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

Introduction The Arminians often reason from John 3:16 that if God loves the world (everyone without exception including the people who are already in hell), then the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination must be wrong. Many Calvinists today would agree with the Arminians that God indeed loves sinful humanity in general or everyone without exception including the people who are already in hell, however they also think eternal predestination is still true. Arminians often find that both statements contradict one another, and I agree with them. Not only it is an actual contradiction, but it is also an unbiblical view of God’s love. They would defend that it is a logical paradox i.e., “a situation where an assertion (or two or three assertions) is self-contradictory, or at least seems to be so; one way or the other the assertion cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason.” [1]   Many theologians have a habit of categorizing theological statements that are clearly contr