Tags
Amyraldism, Arminianism, Atonement, Bible, Calvinism, Christianity, Election, God, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Grace, Jesus Christ, Limited Atonement, Reformed Theology, Salvation, Theology
(Author’s Note: Just so you know, I am aware that I recently wrote an article on Four-Point Calvinism, or Amyraldism. Most of my articles are questions I receive from others. As such, I have no control over what is asked. Sometimes, I get several questions that all dance around the same topic. Hopefully, they shed some additional light on that topic)
Question: Four point Calvinism believes that Christ died for the sins of all, not just for the sins of the elect, right? But they also believe that men are totally depraved because of their sinful nature and cannot seek God on their own. Would it be a correct interpretation then that Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of all, then enabled us to seek him? Somewhere in scripture it also says that through the first Adam men died, but Christ is the second Adam through whom all should live or something like that. Also Acts 17:24-28 Paul talks about the sovereignty of God, who positions the lives of people in a way that will allow men to seek him (or maybe I interpreted it wrong).
However, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1:3 talk about God’s sovereignty where he predestined people like pharaoh to resist His will, so how should this be interpreted? Has the death of Christ which is sufficient for all sin enabled man to seek God? In regards to God’s sovereignty, some say we will boast by choosing God, but isn’t it by grace through faith we are saved? Grace is the invitation, faith is the acceptance of the invitation and no man can boast about being invited because without the invitation we could not go to Heaven.
Answer: Four-Point Calvinism essentially denies one of the, so-called, five points of classic Calvinistic theology. Since Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) is the most common point denied, Four-Point Calvinism is often associated with those who hold to the other four points (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints) while denying Limited Atonement.
The debate over Limited Atonement is one regarding the extent of Christ’s atonement; i.e., for whom did Christ die? To be fair, all debates on the atonement limit it in some manner. Classic Arminianism, which denies all five points of Calvinism, limits the efficacy of the atonement. Christ died for all men (and women), but is only efficacious to those who place their faith and trust in Christ for salvation. In other words, Christ died to make salvation possible for all men, but that salvation is not activated until a person believes. There is no truly Unlimited Atonement view in classic Christian orthodoxy because that view essentially reduces to universalism, which the bible does not teach.
To say that Christ died for all men but only enabled some (the elect) to “seek him,” is to promote the classic view of Four-Point Calvinism called Amyraldism (named after French theologian, Moses Amyraut). This view of the atonement basically teaches that Christ died for all men (the atonement was universal in its extent), but becomes efficacious to those whom God elects (limited efficacy). This is virtually indistinguishable from the Arminian view of the atonement with the exception that the effects of the atonement are sovereignly applied by God in Amyraldism as opposed to being effective through the faith of the individual in Arminianism.
The question as to whether or not this is a correct interpretation is answered by determining what was God’s design for the atonement? According to Classic Calvinism, the five points present a chain in which each point is linked to the one prior, and that chain describes how one is made right with God. The first point (Total Depravity) is the linchpin, and it teaches us that man is born in sin and is unable (and unwilling) to perform any works that are pleasing to God. The second point (Unconditional Election) is that due to man’s depravity, God must (if he desires to save anyone) unconditionally elect them unto salvation. Unconditional refers to the fact that man does nothing to earn his salvation; it is solely an act of God’s grace. The third point (Limited Atonement) tells us that God, through the death of Jesus Christ, atones for the sins of those he has elected. In this point, salvation is actually accomplished; when Christ died, he actually atoned for the sins of the elect. The fourth point (Irresistible Grace) states that those whom God has elected and for whom he has atoned are irresistibly drawn by God’s grace to faith and repentance. This is God, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, applying the saving work of Christ to the elect. The final point (Perseverance of the Saints) says that those whom God has elected, atoned for and irresistibly drawn are preserved until the last day when Christ returns.
Based on this, the answer to your question (“What was God’s design in the atonement?”) is to purchase salvation for his elect. It makes no sense, in Calvinistic teaching, to say that God’s purpose in the atonement was to have Christ die for all men because according to God’s eternal decrees, not all men will be saved. God has not ordained the salvation of all men; therefore, it is unnecessary for Christ to have died for all men. This isn’t to say that Christ’s atoning death isn’t sufficient to cover the sins of all people; Calvinism doesn’t limit the sufficiency of the atonement, only the extent. Therefore, many Calvinists like to say, “Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficacious for the elect.” But regarding Christ actually dying for the sins off all is inconsistent with Five-Point Calvinism. Full-fledged Five-Point Arminianism is actually more consistent than Four-Point Calvinism at this point because they say God’s design in the atonement was to make all men savable.
You make a reference to the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). This verse does not teach that Christ died for all men nor does it teach that all will be made alive. The key to understanding this passage is in the phrases “in Adam” and “in Christ.” If you are “in Adam,” you will die; all who are “in Adam” will die. How are we “in Adam?” We are born “in Adam” through natural birth. The same can be said of those who are “in Christ.” We are “in Christ” through spiritual birth (or regeneration) and all those who are “in Christ” will ne made alive. It’s by virtue of being identified as “in Christ” that one is made alive; and that’s accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (see John 3:3).
Regarding Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, these passages are not specifically talking about the atonement. These are passages that refer more to the doctrine of Unconditional Election (Calvinism’s second point). The key verse in Romans 9 is “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy…So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Romans 9:16, 18). Election unto salvation is based solely on God’s act of mercy, not on any human work; that’s the whole point of Romans 9. Ephesians 1 just reinforces the same point. In that passage we learn that God has chosen the elect from before the foundation of the world (v. 4), and this is done according to the pleasure of his good will (v. 5); again election based on grace, not works.
Finally, in regards to boasting in heaven, you are absolutely correct. The five points of Calvinism describe salvation monergistically. What that means is that God alone works for our salvation (recall what was said previously about the five points of Calvinism). In all of the five points, God alone works (that’s what “monergistically” means). Because we’re totally depraved, God must elect, atone, call and preserve us until the end. If that’s the case, then as the Protestant Reformers said, “To God alone be the glory.”
Soli Deo Gloria!
This is the most concise, erudite summary of the differences between Calvanism and other schools on the issues of salvation by grace. Thank you!
Charl,
Thank you for the extremely kind words. I am humbled by them. Thanks for being a fan!
Carl,
Nice, simply a Calvinist Gospel and Message! … “Radical depravity (sin, top to bottom), unconditional election, particular redemption, efficacious grace, and perseverance (to the last day, before the judgment of God!) “God so loved the world (kosmos…the sinful kosmos) that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosover believes on Him should not perish (only the election of grace), but “have” eternal (everlasting) life.” (John 3:16)
Fr. Robert,
You know what the turning point for me regarding Calvinism was? It was coming to grips with Total Depravity. Once I understood that man is corrupt to the core due to the fall, the rest fell into place. The last thing to come into place for me was Limited Atonement, and it was precisely because of the “all” and “world” passages in the bible. However, I read Boice & Ryken’s “What Happened to the Doctrines of Grace” and that clinched it for me. When I understood the atonement to be an actual atonement and not a potential atonement, it just clicked! Christ died to save sinners, not to make sinners savable.
Carl,
Ironic, but it was very simular for me also. When I realized that I was but ‘a sinner in the hands of sovereign Almighty God’, and that His mercy & grace were to save “sinners”, who could see Christ crucified for “their” sins, it was as St. Paul said: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself for me [the sinner].” (Gal.2:20, KJV) My conversion, many years ago now was very Augustinian, and yet graciously Christological! And Scripture was sovereignly central, (2 Tim. 1: 9-10). Thanks be to God!
You my brother have a great gift and call of God I sense! Press it home! The Pastoral Epistles (Letters) were of such great benefit for me, in seeing and finding my path and way (years ago, and still!) Perhaps for you also? Let me recommend the nice new work: Entrusted With The Gospel, Paul’s Theology In the Pastoral Epistles, by Andreas J. Kostenberger and Terry L. Wilder, (B&H Academic, 2010).
Yours,
Fr. Robert
hey Carl,
Answer: Four-Point Calvinism essentially denies one of the, so-called, five points of classic Calvinistic theology.
David: Some big assumptions there which are open to challenge.
Firstly, Dort does not equate to TULIP. Dort affirms, contra-remonstrate, that Christ died to infallibly and effectually same some.
Secondly, Dort does not intend to suggest a reductionist 5 point Calvinism. For example, many of the Dort delegates affirmed Prosper’s belief that Christ shed his blood for the redemption of all men, and yet only the elect obtain the fruit of that redemption. This is documented by Godfrey and Thomas in their dissertations. But this affirmation by many of the Dort committees would contradict the narrow TULIP interposition upon Dort. I cannot see how one could avoid this reality.
Carl: [cut] The question as to whether or not this is a correct interpretation is answered by determining what was God’s design for the atonement? According to Classic Calvinism, the five points present a chain in which each point is linked to the one prior, and that chain describes how one is made right with God. The first point (Total Depravity) is the linchpin, and it teaches us that man is born in sin and is unable (and unwilling) to perform any works that are pleasing to God. The second point (Unconditional Election) is that due to man’s depravity, God must (if he desires to save anyone) unconditionally elect them unto salvation. Unconditional refers to the fact that man does nothing to earn his salvation; it is solely an act of God’s grace. The third point (Limited Atonement) tells us that God, through the death of Jesus Christ, atones for the sins of those he has elected.
David: Why would a classic-moderate Calvinist (after the sort of Musculus, Calvin, Cranmer, Bullenger, and others) have a problem with the section I have emphasized?
Carl: In this point, salvation is actually accomplished; when Christ died, he actually atoned for the sins of the elect.
David: How exactly was salvation accomplished for you? How was it that he actually atoned for the sins of the elect on the cross on your schema? Did they cease to be objects of wrath in life, while in unbelief? Were they born justified?
Carl: The fourth point (Irresistible Grace) states that those whom God has elected and for whom he has atoned are irresistibly drawn by God’s grace to faith and repentance. This is God, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, applying the saving work of Christ to the elect. The final point (Perseverance of the Saints) says that those whom God has elected, atoned for and irresistibly drawn are preserved until the last day when Christ returns.
Carl: Based on this, the answer to your question (“What was God’s design in the atonement?”) is to purchase salvation for his elect.
David: Where does it say salvation was purchased for the elect? And how was this accomplished?
Carl: It makes no sense, in Calvinistic teaching, to say that God’s purpose in the atonement was to have Christ die for all men because according to God’s eternal decrees, not all men will be saved. God has not ordained the salvation of all men; therefore, it is unnecessary for Christ to have died for all men.
David: I am not sure if these are supposed to be two separate statements or one explicates the other. To the first and second: What if God has another necessary reason for the expiation for all men?
Also, “sense” can be in the eye of the beholder. Luther and just about all the original Reformers said that Christ was punished in behalf of the sins of all men, and yet by election, only some are thereby effectually saved. It must have made sense to them.
Carl: This isn’t to say that Christ’s atoning death isn’t sufficient to cover the sins of all people;
David: How can it be sufficient for all men’s sins? A payment made only for some men, cannot be a sufficient payment for other men. Right? That has to follow.
One can only say, that hypothetically, one could have made a sufficient payment for the other men: this, however, only speaks to the expiation’s intrinsic sufficiency. But that’s another proposition altogether.
Carl: Calvinism doesn’t limit the sufficiency of the atonement, only the extent.
David: Limited expiation must limit the sufficiency, extrinsically, Carl. A payment made on behalf of a limited number, cannot be sufficient for others for whom no payment was made.
Carl: Therefore, many Calvinists like to say, “Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficacious for the elect.” But regarding Christ actually dying for the sins off all is inconsistent with Five-Point Calvinism.
David: How is this explicable? A man pays the price of redemption for John, but not for Harry. The payment was not a sufficient payment for Harry. Ergo, extrinsically and actually, it was not sufficient for Harry. Even John Owen granted this, Carl.
cut
Carl: You make a reference to the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). This verse does not teach that Christ died for all men nor does it teach that all will be made alive. The key to understanding this passage is in the phrases “in Adam” and “in Christ.” If you are “in Adam,” you will die; all who are “in Adam” will die. How are we “in Adam?” We are born “in Adam” through natural birth. The same can be said of those who are “in Christ.” We are “in Christ” through spiritual birth (or regeneration) and all those who are “in Christ” will ne made alive. It’s by virtue of being identified as “in Christ” that one is made alive; and that’s accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (see John 3:3).
David: Sure. All in Adam die, All in Christ shall be made alive. But it does not say or entail or imply that Christ only died for all those in Christ.
Carl: Regarding Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, these passages are not specifically talking about the atonement. These are passages that refer more to the doctrine of Unconditional Election (Calvinism’s second point). The key verse in Romans 9 is “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy…So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Romans 9:16, 18). Election unto salvation is based solely on God’s act of mercy, not on any human work; that’s the whole point of Romans 9. Ephesians 1 just reinforces the same point. In that passage we learn that God has chosen the elect from before the foundation of the world (v. 4), and this is done according to the pleasure of his good will (v. 5); again election based on grace, not works.
David: Exactly.
Carl: Finally, in regards to boasting in heaven, you are absolutely correct. The five points of Calvinism describe salvation monergistically. What that means is that God alone works for our salvation (recall what was said previously about the five points of Calvinism). In all of the five points, God alone works (that’s what “monergistically” means). Because we’re totally depraved, God must elect, atone, call and preserve us until the end. If that’s the case, then as the Protestant Reformers said, “To God alone be the glory.”
David: Well, conversion is an action of man. The monergerism pertains to the source of regeneration and new birth. There is, for example, only one efficient cause. All agree here. In no way does the classic position challenge this. yet also, duty-faith must be affirmed for sure.
Basically the main assertion is that election entails limited atonement? But how? That election entails limited and designed intent to apply, for as Dabney says, this is what characterizes wise persons. But at no point is there 1) a deductive argument 2) or an argument for limited expiation.
Thanks and take care,
David
David,
According to Dort…
Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all.
This limits the atonement to the elect and the elect only.
This also limits the extent of the atonement. Christ clearly did not die for ALL men universally (i.e., every single individual). If we accept Dort as an accurate summation of biblical doctrine, then you cannot argue for an atonement that made actual propitiation for all (universal) men. It is not warranted based on what Dort clearly teaches.
Regarding your Harry and John illustration, it fails to take into account the first quote from Dort I cited; namely, the infinite value of Christ’s atonement. Let’s assume Harry is elect and John is not. The atonement of Christ would be enough (based on its infinite value) to cover both of their sins, but by God’s decree, the atonement was intended only for Harry. Christ died for Harry, not for John. Had God also intended to atone for John, no further action would be necessary; but Christ still did not die for John.
You have more points I wish to address, but my time is limited right now. I’ll reply to them soon.
Hey Carl:
Dort:
David: And this is why a good case can be made that Dort sustains the moderate-classic position. But that aside, men like Gomarus, and others, this affirms the intrinsic sufficiency.
For example, Owen, Turretin and others, the sufficiency of Christ is only of such a nature that had God so chosen, it could have been sufficient for all. It is only sufficient for all, in respect to the value of the person. But this can only be in the abstract, with regard to Harry. There is no actual sufficient provision for Harry. And so, again, there is no actual extrinsic sufficiency for Harry.
Turretin for example:
[bold mine.] It is an abstracted sufficiency, purely intrinsic.
Note the bifurcation. It could have been sufficient for all, while the “died sufficiently for all” only refers to the dignity of Christ’s death. This corresponds to Owen’s internal/external distinction. The later Orthodox maintained that the satisfaction could have been sufficient for all men of this world. The sufficiency only belongs to its inherent nature. It is not actually extrinsically sufficient for all men. I am not the one seeing this in these guys, Carl. I can supply academic sources who also acknowledge this point.
Dort:
[my bold]
David: Exactly. It was the will of God that the efficacy of the Son’s death be applied to the elect. I do wonder about the translation “works itself out”.
And then the second bolded section is exactly right
Carl says:
This limits the atonement to the elect and the elect only.
David: No not actually. It says nothing about the nature of the expiation, but only to the limited intention to apply it. The rejection of errors section you site is explicit.
Dort:
[[bold mine.]
David: Look at the bold there. The Arminian maintained that Christ died for all men equally, for no man especially. Moderate Calvinism denies the Remonstrant proposition but affirms the Dortian proposition. This passage from Dort rejects the idea that God wills to bestow the benefit of the expiation upon all men equally.
Carl says:
This also limits the extent of the atonement. Christ clearly did not die for ALL men universally (i.e., every single individual). If we accept Dort as an accurate summation of biblical doctrine, then you cannot argue for an atonement that made actual propitiation for all (universal) men. It is not warranted based on what Dort clearly teaches. Then it denies that the limitation in application is due to the free will of man.
David: With respect Carl, it only denies 1) the claim that Christ died for all men with an equal intention to apply, and that the limitation is due to the free will of man.
Carl:
Regarding your Harry and John illustration, it fails to take into account the first quote from Dort I cited; namely, the infinite value of Christ’s atonement. Let’s assume Harry is elect and John is not. The atonement of Christ would be enough (based on its infinite value) to cover both of their sins, but by God’s decree, the atonement was intended only for Harry. Christ died for Harry, not for John. Had God also intended to atone for John, no further action would be necessary; but Christ still did not die for John.
David: Let me agree that your reading of Dort on the nature of the sufficiency is correct. Then it has to follow that Owen’s reading, among others, is not.
And if we go to your reply to my metaphor.
Look at your wording. “The atonement would be enough…” That is, could be… could be what? enough of what? Answer: a provision, a sufficient provision. Owen has a concise discussion on the point. He says:
In other words, it was not a sufficient ransom for all because it was not a ransom for all. There can be no sufficient provision for a man, for whom no price was paid.
If a payment, albeit of infinite value, was made for John, but not for Harry, then the payment, as it stands has no sufficiency, no enoughness (even though the word “enough” is not the best term) to redeem Harry from Bondage. One could only say, “had it been God’s will, the payment could have been enough for Harry too.” (even though the word “enough” is inadequate).
A payment of a provision, even tho of infinite value, for John, is not a provision for Harry. There is no actual provision for Harry.
If Dort speaks definitively, it speaks against this. However, folk on all sides have considered Dort’s statement neutral and non-definitive.
And also, in terms of authorial intent, many of the subscribers of God affirmed Prosper’s distinction. What is more, the English and Bremen delegates, and Alsted, affirmed universal expiation/redemption. It would be hard to sustain the claim that Dort, nonetheless refutes these men.
Richard Muller explains:
[bold mine]
Sorry for the length, but I really am trying to encourage you to read and think some more on this topic.
Thanks
David
David,
Can you do me a HUGE favor? Can you simply state what YOU believe regarding the extent of the atonement? You are bombarding me with quote and words, and I simply don’t have the time to wade through all this and offer a proper response.
In all your quotes, I am left wondering precisely what position YOU support. Many of your most recent points I would agree with. I agree with the Dort quotes I cited and I don’t think anything you wrote necessarily refutes or contradicts what I wrote.
Christ died for the elect and only the elect. That is what Dort CLEARLY says. That death atoned for ALL of the sins of the elect. That’s what Dort CLEARLY says. I think it is a stretch to say that Christ died for ALL men and then that death was applied only to the elect. I say that is a stretch because Dort does NOT say that.
At this point, steamrolling me with voluminous quotations from the history of Reformed thought isn’t really going to advance the argument because I believe Dort is pretty clear on this point. Besides, it seems to me that your quotes from Owen and Turretin say the same thing I was saying; namely, Christ’s death was sufficient for all and efficacious for the elect. They would say that Christ did not die for all men as would I.
It seems you want to assert that Christ died for all men, but for the elect efficaciously, right? (a simple yes or no would suffice). In other words, Christ died for the non-elect in a way that is different than that for the elect. If you can show me from the confessions (Belgic, Westminster, Heidelberg, or Dort) or from the bible where Christ died for ALL men (for the elect efficaciously and for the non-elect non-efficaciously), then I will concede the point.
Hey there Carl,
Sorry I am not trying to steamroll you. Actually I was intimidated by all the Dort stuff thrown my way.
Sincerely, not trying to steamroll at all. This will sound tit-for-tattish, but its not intended to: I could post a lot more.
My motive was to try to lay down a conceptual map, so you can move through the distinctions that the Reformed of all wings made, before and after Dort.
Just briefly:
You say: Christ died for the elect and *only* the elect. That is what Dort CLEARLY says. That death atoned for ALL of the sins of the elect. That’s what Dort CLEARLY says. I think it is a stretch to say that Christ died for ALL men and then that death was applied only to the elect. I say that is a stretch because Dort does NOT say that.
* emphasis mine
David: Dort does not insert “only”. The only “only” which is predicated by Dort, is to the effectual and discriminating intention to apply (only to the chosen), never to the nature of the expiation itself.
That Dort says Christ made an expiation for all the sins of the elect, none deny, no Amyraldian, no limited expiation advocate. What Dort does not say, is that he made an atonement only for the sins of the elect. You are inserting a negation, an exclusion where Dort has none. As it stands, all Calvinist wings can say Amen to Dort on that.
Its perfectly true, on both the Amyraldian and non-Amyraldian TULIP platform that Christ made an atonement for the sins of the elect. That proposition excludes neither camp.
If one insists on inserting a negation, implicitly or explicitly, then one must have Dort refuting many of its own compilers.
I am am not saying Dort says Christ died for all; just in case you think I am. Dort neither denies or explicitly affirms the idea.
Regarding the sufficiency, think in terms of provision, such that provision speaks to the sufficiency of the what Christ accomplished.
If the satisfaction, as a penal payment, was only made in behalf of John, then the provision sustained, can only be for John. There is no provision for Harry. None. No provision means no actual sufficient provision for Harry.
I post something of a position-statement later.
Thanks for your time,
David
David,
I’m sorry for getting snippy. I should not have taken my frustration out on you; please forgive me.
David: That Dort says Christ made an expiation for all the sins of the elect, none deny, no Amyraldian, no limited expiation advocate. What Dort does not say, is that he made an atonement only for the sins of the elect. You are inserting a negation, an exclusion where Dort has none. As it stands, all Calvinist wings can say Amen to Dort on that.
Dort: In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross…should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father. (2nd Point of Doctrine, Article 8 excerpted; emphasis mine)
Carl: I didn’t insert the “only” there. Dort had the “only” in there all along. Redemption was made for the elect and the elect only. Maybe what I think you’re trying to say is (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Dort is only talking about the application of the atonement being made to the elect, but I don’t think that is the language of Dort in this case.
David: If the satisfaction, as a penal payment, was only made in behalf of John, then the provision sustained, can only be for John. There is no provision for Harry. None. No provision means no actual sufficient provision for Harry.
Carl: I have no problem at all with this statement. I give my hearty “AMEN.” However, I would add that if God has so chosen Harry, no further provision would be necessary. I believe that is what Dort meant when speaking about sufficiency. If God had so chosen to save ALL people, the one death of Christ would be sufficient for the cause. As such, the death of Christ is actually only sufficient for the elect.
Question: I can’t help shake the feeling that there is a distinction being made on your part between Christ’s death and the atonement. Is that the case? To me they are one and the same; that is why I assert that Christ died only for the elect, and that death was an atoning death.
Question #2: Again, correct me if I’m wrong, according to the Amyraldian order of salvation, election comes after the atonement. Is that your view? To me, it’s the only way I can see holding the position that Christ died for all, but only the elect were redeemed. From what I have read, that seems to be the Amyraldian position. However, as I read Dort, it seems that election preceeds atonement in the order of salvation. Your thoughts?
Indeed, there cannot be too many “biblical” choices here! “And if any man sin, we have an Advocate (Paraclete, Gk.) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the expiation (sin bearer, or sin offering – to be propitiatory) for our “sins”; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2: 1-3) *Note, nothing here about being the expiation of/for the sins of the whole world, universal. And we know that the Death of Christ is the “expiation” for “sins”. ( 1 John 4:10 /Rom. 3:24-25 /Heb. 1: 3 ; 9: 14; 28 / Titus 2:14) And in 1 John 2: 2 ; 4:10. And we note this is within too the Mediation of Christ in 1 John 2: 1-3!
“Because Christ died for ‘sins’ once..” (1 Peter 3:18)
And the “satisfaction” of the Death of Christ is also the sufficiency of the very “Person” of the Son of God Himself! The “value” eternal of Who He is: the Christ of God! And here we see and find fully the Moral Glory of Christ Himself! (Col. 1: 15-20, etc.) How can we talk about the Death of Jesus, without the reality and quality of Who-He-Is!?
hey Carl
Carl:
It seems you want to assert that Christ died for all men, but for the elect efficaciously, right? (a simple yes or no would suffice).
David: Yes.
Carl: In other words, Christ died for the non-elect in a way that is different than that for the elect.
David: Yes and no.
The original Lombardian formula held that in one death of Christ which was a satisfaction for all sin, Christ died with the intention of sustaining a sufficient sacrifice for all, and with the intention of sustaining the effectual means to save the elect.
The Lombardians distinguished between intention to apply and the nature of the expiation. The nature of the expiation is equally for all sins and all sinners. This is standard Augustinian theology. The Lombardian synthesis was built on the theology of Ambrose, Augustine and prosper. It was Beza in the Reformed camp who can be documented as the earliest Reformed exponent to revise the formula.
Carl:
If you can show me from the confessions (Belgic, Westminster, Heidelberg, or Dort) or from the bible where Christ died for ALL men (for the elect efficaciously and for the non-elect non-efficaciously), then I will concede the point.
David: Well the Belgic says nothing one way or the other. Dort likewise neither denies unlimited expiation nor affirms limited expiation.
Those confessions which do speak of an unlimited expiation, we have at least:
The 39 Articles
The Second Helvetic Confession
The Heidelberg Catechism
Now here is where you will have to read some quoted material. Sorry about that. But reading is the only way to make head-way on this. I am sure, someone who has not read Ursinus directly, will say that by the phrases “sins of all mankind” Ursinus meant something like: “all the kinds of sins of all kinds of elect people” (or some like comment), but definitely not, all the sins of all men, in actuality.
Ursinus (with Olevianus):
FIFTEENTH LORD’S DAY.
Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, “he suffered?”
Answer. That he, all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the, end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation; and obtain for us the favor of God, righteousness, and eternal life….
Ursinus’ own commentary on that very question:
I. What are we to understand by the Passion of Christ, or what did Christ suffer?
By the term passion we are to understand the whole humiliation of Christ, or the obedience of his whole humiliation, all the miseries, infirmities, griefs, torments and ignominy to which was subject, for our sakes, from the moment of his birth even to the hour of his death, as well in soul as in body. The principal part of his sorrows and anguish were the torments of soul, in which he felt and endured the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. By the term passion, however, we are to understand chiefly the closing scene, or last act of his life, in which he suffered extreme torments, both of body and soul, on account of our sins. “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” “Surely he hath borne our griefs. He was wounded for our transgressions.” “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him.” (Matt. 26 : 38; 27 : 46. Is. 53 : 4, 5, 10.)
What, therefore, did Christ suffer? 1. The privation or destitution of the highest felicity and joy, together with all those good things which he might have enjoyed. 2. All the infirmities of our nature, sin only excepted : he hungered, he thirsted, was fatigued, was afflicted with sadness and grief, &c. 3. Extreme want and poverty; “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” (Matt. 8 : 20.) 4. Infinite injuries, reproaches, calumnies, treacheries, envyings, slanders, blasphemies, rejections and contempt; “I am a worm, and no man; and a reproach of many.” “He hath no form or comeliness, and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him.” (Ps. 22: 6. Is 53 : 2.) 5. The temptations of the devil; “He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4 : 15.) 6. The most reproachful and ignominious death, even that of the cross. 7. The keenest and most bitter anguish of soul, which is doubtless a sense of the wrath of God against the sins of the whole human race. It was this that caused him to exclaim, upon the cross, with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” as if he should say, Why dost thou not drive away from me such severe anguish and torments? Thus we see what, and how greatly Christ has suffered in our behalf.
But since the divine nature was united to the human, how is it possible that it was so oppressed and weakened as to break forth in such exclamations of anguish; and especially so when there were martyrs who were far more bold and courageous? The cause of this arises from the difference which there was in the punishment which Christ endured and that of martyrs. St. Lawrence, lying on the gridiron, did not experience the dreadful wrath of God, either against his own, or against the sins of the human race, the entire punishment of which was inflicted upon the Son of God, as Isaiah saith, he was stricken, and smitten of God for our sins: We say, then, that St. Lawrence did not feel the anger of an offended God piercing and wounding him; but felt that God was reconciled, and at peace with him; neither did he experience the horrors of death and hell as Christ did, but he had great consolation, because he suffered on account of confessing the gospel, and was assured that his sins were remitted by and for the-sake of the Son of God, upon whom they were laid, according to what is said, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.”. (John 1 : 29.) Hence it is easy to be accounted for, why St. Lawrence seemed to have more courage and presence of mind in his martyrdom, than Christ in his passion; and hence it is also that the human nature of Christ, although united to the Godhead, was made to sweat drops of blood in the garden, and to give vent to the mournful lamentation, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?” Not that there was any separation between the natures in Christ; but because the humanity was for a time forsaken by the Divinity, the Word being at rest, or quiet, (as Irenaeus saith) and not bringing aid and deliverance to the afflicted humanity until a passion altogether sufficient might be endured and finished. [p., 212-213.]
David: Now here is the question: how did Ursinus understand the phrase “Christ suffered the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind (or all the world)”?
By reading Ursinus’ own commentary, he meant, all the sins of all men. You can find more here: Zachary Ursinus (1534–1583) on the Death of Christ
This fact is something which David Paraeus affirmed, who was Ursinus’ student and then successor, which Kimedoncius affirmed, who was Ursinus’ colleague at Heidelberg. It is something others have acknowledged, even down to Richard Muller.
I know that folk like GI Williamson and others interpret this Q&A differently, but Ursinus’ own interpretation is evident.
As to the Westminster Confession. I agree that’s problematic. But for lots of reasons, I have to agree with Richard Muller that it allows for a form of non-Amyraldian hypothetical universalism, of the Davenant variety. Davenant was, as you will recall, one of the English delegates at Dort, and who also affirmed an unlimited expiation for all men. Historically, its reported that up to a third of the Westminster delegates held to unlimited atonement. There are good reasons to believe this. There have been some good essays and documentation which explains how it is these men could have signed the WCF. It is only from the WCF that would could make a confessional case for limited expiation/redemption (Dabney and Shedd notwithstanding).
* * * * * *
If you want to read more on this, more from the actual Reformers’ writings, click on my name and scroll down the index. Take a look at Bullinger, Musculus, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, and others. Take a look at Paraeus, Kimedoncius, Bergius, as these men specifically refer to the the HC, even to this Q&A.
Do you have a copy of this commentary by Willard? If so, check out the comments from Paraeus, pages 221-225; or click on my name and scroll down. Nicole in his article on this concedes that no doubt, Paraeus reflects Ursinus accurately.
To sum up, I think we need to take care to be true to the historical facts.
Hope that helps,
David
I screwed up on some of the html for Urinus.
And click on the link behind the name here for the direct page.
David
Hey Carl,
Carl: I’m sorry for getting snippy. I should not have taken my frustration out on you; please forgive me.
David: sure thats fine. My desire is that folk start getting back to the primary sources. Weve become self-indulgent and lazy resting on the claims of others. I feel that without some documentation its impossible to get beyond simple assertions.
Here is the Dort piece you cited:
bold mine
[Only there refers to Christ's perfect sacrifice as opposed to Romish doctrines and practices.]
Then a little later you added what looked to me to be commentary on that:
bold mine.
David: Can you see how and why I responded? You expressed the sentiment that Dort intended an exclusion.
Carl citing Dort:
In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross…should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father. (2nd Point of Doctrine, Article 8 excerpted; emphasis mine)
David: Yes and okay…
Carl: I didn’t insert the “only” there. Dort had the “only” in there all along. Redemption was made for the elect and the elect only.
David: I hope this is clarified. My “only” was to the reference to atonement for the sins of the elect only.
Carl: Maybe what I think you’re trying to say is (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Dort is only talking about the application of the atonement being made to the elect, but I don’t think that is the language of Dort in this case.
David: Dort is denying the Remonstrant claim that Christ died with an equal intention to apply the benefit to all, such that Christ died for no one with an especial discriminating intention to apply the benefits of the expiation. Thats the thesis Dort specifically wants to posit a counter to, an antithesis. It leaves open the question regarding the nature of the satisfaction.
Old David: If the satisfaction, as a penal payment, was only made in behalf of John, then the provision sustained, can only be for John. There is no provision for Harry. None. No provision means no actual sufficient provision for Harry.
Carl: I have no problem at all with this statement. I give my hearty “AMEN.” However, I would add that if God has so chosen Harry, no further provision would be necessary. I believe that is what Dort meant when speaking about sufficiency. If God had so chosen to save ALL people, the one death of Christ would be sufficient for the cause. As such, the death of Christ is actually only sufficient for the elect.
David: Okay, so there is no actual provision (sufficient satisfaction) to or for Harry. What then is Harry offered in the Gospel proclamation? Or stated another way how can a gospel offer to Harry be made explicable on these terms?
Carl: Question: I can’t help shake the feeling that there is a distinction being made on your part between Christ’s death and the atonement. Is that the case? To me they are one and the same; that is why I assert that Christ died only for the elect, and that death was an atoning death.
David: I would say it like this, the death of Christ, itself, was a sacrifice of expiation. It was part of the atonement process. In the OT, the blood of the animal was first shed outside the temple, then the blood gathered and taken inside to the holy of holies and poured over the altar. Then the Priest came out and met the people. After the process atonement was accomplished. The death itself does not obtain “atonement” as in restoration, reconciliation. The death speaks to the offering on the sacrificial altar outside,where the throat cut and blood pours out. This is the sacrifice of expiation, ie the sacrifice to make God propitious. Yet it is not the end of the process.
Help, not help?
Carl: Question #2: Again, correct me if I’m wrong, according to the Amyraldian order of salvation, election comes after the atonement.
David: Here is the thing, Firstly, Amyraut actually rejected an actual ordering. Its a bit of a myth imposed upon him by his opponents. Amyraut only spoke of the apparent perceived order in which God reveals himself to mankind, as it appears to us, creation, the fall, then the plan of restoration etc. Amyraut rejected the positing of an actual logical and pre-temporal ordering. He was charactized by all that, but never advocated it.
Secondly, AmyraldianISM has two key ideas which are disconnectable.
A) That Christ sustained a penal satisfaction for all men. The election of God applies that to the elect.
B) A) was cast in two post-Reformation categories, Laspararian ordering, and Federal Categories.
A) was held by nearly all the Reformers. B) arose post-Calvin.
Amyraldianism fused A and B into a system. Yet A) predates Amyraut by centuries.
I say Amyraldianism, even tho Amyraut rejected an actual speculative pre-temporal logical ordering.
Carl: Is that your view? To me, it’s the only way I can see holding the position that Christ died for all,
David: I hold to A). I don’t hold to the so-called Amyraldian ordering of the decrees. I, like Dabney, reject the whole ordering enterprise. However, if pressed, I am happily infra-lapsarian. The ordering of the decrees is not essential here: its one little bit of a wider complex of ideas. Personally, I dont even think in terms of a lapsarian ordering anymore.
Carl: but only the elect were redeemed. From what I have read, that seems to be the Amyraldian position. However, as I read Dort, it seems that election preceeds atonement in the order of salvation. Your thoughts?
David: On Dort on the ordering of the decrees, I know Muller would challenge that its implicitly infra. But that aside, if an ordering is implied in Dort, then I am infra. And I believe Amyraut would have agreed.
The problem is reading all this through Warfield’s faulty grid.
Let’s see, if we unpack A) above, then the classic position was this:
The redemption of Christ has two aspects, universal and particular. The universal aspect is in the objective payment of a price. This payment was for all, and so thereby all men in this sense can be said to be redeemed by Christ (much in the same way as if he takes ownership of them). Particular redemption is in the application to any penitent individual.
The expiation was made for all the sins of all men. However, it is the exact and proper means whereby God may justify the elect and effect their complete salvation and restoration to God.
Thats really really bare-bones on my part.
Dabney, Shedd and others took a different track of course.
Hope that helps… my brain is all but frazzled now.
David
David,
Can I ask you a question? In your previous comment regarding your hypothetical situation with Harry and John (BTW, I think somehow Harry lost his election and John gained it, but that’s another story…
), you asked what was Harry offered in the gospel presentation if Christ didn’t somehow die for his sins. Is it your position that Christ’s death must be universal in its expiatory nature in order to make the gospel presentation “valid”?
Peter Lombard, scholastic theologian, R. Catholic bishop of the 12 century. He should be read in his medieval and scholastic, sacramental context.
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/lombardus/
Exegesis and Doctrine (Doctrina…sacra doctrina or sacra sapientia) are the heart of Reformed theology! Here we are indebted with gratitude to John Calvin!
Hey Carl,
You say and ask:
David: Was Harry ever elect in my metaphors?
To the question.
In some sense the sufficiency of the provision has to underwrite the free offer. Owen and Turretin, among others affirm this. Occasionally someone like Cunningham will try to disconnect this relationship, yet Dabney was right to chastise Cunningham for the attempt.
Given that it must be true that the provision must be as extensive as the offer, it must follow that this provision be an actual provision for all, not simply a hypothetical one.
If not, the offer is not sincere and explicable.
If by “valid” you mean, logically explicable, coherent, ie explicable, then yes, only an actual provision made for all can make the offer to all and any valid.
Thanks,
David
This is really a scholastic argument, rather than a exegetical one. Only the person drawn by grace & God’s glory can benefit from the Atonement of Christ, (Titus 2:10-14). Here it is not just the divine attribute of grace itself, but Christ Himself, who is grace Incarnate..and very personal – “Who gave Himself for us, to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession..” (Verse 14).
It’s not a scholastic argument. What do you think the meaning of 1 Timothy 4:10 is if not what we are discussing? “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”
Philip,
I was speaking of David’s “scholsatic” arguments. As to the verse you indicate (1 Tim.4:10), you have missed the “operative” word, “especially”.. ‘of/the believers.’(Lit. Greek)
“For to this end we labor and strive, because we have put our hope on (upon) a living God Who is a Savior of all men (not man) especially (MOST OF ALL, Greek)…the believers/believing.” (1 Tim. 4: 10, Lit. Trans.)
Again, a most definite group – “the believing”. And a definite, particular people!
*scholastic