THEOPARADOX SAID:
I believe you've been woefully unfair to Ponter and Byrne. They would not identify themselves as "4-point" Calvinists, and both affirm Particular Redemption as the intent of the atonement. Their issue is with the extent of the expiation made.
i) Ponter has explicitly targeted limited atonement in this thread. So he is attacking one plank of 5-point Calvinism. By his own process of elimination, that leaves him with 4-point Calvinism.
ii) To drive a wedge between the intent of the atonement and the extent of the atonement means that God fails to achieve his goal. He intended a merely limited atonement, but somehow it got loose and grew into an unlimited atonement.
iii) It’s not as if the 4-point Calvinism of Ponter begins with the same concept of redemption as 5-point Calvinism, but simply extends the scope of the atonement to everyone. Rather, it fundamentally redefines the nature of the atonement.
In 5-point Calvinism, redemption secures the salvation of the redeemed. Ponter’s 4-point Calvinism, by contrast, cuts the tie between who is redeemed and who is saved. By the same token it cuts the tie between redemption and assurance.
On another note . . . filing this and similar posts under "Anti-Calvinism" appears extreme and reactionary. Is it possible that Calvinism is a slightly wider stream than you imply? Do you really think Moderates are ANTI-Calvinist?
i) Ponter has widened the stream so that both the saints and the damned wash down the same stream.
ii) In his latest post, here is how Ponter has characterized the opposing position, in contrast to what he euphemistically dubs “moderate Calvinism”:
Such a divine offer would be insincere, disingenuous, illegitimate and ill-meant.
And so for God to make a pretense of offering forgiveness to the NDF is insincere and a mockery.
Nor will it be allowed that any aspect of the secret will can falsify the sincerity or truthfulness of the revealed will.
It is not that such a “definition” or meaning of “offer” is idiosyncratic, but that it’s just a falsehood.
God would just be mocking Harry. God would be playing with him. God would [be] tantalizing him with a lie.
As a proposal of means to salvation, is just as insincere, inchoate and dishonest. It is a lying proposal and there would be no way to absolve God from the charge of lying.
The assumption throughout this paper is that an ill-meant offer is by definition insincere and a lying offer. This is obvious as the biblical offer, on its face, implies a willingness and a desire that the offeree take up the thing offered in order to be benefitted. Normal people reject the hypercalvinist notion that an offer to inflict suffering or to bring about affliction is not sincere and not well-meant. For this converts God into a monster…
Ponter’s not talking about widening the stream. Rather, this is where the stream diverges into two different tributaries. He’s going down a different stream.
ii) To drive a wedge between the intent of the atonement and the extent of the atonement means that God fails to achieve his goal.
ReplyDeleteBut for some 4 point Calvinists and Amyraldians, they view as God's goal the provision of atonement for all SO THAT reprobates are really without excuse. In which case, God's intention *is* fulfilled. This is similar to how God's Common Grace, which is really experienced by the non-elect, leads to greater condemnation for the non-elect due to their lack of gratitude.
By the same token it cuts the tie between redemption and assurance.
But shouldn't our assurance of salvation primarily come from the promises of God in the Gospel (and only secondarily on whether there are signs of grace in our lives), rather than whether Christ's atonement was limited or unlimited? Basing our assurance of salvation on the extent of the atonement would be like basing our assurance of salvation on our election when it should be the opposite. We should be basing our (fallible) knowledge of our election on our experience of salvation.
BTW, I strongly lean to limited atonement. I'm just not dogmatic about it. What I don't understand is why most 5 Point Calvinists *are* dogmatic about it and view Limited Atonement as being so essential to a consistent form of Calvinism. We all agree that Christ's sacrifice was and is of such infinite value that *if* God wanted to save every single person, the value and efficacy of Christ's sacrifice *is* already sufficient to do that (save everyone). We also all agree that Christ wouldn't have had to suffer more (either in temporal length, or intensity/degree etc.) to do that. If that's the case, then it seems to me, the difference between Limited Atonement and Unlimited atonement is not something ontological/metaphysical, but teleological. And the 4 point Calvinists believes that maybe God specifically intended (i.e. teleologically designed) the atonement to make provision for the non-elect for the very reason I mentioned above, viz. to leave them without excuse.
BTW, among the books I've read on this subject are Owen's classic defense of limited atonement (The Death of Death in the Death of Christ) as well as Lightner's book in defense of Unlimited Atonement (The Death Christ Died). I think Limited/Definite Atonement (AKA Particular Redemption) has the better arguments (just not conclusive IMHO). Logically and theologically, Limited Atonement makes more sense to me. But Biblically the evidence just isn't clear enough for me to say which is the correct position. Practically, IMO, Unlimited Atonement is easier to share, defend, and use as a foundation for our evangelistic appeal.
Conversely, I confess that in the past when I've been dogmatic about Limited Atonement, it's been harder to do evangelism.
Let me also say that I think Hays, Manata, and Anderson have been presenting the better arguments in their dialogue with Ponter.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token it cuts the tie between redemption and assurance.
ReplyDeleteReading Steve's comment again, I realize that Steve probably wasn't saying that we should be basing our assurance on the extent of the atonement. Nevertheless, I don't see how the 4 point Calvinist view "cuts the tie between redemption and assurance". Since, if Christ paid for all, then that also includes the few. Though, the 4 point Calvinist view does seem to diminish the force of passages like Romans 8:32-33a which says:
32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?..."
Paul seems to tie election and redemption.
According to some Arminians, one of the best defenses of Unlimited Atonement is the 740 page book by John Goodwin titled "Redemption Redeemed" (which was a response to Owen's book within 6 years). It's freely available online at <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/RedemptionRedeemedWhereinTheMostGloriousWorkOfTheRedemptionOfThe>this link</a>
ReplyDeleteOwen wrote his book in response to Arminianism, Amyraldism, and to Thomas More/Moore's book "The Universality of God’s Free Grace in Christ to Mankind". Looking it up on WorldCat there aren't many copies left in existence. There are some copies in Europe (like Britain and Germany).
ANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDelete"But shouldn't our assurance of salvation primarily come from the promises of God in the Gospel (and only secondarily on whether there are signs of grace in our lives), rather than whether Christ's atonement was limited or unlimited?"
i) It should be grounded in the nature of what Christ did for us. What's the significance of his vicarious atonement? What does it do for the beneficiaries?
ii) You need to distinguish between (a) how can someone know he's saved? and (b) what does it mean to be saved? What does redemption confer?
"Reading Steve's comment again, I realize that Steve probably wasn't saying that we should be basing our assurance on the extent of the atonement. Nevertheless, I don't see how the 4 point Calvinist view 'cuts the tie between redemption and assurance'. Since, if Christ paid for all, then that also includes the few."
But "what he paid for" in 4-point Calvinism doesn't have the same value. It doesn't secure the salvation of the redeemed.
Yes, if it includes everyone, then it includes a subset of everyone. But it diminishes the benefit in the process.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for addressing my questions.
What you seem to be saying is that those who:
A) Hold to the 5 Dortian points of Calvinism, including Particular Redemption (rather than the "L" in Boettner's "TULIP" - an acronym which first appeared circa 1905 or later), and
B) View the atonement as primarily limited or particular in its intent rather than its extent (in contradistinction to the narrow Owenic version of "Limited Atonement")
are actually anti-Calvinists.
My friend, if I am reading this correctly you have just thrown some of the best Reformed thinkers in history under the theological bus (including, perhaps, Calvin himself). I hope I'm misreading, though your point seems clear enough.
Are you aware that some of the framers of the Canons of Dort and of the Westminster Confession articulated the kinds of views that you are here defining as "anti-Calvinist"? Not to mention, the Heidelberg Catechism affirms unlimited atonement explicitly. I have a hard time viewing any of those documents, or any of their writers, as anti-Calvinist.
Consider Q. 37 in the Heidelberg:
"What dost thou understand by the words, 'He suffered'?
A. That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God
against the sins of all mankind: that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life."
Notice that Heidelberg affirms what your opponents affirm: unlimited extent of atonement ("the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind") with particular intent ("that he might redeem our [i.e., the elect's] body and soul," etc.). The writer of Heidelberg apparently didn't think his view was "4-point", inconsistent or "anti-Calvinist". Or perhaps he was in the anti-Calvinist stream himself? Perhaps he just forgot to read Boettner's book before writing his Reformed catechism. Maybe he's rolling over in his grave right now, thinking, "Stupid me! I affirmed a TUPIP instead of a TULIP! And now it's part of the Three Forms of Unity! Doh."
On the other hand, can you affirm Heidelberg's answer to Q. 37? If not, maybe you are the one who is anti-Calvinist.
Can you at least admit that your opponents are "Dortian" and "Heidelbergian" 5-point Calvinists, if not "Boettnerian" and "Owenian"? That they are not anti-Calvinists at all, but moderates like so many of our forbears? Hold fast to High Calvinism if you like, but please don't try to rewrite history or redefine the term "Calvinist" to support it. Such supports can only weaken your argument because they are so easily discredited when held up to the light of history.
At any rate, I sincerely hope you'll have a change of heart on this matter.
Blessings,
Derek
THEOPARADOX, if you want to just focus on Steve's response that's fine. But I'm confused and maybe some other amateur Calvinists like myself are too. Is there an article that explains the distinctions you're making?
ReplyDeleteMy knowledge of Calvinism is only slightly more than basic. I've always thought that all 5 point Calvinists affirm 1. the limited intent of the atonement, 2. the limited extent of the atonement, 3. the infinite value of Christ's atonement. I'm assuming that #2 and #3 are different issues, but I got the impression that maybe you see them as dealing with the same issue but on opposite sides.
What specifically is entailed in the idea of an unlimited *extent* of the atonement compared to a limited one?
Are you saying that there are some Calvinists who knowingly deny the infinite value of Christ's atonement? Or are you saying some (e.g. Steve?) deny it "in principle" without meaning to?
Are you saying one can EITHER affirm the limited intent of the atonement *OR* the limited extent of the atonement (but not both)? Or are you saying that while one can affirm both, one can also affirm just one and deny the other?
I know that there are some Calvinist who affirm a dual view of the atonement whereby there are benefits purchased only for the elect while other benefits purchased for both the elect and non-elect.
You seem to be saying that while all 5 point Calvinists affirm the limited intent of the atonement not all affirm the limited extent and/or the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice. Would I be right there?
I wish websites like Calvin and Calvinism had an article or a chart of all the combinational possibilities with respect to the nature of the atonement. It's my understanding that this website tries to document how there has been a long tradition of Reformational and (even) Calvinistic theologians who have held views on the atonement that are different than the usual popular understanding of modern 5 Point Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteSteve, as always, I won't be offended if you don't respond to this post since I don't want to hog your time. And especially since I'm not arguing for any position.
ReplyDeletei) It should be grounded in the nature of what Christ did for us. What's the significance of his vicarious atonement? What does it do for the beneficiaries?
What added benefit does the Limited Atonement view offer believers that an Unlimited Atonement view doesn't such that it positively affects believers' assurance? Since 1. we're just as unable to divine (with apodictic certainty) God's intention in the atonement and whether we were included in it as 2. we're unable to divine God's decree as to whether we're elect or non-elect.
In fact, on the contrary, it seems to me that more people would tend to have greater doubts concerning the genuineness of their salvation if they believed that Limited Atonement were true than if they believed Unlimited Atonement were true.
But "what he paid for" in 4-point Calvinism doesn't have the same value. It doesn't secure the salvation of the redeemed.
Why must the securing of salvation be located in the atonement rather than in the application of the benefits of the atonement at regeneration or at adoption (or maybe even at justification)?
Yes, if it includes everyone, then it includes a subset of everyone. But it diminishes the benefit in the process.
I'm not sure how it does diminish the benefit. Are you referring to the salvific benefit, or the psychological benefit with respect to the subjective sense of assurance (based of course on a certain understanding of redemption)?
It seems like we might be confusing
1. the foundation of, or the grounds whereby salvation is *secured*.
2.the objective *security* of one's salvation once someone is saved
3. the subjective psychological sense of *assurance* based on things like specific doctrines, experiences, feelings, the testimony of the Holy Spirit (etc.).
Well, Derek, that’s a nice bait-n-switch. Feel free to quote where Dort or the WCF say Christ redeemed or made vicarious atonement for the damned.
ReplyDeleteAlso, feel free to quote where Dort or WCF say limited atonement (or your preferred synonym) renders the gospel offer a “lying” offer, “disingenuous,” a “mockery,” makes God a “liar,” makes God “monstrous,” &c.
AP,
ReplyDeletei) One can only apply what is already in the atonement.
ii) Subjective assurance must be grounded in objective facts.
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDeleteHere are a few quick thoughts in response to your questions, mostly drawing from other sources.
AP: "Is there an article that explains the distinctions you're making?"
I like your idea of a chart. Here is one attempt at that, though it might not cover exactly what you're seeking:
http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2008/11/conference-chart.html
For a good discussion of the historical differences concerning the extent of the atonement among Calvinists, I very highly recommend this article by Phil Johnson:
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2joh0001.htm
Johnson says:
"... don't imagine that there is just one view for the Limited Atonement position and another view for the Unlimited Atonement position. As if there are two polar opposites here and they compete against each other. This is not really an either/or position even among Calvinists. And in fact, historically, the most intense debates about Limited Atonement have come over the past 400 years, they've all been intramural debates between Calvinists, among Calvinists. There are at least three major divisions of Calvinists. There are the high Calvinists. They have one opinion about how the atonement is limited; they tend to try to say it's limited in its sufficiency. You've got the moderate Calvinists and you've got the low Calvinists and they all have different views and there are many shades and degrees in between. . . . I bet if you could poll every Calvinist in this room you'd find that no two of us agree on every point and every particular related to this issue. There is not just one Calvinist position on limited atonement. There are many."
He later advises:
"I want to encourage you read Andrew Fuller and Thomas Boston. Read what people like Robert L. Dabney and William G. T. Shedd and B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge wrote on the subject of the atonement. Read John Owen too, but don't imagine that John Owen's book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ represents the only strain of Calvinist thought on the issue. It doesn't. In fact, far from it. If you begin to study this issue in depth you will quickly discover that the classic Calvinist view on the extent of the atonement is a lot less narrow and a lot less cut and dried than the typical seminary student Calvinist on the Internet wants to admit. Historic Calvinism, as a movement has usually acknowledged that there are universal aspects of the atonement. Calvin himself had a view of the extent of the atonement that was far more broad and far more extensive than the average Calvinist today would care to recognize."
That pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say to Steve. Anyone who knows anything about the history of this debate knows the "Anti-Calvinist" label is profoundly inaccurate. It's only harming Steve's case, and I don't enjoy seeing any Calvinist inadvertently shoot himself in the foot while taking pot shots at other Calvinists. It's embarrassing to all of us.
BTW, Dabney and Shedd are probably closest to Ponter's view of the atonement. And from what I know of Dabney, I suspect you wouldn't want to be in the same room when you called him an "Anti-Calvinist".
Blessings,
Derek
Steve,
ReplyDeleteDerek was saying this:
1a) Ursinus *positively taught* (in the Heidelberg Catechism and his Commentary on it) that Christ satisfied for the sins of all men, and 1b) Dort and the WCF *does not exclude* that position as orthodox (not "anti-Calvinist"), without positively endorsing/teaching it.
He was *not* saying this:
2b) Dort and the WCF positively teach that Christ made vicarious atonement for the non-elect.
It's clear to some of us that you've switched historical claim #1b to claim #2b when you require Derek to "quote where Dort or the WCF say Christ redeemed or made vicarious atonement for the damned" to sustain his claim.
Derek's basic historical claim was that, given Ursinus' view of universal satisfaction, and the fact that Dort and the WCF do not preclude that position, it is therefore wrong to say that a universal satisfaction (or unlimited imputation) view is "anti-Calvinism." It is a view *within* Reformed orthodoxy. The framers of these confessions knew about the variations *within* the orthodox camp, so they were broad enough in their language to *allow* for their different atonement views.
If you're going to *continually* tag all your recent posted interactions with David, Derek and others as "anti-Calvinism" (an historical claim), then that is wrong. While this historical matter is not the subject matter of your posts, it is your regular *and inappropriate* tag for your interactions with David and others within his orthodox Calvinistic trajectory, so it matters. Derek's point is that you keep tagging your posts with a bogus historical claim of "anti-Calvinism" against the Heidelberg trajectory itself.
Long ago it was known that the positions of John Davenant and James Ussher, for instance, were orthodox. The strict Calvinist and Puritan Theophilus Gale (1628-1678) observed that these men maintained "Christ's death to be an universal remedy applicable to all," but he counted them "pious," "learned," "of great worth" and "truly orthodox in point of Grace." While he differed with them on some points, he said he "can own them as friends of Grace." See Theophilus Gale, The Court of the Gentiles (London: Printed for William Freeman, over against the Devil-Tavern near Temple-Bar, in Fleet-street, 1682), Part IV, Book III, 150.
Gale's view that these men were "truly orthodox" is being reiterated today by Richard Muller, Jonathan Moore, and others today (Carl Trueman, Robert Godfrey, Robert Letham, Lee Gatiss, etc.). Do you wish to challenge this assessment (or mislead others) by continually tagging your posts against David Ponter's atonement views as "anti-Calvinism"? Or are we missing the point of your "anti-Calvinism" label? David Ponter certainly thinks the High Owenic/Turretinian trajectory (as regularly distinguished from hyper-Calvinism by him), however seriously wrong in his estimation, is still within the orthodox camp historically.
It's always been the case historically that men in each orthodox Reformed position on the atonement have made serious charges against the theology of the other camp (Owen made vicious comments in The Death of Death even against Davenant's orthodox views), but that is not the same thing as claiming the other party is engaged in "anti-Calvinism" because of their atonement/offer criticisms.
i) Actually, as is clear from reading his commentary on the HC, Ursinus is simply elaborating on the old Lombardian distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement and the efficiency of the atonement.
ReplyDeleteii) In addition, you need to avoid imputing later debates to a 16C document.
iii) "Anticalvinism" is quite mild compared to the slash-n-burn rhetoric which Ponter has used to characterize limited atonement. But both you and Derek play on the same team as Ponter, so you reflect the same teamplayer mentality.
thanks for the links THEOparadox. I love that chart. I've been looking for a chart like that for a while.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know a similar chart that lists which theologians held to which lapsarian position?
I see that you bypassed commenting on my observation about your changing the nature of Derek's argument, Steve. Your depiction of Derek's claim was a straw man, unless you can show otherwise. Anyway...
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
"i) Actually, as is clear from reading his commentary on the HC, Ursinus is simply elaborating on the old Lombardian distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement and the efficiency of the atonement."
Me now:
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. First, no one is denying that Ursinus is elaborating on the Lombardian Formula. Second, that he is elaborating on it in no way falsifies the claim that he taught that Christ satisfied for all men. After all, that is the classic sense of the "sufficient for all" part of the Formula. That's the very reason why Beza, Owen were critical of it, and sought to revise it, with Owen changing the actual sufficiency statement into a hypothetical or instrinsic sufficiency, such that it could have been a sufficient price for all, had God so intended, etc. Tom Nettles is of the same mind today, as a strict particularist, which is why he (in By His Grace) denies Christ's death to be actually sufficient for all. Nettles is like Arthur Pink, who, after quoting Rushton's arguments against universal sufficiency, said, "...the Word of God never represents the sufficiency of the Atonement as wider than the design of the Atonement" (Exposition of the Gospel of John, vol. 2, p. 221).
Lombard's words have recently been translated as follows:
"He offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the triune God, and he did so for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price, but only for the elect with regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only for the predestined." Peter Lombard, The Sentences (Canada: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2008), Book 3, Distinction 20, Chapter 5, Page 86.
You'll observe that there is nothing hypothetical in this statement, which is why Davenant and others (James Ussher, Nathanael Hardy, etc.) rightly interpret it as teaching an "ordained sufficiency" (sufficientia ordinata), as over against a mere or "bare sufficiency" (nuda sufficientia). For more on the history of the Lombardian Formula and its revision, see here (click).
continued from above in response to Steve's first point...
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is this: noting that Ursinus is elaborating on the Lombardian Formula does not negate Derek's statements that Ursinus taught a universal satisfaction. This interpretation of Ursinus as being in the non-Amyraldian variety of "hypothetical universalism" is in Dr. Richard Muller. In his article in the Calvin Theological Journal and in his Mid-America lectures on Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universalism, he affirms that Ursinus was an early hypothetical universalist, along with Kimedoncius, who was another Heidelberg theologian that wrote one of the earliest Reformed treatises on the subject. David Paraeus, another Heidelberg theologian, was also noted by Davenant (and by others) as advocating a universal satisfaction. Curt Daniel is with Muller's (and Davenant's) position, and says, "Universal atonement is explicitly taught in many of the earliet Calvinist confessions, such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the Thirty-nine Articles." Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, IL: Good Books, 2003), 77.
If one wants to read Ursinus' own words on the death of Christ, click here.
I forgot to include this in the above continuation. Paul Manata (Steve's associate in this recent discussion) said:
ReplyDelete"I have no problem admitting that the extent of the atonement was and is a valid dispute within historic and contemporary Reformed theology. I have no problem admitting that some Reformed heavyweights held to something like Ponter et al.’s view."
One wonders who these unnamed "Reformed heavyweights" are, in his opinion, but at least he's acknowledging that they are "within historic and contemporary Reformed theology." This further butresses the case that is it inappropriate to tag the view "anti-Calvinism."
TONY BYRNE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Second, that he is elaborating on it in no way falsifies the claim that he taught that Christ satisfied for all men."
i) First of all, you and Ponter have a habit of using tendentious terminology, viz. "falsifies."
ii) Rather, it qualifies the force of the claim. A distinction between abstract sufficiency and concrete efficiency. Between potentiality and actuality.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"ii) In addition, you need to avoid imputing later debates to a 16C document."
Me now:
We're not imputing a "debate" to Ursinus, but a discernable position on the atonement. We're claiming, along with Davenant, Richard Muller, Robert Godfrey and Curt Daniel (and others Reformed historians), that there is enough in his writings to detect a universal satisfaction. Robert Godfey, in his doctoral dissertation (Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 [Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1974], 196-198.), notes that Matthias Martinius, a well-known moderate and Bremen delegate at Dort, could rely on Ursinus' words to sustain his position.
Richard Muller wrote:
"To make the point a bit less bluntly and with more attention to the historical materials, the question debated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, concerned the meaning of those biblical passages in which Christ is said to have paid a ransom for all or God is said to will the salvation of all or of the whole world, given the large number of biblical passages that indicate a limitation of salvation to some, namely to the elect or believers. This is an old question, belonging to the patristic and medieval church as well as to the early modern Reformed and, since the time of Peter Lombard, had been discussed in terms of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s satisfaction in relation to the universality of the preaching of redemption." Richard A. Muller, Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the “TULIP”? (A Lecture Sponsored by the H. Henry Meeter Center: Oct. 15, 2009), 9.
Along the same lines, Joel Beeke said:
"Robert Peterson argues that the issue of the extent of the atonement belonged more to the subsequent period of Reformed orthodoxy and was therefore largely anachronistic for Calvin. Pieter Rouwendal shows, however, that the question of the atonement’s extent was dealt with in Calvin’s day, but the way that it was handled by later Reformers was foreign and anachronistic to Calvin. Joel Beeke, “The Extent of the Atonement,” in The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth 17:6 (July/August, 2009), 162. See Pieter, L. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 17 (2008): 317-335.
continued in response to Hays' second point...
ReplyDeleteCurt Daniel, in his doctoral dissertation, also notes how this was an issue in the patristic period, such as in Prosper (Augustine's defender), through the days of Gottschalk, into the medieval period, and then in to the Reformation era. See Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill, pp. 496-544. That one can detect a strict view in Gottschalk presupposes that one can detect non-strict views in others, such as Luther, Latimer, Ursinus, etc. In fact, the existence of the Lombardian Formula itself, as a medieval synthesis, was pointing back to disputes surrounding Gottschalk's views. The Council of Trent, in the mid-1500's, warns against the view that Christ only died for the predestined. Why do that if it was not an issue being discussed? Jacobus Kimedoncius, a Heidelberg theologian, said that:
"Furthermore, it is an impudent speech, that says “the Catholic and true Church is condemned of us, which has believed, and always with one month confessed, that Christ died for all men.” We also confess, that Christ died for all men. For who can deny that without distinction, which divers times is expressedly set down in sacred Scriptures?" The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 136.
In the same book (in his dedication to Fredrick the Fourth ), Kimedoncius said:
"At this day we are slandered of malicious men with a new crime that is feigned against us, as though we should deny that Christ died for all men, an impudent reproach. For according to the Scriptures we also confess the same, but we deny, that thereupon it followeth that all mankind without exception of any one, are by the death of Christ indeed justified, saved, and restored into the bosom of grace, having received the pardon of their sins, whether they believe or no."
continued in response to Hays' second point...
ReplyDeleteOne could reference Augustine's position (testified by Davenant, the Puritan William Bridge, William Lorimer and others), Proper's clear position on universal redemption, Aquinas and others, as adovates of universal redemption before the Reformation period itself. Again, if Gottschalk's early position is detectable (which most admit), then why isn't Ursinus'? If Prosper's, then why not Ursinus'? If Luther's (as noted by Curt Daniel and recently by James Swan), then why not Ursinus'? To expand my earlier quote of Daniel above, he wrote:
"Luther and all Lutherans believed in universal atonement. There is no real disagreement on this. Also, all of the first-generation Reformed theologians taught universal atonement. This includes Zwingli, Bullinger, and the others. Universal atonement is explicitly taught in many of the earliet Calvinist confessions, such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the Thirty-nine Articles." Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, IL: Good Books, 2003), 77.
Not only was the extent of the atonement something discussed early on, but so was the will of God, which prompted Prosper to write:
"Likewise, he who says that God will not have all men to be saved but only the fixed number of the predestined, speaks more harshly than we should speak of the depth of the unsearchable grace of God." Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine, trans. by P. De letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 159.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"iii) "Anticalvinism" is quite mild compared to the slash-n-burn rhetoric which Ponter has used to characterize limited atonement. But both you and Derek play on the same team as Ponter, so you reflect the same teamplayer mentality."
Me now:
Whatever David is saying is irrelavenat to the issue of whether or not your "anti-Calvinism" tag properly describes his atonement position. Even if David were saying the most foul things possible about your beliefs and/or the entailments of your beliefs, it still would not follow that "anti-Calvinism" properly describes his atonement views.