__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

No, someone who claims to be a 4-pointer is either really a 5-pointer who misunderstands the fifth point (definite atonement), or one who is no calvinist at all. There are theologians who could would probably fit into a 4.5 point calvinist cathegory like James Ussher and Charles Hodge, becauce while they maintain that the atonement was definite for the elects, they say that it also contains some universal benefits and proffers to both the elects and reprobates, and so in this sense Christ died "especially" for the elects, but not for them only. Like John Owen, I personally hold to a strictly limited atonement, without any bits of grace for the reprobates. I also deny that Christ died to purchase common grace for all men, unlike some Reformed theologian hold, since common grace is more properly called "providential goodness" and does not need atonement to be bestowed.

To be labelled as "reformed," one must hold to all the following:

-A reformed confession (may also include LBC 1689).
-The Regulative Principle (with some calvinistic hymns permitted with moderation).
-Sabbath-keeping.
-Covenant theology (those who hold to NCT or Dispensationalism are not truly reformed).
-Reformed soteriology (the 5-points etc).
-strict or moderate cessationism (those who believe that supernatural gifts of prophecy and tongue-speaking are still commonly around (like C. J. Mahaney) are not truly reformed.

According to this list, it is possible for a baptist to be "reformed," like Spurgeon and John Gill, but the large majority of calvinistic baptists would not necessarily qualify.

__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta

Although a 4 point calvinist could (and did) call themselves a puritan.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Coventry, CT
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk
Interim Pulpit Supply of New England

My Facebook

Owner/Administrator @ Reformed Theology Institute

In my experience it's because there are a raft of verses which suggest that Christ died for more than the elect; he died for the "world", "all" etc. (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 4:10 ...).

Moreover, in my experience, "limited atonement" is regularly misconstrued by all sides of the debate. The popular books on the 5 points of Calvinism often misrepresent Dort concerning particular redemption. For a look at the primary sources in the reformed tradition go here.

__________________
Marty
Ordained Presbyter; Currently Lecturer in Theology
Anglican Church of Australia
(Now finally back! in) Perth, Australia.
"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Can you be a little more direct? What in your view is the essence of the misrepresentation of Dort with respect to particular redemption?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The Heidleberg Catechism is considered to be 'Reformed' yet it leans very heavily toward the UL position. See this thread: The Heidelberg Catechism and unlimited atonement

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Sure. Most of the early reformed tradition, and indeed Dort, did see a universal end as well as a particular end in the atonement. This is, at least, what somone like Richard Muller would seem to affirm (so here). Moreover, the school of Saumur (in Muller's eyes) fits in with Dort (so here).

This universal end (alongside of the particular end) in the atonement was affirmed to make sense of the classic universal texts (esp. 1 John 2:2).

The issue of "limited atonement" is a little more subtle than just the standard statement "Christ died for the elect".

God bless Todd.

"The language of Amyraldus, the Marrow Men, Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth. All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has . . . been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement. If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties,’ they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’.” (A. A. Hodge, The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, pp. 374-375)

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

In the "Cause of God and Truth" John Gill points out that the attacks that Arminians have launched against the doctrine of limited atonement have basically been centered around the same argument that the Roman Catholics have against justification by faith alone. That is, because the Bible certainly does not add the word "only" or "alone" for both doctrine, then it is wrong for us to add it. From studying the question personally, I came to the conclusion that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was actually harder to prove from Scripture than that of Christ dying for the elects alone. Compare the following passages, and tell me which ones appear more paradoxial:

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom. 3:28).

1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1).

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(James 2:24).

15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:15)

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Eph. 5:25)

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

Because the words "world" and "all men" in the Bible are quite ambiguous, and definitely more so than the word "works", the doctrine of limited atonement is actually easier to prove (at least in my perception) from Scripture than that of justification by faith alone. And yet, Arminians and those Bible thumbers who have thrown these "universal" passages in opposition to Christ dying for the elect only have completely disregarded the same problem that they could have had by applying their same arguments to justification.

Dear Neogillist,

Linguistically speaking words are not "ambiguous" per se. Almost every word we use has more than one meaning, but that doesn't make them ambiguous. How do we know which meaning a word takes when it is used? The answer (scientifically) is context. Hence, when we see words like "works", "justification", "all", "world" used, it is the context that determines their meaning. This is just standard linguistics.

I struggle to agree with this. All one has to do is look at the Christian tradition to see the disagreement over limited atonement and justification. It is the former that has cause way more of a stir.

Your problem with James 2:24 is easily solved when contextually we see that James uses the word "justification" in a very different sense to Paul. In context James is talking about how one shows they are Christian (justification = "to prove righteous"), whereas in context Paul is talking about how one becomes a Christian (justification = "to declare righteous"). Tyndale, Calvin, et. al. showed that a long time ago. It's never been a problem.

Arminians may use those passages "in opposition" to the particular passages, but the vast majority of the early reformed tradition formulated a harmony between them. That's precisely the point.

God bless you.

Dear Brother Gomarus,

... Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Oecomlampadius, Pierre Viret, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus, Ursinus, Paraeus, Kimedoncius, Zanchius, William Twisse, Robert Rollock, Coverdale, Bucanus, Keckermann, Scudder, Manton, Flavel, ... (see here)

This precisely is the point that is being questioned by people like Richard Muller. The reformed tradition may well have been misread when it comes to a universal element in the atonement. A. A. Hodge is a part of that tradition that may well have misconstrued the tradition. Moreover, his father Charles Hodge held a different position to him (see his Systematic Theology).

Every blessing dear brother.

Marty,

I'm uncomfortable with your ambiguity here and I want to be very explicit so you might determine whether or not you are within the boundaries of discussion that we permit on this board.

This is what the Confessions define by Limited Atonement that we affirm here unequivocally. You will have to decide whether you can bound your opinions to this view or not:

and further:

I frankly don't know how one can read the Book of Hebrews about the once-for-all, perfectly sufficient sacrifice and intercessory work of Christ for His own and come to the conclusion that its benefits are applied in any but a limited fashion. To conclude otherwise is to conclude that something more must be added to the Sacrifice to propitiate the wrath of God.

The analogy of faith demands that we do more than read a sentence in 1 Tim 4 that doesn't elaborate on the precise nature of the Atonement itself and use that to overthrow what we know about the nature of the Atonement from lengthy didactic passages elsewhere. I also reject your assertion that there are a "rash of verses" that speak about Christ dying for all men and John 3:16 is hardly a prooftext for this when the only spoken of as having obtained any benefit from the One sent are the believing ones. Would you care to document the "rash of verses" that speak of a universal atonement or are 1 Tim 4 and John 3:16 the two you had in mind?

Now, if you are arguing toward some sort of view that sees a more universal aspect in the offer of salvation itself to men at large then that is one thing but to argue that Christ's Sacrifice was efficient to atone for the sins of all mankind and that something must be mixed with/added to the Atonement is not permitted here.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I'm not sure it's so simple, Marty. What does "atonement" mean if it doesn't mean "redemption"?

In what sense (consistent with Dort, Westminster, etc.) can anybody claim that Jesus ATONED for the sin of any but the elect? There is no such sense, of course, since the Biblical picture of atonement is a one-for-one exchange which redeems. I can't see any consistency between Dort/Westminster and any "intent" on God's part in providing atonement/redemption for any but the elect. Those confessions (and indeed the confessional standards that are upheld in this board) are crystal clear with respect to God's intent in providing Christ as the propitiation for sin. Those who claim an intent or will of God to give Christ as exchange for non-elect (which will/intent is thwarted by the conditional response of the individual) are simply at odds with our confessional standards (and with Scripture).

Can you clarify your position?

I whole heartedly agree.

Well put!

I just realized we are in "The Wading Pool" so I want to state for the record that I believe the Bible teaches LA.

But, the OP asked if someone could hold to UA and still be called 'Reformed'. It would be difficult, IMO, to deny UAers the title of 'Reformed' because one of the Reformed confessions (which is an accepted confession on PB) sure sounds a lot like UA.

I think the WCF was an improvement over the HC in this area.

Except, Ken, that just like in Scripture, the HC cannot be taken piecewise without reference to context and the other teachings that are explicitly in it that deny UA. (just as you were answered clearly when you asked if the HC taught unlimited atonement in this thread).

The HC cannot be extricated from the Canons of Dort, either, which clearly deny unlimited atonement.

Dear Todd and Rich,

I am amazed at your threats when I am following both standard Reformed confessions and Richard Muller. Have you been reading the links which I've included in my posts? If you haven't I'd think twice about issuing threats so hastily. It gets very tiring when people don't read carefully what one posts.

I'm also a little taken a back with the threats, because included in them is the accusation that I lack integrity in my affirmation of being confessional. It may be the case. However, isn't it more in harmony with the gospel to err on the side of grace than suspicion?

For the record (yet again [sigh!]): I can affirm both Dort and the WCF in what is says on the atonement. Yes, it was God's intent to save the elect in Christ's death and this was indeed accomplished (although yet to be fully applied, which occurs at the eschaton).

But it is fully within the confessional boundaries to believe there is more to the atonement than just the above. Yes, it is efficient for the elect, but also (as Dort so clearly affirms) it is sufficient for all. For whom did Christ die? For the elect efficiently, and for all people sufficiently. Indeed, as Dort says:

The confessions do teach there is a universal aspect to the atonement (i.e. sufficient for all). Here are the witnesses:

Firstly, Heidelberg 37 (and if one doubts what it actually means they just have to read the Heidelberg theologians Ursinus, Paraeus, and Kimedoncius, to see how they took it!):

Secondly, the Second Helvetic Confession, which Heinrich Bullinger wrote (and he clearly in his writings affirmed a universal element in the atonement):

Rich, to say that a universal element in the atonement is simply based on 1 Tim 4:10 is a straw-man. There's a much larger exegetical harvest than this. The issue is exegesis before we read logical constructs back into the text. It is the text, not our logical construct that is inspired.

Todd, on the issue of what atonement means; to simply say it is "redemption" is tautologious. Satisfaction can be pecuniary or legal and depending on which way you go will depend on how one construes the atonement. Read Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology vol. 2:470-479, 557-558.

God bless you both.

I agree, and I won't push the point any further. I get tired of all of the discussions about 'who is Reformed?'. I just wanted to point out that maybe we should not be hasty in labeling people 'Unreformed' simply because they sound like Ursinuis. (Because we all consider him to be Reformed, right?)

[Moderator]Gentlemen, I split the more technical posts and those that refer to them over to this thread. Let's try to keep the wading pool threads from the more convoluted historical debates.[/Moderator]

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Uhh ... I didn't start this thread!

Take care in being a little less defensive, Marty. I don't think anyone
has voiced any 'threats'. To ask for explanation is no threat.


But to say that the atonement is sufficient for all does NOT imply ANYTHING about the intent of that atonement. I completely disagree with you that sufficiency for all means that there is in any way a "universal" element to the atonement. I'm not sure how one construes such a thing from the mere statement of its sufficiency for all. If God had intended to cover the sins of each and every human being ever conceived, then Christ's blood was sufficient for that task - but it was never in His mind to do that. So while it is SUFFICIENT, the atonement was ENTIRELY particular. This is what our confessions clearly state.

Now, you claim 'universal' elements in the Reformed standards, but I can't for the life of me actually find them. You say:

Our body and soul. Whose? "for us". for whom? The elect. Might = maybe or maybe not? NO. This is not the meaning of the word "might" in this context. It is a FIRM statement of the necessity of his suffering and death in order that his elect be saved. This answer has to be read in that context - you can't 'universally' apply it.

Secondly, the Second Helvetic Confession, which Heinrich Bullinger wrote (and he clearly in his writings affirmed a universal element in the atonement):

So to what end did Bullinger mean that "he is the unique savior of the human race"?

Do you infer from that statement that he believed there is a sense in which Christ is savior of the damned?

Or... perhaps, just as a proper understanding of the Scriptures would affirm, when it is said that Christ is the Savior of the world, it means that He ALONE is the savior (the unique one, as the catechism says) of men. In no other name, shall any be saved, as Scripture attests. He, and nobody else, may be called the savior of men. There is no sense in which Christ's being savior extends to any except those he actually saves. I don't know where one would get such an idea - certainly not from the Scriptures read in their completeness, nor from the confessions we affirm here.

I don't have Hodge with me at the moment, so I can't look up the references - but perhaps I'll find a way in which I disagree with Hodge (perhaps that negates my opinions in your eyes). Atonement as I have used the word is a Biblical concept, and the word, as used in Scripture, implies remedy and price paid to cover the sins of the one atoned for. I can't find in Scripture any other sense of the word. (Perhaps I'm missing something).

[Off topic] I know you didn't Josh, but I had to take your post as it was going to be insanely irrelevant once I was done editing the other post. So I made you start a controversial thread by laughing at something someone else said in order to make you look good. [/Off topic]

Here is a link to Hodge.

I didn't threaten. I stated what the boundaries were here. I had read what you were stating carefully. There was ambiguity. I wanted to be very explicit.

I hope you don't believe that I can be so naive in this forum to assume that simply because a man states that he subscribes to a Confession that I can simply ignore statements that may indicate otherwise. The favorite thing of the proponent of the FV to do is to affirm Confessional integrity while simultaneously denying it in what they write.

I read much of what was on the site. I don't have a problem agreeing with the statement that the merit of Christ's sacrifice was sufficiently meritorious to cover the sins of the whole world but, as Todd noted, that hardly implies that the intent of the Atoning sacrifice was to apply its benefits fully and efficiently to some and partially to the rest of the world.

This is why I asked the question. That site you quoted is fond of simply finding any Reformer who happened to write "Savior of the World..." and assume that by a Reformer using Biblical language and assume it must speak to more than simply a sufficiency for the Atonement.

I am not supralapsarian and I believe there is room within the Reformed camp for an infralapsarian view.

I simply want to ensure that nobody is arguing for some sort of idea that Christ's Atonement is applied to someone in an inefficient manner. It is one thing to state that it is sufficient for all but it is another to say that it had an intent that was inefficient for the reprobate. That sin was somewhat atoned for in the case of the reprobate cannot be sustained simply by marshalling texts that call Christ the Savior of the World when Hebrews explicitly teaches what Christ's Atonement accomplishes for all upon whom it is applied.

I also became concerned, by the way, when you challenged Neologist for stating that Limited Atonement was clearly taught in the Scriptures. Whether one is infra- or supra-lapsarian, both clearly affirm a Limited Atonement. What is fundamental to the Atonement is that we guard the Truth that we don't add an iota to Christ's once-for-all sacrifice.

I like you Marty and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but I am also under obligation here to draw lines in the sand ocassionally and make sure the rules here are explicit.

Brother Marty:

What has continuosly been avoided by Ponter and his cronies is what are the universal benefits? I have yet to see any scriptural answer for this question. Ponter is more concerned with finding any reformed person who 'appears' to speak of some universal aspect for the reprobate. I honestly could care less if Calvin, Luther, Baxter, Urisinus, etc etc etc did believe this. I do not believe they did, but it matters little to me. Ponter spends so much effort to find writings of men and attach 1Tim 4, John 3:16, and whatever else seems to speak of all head for head, then to start with scripture. Therefore I have no use for the site.

Here are the benefits of Christ's death, and there are no more:

1) redemption

2) propitiation/ expiation

3) reconciliation

4) justification

5) pardon.


These are it Marty. Not one of these 5 are realized by the reprobate. Some have gravely errored in believing that just becasue men are not immediately struck dead from sin, that somehow this is connected to His death, but this cannot be farther from the truth and I will not entertain this thought for one second. There is nothing Marty.

Confessions are a breeding ground of compramise. Gomorus should have had the microphone and pen much more than he did, but alas, we are left with what we have. I wish I could find some transcripts of debates when confessions were written, id like to see how much people compramised on such a subject as this.

__________________
N. Robert
RCA

"Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

Nicholas,

I think your addition that you could "care less" is an unhelpful addition to the dialogue. I agree it is important to ask what saving graces that only union with Christ confer are believed to be extended to the reprobate by one's view of a "universal aspect" of the Atonement and this is precisely what I'm driving at.

Nevertheless, in a discussion about whether or not something is "Reformed", it is entirely appropriate to appeal to those who formed the Reformed Confessions to make the argument about what is considered Reformed. I believe it would be internally inconsistent to make the Confessions teach that saving graces belong to the elect alone in one portion but to make the saving grace of the Atonement extend "in some sense" to the reprobate in another portion of the Confession. But this discussion, is after all, about what the "Reformed" understanding is.

I do agree with your assessment of the site but I just think you could have been a little less pugnacious in your dismissal of our forebears.

Richard, my only point in using those words is that Ponter, or anyone who points to men of the past to line them up on their team forgets that this is not the end of the debate. I have read many quotes from Calvin and others that do appear to speak of some universal aspect. Does this make me change my mind? Absolutely not. My caring less is only related to the fruit of mens words. I hope and pray to be reformed is to be biblical first and formost. And if hypothetical universalism is allowed under the umbrella of reformed, then I am the first to leave the team. The school of Samur has plagued history for 500 years and each gathering of a synod of confession wiriting has allowed their voice to be heard. It is well known that there were several members of the Westminster Assembly (Calamy, Seaman, Marshall, Vines) and Dort who adhered to the hypothetical universalisrn of the Amyraldian school. Davenant and his men were overthrown, but not as clear and solidly as I would expect. That is why we still haev these conversations. Marc Calamy should have never been allowed to argue his point for the duration he was alotted. to quote" “I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense,” he said; “but that that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all, � absolute intention for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe, � that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami… that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe.” A conditional atonement is arminianism cloaked in a spirtualization of scripture.

"The doctrine of Particular Redemption is the doctrine of the Scriptures. Christ died not for all men, but for some only; who are called his people, his sheep, his church, unless all men can be thought to be the people, the sheep, and church of Christ."

-- John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth.

Dear Todd, that is simply not true. Both Dort and the WCF did not exclude those who saw several divine intents in the atonement. It's historically undeniable. Dort was signed by Davenant, Ward, Martinius et. al. who were all double enders. Moreover, Westminster was signed by Calamy et. al. who were double-enders. Did you read the Muller links to which I directed readers on how to read Dort?

The first reformed confession to exclude a double-end view of the atonement, and affrm it was "ENTIRELY particular" was the Helvetica Consensus, which [1] has never been accepted officially, and [2] asserted (ridiculously) that the Hebrew vowel points were inspired.

Todd, if you want to understand Heidelberg 37 and the Second Helvetic, rather than keep questioning them, I say (again) read Bullinger for the former, and the Ursinus, Paraeus, and Kimedoncious for the latter (I've put the links in earlier posts). You'll discover the meaning in their writings.

You may not agree with a double-end view of the atonement, but to say it doesn't fit in with the confessional boundaries is simply not true.

If we're going to be confessional here, lets do so being historically aware of what the confessions contextually mean, and not reading later interpretations back into them.

God bless you dear brother.

Nicholas,

My point and I'll make it a moderating point, is that your opinion that the Reformed confessions will ultimately need to bow the knee to your understanding of the Scriptures is not germane to this thread. If the entire Reformed Church is wrong in the Confessions and you are right then you can start your own Church but you don't get to take the moniker "Reformed" with you. Reformed Confessions, like it or not, are developed along streams of thought and there is a consensus formed around some of these things. In the company of elders is found wisdom.

That does not make the Confessions infallible but the Confessions and these streams do define us and it is the work of the Church to modify a Confession that they find wanting. If you are convinced you cannot abide by the Confessions any more than you know the minimal requirements for participation.

Marty has every right in this thread to dialogue on what the historical understanding of this issue is with the Reformed. I am interested in hearing the arguments and Nicholas' understanding of the Reformed faith is not normative for discussions of this understanding.

I'm not requiring that you agree with what the Reformed position is here but I am requiring that you show respect and hear it if you are on a board where the boundary markers for participation are set by Confessional adherence.

I'm not going to distract this conversation any further. I've made explicit to Marty what it is I would like to see demonstrated from the Reformed Confessions on this matter and I want him to respond to it and not continue in a debate about whether the Reformed Confessions are even worthy of our interest in this matter.

I'm sure the links you provided will prove interesting - I frankly haven't had time to read them today.

The point that I would like to make, though, is that the confessional teachings cannot be construed to extend to the particulars of EVERY signer of the confessions. Since we're talking about historical awareness, this too must be noted. The WCF is unabashedly exclusivistic in its treatment of Christ's death - yet as you say Calamy signed.

Does this mean we must read the WCF in such a way to argue that it does NOT teach an exclusively-limited atonement, simply because Calamy signed it? That, friend, is where the problem lies, in my opinion. One cannot take the individual views of a signer as being consistent with the document, where it contradicts the clear tenor and teaching of the document, as a means of interpreting what the authorial intent was (and intepreting the document differently than the plain reading would indicate). Just because Calamy signed it does NOT mean his views on the atonement are consistent with the WCF. They are not.

Rich, this is an example of talking past each other. I certainly agree with what you state above. I never pitted myself against the reformed confessions. In fact, I attempted, but obviously failed in stating that. When I said;"And if hypothetical universalism is allowed under the umbrella of reformed, then I am the first to leave the team. I should have added that I do not believe it is. Perhaps the way I put it distracted you away from what I intended and you heard what I did not say and for that I apologize. Perhaps the bullets below will be more clear.

1) HU (hypothetical Universalism) had proponents present at Dort And Westminster

2) Personally I see no room in either for this error

3) But I 'wish" they could have been written with as much weight against HU as they were against arminianism.

4) I am not disagreeing with the refomred postion, because the reformed position does not allow for a double ended benefit of the atonement. Certain people who wear the refomred hat may believe it does, but they import language and understanding which was never intended. And are therefore not reformed by definition.


5) If Calvin or anyone else who has gone before us believed in benefits for the reprobate, I lament this, but it honestly does not sway my understanding


6) Lastly, and my final words which is what I want to focus on is could Marty or Ponter or anyone who defends universal aspects please tell me out of the only 5 benefits of the atonement which I mentioned does the reprobate reap?

Rich again i apologize if my points caused you to respond the way you did. KMK actually thanked my post which confuses me more on how one could understand me and another could not!!!

Brother Marty:

This brings up another point, and perhaps the mods could so eloquently start a new thread, but why did people who disagreed sign the documents? Why Gomorus would sign the infralapsarian Dort makes me wonder. And why Twisse would do the same for the WCF? Are we to just speculate that compramise replaced zeal, or are there writings explaining this?

Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't the only person in backchannel that was concerned.

I think one of the important "things" to remember in dealing with Dort about this issue, is that they did not add into their statement the application of universals for the atonement to the reprobate EVER. What they DID say was that it is "sufficient"...(and then others place in there for, all, more, everyone, or whatever hypothetical infinity you want to place on it). In other words - DOrt's thought was - "If Jesus DID die for all, or everyone, His atonement WOULD HAVE been able to save all or everyone." It was not a statement about the efficacy of the atonement, but the value of the atonement.

I can "somewhat" understand that (if I squint really hard and tilt my head sideways), though I think its a waste of time to say it. Placing a hypothetical value addition to the practicality of the atonment is a complete waste of time. Why? Jesus might as well died for aliens on planet Zeno. (See my soapbox: Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet - The Atonement as Efficient and Sufficient )

It would be like saying, God "could have" made the world square instead of round? OK, so what? Or, God "could have" made grass blue and water pink. OK, so what? Or, God could have saved everyone and had no fall. OK, so what? Or, God could have done this that or the other. OK, so what? It has nothing to do with reality.

Universalist tendencies in signers of the creeds and confessions don't make universalist sympathizers Reformed, it makes them foolish for signing confessions without thinking through the implications of those confessions theologically and biblically logically. It doesn't make Calamy logically and biblically "ok" because he signed the WCF. Instead, it makes him part of a really great group of minds who disagreed with him. It doesn't say anything about the WCF being Reformed, but it does say volumes about what Calamy understood or not.

Also, one MUST think about this topic inside the two wills of God aspects that I write about in my book, "The Two Wills of God." If you theologically place these ideas inside the same theological box while trying to debate this on the one view problem, you have debates like this go on that are never reconciled. There is a great chasmic difference between how we theologically view decreetive applications of God's work, and how God views them.

__________________
C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D. (Pot hole Digger)
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.com, www.apuritansmind.com and www.puritanpublications.com
Member - Christ Presbyterian Church

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Dr. Alan Clifford (Amyraldian) affirms the Three Forms of Unity in good conscience and the WCF is not incapable of being read through Amyraldian glasses.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I think that they recognised that these documents were not drawn up to deal with this issue. So whilst Dordt is infralapsarian in its presentation, it does not thereby exclude supralapsarians from adhering to it, why? Because it was dealing with Arminianism not the lapsarian debate.

1. Exegetically. The Scriptures nowhere speak of atonement in universal terms, where the word "universal" is supposed to convey the idea that the atonement was intended to benefit each and every man or sinner. The opposite is the case: the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments affirm that atonement (whether ceremonial or actual) is made for the sin of a specific people, and that it effects precisely what it was intended to effect in each and every case – the covering of sin.

1 Tim. 4:10 says nothing about atonement, so it is clearly a case of theological presupposition reading atonement into the verse when one affirms it teaches an open ended view of the atonement. The verse does not even specify what is meant by the term "salvation" when it is affirmed that God is the Saviour of all men. Any theological abstraction and application of the apostle's faithful saying should not be extended so as to trespass the parameters of its original context.

John 3:16 at the most teaches what the Marrowmen would call an indefinite gift of Christ for sinners of mankind. But such an indefinite giving of Christ does not entail that each and every man is the object of the Father's gift. Reference to a class of people does not ipso facto include every member of that class. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" does not imply that He came to save every sinner, but only that the persons whom He came to save belonged to the class of people known as "sinners." Likewise, the fact that the Father gave Christ to the world of sinners indefinitely only means that the class of people to whom Christ was given in actual fact belonged to the “world;” and the most natural point of reference for understanding the term "world" is in contradistinction from the subset of people from whom Nicodemus came, who believed that salvation is of the Jews. Hence the only universalising element in John 3:16 is that of extending kingdom privileges beyond the ethnic boundaries of Judaism.

Hypothetical universalism is contrary to reformed biblical theology.

2. Historically.

(1.) Dr. Muller's scholarly reputation grew as a result of the immense research and writing which he undertook to substantiate his hermeneutic of continuity between the original reformers and the scholastic development of their thought in later periods. Such an undertaking effectively buried the Calvin v. Calvinist idea of an earlier reformed tradition which might be regarded as existing beside the scholastic development and better representing the thought of the reformers. This being the case, one can hardly expect his scholarly work to be accepted as the basis for resurrecting the Calvin v. Calvinist hermeneutic by acknowledging Amyraldism as a legitimate trajectory of reformed thought.

(2.) One should be wary about any claim of unearthing new materials which challenge the old belief in a strictly limited atonement in the reformed tradition. Selective quotation often does not deal fairly with the source nor take into account the structure of thought within which the quoted author operated. It is very easy to read modern methods of stating the question back into past writings without taking the time to understand the way questions were asked and discussed in the period. This is simply poor historical theology.

Hypothetical universalism is contrary to reformed historical theology.

3. Dogmatically. "Hypothetical universalism" -- what is it? It is a universalism which is never realised historically. It is based on a conjecture that God's loving nature demands He desire the salvation of all men and accordingly make provision for that salvation in the death of Jesus Christ. Of course it might as easily be argued that His just nature likewise demands the damnation of all sinners without remedy. One hypothesis is just as valid as the other, being based in a preconception of the nature of God which has not been manifested by the unconditioned counsel of His own will, Eph. 1:11; and there is little doubt that in the course of all this hypothesising into the mysterious nature of God the glory of free grace is obscured. Hence it is better to simply adhere to what the Scriptures reveal to us concerning the inscrutable counsel of His own will and not pry into hypothetical secrets of what might have been should God have been pleased to decree it.

But why the hypothesis? Its advocates tell us it gives them the warrant to say to a sinner, "Jesus Christ died for you." Well suppose for a moment we were to accept this hypothesised universalism, what would it establish? Not that Jesus Christ died for each and every sinner, but that he died hypothetically or conditionally for them. It takes a great leap in logic to move from a hypothetical proposition to an absolute fact. Yet this is precisely what is done by the hypothetical universalist. He argues from a hypothetical to a real death of Christ for each and every sinner of mankind. Clearly, then, an hypothetical universalism does not warrant anyone to tell a sinner that Christ really died for him, but only that Christ died conditionally for him. This point was so persuasively argued by William Twisse against Tilenus that it is a wonder anyone would ever again venture to assert a real universalism on the basis of a hypothetical one. More wonderful still is the fact that Twisse's name has come to be enrolled on the register of reformed universalists.

Hypothetical universalism is contrary to reformed systematic theology.

4. Pastorally. What is gained on a practical level by reassuring the unrepentant sinner that God loves him, has given Jesus Christ to die for him, and now longs to impart the blessings purchased by Jesus Christ for him? Need we look any further than the spurious results obtained by such mass crusades as conducted under Arminian evangelists, who have been peddling this counterfeit gospel for decades? The result has been whole generations of unconverted sinners who live in the cursed and presumptuous assurance that Jesus is theirs, and, live as they will, their place in heaven is guaranteed by nothing less than a universal redemption. Clearly such an approach is contradictory to the apostolic counsel, which insisted that if Christ died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again, 2 Cor. 5:14, 15. Again, that those for whom Christ was crucified are crucified with Christ, and no longer live, but Christ lives in them by faith, Gal. 2:20. Such pastoral counsel demands a limited, particular reference of the atonement to actual believers only.

But we must apply this message to saints also. What does universalism do for them? Nothing less than throw the whole scheme of salvation into doubt and rob them of that assurance which belongs to them in Christ. What has become of the inspired logic of the apostle, Rom. 5:10, who argues, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life?" or that of Rom. 8:34, where it is maintained that because Christ has died there is none to condemn those for whom He died? It has all become empty rhetoric; for the death of Jesus Christ, with all His saving benefits, is made hypothetical, conditional upon something the believer must do in order to complete the work.

Hypothetical universalism is contrary to reformed pastoral theology.

5. Confessionally. There is no place for a hypothetical universalism in the system of doctrine as taught by the Westminster Confession of Faith. As William Cunningham astutely observed in the 19th century, the Confession and Catechisms teach the impetration of redemption is co-extensive with the application of redemption. Larger Catechism, Question 59 asks, "Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?" and the catechumen is taught to answer, ""Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ has purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel."

Hypothetical universalism is contrary to reformed confessional theology.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Well said, Matthew!

My only quibble would be that while you do a fine job showing that the atonement was not universal, that is not the whole question. Some of those who see universal "aspects" in the death of Christ would agree with you, even denying a hypothetical universal atonement. Common grace, for instance, has sometimes been argued as a product of the atonement by some who would be one with you on your five points of dispute.

So, you demolish any basis for a universal, even hypothetical, atonement and show how the confessions do not allow for it. This is so, as others have also pointed out in this thread, even if some signatories to Dort and the WCF were ambivalent (or even disagreed) on that point. However, you do not address the addition by some that their is a vague universal benefit to the atonement (e.g., some arguments for common grace) that does not relate to salvation.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Another point on the history. If a signatory of Dort, Westminster, etc., argued for other views in their writings, it may be as well to inquire whether those writings were before or after their signing, or both. If before, the judgment of charity would declare that their minds changed, possibly as a result of the discussion. If after, then they may be chargeable with a genuine inconsistency.