# Calvinist "universalism" and Westminster



## steadfast7 (Sep 25, 2010)

Interesting article in Reformed Theological Review, August 2010, no. 2. "Shades of Opinion within a Generic Calvinism: the particular redemption debate at the Westminster Assembly", by Lee Gatiss.

an excerpt from his conclusion:



> To summarise then, Reformed theology as presented by the Westminster divines was far from monochrome. There was consensus that questions about the limitations of the atonement were important and needed addressing, but there were at a least a handful of recognisably different opinions ... It appears then that there was a certain degree of flux in the debate at this formative stage of the 17th century and a diversity of recognisably Reformed views that were considered within the pale of orthodoxy.



This article dealt primarily with the position of Edmund Calamy, who argued for a dual intent in the atonement: absolute for the elect, conditional for the reprobate, in case they do believe. The author found at least 4 other strands of thought on this topic.

Does this board allow the same amount of diversity on this topic?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 25, 2010)

Haven't read the article, but generally speaking, there is a difference between the Confessional Standards and the debate of the Assembly itself (the standards rule out Calamy's view), and yet again between the standards newly minted and how they have been received historically subsequently in those churches subscribing to them or variations of them (PCUSA and ARP etc). The standards governing this board are how they have been received and are not governed by individual interpretation on suppositions based upon the Assembly minutes.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 26, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Haven't read the article, but generally speaking, there is a difference between the Confessional Standards and the debate of the Assembly itself (the standards rule out Calamy's view), and yet again between the standards newly minted and how they have been received historically subsequently in those churches subscribing to them or variations of them (PCUSA and ARP etc). The standards governing this board are how they have been received and are not governed by individual interpretation on suppositions based upon the Assembly minutes.


 
Hi Chris, can you show me how the current standards and their reception in the churches rule out Calamy's view? Also, if the standards are not governed by individual interpretation, then what's the governing authority that determines its interpretation? cheers.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 26, 2010)

Calamy, as I understand him, argued that Christ in effect made 'potential' or 'conditional' payment through his death for the salvation and redemption of the reprobate. This is clearly denied by the plain text of the Westminster Confession (at least - this is just the first place that comes to mind) in Chapter 8 concerning Christ the Mediator. WCF 8.V states:



> The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.



The purchase is for those whom the Father has given unto Christ. These are the sheep for whom Christ laid down his life, a la John 10.

The benefits of this purchase are spoken of in section 8 of WCF Chapter 8:



> To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does 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 wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.[43]



Those for whom Christ purchased redemption - the elect - receive these benefits. These are the benefits purchased, and applied, to those who are beneficiaries of that purchase. If Christ purchased redemption for someone, then that someone receives these benefits. There are no conditions noted here - Christ's purchase secures salvation.

It is an impotent and worthless gospel that proclaims that Christ purchased something for you but you may or may not receive the benefits of that purchase. This is the worthlessness of the Arminian (and for that matter, Amyraldian) "gospel". It is straightforwardly denied by the Westminster Standards, and the presence of someone who holds to the Amyraldian position like Calamy within the Westminster Assembly does NOT (as Chris has already implied) mean ANYTHING about the acceptability of such a position under the Standards.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 27, 2010)

Thanks for the interaction, Todd


> Calamy, as I understand him, argued that Christ in effect made 'potential' or 'conditional' payment through his death for the salvation and redemption of the reprobate.


Apparently, Calamy distanced himself clearly from universal redemption, in the Arminian sense. He did not deny limited atonement on behalf of the elect, only that God also had a second intention of providing a conditional offer for the reprobate. This is so that God free from deception and insincerity in the offer of the gospel to all.



> The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.


There is nothing here that prevents a conditional offer made to all.



> To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does 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 wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.[43]





> It is an impotent and worthless gospel that proclaims that Christ purchased something for you but you may or may not receive the benefits of that purchase. This is the worthlessness of the Arminian (and for that matter, Amyraldian) "gospel". It is straightforwardly denied by the Westminster Standards, and the presence of someone who holds to the Amyraldian position like Calamy within the Westminster Assembly does NOT (as Chris has already implied) mean ANYTHING about the acceptability of such a position under the Standards


I agree, and this Arminian gospel is surely impotent. However, this is not the point Calamy and other Westminster divines debated, and I'm not sure if the Standards so straightforwardly deny it, considering that Calamy was not asked to recant, but remained in the assembly, to my knowledge. The issue, as I understand, was whether God might be deemed insincere in the free offer of the gospel to all, were there no provision, even if on a conditional level (cf. WCF VII.III). We can see in history where Calvinists were led to refuse the offer of the gospel to all.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

If you consider for a moment, there were those who expoused Amyrauldian Calvinism at Westminster. The fact that they signed the Confession indicates that the wording was inclusive enough for their view to be allowed. The other alternative is that they dumped long-held views in order to agree with the pack - but this is unlikely.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 27, 2010)

Oftentimes, we encounter the charge that "standard" Calvinism is "unbalanced," and needs some "corrective."

This happens whether the direction taken is away from a "five-point" outline, or over into a hyper-calvinist direction.

This is actually quite reasonable, given the ^ balance-point that Calvinism seeks to maintain. When folks get too concerned about God's "sincerity" instead of simply dealing with what he has revealed, they get off that balance, despite what appears to be their greater concern to be "better" balanced.

Sliding off into a "no-gospel-offer" seems to make a broader and more stable platform for soteriology. Note the nice, flat right-edge of the ^. In the same way, the more Arminian left-edge also appears to offer more stability. But, inevitably the true instability of the situation reveals itself, as one slides down one side or the other.

Spurgeon, in another context, called such a departure from the knife-edge, "the Down-grade."


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 27, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> This is actually quite reasonable, given the ^ balance-point that Calvinism seeks to maintain. When folks get too concerned about God's "sincerity" instead of simply dealing with what he has revealed, they get off that balance, despite what appears to be their greater concern to be "better" balanced.



Many would argue God's sincere offer of the gospel as coming straight from scripture. Isn't it also true that the development of doctrine, if nothing else, has always been _very _concerned with safeguarding certain truths about God and his character? Wasn't it Athanasius who argued that if Christ were not fully God, how could he bear the sins of the world? Also, the doctrines of impassibility and immutability, are in large part safeguards, keeping God's attributes distinct from human. Theodicy, another prime example of a theology built to prevent God from being charged as the author of evil. I think it is completely reasonable to think along these lines.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 27, 2010)

All I'm saying is that Calvinism is often accused of being unbalanced. And I think it's ballanced pretty nicely.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2010)

John Murray writes (The Reformed Faith and Arminianism: Part II):



> 'To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same.' (VIII.viii.) The import of this cannot be controverted. It is that the extent of the purchase of redemption is exactly the same as the extent of actual salvation. If Christ purchased redemption for all, then all will have that applied and communicated to them. If only a certain number of the human race are ultimately saved, then only for that number did Christ purchase redemption.
> 
> So explicit is the above statement that it needs no confirmation. But in order to show that this is not a random statement but a determining principle of the Confessional teaching it can be shown by an entirely distinct line of argument. 'Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.' (XI.iii.) Those for whom Christ discharged the debt and made satisfaction to justice are then the justified. But all who are justified are also effectually called. 'Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth.' (XI.i.) And effectual calling expounded in chapter X refers us back to predestination. 'All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.' (X.i.) And again: 'God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification.' (XI.iv.) The upshot is plain? predestination to life, redemption, effectually calling, and justification have identical extent; they have in their embrace exactly the same persons.


----------



## MW (Sep 27, 2010)

Nova said:


> If you consider for a moment, there were those who expoused Amyrauldian Calvinism at Westminster. The fact that they signed the Confession indicates that the wording was inclusive enough for their view to be allowed. The other alternative is that they dumped long-held views in order to agree with the pack - but this is unlikely.


 
It is *not* a fact that they signed the Confession. The Assembly was not an ecclesiastical court, but a Synod convened by order of Parliament.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 28, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> John Murray writes (The Reformed Faith and Arminianism: Part II):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for this post which nails home the point of particular redemption, contra Arminianism. I don't think that those like Calamy would disagree with this statement, remembering again that he _did _hold to particular redemption. the question was whether Christ provides a sincere conditional offer (in the gospel) to all? 

Is there in the gospel a call that is ineffectual? If any do not respond to the gospel, then surely there are calls that are ineffectual. Now, were they sincere calls, or deceptive? If sincere, then who makes it sincere, if not Christ? Then, he must have another intent in the cross: to save perfectly, and to offer sincerely.

back to the OP, is this view unconfessional?


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 28, 2010)

Why does an offer, in order to be genuine and sincere, require any intent in the cross other than to save the elect?


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 29, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Why does an offer, in order to be genuine and sincere, require any intent in the cross other than to save the elect?


 
Like merchandise, if it is to be sold, there must be some in stock. If God is to sincerely offer forgiveness of sins on condition of repentance and faith, then he must have purchased something on which he can make good on that offer.

---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------




Joshua said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > Is there in the gospel a call that is ineffectual?
> ...


 
So, God calls people to repentance and faith in order to condemn them? That doesn't make sense. Is this attested by any notable theologian?


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 29, 2010)

Nova said:


> > Why does an offer, in order to be genuine and sincere, require any intent in the cross other than to save the elect?
> 
> 
> 
> Like merchandise, if it is to be sold, there must be some in stock. If God is to sincerely offer forgiveness of sins on condition of repentance and faith, then he must have purchased something on which he can make good on that offer.



God is not a merchant, but the Sovereign Lord of All. He may perfectly well say "Come unto me and have rest" in a genuine and sincere way, knowing full well that the person to whom he makes that offer will not come. There needn't be any "paid for" place for that person to go to in order for the offer to stand fully true and valid, genuine and sincere.

Your statement, if that reflects your intention (that there is salvation purchased for the reprobate, who will nevertheless not receive it) is in strong contradiction to chapter 8 of the Westminster confession, and Scripture, I believe, which clearly state that Christ laid down His life and is a ransom for many (not for all individuals), for His sheep, and not the rest. I fear you're arguing based on human logic that demands some sort of "fairness", rather than on Scripture, which speaks otherwise.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 29, 2010)

Yeah, I guess to say that Christ "purchased" something for all is wrong and confusing. I don't have a problem with particular redemption at all, and I confess everything WCF 8 says. I understand the temptation to label this view Arminian, but that's not what I'm arguing for. 

To put another way: does God give all who hear the gospel an opportunity to satisfy the condition and be saved? 

I believe if the gospel is a free and genuine offer, then it's sincerity means that God would _actually _deliver on his promise if the condition is met. Therefore, I believe that while the full saving benefits of the work of Christ is reserved and applied only to the elect, we need to admit that the opportunity to repent and believe is available, and expected, of all. 

If it's not available to all, then is not the sincerity of the offer in question? Again, back to our experience, if something were advertised as available to all, but it was never available to all, then isn't that deception? I can now see that those who reject the free offer of the gospel are completely sound in their logic.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 30, 2010)

Nova said:


> Yeah, I guess to say that Christ "purchased" something for all is wrong and confusing. I don't have a problem with particular redemption at all, and I confess everything WCF 8 says. I understand the temptation to label this view Arminian, but that's not what I'm arguing for.
> 
> To put another way: does God give all who hear the gospel an opportunity to satisfy the condition and be saved?
> 
> ...


 
It seems to me, that in order for this to be true, the un-elect individual would have to meet this condition himself, apart from God awakening him. This would either deny Original Sin (or redefine it's effects as many have) or with some type of grace given to everyone without discrimination. No man can meet the condition. He is dead in his trespasses and sin, wholly unable to meet any such condition.


----------



## Philip (Sep 30, 2010)

I recall Chesterton once remarking that universalism is just optimistic Calvinism.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 30, 2010)

The promise is made of salvation to those who come to God in Christ. It's a real promise, a sincere offer, and God, having made the promise, surely would deliver a person from his sins if he repented and trusted in Christ. I see no reason to deny the Scriptural evidence for this belief. I also see that it is completely in line with the WCF in Chapter 8. 

But this is not what Amyraldians (it's Amyraldianism, not Arminianism, that would more closely describe Calamy's views) argue for... and this is not the reason that Calamy's views fail to lie within the bounds prescribed by the Confession.


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2010)

Nova said:


> the question was whether Christ provides a sincere conditional offer (in the gospel) to all?


 
This could not have been the question because all the divines agreed that a sincere conditional offer is made to all hearers of the gospel. There was a question made as to whether it could be sincere to all men if Christ did not die in some sense for all men. The question itself was proven to be a slippery slope. If the sincerity of the offer could be questioned on the basis of a limited extent of the atonement it could equally be questioned on the basis of the limited extent of the application of the atonement. The fact is that a double reference theory does not solve questions which are raised with respect to the inscrutability of God's purpose. There must come a point where man ceases from questioning and simply takes God at His word. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" is the sincere offer of the gospel. "Whosover believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" is the sincere offer of the gospel. One has no reason to question God's sincerity in making such gracious offers of salvation where one has faith to believe God's word.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 30, 2010)

If a sincere conditional offer is made to all, then how is it wrong to say that Christ died for all? 

At the very least, Christ died in order to produce a gospel offer that sincerely touches the reprobate and meets him where he is. How, then, has Christ not died for him - in this one sense?

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

has not Christ died to make the gospel happen - certainly for the elect, and conditionally for the rest? Is it wrong then to say that he has made a provisional atonement for all?


----------



## Philip (Sep 30, 2010)

We may say that Christ died for all only in the sense that His blood is sufficient to cover all sin and that any who believe on Christ will be covered by it. However, we must also affirm that it only covers the sins of the elect for only the elect will believe on Christ. Therefore we may truly say that Christ died for the sins of the world and yet His blood atones only for the sins of the elect.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 30, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> We may say that Christ died for all only in the sense that His blood is sufficient to cover all sin and that any who believe on Christ will be covered by it. However, we must also affirm that it only covers the sins of the elect for only the elect will believe on Christ. Therefore we may truly say that Christ died for the sins of the world and yet His blood atones only for the sins of the elect.


 
So we CAN say that Christ died for the world, then? ('world' in the universal sense, not sneakily putting our own Calvie definition on it)


----------



## Philip (Sep 30, 2010)

Nova said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > We may say that Christ died for all only in the sense that His blood is sufficient to cover all sin and that any who believe on Christ will be covered by it. However, we must also affirm that it only covers the sins of the elect for only the elect will believe on Christ. Therefore we may truly say that Christ died for the sins of the world and yet His blood atones only for the sins of the elect.
> ...


 
Yes, in that Christ's blood is sufficient for all and is offered to all. Yet it bears with it the corollary that only the elect believe, only the elect receive, and therefore atonement for sins is limited by the decree of election.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 30, 2010)

so, put it another way, we can say to person X, "Jesus died for you"? I've always been under the assumption that this was not permitted for Calvinists...


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 1, 2010)

Nova said:


> If a sincere conditional offer is made to all, then how is it wrong to say that Christ died for all?
> 
> At the very least, Christ died in order to produce a gospel offer that sincerely touches the reprobate and meets him where he is. How, then, has Christ not died for him - in this one sense?
> 
> ...


 
The question of whether one can say "Christ died for all" touches on the purpose of Christ's death. I cannot agree that Christ died in order that the Gospel offer could be sincere. The offer is sincere apart from any question of the details of Christ's death. As long as Christ, in His death, actually obtains remission of sin for the elect, for those who come to faith (which is a coextensive class with the elect) in Him and trust Him for salvation, then the offer is genuine, because he fulfills the conditions that are promised. For all those who believe, He saves. 

When one says "Christ died for all", one is saying something about the reason He died. He did NOT die to save everyone - this much is quite clear in the passages in John 10 that speak of His own purposes as the Good shepherd in laying down His life. He lays it down FOR THE SHEEP - and makes quite pointedly clear in that passage that not everyone is of His sheep (and therefore that not everyone is someone for whom He laid down His life. 

And, again, to go back to the confessions, which is the original question - Christ by His death purchased salvation for the Elect, according to Chapter 8. He is not said to have died in order to make "sincere" the offer of salvation. He died, rather, to actually ACCOMPLISH salvation. 

The Gospel is NEWS of an accomplished fact. It is not a "potential salvation for all". That's no gospel. That's no good news. The Good News is that Christ has done all that is necessary to save His people, as His name implies and as the angel promised. It cannot be said in any way that He died provisionally, to make salvation merely "possible" for all. That is, in my book, to lessen the impact of Christ's death and to make salvation conditioned on man, rather than the Sovereign God.


----------

