William Twisse’ theological methodology: Concerning the order of decree and the object of predestination

William Twisse’ theological methodology: Concerning the order of decree and the object of predestination

This paper deals with the theological method of William Twisse in his doctrine of divine decree. According to him, the main issues of the doctrine are concerning the order of decree and the object of predestination. Twisse observes that the diversity in perspective on the doctrine even among pious theologians are not caused by theological difference but mainly by a logical or methodological one. Therefore, no marvel if Twisse tried to focus his writings on the matter of theological methodology. His desire to find the more accurate and proper way of discussion in the controversy caused him to fall in love with the School divinity and read more writings of Papists in Rome than those of Divines in England and Europe. He, thus, adapt the scholastic axiom of the inverse rule in intention and execution mainly whereby to testify his supralasarian view on the order of decree and on the object of predestination as human not yet created. Three points this paper makes are what follows: 1) it is impossible for Twisse to divide content and method in that, whereas the latter does not produce the former, the former could be damaged without the proper understanding and application of the latter; 2) Twisse believes that the glory of God, as the only end of all other decrees, should be first in intention, and then all those other decrees of God should be intended for one entire coordinate and complete means conducing to the glory of God, any one decree of them not subordinate any of the others; 3) with regard to the object of predestination as massa nondum condita, Twisse intends to see the meaning of sin in the context of intention and execution. It is in light of these three points that this paper attempts to see Twisse’s view on the object of predestination.

This paper deals with the theological method of William Twisse in his doctrine of divine decree. According to him, the main issues of the doctrine are concerning the order of decree and the object of predestination. Twisse observes that the diversity in perspective on the doctrine even among pious theologians are not caused by theological difference but mainly by a logical or methodological one. Therefore, no marvel if Twisse tried to focus his writings on the matter of theological methodology. His desire to find the more accurate and proper way of discussion in the controversy caused him to fall in love with the School divinity and read more writings of Papists in Rome than those of Divines in England and Europe. He, thus, adapt the scholastic axiom of the inverse rule in intention and execution mainly whereby to testify his supralasarian view on the order of decree and on the object of predestination as human not yet created. Three points this paper makes are what follows: 1) it is impossible for Twisse to divide content and method in that, whereas the latter does not produce the former, the former could be damaged without the proper understanding and application of the latter; 2) Twisse believes that the glory of God, as the only end of all other decrees, should be first in intention, and then all those other decrees of God should be intended for one entire coordinate and complete means conducing to the glory of God, any one decree of them not subordinate any of the others; 3) with regard to the object of predestination as massa nondum condita, Twisse intends to see the meaning of sin in the context of intention and execution. It is in light of these three points that this paper attempts to see Twisse’s view on the object of predestination.