Examining Accuracy of JC Ryle Quote On "Conditional Saving Faith"

Status
Not open for further replies.

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
My primary point (which probably wasn't stated as clearly as it could have been) was that since the sufficient/efficient (contrasted to strict particularism and HU) view of the atonement was the Calvinistic view, couldn't we also regard strict particularism as a deviation from orthodox Calvinism?
Tim, sufficiency is part of the strict particularist system. It is inherent in the doctrine of penal satisfaction. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; the wages of sin is death; Christ died for sin. To save one man or all men the punishment to be endured was the same. What Christ has done is sufficient in itself to save all men. But at the same time Christ stood as a legal substitute in the place of a particular people. God set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood. Without faith there is no propitiation in the purpose of God. This precious faith is only obtained through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. He procured it as a necessary element of His saving office; and He did this for a particular people.

With this in mind, consider your statement that said Davenant and Ryle taught a "revision of five point Calvinism so as to accommodate the Arminian view..." It seems to me that a) it was no more a revision than strict particularism, and b) it historically countered (not accommodated) the Remonstrant position at Dort.
Your taxonomy is confusing. The Canons of Dort teach strict particularism. "Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of Salvation."

Hypothetical universalism teaches that God gave Jesus Christ to save all men on condition they believe; but He has not elected all men to believe and be saved. This means that God gives Jesus Christ to all men but then takes Him away from some. Election comes in to exclude the application of the merits of Christ to a whole class of men. Christ's merits call for faith and justification but God says "No" to His dearly beloved Son. Hypothetical universalism teaches that God is not well-pleased to save all men for whom Christ died. This is a distortion of the gospel of free grace.
 
Last edited:

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
Tim, sufficiency is part of the strict particularist system. It is inherent in the doctrine of penal satisfaction.
I agree that it is a part of strict particularism. It is also a part of every other major reformed view. However, they do not employ "sufficiency" in the same way.

Your taxonomy is confusing. The Canons of Dort teach strict particularism.
I'm using the distinctions in Fesko's taxonomy. If we are working off the definitions in the same taxonomy, many historical supporters of Dort-- even those who were involved in writing it-- were not strict particularists.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
However, they do not employ "sufficiency" in the same way.
I noted this point earlier. Davenant taught an ordained sufficiency. Owen taught an intrinsic sufficiency. Dort teaches an intrinsic sufficiency, which is clear from head 2, article 4. Article 6 lays all fault entirely on the unbeliever. Davenant's view, on the other hand, brings in the election of God as the reason why the death of Christ is not applied to the unbeliever.

I'm using the distinctions in Fesko's taxonomy. If we are working off the definitions in the same taxonomy, many historical supporters of Dort-- even those who were involved in writing it-- were not strict particularists.
Dort itself teaches strict particularism. Davenant's view departs from it. I have already shown this to be the case. There is no basis for claiming strict particularism departs from the five points of Calvinism; there is clear reason for showing that Davenant's doctrine of hypothetical universalism departs from the five points of Calvinism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top