tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post3762913825467216504..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: Ten things on limited atonementGuy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-47260037957927599242007-10-27T01:15:00.000+01:002007-10-27T01:15:00.000+01:00Regarding MJ's comment: "Well, when you put it thi...Regarding MJ's comment: "Well, when you put it this way, yes it does, because thenit isn't a genuine offer, it is just slippery wordplay!"<BR/><BR/>I also don't get it, why a particular penal substitution undermines a genuine offer. If the logic is that you can't offer Christ to someone who is unable to be saved because Christ didn't die for his sins, unless we go fully Arminian or worse, I think you are still going to have problems with that logic. It will just be a moving of the goal posts. Eg if you still uphold Total Depravity and the necessity of the Spirit's work before someone can believe, won't that also undermine the sincerity of the offer, since they are unable to receive it if God doesn't choose to open their eyes etc...<BR/><BR/>Actually, I was also just listening to a talk by Peter Jensen. It was what led me to google which led me here. At about the 51.5 minute mark, he talks briefly about Limited Atonement as part of TULIP. He emphasises both the sufficiency and the limited intention of God in Christ. Perhaps Michael can tell us if he is saying the same as his earthly dad, and maybe also what differences Peter Jensen may have with more Owenistic views of LA. Or where else PJ has written or spoken about it..?<BR/><BR/>You can get the talk here:<BR/><BR/>http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/mp3_library/why_i_am_a_reformed_christian/cjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00417234566548082153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-49419895782721917702007-10-19T08:23:00.000+01:002007-10-19T08:23:00.000+01:00Thanks for your helpful comments, Gene. While I ag...Thanks for your helpful comments, Gene. <BR/><BR/>While I agree that Scripture does not explicitly assert that the atonement was of infinite value, I think that this truth can be deduced from the fact the the atonement was the act of the Son of God. As the WCF says, "The whole counsel of God...is either expressly set down on Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-54352920511452487492007-10-19T02:57:00.000+01:002007-10-19T02:57:00.000+01:00"Yes Guy, your response makes me suspect we are qu..."Yes Guy, your response makes me suspect we are quibbling about words rather than having a significant disagrement really... but your post seems to lean away from asserting b) because you would (like Owen) deny that the texts that teach it, teach it..."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"'You did not say that Christ died for all people without exception. I agree that Christ may be offered to all without exception with the promise that he is able to bring forgiveness to everyone who trusts in him. As I tried to show, definite atonement does not undermine the genuine, free offer of the gospel.'<BR/><BR/>Well, when you put it this way, yes it does, because thenit isn't a genuine offer, it is just slippery wordplay!<BR/><BR/>I have never understood why penal substitution demands LA. People keep asserting it, but the logic of the statement escapes me."<BR/><BR/>>>I realize I've come late to this discussion, but, Michael, these conclusions are only true if you come to the table with an aprioristic idea of what constitutes a "true offer." This is no different than the Roman Catholic who comes with an aprioristic idea of what constitutes a workable rule of faith. We need to ask "What constitutes a 'true offer?'" and we need to get this from the Bible.<BR/><BR/>In the Bible, the "true offer" carries the force of a command, according to 1 John 3. So, if you were consistent, you would also assert that an offer is not "true" or "sincere," if men did not have the ability of themselves to accept it. That, of course, is nothing more than using libertarian freedom to underwrite the "true offer." Where is the biblical argument for LFW? <BR/><BR/>The Amyraldian and General Redemptionist are using the atonement as a warrant to believe, eg., by your own admission, if it is not general it cannot be a "true offer." But where does the Bible ever couch the sincerity of the offer in those terms? The logic here is no different than that of the person using LFW as a warrant to believe and is just as aprioristic. <BR/><BR/>This is also the logic of the hyper-Calvinist. The hyper-Calvinist uses a subjective sense of election to do the same thing. Underwriting all three of these is the idea that "ability limits responsibility.'<BR/><BR/>That, Michael is the logic that denies GA and favors LA as a result. If you posit GA, you're not just positing things about the atonement. You'll wind up having to posit things not in Scripture.<BR/><BR/>I would also point out that while the "commercial" or pecuniary theory of LA is the minority position, questions about the "infinitude" of the atonement are ultimately from tradition and not Scripture. Scripture never says anything one way or the other about the intrinsic "infinitude" of the atonement or the pecuniary nature of it. Rather, it addresses the objectivity of the atonement and the identity of the atonement. General redemption will always find its terminus in the subjectivity of the atonement, since it has no intrinsic efficacy and is always posited as a gospel warrant. I would also point out that appeal to the "infinite value" of the atonement is also problematic philosophically, because, while it sounds good on paper and in a confessional document, it doesn't talk about what sort of infinite set is in view. There are many kinds of infinite sets. Which one does this view accept? Nobody has ever answered. That's why it is a problem to underwrite the free offer with the sufficiency of the atonement if by that you mean the infinite value of it is required to underwrite the offer. The gospel warrant - the warrant to believe it - is its own warrant, just as the commands of God in the Bible are their own intrinsic warrant.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-78499331336629283222007-10-14T15:31:00.000+01:002007-10-14T15:31:00.000+01:00Thanks for your comments JP & Anon. I don't have a...Thanks for your comments JP & Anon. <BR/><BR/>I don't have a vendetta against David Bentley Hart, I just wanted to respond to his remarks regarding limited atonement. I have is <I>The Beauty of the Infinite</I> on my wishlist.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-57108869497484186772007-10-12T20:49:00.000+01:002007-10-12T20:49:00.000+01:00David Bentley Hart is in my opinion one of this ge...David Bentley Hart is in my opinion one of this generations leading theologians. That beng said, I am disappointed in his treatment of Calvinism (I am however sympathetic to his criticism of a rigid determinism that some Reformed folk have been apt to tend towards).<BR/><BR/>As per above, I think that it can be stated that a penal substitution presupposes a definite atonement if in fact everyone is not saved by the penal substitution of Christ (I am liberally borrowing from Owen and Spuergeon): should some persons bare punishment for their sins in judgment after this life when Christ has already bore their punishment on the cross? Persons who are not united to Christ by faith will suffer the punishment of their sins. Of course, they do not recieve the benefits of Christ's atoning work because of their unbelief. But unbelief is something that hs been overcome by the atoning work of Christ, it is on His behalf that persons believe (Phil. 1:29). If unbelief is one of the sins among many that have been overcome by the penal substitutionary work of Christ, then it can only be concluded that His atoning work was not targeted at all persons in the same way, because not all persons believe that Christ is their Saviour.<BR/><BR/>This does not diminish the free offer the gospel any more than the doctrine of election does: anyone who comes to Him and accepts Him as their Saviour and Lord, turns from their wicked ways, he will recieve the righteousness of Christ. Election, just as definite atonement, presupposes that not all will come to Him, but that does not diminish the truth of the promise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-12194697576280836212007-10-12T11:45:00.000+01:002007-10-12T11:45:00.000+01:00I think Owen's words are relevant to this discussi...I think Owen's words are relevant to this discussion, and sadly this is the second forum on which I have quotedt them this week,<BR/><BR/>"Little did I think I should ever have lived in this world to find the minds of professors grown altogether indifferent as to the doctrine of God’s eternal election, the sovereign efficacy of grace in the conversion of sinners, justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; but many are as to all these things, grown to an indifferencey: they know not whether they are so or not. I bless God I know something of the former generation, when professors would not hear of these things without high detestation; and now high professors begin to be leaders in it: and it is too much among the best of us. We are not so much concerned for the truth as our forefathers; I wish I could say we were as holy." <BR/><BR/>JPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-44241347029660282122007-10-11T08:38:00.000+01:002007-10-11T08:38:00.000+01:00MJ, If I wanted to be facetious, I might say, "How...MJ, <BR/><BR/>If I wanted to be facetious, I might say, "How typically Anglican of you to be more interested in ecclesiastical politics than doctrinal precision." But that would be a bit below the belt, so I won't even mention the thought.<BR/><BR/>As for Calvin and LA, I'm not sure that Jon, (for all his "Can't you people see?" bluster) knows what he is talking about. I'd very much like to see the textual evidence for Calvin using LA in answer to the problem of assurance. Most Calvin scholars (even "Five Pointers") agree that he did not really give much attention to the extent of the atonement. <BR/><BR/>While he denies that Calvin taught a universal atonement, this is what William Cunningham had to say,<BR/><BR/>"To adduce Calvin as maintaining the doctrine of particular redemption, could scarcely, upon a full and impartial survey of the whole circumstances of the case, be regarded as warrantable. It is evident that he had never been led to examine this precise question, in he form which it afterwards assumed in controversial discussion, and to give explicit deliverance upon it. He seems to have attached little or no importance to and definite doctrine about the extent of the atonement." <BR/><BR/><I>The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation</I>, William Cunningham, 1979 reprint, Banner of Truth Trust, p. 400-401.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-33350403745083445902007-10-11T03:59:00.000+01:002007-10-11T03:59:00.000+01:00Did Calvin teach LA? The point is controversial.So...Did Calvin teach LA? The point is controversial.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to be a bit of a grumpy old man, Guy! (PFOT also mounted an attack on one of Moore College's finest sons in those exact pages... parochialism has set in, I am afraid, on my part!)michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-75522026982327899492007-10-10T22:05:00.000+01:002007-10-10T22:05:00.000+01:00Jon,I don't think Calvin came up with LA in order ...Jon,<BR/><BR/>I don't think Calvin came up with LA in order to solve the problem of assurance. LA was not a major concern for him. According to Calvin, we know that we are elect because Christ is the mirror of our election. If we have been united to him by faith, we are elect. Christ is the basis of assurance that we are elect. <BR/><BR/>I have a post on Christ as the mirror of election under the "Favourite Posts & Series" thing on my sidebar.<BR/><BR/>The sad thing is that Calvin's helpful teaching on election in Christ has not always been followed in Reformed theology. See the post just referred to for more details.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-56610711491076034412007-10-10T21:03:00.000+01:002007-10-10T21:03:00.000+01:00Guy,Can't see how you can't see the flawed logic i...Guy,<BR/><BR/>Can't see how you can't see the flawed logic in Calvin's logic here. His problem was with assurance of salvation. Limited atonement was his answer to that but he didn't solve the problem of assurance he just pushed the problem further back. Salvation is definate for the elect - but how does one know that one is elect... push the problem to a different level doesn't make more assurance. You know that the whole problem with Calvinism is that people question their election etc.<BR/><BR/>Again - agree with MJ. Limited atonement is not necessary for penal substitution.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-29990147931134091992007-10-10T14:16:00.000+01:002007-10-10T14:16:00.000+01:00Oh well, MJ.Oh well, MJ.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-90127177205053029852007-10-10T14:09:00.000+01:002007-10-10T14:09:00.000+01:00Well, it is precisely the PFOT argument that I don...Well, it is precisely the PFOT argument that I don't get... those pages seems to me superfluous.michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-75111999802251623172007-10-10T10:39:00.000+01:002007-10-10T10:39:00.000+01:00Baus, Thanks for your remarks. Readers will no dou...Baus, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your remarks. Readers will no doubt find them helpful. But I'll let the post stand as it is.<BR/><BR/>MJ,<BR/><BR/>I glanced at <I>Pierced for our Transgressions</I> the other day, which is currently on my "to read" shelf. I noticed from the index that they discuss particular redemption. I didn't look up what they had to say until this morning. Spookily, their argument is quite similar to mine in many respects. They have some helpful things to say about the relationship between PSA and LA. See p. 268-278.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-88193258706228455082007-10-10T09:04:00.000+01:002007-10-10T09:04:00.000+01:00'You did not say that Christ died for all people w...'You did not say that Christ died for all people without exception. I agree that Christ may be offered to all without exception with the promise that he is able to bring forgiveness to everyone who trusts in him. As I tried to show, definite atonement does not undermine the genuine, free offer of the gospel.'<BR/><BR/>Well, when you put it this way, yes it does, because thenit isn't a genuine offer, it is just slippery wordplay!<BR/><BR/>I have never understood why penal substitution demands LA. People keep asserting it, but the logic of the statement escapes me.michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-5159185978264119352007-10-10T04:20:00.000+01:002007-10-10T04:20:00.000+01:00You say in #2 that the "biblical basis for limited...You say in #2 that the "<I>biblical basis for limited atonement is found in texts that specify that Christ died for his people in particular</I>."<BR/><BR/>I think you ought to revise this. Obviously, you have a point about those texts. However, as Murray points out in 'Redemption Accomplished and Applied' (and which you yourself suggest in #s 3&4), the extent of the atonement is based in the nature of the atonement. So, it would be more accurate to say that the biblical basis for limited atonement is found in texts that specify that Christ's death is efficacious for those for whom He died.<BR/><BR/>The texts that specify that those for whom He died are His people follow from the revelation of the atonement's "definitude".<BR/><BR/>Also, to reinforce #5, see article 3 of the 2nd head of doctrine of the Canons of Dordt. It affirms that Christ's sacrifice is of infinite worth and more than sufficient to expiate the sins of every individual.Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-35112482099729744412007-10-09T23:25:00.000+01:002007-10-09T23:25:00.000+01:00Michael, I have no problem with what you said in p...Michael, <BR/><BR/>I have no problem with what you said in point b):<BR/><BR/>"The NT also teaches that Christ's death is available for all to find<BR/>forgiveness in (1 John 2:2, John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:1ff.)"<BR/><BR/>You did not say that Christ <I>died</I> for all people without exception. I agree that Christ may be <I>offered</I> to all without exception with the promise that he is able to bring forgiveness to everyone who trusts in him. As I tried to show, definite atonement does not undermine the genuine, free offer of the gospel.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-45700948502385073822007-10-09T23:14:00.000+01:002007-10-09T23:14:00.000+01:00Jon, Thanks for your comments. On assurance, why d...Jon, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. On assurance, why do you assume that it is impossible to know that one is saved? We have the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ is saved, the evidence of a transformed, God-oriented life and the witness of the Spirit. Definite atonement gives the believer a firm basis for assurance because we know that Christ has not simply made our salvation a possibility, he has saved us by his blood. <BR/><BR/>What is lost from Calvinistic theology if we leave out limited atonement is the efficacy of the cross and the reality of penal substitution. Christ died in the place of those whom God had given him. His death saves the elect.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-58428800711778958192007-10-09T23:11:00.000+01:002007-10-09T23:11:00.000+01:00Yes Guy, your response makes me suspect we are qui...Yes Guy, your response makes me suspect we are quibbling about words rather than having a significant disagrement really... but your post seems to lean away from asserting b) because you would (like Owen) deny that the texts that teach it, teach it...michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-71281190992897272572007-10-09T22:56:00.000+01:002007-10-09T22:56:00.000+01:00Limited Atonement is hardly great assurance... Pra...Limited Atonement is hardly great assurance... Pragmatically, one can know that salvation is certain if one knows one is saved but one cannot know that one is saved... QED.<BR/><BR/>I read Owen's book last year. I'm not a great fan of Limited Atonement I must admit. It seems to me firstly to miss a great deal of texts out which suggest Christ died for all or the world (nb. not therefore that all will be saved. For example, if I were to have an advertising campaign and decided to hand out free sweets, the fact that not everyone took the sweets wouldn't therefore question the freedom of the sweets or even the motives of the giver). <BR/><BR/>Also, it seems to me fairly superfluous - i.e. if it is removed from the whole "Calvinist" scheme what is lost?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04051242488196178369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-4589720723421739262007-10-09T21:27:00.000+01:002007-10-09T21:27:00.000+01:00It must be almost 20 years since I read Owen's boo...It must be almost 20 years since I read Owen's book and I found his basic argument persuasive. <BR/><BR/>I wouldn't disagree with either a) or b) in your comments. Christ's death is effective for the elect. Christ is able to save <I>all</I> who trust in him. <BR/><BR/>Arminians deny a), hyper Calvinists deny b). Evangelical Calvinists preach both!Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-4682330439904560592007-10-09T21:16:00.000+01:002007-10-09T21:16:00.000+01:00Sigh! Bentley Hart's ignorance of Calvinism is onl...Sigh! Bentley Hart's ignorance of Calvinism is only matched by his vehement hatred of it.<BR/><BR/>I would not recommend Owen on this subject - it was reading him that convinced me that the position could not be right!<BR/><BR/>I think the weakest parts of this whole argument are those pertaining to the scriptural texts. It just is not the case that a natural reading of the usual non-limited atonement texts accords with the limited atonement case. So, you are left with having to twist the texts to fit the preconceived theological position. This is MOST evident in Owen's very dull book!<BR/><BR/>I think we MUST hold both<BR/><BR/>a) The NT seems to teach that Christ's death is somehow different<BR/>towards the elect, as opposed to the non-elect:<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>b) The NT also teaches that Christ's death is available for all to find<BR/>forgiveness in (1 John 2:2, John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:1ff.).<BR/><BR/>Reconcile them if you can! But the Bible doesn't seem to see the need.michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.com