Is there a problem with the use of "sufficient" in Limited atonement discussions?

[Flynn]

Now lets recap.

I´ve posted a number of quotations from various men. Musculus said that Christ had sufficiently redeemed all men. When it comes to Musculus you are as dismissive of him as I am of Twisse. But I do grant that both were Reformed men, and validly so. I do grant that Twisse had his own conception of double-reference. He had Christ accomplishing a hypothetical universal atonement, side by side with a particularist atonement. Both men represent two different trajectories within Reformed historiography.

I´ve cited an example of Bullinger´s position on the death of Christ, for all the sins of the world. I could cite many more. No academic work that I know of tries to convert Bullinger´s theology into something that mirrors Owen´s.

I´ve Cited Ursinus and Paraeus. Both saying that Christ made a sufficient atonement and satisfaction for all the sins of mankind, as distinct from the efficient intention. They both stress that the application of the atonement expresses its particularity and efficacy. Neither affirms that the expiation itself was limited.

I´ve posted a number of excerpts from Calvin which show that he did embrace the Lombardian formula (not the revised one). And to back up his explanation, I´ve cited examples where he too says Christ suffered for all mankind, that he died to expiate the sins of the whole world. And to further sustain that: I´ve shown examples where he says men who have been redeemed, perish [in perdition].

Here are the ones again:

Since then, this robber was a man disapproved of by all, and God called him so suddenly, when our Lord made effective for him His death and passion which He suffered and endured for all mankind, that ought all the more to confirm us.... But though our Lord Jesus Christ by nature held death in horror and indeed it was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgment-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for He was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble himself to such condemnation for our sakes... Calvin, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 9, Matt 27:45-54, pp., 151, and 155-156.

There is no room to doubt that our Lord discoursed to them about the office of Messiah, as it is described by the Prophets, that they might not take offense at his death; and a journey of three or four hours afforded abundance of time for a full explanation of those matters. Christ did not, therefore, assert in three words, that Christ ought to have suffered, but explained at great length that he had been sent in order that he might expiate, by the sacrifice of his death, the sins of the world,--that he might become a curse in order to remove the curse,--that by having guilt imputed to him he might wash away the pollutions of others. Calvin, Luke 24:26

For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27

And secondly again, thereafter as we see the mischief prevail, let us bring these back unto God which are gone astray, and labor to stop those that lead their neighbors after that fashion to destruction, and seek nothing but to turn all upside down: let such men be repressed, and let every one that hath the zeal of God show himself their deadly enemy, breaking asunder whatsoever may hold us back: and whither there be friendship or kindred between us, or any other or the straightest bonds in the world: let us bury everywhit of it in forgetfulness, when we see the souls that were bought with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, so led to ruin and destruction: or when we see things that were well settled... Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 10, 2:11-14, p., 216-7/155.

Hence it ought to be observed, that whenever the Church is afflicted, the example of the Prophet ought to move us to be touched (sumpatheia) with compassion, if we are not harder than iron; for we are altogether unworthy of being reckoned in the number of the children of God, and added to the holy Church, if we do not dedicate ourselves, and all that we have, to the Church, in such a manner that we are not separate from it in any respect. Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief. And especially the ministers of the word ought to be moved by this feeling of grief, because, being appointed to keep watch and to look at a distance, they ought also to groan when they perceive the tokens of approaching ruin. Calvin, Isaiah 22:4.

He calls the Spirit ANOTHER Comforter, on account of the difference between the blessings which we obtain from both. The peculiar office of Christ was, to appease the wrath of God by atoning for the sins of the world, to redeem men from death, to procure righteousness and life; and the peculiar office of the Spirit is, to make us partakers not only of Christ himself, but of all his blessings. And yet there would be no impropriety in inferring from this passage a distinction of Persons; for there must be some peculiarity in which the Spirit differs from the Son so as to be another than the Son. Calvin Commentary, John 14:16.

I can add stuff where he says souls which go to destruction were purchased by the blood of Christ:

But if I make my neighbour to stumble, not only to the breaking of his arm or of his leg, yea or even of his neck" but also to the destroying of his soul: and what a thing is that? For we see that the stumbling blocks which are case in men's ways, serve to the utter destruction and casting down of the silly souls that were purchased by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore when men procure troubles and stumbling blocks in the Church, do they not cause the things to go to destruction, which God has begin to build up? Therefore let us look to ourselves and seeing that God has such a care of our persons, let every [one] of us follow his example: and if we provide afore hand that no hurt may befall to men's bodies, let us have much greater regard of their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 126, 22:5-8, p., 777

Then we bethink ourselves, sure either we must needs to be hard-hearted and dull-witted, or else we consider thus, behold a man that is formed after the image of God, he is of the selfsame nature that I am, and again behold a soul that was purchased with the blood of the Son of God if the same perish ought not we be grieved. Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 71, 19:17-25, p., 333

I can do this over and over again. So here is the problem. I cite 1 or 2, I am chastised to for not showing enough evidence to justify this supposed burden of proof I am under. If I show too many, I will be chastised for cutting and pasting without context. I know I have already given enough citations to show that Calvin was not on the same page as folk like Owen. I don´t have to defend or explain his theology, all I need to do is show it. One can engage in apriori denials, but thats not my problem. I cant make a person admit that something was happening in Calvins theology that was not in Owen´s. I cant make folk admit that probably Calvin reflected the early tradition as exhibited in Musculus and others, wherein the schema of explanation was the dual-intentionality model. Christ paid a sufficient price for all men, but an efficient one for the elect.

So far Matthew I cant take your "œreading" of these men as credible. You are just not willing to admit that they are as wrong on this as you think Musculus was. You can easily cast him aside, but its gotta hurt if you do the same with Bullinger, Ursinus and Calvin: hence the glosses and denials. For myself, I am not willing to cast aside any of these men. Until I see some credible interaction from you with regard to these citations, we need to close this conversation. If you cant deal with these citations I know you wont deal with any more I cite.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]

 

[MW]

David, I believe I have said enough to show the inadequacy of your hypothesis; and a debate has to end somewhere, so I will use this post to summarise my points of contention.

1. At no point do you show what the theological difference is between Owen and the so-called earlier reformed school. Owen maintained the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men. He argued that Christ needed not to suffer any more should God have purposed to save all men; he taught that the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men because of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men; and he insisted that men perish, not because of any lack in the death of Christ, but because of their own unbelief. This is all that can be established from the writings of your so-called earlier reformed tradition. Let the record show that I have given you ample opportunity to explain wherein the hypothesised difference is supposed to exist, but you have repeatedly declined to provide any substantial answer, refusing to enter into the theological implications of your hypothesis.

2. You believe you can make this a matter of bare history. It is not. It is a matter of historical theology, and so you are required to understand the theological milieu of this so-called earlier reformed tradition. You are obliged to accept what this tradition explicitly taught, namely,
(1.) That Christ suffered vicariously, standing as a substitute in the place of a sinful people and satisfying divine justice on their behalf.
(2.) That the benefits of Christ's death are to be traced back to the eternal purpose of God, which was later called the extrinsic merit of the death of Christ.
(3.) That the benefits of Christ's death extend only to the elect; and,
(4.) That Christ's death is not profitless, but brings forth fruit in the persons whom it was intended to save.
This much can be gathered from the writings of the earlier reformed tradition. This is what they meant when they taught that the death of Christ was efficacious for the elect only. Subsequently, any explanation of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men cannot reasonably be construed as contradicting these distinctives.

3. The quotations from this so-called earlier reformed tradition, which speak of Christ dying to procure the salvation of all men, can be understood as teaching an indiscriminate offer of Christ to all men in the gospel, wherein Christ and His saving benefits are said to be given or promised to all men upon condition that they believe. Given that these "unlimited" statements can be understood in this context, and that this provides for a harmonised interpretation of their teaching, this is much to be preferred to your hypothesis, which posits that they blatantly contradicted themselves by maintaining that the death of Christ actually procured benefits for the non-elect which shall never come to fruition.

4. Both the Arminian and Amyraldian controversies emerged after the death of Calvin. Neither the Arminian teaching of an universal redemption nor the Amyraldian compromise of a double reference can be imputed to the writings of Calvin. The fact that some of Calvin's statements seem to hint at these later formulations is only owing to the fact that he taught and wrote before the forms of expression were made a matter of controversy. What is clear is the fact that Calvin never so much as hinted at a distinctive teaching which is common to both Arminianism and Amyraldianism, namely, that Christ "intended" to offer a sacrifice for the purpose of saving all men.

 

[Flynn]

G'day Matthew,

Matthew: 1. At no point do you show what the theological difference is between Owen and the so-called earlier reformed school. Owen maintained the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men. He argued that Christ needed not to suffer any more should God have purposed to save all men; he taught that the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men because of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men; and he insisted that men perish, not because of any lack in the death of Christ, but because of their own unbelief. This is all that can be established from the writings of your so-called earlier reformed tradition. Let the record show that I have given you ample opportunity to explain wherein the hypothesised difference is supposed to exist, but you have repeatedly declined to provide any substantial answer, refusing to enter into the theological implications of your hypothesis.

David: Its like this. Owen says the Lombardian formula was wrong. Ive shown evidence that Calvin, Ursinus, Musculus held to the Lombardian formula. Ergo: their contructions are wrong. According to Owen.

David: Owen expresses his formula by way of an English Subjunctive called the hypothetical contrary to fact subj. He says "œit could have been sufficient... had..." Calvin or the users of the Lombardian formula never use the subjunctive expression. But Turretin, Ridegely, Witsius, et al, did.

Matthew: 2. You believe you can make this a matter of bare history. It is not. It is a matter of historical theology, and so you are required to understand the theological milieu of this so-called earlier reformed tradition. You are obliged to accept what this tradition explicitly taught, namely,
(1.) That Christ suffered vicariously, standing as a substitute in the place of a sinful people and satisfying divine justice on their behalf.
(2.) That the benefits of Christ's death are to be traced back to the eternal purpose of God, which was later called the extrinsic merit of the death of Christ.
(3.) That the benefits of Christ's death extend only to the elect; and,
(4.) That Christ's death is not profitless, but brings forth fruit in the persons whom it was intended to save.
This much can be gathered from the writings of the earlier reformed tradition. This is what they meant when they taught that the death of Christ was efficacious for the elect only. Subsequently, any explanation of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men cannot reasonably be construed as contradicting these distinctives.


David: All that is well and good. But here is your problem. You are not treating the sources as text, but as theology. You wont allow Calvin to speak his own words, but treat him as according to what you think you should have said. This means that you cant deal with the text in an honest manner.

David: That you might not be able to penetrate the logic of Calvin's thinking, does not mean he didnt say what he said. You refuse to acknowledge what he expressly said because you presently cant understand the terms upon which he said what he said


Matthew: 3. The quotations from this so-called earlier reformed tradition, which speak of Christ dying to procure the salvation of all men, can be understood as teaching an indiscriminate offer of Christ to all men in the gospel, wherein Christ and His saving benefits are said to be given or promised to all men upon condition that they believe.

David: But thats where you are just making all this up. You are just pulling out of your hat. You havent supplied a single source to justify this claim.

Take this for example:

Calvin: You should have kept silence, says Pighius. It would have been a treacherous and abominable silence by which God's glory, Christ, and the gospel were betrayed. Is it possible? So God shall be held up as a laughingstock before our eyes, all good religion shall be torn apart, wretched souls redeemed by the blood of Christ shall perish, and it shall be forbidden to speak? ...shall the church be plundered by the thieving of the ungodly, shall God's majesty be stamped under foot, shall Christ be robbed of his kingdom, while we watch and say nothing? Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p., 19.Now, note that in the footnote, the TRANSLATOR himself says: "œSee 1 Cor 8:11. Unlike Some later Calvinists, Calvin does not appear to limit Christ´s redemption to those who will eventually be saved." G.I. Davies footnote 44.

Now lets look at Calvin on that verse range:

There is, however, still greater force in what follows--that even those that are ignorant or weak have been redeemed with the blood of Christ; for nothing were more unseemly than this, that while Christ did not hesitate to die, in order that the weak might not perish, we, on the other hand, reckon as nothing the salvation of those who have been redeemed with so great a price. A memorable saying, by which we are taught how precious the salvation of our brethren ought to be in our esteem, and not merely that of all, but of each individual in particular, inasmuch as the blood of Christ was poured out for each individual... For if the soul of every one that is weak is the price of Christ´s blood, that man, who, for the sake of a very small portion of meat, hurries back again to death the brother who has been redeemed by Christ, shows how contemptible the blood of Christ is in his view. Calvin, 1 Cor 8:11 & 12.

David: This like so may of the quotations I´ve adduced have _Nothing_ to do with the gospel offer. These souls that go on to perish have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, which was so great a price. You should cf this with his comments on Roms 14:15 as well.

David: In the end, Matthew, it is the case, whether you will honestly admit it or not, that Calvin was not on the same page as Owen was; you are just not prepared to admit it because of the dire consequences it has for your Hoeksemian claims regarding Reformed historical theology.

Because you cant understand the theology of a sufficient redemption price paid for all sinners, and this price accomplishes an unlimited satisfaction for all sin of this world, not merely a hypothetical "˜could have been... had... God..." so chosen satisfaction.

Matthew: Given that these "unlimited" statements can be understood in this context, and that this provides for a harmonised interpretation of their teaching, this is much to be preferred to your hypothesis, which posits that they blatantly contradicted themselves by maintaining that the death of Christ actually procured benefits for the non-elect which shall never come to fruition.

David: Well we are dealing with Calvin here, not Scripture, Matthew. So its possible that Calvin did contradict himself. I don´t believe he has, but what you say here exhibits the apriori rationalism I´ve seen in you.

David: A rationalist is not just someone who says that the source of our knowledge can only be autonomous reasoning. A rationalist is also someone who apriorily determines what is and is not logically possible. I see that you missed Clark´s comment in your response to the Free Offer paper of Murray. Murray is not invoking Rationalism, he is merely positing that its not irrational according to the laws of logic. Its Gordon Clark et al, who are the rationalists because they have apriorily dictated to God what is and is not logically and theologically possible for God.

David: So here too, youve already determined the theological impossibility of certain theological idea or set of ideas, so you force-fit Calvin to fit that rationalist apriori. You refuse to allow yourself to admit that maybe you are wrong on Calvin. Then what happens is that given the impossibility that you are wrong, that you don´t understand Calvin, you have to throw me into some other basket: calling me an Arminian or something. The problem is you, Matthew, not Calvin, not me.

Matthew: 4. Both the Arminian and Amyraldian controversies emerged after the death of Calvin. Neither the Arminian teaching of an universal redemption nor the Amyraldian compromise of a double reference can be imputed to the writings of Calvin. The fact that some of Calvin's statements seem to hint at these later formulations is only owing to the fact that he taught and wrote before the forms of expression were made a matter of controversy. What is clear is the fact that Calvin never so much as hinted at a distinctive teaching which is common to both Arminianism and Amyraldianism, namely, that Christ "intended" to offer a sacrifice for the purpose of saving all men.

David: You are just making all this up. You try to second guess Calvin but not a single legitimate piece of evidence can be adduced. Some of us who are more sensitive to the rules of historiography will not buy into this pseudo manner of "˜exegeting´ Calvin.

Until you can actually deal with Calvin as text, and stop making stuff up about his theology, this conversation is closed. I´ve tried to keep my part of this interaction as friendly as possible, so lets end it here.

I would like to take up some of your historical theological claims from your crit of Murray, though; but later.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by Flynn]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

This entire thread is the case in point (one of many), that show us that hypothetical "possibilities" are things that get people into trouble theologically.

Let's talk about what Christ actually did for us, instead of what He might have done for others? (Like dying for Aliens on planet Zeno).

Remember Amyraldius.