17 Comments »

1. C. Ryan Jenkins wrote,
   

   Further, the place of God’s exhaustive knowledge according to this system must be questioned as well.

   This system suggests that God’s decree to redeem mankind was made prior to and independent of His decree to elect. The natural question arises: Did God know that He was going to apply the redemptive benefits only to the elect at the occasion of the third decree? If so, then in what way can the third decree be considered prior to and independent of the fourth and fifth decrees?

   While this system provides a logical explanation which reconciles the tension inherent in the 4-point system, it seems to do so at the expense of both the knowledge and the unity of purpose of the Godhead.

   Comment on December 13, 2005 @ 12:48 am

2. Camden Bucey wrote,
   

   Reymond does bring up two other points in his discussion:

   1) …Amyraldianism implies that either a chronological element, which in effect cancels the eternality of the divine purpose, or an irrational element, which in effect imputes confusion to the divine purpose, resides in the decrees, either element of which assaults the nature of God.

   2) When it urges that the Bible teaches that both by divine decree and in history Christ’s death, represented by it as unrestricted regarding its referents, was intended to save all men without exception (the doctrine of unlimited atonement), Amyraldianism must necessarily join forces with Arminian universalism which, as we have seen, shares this aspect of its vision and turn away altogether from a real substitutionary atonement…

   Reymond, Robert. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 477-478.

   Comment on December 13, 2005 @ 7:07 am

3. Laurence O. wrote,
   

   Thank you, Camden, for your post.

   In this sentence: “The Amyraldian responds by dividing God’s eternal plan of salvation into a specified linear order of divine decrees which includes both particularistic and universalistic elements.” . . . are you critiquing both the first part (about the “linear order of divine decrees”, the last part (about the “particularistic and universalistic elements”), or both?

   The reason I ask is because I just finished glancing through Reymond’s 10-point ordo salutis, and it seems quite “linear” to me…. So, I’m trying to figure out the relationship between the traditional Reformed ordo to your critique of the Amyraldian ordo.

   Comment on December 13, 2005 @ 1:32 pm

4. Camden Bucey wrote,
   

   The sentence was intended to address the presence of both particularistic and universalistic elements in the decrees.

   Comment on December 13, 2005 @ 1:39 pm

5. C. Ryan Jenkins wrote,
   

   Laurence,

   The ordo salutis is separate and distinct from the issue of the order of the divine decrees. The former has to do with the actual application of salvation in the life of the individual. The latter is sometimes referred to as “God’s eternal plan of salvation” (so John Murray) and it concerns the ordering of divine decrees in the mind of God (i.e., it addresses the prior plan(s) and purpose(s) of God with respect to creation).

   The citation from Reymond was not detailing the Amyraldian ordo salutis, but the Amyraldian order of divine decrees. The Reformed remain divided with respect to the order of Divine decrees. Some (e.g., Beza, Vos, et al) opt for a supralapsarian arrangement, some (e.g., Thornwell, Berkhof, Shedd, et al) prefer an infra/sub-lapsarian scheme, and still others (e.g. Dabney) reject both schemes as illogical, believing that any linear arrangement of divine decrees presents insurmountable problems. That is a subject, perhaps, for a future post.

   With respect to the Reformed ordo salutis (which, as mentioned, is a separate issue from the major content of this post), I want to make one often overlooked point. Although Reymond does present a “linear” ordo, this does not necessarily imply a chronological (or temporal) priority between the various elements (I am thinking specifically of the relationship between regeneration and faith here). This linear ordering, in fact, may only involve a logical priority rather than a strictly temporal one (and this is precisely what Reymond argues for with respect to the relationship between regeneration and faith).

   Comment on December 13, 2005 @ 2:45 pm

6. Reid Ferguson wrote,
   

   Note however that not all who hold to universal effects of the atonement (re: Hodge & Dabney for instance) fall into the Amyraldian scheme. Nor does Shedd who does far more to articulate a Universal Atonement/Particular Redemption scheme. In Shedd for instance, Amyrault’s 3rd point as noted above (the decree to redeem (all) men by the cross work of Christ) would not be accurate. There would be no such decree - but rather a decree to provide a sufficient atonement for all men, yet still governed by an unconditional decree of election. Amyrault’s hypotheticalism is self-contradictory where Shedd’s - or even Davenant’s (who sat at Dordt) is not. Their’s holds some form of provisionalism in the atonement, carefully kept within the scheme so as to maintain justification by faith, and not some form of automatic justification founded upon election alone. i.e. protecting the notion that election is a decree, but is not to be equated with salvation itself, which still must be worked out in space and time through the agencies of regeneration and personal faith in Christ’s atonement.

   Blessings: Reid

   Comment on December 13, 2005 @ 9:04 pm

7. Ryan C wrote,
   

   Sometimes I wonder about the value of ordering the decrees of God. There is no scriptural basis for this. Scripture usally speaks of the plan of God as a singular plan or decree. I understand that this is a logical rather than chronological order. But I think a case can be made for the logic of both. For my part I wonder how God could logically elect certain members to a salvation that He has not (in theory) even considered. It seems to get the cart before the horse. Needless to say that there are many who would disagree. And the order of the decrees ought not be the reason we choose a position on the atonement.

   So the question then becomes, does Scripture seem to indicate that Christ died for the non-elect? In some sense you have to say yes. 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. I know that not every reference to the world means “every member of humanity” but the context here seems to require it. Note the word “whole” (gr. olos) - it means entire, whole, all, complete. Seems to suggest a universal provision. The NIV’s translation fits well with this understanding. His was an atoning sacrifice, which is the language of provision not application per se.

   Also 2 Peter 2:1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” So in some sense the Master bought false teachers.

   I know that my position is not free from difficulties. I am still working through my understanding of this doctrine. These verses seem to give the most difficulty to the doctrine of a completely Limited Atonement.

   - Ryan

   Comment on December 14, 2005 @ 7:02 am

8. Reid Ferguson wrote,
   

   I agree with the fact that you have some problems no matter which way you go. The fact that the atonement is in someway provisional is proven by the fact that even the elect do not come into the world “saved”, but still lost in their sins - even 2000 years AFTER the atoning work. I still must be appropriated by faith. Once again, Shedd’s work on this is the best of any I’ve read.

   Blessings: Reid

   Comment on December 14, 2005 @ 12:56 pm

9. Tony wrote,
   

   As I study the history and theology of Calvinism, it seems to me that “The Reformed” view is not so monolithic as this post suggests. Some have already mentioned C. Hodge, Dabney and Shedd. They do not hold to a limited imputation view as the Owenists do. They are more consistent with the formula that Christ SUFFERED SUFFICIENTLY FOR ALL, but efficiently for the elect. If one maintains that the TR position “limits the scope of the vicarious sin-bearing aspects of Christ’s atoning work to the elect,” then it cannot be said that Christ suffered sufficiently for all. This “limited sin bearing” view undermines the basis for the free offer of the gospel. One need not adopt this High Calvinistic view to be consistently Calvinistic, as the aforementioned theologians demonstrate. It’s a shame that Hodge, Shedd and Dabney are so neglected and/or misunderstood.

   “I am ready to profess,” says the famous Dr. Twisse, ” and that, I suppose, as out of the mouths of all our divines, that every one who hears the gospel, (without distinction between elect or reprobate), is bound to believe that Christ died for him, so far as to procure both the pardon of his sins and the salvation of his soul, in case he believes and repents.” Again, “As Peter could not have been saved, unless he had believed and repented, so Judas might have been saved, if he had done so.” Again, “John iii.16, gives a fair light of exposition to those places where Christ is said to have died for the sins of the world; yea, of the whole world, to wit, in this manner; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” - Dr. Twisse, on “The Riches of God’s Love to the Vessels of Mercy,” etc.

   Ursinus said: “The cause why all are not saved by Christ, is not the insufficiency of the merit and grace of Christ (for Christ is the full propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world, as concerning the worth and sufficiency of the ransome and price which he paid) but it is the infidelity of men, whereby they refuse the benefits of Christ offered in the Gospel.”

   See The Extent of the Atonement by G. Michael Thomas, Paternoster Publishing, pages 109-112.

   Even Zanchius, a High Calvinist, said: “It is not false that Christ died for all men: for the passion of Christ is offered to all in the Gospel. But he died effectually for the elect alone, because indeed they only are made partakers of the efficacy of the passion of Christ.”

   Zanchius, Miscellanea Tract. de Praed. Sanct., p. 14. Quoted by Davenant, The Death of Christ (1650; in Vol. II of his On the Colossians, ed. Allport, London, 1832), p. 548.

   Comment on December 15, 2005 @ 9:17 am

10. David Ponter wrote,
    

    G’day,

    I’ve read your comments here with interest.

    Can I ask you what is your source for your information on Amyraut?

    I am reading Amyraut right now: his first initial work that began his controversy. Also, in Armstrongs work on Amyaut, he mentions that the issue of ordered decrees seems to have been a non-issue. Having read Turretin’s criticism of Amyraldianism, again just recently, he assumes an Amyraldian ordered decretalism, however, if it’s not the case that Amyraut argued in a simple straight-line, of an alleged conditional decree to ordain an unlimited redemption, followed by a limited unconditional decree to elect, and if Amyraut didn’t in fact hold to this rigidly, then how is it not the case that most of the standard definitions and counter-arguments are not voided? For example, even Turretin conceded some Amyraldians were saying that Christ came with a two-fold intention, to efficaciously save the elect, and to provide a sufficient unlimited redemption, then how is not the case that Turretin’s counters are negated. But Turretin does not seem to acknowledge this natural conclusion. So today, if one were to reject ordered decretalism, and yet still hold to an unlimited aspect of redemption/expiation, as an unlimited imputation of sin (see Dabney) why should one be classified as a 4-point Calvinist?

    Dabney says the expiation is unlimited, made for all men. He even rejects the double-payment/jeopardy argument and quitely apparently argues for an unlimited imputation of sin. Shedd says that the expiation cancelled the claims of the law against all mankind, and likewise asserts an unlimited expiation. How do you understand these two men?

    Second last comment: have you read Calvin or Bullinger, or Musculus on the extent of the expiation? No one seriously doubts that Bullinger held to an unlimited expiation/redemption. Musculus seems explicit too. The debate is over Calvin, who while using all the same expressions as Bullinger, is yet now said to amazingly deny unlimited redemption/expiation. Have any of you read his comments on “the many” phrase based on Isa 53, as repeated in the NT, and as Calvin alludes to the phrase in his commentaries on Romans 5 and Hebrews 9, as well as his comments in the synoptics, wherein he defines the scope of those for whom Christ shed his blood and whose sins he bore?

    Lastly, I am interesting in corresponding with P. Helm on this issue. Is this a possible forum to engage in a conversation with him?

    Thanks
    David W Ponter
    (please excuse typos, I tend to write in streams of consciousness mode:)

    Comment on December 15, 2005 @ 11:24 am

11. Tony wrote,
    

    “That reprobate and deplorably wicked men do not receive it, is not through any defect in the grace of God, nor is it just, that, on account of of the children of perdition, it should lose the glory and title of universal redemption, since it is prepared for all, and all are called to it.” Wolfgang Musculus Common Places, p. 151.

    Comment on December 15, 2005 @ 11:30 am

12. Ryan C wrote,
    

    Reid,

    Good point. I think that is what Erickson tries to prove when he accuses Murray of collapsing application into accomplishment. If there is no provisional sense how could the elect be “formerly in their trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1)?

    I just recently picked up Shedd and have not read him yet on the atonement. I have really enjoyed reading him so far and will read his section on the atonement soon. Thanks.

    -Ryan

    Comment on December 16, 2005 @ 2:54 am

13. Steve Costley wrote,
    

    I find the allegation that various schemes of soteriology destroy the unity of purpose of the Trinity to be an argument made for the choir. In this case, assuming Reymond has got the Amyraldian scheme right, this does not destroy the unity of purpose in the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit would all intend the universality of the decree to redeem all men and would also all intend the particularity of the application of the atonement to the elect. That the Spirit applies (and Christ intercedes for) only the elect does not in any way cancel out the work of Christ for all men.

    Comment on December 17, 2005 @ 4:59 pm

14. Reid Ferguson wrote,
    

    David: I am in the process of reading Amyrault’s treatise on predestination as well. I “think” part of the problem in this discussion is that it seems he was more interested in making predestination acceptable to his Romanist friends, then really trying to build a doctrine of the atonement. His atonement issues almost come come under the heading of collateral damage. This may be why the attempts to censure him were not successful. He nudges or crowds atonement concepts while trying to make room for an untenable predestination. Then again, I might be totally off. I would be interested in an offline discussion of how you took the entire work when you are done. I admit I am reading extremely slowly to make sure I digest him rightly.

    Ryan: Good call on Erickson, I need to go back and dig that up. I do think many of us lay inordinate stress on LA, to the point that we almost forget Unconditional Election comes first. If that is established, we do not need to make LA bear the same weight or press it to serve the same purpose. We can let it breath a little more, and (what I think Davenant understood it to do at Dortdt) be the reply to Universalsim proper.

    All: As we’ve already seen, some like Dabney, Shedd and Hodge treat other aspects of Christ’s atonement, but they seldom get developed fully. I wonder if it because we tend to see sin monolithically, and thus do not entertain the complexity of the atonement at the same rate. Two other factors may play a role. 1. Have we explored the nature of Christ being the 2nd Adam enough? If He was made the new head of the human race, not jus the head of a new race - then did His corss-work purchase all mankind - all of which then need to be reconciled to Him by faith? See Spurgeon’s take on Matt. 13’s parable of the treasure in the field. Did Christ purchase the entire field - the world - in order to ultimately obtain the elect? If so, what are the ramifications?
    2. Christ having propitiatied the Father on our behalf, does not mean the issue is ended. If some bank buys out my current mortgage, the bill has been settled with the first lender, but is now transferred to the new buyer. What if Christ bought our debt so to speak? Yes, the Father is satisfied, but remember, the Father has committed all judgment to the Son. He now owns our debts having paid for them. Forgiveness is His personal preroggative. Simple satisfaction of the debt with the first party does not mean automatic negation of the debt. Perhaps double payment isn’t such a problem after all.

    Blessings: Reid

    Comment on December 19, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

15. David W. Ponter wrote,
    

    G’day Reid,

    Reid says: I think part of the problem in this discussion is that it seems he was more interested in making predestination acceptable to his Romanist friends, then really trying to build a doctrine of the atonement.

    David: Thats a charge, but as I recall its denied by Armstrong etc. What evidence do you have for this?

    Reid continues: His atonement issues almost come come under the heading of collateral damage. This may be why the attempts to censure him were not successful. He nudges or crowds atonement concepts while trying to make room for an untenable predestination. Then again, I might be totally off. I would be interested in an offline discussion of how you took the entire work when you are done. I admit I am reading extremely slowly to make sure I digest him rightly.

    David: Right now I am not too keen to allow 19thC definitions of Amyraut set my definitional agendum. So far in the book (which seems at one level fairly harmless, and at another level refreshing), is that he develops his schema along a historia salutis, ie following the outline of the history of man, from Creation to fall. It retains the infralapsarian aspect of God loving man as undifferentiated man in Adam. After this he proposes that God loves mankind, all men, with that same sort of undifferentiated love. This love induces God to send his Son to die. The tricky bit is his emphasis upon the term foreknowledge. A critical reader could be inclined to say he meant a bare foreknowledge. But in the beginning of this section he says that all divine foreknowledge is based on the decree of God.

    At this point, the infralapsarian Calvinist needs to be very careful. Why he is an infralapsarian is because he wants to deny a straightline causation from creation to sin, which is implicit in classic supralapsarians, or which hypercalvinists like Hoeksema outright affirm. As soon as you factor in permission of sin, even an ordained permission (Calvin and Beza), you are now into some tricky waters. The reason why we adoptive a permissive decree is that we refuse to accept that God can will sin or ordain it directly, an will or ordain it to be, to come into being, to manifest. This dictum has been with us since Augustine, affirmed by Aquinas and even by Turretin. But now, sin being only governed and bounded, not caused into being, how does the divine mind, as we conceive it, describe this causality with relation to the knowledge and decree of God. If all that God knows is caused and grounded by the decree of God, and God does not cause sin (will or ordain it) directly, we are now moving into the direction of speaking of sin as foreknown. Some of the early infralapsarians were saying the fall was foreknown. The more orthodox challenged this and preferred not to use this language, but recoursed in mystery.

    If the general take of Amyraut by men like Armstrong and Lum is right, then Amyraut was trying to step away from the technical and speculative realms of ordered decretalism and so sought to use the language of Scripture itself. Whats interesting is that mystery is not usually associated by the biblical writers when they speak of God’s ordination, rather they just pair the words/terms ordination and foreknowledge. To a reader steeped in the technical words and realm of ordered decretalism, which seeks to establish a hierarchy of relationship between ordination and foreknowledge (one grounds or causes the other), Amyraut will sound very Arminian.

    So working from this, I am not sure that Amyraut is trying to nudge the atonement, but be truer to the language of Scripture. His underlying exegetical assumptions were opposed to the high Calvinists’. He considered the exposition of the Johannine kosmos as the elect a sham, says Armstrong. For example, as soon as you accept that the kosmos of 3:16 is mankind generally, reprobate inclusive, the you are %80 now in the Amyraldian camp, as the love of God here is a love to mankind, undifferentiated with respect to election or reprobation. And the Son is God’s gift to this electively undifferentiated mass of mankind. If that can be accepted, then how it could be also congruent to then suppose that the Son, however, only died for the elect, and in no direct manner died he for the reprobate, baffles me.

    You mention predestination. His language in the translation is interesting and would raise some problems for someone operating within the high Calvinist paradigm. But I now think that more time and research needs to be done so that we can understand his underlying assumptions regarding divine intentionality and appointment to life.

    Reid says: All: As weÂ’ve already seen, some like Dabney, Shedd and Hodge treat other aspects of ChristÂ’s atonement, but they seldom get developed fully. I wonder if it because we tend to see sin monolithically, and thus do not entertain the complexity of the atonement at the same rate.

    David: I rather think its the opposite case. The Protestant Scholastic emphasis on LA places the stress on sins–a collection of individual sins–imputed to Christ, and not sin. If one emphasises certain sins as being laid upon Christ, one will end with a doctrine of limited imputation, what you call LA. Dabney and Shedd had the most insight here and saw that its sin, not sins imputed. Historically, why their views were not fully developed, was, I think, due the theological climate. The work by Shedd, Dabney et al, was seen as the synthesis in 19th C America of the impact of Bellamy and the New England theology of the atonement. In the UK, tho, the grip of the high Calvinist view of limited imputation held fast. Imagine a theological climate that sought to depose men like Thomas Boston, calling him all things such as Arminian, seeking to depose him from office and worse. Boston is now received by the mainstream as fairly harmless. Yet back then he was considered anathema by the children of the Protestant Scholastics, who opposed him. Dabney’s position is technically, even more radical than Boston’s because of his unlimited imputation and expiation etc. The views of Shedd and Dabney then are not going to be allowed to develop. In the 1960s we saw a resurgent flood of Puritan literature which followed the Protestant Scholastic view on the expiation. That wave of Puritanism pushed out the views of Shedd and Dabney. What some of us are trying to do is reestablish their positions, giving them a new defence and criticism where needs be.

    Reid: Two other factors may play a role. 1. Have we explored the nature of Christ being the 2nd Adam enough? If He was made the new head of the human race, not just the head of a new race - then did His corss-work purchase all mankind - all of which then need to be reconciled to Him by faith? See SpurgeonÂ’s take on Matt. 13Â’s parable of the treasure in the field. Did Christ purchase the entire field - the world - in order to ultimately obtain the elect? If so, what are the ramifications?

    David: That is one of the verses which Curt Daniel’s cites. Calvin does seem to have considered Christ the head of humanity, as the true complimentary second Adam.

    Reid: 2. Christ having propitiatied the Father on our behalf, does not mean the issue is ended. If some bank buys out my current mortgage, the bill has been settled with the first lender, but is now transferred to the new buyer. What if Christ bought our debt so to speak? Yes, the Father is satisfied, but remember, the Father has committed all judgement to the Son. He now owns our debts having paid for them. Forgiveness is His personal preroggative. Simple satisfaction of the debt with the first party does not mean automatic negation of the debt. Perhaps double payment isnÂ’t such a problem after all.

    David: Double payment should never have been a problem. It arose early by converting 1 Jn 2:2 into a statement that has a verbal mood, as if John had said that Christ had expiated our sins, not only ours but those of the whole world. For this reason some of the early translations seem to have used “reconciled” or “propitiation” (as favour obtained and secured), not as expiation, or expiatory sacrifice. The NIV and the NET actually capture the proper intent of 1 Jn 2:2 by relocating the stress on the expiation as sacrifice, not on expiation as accomplished for the individual (eg as in the KJV).

    Take care,
    David

    Comment on December 20, 2005 @ 10:39 am

16. Reid Ferguson wrote,
    

    My apologies to all, I am on vacation and traveling. I will write back - specifically to get to David’s stuff as soon as I can. David - thank you for taking the time to dialogue. I am finding it most helpful.

    Merry Christmas all!

    Comment on December 23, 2005 @ 11:28 am

17. Jeff Wright’s Blog » Blog Archive » What I’m Reading Right Now wrote,
    

    [...] The team at Fide-O posted an article on Lewis Sperry Chafer that contains good information but, above and beyond that, plenty of links for further reading on the issue. If you aren’t familiar with Amyraldianism check it out. Reformata also dealt with the issue of Amyraldianism. It isn’t favorable but it is informative. [...]

    Pingback on February 17, 2006 @ 6:34 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

• Authors

  • Jeffrey C. Waddington
  • C. Ryan Jenkins
  • Sebastian Heck
  • Camden Bucey

• Blogroll

  • Al Mohler
  • Castle Church
  • Feeding on Christ
  • Pros Apologian
  • PyroManiacs
  • Triablogue

• Categories

  • Apologetics
  • Book Reviews
  • Ethical Theory
  • Featured
  • General Comments
  • Historical Theology
  • History
  • Media
  • News
  • NT Studies
  • OT Studies
  • Philosophy
  • Philosophy - Epistemology
  • Philosophy - Ethics
  • Philosophy - Metaphysics
  • Postmodernism
  • Science
  • The Christian Academy
  • Theology
  • Theology - Anthropology
  • Theology - Bibliology
  • Theology - Covenant
  • Theology - Ecclesiology
  • Theology - Soteriology
  • Theology - Theology Proper
• Search for:

• Christ the Center

  • Union with Christ and Twofold Grace
  • Reformed Church Growth
  • Reforming or Conforming?
  • The Federal Vision
  • The Theological Contribution of Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
  • The Atonement as Propitiation
  • The Atonement as Reconciliation
  • The Atonement as Ransom and Substitution
  • The Atonement and Covenant Theology, Part 2
  • The Atonement and Covenant Theology, Part 1

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org