Is a Universal Reference in the Atonement "Unreformed"? - Page 2

Amazing Grace · #41 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

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.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Are there any writings that speak on this? I sense that if opposites shook hands and both signed a document in which they disagreed, I would be concerned with only asking why and for what reason. Did Gillespie (100% limited) sjhake ahnds with Calmay (HU) on this issue?

Matt said: 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.

I concur with an Amen on this point. But do we know why he signed? Did he believe his view was allowed by the confession? As an aside, did each part of dort of the WCF allow for signatures and other parts some could abstain? Or did the document as a whole have to be signed at the end?

NaphtaliPress · #42 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

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.

Mitchell discusses Calamy et al. on pages lv and following in his introduction to the Mitchell/Struthers edition of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly. He tries very hard to see accommodation of the Davenant school in the standards but admits difficulties and tries to read the standards in a light in which Calamy et al could "sign" on.

Semper Fidelis · #43 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

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.

This is an excellent point, something Rev. Winzer just struck on as well. The problem I have with the manner this is developed is that it does the same thing with passages that are addressed to the broad audience of the Church to build up and exhort and then insist they must be understood as true of every Church member "in some sense" instead of understanding that when you talk to a broad audience you do so with the judgment of charity. In other words, simply because Paul states "...when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..." cannot be inferred that he intended to imply that even the reprobate participated in the benefits to a lesser degree than the elect simply because they are hearing the announcement. These things do, indeed, convert the heart and are preached to all with the demand that they believe upon them but that doesn't mean they participate in them "in some sense" if they do not have faith born from above.

NaphtaliPress · #44 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:51 PM

They key may be this, that while "[t]hey certainly did not succeed in getting any positive approbation of their opinions inserted" "it is just possible that the language of this section [WCF chapter 3] may have been so arranged, that they felt warranted in accepting it as not positively condemning them." Mitchell/Struthers, lvi-lvii.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

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.

Mitchell discusses Calamy et al. on pages lv and following in his introduction to the Mitchell/Struthers edition of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly. He tries very hard to see accommodation of the Davenant school in the standards but admits difficulties and tries to read the standards in a light in which Calamy et al could "sign" on.

Amazing Grace · #45 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:00 PM

Again, I must ask can anyone tell me what benefits the reprobate enjoy?

Ivanhoe · #46 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:14 PM

I wonder if one could speak of the passages saving the world "ontologically," in other words: a reaffirmation, resucitation and restoration of creation. Christ's death had cosmic effect. That preserves the "he died for the elect" passages without exegetical gymnastics.

C. Matthew McMahon · #47 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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,

Yes, I know I did skirt that on purpose because that would take considerable time on unwinding other theological issues around it.

I have written exstensively in "Two Wills" on things like common grace and so forth. So I leave it to the reader to go there. It would take too long to reformulate that for the PB.

One thing that I think would be VERY helpful on that issue is reading some of Edward's sermons. He does quite a bit to talk about what happens to the reprobate here, and what God's will is for those who are not elect, and what Christ's work does in relation to them.

Might I make a quote from my work?

John Gerstner quotes and explains Edwards on this when he says, “Edwards preached that all that happens to the wicked in this “world prepares ‘em” for the pit (Isaiah 30:33). In his “improvement” of the sermon on Proverbs 29:25, Edwards warns his people that while they rejoice in their prosperity, they do not all know but that they are being fed for the slaughter. (See Gerstner, Rational, 176 [emphasis mine]. Gerstner’s footnote is the following: Also, Unpublished MS sermon on Proverbs 29:25, 'They are safe that trust in God,” p. 2, between Fall 1722 Spring 1T13. Unpublished MS sermon on Job 18:15.)

What happens here is that people don't like the idea that Christ's work does in fact have a specific fuction for the reprobate - it prepares them for hell, and all thier worldly works and functions simply fatten them up for the slaughter.

Hard, but true.

Houston E. · #48 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

What happens here is that people don't like the idea that Christ's work does in fact have a specific fuction for the reprobate - it prepares them for hell, and all thier worldly works and functions simply fatten them up for the slaughter.

Hard, but true.

Maybe I'm being simplistic here (feel free to correct), but I've found that when one seeks to push universal aspects upon the atonement (in a positive way for the reprobate) there is usually an underlying view that the atonement is ultimately about man, and not God. Thus, God must include everyone in some way in order to give all a chance. (which is basically an appeasement to our fallible minds)

armourbearer · #49 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:36 PM

First, the idea of common non saving benefits purchased by Christ is demeaning to what Christ did in becoming man and dying to save His people from their sins. How can such benefits be considered even for a moment as commensurate to the greatness of His work? "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved," John 3:17. To speak of God sending His only-begotten Son for the purpose of obtaining temporal mercies to such as shall be damned is simply unworthy of consideration.

Secondly, the non saving benefits all point towards making men "salvable." So it is effectively another gospel from the apostolic one which taught that Jesus Christ actually and effectively and radically saves His people from their sins.

Thirdly, if these common benefits are purchased by Christ, why are not all men put in possession of them? It is often alleged that the preaching of the gospel is a benefit purchased by Christ to the reprobate. If so, why are not all reprobates granted the privilege of hearing the gospel? In order for them to be common benefits, it is necessary that the benefits be received in common by all men. The fact that the benefit is not received in common by all men demonstrates they are not something purchased by Christ.

Semper Fidelis · #50 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

I want to give this a hearty AMEN.

I think some people spend so much time trying to convince everybody that the Atonement has a universal purpose that they lose the emphasis that the Scriptures place on the worth of its very specific purpose.

I can't tell you the number of Christians who I've taught here whose eyes have become wide as saucers as they consider for the first time that Christ has secured salvation for them in His Atoning, once-for-all, sacrifice. Everything was completed. They add nothing to it and, further, Christ intercedes for them to ensure the work is complete, that nothing can snatch them from His hand.

But many are so obsessed to try to theorize on a universal aspect of this work that it robs the congregation at large of the important Truth. Notice that site referenced, for instance. It obsesses to show that there must be some universal aspect. If I'm going to "obsess" about anything in the Word then let it be the infinite worth of Christ's Sacrifice for His own that definitively paid the price for sin and that He entered the heavenly sanctuary where I now have bold access through the veil of His flesh!

Zenas · #51 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

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.

Bingo.

armourbearer · #52 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 08:01 PM

B. B. Warfield argues convincingly for the exclusion of the Amyraldian view from the confessional formulation. In commenting on chapter 3, section 6, in his article on "The Making of the Confession," he writes (Works, 6:143, 144):

Quote:

It might seem somewhat more to the point, possibly, to recall that in this section the language is so ordered as to seem to deal with the actual ordo salutis rather than directly with the ordo decretorum. It is asserted that the ordo salutis is the result of the decreeing of the means by which the elect are brought to glory. But what is subsequently asserted is that none but the elect are (actually) redeemed by Christ, effectually called, etc. — the mind being abstracted for the moment from the intention to the performance. The Westminster Amyraldians — if we may venture so to call them — had, of course, freely admitted the distinction between the elect and non-elect in the application: it was only in the impetration that they disputed it: and it might perhaps seem to them possible to confess that though Christ had died for all, the merits of His death had actually been applied only to some, and to contend that only this is actually expressed by saying that none but the elect “are redeemed by Christ.” Even this, however, appears more subtle than satisfactory; and in any event it would seem quite obvious that the Assembly intended to state in this clause with adequate clearness their reasoned and deliberate conviction that the decree of election lies behind the decree of the gift of Christ for redemption, and that the latter is to be classed as one of the means for the execution of the decree of election. This is the definite exclusion of the Amyraldian view, and anything that can be made really consistent with this conception of the ordo decretorum will be found to differ fundamentally from Amyraldism.

DMcFadden · #53 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

First, the idea of common non saving benefits purchased by Christ is demeaning to what Christ did in becoming man and dying to save His people from their sins. How can such benefits be considered even for a moment as commensurate to the greatness of His work? "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved," John 3:17. To speak of God sending His only-begotten Son for the purpose of obtaining temporal mercies to such as shall be damned is simply unworthy of consideration.

Secondly, the non saving benefits all point towards making men "salvable." So it is effectively another gospel from the apostolic one which taught that Jesus Christ actually and effectively and radically saves His people from their sins.

Thirdly, if these common benefits are purchased by Christ, why are not all men put in possession of them? It is often alleged that the preaching of the gospel is a benefit purchased by Christ to the reprobate. If so, why are not all reprobates granted the privilege of hearing the gospel? In order for them to be common benefits, it is necessary that the benefits be received in common by all men. The fact that the benefit is not received in common by all men demonstrates they are not something purchased by Christ.

Thanks. For the record, I am NOT an Amyraldian, nor to I seek to defend the position. I was simply reacting to the fact that you stated a fairly complete case against a universal atonement but did not touch upon the issue at hand, what of those who accept a limited atonement but who see the text teaching some universal benefits (other than redemption). Your three points succinctly dispatched the issue. Thanks.

JohnOwen007 · #54 (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 02:45 AM

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

What an excellent discussion has been generated!

When it comes to the issue of a "double-end" view on the atonement and it's compatibility with Dort and the WCF we must note a couple of things that revolve around the Lombardian formula "sufficient for all efficient for the elect", a fomula that was interpreted in several ways:

[1] Concerning "efficient for the elect": Dort and the WCF affirm this: that Christ's atonement fully saved only the elect. Both single-enders and double-enders are agreed on this point. No double-ender has ever said that Christ's death in any way secures the salvation of reprobates. Hence, simply reproducing statements that affirm Christ's saving the elect from Dort or the WCF doesn't resolve the issue. Both sides are agreed.

[2] Concerning "sufficient for all": Neither Dort nor the WCF made a judgement on the variety of interpretations expressed at both synods. There is no explicit denial of either a single or a double-end view.

In other words, Dort and the WCF left the interpretation of "sufficient for all" open. The first time a judgement was made about this was in the Consensus Helvetica, which was not officially received.

Hence, about Dort, Richard Muller could make these sorts of statements:

Quote:

[Jonathan] Moore [in his book] also underestimates the presence of non-Amyraldian or non-speculative forms of hypothetical universalism in the Reformed tradition as a whole and thereby, in the opinion of this reviewer, misconstrues Preston’s position as a “softening” of Reformed theology rather than as a continuation of one trajectory of Reformed thought that had been present from the early sixteenth century onward. Clear statements of nonspeculative hypothetical universalism can be found (as Davenant recognized) in Heinrich Bullinger’s Decades and commentary on the Apocalypse, in Wolfgang Musculus’ Loci communes, in Ursinus’ catechetical lectures, and in Zanchi’s Tractatus de praedestinatione sanctorum, among other places. In addition, the Canons of Dort, in affirming the standard distinction of a sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the elect, actually refrain from canonizing either the early form of hypothetical universalism or the assumption that Christ’s sufficiency serves only to leave the nonelect without excuse. [...] In other words, the nonspeculative, non-Amyraldian form of hypothetical universalism was new in neither the decades after Dort nor a “softening” of the tradition: The views of Davenant, Ussher, and Preston followed out a resident trajectory long recognized as orthodox among the Reformed.

“English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology,” by Jonathan D. Moore. Reviewed by Richard A Muller, Calvin Theological Journal, 43 (2008), 149-150.

And in an article:

Quote:

This pattern [of John Cameron's covenantal theology] has major implications for understanding the Salmurian soteriology. It indicates a covenantal or federal continuity with Reformed predestinarianism that has been left unexamined in discussions of hypothetical universalism. Against Moltmann’s assessment, it offers an element of the Salmurian theology that presses it away from rather than toward Arminianism; and against Armstrong’s thesis, it demonstrates the point, recognized even by seventeenth-century opponents of Amyraldianism like Francis Turretin, namely, that views of Cameron and his Salmurian successors were not heresy and, like it or not, where consciously framed to stand within the confessionalism of Dort. In the specific case of Cameron’s covenantal thought, it ought to be understood not as a protest against various developments in Reformed theology but rather as an integral part of the rather fluid and variegated history of early Reformed covenantal thought. Richard Muller, “Divine Covenanters, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006), 36-37.

Hence, concerning Matthew's statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

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.

Matthew, thanks for the comment. However, I don't see how one could read this (Owen's) interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula into Dort. Look at the words:

Quote:

Article 3:

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

There's no "could've been sufficient". The words are a compromise statement allowing for several views.

Moreover, Dort explicitly says this about the atonement's relationship to the unbeliever:

Quote:

Article 6:

And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Depending on which position one takes, both sides affirm that Christ secured the salvation of the elect and only the elect in his his death on the cross. Upon that foundation there are a variety of other views, which are compatible with reformed confessionalism. By all means let's discuss them, but let's not start saying either view is not confessionally reformed.

Every blessing.

Amazing Grace · #55 (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Thanks. For the record, I am NOT an Amyraldian, nor to I seek to defend the position. I was simply reacting to the fact that you stated a fairly complete case against a universal atonement but did not touch upon the issue at hand, what of those who accept a limited atonement but who see the text teaching some universal benefits (other than redemption). Your three points succinctly dispatched the issue. Thanks.

Dennis, have I missed the posts which show some benefits other than redemption? I cannot see them.. There are 5 benefits from the cross according to the writ, which of these 5 can be experienced by the reprobate?