Best Defense of UNlimited Atonement

[Gloria]

This may be out of my league, but...

The atonement must be limited, in either scope (Reformed) or power (Arminian), unless you are a true universalist (that is, everyone is saved).

Agreed. The argument would come in who is doing the limiting. I think an arminian would argue that man does it when he doesn't choose God, while a calvinist would argue that God does it because he only chose some.

 

[MW]

Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement, John Goodwin, edited by John D. Wagner (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 237 pages.

This book is not a defence of unlimited atonement, it is a defence of the unlimited use of reason in matters of faith. John Goodwin was no Puritan. Richard Resbury, a true Puritan, calls him a "Lightless Star" in the title of his reply to John Goodwin's preface.

 

[reformedman]

The strongest defense for Unlimited Atonement as far as I know is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-But-Free-Norman-Geisler/dp/0764225219/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3965529-1984701?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176697451&sr=8-1"]Chosen But Free[/ame] by [ame="http://www.normgeisler.com/"]Norman Geisler[/ame]. It's full of holes, arguments are weak, and childlike argumentations.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Potters-Freedom-James-R-White/dp/1879737434/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3965529-1984701?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176697643&sr=8-1"]Potter's Freedom[/ame] was written to refute this book by James White, step by step.

The audio tapes on the refutation goes further into detail concerning the deceptiveness of the book.

 

[Skeuos Eleos]

Dabney: "The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him."

I agree to a certain extent, but then I have to question the use of the phrase "suspended on His (sic) belief." Dabney was necessitarian whereas earlier reformed theologians were voluntaristic. Here Dabney seems to refute his own necessitarianism. He is allowing for the fact that substitution is an act of free grace alone. Hence there is no substitution apart from election. The same election purposes to give faith to make the substitution effective. Ergo, it is not that satisfaction is "suspended on the man's belief," but that there is no satisfaction where there is no belief.

I admit its not entirely clear but I don't read him as saying that satisfaction is suspended as you seem to. I think he says elsewhere that satisfaction takes place at the cross. Rather I read him as saying that the 'benefits' of that satisfaction are what are suspended. Does that resolve your reservations?

I'm afraid I don't know enough about voluntarism / necessitarianism to comment but I don't see how it would change anything anyway.

As for the rest of what you say that is going beyond what Dabney says so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say those things? But from the point of view of the logic, they just don't work. Neither of your conclusions follow from their premises.

Grace and peace,
Martin

 

[caddy]

Absolutely

White Demolishes's Geisler in "PF". It is one of the BEST books on Calvinism I have read!

The strongest defense for Unlimited Atonement as far as I know is Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler. It's full of holes, arguments are weak, and childlike argumentations.

Potter's Freedom was written to refute this book by James White, step by step.

The audio tapes on the refutation goes further into detail concerning the deceptiveness of the book.

 

[JM]

Have you guys talked with Arminians that claim Hunt won his written debate with White, or Geisler's work is more logical and bliblical?

I have...

I just don't get it, as I'm typing this I'm embarrassed for them.

Peace,

j

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Back to the original question of what is the best defense of Unlimited Atonement, no one has mentioned Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ's Atonement, ISBN-10: 1579101356.

I have been told it is one of the strongest arguments available.

 

[JM]

I googled the title and found:

Norman F. Douty published in 1972 a volume entitled The Death of Christ: A Treatise Which Considers the Question: “Did Christ die only for the Elect?” A revised and enlarged edition appeared in 1978.24 Douty refers repeatedly to Calvin and quotes his comments on Mark 14:24; John 1:29; 3:16, 17 ; 12:47 ; 16:7; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:10, 11; Col 1:14 mostly to demonstrate that the words “all,” “world,” “many” are construed by Calvin as having a race-wide reference. He also lists the passages quoted by Armstrong and concludes his book with a reference to Calvin’s last will and testament. The important words are as follows: “…I…seek…to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race.”25

The French original reads “shed for all poor sinners,” and the absence of the article might favor the connotation “all kinds of poor sinners.” The point of Calvin appears here not to be whether Christ offered himself for the whole race or for the redeemed only—a matter that would scarcely be relevant to the last will and testament—but rather that Calvin’s hope of justification rested in God’s willingness to receive “poor sinners” among whom Calvin did not hesitate to number himself.

here

 

[elnwood]

Those who argue in favor of an unlimited atonement think that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus died for everyone.

Millard Erickson in his, Christian Theology, says "The underlying issue here is the question of the efficacy of the atonement. Those who hold to limited atonement assume that if Christ died for someone, that person will actually be saved. By extension they reason that if Christ in fact died for all persons, all would come to salvation; hence the concept of universal atonement is viewed as leading to the universal-salvation trap. The basic assumption here, however, ignores the fact that our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: objective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation)."

I will respond to the above quote. First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ. Second, our faith does not determine whether God's justice is satisfied or whether the debt of sin is paid for. Suppose there is judge and he is willing to accept an innocent person to die in the place of a criminal on death row. If the innocent person actually died in the place of that criminal and the demands of the law were completely satisfied, then the criminal would go free. The criminal cannot say, "I don't accept what that innocent person did for me." The criminal does not determine whether or not justice has been satisfied.

Suppose a proponent of the unlimited atonement were to say the following:

"Christ's atonement alone completely satisfied God's justice. Christ's atonement alone completely paid for the debt of sin for everyone, but some people will go to hell."

The logical conclusion of such statements would be that the debt of sin is paid for twice.

It's important when refuting positions that you disagree with that you do not put words in their mouth or make assumptions about where their logic goes.

"First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ."

The first statement is correct, but I think the second is a stretch. An Amyraldian or Arminian would hold the first, but I don't think any would affirm the second statement.

For example, the Reformed view is that faith itself credited as righteousness. Does that make the faith itself righteous, and thus making faith a work? No Reformer would say this.

In the same way, I don't think it is consistent to say that the Amyraldian/Arminian view of the atonement is that faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ because a) the proponents of that view don't believe it, and b) the same type of logic would make the Reformers believe that faith is a work as well.

I'd appreciate it if others would continue to try to critique Erickson on this, because as of this moment I'm not convinced either for or against Erickson's position at this time.

 

[MW]

I admit its not entirely clear but I don't read him as saying that satisfaction is suspended as you seem to. I think he says elsewhere that satisfaction takes place at the cross. Rather I read him as saying that the 'benefits' of that satisfaction are what are suspended. Does that resolve your reservations?

I'm afraid I don't know enough about voluntarism / necessitarianism to comment but I don't see how it would change anything anyway.

As for the rest of what you say that is going beyond what Dabney says so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say those things? But from the point of view of the logic, they just don't work. Neither of your conclusions follow from their premises.

As you do not know enough about voluntarism and necessitarianism you are not in a position to know whether my conclusions follow from their premises. To help you a little -- a voluntarist holds that the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. As God willed the faith of those who would be partakers of the atonement, it follows that atonement and faith are intricately tied together in the counsel of God, so that where there is no faith there is no atonement. Dabney's concession to voluntarism effectively allows these conclusions so that his comments about "suspension" are null and void.

 

[Davidius]

For example, the Reformed view is that faith itself credited as righteousness. Does that make the faith itself righteous, and thus making faith a work? No Reformer would say this.

In the same way, I don't think it is consistent to say that the Amyraldian/Arminian view of the atonement is that faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ because a) the proponents of that view don't believe it, and b) the same type of logic would make the Reformers believe that faith is a work as well.

But wouldn't an Arminian view justification happening at the same time as regeneration since an Arminian would believe that regeneration follows faith instead of preceding it? So in that sense faith is a meritorious work, whether or not the Arminians "believe" it, that is, admit it. So saying that faith is a work for the Arminian doesn't necessitate the same accusation toward the Reformed.

 

[cih1355]

It's important when refuting positions that you disagree with that you do not put words in their mouth or make assumptions about where their logic goes.

"First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ."

The first statement is correct, but I think the second is a stretch. An Amyraldian or Arminian would hold the first, but I don't think any would affirm the second statement.

For example, the Reformed view is that faith itself credited as righteousness. Does that make the faith itself righteous, and thus making faith a work? No Reformer would say this.

In the same way, I don't think it is consistent to say that the Amyraldian/Arminian view of the atonement is that faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ because a) the proponents of that view don't believe it, and b) the same type of logic would make the Reformers believe that faith is a work as well.

I'd appreciate it if others would continue to try to critique Erickson on this, because as of this moment I'm not convinced either for or against Erickson's position at this time.

Would the following be a better response to Erickson's view?

Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then Christ merely came to make man savable or to make salvation possible.

The Bible does not teach that Christ came merely to make man savable or to give man the potential to be saved. Christ came to secure the salvation of His people. Matthew 1:21 teaches that Christ came to save His people from their sins. It does not say that Christ came to give man the potential to be saved. Acts 20:28 teaches that Christ purchased the church of God with His own blood. It does not say that the blood of Christ made the church savable. Luke 19:10 teaches that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. Christ did not come to make salvation possible. Hebrews 9:12 teaches that the blood of Christ obtained our redemption. It does not say that the blood of Christ makes redemption possible.

 

[cih1355]

Another argument that unlimited atonement proponents use is the following:

Isaiah 53:6 says, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way;But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
to fall on Him." According to this verse, everyone has gone astray and everyone's sins were placed on Jesus.

 

[elnwood]

But wouldn't an Arminian view justification happening at the same time as regeneration since an Arminian would believe that regeneration follows faith instead of preceding it? So in that sense faith is a meritorious work, whether or not the Arminians "believe" it, that is, admit it. So saying that faith is a work for the Arminian doesn't necessitate the same accusation toward the Reformed.

Actually, I've always viewed justification as happening after we have faith even though I hold that regeneration precedes faith. Justification means to be "declared righteous," and I don't think I was viewed by God as righteous until I was saved and had the faith that was credited to me as righteousness.

Would the following be a better response to Erickson's view?

Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then Christ merely came to make man savable or to make salvation possible.

The Bible does not teach that Christ came merely to make man savable or to give man the potential to be saved. Christ came to secure the salvation of His people. Matthew 1:21 teaches that Christ came to save His people from their sins. It does not say that Christ came to give man the potential to be saved. Acts 20:28 teaches that Christ purchased the church of God with His own blood. It does not say that the blood of Christ made the church savable. Luke 19:10 teaches that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. Christ did not come to make salvation possible. Hebrews 9:12 teaches that the blood of Christ obtained our redemption. It does not say that the blood of Christ makes redemption possible.

Curt -- yes, good response to Erickson.

I think salvation is a process involving the entire trinity. God sends Christ to die for the sins, the Spirit regenerates the sinner, and God views the faith that the Spirit works into the sinner as righteousness based on the merit of Christ.

From an Arminian perspective, yes, Christ came to make man savable, and man has to choose to do the next step to make salvation complete.

But if you hold unconditional election, and that God WILL sent his Spirit upon the elect and regenerate them, then Christ does make salvation secure because he both pays for the sins and sends his Spirit to regenerate His people.

I don't think that those verses are conclusive. I can say that I went to the store to buy food to feed my family, even though they won't be fed until they eat it (and you can even assume an "irresistible grace" in that I can make my family eat it!). So you could say that, though, "I went to the store to feed my family," it is also true that I went to the store to make them feedable, and then I fed them. So I don't see a necessary contradiction.

The best argument I've heard for the strictly limited atonement position is that it would be inconsistent and unfair with God's character to pay for the sins of some people on the cross and then not save them; that the unity of the trinity is disrupted if Jesus died for some and the Holy Spirit failed to regenerate them and bring them to faith. It's a good argument, but I'm uncomfortable with it because I feel like it's imposing our own logical framework and consistency on the nature of God. I am wary of this because this type of logic can lead to hyper-Calvinism.

So I am still relatively uncertain on this point of doctrine.

Another argument that unlimited atonement proponents use is the following:

Isaiah 53:6 says, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way;But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
to fall on Him." According to this verse, everyone has gone astray and everyone's sins were placed on Jesus.

This verse has also made me lean towards Amyraldism. It seems clear from context that this verse is teaching total depravity of all humanity (and even some Reformed commentaries agree), and naturally that would mean that the verse is teaching that Christ took upon himself the sins of all humanity.

 

[cih1355]

From an Arminian perspective, Christ only came to make man savable. Christ's atonement in and of itself never secures anyone's salvation. From a Calvinist perspective, Christ's atonement does a lot more than to make man savable; Christ's atonement secures the salvation of the elect.

 

[Davidius]

Actually, I've always viewed justification as happening after we have faith even though I hold that regeneration precedes faith. Justification means to be "declared righteous," and I don't think I was viewed by God as righteous until I was saved and had the faith that was credited to me as righteousness.
.

Don,

I would agree with you about justification coming after we profess faith. I was just trying to say that, the way I see it, the charge the "faith is a work" can't be leveled at Calvinists the way it can at Arminians purely because we believe that regeneration precedes faith, without even taking justification into consideration.

 

[elnwood]

Don,

I would agree with you about justification coming after we profess faith. I was just trying to say that, the way I see it, the charge the "faith is a work" can't be leveled at Calvinists the way it can at Arminians purely because we believe that regeneration precedes faith, without even taking justification into consideration.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Faith is not a "work" in a monergistic model because it is caused by God, but it is in a synergistic model since the person chooses.

I think the original argument was that if faith is needed in addition to the atonement, then faith is a work added to the atonement. It was phrased, "If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ."

I would argue that faith is necessary for the elect to be justified in the eyes of God (standard Reformed view as well as Amyraldian/Arminian), and I would conclude based on this premise that faith is needed to make the atonement efficacious since the atonement does not effect the justification, although it is the basis for justification.

From an Arminian perspective, Christ only came to make man savable. Christ's atonement in and of itself never secures anyone's salvation. From a Calvinist perspective, Christ's atonement does a lot more than to make man savable; Christ's atonement secures the salvation of the elect.

The argument about what particular events in the salvation process "secures" a person's salvation confuses me. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "secure." Since the elect were chosen unto salvation from the foundation of the world, was out salvation not secure then? God has always promised to save his people, so was there ever a time that our salvation wasn't secure?

Why is it the atonement that secures salvation, and not election? Or regeneration? Or faith? Or the act of persevering? All of these things, I believe, are essential to salvation. Therefore, I don't see how any one of these events can be seen as the act that secures salvation.

 

[MW]

I would argue that faith is necessary for the elect to be justified in the eyes of God (standard Reformed view as well as Amyraldian/Arminian), and I would conclude based on this premise that faith is needed to make the atonement efficacious since the atonement does not effect the justification, although it is the basis for justification.

Atonement is by nature efficacious. There is no such thing as atonability.

 

[elnwood]

Atonement is by nature efficacious. There is no such thing as atonability.

Efficacious for what? Is atonement efficacious for justification? If so, why are sinners not justified before God without faith?

 

[MW]

Efficacious for what? Is atonement efficacious for justification? If so, why are sinners not justified before God without faith?

It is efficacious to remove the wrath of God and reconcile sinners, which is what an atonement purports to do. Atonement is efficacious for justification through faith, as Rom. 3:25 teaches. Sinners are not justified before God without faith because God has purposed propitiation is through faith in the death of Christ.

What people do not reckon with when discussing the death of Christ is that the death of Christ avails nothing apart from God's purpose to make it the efficacious cause of salvation.

 

[elnwood]

It is efficacious to remove the wrath of God and reconcile sinners, which is what an atonement purports to do. Atonement is efficacious for justification through faith, as Rom. 3:25 teaches. Sinners are not justified before God without faith because God has purposed propitiation is through faith in the death of Christ.

What people do not reckon with when discussing the death of Christ is that the death of Christ avails nothing apart from God's purpose to make it the efficacious cause of salvation.

So what you're saying is that the atonement is efficacious for through faith, and propitiatory through faith. Thus, without faith and without God's purpose in election, the death of Christ is not efficacious.

 

[KMK]

So what you're saying is that the atonement is efficacious for through faith, and propitiatory through faith. Thus, without faith and without God's purpose in election, the death of Christ is not efficacious.

Rev Winzer was teaching me on a different thread that the Greek of Rom 3:25 states that the propitiation is 'set forth' through faith. Apart from faith, there is no 'setting forth' of the propitiation. This truth is somewhat lost in the newer translations because of the commas that are added. I hope I got that right.

 

[Skeuos Eleos]

"I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins?"

----John Calvin

Bruce,
You offer this quote without explanation but, given that you made it immediately following another Calvin quotation in which Calvin clearly speaks of Christ suffering for "the sins of the whole world", one can only imagine that you somehow think this one quote negates the previous one (and no doubt the many others like it)? Even the self-contradictory high Calvinist William Cunningham, after mistakenly claiming this verse as supporting limited atonement in Calvin, admitted that this one quote 'stands alone - so far as we know – in Calvin's writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it’. For a better understanding of this SINGLE instance in Calvin's writings which, when considered alone, apart from its context and the context of the discussion with which it is concerned, appears to support limited atonement see the following extracts from Curt Daniel's PhD thesis and G. Michael Thomas' Extent of the Atonement.

Regards,

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Martin:

1) Thank's for bumping my Calvin quote. Pretty good one, isn't it.

2) If a "quote" stands in the place of an "argument" in the prior case, on what basis do you offer your "critique" of my reply with another "quote"? It seems as though you are doing plenty of "reading into" any argument I might have, since I didn't state one. But, apparently, if quotes are "dropped in" without explanation that seem to support your position, they don't earn your critical analysis. Your double standard is fine with me. Hey, run with it if that suits you.

3) I wasn't interested in doing anything other than offering a broader perspective on Calvin's own words than that found solely in the prior quote alone, let the readers and debaters make of it what they would. I have a busy schedule, and hot-and-heavy debating on every issue just doesn't fit. But you are welcome to "just imagine" about what my argument might have been. Have a nice day.

4) Of the two quotes offered, personally I find the second contains the least ambiguity. It's a simple logical blunder to just compare lists of citations, and then declare a "winner" based on whose list is longer. And you can't find me trying to do that, regardless of your accusations. You admit you have no idea which, how many, or if any other quotes I would try to "negate" by presenting this one quote.

But, I think the "self-contradictory high Calvinist William Cunningham" (perhaps you might like to start a thread devoted to defending both of those denominatives?) was smart enough not to rest a case on a single statement. Right here, you could deconstruct his L.A. analysis of this text, instead of merely slighting it by asserting that he was "mistaken".

5) People can read the discussions you suggest. I recommend also reading Cunningham's own discussion, and contemporary theologian Roger Nicole and the various authors he discusses, given his acquaintance with the relevant literature past and present. Smarter men than I are defending a traditional L.A. position in this thread without my "help" (so-called).


See, Martin, I'm not interested in getting involved in back and forth on this subject. If I was, I would have argued for it 3 months ago when the subject was first broached. There might be good reason to hold the minority-position you champion. Maybe the "truth will out" just hasn't happened for 400+ years. But I'm confident it will. Just keep talking.

 

[MW]

So what you're saying is that the atonement is efficacious for through faith, and propitiatory through faith. Thus, without faith and without God's purpose in election, the death of Christ is not efficacious.

Yes. That Christ died in the place of any man in order to effect His salvation is entirely dependent upon the free grace of God.

 

[Skeuos Eleos]

Bruce,

2) If a "quote" stands in the place of an "argument" in the prior case, on what basis do you offer your "critique" of my reply with another "quote"? It seems as though you are doing plenty of "reading into" any argument I might have, since I didn't state one. But, apparently, if quotes are "dropped in" without explanation that seem to support your position, they don't earn your critical analysis. Your double standard is fine with me. Hey, run with it if that suits you.

This seems a little harsh and unnecessary to me. You immediately take on an adversarial role. The question mark after my first sentence was intended to test my assumption. I see now that it would have been better if my post had said no more than "Bruce, why did you post this?" and then none of this would have happened. I guess I was trying to save time so I'm sorry about that.

2) I wasn't interested in doing anything other than offering a broader perspective on Calvin's own words than that found solely in the prior quote alone, let the readers and debaters make of it what they would.

To be honest I don't see how that is much different from my original guess.

3) Of the two quotes offered, personally I find the second contains the least ambiguity.

Well, personally I think its the other way around. I think a reading of the linked articles will help show why.

It's a simple logical blunder to just compare lists of citations, and then declare a "winner" based on whose list is longer.

You misunderstand me if you think I am doing that.

And you can't find me trying to do that, regardless of your accusations.

But I'm not accusing you of that!

But, I think the "self-contradictory high Calvinist William Cunningham" (perhaps you might like to start a thread devoted to defending both of those denominatives?) was smart enough not to rest a case on a single statement. Right here, you could deconstruct his L.A. analysis of this text, instead of merely slighting it by asserting that he was "mistaken".

Ok, I guess I can be somewhat prone to a little use of hyperbole. I used those adjectives just to invite questions but my post seems to have resulted in a bad reaction so I will refrain in future.

My comments were based upon what Clifford says - see here.

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus,
Martin

 

[Skeuos Eleos]

Well, Josh, I wasn't expecting to find a genuienly great argument for U, or at least none that match up with 'Death of Death', but surely there had to be something...

Actually there have been some criticisms of Owen's DoD, see:
Clifford, A.C., Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790 - An Evaluation, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1990
Chambers, N.C., A Critical Examination of John Owen's Argument for Limited Atonement in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". 1998, unpublished ThM Thesis available from www.tren.com

See also this thread, although the whole discussion got clouded there and wasn't able to be concluded.

Also, whilst I deny unlimited atonement, you may not be aware that there is a long-standing stream within historical Calvinism that has held to what might be described as a more 'dualistic' view of the atonement which distinguishes between the expiation and the application in line with the old formula that Christ's death was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect". There is a rich vein of writers in this stream who hold, to varying degrees, that there is an objective provision to the reprobate within the expiation without denying an application limited to the elect. This ranges from Dabney and Shedd at one end through to Amyraut at the other. All of them uphold particular redemption but in a way that is different to the more simplistic understanding that many Calvinists seem to have today. Others in this vein include: Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, Davenant, Calamy, Baxter, Polhill, Howe, Bunyan, Flavel, Doddridge, Boston, Ryle and many more.

Regards,

 

[Skeuos Eleos]

As you do not know enough about voluntarism and necessitarianism you are not in a position to know whether my conclusions follow from their premises. To help you a little -- a voluntarist holds that the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. As God willed the faith of those who would be partakers of the atonement, it follows that atonement and faith are intricately tied together in the counsel of God, so that where there is no faith there is no atonement. Dabney's concession to voluntarism effectively allows these conclusions so that his comments about "suspension" are null and void.

Actuallly, as you do not know exactly how much I know about voluntarism and necessitarianism you are not in a position to know whether I am not in a position to know whether your conclusions follow from their premises.

Frankly none of this makes a difference for it does not alter the fact that you continue to offer conclusions that simply do not automatically follow from the premises as stated. You will not persuade me with your arguments because I do not buy into your presuppositions (ones which it would seem that you are not even aware that you are making in order to think that your logic holds). The only way you would persuade me is if you can show me from Dabney's own writings how something he said renders the quote I supplied "null and void".

Regards,
Martin

 

[MW]

There is a rich vein of writers in this stream who hold, to varying degrees, that there is an objective provision to the reprobate within the expiation without denying an application limited to the elect. This ranges from Dabney and Shedd at one end through to Amyraut at the other. All of them uphold particular redemption but in a way that is different to the more simplistic understanding that many Calvinists seem to have today. Others in this vein include: Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, Davenant, Calamy, Baxter, Polhill, Howe, Bunyan, Flavel, Doddridge, Boston, Ryle and many more.

I grant that Musculus, Davenant, Calamy, Polhill, Baxter, Shedd, and Ryle shared the conviction of an "objective provision" for the reprobate. Ursinus, Howe, Flavel, Boston, and Dabney used language relative to either the intrinsic value of Christ's death or to the conditional provision of salvation, but they nowhere suggest that Christ made an objective provision for any other than the elect. As for Bullinger, Bunyan, or Doddridge, I abstain from commenting on people I have only read fragments of, which would be a wise procedure for others to follow.

 

[MW]

The only way you would persuade me is if you can show me from Dabney's own writings how something he said renders the quote I supplied "null and void".

From the Five Points of Calvinism, opening paragraph on Particular Redemption:

"Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual."

If you are going to quote theologians it would pay you well to become acquainted with their writings as a whole in order to gain some insight into the way they thought. This piecemeal method of presenting their ideas in order to conclude things they never would have permitted is false representation.