, so that no single person is omitted. Just as we say, Every animal was in Noah's ark: even though it is true that there were only certain ones from every species. he wishes all to be saved, who are saved: because no one is saved, except by his will. Thus it may be said: This Master teaches all the boys of this city: not because he teaches every single one: but because no one is taught, unless he himself teaches him.

IX But neither of these distinctions seems suitable. For it is harsh to bend that statement, 'Not wishing any to perish,' to the kinds of individuals: And that statement certainly, 'He does not wish the death of the sinner,' seems to conflict; since death cannot be considered in the kinds of individuals: but in the individuals of the kinds. But also Paul's purpose goes elsewhere. For he commands that prayer be made, not for the kinds of individuals, but for the individuals of the kinds. Kings are an argument, and πάντες οἱ ἐν ὑπεροχῇ [all those who are in authority], for whom the Church prays individually, for various times and places. For example, for Nero at the time when the Apostle was writing this. It is not a good argument: Pray for Nero: because God wishes some Emperors to be saved. The other [interpretation] hits the same points equally. For, what is more foolish than if you say, God does not wish any to perish, of those who are saved? He does not wish the death of the sinner whom he wishes to be saved: Pray for Nero; because God wishes those who are to be saved to be saved?

X. Therefore, we acquiesce to the distinction of the Will into εὐδοκίαν [good pleasure] and εὐαρεσίαν [approval]: First, because it is from the Scriptures, as we have observed elsewhere. Next, because it has nothing that is not consistent with the passages that are objected. For it is well said, Pray for Nero: because God wishes, by that will of εὐαρεσία [approval], which is the rule of our actions, that all be saved: and, the Lord is patient, waiting for repentance: because the conversion, and therefore the salvation of the sinner, is more pleasing to him than his damnation. And finally, he does not wish the death of the sinner, in this same way: for Ezekiel also used the word חפץ [to delight in, take pleasure in, or desire], by which is signified, not simply to wish, but to acquiesce to some thing, to take delight in, to desire.”

—Daniel Chamier, Panstratia Catholica, vol. 3, digital ed., p. 149, English trans. accessed through The Faith Received (Mere Orthodoxy)

Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier is spot on in his handing of 1 Tim 2:1-4.

It’s not enough to say that we should pray for Trump because God wills some presidents to be saved. Rather, we pray for individuals of every kind because God wills their salvation, not merely the salvation of some within their respective classes.

Reformed theologian Daniel Chamier on 1 Timothy 2:1–4, rejecting the interpretation that God wills merely some from every class of men to be saved.

“VIII. Others explain the little word 'All' instead. And there are those who, distinguishing the kinds of individuals from the ay that God wills all to be saved, that is, every kind of man: because there is no distinction before God of Jew and Greek: of free and slave: of rich and poor: of male and female. But yet, not to wish that all be saved, namely by going through individuals, so that no single person is omitted. Just as we say, Every animal was in Noah's ark: even though it is true that there were only certain ones from every species. he wishes all to be saved, who are saved: because no one is saved, except by his will. Thus it may be said: This Master teaches all the boys of this city: not because he teaches every single one: but because no one is taught, unless he himself teaches him.

IX But neither of these distinctions seems suitable. For it is harsh to bend that statement, 'Not wishing any to perish,' to the kinds of individuals: And that statement certainly, 'He does not wish the death of the sinner,' seems to conflict; since death cannot be considered in the kinds of individuals: but in the individuals of the kinds. But also Paul's purpose goes elsewhere. For he commands that prayer be made, not for the kinds of individuals, but for the individuals of the kinds. Kings are an argument, and πάντες οἱ ἐν ὑπεροχῇ [all those who are in authority], for whom the Church prays individually, for various times and places. For example, for Nero at the time when the Apostle was writing this. It is not a good argument: Pray for Nero: because God wishes some Emperors to be saved. The other [interpretation] hits the same points equally. For, what is more foolish than if you say, God does not wish any to perish, of those who are saved? He does not wish the death of the sinner whom he wishes to be saved: Pray for Nero; because God wishes those who are to be saved to be saved?

X. Therefore, we acquiesce to the distinction of the Will into εὐδοκίαν [good pleasure] and εὐαρεσίαν [approval]: First, because it is from the Scriptures, as we have observed elsewhere. Next, because it has nothing that is not consistent with the passages that are objected. For it is well said, Pray for Nero: because God wishes, by that will of εὐαρεσία [approval], which is the rule of our actions, that all be saved: and, the Lord is patient, waiting for repentance: because the conversion, and therefore the salvation of the sinner, is more pleasing to him than his damnation. And finally, he does not wish the death of the sinner, in this same way: for Ezekiel also used the word חפץ [to delight in, take pleasure in, or desire], by which is signified, not simply to wish, but to acquiesce to some thing, to take delight in, to desire.”

—Daniel Chamier, Panstratia Catholica, vol. 3, digital ed., p. 149, English trans. accessed through The Faith Received (Mere Orthodoxy)

“Even the popular apologist James White sounds Hyper-Calvinist in casting doubt on the idea of ‘a desire on God’s part that every single person come to repentance,’ alluding to 2 Peter 3:9 [in White, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘍𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮, 147–148].”

Curt Daniel, 𝘏𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳-𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮: 𝘐𝘵𝘴 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 (Founders Press, 2026), 234.

Hint: It’s more than a mere sound. 😉

Davenant recounts Maccovius being brought before the synod for allegedly denying God wills the salvation of all men, and for positing God ordains men unto sin:

“Maccovius was upon a by-occasion brought before the Synod; and the business between him and Lubbertus was committed to few Delegates, according to whose report he was dismissed.

Unto the objection of ordaining men unto sin, his answer was that God did not ordain any man unto sin efficiendo [by effecting it], but permittendo [by permitting it].

As for his denial of a will in God for the saving of all men, he understood it of the absolute effectual operative will, not of the conditional and approbative will of God.”

—John Davenant, Animadversions upon a Treatise Entitled, God’s Love to Mankind (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1641)

To those who interpret “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:1–4 as referring to every class or kind of men:

Have you sat down today, identified every conceivable class of humanity, and prayed specifically for each class of men?

Hyper-Calvinists hit hardest.

“Christ, therefore, our Surety, by yielding the exact obedience which the law demanded, and undergoing the punishment which was required from violators of the law, did that to which we were bound by this hand-writing, and so blotted out the hand writing itself. For, as says blood without sin, he blotted out the hand-writing of all sin. Christ was made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, Gal. iv. 4, 5.
But it must be observed, that this hand-writing may be said to be blotted out in two ways: First, universally and sufficiently as it respects God: because by the blood of Christ such satisfaction is made to God, that he cannot require that hand-writing of the law from any debtors, when they flee by faith to this Deliverer; but according to the order of his own justice is necessarily engaged to acquit them. Secondly, particularly and efficaciously, when, in fact, it is blotted from the conscience of all believers who lay hold on Christ by faith; according to that declaration of the Apostle, Being justified by faith we have peace with God. But, truly, he cannot have peace who sees himself overwhelmed with debt, and, moreover, entangled by a bond: but as soon as any one takes hold of Christ by faith, thenceforth this hand-writing is blotted out, and his conscience enjoys a blessed peace. And Paul in the most admirable manner hath provided for trembling consciences by a certain beautiful gradation. For, not content with having asserted in the foregoing verse, that all our sins are forgiven us; he subjoins, that the hand-writing itself is blotted out: but lest any one should think that it is not so blotted out, but that a new charge may be raised, he therefore adds, it is moreover taken out of the way: and lest it should be thought to be preserved hidden somewhere, and may be preferred against us hereafter; nay, says he, it is nailed to his cross, i.e. it is torn and rent in pieces by those nails wherewith Christ was affixed, and lacerated upon the cross.”

—John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport, vol. 1 (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), 465–66.

Theologians like Turretin, Spanheim, et al., give a horrendous treatment of the will of God. Their formulations introduce unnecessary difficulties and tensions that render the doctrine a contradictory mess.

There are far better treatments within the Reformed tradition itself. I would recommend reading theologians such as Robert Baron, Barthold Holtzfus, and Jean Daillé, whose accounts offer a more coherent understanding of the divine will and its various distinctions.