# 3GT Podcast Begins to Discuss Limited Atonement (High Calvinism vs Hypothetical Univ)



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

So the guys over at 3GT are beginning to discuss the subject. I fall more into the Hypothetical Universalism camp. Kyle is more of a High Calvinist. Barry lands somewhere in between. We plan on delving deeper into the subject in the next episode (next week). Actually, I'm planning on trying to paint Kyle into a corner 

Anyway, we'd love for you to weigh in. Get the conversation more vibrant.

Here's the episode:

http://3gt.fm/2015/09/24/rebuked-by-a-baptist/


----------



## TheCalvinist (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> So the guys over at 3GT are beginning to discuss the subject. I fall more into the Hypothetical Universalism camp. Kyle is more of a High Calvinist. Barry lands somewhere in between. We plan on delving deeper into the subject in the next episode (next week). Actually, I'm planning on trying to paint Kyle into a corner
> 
> Anyway, we'd love for you to weigh in. Get the conversation more vibrant.
> 
> ...



Hello Austin,

I'm one of Barry York's students over at RPTS, and I've been enjoying the podcast very much,listened this morning on the way to class, this was a great episode, and for what it's worth I prefer longer podcasts; I know there was discussion on shortening it up in an earlier episode.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Hey! Glad to meet you, Matthew! Thanks for the kind words. 

Yes, I've got one on my side! They'll eventually see our side of things... even if I have to drag them kicking and screaming  Particularly, Kyle, of course.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

As Polycarp confessed, "the repentance from better to worse is a change not permitted to us."

Hypothetical universalism seeks to seduce the mind into thinking something hypothetical can be trusted in as if it were real. Do not be deceived by it. God provides real atonement for real sinners.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Well, good thing it isn't a change from better to worse then 

It is real atonement for real sinners. Sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. I just don't like sacrificing the sufficient for all part in order to supposedly maintain the efficient part. I prefer both ;-)


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> I prefer both ;-)



And end up with nothing; deceiving poor sinners in the process. You should repent, and stop telling lies in the name of the Lord.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 29, 2015)

What exactly does "sufficient for all" mean? That his sacrifice is of enough value to redeem everyone, had that been the intention?


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Mr. Winzer. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is on solid authority that good people like John Davenant could sign on to the Reformed creeds. I follow in his vein of thought, and I happily subscribe to the creeds. You may think I am wrong, but one ought to maintain a measure of Reformed ecumenism. We are brothers under the same Reformed umbrella.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Tyler,

Excellent question. That gets at the nub. In the Reformed tradition, there have been those of a strict particularist stripe who would want to maintain that the sufficiency _*would*_ have been sufficient for the non-elect *had *it been Christ's intention to die for them. Those who hold to universal sufficiency, as opposed to limited sufficiency, maintain that His death is presently sufficient for the non-elect, so that if they were to believe they would be saved. A provision has been made... though not effectual in nature.

For the view of the former, see this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/Jesus-died-for-aliens-on-planet-zeno-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

For evidence of the latter, see:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=5997

It is only two examples. Many others could be multiplied.

Lee Gatiss has written a helpful article on the shades of opinion at Westminster on the issue:

http://www.theologian.org.uk/gatissnet/documents/ShadesofOpinionbyLeeGatiss.pdf


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Mr. Winzer. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is on solid authority that good people like John Davenant could sign on to the Reformed creeds. I follow in his vein of thought, and I happily subscribe to the creeds. You may think I am wrong, but one ought to maintain a measure of Reformed ecumenism. We are brothers under the same Reformed umbrella.



Says Charles Hodge, "It is not wonderful, therefore, that this diluted form of Augustinianism should be distasteful to the great body of the Reformed Churches. It was rejected universally except in France, where, after repeated acts of censure, it came to be tolerated."

Given that you can regard hypotheticals as real, you might hypothetically subscribe creeds and say you have really done so.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Is Hodge referring to Amyraldianism? I do not hold to Amyraldianism, and many rejected it. See Lee Gatiss' article above. Do you agree with it?


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Tyler,
> 
> Excellent question. That gets at the nub. In the Reformed tradition, there have been those of a strict particularist stripe who would want to maintain that the sufficiency _*would*_ have been sufficient for the non-elect *had *it been Christ's intention to die for them. Those who hold to universal sufficiency, as opposed to limited sufficiency, maintain that His death is presently sufficient for the non-elect, so that if they were to believe they would be saved. A provision has been made... though not effectual in nature.
> 
> ...



That sounds an awful lot like a denial of limited atonement. Is this in the same vein as John Cameron, the amyraldians, and the New Lights?


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 29, 2015)

Sorry, I didn't see your denial of amyraldianism before I posted my last question.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Is Hodge referring to Amyraldianism?



Hodge was referring to hypothetical universalism. "Hypothetical" atonement is no atonement. It presents God as toying with sinners, providing an atonement which does not suffice to save one soul, let alone a world of souls.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

WCF 8.5, "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."


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

I think Hodge is great, btw!

"Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died specially for his own people does account for the general offer of the gospel, how is it to be reconciled with those passages which, in one form or another, teach that He died for all men? In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that he died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance. These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, “Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches." Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:558-9.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Thanks, Tyler. Yeah, there is a marked difference between those schools of thought. Jonathan Moore is helpful here. Richard Muller takes some issue, however. He says, 

"A question can be raised here concerning Moore’s description of “the non-Amyraldian trajectory of hypothetical universalism as a “softening” or a Reformed tradition that was “on the whole” particularistic and resistant to such softening. Given that there was a significant hypothetical universalist trajectory in the Reformed tradition from its beginnings, it is arguably less than useful to describe its continuance as a softening of the tradition. More importantly, the presence of various forms of hypothetical universalism as well as various approaches to a more particularistic definition renders it rather problematic to describe the tradition as “on the whole” particularistic and thereby to identify hypothetical universalism as a dissident, subordinate stream of the tradition, rather than as one significant stream (or, perhaps two!) among others, having equal claim to confessional orthodoxy. Richard Muller, “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: A Historiographical Introduction,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> I think Hodge is great, btw!



Hodge's view of the atonement maintains that it secures real non-saving benefits. I don't think atonement is needed to obtain these non-saving benefits (since they are a part of general providence), but it is still the case that there is nothing hypothetical in Hodge's view.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Pastor Winzer,

Well, sure, everyone agrees that it secures real non-saving benefits. But note Hodge carefully. He maintains very clearly that if one of the non-elect _were_ to believe they would be saved. There is really something there for them to receive and reject. His view of sufficiency is not the same as, say, Owen, a strict particularist.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Thanks, Tyler. Yeah, there is a marked difference between those schools of thought. Jonathan Moore is helpful here. Richard Muller takes some issue, however. He says,
> 
> "A question can be raised here concerning Moore’s description of “the non-Amyraldian trajectory of hypothetical universalism as a “softening” or a Reformed tradition that was “on the whole” particularistic and resistant to such softening. Given that there was a significant hypothetical universalist trajectory in the Reformed tradition from its beginnings, it is arguably less than useful to describe its continuance as a softening of the tradition. More importantly, the presence of various forms of hypothetical universalism as well as various approaches to a more particularistic definition renders it rather problematic to describe the tradition as “on the whole” particularistic and thereby to identify hypothetical universalism as a dissident, subordinate stream of the tradition, rather than as one significant stream (or, perhaps two!) among others, having equal claim to confessional orthodoxy. Richard Muller, “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: A Historiographical Introduction,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism




I don't doubt that Muller goes into a great deal more detail than he does in your quote; but in the quote he paints with quite a broad brush. He seems to fall into the trap of defining reformed doctrine as anything within the "reformed tradition," rather than by what the confessions say. Just because someone was in a reformed church and was never disciplined for doctrinal infidelity doesn't mean his teaching may justly be called reformed in all points. It has to measure up to the standard, no?


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> He maintains very clearly that if one of the non-elect _were_ to believe they would be saved. There is really something there for them to receive and reject. His view of sufficiency is not the same as, say, Owen, a strict particularist.



Of course there is something there for the sinner. There is salvation in Christ. Owen teaches the same thing. Christ came into the world to save sinners. Every sinner is warranted by the gospel to receive Christ for salvation. This is real. There is nothing hypothetical about it. Your hypothetical atonement confuses the gospel and deceives the sinner. You should stop peddling it.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Well, sure. The standards are very important in this regard. Maybe I should just ask this question:

Do you think the view of say, John Davenant, was contrary to Dort? Or Westminster?

Or what do you think of Lee Gatiss' article?


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

Pastor Winzer,

You said, "Of course there is something there for the sinner. There is salvation in Christ."

Imagine there are ten people in the world and that Christ died for 3 of them. While His death is of infinite value, and _could_ have paid for all ten, He only paid for 3 of them. This means that nothing redemptive has been accomplished for the other seven. No atonement has been made.

Now how can it be, as you say, that there is something salvific there for the sinner? If Christ didn't die in even a provisional sense for the seven, then what is there right now for them? Remember we just said He didn't die for them. So what is there for them after the sacrifice? Nothing. So what is there for them so far as salvation is concerned?

The fact of the situation is that there is _nothing_ there for the non-elect. See McMahon's article I linked above.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Imagine there are ten people in the world and that Christ died for 3 of them.



I fear God too much to enter into such a vain imagination. Do you believe the gospel? The gospel says, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It does not require any person to make the foolish speculations that you require.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Well, sure. The standards are very important in this regard.



The standards teach definite atonement, not hypothetical atonement. So why do you teach hypothetical atonement? You say you subscribe, but do you really, or only hypothetically?



ACBRown said:


> Do you think the view of say, John Davenant, was contrary to Dort? Or Westminster?
> 
> Or what do you think of Lee Gatiss' article?



The ins and outs of history are not able to be covered in an article. Even if we allowed the differences noted in this article, the variations themselves lack all representation in the Confession and Catechisms. This means the Westminster divines as a whole refused to allow the speculation any place in their system.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 29, 2015)

MW said:


> ACBRown said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine there are ten people in the world and that Christ died for 3 of them.
> ...



It is merely the logical outworking of limited satisfaction. No vain imaginations here. You believe that Christ only died for a fraction of humanity. The illustration merely reflects that reality.

I'm just trying to show you that your understanding of limited satisfaction (if that is what you hold) does not comport with your view of the Gospel offer. So yes, I do believe the Gospel and Gospel offer. But I don't think limited satisfaction can say what you're wanting to say.

So I'll take your unwillingness to engage the point as a discussion ender.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> It is merely the logical outworking of limited satisfaction.



Logic requires premises. You have the premises all wrong. 



ACBRown said:


> I'm just trying to show you that your understanding of limited satisfaction (if that is what you hold) does not comport with your view of the Gospel offer.



You can't show what isn't there. The confessional reformed view is simply the biblical view: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

All you offer is an hypothetical salvation to be actuated by something you require the sinner to do without grace. This is very sad and very tormenting news, notwithstanding your ability to dress it up with vain speculations.


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 30, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> Well, good thing it isn't a change from better to worse then
> 
> It is real atonement for real sinners. Sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. I just don't like sacrificing the sufficient for all part in order to supposedly maintain the efficient part. I prefer both ;-)



How than would you understand 2 Peter 2:1 in regards to the false teachers being "agorazō"?


----------



## KMK (Sep 30, 2015)

ACBRown said:


> I'm just trying to show you that your understanding of limited satisfaction (if that is what you hold) does not comport with your view of the Gospel offer.



By 'your' are you referring to Rev Winzer's own understanding, or the understanding of the Reformed Confessions?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 30, 2015)

ACBRown,

You're conflating God's perspective with the sinner's perspective: as if the sinner knows he is or isn't one of the elect and therefore thinks accordingly. It is not our business to be trying to find out if we are or are not elect; it is our business to be fleeing to Christ, repenting and believing. We are to make our calling sure first, then our election.

This is the age old tension within the free offer of the Gospel: man's duty, on the one hand, to believe; God's sovereignty in election, and election as a fact, on the other. How these two truths meet is a mystery we cannot unravel: it is in the secret counsels of God. I have heard them described thus: God's sovereignty is like one mountain and man's responsibility is another mountain. Between them runs a river. Underneath the river the two mountains meet but we cannot see that meeting, but we can pass through that valley, trusting in Christ.

You say that you wish to maintain "sufficiency for all" because if one of the non-elect were to believe he would be saved. Well, first of all, non-elect is just another way of saying reprobate but it's a poor substitute. Because, point 2, if this non-elect sinner were to believe then he wouldn't have been one of the non-elect, he would have been elect. Your argument, I'm afraid, becomes circular. This is why reprobate is a better term: it properly identifies the person who is reprobate, i.e. he is predestined (or foreordained, let's avoid a whole other argument) to eternal damnation. Either way, from before time, where the elect will spend eternity and where the reprobate shall spend eternity (and thus whether or not they will believe) has been decided. One who is reprobate will never believe; he will never move from being "non-elect" to elect. Ergo, to suppose, hypothetically, such a situation is to build a doctrine on something that is rejected by Scripture.

The Gospel is to be preached to all men because Christ died for the world, i.e. all classes of men everywhere, not just one nation or one race. When we hear the Gospel call we are not to first of all figure out if we are elect, as if we will not go to Christ until we know for sure; we are to flee to Him. Only those who are elect will believe, of course, but since we don't know who they are we should not let such vain speculations- which I'm afraid your arguments are- get in the way.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that what you're advocating is basically arminianism.


----------



## ACBRown (Sep 30, 2015)

KMK,

I am referring to Pastor Winzer's view. It depends on the creed, but in the case of most, both limited and unlimited advocates of sufficiency subscribed in good conscience.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 30, 2015)

Closed for moderator review.


----------

