Greg Welty said...
Hi Ynottony,
I think, then, that this is the issue you're going to have to mull over in your forthcoming reply.
You say:
"Just because there is a divine purpose to leave the non-elect in their sins everlastingly, it doesn't follow that God never, at any point, wanted their compliance to what he commanded."
And:
"He is not insincere in giving His gospel offer to the non-elect because it's still true that He wills their life, according to the revealed or preceptive will of God."
And:
"... the existence of a secret will does not diminish the existence of the revealed will."
I entirely agree with all of this. But notice that what ensures the sincerity of the free offer is, for you, the same in all three assertions above. As long as God "wants compliance to what he commanded" -- that is, as long as we affirm "the revealed or preceptive will of God" -- then that is sufficient for sincerity.
But, presumably, the advocate of Owenic limited atonement can believe in this divine "want" or "revealed will" as well. There's nothing in the Owenic version of limited atonement that excludes it (as far as I can tell). So what's sufficient grounding for you is sufficient grounding for them. Thus, if this particular grounding of the free offer works, it works for all.
So I think the task you have cut out for you in the second part of your series is giving a good argument for the view that those who believe in Owenic limited atonement can have no place for the revealed will of God. A tall order, I say :-)
Thanks for your work.
http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2007/04/sincerity-of-gospel-offer-consistent.html?showComment=1177099980000#c1513963254216463356
Greg Welty said...
First, let's lay some groundwork. We both believe the gospel is to be promiscuously preached to all without exception. We both believe that God sincerely offers salvation to all without exception in the gospel. We both believe that it is the duty of all without exception to repent and believe the gospel, whenever and wherever that gospel is preached to them. We both believe that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We both believe that God loves all without exception (not mere charity or benevolence, but love). I have preached this in the past, and I shall continue to preach it in the future. (Indeed, hopefully this coming Sunday!)
Our disagreement is in the context of these basic, shared commitments. I say this not to inform you of anything you didn't already know, but to inform any readers who stop by as to my basic commitments in these matters. Whether I'm consistent in maintaining these commitments in light of other beliefs is another matter :-) but as a matter of fundamental confession, here I stand. You'll get no defense of hyper-Calvinism from me.
The question before us is whether a particular understanding of the atonement -- namely, Owenic limited atonement -- is compatible with the free and sincere offer of the gospel to all without exception.
What you're trying to do here is set up an asymmetry between the implications of unconditional election and the implications of Owenic atonement. You've got to say, "Although the fact of election doesn't preclude sincerity, the fact of Owenic atonement does preclude sincerity." And here's where things go awry. If I understand you correctly, then it seems to me that the very thing about Owenic atonement that (allegedly) precludes sincerity, is the very thing already present in unconditional election, namely, a divine intention or purpose to give full and final salvation to the elect alone. So by your own standards of what is required for sincerity, election precludes it.
Clearly, you think I've overlooked something in the above response. In particular, I've allegedly overlooked the fact that the revealed will of God in the gospel offer needs to have an adequate ground, and that ground is to be found in the provision of non-Owenic atonement. You might put it this way: "Election doesn't undermine sincerity, but it is compatible with it, as long as I have something else in my theology that grounds the sincerity of the gospel offer. And non-Owenic atonement is it. By way of contrast, the Owenic atonement advocate -- in virtue of being an Owenic atonement advocate -- has deprived himself of the only possible grounds for sincerity in the gospel offer. So while I agree that his mere advocacy of unconditional election doesn't preclude sincerity, I affirm that his continued insistence on Owenic atonement removes the only possible grounds for sincerity that there could be. In short, the revealed will of God must have grounds, or it is hypocritical. Election plus Owenic atonement doesn't get you those grounds, but election plus non-Owenic atonement does. So clearly it is the latter package of doctrines, and not the former, which preserves sincerity, because it provides grounds for that sincerity."
Let's get to the details of forming a response.
You say:
[begin quote]
The gospel, however, wherein Christ and all that he accomplished is offered on condition of faith, directs men to the revealed will of God. The lost are not commanded to believe in the secret will of God (i.e. that Christ died for them as one of the elect), or in his unconditional election of some to eternal life. I trust that Dr. Welty agrees with this.
[end quote]
Yes, I do agree. And now I have a question for you: are the lost ever commanded to believe that Christ died for them in particular?
You see, this question is important, because your argument here about the nature of the gospel and its relation to the revealed will of God has at least a quasi-biblical component. You are seeking to allow the Scriptures to inform your understanding of God's revealed will in the gospel. This is wonderful, and I applaud it. Thus you cite Jn 3:14, Ac 16:31, Heb 9:22. But none of these texts ask anyone to believe that Christ died for them in particular.
If -- in the Scriptures -- the lost are never commanded to believe that Christ died for them in particular, then why are you incorporating that into your understanding of the revealed will of God? That is, why are you adding a duty to have that belief? Is it not ironic that, in the name of pressing upon me the importance of the revealed will of God, you may have added to that revealed will?
As you are well aware, advocates of Owenic atonement have an alternative on offer: Jesus Christ is sufficient to save all that believe on him. Indeed, he will save to the uttermost those who come to God by faith in him. To revert to one of your prooftexts, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Ac 16:31). This is indeed a promise of salvation held out to all without exception, but it is a promise for the salvation of believers, and of no one else. Notice that this Owenic alternative is eminently Scriptural, because it does not go beyond the testimony of the Scriptures themselves. In Scripture preaching, men are indiscriminately promised salvation, but they are promised salvation only if they trust in Christ. And this is precisely what is secured by an Owenic atonement: salvation on the occasion of belief.
What say you to this? It looks to me as if the advocate of Owenic atonement has a more Scriptural understanding of "the revealed will of God" than your alternative. And his distinctive view of atonement provides a perfect grounds for the revealed will of God in the gospel. The atonement is such that it provides redemption for anyone who believes. The revealed will of God in the gospel is that full and final salvation shall be given to anyone who believes. There is then a perfect match between Owenic atonement and the revealed will of God.
The only way someone could generate a "contradiction" within the Owenic advocate's understanding of the revealed will of God, is to misconstrue what the Owenic advocate -- or the Scriptures -- say about the revealed will of God. But you don't want to do that, do you? :-)
As a matter of fact, it appears that you already believe all this. You say that I associate Christ's cross-work with unconditional election, and then say, "The gospel, however, wherein Christ and all that he accomplished is offered on condition of faith, directs men to the revealed will of God." This is exactly right. In the gospel, "Christ and all that he accomplished is offered," but is only offered "on condition of faith." This just is "the revealed will of God" to which men are "directed". I couldn't agree more. But how this is inconsistent with Owenic limited atonement, I can scarcely see. The promises of the gospel are restricted: they are only for those who believe. The redemption of Christ is restricted: it is only for those who are elect. And in the gospel offer, men are not to busy themselves with the latter (whether they are elect), but with the former (whether they believe). And why is this? Because God has openly revealed that his salvation only comes to those who trust in Christ for salvation.
BTW, the above comment summarizes my entire reply, basically. The rest is just footnotes.
You say:
[begin quote]
One cannot exclusively compare Christ's sacrifice to the secret will, or to unconditional election. But, as I have already said, in order for Dr. Welty's comparison or analogy between (P) and (Q) to follow, the reductionistic association must be made. His sacrifice must be filtered through an exclusively decretal lense
[end quote]
You've only asserted this "reductionism." Where's the argument? It is precisely because Christ's death is sufficient to save all who ever believe, that what gets offered in the gospel is the fullness of salvation to all who believe! The idea that advocates of Owenic atonement have no place for a connection between the death of Christ and God's revealed will is plainly false. This connection is intimate and explicit. Owen makes this point repeatedly in Bk. 4, Ch. 1 of The Death of Death. You say that on my view, "Christ's atoning sacrifice has exclusive reference to the secret will of God alone"? I say: Bah, humbug :-)
You say:
[begin quote]
If an Owenic view, or a strictly limited view, is correct, then what are the sincere commands directing men to? Is there anything really available for them in the nature of Christ's work?
[end quote]
The sincere commands are directing them to believe in the only hope any man has for salvation, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. And what is "available for them in the nature of Christ's work" is nothing less than full and final salvation, if they believe. What, would you give them more? Would you tell them that in Christ they can find full and final salvation if they don't believe? Obviously not. Since you already believe in this restricting condition -- no salvation apart from faith in Christ -- what is the fuss all about? There is nothing available for anyone in the death of Christ, unless they believe! Surely you agree with this.
[begin quote]
I just see a limit in the special intent involved in Christ's death that results in a special application to the elect alone, but no where else.
[end quote]
Your "special application" here is, presumably, actual salvation, right? But if so, have you not thereby undermined the sincerity of the gospel offer, given your conditions for sincerity? If, with respect to intending salvation, God only intends the salvation of the elect alone in the atonement of Christ, then -- to borrow your earlier words for a moment -- "What are the sincere commands directing men to?" I mean, "Is there anything really available for them in the nature of Christ's work," if that work was intended for the salvation of the elect alone? Forget other things it might be intended for, the fact of the matter is that on your view salvific intent in the atonement is restricted to the elect alone. That is "the special intent involved in Christ's death," in your words. So on your view, God intends in the atonement the salvation of the elect alone, but nevertheless in the atonement there is "available" for the non-elect a salvation which is not in fact intended for them in the atonement? Is this not a palpable contradiction? As soon as you say God's special intent in the atonement is for the salvation of the elect alone, then you are immediately saddled with all of the sincerity issues you are trying to pin on the advocate of Owenic limited atonement.
Sure, you go on to "reject the idea that he had an exclusively decretal intent in dying," but as long as these other intentions do not include actual salvation, the problem remains. And if you say that God did intend the actual salvation of the non-elect in the atonement, then your "special intent" isn't special at all. It's common, to all without exception. In which case, come clean and drop the "special" language :-)
[begin quote]
Therefore, when the scripture points to Christ's satisfaction as something to be trusted or relied upon, it's underlining the fact that his cross-work is not in the exclusive domain of the secret will. There is a revealed will aspect as well.
[end quote]
Correct. So here's how the Owenic atonement advocate would put it. The cross of Christ is most assuredly the basis for God's revealed will in the gospel. It is because Christ died that salvation can be genuinely offered to all mankind. Not a half-salvation, but full and final salvation. But this salvation only comes to those who believe. Therefore, the only hope that anyone (without exception) has for salvation, is through belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, believe! It is your only hope! The fact that belief in Christ is your only hope only increases the urgency of the gospel call, rather than lessening it. The sacrifice of Christ brings salvation only to believers, so believe!
Why in the world is Owenic hypothetical sufficiency an inadequate basis for this revealed will of God in the gospel? It appears perfectly suited to it.
[begin quote]
Christ's death, by virtue of the indescriminate [sp] offers given in scripture, must be an *applicable* and/or *suitable* means whereby any man who hears the call may be forgiven or healed.
[end quote]
No, it's only "applicable" if there is faith. The mere fact that a man "hears the call" does not ensure that he will "be forgiven or healed." Christ's death will save them, if they have faith.
[begin quote]
What he has done is sufficient, suitable and applicable to all.
[end quote]
If they believe. And, of course, the way the Owenic atonement advocate conceives of this is that only the elect will believe, and God intends the salvation of the elect in the cross. (They won't make this claim about the elect to be part of the revealed will in the gospel, of course.) Now let's look at the alternative. On your view, the only people for whom God intended -- by way of the atonement -- full and final salvation, are the elect alone. This is God's "special intent" in the cross, which results in a "special application" to them (i.e., salvation). Given this, in what sense is Christ's work "applicable to all," as you put it? On your view, (i) in election, God does not intend salvation for the non-elect, and (ii) in the atonement, God does not intend salvation for the non-elect. So not only is the cross not applied to them in fact, it's not applicable to them, given (i) and (ii).
So what you need to do is cash out what you mean by "applicable to all". I have a feeling that when the dust settles, you'll be saying something that the Owenic atonement advocate can easily endorse as well.
[begin quote]
It seems obvious to us that the servants (and us) would view the King to be insincere if he 1) had no intention on feeding those invited and 2) he didn't make sufficient preparations to feed those invited. If I invited people to my house for a dinner without any intention to feed them, or without making adequate preparations to feed them, I would be viewed as an insincere hypocrit [sp]. Quite frankly, I would be viewed as confused, or, more likely, as a moron.
[end quote]
Surely you understand the Owenic view better than this! Re: your point (1), since you already accept unconditional election, you already believe that God has elected the elect alone to salvation. Is it your position that, given this, God has an intention to save those whom he has not elected to salvation? I'm not speaking of desire or pleasure here. I'm speaking of intention, of purpose. Surely it would be "moronic" of me -- or at least "confused" -- to intend that Kerry win but then vote for Bush, when it was entirely within my power to vote for Kerry. Or do you disagree? What does it mean to say, "I really intend/purpose for you to get the salvation/feast, but I'm not going to select you for it ahead of time, even though I could?"
I don't know how you get out of this conundrum. But whatever solution you offer, it's easily available to me as well. And that's the problem with your attempt to cite Mt 22:4 against me. We're doing systematic theology here. We're both committed to unconditional election. There are plenty of Arminian critics of Calvinism who would say that unconditional election is moronic and confused, in light of Mt 22:4. What are you going to say? Do particular Bible truths blink on and off, depending on which verse we're reading? ;-)
Re: your point (2), the Owenic view is that the preparations would be sufficient for all if God had so intended. There is nothing in the death of Christ which makes it insufficient for the salvation of all without exception, and for many more worlds besides. Owen makes that clear in the chapter noted above. The limitation comes in with respect to God's intention in that cross-work, but that limitation is not intrinsic to the cross-work itself.
The problem here, is that by pressing the feast analogy in terms of "sufficient preparations," it is ironically the critic of Owenic atonement who is falling into an overly quantitative conception of the atonement ;-) The atonement is not a hundred plates of food put together rather than a thousand plates. The very idea is absurd. It is the death of the God-man upon the cross. But if you want to measure "sufficiency" by the number of plates of food provided, be my guest! ;-)
Again, we're doing systematic theology here, and we're looking for a view that is (i) consistent with the Scriptures, and (ii) consistent with itself. That's why we're talking about stuff like the secret and revealed will of God. For the purposes of systematic theology, it matters whether we end up contradicting ourselves. And I just don't see how you've escaped the original charge of inconsistency, given your standards for sincerity. Your reference to the feast of Mt 22:4 only presses home this point all the more. We both believe in unconditional election. So (as I put it to a friend recently), let's say you spread out the most sumptuous feast at your house, but then bolt the doors with titanium locks, and hand out keys to a select few, and I'm not one of them. "Come on over to my place for lunch," you say. Is this a sincere offer, given the fact that you never gave me a key, and never will give me a key? Does the mere fact that an actual meal is sitting on the table mean that the offer is sincere? How could that be, given that the locks are on the doors? At this point, of what relevance at all is your point (2) above? Let's say you did "make sufficient preparations to feed those invited," including more than enough plates for me. How would that rescue the sincerity of the invitation, given that the locks are on the doors?
Look, you either believe in unconditional election or you do not. If you do, then you're going to have to bite the bullet here, and understand the sincerity of the gospel offer in a way that is compatible with God electing some and not all to salvation. It won't do a whit of good to say, "But Christ is actually sufficient for all, you see, so it doesn't matter if God doesn't intend to save the non-elect by Christ. Actual sufficiency guarantees sincerity." No, it doesn't. Not if certain background truths are in place.
God has only elected some to salvation. Given this, raising some sort of "sincerity" problem for advocates of Owenic limited atonement, while refusing to see that that same problem is generated for those who reject Owenic limited atonement, is misleading at best.
Here's another way to put it. We can look at this from the perspective of the secret will, or from the perspective of the revealed will. Re: the former, whatever account of sincerity we can come up with that is compatible with God's intention to save some and not all, is an account that you and I can both use. And it's an account that you and I both need to have, since we agree about the secret will of God. So no problem there, for either of us. Re: the latter (the revealed will of God), the sufficiency of Christ to save all who come to him by faith is all that is needed for sincerity in the revealed will of God in the gospel. In the gospel, God publishes his grand and gracious intention to save all who come to him by faith. In the gospel, God offers full and final salvation to all who come to him by faith. No problem with Owenic atonement here, because on that view the atonement is sufficient to save all who come to God by faith. The nature of the atonement grounds God's revealed will to all mankind, because that revealed will is not salvation apart from faith, but by means of faith. So either way we look at it, there's just no problem :-)
Here, however, is a problem for your view, and it is revealed in your use of Mt 22:4. You say that the conditions for sincerity in the gospel call are: (1) you have an intention on feeding those invited and (2) you made sufficient preparations to feed those invited.
Yikes! You've now defined an aspect of God's revealed will, in terms of his secret will. On your view, God's revealed will is not sincere unless God "has an intention" to save those who are invited to salvation. But, of course, you've already expressed your agreement with unconditional election. God intends full and final salvation for the elect alone.
Again, this is ironic, because it is you who is accusing me of not getting the secret will and the revealed will straight. It is you who is accusing me of not seeing a contradiction in my understanding of the revealed will of God. But, it seems to me, you have a more profound confusion in these matters. By defining God's revealed will in terms of his secret will, you've collapsed the distinction between the two. If, to be sincere, God's revealed will must rest upon God's actual intention to save so-and-so, then God's revealed will just is his secret will in disguise.
You have a way out here, of course. You could just say that by "intention" you simply meant God's desire, or pleasure, in the salvation of all, even if he hasn't elected them. Well, as I already pointed out in an earlier comment at this site, the Owenic advocate could easily accommodate that claim. So you've either contradicted yourself (by distinguishing and then collapsing the distinction between the secret and revealed wills), or you haven't raised a problem for the Owenic view. Clarify as you see fit :-)
[begin quote]
There is a door opened for all in and through the Shepherd, therefore he bids men to walk through him.
[end quote]
Yes, all these sentences in this paragraph are very nice, and preach well, but it's their vagueness that prevents them from actually settling anything between us. That's no reflection on the Scriptures, of course, just an admission that the Scriptures are not as precise as we would like them to be, for the purpose of settling certain theological debates. OK, there is a door opened "for all". What does this "for all" mean? Does it mean: for all, irrespective of whether they have faith? Or does it mean: for all who enter through that door by faith? The language is compatible with either. Thus, simple citations of or allusions to Jn 10 won't settle this. They are polemically inert, as it were.
[begin quote]
The gospel call does not direct the eyes of the lost to an inadequate or inapplicable remedy. It directs them to a remedy that is ABLE TO BE APPLIED through the instrumentality of faith.
[end quote]
I wonder if you realize that I can all-caps some other words in this? "It directs them to a remedy that is able to be applied THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF FAITH." You can't neglect this restriction, which is not only God-ordained but God-revealed. In other words, the death of Christ is not so sufficient that it can save apart from faith. So it's not sufficient to save those who never come to faith. Or do you disagree with this? If you don't, then once again I don't see how a problem has been raised for Owenic atonement.
[begin quote]
If he didn't suffer for all, then the virtue of his obedience cannot be applied to all. If it cannot be applied to all, even to the non-elect who hear, then it seems that, in their case, he is inviting them to an empty table or to an empty cistern. In their case, "all things are" NOT "prepared." Not only do the servants (us) come across as insincere hypocrits, but so does the great King himself!
[end quote]
Again, this preaches well. But the problem is that you are forgetting unconditional election. That is a theological reality that you either agree with or don't. You've said you agree with it. But then we can easily offer a paraphrase of the above argument, directed not to me but to you: "If God didn't elect all -- that is, purpose the full and final salvation of all -- then his salvation cannot be applied to all. [What sense would it make to say that God's salvation can be applied to those whom he never chose for salvation? What's the sense of 'can' here? God 'can' contradict himself? Perish the thought!] If it cannot be applied to all, even to the non-elect who hear, then it seems that, in their case, he is inviting them to an empty table or to an empty cistern, etc."
Again, you gave an answer to this last time. You drew a distinction between God's revealed will and his secret will. Good. But unfortunately, with this second post, what you gave with one hand you took away with the other. Whereas in post one you clearly drew a distinction between God's revealed will and his secret will, in post two you end up defining God's revealed will in terms of his secret will, so that the distinction collapses. On your view, it would not "really" be God's revealed will that all come to Christ for salvation by the gospel unless God intends that they come. But God's purpose as to who shall and shall not be saved has already been settled, correct? Unconditional election just is the intention of God with respect to salvation.
The upshot is that you distinguished the two wills in order to deal with the election problem, only to collapse the two wills in order to deal with the limited atonement problem. In order to defend the sincerity of the gospel offer, in the face of both unconditional election and limited atonement, you must both distinguish and not distinguish the two wills of God.
I have quite a bit to say on the historical and confessional material, but I think I'll just summarize here, as I'd like to keep this discussion as close to directly Scriptural considerations as possible. My general comment is that I don't think you've handled the Dordtian material well. The only way to make this material relevant to the question before us -- Owenic or non-Owenic atonement? -- is to arbitrarily introduce qualifiers that aren't there. Many of the passages you cite are entirely compatible with the Owenic view. They certainly don't exclude it. In addition, I'm already on record as arguing that the Canons of Dordt are inconsistent in their account of the sufficiency of Christ's death, but that's another discussion :-)
I find some of the Hodge material simply daft, although I have extraordinary respect for his systematic in many other points. First, you cite him but don't seem to see that his contrast is not with Owenic limited atonement, but with "Anti-Augustinian schemes":
[begin quote]
What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as any other scheme. [emphasis yours]
[end quote]
According to Hodge, when anti-Augustinians say that, "the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible," ***"all they can mean by this is"***, "if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing." Exactly right. And Owenic atonement advocates "say the same thing" as well. If any man believes, he shall on the ground of Christ's cross-work be certainly saved. If that's "all" anti-Augustinians and Augustinians mean by the salvation of all men being "possible," then I'm in good company, I think.
But here's the daft part. Hodge says:
[begin quote]
It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel.
[end quote]
This is just Hodge letting the doctrine of unconditional election (not to mention the doctrine of irresistible grace) go on holiday, so he can bat away those pesky anti-Augustinians. "In effecting the salvation of his own people," God "did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men." Is Hodge kidding? Let me get this straight. The cross alone did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men. Full-stop. Umm, isn't it the case, for the Calvinist Hodge, that no one can be saved unless God elects them for salvation? Nor can they be saved, unless God draws them to himself with special grace? What, does he mean to envision a situation in which God doesn't elect someone for salvation, and yet they get saved anyway? God doesn't draw them to himself, and yet they get saved anyway? What would that mean? Of course, on the Calvinist scheme, unconditional election to salvation is a necessary condition for salvation. And of course on the Calvinist scheme, God has not elected all. So of course God has not done "whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men." Ditto for irresistible grace.
What was Hodge thinking? Just restricting ourselves to necessary conditions for salvation (and leaving sufficient conditions aside), it's ludicrous to think that someone can be saved apart from election. Election is a necessary condition for salvation. Even Arminians agree with this, for goodness' sake! So either Hodge is a universalist, believing that all without exception will be saved because all without exception have been elected, or Hodge thinks one can be saved quite apart from divine election. Pick your poison. Ditto for prevenient grace. I can scarcely understand the view that neither election nor irresistible grace are necessary conditions for salvation. Surely they are, in the Calvinist scheme.
BTW, in my view, this is par for the course in most of the Presbyterian theologians that get cited for your side. I have no doubt that they believed what you say they believed. But I find their arguments atrocious on these points. The above argument for how the free offer gets grounded is just silly. It's Hodge forgetting some of his fundamental theological commitments, for the sake of making his Calvinism not look too harsh when compared with his anti-Calvinist critics of the day.
I agree with the first part of the Shedd quote, where he grounds the universality of the free offer. (Surprised?) I disagree with the second part of the quote, that is, with the way he defends the sincerity of the offer. (Obviously, I believe the offer is sincere.) Shedd says:
[begin quote]
The fact that God does not in the case of the nonelect bestow special grace to overcome the resisting self-will that renders the gifts of providence and common grace ineffectual does not prove that he is insincere in his desire that man would believe under the influence of common grace any more than the fact that a benevolent man declines to double the amount of his gift, after the gift already offered has been spurned, proves that he did not sincerely desire that the person would take the sum first offered.
[end quote]
Give me a break. On Shedd's view, God knows that common grace will never get a fallen man to believe the gospel. And knowing the insufficiency of common grace, God declines to give the special grace that is necessary to come to saving faith. And knowing the insufficiency of common grace, and knowing that he has declined to give the special grace that is necessary for faith, nevertheless God is not insincere in his desire that they believe. This is ridiculous. Shedd's got to come up with a better defense of sincerity than this, because he clearly isn't keeping his eye on the ball. What is wrong with these guys? It's like they shed their prior Calvinistic commitments when it becomes inconvenient, and hope no one notices. His analogy to "a benevolent man" is disanalogous at the precise point it needs to be analogous, in order to have any argumentative force. Yes, not giving special grace doesn't entail -- all by itself -- that God is insincere in wanting them to be converted by common grace. But God's got to be a "moron" (or perhaps "confused") if he really thinks his common grace is going to overcome total depravity. I don't know: can morons or confused people be sincere? I guess so. How this is a defense of God, I have no idea.
In your "Conclusion," you say that on the Owenic view, Christ:
[begin quote]
... satisfies the righteous requirements of the law in the stead of the elect *alone*, and therefore his blood cannot atone for any non-elect person.
[end quote]
Sure it can, if God so intends. This is explicit in Owen.
You say, on Owen's view:
[begin quote]
The non-elect are not merely hindered from salvation by the moral stubbornness of their own unbelief, but *they are also blocked from the possibility of salvation by the very nature of Christ's satisfaction itself*.
[end quote]
Would you not say that, given the reality of unconditional election, they are already blocked from the possibility of salvation? Or do you think it is possible to be saved even if God has not elected you to salvation? Again, even Arminians grasp this elementary point, about the necessity of election.
I'm frankly surprised you're not addressing this point. We seem to be right back at the beginning. You're raising issues for my theology which, if sound, would be problems for yours as well. "Possibility of salvation" is determined by God's secret will, is it not? Why is God's prior choice suddenly irrelevant to all of this?
You say that, on Owen's view:
[begin quote]
The nature of the sacrifice itself would have to change in order for their salvation to be possible.
[end quote]
No, the divine intention would have to change, that's all. Again, this is explicit in Owen. Christ's atonement would be sufficient for them, if God had so intended. Christ wouldn't have had to die another death, or a different death, or something like that.
[begin quote]
The scriptures, on the other hand, hold out Christ's sacrifice as really able to save to the uttermost all sinners, on condition of faith.
[end quote]
Argh! :-) As if the Owenic atonement advocate would disagree with this. It's the point I've been emphasizing all along: on condition of faith. If you want to abstract the sufficiency away from that condition, be my guest. But I think that move would be eminently unbiblical.
[begin quote]
Without a real sufficiency, the gospel offers nothing to the non-elect. In their case, it's a deceptive cloud without water. It merely commands them to look to what amounts to an insufficient provision, thus undermining the sincerity of God in issuing such proposal.
[end quote]
Look, either the sincerity of the gospel offer depends on the secret will of God, or it does not. If it doesn't, then we're both home free. If it does, then you're in big trouble, because unconditional election generates the issue you note above. To paraphrase: "Without electing the non-elect to salvation, the gospel offers nothing to the non-elect. In their case, it's a deceptive cloud without water. It merely commands them to look to what amounts to an insufficient provision [because a necessary condition of its provision, namely, election unto faith, is absent, and that by divine choice], thus undermining the sincerity of God in issuing such a proposal."
And yes, you can offer the following rejoinder: "But that's cheating. Figuring out who is and is not elect has nothing to do with the revealed will of God in the gospel! So that's irrelevant to undermining sincerity."
Bingo! And likewise, figuring out who are and who are not the people for whom Christ died has nothing to do with the revealed will of God in the gospel. So you invoking that issue is likewise irrelevant in undermining sincerity. No one in NT gospel preaching is ever asked to believe that Christ died for them specifically, even as no one in NT gospel preaching is ever asked to believe that the Father elected them specifically." Neither of these aspects of God's secret will have any place in constructing a doctrine of sincere, gospel offers. So, to conclude, I stand by my original parallel, and I think I do so on biblical grounds.
(BTW, my reply, believe it or not, is shorter than yours, by about a hundred words :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment