A Sanctuary for Biblical Logic

  Geneva Theses (1649) and The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) disprove some of the common theories that reformed teachers have been teaching their congregations. These commonly taught theories are: God’s universal desire, wish, will, and intention for the salvation of all the reprobates, God’s universal love, kindness, goodness, mercy, and common grace towards all the reprobates, Christ’s universal death for all the reprobates in a certain sense (i.e. Christ died sufficiently for all without exception).  The Geneva Theses were written to refute the errors as taught by the Saumur Academy in France at the time, namely that of John Cameron, Moses Amyrald, Josué de la Place, and Louis Cappel, commonly called Hypothetical Universalism, or specifically Amyraldianism [1] . The Formula Consensus Helvetica, though written later, was also written to refute the same errors. These two confessions prove that the above theories commonly held by many modern reformed believers are the frui

  Most Christians would imagine that the universal fall of man into sin is something unfortunate. God is sad and broken-hearted at the current state of the world and wished that no one had sinned. He had no other choice but to curse the world to punish humanity for their abuse of free will. He forced Himself to do it. Many would have wished that Adam and Eve had not sinned against God and hypothesized what would have happened if man did not fall into sin. Some might have even joked that they would scold Adam and Eve in heaven for being deceived by the serpent. They imagined a hypothetical post-adamic world of peace and righteousness, where Christ does not even have to come to save mankind. Since God's original plan failed because Adam sinned and brought along his posterity down the drain, therefore now God must activate His back up plan to bring in the second Adam, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of men and rose again on the third day for their justification. Is the above descr

  This article aims to demonstrate how different views of Christ’s atonement logically affects our view of God’s omnipotence. There are two types of atonement that are commonly held: 1) universal, indefinite, or unlimited atonement, and 2) particular, definite, or limited atonement. The author used to believe the former view for several years while he was still attending an Arminian Charismatic church.   Universal atonement states: Christ died for all men without exception (i.e. universally) and paid for all their sins. It is an atonement unlimited in its intent (i.e. God intends to save all without exception including those who are already in the intermediate state or hell) and extent (i.e. God well-meaningly offering His salvific grace to all without exception upon the condition of man’s independent-free-will-activated faith or response to His grace or calling). Christ propitiates for the sins of all men without exception, removing the full curse of the wrath of God from them, an