# Is Amyraldianism (4-point Calvinism) Confessional?



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason is that four-point "calvinism" is out of bounds in all the confessional statements that supposedly are subscribed to on this board... and hence most folks who might otherwise be perfectly capable of setting aside any arguments in its favor are surprised that people are being allowed to post in its favor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> I don't believe 4-point Calvinism is out of bounds in the confessional statements. I read the LBC and and WCF and I believe a 4-point Calvinist can affirm them. If you think they are out of bounds, could you start a new thread on that topic and say why? Thanks.
Click to expand...


Don,

Quite remarkable that you would even wonder this but I'll quote this from the Canons of Dort. Incidentally, this is not an "optional" requirement for participation on this board. Questions? Yes. Rejection? No.



> The Second Main Point of Doctrine
> Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through Its
> Article 1: The Punishment Which God's Justice Requires
> 
> God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. His justice requires (as he has revealed himself in the Word) that the sins we have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments, of soul as well as body. We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's justice.
> 
> Article 2: The Satisfaction Made by Christ
> 
> Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God's anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.
> 
> Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
> 
> This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
> 
> Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value
> 
> This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.
> 
> Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All
> 
> Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.
> 
> Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility
> 
> However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.
> 
> Article 7: Faith God's Gift
> 
> But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ's death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God's grace--which he owes to no one--given to them in Christ from eternity.
> 
> Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
> 
> For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.
> 
> Article 9: The Fulfillment of God's Plan
> 
> This plan, arising out of God's eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ's blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and--here and in all eternity--praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Rejection of the Errors
> Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those
> I
> 
> Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.
> 
> For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.
> 
> II
> 
> Who teach that the purpose of Christ's death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.
> 
> For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better--that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Heb. 9:17).
> 
> III
> 
> Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.
> 
> For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.
> 
> IV
> 
> Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.
> 
> For they contradict Scripture: They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:24-25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.
> 
> V
> 
> Who teach that all people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.
> 
> For this opinion conflicts with Scripture which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath.
> 
> VI
> 
> Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.
> 
> For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.
> 
> VII
> 
> Who teach that Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.
> 
> For they contradict the apostle, who says: Christ loved me and gave himself up for me (Gal. 2:20), and likewise: Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, that is, for them (Rom. 8:33-34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15), and My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).


----------



## elnwood

Interesting. What about the WCF and the LBCF 1677/89? Would Spurgeon have been banned from participation on PB for his views? He held to LBCF and a universal view of 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:29.

PyroManiac: Is there a universal aspect to the atonement?


----------



## toddpedlar

*Confessional Subscripton at the Puritan Board and Amyraldianism*

In another (closed) thread, Don asks:



> Todd,
> 
> I don't believe 4-point Calvinism is out of bounds in the confessional statements. I read the LBC and and WCF and I believe a 4-point Calvinist can affirm them. If you think they are out of bounds, could you start a new thread on that topic and say why? Thanks.



I'm glad to oblige - though this seems like moderator-type statement since what I'm going to argue for is a policy matter respecting our confessions on this board. Regardless, here it goes.

Four-point "calvinism", or more accurately, Amyraldianism, is a doctrinal system in which, of Calvin's five points, only four are retained. Amyraldianism rejects limited atonement - arguing that Christ shed his blood as a perfect atoning sacrifice for every human being, and not only as propitiation for the sins of the elect. This view of Christ's death is a point that Amyraldians hold in common with Arminians, and in fact much of the Christian world. 

It's not my task to explain the ins and outs of Amyraut's position - but to describe in some detail why holding such a position puts one outside the bounds of being true to the confessions that this board requires of its members.

Let's first begin with Westminster. Here are some pertinent selections from the Westminster Standards:

Chapter VIII, Section v:


> V. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.



Chapter VIII, Section viii:



> VIII. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdon, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.



The statements here clearly point to Christ having satisfied justice and purchased redemption reconciliation, etc., for "all those whom the Father hath given unto him". The purchase therefore is for only those whom Christ was given by the Father. 

From the Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
> A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.



Redemption isn't for all, but for those for whom Christ purchased redemption through his death - those who come (by the Holy Spirit) to believe in Christ and who are saved.



> Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
> A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace,
> whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.
> 
> Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
> A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.
> 
> Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
> A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called: although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.



Only the elect believe. So only the elect are those for whom Christ purchased redemption. Christ did NOT purchase redemption for all men. Limited Atonement is the teaching of the Westminster Standards, as demonstrated quickly by these points. Amyraldianism is not compatible with the Westminster Standards.

Moving to the London Baptist Confession of 1689, here the arguments are the same. The LBC incorporates the Catechisms as their catechetical standards, and most of the text of the LBC is the same as the Westminster... Sections 5 and 8 of the Chapter in the LBC on Christ the Mediator are the same as the WCF. 

Limited Atonement is the teaching of the LBC and its associated catechisms. Amyraldianism is therefore not compatible with it either.

Moving on to the Three Forms of Unity, here the case is even more clear. The Canons of Dort explicitly reject any form of unlimited atonement. Here is an example, from Point 2, Article 8:


> "For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle."



In the rejection of errors specified in the second point:



> Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.
> 
> For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them(John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand(Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.



There is absolutely no argument to be made here - Amyraldianism is rejected in the Canons of the Synod of Dort (and hence, in the Three Forms of Unity).

There is simply no room among the confessional options for members of this board to uphold for the teachings of Moises Amyraut, i.e. "four-point calvinism". 

Comments are welcome, but I honestly consider the case closed tightly.


----------



## toddpedlar

Rich (or another moderator, since I don't have the goods  )

Can you merge in this thread with the one I just started? I didn't realize you were going to address Don's question also


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Not pretty; but done.


----------



## toddpedlar

Hey, it worked, though.


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> Interesting. What about the WCF and the LBCF 1677/89? Would Spurgeon have been banned from participation on PB for his views? He held to LBCF and a universal view of 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:29.
> 
> PyroManiac: Is there a universal aspect to the atonement?



Knowing Spurgeon's ability to say the right thing at the right time I suppose he would have had the good sense not to raise it. A confessional standard sets the boundaries of discussion, it doesn't require everyone in the discussion to hold to the confession 100%. Two essential elements of Christian discussion include a trust in the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth, so that we should not become cynical but always deal with one another in an open and honest manner; and a respect for the authority structures God has ordained for the right protection and nurture of His flock.


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> Interesting. What about the WCF and the LBCF 1677/89? Would Spurgeon have been banned from participation on PB for his views? He held to LBCF and a universal view of 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:29.
> 
> PyroManiac: Is there a universal aspect to the atonement?



I haven't read the link, but what Spurgeon taught, as I understand it, is a particular redemption - that Christ's death paid the penalty for the elect's sins, and no other. He ALSO taught (and this is commonly held among orthodox Reformed) that Christ's death had some effects outside of redemption. I don't know of anything (again, I'll check the link) wherein Spurgeon AFFIRMS any universal sense to redemption.

Spurgeon's is NOT Amyraut's position, again, as far as I know, who held that Christ's atoning work is for all men without exception, which is suspended on the condition of faith (and that faith is a gift only to the elect). I'm fairly certain Spurgeon properly subscribed to the LBC.


----------



## elnwood

Good job, Todd!

I agree with you regarding the Canons of Dort and WCF VIII.8 rejecting Amyraldism.



toddpedlar said:


> Moving to the London Baptist Confession of 1689, here the arguments are the same. The LBC incorporates the Catechisms as their catechetical standards, and most of the text of the LBC is the same as the Westminster... Sections 5 and 8 of the Chapter in the LBC on Christ the Mediator are the same as the WCF.



Actually, they're not. In LBCF VIII.8, the phrase "To all those for whom Christ hath *purchased redemption*" becomes "To all those for whom Christ hath *obtained eternal redemption*."

Section 5 in the same chapter says "purchase" in both confessions. The WCF, then, draws a one-to-one correlation between those purchased and those whom redemption is applied.

The LBCF, for some reason, decides to buck the WCF and change the phrase to "obtained eternal redemption." Why? Possibly because a 4-pointer would say that Christ "bought" or "purchased" all of humanity, but only "obtained eternal redemption" for the elect.

Perhaps the LBCF writers deliberately changed the language to not be divisive among 4 and 5 pointers. All of the benefits of "obtaining eternal redemption" in Section 8 are post-effectual calling (belief, governing their hearts, etc.) so the obtaining could be at the cross, as a 5-pointer would see it, or upon regeneration, as a 4-pointer would see it.

But I could be wrong. If someone has a better theory for the change, I'd love to hear it.

There is a misconception that 4-point Calvinists do not affirm any particular nature of the atonement at all. That is not the case. 4-pointers affirm a particular love for the elect manifested in the atonement, that God only intended the elect to be saved, that only the elect are effectively called (thus affirming WLC Qs. 66-68) and have the redemption applied to them (thus affirming WLC Q. 59)

Anyway, sorry to go on and on about this and I'm sorry if I've upset any of you unnecessarily. This issue is debated frequently among Baptists, and especially Southern Baptists (and from what I hear, esp. at SBTS), and I think it's helpful to know what is common and what is different among the two positions.

Also, I'd hate to see my beloved Spurgeon denied by PB because I really like using him as my avatar.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

elnwood said:


> Possibly because a 4-pointer would say that Christ "bought" or "purchased" all of humanity, but only "obtained eternal redemption" for the elect.



Don, 

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that Christ paid for their sins, yet, doesn't own them. If Christ purchased ALL off humanity, that would make them His. If ALL of humanity belongs to Christ, this is what we call "universal redemption". You can't "buy" something and not own it. I've actually had a 4-pointer tell me awhile back that you can buy somethign at the store but it's not yours until it's put in your hands.


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> Also, I'd hate to see my beloved Spurgeon denied by PB because I really like using him as my avatar.



I don't think he'd be denied... because in the link you provided, he makes very clear that he is rejecting the notion of a universal redemption (again, a hallmark of amyraldianism). A prime source of quotations from Spurgeon is found at this link.


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> There is a misconception that 4-point Calvinists do not affirm any particular nature of the atonement at all. That is not the case. 4-pointers affirm a particular love for the elect manifested in the atonement, that God only intended the elect to be saved, that only the elect are effectively called (thus affirming WLC Qs. 66-68) and have the redemption applied to them (thus affirming WLC Q. 59)



Perhaps some who call themselves 4-pointers speak this way, but it isn't in the origins of the belief system itself.

What Amyrault taught was that the atonement was in fact for all, but that its application was particular and conditioned on faith (and faith that was given to the elect only). So there is a particularism in Amyraldianism - but it's in application, not in actual purchase. 

As was noted by Andrew, 4-pointers will often say that purchase isn't complete until you seal the deal. They'll liken Christ's atonement in very much the same way as the Arminian does, with some word picture like "Christ bought the ticket, and it's no good unless you accept it". The Amyraldian would take this word picture and assert that he believes in election because God elects those who ultimate accept Christ's purchase (which was tickets for everyone). 

This is simply not Calvinism, and as far as I assess it, incompatible with any of our board's accepted confessional standards.


----------



## wsw201

> Section 5 in the same chapter says "purchase" in both confessions. The WCF, then, draws a one-to-one correlation between those purchased and those whom redemption is applied.
> 
> The LBCF, for some reason, decides to buck the WCF and change the phrase to "obtained eternal redemption." Why? Possibly because a 4-pointer would say that Christ "bought" or "purchased" all of humanity, but only "obtained eternal redemption" for the elect.
> 
> Perhaps the LBCF writers deliberately changed the language to not be divisive among 4 and 5 pointers. All of the benefits of "obtaining eternal redemption" in Section 8 are post-effectual calling (belief, governing their hearts, etc.) so the obtaining could be at the cross, as a 5-pointer would see it, or upon regeneration, as a 4-pointer would see it.
> 
> But I could be wrong. If someone has a better theory for the change, I'd love to hear it.



Don,

Your theory is pretty weak. I hope you're not hanging your hat on this?? If you buy it its yours!

Now I'm not a Baptist and have no idea what's going on with 4-pointers, which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one, and SBTS but as Rich has stated, questions yes but rejection of limited atonement no!

So you're going to have to decide where you're at.


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> Good job, Todd!
> 
> I agree with you regarding the Canons of Dort and WCF VIII.8 rejecting Amyraldism.
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving to the London Baptist Confession of 1689, here the arguments are the same. The LBC incorporates the Catechisms as their catechetical standards, and most of the text of the LBC is the same as the Westminster... Sections 5 and 8 of the Chapter in the LBC on Christ the Mediator are the same as the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they're not. In LBCF VIII.8, the phrase "To all those for whom Christ hath *purchased redemption*" becomes "To all those for whom Christ hath *obtained eternal redemption*."
> 
> Section 5 in the same chapter says "purchase" in both confessions. The WCF, then, draws a one-to-one correlation between those purchased and those whom redemption is applied.
> 
> The LBCF, for some reason, decides to buck the WCF and change the phrase to "obtained eternal redemption." Why? Possibly because a 4-pointer would say that Christ "bought" or "purchased" all of humanity, but only "obtained eternal redemption" for the elect.
Click to expand...


Whether there's a change in the LBC in section 8 is irrelevant. Section 5 of Chapter 8 says the following in BOTH confessions:



> The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him.



Christ has PURCHASED an inheritance, by his obedience and death, for (all? NO) all those whom the Father has given him.

You can't argue that section 8 was changed to appease 4-pointers when section 5 explicitly denies their beliefs.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I am always fascinated that people reject Limited Atonement of all the 5. I frankly think people would have a problem with the nature of man's depravity, the unconditional nature of God's election, or the power with which he overcomes men's sinful hearts.

Limited atonement is as simple as this: When Christ atoned for sins it was once and for all. If Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of every man, woman, and child who ever lived then there is now no condemnation. If Christ's death actually atoned for sin then to say that He died for all is to say that all sins are actually atoned for.

Of course, to state that Christ's sacrifice paid for the sins of all mankind and to uphold the nature of that sacrifice one would need to be a universalist. At least the universalist preserves the perfect and complete nature of the Atonement.

But, what I will not accept, and what I find repugnant to the Scriptures is that we add to the atonement by our faith - that Christ died for us but something must be added by us. That is to say that Christ's sacrifice atones for all the sins of mankind - evenly spread out and applied to all - but in the end there is yet left some sin unatoned for that must be procured by _our_ faith.

As for Spurgeon, I've stated over and over that I'm not a fan of _ad populum_ arguments. Nobody is consigning him to outer darkness and he's not here on the board applying for membership. I agree with Todd that I've read enough of what he wrote on the subject to categorically reject that he is, in any way, a "4-pointer". 

Spurgeon is hardly a 4-pointer. The only people I ever hear claim that are Calvary Chapel. Consider this:


> We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question-Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They say, "No." They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died so that any man may be saved if"-and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say then, we will just go back to the old statement-Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why you... We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. (Sermon 181, New York Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135)


----------



## Jim Johnston

and, if you deny the L you have to deny substitutionary atonement. Shudder.

Jesus wasn't a player. He died for his bride. He loves his bride. He didn't die for other women too.

Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 

If Jesus can commit adultary, can we?

Jesus isn't a player.

The idea that Jesus could be a guest on Jerry Springer isn't confessional.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Tom Bombadil said:


> and, if you deny the L you have to deny substitutionary atonement. Shudder.
> 
> Jesus wasn't a player. He died for his bride. He loves his bride. He didn't die for other women too.
> 
> Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
> 
> If Jesus can commit adultary, can we?
> 
> Jesus isn't a player.
> 
> The idea that Jesus could be a guest on Jerry Springer isn't confessional.


 
Nice.


----------



## Theoretical

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> and, if you deny the L you have to deny substitutionary atonement. Shudder.
> 
> Jesus wasn't a player. He died for his bride. He loves his bride. He didn't die for other women too.
> 
> Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
> 
> If Jesus can commit adultary, can we?
> 
> Jesus isn't a player.
> 
> The idea that Jesus could be a guest on Jerry Springer isn't confessional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice.
Click to expand...


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> and, if you deny the L you have to deny substitutionary atonement. Shudder.
> 
> Jesus wasn't a player. He died for his bride. He loves his bride. He didn't die for other women too.
> 
> Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
> 
> If Jesus can commit adultary, can we?
> 
> Jesus isn't a player.
> 
> The idea that Jesus could be a guest on Jerry Springer isn't confessional.



May I quote you?


----------



## mbj0680

Let's put a spin on this topic of 4-point Calvinism. Always wanted to know what Calvinists thought about this. I am under the impression from a lot of Calvinist that if you don't subscribe to Calvinism then your hermeneutics are all off and the lens unto which you view scripture will always be wrong. I actually heard a pastor say this. So that leads me to ask the direct question that if you are not a Calvinist are you a Christian?

-MJ


----------



## Andrew P.C.

mbj0680 said:


> Let's put a spin on this topic of 4-point Calvinism. Always wanted to know what Calvinists thought about this. I am under the impression from a lot of Calvinist that if you don't subscribe to Calvinism then your hermeneutics are all off and the lens unto which you view scripture will always be wrong. I actually heard a pastor say this. So that leads me to ask the direct question that if you are not a Calvinist are you a Christian?
> 
> -MJ



Fortunately, we have a bunch of inconsistent Arminians running around.


----------



## AV1611

From what I understand a number af Amyraldians signed up to the WCF.


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> From what I understand a number af Amyraldians signed up to the WCF.



By this do you mean that there were Amyraldians in the Westminster Assembly? 

This is certainly true... (Calamy, for instance - see Warfield's volume on the WA and its work, pp. 138ff) Their views did not prevail, though, as one can gather from the aforementioned sections VIII.5 and 8, and also III.6. Their mere presence at the Assembly
doesn't mean the Assembly allowed for Amyraldianism (just as Twisse's presence at
the Assembly doesn't mean it allowed for eternal justification, which it clearly came down 
against).

Now after the Assembly, did the Amyraldians subscribe to the WCF? Of that I'm not historian enough to know - but if they did, they ceased teaching their error, I would hope. Perhaps Chris Coldwell (or through him, Chad van Dixhoorn) could find out something about this? I'm interested


----------



## AV1611

toddpedlar said:


> By this do you mean that there were Amyraldians in the Westminster Assembly?



I am not sure of the history, I was just told by a friend a while ago that Amyraldians did not feel that the WCF ruled out their view and the evidence being that they signed up to the Confession.



toddpedlar said:


> (just as Twisse's presence at the Assembly doesn't mean it allowed for eternal justification, which it clearly came down against).



They came out against a certain understanding of EJ but there is an orthodox view that is compatable with the Westminster Standards. But this thread is not the place to discuss this


----------



## AV1611

I found this:

2. Claim: The Confession does not exclude Amyraldianism 

It is well known that there were several members of the Westminster Assembly who adhered to the hypothetical universalisrn of the Amyraldian school. It has been alleged last century and more recently that this position is not excluded by the Confession. 

In 1961 a Calvinistic church was formed in Tasmania from several congregations of former Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. It is now known as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). The tendency to reaction from their previous Arminian mysticism led to suspicion of the doctrine of the free offer as if it was based on a universal atonement in the Amyraldian sense. In debate with their near kin, the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, the leaders of the EPC held that the issue was not resolved by the Confession since, while the Confession was accepted in 1647 as in no way contrary to received doctrine, it was claimed by the EPC that before 1647 the Church of Scotland did not hold to any limitation on the extent and intent of the atonement. It was not until the Acts of the Church of Scotland condemning the Marrow teaching in 1720 and 1721 that any such limitation existed, they claimed. The EPC therefore relied on these Acts to reject the related ambiguities and contradictions they saw as inherent in the free offer teaching as expounded, for example, by John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, and they went on to adopt a position on common grace rather similar to that of Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches in the USA. 

The response to this line of reasoning is to reject the claim that the Confession does not exclude Amyraldian views, to reject the allegations about the pre-1647 teaching of the Church of Scotland, and to regard the Acts condemning the Marrow as making partial and selective use of aspects of the Marrow and as irrelevant. The Acts against the Marrowmen would only be competent if they were true Declaratory Acts, that is, Acts declaring existing law. The force of the Acts, though unrepealed, is exceedingly dubious because of the peculiar circumstances. It is true that they were appealed to in the Macleod Campbell case in 1831. Campbell, unlike the Marrowmen, really did teach universal pardon, and the great historian Thomas McCrie (1772-1835) thereupon published several articles to vindicate the Marrowmen from some of the unjust charges in the Assembly Acts. It is a libel on the Scottish Church to suppose the love of God in the free offer was ever doubted or regarded as inconsistent with a strict Calvinism. 

While A.F. Mitchell thought Amyraldianism may not be excluded by the Confession in 3:6, William, Cunningham is sure it is and Warfield agrees. The issue really seems settled by the terms of WCF 8:8 which state that all for whom Christ purchased redemption have the same applied effectually to them. John Carneron held that the absence of such a statement in the findings of the Synod of Dort 1619 meant his Amyraldianism, was not excluded, thus we take it Westminster does exclude it. Christ made satisfaction for those the Father gave to Him, and Christ, through the Spirit, effectively applies this redemption to those for whom He died. 

The seeming inconsistency in the Confession excluding views which were held by several of its members perhaps may be explained on the supposition that the Confession was going to be the public Confession of the British church, but would not be imposed by a tight subscription. While such an idea would not have been acceptable in Scotland it was a position some of the English divines held. On this supposition the Amyraldians would not have been able to teach against the Confession but might have held their own views as private opinions. At any rate, the terms of the Adopting Act in Scotland leave no doubt that Amyraldianism is excluded as an option for strict subscribers. 

Recent Criticisms of the Westminster Confession of Faith


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By this do you mean that there were Amyraldians in the Westminster Assembly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure of the history, I was just told by a friend a while ago that Amyraldians did not feel that the WCF ruled out their view and the evidence being that they signed up to the Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> (just as Twisse's presence at the Assembly doesn't mean it allowed for eternal justification, which it clearly came down against).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They came out against a certain understanding of EJ but there is an orthodox view that is compatable with the Westminster Standards. But this thread is not the place to discuss this
Click to expand...


Perhaps this isn't the thread to discuss it, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly than I do. Justification is an act that takes place in time and not in eternity past, I'm not particularly concerned as to how you decide to slice it. Certainly it is utterly incompatible with the Confession - since the Confession spells out in no uncertain terms that justification is an act that takes place for each believer at a particular time in their lives. Quite honestly I thought that issue was dealt with already and closed in another thread.


----------



## wsw201

Richard,

The quote you site is an old tired argument that has been used to get around the plain reading of the Standards as well as the plain reading of other Reformed Confessions. Yes there were Amyraldians at the Assembly along with Erastians and Independents. But just like the Amyraldians, the Erastians and Independents lost out (though the Church of Scotland thought that the sections about the magistrate were a little too Erastian). In fact the Independents went on to write their own Confession, the Savoy Declaration. Some have pointed out that the Standards was a concensus document. This is true as everyone who was there could vote on it. But this does not mean that the Standards are a "big tent" for every possible view that's out there. 

Some have argued that Burgess held the view of Baptismal Regeneration (which is hogwash) so Baptismal Regeneration is an acceptable view per the Standards. This can't be farther from the truth. Nowhere do the Standards even hint at Baptismal Regeneration.

The idea that because Joe Puritan was at the Assembly therefore his views were acceptable regardless of what the Standards actually say is shear conjecture, which is what your article is. Since the Church of Scotland was the only church that fully accepted the Standards and the Standards went bye bye when the King was restored in England we have no idea what the Church of England would have or would not have allowed under the Standards.

So Amyraldianism is out and is anti-confessional and anti-biblical.

As far as eternal justification is concerned, this makes absolutely no sense at all. As has been noted the Standards and Scripture are clear as a bell. Note that in Ephesians Paul says that before they were saved they were children of wrath, outside of the covenant, without God! For Paul to make such statements he would have had to believe that prior to their effectual calling they were not justified in any sense of the word.

Now I'm going to put my Super Moderator hat on. 

We have allowed discussions to go on regarding a number of subjects. Many have been very edifying and helpful to those who are new to the Reformed Faith. We have even allowed folks to ask questions about various doctrines so that they can come to a better understanding. But as Rich has noted above, questions are fine but rejections of established doctines that are apart of the Confessions that are articulated in the Board Rules is not going to be allowed.


----------



## AV1611

wsw201 said:


> So Amyraldianism is out and is anti-confessional and anti-biblical.



I believe that without L there is no gospel so please do not assume that I am defending the view that Amyraldianism is confessional I was merely pointing out that I have been told that Amyraldians can sign up to it in good conscience. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the leading Amyraldian Dr A C Clifford signs upto the Three Forms of Unity.


----------



## wsw201

AV1611 said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Amyraldianism is out and is anti-confessional and anti-biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that without L there is no gospel so please do not assume that I am defending the view that Amyraldianism is confessional I was merely pointing out that I have been told that Amyraldians can sign up to it in good conscience. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the leading Amyraldian Dr A C Clifford signs upto the Three Forms of Unity.
Click to expand...


I hear you Richard. I remember your posts from the last thread. Sorry if I came across as if I were coming down on you. Its just that I have heard this type of argument so many times that it makes my head spin!

I don't know Dr. Clifford but I guess it just goes to show that one can rationalize away just about anything they want. Including pertinent sections of the Canons of Dordt.


----------



## toddpedlar

AV1611 said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Amyraldianism is out and is anti-confessional and anti-biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that without L there is no gospel so please do not assume that I am defending the view that Amyraldianism is confessional I was merely pointing out that I have been told that Amyraldians can sign up to it in good conscience. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the leading Amyraldian Dr A C Clifford signs upto the Three Forms of Unity.
Click to expand...


Well, perhaps he does, but his signing up is absolutely worthless since the TFU (of all confessional standards) is the most explicit in its denunciation of Amyraldian doctrines. Just goes to show you how far people's wax-nose versions of confessional standards can be twisted. His claim to 'subscription' is simply a falsehood.


----------



## toddpedlar

Seems to me Clifford is just a buffoon. Here's a letter that shows his belief system:



> The Editor, English Churchman
> 6 June 2000
> Sir, - In an otherwise valuable sermon (parts of which I thank him for), the Revd Edward J. Malcolm has supplied some highly flawed information ('The Death of Christ', The Journal, May 2000, pp. 23-8). I refer to his dubious assessment of Amyraldianism. Concerned to reaffirm John Calvin's authentic teaching in the face of ultra-orthodox 'high' Calvinism', the French Reformed theologian, Moïse Amyraut (1596-1664) also distanced himself from semi-Pelagian Arminianism. His concern was to avoid unbiblical extremism. Had his teaching been as compatible with Rome's as is suggested, the Edict of Nantes (1598) might possibly have stood. It was revoked by Louis XIV (in 1685) precisely because of the continuing incompatibilities between the Reformed churches and Rome! The internal Reformed debates over the extent of the atonement had nothing to do with it (for further information, see my book Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification).
> 
> As for the Huguenot refugees who settled in this country [England], those who agreed with Amyraut simply reinforced the original sixteenth-century 'Anglican Calvinism' of the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles (see Arts. 2, 15 and 31). *Notwithstanding clear teaching on predestination (see Art. 17), the doctrine of limited atonement is as alien to Reformation Anglicanism as it is to the teaching of Amyraut and Calvin.* In the seventeenth century, scholastic influences in Reformed theology affected this country as well as France. Thus the 'over-orthodox' distorted Calvinism of Dr John Owen and many (but not all) of the Westminster divines was rejected by Richard Baxter and others. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the balanced biblicism of Calvin, the other Reformers, Amyraut and Baxter was maintained by the Nonconformists Matthew Henry, Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge, and the Anglicans John Newton, Charles Simeon and Bishop Ryle. While I regret Ryle's espousal of episcopacy, his authentic Calvinism is unquestionably on target! According to this view of the New Testament, while ultimately only the elect effectually partake of salvation, the universally designed and sufficient atonement of Christ makes the gospel available to the whole world. This is true Christianity and true Calvinism!
> 
> A C Clifford


----------



## terry72

*John Calvin*

"Behold our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, abased himself for a time, as says S. Paul Now if there were no more but this, that he being the fountain of life, became a moral man, and that he having dominion over the angels of heaven, took upon him the shape of a servant, yea even to shed his blood for our redemption, and in the end to suffer the curse that was due unto us (Gal 3:13): were it convenient that notwithstanding all this, he should nowadays in recompense be torn to pieces, by stinking mouths of such as name themselves Christians? For when they swear by his blood, by his death, by his wounds and by whatsoever else: is it not a crucifying of God's son again as much as in them lies, and as a rending of him in pieces? And are not such folk worthy to be cut of from God's Church, yea, and even from the world, and to be no more numbered in the array of creatures? Should our Lord Jesus have such reward at our hands, for his abasing and humbling of himself after that manner? (Mich 6:30) God in upbraiding his people says thus: My people, what have I done to you? I have brought you out of Egypt, I have led you up with all gentleness and loving-kindness, I have planted you as it were in my own inheritance, to the intent you should have been a vine that should have brought me forth good fruit, and I have tilled thee and manured thee: and must thou now be bitter to me, and bring forth sower fruit to choke me withal? The same belongs to us at this day. For when the Son of God, who is ordained to be judge of the world (John 5:22), shall come at the last day: he may well say to us: how now Sirs? You have borne my name, you have been baptised in remembrance of me and record that I was your redeemer, I have drawn you out of the dungeons where into you were plunged, I delivered you from endless death by suffering most cruel death myself, and for the same cause I became man, and submitted myself even to the curse of GOD my father, that you might be blessed by my grace and by my means: and behold the reward that you have yielded me for all this, is that you have (after a sort) torn me in pieces and made a jestingstock of me, and *the death that I suffered for you has been made a mockery among you, the blood which is the washing and cleansing of your souls has been as good as trampled under your feet, and to be short, you have taken occasion to ban and blaspheme me, as though I had been some wretched and cursed creature. When the sovereign judge shall charge us with these things, I pray you will it not be as thundering upon us, to ding us down to the bottom of hell? *Yes: and yet are there very few that think upon it." 
Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 33, 5:11, p., 196.


----------



## terry72

*John Calvin*

“Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)


----------



## toddpedlar

So, Terry, are you saying that John Calvin did NOT believe in limited atonement?


----------



## terry72

*Some more John Calvin*



> Jude 4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying *the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ*.



John Calvin's Commentary on the last Clause:

The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, " Christ, who alone is God and Lord." And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, *when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price.* That Christ, then, may retain us as his peculiar treasure, me must remember that he died and rose again for us, that he might have dominion over our life and death.


----------



## terry72

Todd,

I'm just posting some interesting quotes.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Terry,

Could you please explain what you're trying to drive at? I frankly don't understand how you believe your lengthy quote from post 32 (http://www.puritanboard.com/306152-post32.html) applies.


----------



## toddpedlar

terry72 said:


> Todd,
> 
> I'm just posting some interesting quotes.
> 
> Blessings,
> Terry



Seems to me that these are far from merely "interesting quotes". Your blog indicates your position with respect to John Calvin and the people for whom Christ's death was given. Why not be equally transparent here about what that position is?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

terry72 said:


> “Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)



This particular quote is completely a-contextual if it were used to demonstrate that Calvin is trying to imply a universal atonement. The point of Calvin is driving at is that Christ is truly human and that, when Luke quotes Christ's geneology he goes back to Adam to show that Christ is the savior of the world and not the Jews only.


----------



## toddpedlar

SemperFideles said:


> terry72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.” (Institutes Book 2, Chapter 13, paragraph 3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This particular quote is completely a-contextual if it were used to demonstrate that Calvin is trying to imply a universal atonement. The point of Calvin is driving at is that Christ is truly human and that, when Luke quotes Christ's geneology he goes back to Adam to show that Christ is the savior of the world and not the Jews only.
Click to expand...


Exactly... and if Calvin were not making the point that Rich elucidates above, we're left only with the alternative that not only was Calvin a teacher of Amyraldian soteriology, but that he was a thorough-going universalist!


----------



## terry72

Semper,

I am posting these interesting quotes from Calvin in light of Todd calling Clifford a buffoon. Now, I don't know anything about Clifford, I've never read him, but in light of some of the interesting language that Calvin uses in just these few quotes alone, it shows that Calvin isn't as easily understood as some would like him to be. So, based on what Todd quoted from Clifford one can hardly call him a buffoon, because whether or not Clifford can absolutely make the case suggested in Todd's quote, he at the very least has an argument that must be taken seriously enough that it just can't be dismissed with the wave of the hand.

So, these quotes are just as relevant to the thread as the Clifford quote, in my opinion.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West


----------



## terry72

Todd,

You said:



> Why not be equally transparent here about what that position is?



I'm not trying to be less than transparent. Sometimes I think it is beneficial to just let a quote stand for itself and let the person reading it doing the thinking.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry


----------



## Semper Fidelis

terry72 said:


> Todd,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not be equally transparent here about what that position is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be less than transparent. Sometimes I think it is beneficial to just let a quote stand for itself and let the person reading it doing the thinking.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry
Click to expand...


Just so the board doesn't have to wonder, I will be very transparent with this statement: Terry is suspended because I believe he is an Amyraldian.

See here: The Reformed Christian Muse » Blog Archive » Christ’s Represenation of THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE in His Substitutionary Death



> Dean,
> 
> The context of the Calvin quote is his argument for the true human nature of Christ in the incarnation. This fits perfectly into a “Chalcedonian” representation of all the whole human race. I want you to notice in the following quotes how Calvin is explicit about the WHOLE HUMAN RACE and all members thereof (without exception) being those for whom Christ substituted for in His death. Any honest appreciation of the following commentary on Isaiah 53 will show that Calvin was not working with the later Protestant Scholastic categories (what we today view as “Owenic” categories).


----------



## Andrew P.C.

terry72 said:


> Todd,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not be equally transparent here about what that position is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be less than transparent. Sometimes I think it is beneficial to just let a quote stand for itself and let the person reading it doing the thinking.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, since I've discussed this issue with you multiple times, you only quote Calvin when it bests suits your position. (Which I contend, are out of context.)

Suggested Reading:
John Calvin's view of Limited Atonement


----------



## JohnOwen007

*Amyraut Misunderstood*

Dear folks there is *much *that is *misunderstood *about all things Amyraut.

The doyen of Protestant Scholasticism, Richard Muller, argues that Amyraut, his mentor John Cameron, and the School of Saumur generally, had a doctrine of the atonement that *was within* the confessional boundaries of the Reformed tradition (especially Dort). Here is one quote from a recent article about John Cameron from Muller:



"This [Cameron's covenantal] pattern has major implications for understanding the Salmurian soteriology. It indicates a covenantal or federal continuity with Reformed predestinarianism that has been left unexamined in discussions of hypothetical universalism. Against, Moltmann's assessment, it offers an element of the Salmurian theology that presses it away from rather than toward Arminianism; and against Armstrong's thesis, it demonstrates the point, recognized even by seventeenth-century opponents of Amyralidianism like Francis Turretin, namely, *that views of Cameron and his Salmurian successors were not heresy and, like it or not, were consciously framed to stand within the confessionalism of the Canons of Dort*. In the specific case of Cameron's covenantal thought, it ought to be understood not as a protest against various developments in Reformed theology but rather an integral part of the rather fluid and variegated history of early Reformed covenantal thought." ("John Cameron and Covenant Theology" in _MJT _17 (2006):36-37)

Muller also draws this conclusion in volume 4 of his _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics_.

To say that Amyraut is a 4 point Calvinist is unhelpful. He (and Cameron) *affirmed *that Christ's death *actually secured* the redemption of the elect completely, but *also *affirmed that Christ's death made all people saveable. That was the classic interpretation of Peter Lombard's formula, "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect". John Owen, of course, provided another way to interpret the formula.

People who held views very similar to Amyraut before Amyraut (like John Davenant, Samuel Ward etc.) were *at *Dort, and could sign off on the canons with good conscience.

Moreover, people like Edmund Calamy (Richard Vines and Lazarus Seaman) who also held views akin to Amyraut were not only present at the Westminster Assembly but could also sign it with no conscience problems.

All these folks believed that Christ's death infallibly secured the salvation of the elect. It's just that they *also* believed Christ's death made all people saveable. The basic complaint about why they held to both ideas was that it was illogical. The reason why they held their views was because they wanted to make sense of *all* scriptural data, whether it appeared illogical or not, especially those passages that seemed to suggest Christ's death made all saveable such as 1 John 2:2; John 3:16; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 Cor. 8:11; 1 Tim. 4:10 etc.

A good theology is designed to explain *all * parts of scripture not *explain away *some parts of Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK Marty, unhelpful definitions aside, let me ask you a plain question: Do you believe that those who have a theology that oppose Amyraldianism are designed to *explain away* some parts of Scripture that Amyraut did not? Do you essentially agree with Amyraut?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Rich,

It seems you're throwing down the gauntlet before me? I'm happy to respond.



SemperFideles said:


> OK Marty, unhelpful definitions aside, let me ask you a plain question: Do you believe that those who have a theology that oppose Amyraldianism are designed to *explain away* some parts of Scripture that Amyraut did not?



No definitely not (if I understand your question aright). It seems to me that all sides are wanting to make the best sense of Scripture. I have no doubt in my mind about this. However, I (personally) find some of the explanations of certain verses from the high Calvinist camp very strained indeed, particularly in the verse's context.

One example: John Owen is probably my favourite theologian, but I really struggle with his construal of "saviour" (_soter_) in 1 Tim. 4:10 as "sustainer". The word never means that in the Pastoral Epistles, nor (as far as I can find) in the Pauline corpus. I think responsible exegesis must conclude _soter_ means "saviour". How then do we make sense of this, in light of Christ's particular atonement is altogether another question. Read on.



> Do you essentially agree with Amyraut?



Nope. There is much about Amyraut's theology with which I struggle. I strongly affirm that Christ infallibly secured the salvation of the elect on the cross. What else could Rev. 5:9 mean (the most compelling verse in my own opinion for particular redemption)?

However, to be frank, I don't quite know how to harmonize this with certain verses in the NT (like 1 Tim. 4:10). Amyraut's solution (with his ordering of the decrees) seems to me to be quite flawed. Charles Hodge's distinction (followed by Dabney) between penal and pecuniary justice, I think, is the best explanation that copes with most of the NT data. But it still leaves me dissatisified.

Thanks for your questions Rich, God bless you brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Rich,
> 
> It seems you're throwing down the gauntlet before me? I'm happy to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Marty, unhelpful definitions aside, let me ask you a plain question: Do you believe that those who have a theology that oppose Amyraldianism are designed to *explain away* some parts of Scripture that Amyraut did not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No definitely not (if I understand your question aright). It seems to me that all sides are wanting to make the best sense of Scripture. I have no doubt in my mind about this. However, I (personally) find some of the explanations of certain verses from the high Calvinist camp very strained indeed, particularly in the verse's context.
> 
> One example: John Owen is probably my favourite theologian, but I really struggle with his construal of "saviour" (_soter_) in 1 Tim. 4:10 as "sustainer". The word never means that in the Pastoral Epistles, nor (as far as I can find) in the Pauline corpus. I think responsible exegesis must conclude _soter_ means "saviour". How then do we make sense of this, in light of Christ's particular atonement is altogether another question. Read on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you essentially agree with Amyraut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. There is much about Amyraut's theology with which I struggle. I strongly affirm that Christ infallibly secured the salvation of the elect on the cross. What else could Rev. 5:9 mean (the most compelling verse in my own opinion for particular redemption)?
> 
> However, to be frank, I don't quite know how to harmonize this with certain verses in the NT (like 1 Tim. 4:10). Amyraut's solution (with his ordering of the decrees) seems to me to be quite flawed. Charles Hodge's distinction (followed by Dabney) between penal and pecuniary justice, I think, is the best explanation that copes with most of the NT data. But it still leaves me dissatisified.
> 
> Thanks for your questions Rich, God bless you brother.
Click to expand...


Thank you for answering plainly.

I'm going to try to go back to bed now. I'm in the United States for a week and I can't sleep. Slept like a rock last night out of pure exhaustion but tried hitting the rack at 10:30 pm and had to get back up at midnight. It's 1:46 am now so I'll hopefully be able to sleep.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> It's 1:46 am now so I'll hopefully be able to sleep.



My prayers are with you that you'll sleep.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Andrew P.C. said:


> Unfortunately, since I've discussed this issue with you multiple times, you only quote Calvin when it bests suits your position. (Which I contend, are out of context.)



So I dont have to "hunt" you guys down... 


By the request of Tony:

I have spoken to Terry about certain passages that HE contends teach general redemption. Let me quote from his favorite commentator.

1 John 2:2


> 2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
> 
> Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.




2 Peter 2:1-3


> 1. But there were. As weak consciences are usually very grievously and dangerously shaken, when false teachers arise, who either corrupt or mutilate the doctrine of faith, it was necessary for the Apostle, while seeking to encourage the faithful to persevere, to remove out of the way an offense of this kind. He, moreover, comforted those to whom he was writing, and confirmed them by this argument, that God has always tried and proved his Church by such a temptation as this, in order that novelty might not disturb their hearts. "Not different," he says, "will be the condition of the Church under the gospel, from what it was formerly under the law; false prophets disturbed the ancient Church; the same thing must also be expected by us."
> 
> It was necessary expressly to shew this, because many imagined that the Church would enjoy tranquillity under the rein of Christ; for as the prophets had promised that at his coming there would be real peace, the highest degree of heavenly wisdom, and the full restoration of all things, they thought that the Church would be no more exposed to any contests. Let us then remember that the Spirit of God hath once for all declared, that the Church shall never be free from this intestine evil; and let this likeness be always borne in mind, that the trial of our faith is to be similar to that of the fathers, and for the same reason -- that in this way it may be made evident, whether we really love God, as we find it written in Deuteronomy 13:3.
> 
> But it is not necessary here to refer to every example of this kind; it is enough, in short, to know that, like the fathers, we must contend against false doctrines, that our faith ought by no means to be shaken on account of discords and sects, because the truth of God shall remain unshaken notwithstanding the violent agitations by which Satan strives often to upset all things.
> 
> Observe also, that no one time in particular is mentioned by Peter, when he says there shall be false teachers, but that all ages are included; for he makes here a comparison between Christians and the ancient people. We ought, then, to apply this truth to our own time, lest, when we see false teachers rising up to oppose the truth of God, this trial should break us down. But the Spirit reminds us, in order that we may take the more heed; and to the same purpose is the whole description which follows.
> 
> He does not, indeed, paint each sect in its own colors, but particularly refers to profane men who manifested contempt towards God. The ,advice, indeed, is general, that we ought to beware of false teachers; but, at the same time, he selected one kind of such from whom the greater danger arose. What is said here will hereafter become more evident from the words of Jude, who treats exactly of the same subject.
> 
> Who privily shall bring in. By these words he points out the craftiness of Satan, and of all the ungodly who militate under his banner, that they would creep in by oblique turnings, as through burrows under ground. 1 The more watchful, then, ought the godly to be, so that they may escape their hidden frauds: for however they may insinuate themselves, they cannot circumvent those who are carefully vigilant.
> 
> He calls them opinions of perdition, or destructive opinions, that every one, solicitous for his salvation, might dread such opinions as the most noxious pests. As to the word opinions or heresies, it has not, without reason, been always deemed infamous and hateful by the children of God; for the bond of holy unity is the simple truth. As soon as we depart from that, nothing remains but dreadful discord.
> 
> Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. 2
> 
> 2. And many shall follow. It is, indeed, no slight offense to the weak, when they see that false doctrines are received by the common consent of the world, that a large number of men are led astray, so that few continue in true obedience to Christ. So, at this day, there is nothing that more violently disturbs pious minds than such a defection. For hardly one in ten of those who have once made a profession of Christ, retains the purity of faith to the end. Almost all turn aside into corruptions, and being deluded by the teachers of licentiousness, they become profane. Lest this should make our faith to falter, Peter comes to our help, and in due time foretells that this very thing would be, that is, that false teachers would draw many to perdition.
> 
> But there is a double reading even in the Greek copies; for some read, "lasciviousness," and others, "perdition." I have, however, followed what has been mostly approved. 3
> 
> By reason of whom the way of truth. This I consider to have been said for this reason, because as religion is adorned when men are taught to fear God, to maintain uprightness of life, a chaste and virtuous conduct, or when at least the mouth of the wicked is closed, that they do not speak evil of the gospel; so when the reins are let loose, and every kind of licentiousness is practiced, the name and the doctrine of Christ are exposed to the reproaches of the ungodly. Others give a different explanation -- that these false teachers, like filthy dogs, barked at sound doctrine. But the words of Peter appear to me on the contrary to intimate, that these would give occasion to enemies insolently to assail the truth of God. Though then they would not themselves assail the Christian faith with calumnies, yet they would arm others with the means of reproaching it.
> 
> 3. With feigned words. Peter endeavors by all means to render the faithful displeased with ungodly teachers, that they might resist them more resolutely and more constantly. It is especially an odious thing that we should be exposed to sale like vile slaves. But he testifies that this is done, when any one seduces us from the redemption of Christ. He calls those feigned words which arc artfully formed for the purpose of deceiving. 4 Unless then one is so mad as to sell the salvation of his soul to false teachers, let him close up every avenue that may lead to their wicked inventions. For the same purpose as before he repeats again, that their destruction delayed not, that is, that he might frighten the good from their society. For since they were given up to a sudden destruction, every one who connected himself with them, must have perished with them.




Keep in consideration the previous commentary of on the first chapter.

Calvin DID NOT teach general redemption in these two texts.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Roger Nicole and Paul Helm do a great job at showing that Calvin was a Calvinist.


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Roger Nicole and Paul Helm do a great job at showing *that Calvin was a Calvinist.*


----------



## JohnOwen007

Tom Bombadil said:


> Roger Nicole and Paul Helm do a great job at showing that Calvin was a Calvinist.



Well, I must confess that I remain unconvinced of their reading of Calvin. To be frank, I think it's very difficult to harmonize all that Calvin says when it comes to the extent of the atonement. It's all too easy to read later categories developed back into Calvin.

Was Calvin a Calvinist? The question has often been caste in the wrong categories. On one hand it's clear that the theology of Calvin is not _identical _to the WCF. We must take into account development in the reformed tradition. However, on the other hand, the WCF's theology is not a _betrayal _of Calvin (as many are want to say).


----------



## Jim Johnston

JohnOwen007 said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Nicole and Paul Helm do a great job at showing that Calvin was a Calvinist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I must confess that I remain unconvinced of their reading of Calvin. To be frank, I think it's very difficult to harmonize all that Calvin says when it comes to the extent of the atonement. It's all too easy to read later categories developed back into Calvin.
> 
> Was Calvin a Calvinist? The question has often been caste in the wrong categories. On one hand it's clear that the theology of Calvin is not _identical _to the WCF. We must take into account development in the reformed tradition. However, on the other hand, the WCF's theology is not a _betrayal _of Calvin (as many are want to say).
Click to expand...


Both sides would be guilty or reading into Calvin, at worst.

I think it is possibly difficult to harmonize Calvin, when we try to harmonize him with our categories of thought and ways of speaking.

As far as Nicole and Helm (there are others, too), I think that not only are the hermeneutical arguments from Calvin's works a very plausible construal, I think they make the best sense out of the historical facts as well. The lack of debates one would think the followers of Calvin and the followers of Beza would have got into, etc. There argument is broader than just reading Calvin's *words.* It's here that I think they win the war. Their case can be used as an abductive argument.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Tom Bombadil said:


> As far as Nicole and Helm (there are others, too), I think that not only are the hermeneutical arguments from Calvin's works a very plausible construal, I think they make the best sense out of the historical facts as well. The lack of debates one would think the followers of Calvin and the followers of Beza would have got into, etc. There argument is broader than just reading Calvin's *words.* It's here that I think they win the war. Their case can be used as an abductive argument.



Yes, it's certainly true that the argument is broader than Calvin's words. However, I'm far from convinced about the history. Many reformers of Calvin's generation (Musculus, Vermigli, Bullinger, Viret) were making the same noises about the extent of the atonement. It was after this generation that the debates began in earnest, particularly with the rise of the remonstrants, and hence the supposed rough edges of the earlier tradition began to be smoothed out (for good or ill), along with other issues.

The fact of the matter is that all positions after Calvin appealed to Calvin to vindicate their position, especially men like Davenant and Amyraut. Indeed, Dort's final canons were formulated to allow enough latitude on the extent of the atonement for people like Ward and Davenant to sign in good conscience as well as Gomarus. Helm, Nicole _et. al._ don't give enough credence to this.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Hem, Nicole, et. al. don't give credence to that because it's false. A believer in unlimited atonement would not have written Dordt that way. It says nothing about Christ dying for every single man, it only says he died for the sheep. Thus Dordt:

"In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle."

And so at best universalists who signed on agreed to not a universal atonement, but a superfluous atonement. Any universalist who can call the atonement for non-elect superfluous is a strange universalist indeed!

All of Calvin's so-called universalist passages can be easily interpreted in a way other than universalism, but there are other passages of his that the universalist cannot so easily live with. “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

Anyway, at the end of the day, the real question is if universalism is supported by Scripture. The death of Christ was the death of a high priest for his people. Scripture knows of no other death. The very intelligibility of the death are the preconditions set out in the OT. Every atonement was always and only made for Israelites. To say Jesus died for those who he was not priest over is totally foreign to Scripture. To say he did die for all men as their priest gets you to universal salvation. Jesus interceded for all those he dies for. All he interceded for go to heaven. All those he died for go to heaven. It is interesting indeed that the longest teaching on the atonement in the NT (Hebrews) only teaches a particular atonement! Nary a word of universalism. Things that make universalists go hmmmm.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hem, Nicole, et. al. don't give credence to that because it's false. A believer in unlimited atonement would not have written Dordt that way.



I'm not sure what you mean by "unlimited atonement" here (and misunderstandings about the extent of the atonement in the reformed tradition are legion), but Davenant and co. would have eschewed holding to something like that. They believed that Christ secured the complete salvation of the elect in his death (including their faith). However, they *also *believed that Christ's death had reference to all humanity, but in a different sense to that of the elect.



Tom Bombadil said:


> It says nothing about Christ dying for every single man, it only says he died for the sheep.



Precisely. They didn't make a ruling on it but left it open and this enabled Davenant and co. to sign in good faith. They could well affirm:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility
However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is *not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient*, but because they themselves are at fault.

Davenant argued later that Dort taught: Christ died sufficiently *for* all and efficiently *for* the elect. He believed that was the best way to make sense of *all *the Biblical data.

Whether he's right is another matter. But it's critical to understand the various views in the reformed tradition, not least those at Dort.

BTW for a variety of perspectives on Calvin's quote to Heshusius you cited try here, here, and here (to name a few). I don't want to specifically take it up because it's been done to death in the past.

God bless TomB.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Persoanlly speaking, I think it is threads like this that seem to cloud the issue more than help. 
For example, before I'd throw up a gaunlet to "sorta kinda" rescue Amyraut (??) from being "heretical" or even in "grave error", I be exceedingly well versed in exegetically knowing my position on the "hard texts". In other words, before I became a good historical theologian, I'd be a good Christian and exegete.

I had the unique pleasure of having Dr. Nicole as my mentor in seminary. His collection of original Amyraut books is the best in the world, and his knowledge of Calvin verses _Calvinius _kinds of theology is his forte.

I personally had some exstensive conversations at the hands of Amyraut's original works with Nicole, and find his conclusion to his lifelong study of those works as a great comfort to knowing that I had not gone historically or biblically astray with the notions surrounding Christ's death.

He said,"If of all the points in TULIP I had to give up save one, I would not give up the "L". It is the lynchpin to imputation, justification and atonement in every respect. It _is_ that Jesus died for ME."

Personally, after doing my own Master's Thesis on Arminius and his theology, including the ol' 4 pointer question, I believe that historically and theologically there is a 95% ratio of good theologians over 5% of bad theologians like Amyraut. In other words, those who are spending time reading Amyraut are wasting precious days. Read something more worthwhile.

In terms of biblical theology and exegesis, Amyraut was downright wrong in his conclusions. If the Scriptures are contradictory in any sense of the word, then, 1) they are not of God, and 2) they can't help me because I'm persoanlly more logical than a book "supposedly" inspired by God, and that would call into question the veracity of the Bible.

Instead, what I need to be in the first place is ABLE to deal hermenuetically with those passages that seem hard (but aren't). It just means I need to be a better exegete instead of taking other people's word that the passages are hard. Then I will find out, later, that history is in agreement with good interpretation, and threads and discussion like these "go away" rather quickly.

As for the Westminsterian and Reformed confessions, its a bit funny to see that those in those assemblies conformed to a Reformed interpretation, instead of adding extra clauses or exceptions. They signed THOSE documents, not others.

I'm happy to say, that the Refrmed confessions demonstrate a solid 5 point position. Its helpful on those to read surounding documents of the position given. One would find and overwhelming majority of works dedicated to the Christian (Calvinistic) faith in that regard.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Also, just a notation on the infinite value "thing", check this: 

Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet - The Atonement as Efficient and Sufficient
Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet Zeno
A short meditation on the sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Yes, the title is a bit weird, but its on purpose. Read on...


----------



## DMcFadden

Dr. Curt Daniel is known for his dissertation on Hypercalvinism, having devoted seven years in Edinburgh to the exhaustive study of it for a PhD. However, he makes some interesting observations _apropos_ the questions in this thread about Amyraldians.

_A. In subsequent centuries, the debates continued. There have been representatives of all these variations. One of the main ones has been slightly lower than Owen (High) and slightly higher than Davenant (Low). Respecting the extent of the atonement, this moderate school would agree that there are benefits in the atonement for the non-elect, such as common grace.

This universal aspect is said by some to underlie the universal offer of the Gospel. Still, there are benefits of the atonement only for the elect, namely salvation and faith. This is basically the position of Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd and R.B. Kuiper. It probably does best justice to the Reformed view of election and those Biblical passages pointing to the special intent of the atonement.

B. Amyraldians and other Low Calvinists are still Calvinists. Highs might pointout that they are inconsistent Calvinists. Perhaps that is so, especially when they toy with Hypothetical Universal ism. On the other hand, there are many who consider themselves “Four Point Calvinists” who are not even that high. Many who say they are 4-Point are 3-point or less. In the final tally, what matters is, “What saith the Scriptures?”_

As one who spent many years in the 4 pt. camp, I have NO desire to return (and thus feel quite comfortable with the confessional boundaries of this board). However, neither would I consign them to the outter darkness either.


----------



## Jim Johnston

JohnOwen007 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "unlimited atonement" here (and misunderstandings about the extent of the atonement in the reformed tradition are legion), but Davenant and co. would have eschewed holding to something like that. They believed that Christ secured the complete salvation of the elect in his death (including their faith). However, they *also *believed that Christ's death had reference to all humanity, but in a different sense to that of the elect.



Every particularist agrees that Christ's death has effects for all men.

I mean by universalist that belief that Jesus died for all men whoever. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> It says nothing about Christ dying for every single man, it only says he died for the sheep.





JohnOwen007 said:


> Precisely. They didn't make a ruling on it but left it open and this enabled Davenant and co. to sign in good faith. They could well affirm:



That's like saying a black man can sign a document in good faith that says "White men are intelligent, and America was made for them." When the black man's friends say, "Hey, why did you sign that?" He responds, "Oh, I could do so in good conscience. You see, _they didn't say_ that Black men were _not_ smart, and they didn't say that America was _only_ for white men."



> Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
> This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
> 
> Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility
> However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is *not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient*, but because they themselves are at fault.



More than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole words says nothing about Jesus dying for them. His death was enough. If one more person had been predestined, Jesus would not have had to suffer and longer, harsher, or again.



> Davenant argued later that Dort taught: Christ died sufficiently *for* all and efficiently *for* the elect. He believed that was the best way to make sense of *all *the Biblical data.



Dordt does't say that. He played loose and fast with the facts, lied to himself, and *that,* not the wording of Dordt, was what alloed him to sign in good conscience.

The best question, would a full on 4-pointer have written Dordt that way? How come every single 4-pointer I read must make it PLAIN that Jesus did not die "just for the elect." That he died to allow for the salvation of all men, if only they would come by faith. 

So, the very fact that a 4-pointer *would not* have written Dordt et al in that way, serves to deliver a strong blow against 4-pointer revisionism.

But, as I said, it matters not since the Bible plainly teaches a limted atonement in the doctrine of Jesus' death as the death of a high priest for his people, interceeding for all those he atones for.

God didn't provide the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the blood of lambs. Why thik he provides modern Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the death of The Lamb?


----------



## MW

Is Amyraldianism Confessional? Let's ask, What does it confess? Answer: two teachings with respect to salvation. Two decrees, two atonements, two gospels -- one for all men in general and one for the elect in particular. Is the idea of two teachings with respect to salvation confessional? God is far more intelligent than that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Is Amyraldianism Confessional? Let's ask, What does it confess? Answer: two teachings with respect to salvation. Two decrees, two atonements, two gospels -- one for all men in general and one for the elect in particular. Is the idea of two teachings with respect to salvation confessional? God is far more intelligent than that.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Is Amyraldianism Confessional? Let's ask, What does it confess? Answer: two teachings with respect to salvation. Two decrees, two atonements, two gospels -- one for all men in general and one for the elect in particular. Is the idea of two teachings with respect to salvation confessional? God is far more intelligent than that.



The point of this thread is whether the Amyraldian position was confessional, not whether it was right. Hence, my comments have simply been to vindicate Richard Muller's contention that the Salmurian school fit into the reformed confessional tradition, not whether they're right.

I personally find Amyraut's resolution of the universalist and particularist scriptural texts unconvincing. However, the misrepresentations of Amyraut by many are unhelpful and unbecoming of people who claim to have the doctrines of grace. It's incredibly important that we show grace as we listen to other positions, even if we disagree with them.

God bless brothers.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Tom Bombadil said:


> Every particularist agrees that Christ's death has effects for all men.



That's historically untrue.



Tom Bombadil said:


> I mean by universalist that belief that Jesus died for all men whoever.



That, I submit, muddies the waters of the historical point at issue because it's too general a definition. It hinges on what one means by "for". That can and has been taken in different senses. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> That's like saying a black man can sign a document in good faith that says "White men are intelligent, and America was made for them." When the black man's friends say, "Hey, why did you sign that?" He responds, "Oh, I could do so in good conscience. You see, _they didn't say_ that Black men were _not_ smart, and they didn't say that America was _only_ for white men."



No it's not at all. Regularly those who framed confessions in the 16th and 17th century would not make statements on various positions if there was disagreement. Dort did not come out and say that Christ didn't die for all people (in whatever sense). Brother, you need to go back and read the history and debates of Dort.



> Davenant argued later that Dort taught: Christ died sufficiently *for* all and efficiently *for* the elect. He believed that was the best way to make sense of *all *the Biblical data.





Tom Bombadil said:


> Dordt does't say that. He played loose and fast with the facts, lied to himself, and *that,* not the wording of Dordt, was what alloed him to sign in good conscience.



Dear brother, that sort of statement is a terrible accusation to make. It's playing the man and not the ball, and not becoming of gracious speech. Have you read the debates at Dort and Davenant's ensuing works? It's all too easy to call an opponent the sinner.




Tom Bombadil said:


> God didn't provide the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the blood of lambs. Why thik he provides modern Egyptians, Assyrians, Cannanites, &c. an atonement via the death of The Lamb?



And not all of Israel were saved. So was that wasted sacrificial blood for reprobate in Israel? One must be careful arguing from the type to the reality. It's better to start with the reality than the shadow.

I'm not supporting Amyraut, this is not what this thread is about. It's about whether Amyraut fits into the reformed tradition according to its confessions.

Every blessing Brother.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Marty,

As far as the first part of the discussion, I'll let my part stand as is. I'll just briefly address the "for" part. Jesus died for *them* so as to make *salvation* possible for *them.* So, the universalist think he can make sense of the sincere offer of the Gospel: Jesus died for you, so repent and believe and be saved. Particularists deny the *salvific* benefits of Christ's death (not *anny* and *all* benefits, as you said was historically false. I mean, maybe for a hyper-calvinist.) "for" anyone. So, the "for" is used in a *salvific* sense.

I'll respond to this:



> And not all of Israel were saved. So was that wasted sacrificial blood for reprobate in Israel? One must be careful arguing from the type to the reality. It's better to start with the reality than the shadow.



The sacrifices ddn't save *anyone,* Marty.

Israel was/is typological of the elect.

So, the OT shows us that atonement was made only for the elect. 

No non-Israelites had atonement made for them.

Likewise, when we come to the NT, why think non-Israelites had atonement made for them?

Don't feel bad, not much you can do when defending a weak and unscriptural position.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Tom,

This is my last post on this discussion with you brother. Thanks so much for the interaction. Feel free to respond but I'm pulling out of our particular interaction.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Don't feel bad, not much you can do when defending a weak and unscriptural position.



[1] This is a very arrogant statement and unbecoming of one who is attempting to defend grace. If you believe in God's grace then your rhetoric should reflect it. If you truly believe that you've come to the truth *not because of your own intelligence* but the work of God's spirit, then your language should reflect this. It's precisely this sort of statement that gives Calvinists a bad name, because it appears that you're out to win an argument and not a person.

[2] You've missed (again) what I've been arguing. I'm not "defending a weak and unscriptural position", namely that of Amyraut or universal atonement. In earlier posts you can see that I wholeheartedly affirm particular redemption, so you don't need to convince me. This thread was not about whether it was right but about whether it was *confessional*. I happen to believe, with Richard Muller, that it is and given my reasons why. That doesn't mean I agree with it.



> Israel was/is typological of the elect.



Dear brother, the typology of Israel is to be used with great care. For example, Israel was a type of Christ. Israel (in her exile) is also a type of the reprobate who will be judged on the last day--they will be scattered from God's presence (just like Adam from the garden). It is true, Israel is a type of the new covenant people in say 1 Cor. 10:1-4. But this concerns their obedience / disobedience, not the sacrifices in the cult. Moreover, there were a variety of sacrifices in the cult that did not apply to all Israel. Yes, it's true that Christ died for his people. Yes, Christ is a sacrifice for his people _a la _Hebrews. And the Salmurians would agree. But there's _more_ in their argument than simply this. Hence, the argument from Hebrews wouldn't convince them. The Salmurians attempted to make sense of other passages apart from Hebrews (the classic universalist ones). The High Calvinists claimed the Salmurian position was illogical. The Salmurians claimed that the High Calvinist position was attempting the impossible: finite people trying understand the infinite God, and it's corollary, Christ's infinite sacrifice, and hence it was reductionistic. In many ways it's this latter point that is the nettle to be grasped in the historical debate, rather than throwing texts back and forth.


God bless you Tom.


----------



## ChristianTrader

A slight backtrack. Was/is Muller accurate in his comments? From what I have been able to ascertain, his work in this field is the gold standard.

CT


----------



## mbj0680

> It's precisely this sort of statement that gives Calvinists a bad name, because it appears that you're out to win an argument and not a person.



This is a good point. Put differently: What good is winning the argument when we have hurt a relationship with a brother/sister in Christ in the process? The point might be made, but the bad taste is left. The debate or argument might be forgiven, but often not forgotten. 
This could do more harm than good for those of us who are ministers as we minister to the needs of the flock. Someone may decide they don't want to come to us if they know we are going to react to an issue a certain way like we did before based off of a previous experience. 

Something to think about. 

In Christ,


----------



## JohnOwen007

ChristianTrader said:


> A slight backtrack. Was/is Muller accurate in his comments? From what I have been able to ascertain, his work in this field is the gold standard.



Yes, Muller is a superb scholar, by far and away top in the field. His argument that Salmurian theology coheres with Dort is an excellent and detailed argument from the primary sources. It can be found in:

"John Cameron and Covenant Theology" in _Mid-America Journal of Theology _17 (2006):11-56.

On his general comments about Saumur and its inclusion in the reformed tradition you can read them in:

_Post-Reformation and Reformed Dogmatics_ 1:76-77, 79-80.


----------



## Jim Johnston

JohnOwen007 said:


> [1] This is a very arrogant statement and unbecoming of one who is attempting to defend grace. If you believe in God's grace then your rhetoric should reflect it. If you truly believe that you've come to the truth *not because of your own intelligence* but the work of God's spirit, then your language should reflect this. It's precisely this sort of statement that gives Calvinists a bad name, because it appears that you're out to win an argument and not a person.



Marty, calling unlimited atonement a weak an unscriptural _position_ is not problematic. 

i) I attacked no _person_, I attacked a _position_.

ii) Let's look at some thing other have said who believed in grace:

a) Matthew 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

b) Galatians 5:12 "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"

c) 2 Timothy 2:17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth

d) 1 Kings 18:27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened." 

Now, you may say all kinds of things: they were apostles, or the Lord, they were condemning heretics, etc. The point is, "is that how people who have been saved by grace act?" Can you act "ungracious" and "arrogant" if only you refer to heretics and pagans?? Calling a _position_ weak and unscriptural is not wrong, in the least. I speak technically and objectively. It is "weak" in the objective and technical sense. And, I do not find it in the Bible, hence, it is "unbiblical" (or, unscriptural). I try to not act more holy than Jesus and the prophets and the apostles.



> [2] You've missed (again) what I've been arguing. I'm not "defending a weak and unscriptural position", namely that of Amyraut or universal atonement. In earlier posts you can see that I wholeheartedly affirm particular redemption, so you don't need to convince me. This thread was not about whether it was right but about whether it was *confessional*. I happen to believe, with Richard Muller, that it is and given my reasons why. That doesn't mean I agree with it.



I have not missed anything now, or (again). I know what you said, and the "gracious" thing to do is to assume that I have been paying attention, rather than attribute inability to follow a conversation to me. What I did say, was that your answer in defense of the universalists wasn't a good rejoinder. I _actually knew_ you didn't believe in universalism, so I didn't think you should feel bad for not being able to defend a position for arguments sake. It's not your fault. I'm sure you're a very sharp guy. But, not much one can do when he is defending (whether for real, or for arguments sake) a weak and unscriptural position.

Your false accusation, assumptions, and judgmental attitude is actually "unbecoming of one who is attempting to defend grace. If you believe in God's grace then your rhetoric should reflect it. If you truly believe that you've come to the truth *not because of your own intelligence* but the work of God's spirit, then your language should reflect this. It's precisely this sort of statement that gives Calvinists a bad name, because it appears that you're out to win an argument and not a person."



> Israel was/is typological of the elect.





> Dear brother, the typology of Israel is to be used with great care. For example, Israel was a type of Christ. Israel (in her exile) is also a type of the reprobate who will be judged on the last day--they will be scattered from God's presence (just like Adam from the garden). It is true, Israel is a type of the new covenant people in say 1 Cor. 10:1-4. But this concerns their obedience / disobedience, not the sacrifices in the cult. Moreover, there were a variety of sacrifices in the cult that did not apply to all Israel. Yes, it's true that Christ died for his people. Yes, Christ is a sacrifice for his people _a la _Hebrews. And the Salmurians would agree. But there's _more_ in their argument than simply this. Hence, the argument from Hebrews wouldn't convince them. The Salmurians attempted to make sense of other passages apart from Hebrews (the classic universalist ones). The High Calvinists claimed the Salmurian position was illogical. The Salmurians claimed that the High Calvinist position was attempting the impossible: finite people trying understand the infinite God, and it's corollary, Christ's infinite sacrifice, and hence it was reductionistic. In many ways it's this latter point that is the nettle to be grasped in the historical debate, rather than throwing texts back and forth.



I know it is to be used with care. I know how many things most scholars call typological about Israel.
Giving me a Sunday School lesson isn’t an appropriate rejoinder.

Anyway, I know that the universalists would not accept my position, my argument. That hardly makes it invalid, Marty. They can go to the so-called universalist passages all they want. They still need to offer an intelligible account fo the death of Christ. My argument is that you cannot find one apart from the necessary preconditions laid out in the old, and affirmed in the new. That is, Christ's death is the death of a sacrificial lamb. Indeed, even a so-called universalist passage includes the idea of OT sacrifice:

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the *Lamb* of God, who takes away the sin of the *world*!

So, the concept of OT atonement (sacrifices) must be included in even the so-called universalist passages. If this is so, then so must the concept of the death of a high priest for his people. Now, if all people have him as their high priest, then this would be a good universalist answer. But then this leads to universal salvation. All who Jesus is high priest for he intercedes for. All who he intercedes for, go to heaven. If he intercedes for all, all go to heaven. Some people do not go to heaven. He does not intercede for some. If he does not intercede for some, he is not some’s high priest. if he is not some’s high priest, then he didn't for them since his death is necessarily tied to the OT concept of atonement - which was only and always made for Israel. Israel was typological, and the sacrifices did not save them. it is thus illegit to point out some who were unsaved. The point would be that we only know of an atonement made for Israelites, not all people whoever.

Now, the reason why your answers don't suffice as a good rejoinder to my argument is not that you, personally, don't know your Bible. You do, and are a sharp and intelligent person. it's because you're trying to defend (whether for real of for arguments sake, that matters not) a weak and unscriptural position.

Good day


----------



## Jim Johnston

mbj0680 said:


> It's precisely this sort of statement that gives Calvinists a bad name, because it appears that you're out to win an argument and not a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point. Put differently: What good is winning the argument when we have hurt a relationship with a brother/sister in Christ in the process? The point might be made, but the bad taste is left. The debate or argument might be forgiven, but often not forgotten.
> This could do more harm than good for those of us who are ministers as we minister to the needs of the flock. Someone may decide they don't want to come to us if they know we are going to react to an issue a certain way like we did before based off of a previous experience.
> 
> Something to think about.
> 
> In Christ,
Click to expand...


I said a POSITION was "weak and unscriptural." 

If some PERSON gets "hurt" by that, then the problem lies with them. Attacking *positions* is fine. Positions do not have feelings, they do not get sinned against. They do not need to be apologized to.

What, has the new and revised "tolerance" won the day now? Are the relativists winning. Is the feminization of Americal (and the world) really happening? Since when can we not attack positions in an objective and rational manor? Since when can we not call positions not found in the Bible, unscriptural. You had better bet that the universalists think that particular redemption is unscriptural. That its arguments are "weak."

Give me a break.


----------



## mbj0680

> What, has the new and revised "tolerance" won the day now? Are the relativists winning. Is the feminization of Americal (and the world) really happening? Since when can we not attack positions in an objective and rational manor? Since when can we not call positions not found in the Bible, unscriptural. You had better bet that the universalists think that particular redemption is unscriptural. That its arguments are "weak."



Bear with me, I am trying to make a point with this question. If you are not a Calvinist are you a Christian?


----------



## Jim Johnston

mbj0680 said:


> Bear with me, I am trying to make a point with this question. If you are not a Calvinist are you a Christian?



If you are not a Calvinist you could be a Christian. I wouldn't "If you are not, then you are." An atheist is not a Calvinist, but he's still not a Christian! 

4-pointers can be Christians. Arminians can be Christians. Pentecostals can be Christians. Etc.

But, guess what, all of them hold weak views on some matters, and unbiblical views.

Christians can hold weak and unbiblical views. I have, and I probably am in some areas, held/holding to some weak and unbiblical views.

Saying that Christians can hold said views doesn't mean that they aren not Christian, or that I am personally attacking them.

Christians are sinners, they are not perfect. Guess what, they even can hold to wrong doctrine  !

Indeed, a Christian holds his Bible as the ultimate authority. Thus if a position does not line up with the teaching in Scripture (or what he takes it to be), then he is well within his rights to call that position "unbiblical." Indeed, in some cases he may be morally obligated to do so. Doing that, or calling the arguments for that position "weak," is not arrogant, intolerant, etc. People need to stop treating attacks on their positions as attacks on their person. American public schools systems have done a great job teaching people that every one has a valid point, that no one should be made to feel as if they're not just as right as the next person. With the deminse of distinctions, the resurgance of pagan gnostic monistic teachings, there is now no right and wrong. Homosexuality is okay, there are no male and female. There is no true and false. 

Christians are intolerant. We dare say some people are wrong! We are big meanies, just like Jesus. Just like Paul. If we could just recognize that every one's viewpoint was just as valid as the next, that there are multiple ways of describing the elephant, then the world's troubles would be gone.

So, you bet I called universalism weak and unScriptural. Guess why? I believe it is a weak and unscriptural position. It does not correspond to the truth. In fact, I believe that the position makes Jesus out to be a playa

Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Does denial of limited atonement imply that Jesus is a "playa?" That his story of atonement could have made it on a Jerry Springer show?

"I know you say He died for you, but He died for me too! He's my man too, girl. Don't come up in here and try to act like He's just your man!"

It makes his love shown for us at the cross worthless:

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

So, Jesus says that the greatest expression of his love for people is that he lays down his life for his friends, and not all men are his friends.

But, this does not prove limited atonement, says the universalist. You see, Christ doesn't say that he lays down his life for _only_ his friends. 

Well then, "what love is this!?"

Jesus attempts to show how what kind of love this is by making a claim about great love. That kind of love demonstrates itself in the laying down of one's life for his friends.

"What kind of a slap in the face is this?"

I've told my son how much I love him by telling him that I give up a lot of things I would personally like to do, that I spend long hours working so as to provide for him, not out of mere duty, but because I love him. I tell him that he gets food, medical care, a home, pets, toys, etc., with the money I earn because I love him and want to give him good gifts. Would my son think me a liar if I also showered those things on kids who, say, hated me? Hated him? If I spent time away from him working so that I could provide for those who were not my children, giving them everything I gave him, would my claims about doing the above out of love just for him seem hallow? Similarly, I sometimes buy my wife roses that cost over $100. I tell her that I love her. How would she feel if I bought every woman in the world roses too? If I wanted to spend the night with them? What would distinguish my actions that I say show her my love for her, from those I did for them? Greater marital love has no one than this, that a man would buy his wife roses (just stick with the anology, I obviously don't think the buying of roses is the greatest way for a husband to show how he loves his wife)... and every other women in the world roses too! Could my wife (and child(ren)) rightly ask: "What love is this?"

So, yes, I called universalism weak and unscriptural. be glad that's all I said about !


----------



## mbj0680

Tom, 





> So, yes, I called universalism weak and unscriptural. be glad that's all I said about !



With that, it's seems that it's beyond the point where this conversation would do either of us any good to continue. 


Take care Tom. 

In Christ,


----------



## Jim Johnston

mbj0680 said:


> Tom,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes, I called universalism weak and unscriptural. be glad that's all I said about !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With that, it's seems that it's beyond the point where this conversation would do either of us any good to continue.
> 
> 
> Take care Tom.
> 
> In Christ,
Click to expand...


Good, you found your way out of having to defend your false charges above. However best you can sleep at night, I guess....

(P.S. You don't know what "other things" I could have said about it. Are you imputing motives without justification? How does that fit in with your above charges? Is it now not okay to call a _position_ weak and unscriptural, but reading into words, committing the intentional fallacy, imputing motives, etc., to other _people_ is okay? )

(P.P.S. Your snipe quote wasn't even related to the question you asked me. You asked if one is not a Calvinistic Christian, but some other stipe, can he still be a Christian. I said "Yes." Your quote from me had nothing to do with asking me that question. Why did you even ask it? You didn't even care about my answer.)


----------



## mbj0680

Tom, 

Let's bring our focus back to Christ and step away from this gracefuly without taking jabs at each other. I want to leave you with some verses that I hope will encourage you. 

Take care Tom. 

Col 1:12-20 
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. 
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him. 
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 
19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

How awesome is our great God and Savior Jesus Christ! 

Take care Tom. 

In Christ,


----------



## Jim Johnston

Mbj0680,

Oh, now that you put it that way... I think we're all cleared up! Thanks for the helpful and illuminating discussion.

And, since we're in the posting irrelevant passages mode, let me encourage you with this:

1 Chronicles 1
Historical Records From Adam to Abraham To Noah's Sons 
1 Adam, Seth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, 3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. 
4 The sons of Noah: 
Shem, Ham and Japheth. The Japhethites 

5 The sons of Japheth: 
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. 

6 The sons of Gomer: 
Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. 

7 The sons of Javan: 
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. The Hamites 

8 The sons of Ham: 
Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. 

9 The sons of Cush: 
Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raamah and Sabteca. 
The sons of Raamah: 
Sheba and Dedan. 

10 Cush was the father of 
Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on earth. 

11 Mizraim was the father of 
the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, 12 Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites. 

13 Canaan was the father of 
Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, 14 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 15 Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, 16 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. The Semites 

17 The sons of Shem: 
Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. 
The sons of Aram : 
Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech. 

18 Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, 
and Shelah the father of Eber. 

19 Two sons were born to Eber: 
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. 

20 Joktan was the father of 
Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 21 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 22 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 23 Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan. 

24 Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, 

25 Eber, Peleg, Reu, 

26 Serug, Nahor, Terah 

27 and Abram (that is, Abraham).

The Family of Abraham 
28 The sons of Abraham: 
Isaac and Ishmael. Descendants of Hagar 
29 These were their descendants: 
Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 30 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, 31 Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. These were the sons of Ishmael. Descendants of Keturah 

32 The sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine: 
Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. 
The sons of Jokshan: 
Sheba and Dedan. 

33 The sons of Midian: 
Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah. 
All these were descendants of Keturah. Descendants of Sarah 

34 Abraham was the father of Isaac. 
The sons of Isaac: 
Esau and Israel.

Esau's Sons 
35 The sons of Esau: 
Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jalam and Korah. 
36 The sons of Eliphaz: 
Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam and Kenaz; 
by Timna: Amalek. 

37 The sons of Reuel: 
Nahath, Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. The People of Seir in Edom 

38 The sons of Seir: 
Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer and Dishan. 

39 The sons of Lotan: 
Hori and Homam. Timna was Lotan's sister. 

40 The sons of Shobal: 
Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho and Onam. 
The sons of Zibeon: 
Aiah and Anah. 

41 The son of Anah: 
Dishon. 
The sons of Dishon: 
Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran and Keran. 

42 The sons of Ezer: 
Bilhan, Zaavan and Akan. 
The sons of Dishan : 
Uz and Aran. The Rulers of Edom 

43 These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned: 
Bela son of Beor, whose city was named Dinhabah. 

44 When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah succeeded him as king. 

45 When Jobab died, Husham from the land of the Temanites succeeded him as king. 

46 When Husham died, Hadad son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the country of Moab, succeeded him as king. His city was named Avith. 

47 When Hadad died, Samlah from Masrekah succeeded him as king. 

48 When Samlah died, Shaul from Rehoboth on the river succeeded him as king. 

49 When Shaul died, Baal-Hanan son of Acbor succeeded him as king. 

50 When Baal-Hanan died, Hadad succeeded him as king. His city was named Pau, and his wife's name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-Zahab. 51 Hadad also died. 
The chiefs of Edom were: 
Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, 52 Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, 53 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, 54 Magdiel and Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom.


----------



## Archlute

I have been studying this issue some myself this week, and happening upon this thread I thought that I might state a few brief opinions from what I have been reading. I still consider myself a 5 pointer, but I have found some of the traditional defense of limited atonement to be weak regarding 2 Peter 2:1.

1. B. B. Warfield, in his _Plan of Salvation_ places Amaraldianism within the category of Calvinism. So some level of charity should be shown to other Calvinist brothers who hold to this position - unless you feel that you are a greater theologian than B. B.

2. Amyraut's position is more nuanced and credible sounding than some in this debate are making it out to be. His distinctions have not even been discussed, and it makes me wonder if those attacking the position have even read through the issues involved.

3. John Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 2:1 certainly gives the impression that he considered those false teachers to have been purchased by Christ in some real way. It was shocking for me to have read his opinions on that passage, and I have not read any later Calvinist writer who addresses Calvin's commentary on that passage in particular (could it be an embarrassment to later Calvinist theologians?). I am still reading it over, and it seems that he just states this as truth, without any following qualification.

4. John Owen's and Robert Reymond's arguments are particularly weak on this passage, and seem to be twisting and turning in order to get around it's plain meaning. 

Reymond's citation of an article by a Reformed scholar (whose name escapes me at the moment) me in his ST is ridiculous in attempting to connect this portion of 2 Peter with a passage in the Septuigental version of Deuteronomy 32. However, no commentary that I could find on 2 Peter made this connection, there is no similarity in Greek phraseology that would lend credibility to it being a citation, and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, which is usually overabundant in it's citation of OT allusions in its marginal notes, doesn't make a connection with Deuteronomy on any level within that entire chapter that I could tell.

Likewise, saying that 'agorazo' couldn't mean "bought" in this context, since no purchase price was mentioned, is just dumb. Although he states that every other instance in the NT combines 'agorazo' with 'timay' when speaking of a purchase, that in no way rules out a purchase here as the verb itself speaks to the act even apart from the accompanying term. Doing theology by word count does not create very strong counter arguments.

All of that is to say, while I currently hold to limited atonement, Calvinist theologians and exegetes need to do a much more credible job of addressing the arguments of their opponents on these passages (especially 2 Pt. 2:1).


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> 1. B. B. Warfield, in his _Plan of Salvation_ places Amaraldianism within the category of Calvinism. So some level of charity should be shown to other Calvinist brothers who hold to this position - unless you feel that you are a greater theologian than B. B.



No one doubts the Calvinism of Amyraldism. It's the duplicity with which its Calvinism is advanced which is the problem. With Amyraldism all the elements of Calvinism are accepted, but all the elements of Arminianism are also accepted. How can this be? Is God really caught between the teeth of being and becoming? He is greater than that, and every Calvinist knows it.



Archlute said:


> 2. Amyraut's position is more nuanced and credible sounding than some in this debate are making it out to be. His distinctions have not even been discussed, and it makes me wonder if those attacking the position have even read through the issues involved.



It may be that the medium or flow of discussion hasn't given people the opportunity to discuss the finer distinctions.

The reality is this. Dort provides the reformed confessional position: An absolute decree, a definite atonement, a serious gospel call. The Remonstrants maintain an unconfession position: a conditional decree, a provisional atonement, an appeal to free-will. The Amyraldians forge a middle way, maintaining both sides. The decree is absolute to the elect, and conditional to all men; the atonement is definite to the elect, and provisional to all men; the gospel is a serious call to sinners, and an appeal to free-will. Two decrees, two atonements, two gospels, which leaves the individual in doubt as to the efficacy of salvation.



Archlute said:


> 3. John Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 2:1 certainly gives the impression that he considered those false teachers to have been purchased by Christ in some real way. It was shocking for me to have read his opinions on that passage, and I have not read any later Calvinist writer who addresses Calvin's commentary on that passage in particular (could it be an embarrassment to later Calvinist theologians?). I am still reading it over, and it seems that he just states this as truth, without any following qualification.



There is undoubtedly complexity in the way in which redemption is applied to the life of the individual and the church. From a corporate perspective, that is, so far as profession of faith is concerned, all within the visible church are redeemed by Christ. If we take men according to what they say they are, if they say they believe in Jesus Christ, we treat them as the redeemed of the Lord. We invite them to the Lord's table on the basis of their profession of faith. It may be that the furnace of affliction reveals they are not what they profess to be, and consequently they deny the faith. In that case they may be said to have denied the Lord that bought them, that is, according to what they once professed themselves to be. But if we speak of redemption according to the reality of it, the Scriptures are very clear that none perish amongst those whom Christ took in hand to save.



Archlute said:


> 4. John Owen's and Robert Reymond's arguments are particularly weak on this passage, and seem to be twisting and turning in order to get around it's plain meaning.



Twisting and turning is to be expected in a winding river. If the subject is complex, we cannot look for simple solutions. Blessings!


----------



## Jim Johnston

Universalists like to deny a payment atonement. That gets them out of tghe double jeopardy argument and the "Owenic" presuppositions.

If so, then how can 2et be used for universalism?

If the savior did *buy* all men, then how is it that they are required to pay again?

2 Pet is a double edged sword. Universalists can't have their cake and eat it too.

Btw, I've seen no good response to the High Priest argument for particular redemption by universalists.

We should also note that Amyraldians et al need to do better in their interpretation of 2 Peter. The context isn't even about the atonement, Jesus' death, the extent of the atonement, etc. Me thinks the passige is eisogeted by universalists.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> There is undoubtedly complexity in the way in which redemption is applied to the life of the individual and the church. From a corporate perspective, that is, so far as profession of faith is concerned, all within the visible church are redeemed by Christ. If we take men according to what they say they are, if they say they believe in Jesus Christ, we treat them as the redeemed of the Lord. We invite them to the Lord's table on the basis of their profession of faith. It may be that the furnace of affliction reveals they are not what they profess to be, and consequently they deny the faith. In that case they may be said to have denied the Lord that bought them, that is, according to what they once professed themselves to be. But if we speak of redemption according to the reality of it, the Scriptures are very clear that none perish amongst those whom Christ took in hand to save.



I would agree with this. I want to quote what Calvin actually writes here as I don't find it to be a great conundrum but maybe we can talk about it more:


> 1. But there were. As weak consciences are usually very grievously and dangerously shaken, when false teachers arise, who either corrupt or mutilate the doctrine of faith, it was necessary for the Apostle, while seeking to encourage the faithful to persevere, to remove out of the way an offense of this kind. He, moreover, comforted those to whom he was writing, and confirmed them by this argument, that God has always tried and proved his Church by such a temptation as this, in order that novelty might not disturb their hearts. “Not different,” he says, “will be the condition of the Church under the gospel, from what it was formerly under the law; false prophets disturbed the ancient Church; the same thing must also be expected by us.”
> 
> It was necessary expressly to shew this, because many imagined that the Church would enjoy tranquillity under the rein of Christ; for as the prophets had promised that at his coming there would be real peace, the highest degree of heavenly wisdom, and the full restoration of all things, they thought that the Church would be no more exposed to any contests. Let us then remember that the Spirit of God hath once for all declared, that the Church shall never be free from this intestine evil; and let this likeness be always borne in mind, that the trial of our faith is to be similar to that of the fathers, and for the same reason — that in this way it may be made evident, whether we really love God, as we find it written in Deuteronomy 13:3.
> 
> But it is not necessary here to refer to every example of this kind; it is enough, in short, to know that, like the fathers, we must contend against false doctrines, that our faith ought by no means to be shaken on account of discords and sects, because the truth of God shall remain unshaken notwithstanding the violent agitations by which Satan strives often to upset all things.
> 
> Observe also, that no one time in particular is mentioned by Peter, when he says there shall be false teachers, but that all ages are included; for he makes here a comparison between Christians and the ancient people. We ought, then, to apply this truth to our own time, lest, when we see false teachers rising up to oppose the truth of God, this trial should break us down. But the Spirit reminds us, in order that we may take the more heed; and to the same purpose is the whole description which follows.
> 
> He does not, indeed, paint each sect in its own colors, but particularly refers to profane men who manifested contempt towards God. The advice, indeed, is general, that we ought to beware of false teachers; but, at the same time, he selected one kind of such from whom the greater danger arose. What is said here will hereafter become more evident from the words of Jude, [Jude 1:4,] who treats exactly of the same subject.
> 
> Who privily shall bring in. By these words he points out the craftiness of Satan, and of all the ungodly who militate under his banner, that they would creep in by oblique turnings, as through burrows under ground. [jump=163]163[/jump]
> 
> The more watchful, then, ought the godly to be, so that they may escape their hidden frauds: for however they may insinuate themselves, they cannot circumvent those who are carefully vigilant.
> 
> He calls them opinions of perdition, or destructive opinions, that every one, solicitous for his salvation, might dread such opinions as the most noxious pests. As to the word opinions or heresies, it has not, without reason, been always deemed infamous and hateful by the children of God; for the bond of holy unity is the simple truth. As soon as we depart from that, nothing remains but dreadful discord.
> 
> Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. [jump=164]164[/jump]
> !hr!
> [anchor=163]163[/anchor] “Peter intimated that the heresies of which he speaks were to be introduced under the color of true doctrine, in the dark. as it were, and by little and little; so that the people would not discern their real nature.” — Macknight.
> [anchor=164]164[/anchor] The word here for “Lord” is δεσπότης, which is more expressive of power and authority than Κύριος, commonly rendered “Lord.” This seems to intimate the character of the men alluded to: they denied Christ as their sovereign, as they rendered no obedience to him, though they may have professed to believe in him as a Savior. — Ed


It seems to me that Rev. Winzer's reading is most likely. In fact, I don't see how Peter (or Calvin's commentary) could be read in a universal manner. At best, it might be interpreted to say that Christ redeemed all of those who once believed in Him. Thus, it might be interpreted (falsely I believe) to maintain that Christ's atonement is a conditional one for people who were once in the Church but are no longer. That is to say, that they were actually redeemed by Christ but are no longer. I can't tell you how much the term "Federal Vision" is ringing in my ears right now.

In my estimation, this verse is the flip side of passages like Romans 5 through 8 where Paul is talking about the surety of salvation. Paul addresses everyone in Rome (and in the Church for that matter) indiscriminately. He speaks as if, for everyone he's addressing, _they_ are actually chosen from the foundation of the world. If pressed in the same manner as Peter's passage (and why not Romans 5-8 if 2 Peter?) then how can a person who has been foreknown, called, justified, and glorified be, concurrently, NOT the same?

Is this not part of what we discuss when we're talking about Baptism in the visible Church? Isn't there an element of both the charitable attribution of the benefits of union with Christ proclaimed to all to build up in the faith while, concurrently, the threatenings that will ultimately accrue to the reprobate are proclaimed to the same crowd. The elect participate in the substance of it all and respond in Gospel faith and fear to encouragements and warnings. The reprobate respond to neither appropriately in the end but their condemnation is just. We labor, love, and hope as if all in our midst are of the former category and expect "the things accompanying salvation" as the author of Hebrews did because, to do otherwise, would be disastrous for Church unity.


----------



## Archlute

Not to quibble here, but it seems pretty clear to me in the final paragraph cited that Calvin believes them actually to have been redeemed. In context with what follows, this seems to be an actual redemption. I am not necessarily agreeing with Calvin here, nor stating that he was attempting to be a universalist, but it says what it says.

For what it's worth, the editor's footnotes do not present a very convincing argument (an argument that is basically the approach that Owen takes with this term), as there is another name for Christ that speaks of his glory and power, namely "pantokrator", which is also used in speaking of Christ who redeems us. The Eastern Orthodox took over this usage from the apostles Paul and John, and also see it as speaking of the Omnipotent, as well as the Redeeming, Christ. I do not believe that arguments that seek to pit terms of Christ lordship against one another are really very sound arguments - it is the same Christ. The terms that are important are the verbs which speak of redemption. It is these which are the hinge. 

As for why Calvin said what he said, maybe Dr. Clark could weigh in with some Mulleresque scholarship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> Not to quibble here, but it seems pretty clear to me in the final paragraph cited that Calvin believes them actually to have been redeemed. In context with what follows, this seems to be an actual redemption. I am not necessarily agreeing with Calvin here, nor stating that he was attempting to be a universalist, but it says what it says.
> 
> For what it's worth, the editor's footnotes do not present a very convincing argument (an argument that is basically the approach that Owen takes with this term), as there is another name for Christ that speaks of his glory and power, namely "pantokrator", which is also used in speaking of Christ who redeems us. The Eastern Orthodox took over this usage from the apostles Paul and John, and also see it as speaking of the Omnipotent, as well as the Redeeming, Christ. I do not believe that arguments that seek to pit terms of Christ lordship against one another are really very sound arguments - it is the same Christ. The terms that are important are the verbs which speak of redemption. It is these which are the hinge.
> 
> As for why Calvin said what he said, maybe Dr. Clark could weigh in with some Mulleresque scholarship.



It's possible that Calvin thought so but it is simply a blurb. It's certainly difficult to develop his entire view on the subject from a single paragraph. I know I wouldn't want to be held to my view on who I believed the benefits of saving union with Christ extended to on the basis of a paragraph. The FV guys will even use Owen's term of conditional election to support their view as Confessional on the basis of paragraphs.

I don't want to argue with you on the point either. My points are thus:

1. It is not fair, per se, to firmly ascribe that he believed redemption was applied _in the same sense_ to all in the Church simply on the basis of this paragraph. One would hope a scholar would appeal to more extended remarks than a blurb that could be read as Rev. Winzer did. I'm ignorant of other data in Calvin on this.
2. Even if it is demonstrated that Calvin believed this, at best it can be shown that it was for those in the Church only and not all mankind. Thus, Calvin is not Amyraldian in that sense.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I appreciate Matthew's post as well. It's very helpful. 

The attempt that Clifford and others make to recruit Calvin as a proto-Amyraldian is unhistorical. Calvin wasn't asking or answering the same questions as Amyraut. Thus, this to ask him who died in 1564 to answer mid-17th century questions, that, as has been noted, arose as a result of the the Remonstrant crisis, is just unhistorical. It's like asking Luther what he thinks of F-18s. 

As to Calvin's approach to 2 Pet 2:1 - I hate to sound like a broken record, but the answer is the external/internal distinction. I just finished an essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination. In this essay for a forthcoming handbook on the Institutes I surveyed 3.21-24 in the light of his commentary on Rom 9 (which has not received very much attention) and his sermons on Ephesians. In each case, Calvin cautions the readers to take seriously both the _administration_ of the covenant of grace and _substance_ of the covenant (to use the categories that Olevianus learned from Calvin.

Were all the Israelites "redeemed" out Egypt? Yes. Did Christ propitiate the wrath of everyone whom he "redeemed" from Egypt? No. It's manifest from the history of redemption that not everyone of them was elect. Doesn't Paul make this point in 1 Cor 10? They were all baptized into Moses. They all ate the supper, after a fashion, but they weren't all believers. 

Calvin doesn't actually say anything about the extent of the atonement in his comments on 2 Pet 2:1. The fact that he doesn't articulate the later view doesn't make him a proto-Amyraldian.

Amyrault is a difficult cat to understand. I haven't said much about him because I find him difficult to understand. There are a lot of issues that make it difficult for us and that made it difficult to understand him in the 17th century. For one, Saumur was regarded as an orthodox school. When Gomarus left Leiden, he went to Saumur. It's a little like hearing that someone at MARS/GPTS/WSC or the like is teaching hypothetical universalism. There's a sort of cognitive dissonance.

Muller isn't anointing Amyraut. In the MJT essay he's re-contextualizing Cameron, contra those who connect him to Amyraut (e.g., Armstrong) and in PRRD he's contesting the popular reading of Amyraut. The story is almost always more complicated than it becomes in the canned presentations. So it is here. This sort of work takes time and patience. We won't get to the historical truth by rifling through selected primary texts and secondary sources to score dogmatic points in a debate.

One other consideration is the way Heidegger and Turretin reacted to Amyraldianism in the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675). 

Here are some canons that speak to these issues:



> Canon IV: Before the creation of the world, God decreed in Christ Jesus our Lord according to his eternal purpose (Eph 3:11), in which, from the mere good pleasure of his own will, without any prevision of the merit of works or of faith, to the praise of his glorious grace, to elect some out of the human race lying in the same mass of corruption and of common blood, and, therefore, corrupted by sin. He elected a certain and definite number to be led, in time, unto salvation in Christ, their Guarantor and sole Mediator. And on account of his merit, by the mighty power of the regenerating Holy Spirit, he decreed these elect to be effectually called, regenerated and gifted with faith and repentance. So, indeed, God, determining to illustrate his glory, decreed to create man perfect, in the first place, then permit him to fall, and finally pity some of the fallen, and therefore elect those, but leave the rest in the corrupt mass, and finally give them over to eternal destruction.
> 
> Canon V: Christ himself is also included in the gracious decree of divine election, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation prior to election itself, but as being himself also elect (I Pet 2:4, 6). Indeed, he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first requisite of the execution of the decree of election, chosen Mediator, and our first born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for the purpose of conferring, without detriment to his own justice, salvation upon us. For the Holy Scriptures not only declare that election was made according to the mere good pleasure of the divine counsel and will (Eph 1:5, 9; Matt 11:26), but was also made that the appointment and giving of Christ, our Mediator, was to proceed from the zealous love of God the Father toward the world of the elect.
> 
> Canon VI: Wherefore, we can not agree with the opinion of those who teach: l) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire, determine the salvation of all, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe, 2) that he appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3) that, at length, certain ones whom he regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, he elected, that is, he determined graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act election properly so called is complete. For these and all other similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God's purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the, heavens does whatsoever he will (Ps 115:3; Isa 47:10); for God is in finitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and desires, rashness repentance and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken away, proceeds from one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election.



As a dogmatic/exegetcal matter, it seems to me that one of the central issues is whether it was the intent of God to make redemption _possible_ or whether it was the divine intent to actually accomplish and secure the redemption of those given to the Son by the Father? In this light, it's interesting and significant that Heidegger and Turretin re-asssert the classic Three- Covenant theology. If there was a _pactum salutis_ then redemption is not merely possible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> I appreciate Matthew's post as well. It's very helpful.
> 
> As to Calvin's approach to 2 Pet 2:1 - I hate to sound like a broken record, but the answer is the external/internal distinction.



I frankly don't see how one can get around that unless Calvin flat out denies that God calls and then grants justifying faith to the elect alone. The justification of the elect is presented as a "unit" in Scripture. The regenerate are made alive monergistically and so believe upon and are united to Christ in His death and resurrection. Those in the external administration are nearby and "taste" of such things, are required to believe them, and are justly condemned for their unbelief but how can it ever be said that they are redeemed in an equivocal sense?

Do you agree with me, Dr. Clark, that even in Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 2:1 that he doesn't teach a universal redemption but only speaks of those who were believers (in the Church) who were once redeemed? It also occurred to me that this might be a classic "proof commentary" for the FV: "See Calvin says they _were_ redeemed...." Is there anything else in Calvin that is appealed to in order to paint him as a proto-Amyraldian?


----------



## JohnOwen007

R. Scott Clark said:


> The attempt that Clifford and others make to recruit Calvin as a proto-Amyraldian is unhistorical. Calvin wasn't asking or answering the same questions as Amyraut. Thus, this to ask him who died in 1564 to answer mid-17th century questions, that, as has been noted, arose as a result of the the Remonstrant crisis, is just unhistorical. It's like asking Luther what he thinks of F-18s.



That's a little too extreme In my humble opinion. It's highly likely that Calvin was aware of *some* of the issues surrounding the extent of the atonement that were later debated. Some of them existed in the medieval tradition. Moreover, Martin Bucer's debates with two anabaptists, Hans Denck in 1526 and Melchior Hoffman in 1533, both addressed the extent of the atonement, and Bucer's position found its way into published material. Hence, given Calvin's association with Bucer it's highly likely Calvin was aware of both the debate and Bucer's position. Calvin was aware of at least these issues when he made his statements about the extent of the atonement that differ from the sorts of things Bucer was saying. Amyraut later dealt with _similar _questions about the extent of the atonement, as well as other issues which Calvin did not for they were unknown to him.

History is *messy*, and to retrofit John Owen into Calvin's statements just doesn't work. It's difficult to make sense of _all_ of Calvin's statements. Furthermore, to pit particular redemption against "Amyraldianism" doesn't reflect the variety of positions in the 16th and 17th century on the issue. Hence, Jonathan Moore's latest book on John Preston has suggested that we make a distinction between Hypothetical Universalism and Amyraldianism. Whether he's right or not, it's critical to recognize the complexity of the issues, and to be careful in reading certain texts with later ideas.

Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attempt that Clifford and others make to recruit Calvin as a proto-Amyraldian is unhistorical. Calvin wasn't asking or answering the same questions as Amyraut. Thus, this to ask him who died in 1564 to answer mid-17th century questions, that, as has been noted, arose as a result of the the Remonstrant crisis, is just unhistorical. It's like asking Luther what he thinks of F-18s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little too extreme In my humble opinion. It's highly likely that Calvin was aware of *some* of the issues surrounding the extent of the atonement that were later debated. Some of them existed in the medieval tradition. Moreover, Martin Bucer's debates with two anabaptists, Hans Denck in 1526 and Melchior Hoffman in 1533, both addressed the extent of the atonement, and Bucer's position found its way into published material. Hence, given Calvin's association with Bucer it's highly likely Calvin was aware of both the debate and Bucer's position. Calvin was aware of at least these issues when he made his statements about the extent of the atonement that differ from the sorts of things Bucer was saying. Amyraut later dealt with _similar _questions about the extent of the atonement, as well as other issues which Calvin did not for they were unknown to him.
> 
> History is *messy*, and to retrofit John Owen into Calvin's statements just doesn't work. It's difficult to make sense of _all_ of Calvin's statements. Furthermore, to pit particular redemption against "Amyraldianism" doesn't reflect the variety of positions in the 16th and 17th century on the issue. Hence, Jonathan Moore's latest book on John Preston has suggested that we make a distinction between Hypothetical Universalism and Amyraldianism. Whether he's right or not, it's critical to recognize the complexity of the issues, and to be careful in reading certain texts with later ideas.
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


Forgive me Marty but you seem to be a bit uncharitable in your selective quoting of Dr. Clark to quote that snippet and then end with a rejoinder about how history has to be read carefully especially in light of Dr. Clark's statement:



R. Scott Clark said:


> The story is almost always more complicated than it becomes in the canned presentations. So it is here. This sort of work takes time and patience. We won't get to the historical truth by rifling through selected primary texts and secondary sources to score dogmatic points in a debate.


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> Forgive me Marty but you seem to be a bit uncharitable in your selective quoting of Dr. Clark to quote that snippet and then end with a rejoinder about how history has to be read carefully especially in light of Dr. Clark's statement:



Dear Rich, thanks for your point and yes I can see how it could be taken that way; so I apologize for any offense it may've caused. The 2nd paragraph was actually starting a *new *point that was swirling about in my head and came rushing out in my fingers. Ah, the misunderstandings generated by this media without physical gesticulations and voice intonations and ...


----------



## Amazing Grace

elnwood said:


> Interesting. What about the WCF and the LBCF 1677/89? Would Spurgeon have been banned from participation on PB for his views? He held to LBCF and a universal view of 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 10:29.
> 
> PyroManiac: Is there a universal aspect to the atonement?



One of Spurgeons worst treatments of the atonement comes on his dissertaion on 1 Tomithy 4:10. IT just shows the fallibility of men. That said, i would like to just ask a question, if Calvin did hold some universal aspect of the atonement, would we discard him entirely. I just cannot figure out why this Amyrault/Calvin connection is fought. We are not of Calvin, nor Amyrault, but of Christ. If he did, and I am saying if, it would not matter much.

This topic always starts out with a sterile question that ends up in a battle ground about "What he said, What he meant" or "You are taking him out of context." Calvin is hard to understand at times. With the amount of words he wrote, the possibility of not being clear at every point is going to happen.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> I just finished an essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination. In this essay for a forthcoming handbook on the Institutes I surveyed 3.21-24 in the light of his commentary on Rom 9 (which has not received very much attention) and his sermons on Ephesians. In each case, Calvin cautions the readers to take seriously both the _administration_ of the covenant of grace and _substance_ of the covenant (to use the categories that Olevianus learned from Calvin.



The essay sounds very promising; I look forward to reading it.


----------

