Half Truths, Whole Truths, and Complete Untruths
17 comments | Permalink
J.I. Packer once wrote this great truth: "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth."
posted by JT at Sunday, May 28, 2006
17 Comments:
Great reminder in theological and biblical study. I have seen Packer use this line often, and I never tire of it. It seems to be radically misunderstood in much of today's academic atmosphere.
I have been reading "The Death of Death"--which is where this quotation comes from, I believe. He is talking about the gospel, and it is so true. If you only get part of the gospel, you really do not have much of the gospel at all.
MBS~Soli Deo Gloria
Yes, and there is so much half-truth and distortions in the High Calvinistic thought of Owen and Packer. Owen's arguments for a strictly limited atonement are terrible, particularly his Double Jeopardy argument (2). The fact that this quotation is made in his intro to Owen's Death of Death work makes it particularly grievous.
I've even read Packer's doctoral dissertation on Richard Baxter's views. It was severely slanted (and filled with half-truths) when it came to Baxter's Redemption arguments.
Incidently, I say all of this as a 5 point Calvinist.
I, for one, do not find Owen's explanation of Double Jeopardy to be problematic, and I do not find the dilemma that Chambers proposes to be troubling nor his argument convincing.
That is because I believe that salvation is secured for the elect by Christ's atonement, and I do not find it troubling in the least to say it is applied by faith in time. I find it more troubling to believe that there is no sense in which the elect are saved by Christ's death, even before they believe. In the end, I believe that Chamber's supposed dilemma is more troubling for him than the one he proposes for Owen.
Sojourner said:
I believe that salvation is secured for the elect by Christ's atonement, and I do not find it troubling in the least to say it is applied by faith in time.
As Tony Lane observed, "our salvation is made certain, not merely possible, by the combined work of Father, Son "and" Holy Spirit (ie, not by the cross alone, taken in isolation)."
The securing of our salvation involves the necessary application of the Holy Spirit. It's not as if Christ's work on the cross is a pecuniary debt payment that ipso facto liberates those for whom it was made. If it were a commercial transaction like that, then salvation prior to faith would follow, or that, as Sojourner argues, there is a "sense in which the elect are saved by Christ's death, even before they believe."
W. G. T. Shedd is right on point as well when he said, "Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved (Eph. 2:8 ); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it."
My friend David Ponter has rightly described the problem, when he said, "In the 17th C, in the zeal to refute non-strict Limited atonement folk, the Reformed located a sort of certainty in the expiation itself. There is no scriptural warrant for it, but its now such a solid tradition that shaking it is very hard. The only reason that new idea was created was to refute others. The only reason it was created was to present a sort of modus tollens argument. Its a plain false-dilemma fallacy that needs to be discarded as a whole. Its not a simple either/or like that."
Sojourner said:
I find it more troubling to believe that there is no sense in which the elect are saved by Christ's death, even before they believe.
I wonder what you mean by "saved" in the above quote. As I read my bible, the term "saved" only refers to justification and what follows (sanctification and glorification). It's a term reserved for REAL union with Christ, and not to virtual union. If one wants to insist that non-existent entities were somehow "saved" when Christ died, then justification before faith seems to inevitably follow (or eternal justification), no matter how strongly some want to deny it. The historic doorway into Calvinistic Antinomianism and Hyper-Calvinism opened through the idea of justification before faith, or real union with Christ before faith.
Neil Chambers was spot on in his thesis at Reformed Seminary concerning Owen's "Triple Choice." In it he says, "What needs to be seen is that Owen’s argument defeats itself by proving too much. If, in Owen’s terms, Christ died for all the sins of some people, the elect, then he must also have died for their unbelief, where ‘died for’ is understood to mean having paid the penalty for all their sins at Calvary. If this is the case, then why are the elect not saved at Calvary? If Owen replies that it is because the benefits of Christ’s death are not yet applied to them, then I would ask what it means for those benefits not to be applied to them? Surely it means that they are unbelieving, and therefore cannot be spoken of as saved. But they cannot be punished for that unbelief, as its penalty has been paid and God, as Owen assures us, will not exact a second penalty for the one offense. If then, even in their unbelief, there is no debt against them, no penalty to be paid, surely they can be described as saved, and saved at Calvary. That being the case, the gospel is reduced to a cipher, a form of informing the saved of their blessed condition."
The gospel is reduced to an announcement to the elect that they were already "saved" when Christ died, or justified in eternity. High Calvinists strongly cling to Owen's arguments, but then they desperately try to avoid the logical entailment of eternal justification. But, as you can see in their language, they are inclined to say with Sojourner that there is a "sense in which the elect are saved by Christ's death, even before they believe."
Ynottony,
I certainly agree that salvation is an act of the Triune God. I have no disagreement with Tony Lane's statement. I also do not find his statement to be contrary to the one that I made about Christ securing salvation for the elect by His atoning work. Is it the word "secured" that you have a problem with?
I further agree that salvation is applied by the Holy Spirit. I do not know anyone who disagrees with that statement.
I still believe that there is a sense in which the elect are saved before they believe. I also believe that Jesus Christ was crucified "from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). Yet, I still find Him being slain after the foundation of the world. I also believe myself to be seated in the heavenly places as I type this response, though I realize that my actual bottom is very firmly planted in my chair(Ephesians 2:6).
My problems with the position of Neil Chambers is this:
1. Is unbelief sin?
2. If it be sin, when was it atoned for? For that matter, when was any sin atoned for?
And, this statement also troubles me:
If one wants to insist that non-existent entities were somehow "saved" when Christ died
Well, perhaps again it is the terminology that is the problem. But are we not to believe that Jesus did not die for "non-existant entities"? If He did not die for them, then how do they ever come to be saved? If He did die for them, then is their no sense in which they may be spoken of as secured?
Finally, I disagree with this statement:
If then, even in their unbelief, there is no debt against them, no penalty to be paid, surely they can be described as saved, and saved at Calvary. That being the case, the gospel is reduced to a cipher, a form of informing the saved of their blessed condition
I believe that this statement is not a logical necessity. The Holy Spirit must apply salvation and give faith, which He will infallibly do for those whom Christ has secured by means of the preaching of the gospel. If they believe, then they may be assured of the fact that their sins were forgiven at Calvary.
As I read Shedd's quote, I do not see how his statement is in any way contrary to what I have said. I see that he writes, "If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation." Sure, that's true. But will such a situation ever arise? I certainly think not. So yes, the Holy Spirit must regenerate the elect for them to be saved and regenerate, but is it wrong to say that He certainly will since Christ won their salvation for them already? (Again, by means of the proclamation of the gospel.)
Somebody help me here. I am not trying to be dense, and I certainly hate it when I find out that I am a heretic. Am I missing the point because I am being imprecise with words or what?
Sojourner said:
YnottonY,
I certainly agree that salvation is an act of the Triune God. I have no disagreement with Tony Lane's statement. I also do not find his statement to be contrary to the one that I made about Christ securing salvation for the elect by His atoning work. Is it the word "secured" that you have a problem with?
When an Owenist uses the word “secure,” they mean that the expiation secures it’s own application. This is how they arrive at a STRICTLY limited atonement view. The concept is not only used to refute non-Calvinist perspectives, but also moderate Calvinistic views that suggest that Christ died to save all in the revealed will of God. That’s what David Ponter was getting at in his comments when he said, “In the 17th C, in the zeal to refute non-strict Limited atonement folk, the Reformed located a sort of certainty in the expiation itself. There is no scriptural warrant for it, but its now such a solid tradition that shaking it is very hard. The only reason that new idea was created was to refute others. The only reason it was created was to present a sort of modus tollens argument.” Turretin, Owen and many other post-Reformational Protestant scholastics were of this sort. The attempted argument goes like this:
1) If Christ died for you (P), then it will be applied to you. (assumption = Christ’s death secures it’s own application)
2) It is not applied (~Q) to the non-elect
3) Therefore Christ did not die for the non-elect (~P)
Or, as William Ames would argue, “For whom it is intended, to them it is applied. It is not applied to all, therefore it is not intended for all.”
Modus Tollens (If P, then Q. ~Q, therefore ~P):
If P, then Q.
Not Q (in the case of the non-elect).
Therefore, not P in the case of the non-elect.
The form is valid, but the argument is unsound. The first premise has a commercial flaw or assumption undergirding it. Furthermore, concerning the intent, there is a narrow decretalism at work, i.e. a focus on the special, decretal intent (secret will) to the exclusion of the general, preceptive intent (revealed will). The revealed will is not really a “will” at all in this view. Only the decretal will is a real “will.” Read John Frame on the will of God where he cites Bavink, and then argues differently concerning God's revealed will (not that he agrees with my "atonement" views).
These arguments are built on the idea that Christ’s death is singuler in intent or design (decretal alone), and that the expiation secures it’s own application. Tony Lane’s quote is getting at the idea that the expiation does NOT secure it’s own application, contra Owenism. He's getting back to a classical Calvinistic conception. The death of Christ alone considered saves no man. A well-trained Owenist would NEVER say this. This is why they constantly pose the dilemma, “Did Christ actually save those for whom he died? Or did he merely make salvation possible or potential for every man?” The first position in this false dilemma is built on the idea that Christ “actually saves” the elect by the death he died, because the expiation secures it’s own application. Lane and Shedd are both saying that a vicarious satisfaction, apart from faith, saves no man. The certainty of the salvation of the elect is not only grounded in the Father’s special decree and the Son’s vicarious suffering, but also in the necessary work of the Holy Spirit WHEN HE EFFICACIOUSLY APPLIES IT THROUGH FAITH. The Owenists attempt to argue that the expiation of itself is efficacious to save. That’s a mistake that Lane and others are addressing. This is why Owen is criticized by some as having a commercial view of Christ’s satisfaction.
Sojourner says:
I further agree that salvation is applied by the Holy Spirit. I do not know anyone who disagrees with that statement.
The statement assumes that there is a sense in which the elect are saved prior to their existence. Such a use of the term “save” or “saved” is no where found in scripture. It is an imported system assumption that is not arrived at through inductive exegetical considerations. Non-existent entities are not "saved." The elect, prior to their existence, are determined or purposed TO BE saved (virtual union with Christ) in the mind of God, but they are not actually saved until they believe (real union with Christ). In Owenic arguments, virtual and real union are sometimes confused, as if the truths of real union can also be predicated of the elect who are merely in virtual union (not yet existing or existing in unbelief). Real union prior to faith is how Calvinistic Antinomianism and Hyperism arose (click the links above to hear Dr. Curt Daniel's lectures on those ideas from series The History and Theology of Calvinism). Some people see the logical entailments and enter into these areas, but most High Calvinists/Owenists do not actually go through the door of theoretical antinomianism or hyperism. They just open the door that others end up going through, and then they sometimes boo and hiss at others (moderate Calvinsts) who want to correct the underlying theological problems that cause the slips in the first place.
Sojourner says:
I still believe that there is a sense in which the elect are saved before they believe.
Do you have scripture for that use of the term “saved”? Or is that a logical deduction from a presupposed system?
Sojourner says:
I also believe that Jesus Christ was crucified "from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).
There is some question about the sense of this passage, as is seen in the NRS translation:
NRS Revelation 13:8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.
Is the “from the foundation of the world” referencing the time of the writing of the names? Or is it saying the Lamb was slaughtered before the foundation of the world as the KJV has it?
KJV Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Assuming your view is correct (and it is questioned by exegetes), I would still think it only means that the Lamb was purposed TO BE slain from before the foundation of the world, and not that he ACTUALLY was slain. If one thinks that he actually was slain in eternity, then serious already-not yet confusions are at work, I think. It would not be suprising that such a mentality would also issue in already-not yet confusions in the case of the virtual/actual union concerning the elect and Christ’s death. This mentality may cause one to begin to think that something can REALLY happen to non-existent entities, rather than thinking that something can happen in God’s plan concerning entities that do not yet exist.
Sojourner says:
Yet, I still find Him being slain after the foundation of the world. I also believe myself to be seated in the heavenly places as I type this response, though I realize that my actual bottom is very firmly planted in my chair (Ephesians 2:6).
I understand. We are virtually seated in the heavently places in Christ, since he is our legal representative, but we are not REALLY there yet. Christ was virtually slain before the foundation of the world by virtue of the eternal decree, but he was not REALLY slain. Once again, we have virtual/actual distinctions or already-not yet issues at work. As you know, we need to be careful not to confuse the two ideas, or to collapse them so that what is true of real union is also true of virtual union.
Sojourner says:
My problems with the position of Neil Chambers is this:
1. Is unbelief sin?
2. If it be sin, when was it atoned for? For that matter, when was any sin atoned for?
To address your first question, yes. Unbelief is a sin. However, would you distinguish between final unbelief and other kinds of unbelief? It would seem that you have to, given that you are guilty of the latter but not the former. Did Christ die for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit if it shall never be forgiven?
To address your second question, you are using “atoned” in an Owenic way, as if atonement occurs prior to faith. As R. L. Dabney says, the term “atonement” properly refers to real union. He says, “Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual.” My sins were “atoned” for when the blood of Christ was sprinkled on my heart through faith. Christ made a judicial satisfaction for the sins of all mankind in 33ad, but we are not at-one-ment with him until faith. So, as Calvin brilliantly says, “"And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us." Christ satisfied for the sin of unbelief when he died in 33ad, but our acts of unbelief are not “atoned” for until we are sprinkled with his blood through faith. Christ actually suffered sufficiently for all mankind (not that he could have suffered sufficiently for all, as Owen puts it), but only efficiently for the elect. The sufficiency is not a bare sufficiency, but a real, ordained sufficiency for all, as Davenant put it. This formula fits perfectly with what Calvin says in the above quote.
Sojourner said:
And, this statement also troubles me:
If one wants to insist that non-existent entities were somehow "saved" when Christ died
Well, perhaps again it is the terminology that is the problem.
Yes, I find the terminology to be unbiblical and theologically vacuous.
Sojourner said:
But are we not to believe that Jesus did not die for "non-existant entities"?
Of course Jesus died for non-existent entities, since he suffered sufficiently for all mankind, as Calvin maintains. But it does not follow that non-existent entities are, “in some sense” (scripture?), “saved.”
Sojourner said:
If He did not die for them, then how do they ever come to be saved?
The elect come to be saved by means of the special application of the Holy Spirit when he quickens them to obtain the benefit or merits of Christ through the instrumentality of faith. The cross, in and of itself, saves no one. It only saves those who have come to believe by the grace of God granted through the Spirit.
Sojourner said:
If He did die for them, then is their no sense in which they may be spoken of as secured?
What do you mean by “secured”? I think the the means by which God will eventually save all the elect was secured (or accomplished) when Christ died, but the elect are not "saved" by virtue of a mere expiatory, penal satisfaction. They are only "saved" when they believe (application). I don’t see anywhere in scripture where the term “saved” is predicated of anyone in unbelief, or of some non-existent entity or entities. Even the elect abide under the wrath of God prior to faith, even as the rest (see Eph. 2:3).
Sojourner says:
Finally, I disagree with this statement:
If then, even in their unbelief, there is no debt against them, no penalty to be paid, surely they can be described as saved, and saved at Calvary. That being the case, the gospel is reduced to a cipher, a form of informing the saved of their blessed condition
I believe that this statement is not a logical necessity. The Holy Spirit must apply salvation and give faith, which He will infallibly do for those whom Christ has secured by means of the preaching of the gospel. If they believe, then they may be assured of the fact that their sins were forgiven at Calvary.
“Their sins were forgiven at Calvary”? I see no biblical warrant for such an idea. I see sins forgiven only after repentance and faith in my bible. In your terms, you are demonstrating the very thing that Neil Chambers speaks of, namely that the gospel seems to become a mere announcement of the priviledged status of the elect, i.e. that their sins are already forgiven prior to faith. The gospel, given your paradigm, seems to suggest that we are announcing to the elect that their sins are already forgiven prior to faith/repentance, and that the Holy Spirit illuminates their minds to this fact in the application. It’s as if the elect realize (when the Holy Spirit applies) in their consciences that they are already justified in eternity.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying you actually hold this position. I am just saying that your arguments and words seem to logically entail this. For more on this point, see this post:
The Difference Between “P is Q” and “P entails Q”
Sojourner says:
As I read Shedd's quote, I do not see how his statement is in any way contrary to what I have said.
Most Owenists don’t see how Shedd, Charles Hodge and R. L. Dabney are problematic for them. The same goes with the writings of John Calvin. Instead of seeing what these men actually say, they are interpreted as saying what they should have said. Shedd and Dabney both reject the Double Payment argument, not to mention the other excellent Calvinistic thinkers who do the same. These men work to undermine the idea that the expiation secures it’s own application when they clarify the distinction between penal substitution and commercial, or pecuniary debt payment transactions.
Sojourner said:
I see that he writes, "If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation." Sure, that's true.
How can that be true given what you have said? Shedd is reserving the word “save” or “salvation” for real union alone, or at the time of the appropriation through faith. His theological arguments undercut the idea that the expiation secures its own application, or that the elect were somehow “saved” prior to faith. Shedd is saying that the salvific benefits are suspended in the case of every man (also of the elect), until such a time that they believe.
Sojourner said:
But will such a situation ever arise? I certainly think not.
In the case of the elect, of course they will eventually be saved by efficacious grace. However, what you will find in Shedd is that there is an unlimited imputation of sins to Christ when he died (if this were not the case, it would not be really sufficient for all). He didn’t merely substitute for the sins of the elect alone (limited imputation), as Owenists think. Owenists think that, if this unlimited imputation view were true, then universalism would logically follow. Shedd, along with Dabney and Hodge, says no. This would not follow since it is not a commercial transaction, but a conditional penal satisfaction. Christ satisfies for all, but none benefit apart from the condition of faith. By the making of an expiatory sacrifice alone, none are saved. Owenists argue the contrary, as if the sacrifice made “saves” the elect prior to faith.
Sojourner said:
So yes, the Holy Spirit must regenerate the elect for them to be saved and regenerate, but is it wrong to say that He certainly will since Christ won their salvation for them already? (Again, by means of the proclamation of the gospel.)
It is not wrong to say that Christ will certainly save his elect when the Holy Spirit applies his work. However, You seem to be using “saved” in different senses. It’s fine to use “saved” or “salvation” for real union conditions according to scripture, but the term “saved” is never predicated of non-existent or unbelieving entities in the bible. Christ certainly accomplished one of the means by which God has determined to save the elect, but they are not actually saved any more than the non-elect are until they believe. Both parties abide under God’s wrath prior to faith. This idea undercuts the double payment argument of Owenists, and Dabney and Shedd knew it.
Sojourner said:
Somebody help me here. I am not trying to be dense, and I certainly hate it when I find out that I am a heretic. Am I missing the point because I am being imprecise with words or what?
I don’t consider you dense or a heretic. I just don’t think your present Owenic paradigm is allowing you to see other valid Calvinistic models that better account for the totality of biblical teaching. Owen’s strict particularism only goes back to the days of Beza, and no further (the details of Gottschalk's views are unknown). My view, along with Calvin’s, goes back to the early church. They asserted that Christ died for all, but especially for his church. The antiquity of my Calvinistic view doesn’t make it right, but it certainly gives me confidence that it probably is. There was a time when I was a strict particularist myself. I have only recently come out of High Calvinism (I never passed through an Arminian phase). It was difficult to see other dualistic alternatives, since the Owenic model is built on so many false either/or dilemmas. The Owenic view tends to make people afraid of other alternatives, since they seem to logically entail non-Calvinism or universalism. Any other view smacks of Arminianism or semi-Arminianism, when that is not true at all. Many excellent men have believed and still believe in Owen’s arguments. Frankly, I find the model dangerous. It doesn’t surprise me that John Gill, a hyper-Calvinist, was deeply influenced by Owenic arguments, particularly Owen’s comments and categories concerning Ezek. 18:23.
I would like to thank Justin for allowing me to post lengthy comments here. I hope that his readers will be blessed by things I have written. With that said, here are some quotes by some Reformed thinkers:
"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.
"Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost." John Calvin's comments on 2 Peter 3:9
“He satisfied for all regarding satisfaction, but not with respect to application.” Zacharias Ursinus, The Summe, pp.131-132; Doctrinae Christianae Compendium, London 1586 (An edition of Ursinus’ explanation of the Catechism), p.406.
“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…” Zacharias Ursinus
Grace to you,
Tony
Good job here Tony...thanks
--Jon Unyan
Believe it or not, I am surprised to find that I am a "High Calvinist" and an Owenist. I have only partially read one of his books, so I certainly did not learn my Calvinism directly from him. Can you tell give me some examples of other famous High Calvinists? I am reading and thinking through this, but I am still not persuaded that Chambers has evaded the "terrible" argument of Double Jeopardy.
When I say that there is a sense in which the elect are saved by Christ's death, I mean it in the same sense that I would say that there is a sense that one is saved by the Father's electing a people. Yes, the atonement still must be made, but the end result is assured.
Let me ask a for more questions for my clarity if you haven't given up the talk.
1. How do you define a Non-Strict Limited Atonement?
2. What, exactly, is the difference between a High and Moderate Calvinist?
3. What do you mean that expiation does not secure application? Do you mean that there are those for whom Christ died that will not be saved?
4. You mentioned Charles Hodge, and I have some of his works. Can you point me to a place where this is discussed in more detail?
I may be misunderstanding you, or maybe not. But what I am gathering is that you believe in a general, universal atonement that is particularly applied. In other words, it isn't the atonement that is limited, it is the application of the atonement. Let me know if I am getting close.
Sojourner said:
Believe it or not, I am surprised to find that I am a "High Calvinist" and an Owenist. I have only partially read one of his books, so I certainly did not learn my Calvinism directly from him. Can you tell give me some examples of other famous High Calvinists?
I understand. It’s just the case that people pick up Owen’s categories and arguments through popular Calvinistic teachers/preachers who have been influenced by the modern resurgence of High Calvinist Puritan and scholastic writings. The early Reformational views have been almost entirely eclipsed by the post-Reformational scholastic paradigms, such as Beza’s, Turretin’s, Owen’s, Perkins’, Ames’ etc. Many in Reformed or Calvinistic circles paint a false picture of theological continuity between these men and the early reformers, such as Farel, Calvin, Musculus etc. Today, it only seems normal to think along Owenic lines. Even the earlier thinking of Edwards, C. Hodge, R. L. Dabney and Shedd has faded from the American scene. Anything other than the Owenic seems strange and non-Calvinistic, especially when shibboleths like “Amyraldian,” “4 point Calvinist” are attached to people. In fact, many people who throw out the label “Amyraldian” have never read a primary work of Moise Amyraut. They haven’t even read the doctoral dissertations of Brian Armstrong (who seems somewhat sympathetic and objective on Amyraut) and Roger Nicole (who seems very antagonistic toward Amyraut). Most Calvinsts rely on secondary sources, which in turn also rely on secondary sources, so that Amyraut is at least as misunderstood as Calvin himself! Good luck trying to understand the real Amyaut! Most Calvinists are not even aware of some of the moderate Calvinists who were at the Synod of Dort, such as John Davenant. They’re not even familiar with James Ussher’s views (he influenced Davenant and John Preston), yet he was a very influential thinker in the time of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Anyway, the Calvinism that most read about today is high Calvinism. Even Charles Spurgeon was a high Calvinist (he uses Owenic arguments). When it comes to the design and nature of Christ’s death, it is significantly different than Calvin’s own view. The high paradigm causes very different readings of controversial passages, like John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 John 2:2. The ripple effect of each theological paradigm (whether high or moderate) is astounding.
Let me describe what I mean when I speak of high Calvinism. First, it is not hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism consists in a denial of one or more of these concepts: common grace, the well-meant offer or duty-faith. Hyper-Calvinism also maintains a strictly limited atonement view (like the high's), but they go further than high Calvinists. Some high Calvinists may even be supralapsarians, but not all supralapsarians are hyper. Many high Calvinists are infralapsarian, such as Owen and Turretin (not that any Calvinist must adhere to some version of ordered decretalism or lapsarianism). There are varieties of high Calvinism. Secondly, high Calvinism is not moderate Calvinism. Moderate Calvinism maintains that there is a sense in which Christ intended to die for the salvation of all, but only for the elect efficiently. High Calvinists say that Christ only died with the intent to save the elect alone. Further, the high’s argue that he only bore the guilt for the sins of the elect when he died (limited imputation). For this reason, they have to change the classical concept of universal sufficiency. In the Owenic schema, it’s only a bare, internal sufficiency. It’s a comment on Christ’s intrinsic worth, not that he actually suffered what was due everyman (an ordained or intentional sufficiency for all). Tom Nettles, Jim Ellis and others have seen the logic and gone on to maintain a limited sufficiency view. I used to be in their camp a few years ago, until I began to study the anatomy and origins of hyper-Calvinism, starting with Dr. Curt Daniel's excellent dissertation on Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.
Sojourner said:
I am reading and thinking through this, but I am still not persuaded that Chambers has evaded the "terrible" argument of Double Jeopardy.
That’s fine. Continue to study the issue (read through this entire link for instance). Consider the fact that, even though Christ died for the elect, they still abide under the wrath of God prior to faith. Consider the fact that God seriously threatens all of us with hell when in unbelief and sin (even the elect), despite the fact that Christ died for us. How can that be, given Owen’s double jeopardy argument? If we follow Owen’s logic, there seems to be no legal ground for the elect to be under the wrath of God prior to faith (Dabney chides Owen on this point). This is the reasoning pattern that made some high Calvinists (like Pemble and Twisse) maintain an eternal justification viewpoint. Some call such a view “Calvinistic Antinomianism.” Richard Baxter (who had his own problems with neo-nomianism) fought against antinomianism in his day. It’s a very interesting historical study. I am presently reading Hans Boersma’s doctoral dissertation on the subject.
Sojourner said:
When I say that there is a sense in which the elect are saved by Christ's death, I mean it in the same sense that I would say that there is a sense that one is saved by the Father's electing a people.
Where in the bible is election called “salvation” prior to faith? I don’t see it there. We, as elect, are surely appointed unto eternal life through various means, but mere election is never called “salvation”. One is “saved” when one is justified by grace alone through faith alone, and not before.
Sojourner said:
Yes, the atonement still must be made, but the end result is assured.
The elect are appointed (by the Father) unto salvation (justification etc.) by means of Christ’s death, the preached gospel (infants who die in infancy being an exception here), and the instrumentality of faith (as granted by the Holy Spirit). One is not “saved” apart from or prior to the work of the Spirit in conversion. So, the end result is assured, but a expiatory satisfaction of itself does not save any man. God will not save any man apart from the expiation, but God doesn’t save any man simply by an substitionary sacrifice apart from faith either. The obtaining of the benefits of Christ’s propitiation are conditional, not absolute (apart from the fulfillment of a condition). So, Christ may die for a person, and yet that same person may abide under God’s wrath until the condition be met. Only the elect meet the condition because they alone are quickened and/or granted the moral ability to believe. If some should die in their sins and suffer hell, it is not because there is any want of a penal satisfaction for them, but only that they did not meet the condition, i.e. believe. They suffer for their own sins. This is just what R. L. Dabney argues in his systematic theology. The same goes with W. G. T. Shedd.
Sojourner asks:
Let me ask a for more questions for my clarity if you haven't given up the talk.
1. How do you define a Non-Strict Limited Atonement?
This is a good question. First, let’s break down the label “limited atonement.” High Calvinists say the intent to save is singular and decretal, and the expiation itself is also limited. Christ intends to die for the elect alone, and only suffers for their sin. The application of his work is also limited to the elect alone. Three things are limited: the intent, the representative suffering (what you’re calling “atonement”), and the application. In a non-strict, or moderate Calvinistic view such as mine, the limit is only in the special intent and the application and no where else. I qualify the will of God in the matter by saying “special” intent, because I believe there are secret and revealed will aspects to the design of Christ’s death. He both intends to suffer sufficienty for the salvation of all as their second Adam, and intends to suffer especially for the salvation of the elect according to the electing purpose of God. This special intent results in the special application to the elect alone through the grant of faith. The expiatory suffering is unlimited, and the limit is found in the SPECIAL intent and the application. The intent is not equally for all as Arminians think. They say this because they think God equally wills the salvation of all, and grants all prevenient grace accordingly. On the contrary, I say that God wills the salvation of all, but especially the elect. The high Calvinist says God only wills the salvation of the elect. I hope the comparisons help to see the differences.
Sojourner asks:
2. What, exactly, is the difference between a High and Moderate Calvinist?
The key difference I am getting at involves the will of God and the nature of Christ’s expiatory death. There are other differences, but this one is crucial (pun intended). I more or less answered this question above, but see Dr. Curt Daniel’s lecture on that topic for more.
Sojourner asks:
3. What do you mean that expiation does not secure application? Do you mean that there are those for whom Christ died that will not be saved?
I mean that just because Christ died for someone, they are not saved. His death is not a commercial transaction, but a conditional, penal substitution. As Hodge, Dabney and Shedd maintain, it does not ipso facto liberate those for whom it is made. By “expiation,” I mean Christ’s substitionary suffering for sin on the cross. Merely by virtue of that death, no one gets saved, just as Shedd says in my initial comments. The elect get saved because the Father has determined to quicken them by the Spirit to obtain the eternal benefit through the instrumentality of faith. The non-elect who hear the gospel really have a sufficient remedy available to them (hence the sincere or well-meant offer), but they fail to meet the condition and are left to die for their own sins. Consider the following quotes by John Calvin in this regard:
The Apostle in the meantime exhorts us to be mutually solicitous for the salvation of one another; and he would also have us to regard the falls of the brethren as stimulants to prayer. And surely it is an iron hardness to be touched with no pity, when we see souls redeemed by Christ's blood going to ruin. Calvin, 1 Jn 5:16.
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. Calvin, Romans 5:18
Sojourner asks:
4. You mentioned Charles Hodge, and I have some of his works. Can you point me to a place where this is discussed in more detail?
The Systematic Theology texts of Charles Hodge and R. L. Dabney are online to freely read:
In Hodge, you can read here: For Whom Did Christ Die?
For Dabney, you can read here: The Nature of Christ’s Sacrifice
For Shedd, download and read this: Shedd Quotes
Or, you can join us at the yahoo Calvin and Calvinism list and thoroughly discuss these matters in great detail.
Sojourner asks:
I may be misunderstanding you, or maybe not. But what I am gathering is that you believe in a general, universal atonement that is particularly applied. In other words, it isn't the atonement that is limited, it is the application of the atonement. Let me know if I am getting close.
I do believe in a general, universal satisfaction and a particular atonement (application). However, that can be a little misleading since I am not saying the intent is equally for all. There is a limit in the special decree that concerns the elect alone, and this issues in a particular application to them alone through faith. Unlike the Arminians, who also believe in a particular application, I don’t think the ultimate, efficacious cause stems from the free will of man to believe. I think the ultimate efficacious cause for why one is saved is the sovereign will of God who grants moral ability to believe (secondary cause) to elect men who are otherwise totally depraved.
Further, unlike the high Calvinists, I don’t think Christ was merely the last Adam for the elect alone. I think, like Anselm and classical Christianity (including Calvin), that he represented everyone he shares a nature with, i.e. all humanity. Thus, he suffered for the sin of the whole world (not merely the elect). In paying the price due for the sins of all mankind, he redeems all mankind objectively. Only some enjoy the benefits of that redemption through faith (special redemption), because the payment is conditional. This is why someone like Vermigli could say:
"They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that "Christ died for us all" and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it is sufficient for all the world's sinners. Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually." Vermiglie, Works, v 8, p., 62.
I hope that helps.
Grace to you,
Tony
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
One more question, I only have a few minutes today.
You keep using the word "expiation," and I have no problem with that. But, do you believe that the death of Christ was also a "propitiation"?
Brad asks:
do you believe that the death of Christ was also a "propitiation"?
Yes. I used expiation because that is a term Dabney frequently employs, and it's biblical. However, I have no problem speaking of a propitiation as well. You may be familiar with Leon Morris' work discussing that matter.
There is a distinction between 1) Christ's death in terms of what it objectively accomplishes, and 2) the application of his work to a believing sinner. In referencing the first idea (#1) you have used the word "atonement." I prefer different terms for #1, but good men, including Shedd, also use "atonement" the way you do. Others, such as Dabney, use expiation and other words for #1, but use "atonement" for the second idea (#2). I am inclined to use Dabney's terminology in some cases. I usually call the first idea "satisfaction," and use "atonement" for the second idea (application). C. Hodge, R. L. Dabney and W. G. T. Shedd have a great deal of conceptual overlap with each other, but I am eclectic in how I choose to label their categories. I want to use terms that best fit with biblical language. I am still studying in these areas, so I am in the process of being refined, I hope. Another crucial concern I have is to not confuse virtual union with real union. This is one of the reasons why the labels are important. Some people, without knowing it, take truths that apply to real union and apply them to virtual union as well. That's a serious error.
With that said, I am content to speak of Christ's satisfaction as a "propitiation," according to 1 John 2:2 et al. If you check on some of my comments, I spoke of Christ's death being a propitiation as well.
Brad, it would probably be better if we continued our discussion through email, on my blog, or on the Calvin and Calvinism list (see the links above). Mathew Sims, the second commenter in this post, has joined the C&C list. I don't want to presume on Justin and continue to post lengthy comments here. Your questions are good and worth replying to, but this blog format isn't the best place for such an exchange.
Let me know if you would like to continue to discuss these matters.
Saved by grace through faith,
Tony
mail to: ynot_tony.geo@yahoo.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home