# Best Defense of UNlimited Atonement



## Theoretical

I'm interested for a friend who's going to be studying issues of the atonement what books or resources provide the strongest argument in favor of unlimited or general atonement. He already has Death of Death by Owen, which (correct me if I'm wrong), is pretty much considered THE end all, be all discussion of the Calvinist view of Limited Atonement. What, in some sense, would be its equivalent from the Arminian and/or Amyraldian side (I know the latter's not quite U, but as an alternate)?

This person in question is a monergistic Lutheran.


----------



## Theoretical

bump


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Perhaps...John Goodwin's _Redemption Redeemed_.


----------



## ajrock2000

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Perhaps...John Goodwin's _Redemption Redeemed_.



Has anyone here read this book? I'm interested to see what it has to say.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

> Best Defense of UNlimited Atonement



I came into this thread hoping to hear it.


----------



## Theoretical

Exagorazo said:


> I came into this thread hoping to hear it.


 Sorry, I'm afraid I'm unable to do that - for that kind of defense, I've heard Dave Hunt's a pretty good choice.


----------



## elnwood

There aren't very published treatises for the Amyraldian view, and I haven't seen even an attempt at a definitive work on it, despite the fact that "four point Calvinism" is a widely held view, particularly among Baptists and dispensationalists (although this is not universally the case -- Amyraut himself was neither). There are a number of Systematic Theologies that will hold to a "four-point" view, so probably consulting a number of those would be useful.

I haven't read a number of these, so I could be mistaken of their views, but I would check Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology, Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology, Chafer's Systematic Theology, etc. for short treatises.


----------



## JoshCasey

Uh, there are good arguments for unlimited atonement? That's news to me!


----------



## AV1611

JoshCasey said:


> Uh, there are good arguments for unlimited atonement? That's news to me!


----------



## Theoretical

JoshCasey said:


> Uh, there are good arguments for unlimited atonement? That's news to me!


Well, Josh, I wasn't expecting to find a genuienly great argument for U, or at least none that match up with 'Death of Death', but surely there had to be something...


----------



## JoshCasey

Theoretical said:


> Well, Josh, I wasn't expecting to find a genuienly great argument for U, or at least none that match up with 'Death of Death', but surely there had to be something...



 Yeah, I know, Scott, I was just giving you a hard time. (I admit I was rather surprised when I saw the title of this thread). Hm, the only half-decent work I have ever heard of was The Other side of Calvinism by Lawrence Vance. 

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/95689840?item_no=89873&show_all_cr=1 -- have fun with the comments!


----------



## Arch2k

How about "God loves everyone!" ?


----------



## JM

Calvin wrote "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him." Rom. 5:18


----------



## Contra_Mundum

"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?"

----John Calvin


----------



## JM

So Calvin was inconsistent?


----------



## Theoretical

JM said:


> So Calvin was inconsistent?


Perhaps he was. After all, the Arminians and Dordt didn't emerge until after his death. The only categories the Church was working within were Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, or Augustinianism. The tricky subtleties of Arminianism had not yet emerged in any more than a nascent form. Controversy definitely does refine doctrinal understanding, and it is undeniable that we have a more precise and clarified theology, especially confessional, avaiable to us in our times than during the Reformation. Now that doesn't mean that all or most of us use these blessings and developments, but that is our fault as members of the Modern Church.

I would just say that even if Calvin was inconsistent or slightly off on his theology regarding the atonement, it would be out of a lack of theological development in this one area that wasn't more precisely down by the Canons of Dordt.


----------



## terry72

> Calvin wrote "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him." Rom. 5:18
> 
> "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?"
> 
> ----John Calvin



In the first quote Calvin is clearly speaking of parallel between Christ and Adam. Christ came as one of the son's of Adam taking the same nature which is common to all men, so in this sense he suffered for the sins of the whole world, i.e. the whole whole human race being under the judgment of sin by the offense Adam.

In the second quote Calvin is speaking to context of the communion table, of those to whom the benefit as been applied by being brought in to union with Christ, so that the reality that is symbolized in the elements takes on a specific/special relevance to them, for Christ is offered for them specifically in the sense that their sin has been taken away by virtue of their being in Christ. The wicked by definition have no participation in this sacrament.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## JM

JM said:


> So Calvin was inconsistent?



I agree...oh wait, I wrote that.


----------



## cih1355

Those who argue in favor of an unlimited atonement think that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus died for everyone. 

Millard Erickson in his, _Christian Theology_, says "The underlying issue here is the question of the efficacy of the atonement. Those who hold to limited atonement assume that if Christ died for someone, that person will actually be saved. By extension they reason that if Christ in fact died for all persons, all would come to salvation; hence the concept of universal atonement is viewed as leading to the universal-salvation trap. The basic assumption here, however, ignores the fact that our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: objective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation)."

I will respond to the above quote. First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ. Second, our faith does not determine whether God's justice is satisfied or whether the debt of sin is paid for. Suppose there is judge and he is willing to accept an innocent person to die in the place of a criminal on death row. If the innocent person actually died in the place of that criminal and the demands of the law were completely satisfied, then the criminal would go free. The criminal cannot say, "I don't accept what that innocent person did for me." The criminal does not determine whether or not justice has been satisfied.

Suppose a proponent of the unlimited atonement were to say the following:

"Christ's atonement alone completely satisfied God's justice. Christ's atonement alone completely paid for the debt of sin for everyone, but some people will go to hell."

The logical conclusion of such statements would be that the debt of sin is paid for twice.


----------



## beej6

This may be out of my league, but...

The atonement must be limited, in either scope (Reformed) or power (Arminian), unless you are a true universalist (that is, everyone is saved).


----------



## panicbird

While I have not read it, Robert Picirilli's _Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism_ is supposed to be _the_ defense of Arminius' views, which I assume would include a discussion of the atonement.

BJ,
You are right. Here are the options:
1. Christ died for all of the sins of all the people (universalism)
2. Christ died for all of the sins of some of the people (limited atonment, definite redemption)
3. Christ died for some of the sins of all of the people (unlimited atonement)

While I suppose that a fourth option could be added (Christ died for some of the sins of some of the people), I do not know of any who have actually held that view.

Only one of them can be true. I prefer (both biblically and experientially) to have a Savior who actually saves, not one who merely makes me savable.


----------



## puritan lad

Theoretical said:


> Well, Josh, I wasn't expecting to find a genuienly great argument for U, or at least none that match up with 'Death of Death', but surely there had to be something...


I'm afraid not. There is a good reason why you won't find any John Owen books in Family Christian Bookstores. They hope that, if they ignore it, it will go away 

There may be some who make decent arguments (or as good as possible considering that they are defending a falsehood), but Owen's book is in a class by itself.


----------



## Mayflower

I read that John Davenant (1576-1641) also denyed limited atonement, and was hold like John Goodwin the Amyraldian view.


----------



## wsw201

If you want to go neo-orthodox, you can look at Karl Barth's book "The Epistle To The Romans". He pretty much beats up on the liberals in this work but also explains how universal salvation works existentially.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

"Theoretical",
Which version of 'unlimited atonement'? Typical Arminian or one or more of the various 'dualistic' views such as was expressed by Shedd when he said:


> Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited
> Shedd, W.G.T., _Dogmatic Theology_, Third Edition, P&R Publishing. 2003. p743


?


Can't help with the former but can help to a certain extent with the latter.

Grace and peace,
Martin


----------



## ReformedWretch

Exagorazo said:


> I came into this thread hoping to hear it.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

cih1355 said:


> Those who argue in favor of an unlimited atonement think that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus died for everyone.
> 
> Millard Erickson in his, _Christian Theology_, says "The underlying issue here is the question of the efficacy of the atonement. Those who hold to limited atonement assume that if Christ died for someone, that person will actually be saved. By extension they reason that if Christ in fact died for all persons, all would come to salvation; hence the concept of universal atonement is viewed as leading to the universal-salvation trap. The basic assumption here, however, ignores the fact that our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: objective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation)."
> 
> I will respond to the above quote. First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ.


Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. 



cih1355 said:


> Second, our faith does not determine whether God's justice is satisfied or whether the debt of sin is paid for. Suppose there is judge and he is willing to accept an innocent person to die in the place of a criminal on death row. If the innocent person actually died in the place of that criminal and the demands of the law were completely satisfied, then the criminal would go free. The criminal cannot say, "I don't accept what that innocent person did for me." The criminal does not determine whether or not justice has been satisfied.


Your analogy proves nothing because it is not a faithful representation of scripture. Analogies can be helpful but they are also dangerous because they are not scripture and what we can so easily do is see enough similarities between our analogy and scripture to consider it valid and useful without noticing that there are other aspects to the analogy that do not fit the sciptural data or that it doesn't go far enough. So, for example, when the jailor in Acts 16 said "what must I do to be saved?" I can, with at least equal force, argue that we can liken Paul's response to the jailor to the Judge in your analogy saying to the criminal that they can go free provided that they accept what has been done on their behalf. 



cih1355 said:


> Suppose a proponent of the unlimited atonement were to say the following:
> 
> "Christ's atonement alone completely satisfied God's justice. Christ's atonement alone completely paid for the debt of sin for everyone, but some people will go to hell."
> 
> The logical conclusion of such statements would be that the debt of sin is paid for twice.


And where does scripture say that can't happen??? You seem to place great store on the use of logic but what use is logic if you can't find support in scripture? Here is what Dabney had to say about this:


> “Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369.”
> (Lectures on Systematic Theology, p., 521).



Grace and peace,
Martin


----------



## MW

Dabney: "The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him."

I agree to a certain extent, but then I have to question the use of the phrase "suspended on His (sic) belief." Dabney was necessitarian whereas earlier reformed theologians were voluntaristic. Here Dabney seems to refute his own necessitarianism. He is allowing for the fact that substitution is an act of free grace alone. Hence there is no substitution apart from election. The same election purposes to give faith to make the substitution effective. Ergo, it is not that satisfaction is "suspended on the man's belief," but that there is no satisfaction where there is no belief.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

panicbird said:


> Here are the options:
> 1. Christ died for all of the sins of all the people (universalism)
> 2. Christ died for all of the sins of some of the people (limited atonment, definite redemption)
> 3. Christ died for some of the sins of all of the people (unlimited atonement)
> ...
> Only one of them can be true. I prefer (both biblically and experientially) to have a Savior who actually saves, not one who merely makes me savable.


This whole trilemma is founded upon an extra-biblical assumption: that Christ died for sins in a piecemeal way in which they can be reckoned up like this.

Grace and peace,
Martin


----------



## caddy

Interesting:

*Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement*, John Goodwin, edited by John D. Wagner (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 237 pages. 
Like Arminius himself, Goodwin was raised a Calvinist. While preparing lectures to refute Arminianism, he ultimately adopted Arminian theology while remaining a Puritan. Wesley published an exposition of Romans 9 by John Goodwin in a 1780 issue of the _Arminian Magazine._ Wesley's abridgement of Goodwin's _Treatise on Justification_ also appears in volume ten of the Jackson edition of Wesley's _Works_. This is an edited and abridged version of a classic which was first published in 1651. Reference was made to this work in the McGonigle review. The bulk of this work is dedicated to defending the position that Christ died for all mankind and refuting the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. The book sells for $22 and may be ordered through any Internet book distributor. ISBN 1-57910-591-2

Link: 
http://www.fwponline.cc/v20n1reprintgoodwin.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by *VirginiaHuguenot* 

 
_Perhaps...John Goodwin's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Redeemed-Unlimited-Atonement-Expanded/dp/1592447309"]Redemption Redeemed[/ame]._




ajrock2000 said:


> Has anyone here read this book? I'm interested to see what it has to say.


----------



## Gloria

beej6 said:


> This may be out of my league, but...
> 
> The atonement must be limited, in either scope (Reformed) or power (Arminian), unless you are a true universalist (that is, everyone is saved).




Agreed. The argument would come in *who *is doing the limiting. I think an arminian would argue that man does it when he doesn't choose God, while a calvinist would argue that God does it because he only chose some.


----------



## MW

> *Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement*, John Goodwin, edited by John D. Wagner (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 237 pages.



This book is not a defence of unlimited atonement, it is a defence of the unlimited use of reason in matters of faith. John Goodwin was no Puritan. Richard Resbury, a true Puritan, calls him a "Lightless Star" in the title of his reply to John Goodwin's preface.


----------



## reformedman

The strongest defense for Unlimited Atonement as far as I know is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-But-Free-Norman-Geisler/dp/0764225219/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3965529-1984701?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176697451&sr=8-1"]Chosen But Free[/ame] by [ame="http://www.normgeisler.com/"]Norman Geisler[/ame]. It's full of holes, arguments are weak, and childlike argumentations.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Potters-Freedom-James-R-White/dp/1879737434/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3965529-1984701?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176697643&sr=8-1"]Potter's Freedom[/ame] was written to refute this book by James White, step by step.

The audio tapes on the refutation goes further into detail concerning the deceptiveness of the book.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

armourbearer said:


> Dabney: "The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him."
> 
> I agree to a certain extent, but then I have to question the use of the phrase "suspended on His (sic) belief." Dabney was necessitarian whereas earlier reformed theologians were voluntaristic. Here Dabney seems to refute his own necessitarianism. He is allowing for the fact that substitution is an act of free grace alone. Hence there is no substitution apart from election. The same election purposes to give faith to make the substitution effective. Ergo, it is not that satisfaction is "suspended on the man's belief," but that there is no satisfaction where there is no belief.


I admit its not entirely clear but I don't read him as saying that satisfaction is suspended as you seem to. I think he says elsewhere that satisfaction takes place at the cross. Rather I read him as saying that the 'benefits' of that satisfaction are what are suspended. Does that resolve your reservations?

I'm afraid I don't know enough about voluntarism / necessitarianism to comment but I don't see how it would change anything anyway. 

As for the rest of what you say that is going beyond what Dabney says so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say those things? But from the point of view of the logic, they just don't work. Neither of your conclusions follow from their premises.

Grace and peace,
Martin


----------



## caddy

Absolutely

White Demolishes's Geisler in "PF". It is one of the BEST books on Calvinism I have read!  



reformedman said:


> The strongest defense for Unlimited Atonement as far as I know is Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler. It's full of holes, arguments are weak, and childlike argumentations.
> 
> Potter's Freedom was written to refute this book by James White, step by step.
> 
> The audio tapes on the refutation goes further into detail concerning the deceptiveness of the book.


----------



## JM

Have you guys talked with Arminians that claim Hunt won his written debate with White, or Geisler's work is more logical and bliblical?

I have...  

I just don't get it, as I'm typing this I'm embarrassed for them. 

Peace,

j


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Back to the original question of what is the best defense of Unlimited Atonement, no one has mentioned Norman F. Douty, _Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ's Atonement_, ISBN-10: 1579101356.

I have been told it is one of the strongest arguments available.


----------



## JM

I googled the title and found:



> Norman F. Douty published in 1972 a volume entitled The Death of Christ: A Treatise Which Considers the Question: “Did Christ die only for the Elect?” A revised and enlarged edition appeared in 1978.24 Douty refers repeatedly to Calvin and quotes his comments on Mark 14:24; John 1:29; 3:16, 17 ; 12:47 ; 16:7; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:10, 11; Col 1:14 mostly to demonstrate that the words “all,” “world,” “many” are construed by Calvin as having a race-wide reference. He also lists the passages quoted by Armstrong and concludes his book with a reference to Calvin’s last will and testament. The important words are as follows: “…I…seek…to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race.”25
> 
> The French original reads “shed for all poor sinners,” and the absence of the article might favor the connotation “all kinds of poor sinners.” The point of Calvin appears here not to be whether Christ offered himself for the whole race or for the redeemed only—a matter that would scarcely be relevant to the last will and testament—but rather that Calvin’s hope of justification rested in God’s willingness to receive “poor sinners” among whom Calvin did not hesitate to number himself.



here


----------



## elnwood

cih1355 said:


> Those who argue in favor of an unlimited atonement think that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus died for everyone.
> 
> Millard Erickson in his, _Christian Theology_, says "The underlying issue here is the question of the efficacy of the atonement. Those who hold to limited atonement assume that if Christ died for someone, that person will actually be saved. By extension they reason that if Christ in fact died for all persons, all would come to salvation; hence the concept of universal atonement is viewed as leading to the universal-salvation trap. The basic assumption here, however, ignores the fact that our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: objective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation)."
> 
> I will respond to the above quote. First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ. Second, our faith does not determine whether God's justice is satisfied or whether the debt of sin is paid for. Suppose there is judge and he is willing to accept an innocent person to die in the place of a criminal on death row. If the innocent person actually died in the place of that criminal and the demands of the law were completely satisfied, then the criminal would go free. The criminal cannot say, "I don't accept what that innocent person did for me." The criminal does not determine whether or not justice has been satisfied.
> 
> Suppose a proponent of the unlimited atonement were to say the following:
> 
> "Christ's atonement alone completely satisfied God's justice. Christ's atonement alone completely paid for the debt of sin for everyone, but some people will go to hell."
> 
> The logical conclusion of such statements would be that the debt of sin is paid for twice.



It's important when refuting positions that you disagree with that you do not put words in their mouth or make assumptions about where their logic goes.

"First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ."

The first statement is correct, but I think the second is a stretch. An Amyraldian or Arminian would hold the first, but I don't think any would affirm the second statement.

For example, the Reformed view is that faith itself credited as righteousness. Does that make the faith itself righteous, and thus making faith a work? No Reformer would say this.

In the same way, I don't think it is consistent to say that the Amyraldian/Arminian view of the atonement is that faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ because a) the proponents of that view don't believe it, and b) the same type of logic would make the Reformers believe that faith is a work as well.

I'd appreciate it if others would continue to try to critique Erickson on this, because as of this moment I'm not convinced either for or against Erickson's position at this time.


----------



## MW

Skeuos Eleos said:


> I admit its not entirely clear but I don't read him as saying that satisfaction is suspended as you seem to. I think he says elsewhere that satisfaction takes place at the cross. Rather I read him as saying that the 'benefits' of that satisfaction are what are suspended. Does that resolve your reservations?
> 
> I'm afraid I don't know enough about voluntarism / necessitarianism to comment but I don't see how it would change anything anyway.
> 
> As for the rest of what you say that is going beyond what Dabney says so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say those things? But from the point of view of the logic, they just don't work. Neither of your conclusions follow from their premises.



As you do not know enough about voluntarism and necessitarianism you are not in a position to know whether my conclusions follow from their premises. To help you a little -- a voluntarist holds that the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. As God willed the faith of those who would be partakers of the atonement, it follows that atonement and faith are intricately tied together in the counsel of God, so that where there is no faith there is no atonement. Dabney's concession to voluntarism effectively allows these conclusions so that his comments about "suspension" are null and void.


----------



## Davidius

elnwood said:


> For example, the Reformed view is that faith itself credited as righteousness. Does that make the faith itself righteous, and thus making faith a work? No Reformer would say this.
> 
> In the same way, I don't think it is consistent to say that the Amyraldian/Arminian view of the atonement is that faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ because a) the proponents of that view don't believe it, and b) the same type of logic would make the Reformers believe that faith is a work as well.



But wouldn't an Arminian view justification happening at the same time as regeneration since an Arminian would believe that regeneration follows faith instead of preceding it? So in that sense faith is a meritorious work, whether or not the Arminians "believe" it, that is, admit it. So saying that faith is a work for the Arminian doesn't necessitate the same accusation toward the Reformed.


----------



## cih1355

elnwood said:


> It's important when refuting positions that you disagree with that you do not put words in their mouth or make assumptions about where their logic goes.
> 
> "First of all, Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ."
> 
> The first statement is correct, but I think the second is a stretch. An Amyraldian or Arminian would hold the first, but I don't think any would affirm the second statement.
> 
> For example, the Reformed view is that faith itself credited as righteousness. Does that make the faith itself righteous, and thus making faith a work? No Reformer would say this.
> 
> In the same way, I don't think it is consistent to say that the Amyraldian/Arminian view of the atonement is that faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ because a) the proponents of that view don't believe it, and b) the same type of logic would make the Reformers believe that faith is a work as well.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if others would continue to try to critique Erickson on this, because as of this moment I'm not convinced either for or against Erickson's position at this time.




Would the following be a better response to Erickson's view?

Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then Christ merely came to make man savable or to make salvation possible.

The Bible does not teach that Christ came merely to make man savable or to give man the potential to be saved. Christ came to secure the salvation of His people. Matthew 1:21 teaches that Christ came to save His people from their sins. It does not say that Christ came to give man the potential to be saved. Acts 20:28 teaches that Christ purchased the church of God with His own blood. It does not say that the blood of Christ made the church savable. Luke 19:10 teaches that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. Christ did not come to make salvation possible. Hebrews 9:12 teaches that the blood of Christ obtained our redemption. It does not say that the blood of Christ makes redemption possible.


----------



## cih1355

Another argument that unlimited atonement proponents use is the following:

Isaiah 53:6 says, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way;But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
to fall on Him." According to this verse, everyone has gone astray and everyone's sins were placed on Jesus.


----------



## elnwood

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> But wouldn't an Arminian view justification happening at the same time as regeneration since an Arminian would believe that regeneration follows faith instead of preceding it? So in that sense faith is a meritorious work, whether or not the Arminians "believe" it, that is, admit it. So saying that faith is a work for the Arminian doesn't necessitate the same accusation toward the Reformed.



Actually, I've always viewed justification as happening after we have faith even though I hold that regeneration precedes faith. Justification means to be "declared righteous," and I don't think I was viewed by God as righteous until I was saved and had the faith that was credited to me as righteousness.



cih1355 said:


> Would the following be a better response to Erickson's view?
> 
> Erickson's view leads to the conclusion that our faith is what makes Christ's atonement efficacious. If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then Christ merely came to make man savable or to make salvation possible.
> 
> The Bible does not teach that Christ came merely to make man savable or to give man the potential to be saved. Christ came to secure the salvation of His people. Matthew 1:21 teaches that Christ came to save His people from their sins. It does not say that Christ came to give man the potential to be saved. Acts 20:28 teaches that Christ purchased the church of God with His own blood. It does not say that the blood of Christ made the church savable. Luke 19:10 teaches that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. Christ did not come to make salvation possible. Hebrews 9:12 teaches that the blood of Christ obtained our redemption. It does not say that the blood of Christ makes redemption possible.



Curt -- yes, good response to Erickson.

I think salvation is a process involving the entire trinity. God sends Christ to die for the sins, the Spirit regenerates the sinner, and God views the faith that the Spirit works into the sinner as righteousness based on the merit of Christ.

From an Arminian perspective, yes, Christ came to make man savable, and man has to choose to do the next step to make salvation complete.

But if you hold unconditional election, and that God WILL sent his Spirit upon the elect and regenerate them, then Christ does make salvation secure because he both pays for the sins and sends his Spirit to regenerate His people.

I don't think that those verses are conclusive. I can say that I went to the store to buy food to feed my family, even though they won't be fed until they eat it (and you can even assume an "irresistible grace" in that I can make my family eat it!). So you could say that, though, "I went to the store to feed my family," it is also true that I went to the store to make them feedable, and then I fed them. So I don't see a necessary contradiction.

The best argument I've heard for the strictly limited atonement position is that it would be inconsistent and unfair with God's character to pay for the sins of some people on the cross and then not save them; that the unity of the trinity is disrupted if Jesus died for some and the Holy Spirit failed to regenerate them and bring them to faith. It's a good argument, but I'm uncomfortable with it because I feel like it's imposing our own logical framework and consistency on the nature of God. I am wary of this because this type of logic can lead to hyper-Calvinism.

So I am still relatively uncertain on this point of doctrine.



cih1355 said:


> Another argument that unlimited atonement proponents use is the following:
> 
> Isaiah 53:6 says, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way;But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
> to fall on Him." According to this verse, everyone has gone astray and everyone's sins were placed on Jesus.



This verse has also made me lean towards Amyraldism. It seems clear from context that this verse is teaching total depravity of all humanity (and even some Reformed commentaries agree), and naturally that would mean that the verse is teaching that Christ took upon himself the sins of all humanity.


----------



## cih1355

From an Arminian perspective, Christ only came to make man savable. Christ's atonement in and of itself never secures anyone's salvation. From a Calvinist perspective, Christ's atonement does a lot more than to make man savable; Christ's atonement secures the salvation of the elect.


----------



## Davidius

elnwood said:


> Actually, I've always viewed justification as happening after we have faith even though I hold that regeneration precedes faith. Justification means to be "declared righteous," and I don't think I was viewed by God as righteous until I was saved and had the faith that was credited to me as righteousness.
> .



Don,

I would agree with you about justification coming after we profess faith. I was just trying to say that, the way I see it, the charge the "faith is a work" can't be leveled at Calvinists the way it can at Arminians purely because we believe that regeneration precedes faith, without even taking justification into consideration.


----------



## elnwood

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Don,
> 
> I would agree with you about justification coming after we profess faith. I was just trying to say that, the way I see it, the charge the "faith is a work" can't be leveled at Calvinists the way it can at Arminians purely because we believe that regeneration precedes faith, without even taking justification into consideration.



Okay, I see what you're saying. Faith is not a "work" in a monergistic model because it is caused by God, but it is in a synergistic model since the person chooses.

I think the original argument was that if faith is needed in addition to the atonement, then faith is a work added to the atonement. It was phrased, "If our faith makes Christ's atonement efficacious, then our faith is a work that adds to the merit of Christ."

I would argue that faith is necessary for the elect to be justified in the eyes of God (standard Reformed view as well as Amyraldian/Arminian), and I would conclude based on this premise that faith is needed to make the atonement efficacious since the atonement does not effect the justification, although it is the basis for justification.



cih1355 said:


> From an Arminian perspective, Christ only came to make man savable. Christ's atonement in and of itself never secures anyone's salvation. From a Calvinist perspective, Christ's atonement does a lot more than to make man savable; Christ's atonement secures the salvation of the elect.



The argument about what particular events in the salvation process "secures" a person's salvation confuses me. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by "secure." Since the elect were chosen unto salvation from the foundation of the world, was out salvation not secure then? God has always promised to save his people, so was there ever a time that our salvation wasn't secure?

Why is it the atonement that secures salvation, and not election? Or regeneration? Or faith? Or the act of persevering? All of these things, I believe, are essential to salvation. Therefore, I don't see how any one of these events can be seen as the act that secures salvation.


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> I would argue that faith is necessary for the elect to be justified in the eyes of God (standard Reformed view as well as Amyraldian/Arminian), and I would conclude based on this premise that faith is needed to make the atonement efficacious since the atonement does not effect the justification, although it is the basis for justification.



Atonement is by nature efficacious. There is no such thing as atonability.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> Atonement is by nature efficacious. There is no such thing as atonability.



Efficacious for what? Is atonement efficacious for justification? If so, why are sinners not justified before God without faith?


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> Efficacious for what? Is atonement efficacious for justification? If so, why are sinners not justified before God without faith?



It is efficacious to remove the wrath of God and reconcile sinners, which is what an atonement purports to do. Atonement is efficacious for justification through faith, as Rom. 3:25 teaches. Sinners are not justified before God without faith because God has purposed propitiation is through faith in the death of Christ.

What people do not reckon with when discussing the death of Christ is that the death of Christ avails nothing apart from God's purpose to make it the efficacious cause of salvation.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> It is efficacious to remove the wrath of God and reconcile sinners, which is what an atonement purports to do. Atonement is efficacious for justification through faith, as Rom. 3:25 teaches. Sinners are not justified before God without faith because God has purposed propitiation is through faith in the death of Christ.
> 
> What people do not reckon with when discussing the death of Christ is that the death of Christ avails nothing apart from God's purpose to make it the efficacious cause of salvation.



So what you're saying is that the atonement is efficacious for through faith, and propitiatory through faith. Thus, without faith and without God's purpose in election, the death of Christ is not efficacious.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> So what you're saying is that the atonement is efficacious for through faith, and propitiatory through faith. Thus, without faith and without God's purpose in election, the death of Christ is not efficacious.



Rev Winzer was teaching me on a different thread that the Greek of Rom 3:25 states that the propitiation is 'set forth' through faith. Apart from faith, there is no 'setting forth' of the propitiation. This truth is somewhat lost in the newer translations because of the commas that are added. I hope I got that right.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

Contra_Mundum said:


> "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?"
> 
> ----John Calvin


Bruce,
You offer this quote without explanation but, given that you made it immediately following another Calvin quotation in which Calvin clearly speaks of Christ suffering for "the sins of the *whole world*", one can only imagine that you somehow think this one quote negates the previous one (and no doubt the many others like it)? Even the self-contradictory high Calvinist William Cunningham, after mistakenly claiming this verse as supporting limited atonement in Calvin, admitted that this one quote 'stands alone - so far as we know – in Calvin's writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it’. For a better understanding of this SINGLE instance in Calvin's writings which, when considered alone, apart from its context and the context of the discussion with which it is concerned, _appears _to support limited atonement see the following extracts from Curt Daniel's PhD thesis and G. Michael Thomas' _Extent of the Atonement_.

Regards,


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Martin:

1) Thank's for bumping my Calvin quote. Pretty good one, isn't it.

2) If a "quote" stands in the place of an "argument" in the _prior_ case, on what basis do you offer your "critique" of my _reply_ with another "quote"? It seems as though you are doing plenty of "reading into" any argument I might have, since I didn't state one. But, apparently, if quotes are "dropped in" _without explanation_ that seem to support your position, they don't earn your critical analysis. Your double standard is fine with me. Hey, run with it if that suits you.

3) I wasn't interested in doing anything other than offering a broader perspective on Calvin's own words than that found solely in the prior quote alone, let the readers and debaters make of it what they would. I have a busy schedule, and hot-and-heavy debating on every issue just doesn't fit. But you are welcome to "just imagine" about what my argument might have been. Have a nice day.

4) Of the two quotes offered, personally I find the second contains the least ambiguity. It's a simple logical blunder to just compare lists of citations, and then declare a "winner" based on whose list is longer. And you can't find me trying to do that, regardless of your accusations. You admit you have no idea which, how many, or _if any_ other quotes I would try to "negate" by presenting this one quote.

But, I think the "self-contradictory high Calvinist William Cunningham" (perhaps you might like to start a thread devoted to defending both of those denominatives?) was smart enough not to rest a case on a single statement. Right here, you could deconstruct his L.A. analysis of this text, *instead of merely slighting* it by asserting that he was "mistaken".

5) People can read the discussions you suggest. I recommend also reading Cunningham's own discussion, and contemporary theologian Roger Nicole and the various authors he discusses, given his acquaintance with the relevant literature past and present. Smarter men than I are defending a traditional L.A. position in this thread without my "help" (so-called).


See, Martin, I'm not interested in getting involved in back and forth on this subject. If I was, I would have argued for it 3 months ago when the subject was first broached. There might be good reason to hold the minority-position you champion. Maybe the "truth will out" just hasn't happened for 400+ years. But I'm confident it will. Just keep talking.


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> So what you're saying is that the atonement is efficacious for through faith, and propitiatory through faith. Thus, without faith and without God's purpose in election, the death of Christ is not efficacious.



Yes. That Christ died in the place of any man in order to effect His salvation is entirely dependent upon the free grace of God.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

Bruce,


Contra_Mundum said:


> 2) If a "quote" stands in the place of an "argument" in the _prior_ case, on what basis do you offer your "critique" of my _reply_ with another "quote"? It seems as though you are doing plenty of "reading into" any argument I might have, since I didn't state one. But, apparently, if quotes are "dropped in" _without explanation_ that seem to support your position, they don't earn your critical analysis. Your double standard is fine with me. Hey, run with it if that suits you.


This seems a little harsh and unnecessary to me. You immediately take on an adversarial role. The question mark after my first sentence was intended to test my assumption. I see now that it would have been better if my post had said no more than "Bruce, why did you post this?" and then none of this would have happened. I guess I was trying to save time so I'm sorry about that. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> 2) I wasn't interested in doing anything other than offering a broader perspective on Calvin's own words than that found solely in the prior quote alone, let the readers and debaters make of it what they would.


To be honest I don't see how that is much different from my original guess. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> 3) Of the two quotes offered, personally I find the second contains the least ambiguity.


Well, personally I think its the other way around.  I think a reading of the linked articles will help show why.



Contra_Mundum said:


> It's a simple logical blunder to just compare lists of citations, and then declare a "winner" based on whose list is longer.


You misunderstand me if you think I am doing that. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> And you can't find me trying to do that, regardless of your accusations.


But I'm not accusing you of that!  



Contra_Mundum said:


> But, I think the "self-contradictory high Calvinist William Cunningham" (perhaps you might like to start a thread devoted to defending both of those denominatives?) was smart enough not to rest a case on a single statement. Right here, you could deconstruct his L.A. analysis of this text, *instead of merely slighting* it by asserting that he was "mistaken".


Ok, I guess I can be somewhat prone to a little use of hyperbole. I used those adjectives just to invite questions but my post seems to have resulted in a bad reaction so I will refrain in future. 

My comments were based upon what Clifford says - see here.

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus,
Martin


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

Theoretical said:


> Well, Josh, I wasn't expecting to find a genuienly great argument for U, or at least none that match up with 'Death of Death', but surely there had to be something...


Actually there have been some criticisms of Owen's DoD, see:
Clifford, A.C., _Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790 - An Evaluation_, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1990
Chambers, N.C., _A Critical Examination of John Owen's Argument for Limited Atonement in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"_. 1998, unpublished ThM Thesis available from www.tren.com

See also this thread, although the whole discussion got clouded there and wasn't able to be concluded. 

Also, whilst I deny unlimited atonement, you may not be aware that there is a long-standing stream within historical Calvinism that has held to what might be described as a more 'dualistic' view of the atonement which distinguishes between the expiation and the application in line with the old formula that Christ's death was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect". There is a rich vein of writers in this stream who hold, to varying degrees, that there is an objective provision to the reprobate within the expiation without denying an application limited to the elect. This ranges from Dabney and Shedd at one end through to Amyraut at the other. All of them uphold particular redemption but in a way that is different to the more simplistic understanding that many Calvinists seem to have today. Others in this vein include: Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, Davenant, Calamy, Baxter, Polhill, Howe, Bunyan, Flavel, Doddridge, Boston, Ryle and many more. 

Regards,


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

armourbearer said:


> As you do not know enough about voluntarism and necessitarianism you are not in a position to know whether my conclusions follow from their premises. To help you a little -- a voluntarist holds that the atonement is only necessary for salvation because God willed it. As God willed the faith of those who would be partakers of the atonement, it follows that atonement and faith are intricately tied together in the counsel of God, so that where there is no faith there is no atonement. Dabney's concession to voluntarism effectively allows these conclusions so that his comments about "suspension" are null and void.


Actuallly, as you do not know exactly how much I know about voluntarism and necessitarianism you are not in a position to know whether I am not in a position to know whether your conclusions follow from their premises. 

Frankly none of this makes a difference for it does not alter the fact that you continue to offer conclusions that simply do not automatically follow from the premises as stated. You will not persuade me with your arguments because I do not buy into your presuppositions (ones which it would seem that you are not even aware that you are making in order to think that your logic holds). The only way you would persuade me is if you can show me from *Dabney's own writings *how something he said renders the quote I supplied "null and void". 

Regards,
Martin


----------



## MW

Skeuos Eleos said:


> There is a rich vein of writers in this stream who hold, to varying degrees, that there is an objective provision to the reprobate within the expiation without denying an application limited to the elect. This ranges from Dabney and Shedd at one end through to Amyraut at the other. All of them uphold particular redemption but in a way that is different to the more simplistic understanding that many Calvinists seem to have today. Others in this vein include: Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, Davenant, Calamy, Baxter, Polhill, Howe, Bunyan, Flavel, Doddridge, Boston, Ryle and many more.



I grant that Musculus, Davenant, Calamy, Polhill, Baxter, Shedd, and Ryle shared the conviction of an "objective provision" for the reprobate. Ursinus, Howe, Flavel, Boston, and Dabney used language relative to either the intrinsic value of Christ's death or to the conditional provision of salvation, but they nowhere suggest that Christ made an objective provision for any other than the elect. As for Bullinger, Bunyan, or Doddridge, I abstain from commenting on people I have only read fragments of, which would be a wise procedure for others to follow.


----------



## MW

Skeuos Eleos said:


> The only way you would persuade me is if you can show me from *Dabney's own writings *how something he said renders the quote I supplied "null and void".



From the Five Points of Calvinism, opening paragraph on Particular Redemption:

"Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual."

If you are going to quote theologians it would pay you well to become acquainted with their writings as a whole in order to gain some insight into the way they thought. This piecemeal method of presenting their ideas in order to conclude things they never would have permitted is false representation.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

armourbearer said:


> From the Five Points of Calvinism, opening paragraph on Particular Redemption:
> 
> "Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual."
> 
> If you are going to quote theologians it would pay you well to become acquainted with their writings as a whole in order to gain some insight into the way they thought. This piecemeal method of presenting their ideas in order to conclude things they never would have permitted is false representation.


Your comments are unfortunate and I am bemused as to what you think merits them but I can assure that any limitation on my part is not so much down to lack of acquaintance but rather lack of intellect!

Anyway, I think we must be talking at cross-purposes because I can see nothing in this quotation that comes anywhere near rendering the quotation I supplied earlier 'null and void'. In any event, what you seem to miss is that even if Dabney had held to the most strict particularist view it does not diminish the force of his argument against those who think that the 'double-jeopardy argument carries any weight. 

Your reference to piecemeal quoting would seem to indicate that you are reading something into what I have written that goes beyond what I intended. My reason for posting Dabney was nothing more than to show that the double-payment argument is not robust enough to defend a strict limited atonement view *irrespective *of whatever position one takes on the matter. (And I would further argue that one should not need to use such logical arguments anyway but rather should be able to rely upon scripture alone).

Martin


----------



## MW

If Dabney held that atonement exists in each and every case where a person believes,, then there is no SUSPENSION of the atonement in his thought, because there is no atonement where there is no faith. It is here that he has correctly followed the voluntarist tradition of reformed theology.

His other statement as quoted by you was written with a view to guarding Calvinism against unwarranted assertions which give ground to Socinian ideas. Numerous Calvinists turned to necessitarianism in order to make this defence, and found some necessity in the nature of God itself, thereby making God bound to some inextricable law of His nature. Only on this supposition could one conceive of an atonement existing in and of itself apart from the eternal counsel of God. This idea is properly rebutted under the voluntarist scheme, which finds the necessity of the atonement in the will of God. As Dabney himself goes on to allow for this voluntarist view in some measure, he therein defeats his own necessitarianism and properly speaks of limited atonement in terms of the eternal purpose of God, not as some inextricable law of justice which was necessarily satisfied by Christ.


----------



## Mayflower

Check this out :

http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070301/5480aadf-98b5-4171-9b3f-2d808e0a106a.aspx

Particular Redemption, The New Perspective, and More with John Piper (and Bruce Ware!) Discussion concerning limited atonement versus unlimited atonement

By: Dr. John Piper | 3/1/2007 
John Piper offers his thoughts (limited atonement)on the New Perspective and other prominent topics today. He also briefly interacts with Bruce Ware (holds to unlimited atonement) on the extent of the atonement.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

armourbearer said:


> If Dabney held that atonement exists in each and every case where a person believes,, then there is no SUSPENSION of the atonement in his thought, because there is no atonement where there is no faith. It is here that he has correctly followed the voluntarist tradition of reformed theology.
> 
> His other statement as quoted by you was written with a view to guarding Calvinism against unwarranted assertions which give ground to Socinian ideas. Numerous Calvinists turned to necessitarianism in order to make this defence, and found some necessity in the nature of God itself, thereby making God bound to some inextricable law of His nature. Only on this supposition could one conceive of an atonement existing in and of itself apart from the eternal counsel of God. This idea is properly rebutted under the voluntarist scheme, which finds the necessity of the atonement in the will of God. As Dabney himself goes on to allow for this voluntarist view in some measure, he therein defeats his own necessitarianism and properly speaks of limited atonement in terms of the eternal purpose of God, not as some inextricable law of justice which was necessarily satisfied by Christ.


Well, thankyou for making a little clearer what you are thinking at least. But to be honest it just looks to me like you are trying to find ways to avoid the force of what Dabney says. You also continue to make unwarranted leaps of logic. in my opinion it seems to me that it is you who needs to become more familiar with what Dabney says as a whole - but I fear your views are so entrenched that you filter everything he says through your own grid to somehow square it with your 'system'. Sorry if that's blunt but I can't think of any other explanation for, frankly, what looks like a smokescreen generated to try undermine Dabney's statement that "satisfaction is suspended upon belief".

Let's look at some more Dabney to demonstrate how your argument fails, first here's a fuller version of the original quote I provided:


> In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach but partial force to some of the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turrettin, e.g., That Christ says, He died "for His sheep,'' for "His Church," for "His friends," is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object. Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made *penal satisfaction *for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's *satisfaction *is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the *satisfaction *to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369. _Lectures_, p521.


This was provided in order to show that the 'double payment' argument used by some is not convincing. 

Firstly, it is clear that this was not "written with a view to guarding Calvinism against unwarranted assertions which give ground to Socinian ideas" as you suggest. Rather, it was clearly written to prove "the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement" (i.e. vicarious penal satisfaction). The reference to Socinianism is merely one of two objections he raises to the double payment argument previously advanced in this thread.

Secondly, note that Dabney is speaking here about _satisfaction_, *NOT *_atonement_. You seem to have missed how Dabney differentiates between satisfaction/expiation and atonement/reconcilliation. Does he not say in the very quote you provided that people "continually mix two ideas when they say atonement"! 

Furthermore it is you who quotes 'piecemeal' for, after the quote you provided, Dabney goes on to say:


> But sacrifice, *expiation*, is one— the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam's race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all. We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ's expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. This is the blessed sense in which the Apostle John says (1 Jn. 2:2): "Christ is the propitiation (the same word as expiation) for the sins of the whole world."



Now note carefully how he repeats and expands this argument in his Lectures:


> Now Christ is a true substitute. His sufferings were penal and vicarious, and made a true satisfaction for all those who actually embrace them by faith. But the conception charged on us seems to be, as though Christ's expiation were a web of the garment of righteousness to be cut into definite pieces and distributed out, so much to each person of the elect, whence, of course, it must have a definite aggregate length, and had God seen fit to add any to the number of elect, He must have had an additional extent of web woven. This is all incorrect. *Satisfaction was *Christ's indivisible act, and inseparable vicarious merit, infinite in moral value, the whole in its unity and completeness, imputed to every believing elect man, without numerical division, subtraction or exhaustion. Had there been but one elect man, his *vicarious satisfaction *had been just what it is in its essential nature. Had God elected all sinners, there would have been no necessity to make Christ's atoning sufferings essentially different. *Remember, the limitation is precisely in the decree, and no where else*. It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term "atonement," has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for satisfaction for guilt, sometimes for the reconciliation ensuing thereon; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. The one is cause, the other effect. The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of katallage, *reconciliation. But expiation is another idea*. Katallage is personal. *Exhilasmos is impersonal*. Katallage is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood. exhilasmos is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, has no more relation to one man's sins than another. As it is applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, "limited atonement," "particular atonement," have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. *Expiation is not limited*. Dabney, _Lectures_, p528.


Notice how he defines satisfaction and equates it with expiation which he clearly says is *NOT LIMITED*. Since he further says that the limitation, as regarding this satisfaction, is in the decree "*and no where else*" this also clearly contradicts your earlier claim that Dabney did not hold to an "objective provision" for the reprobate.

Here's another interesting one from Dabney:


> But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable(MT: he's speaking here of those who try to restrict passages of scripture using universal language to the elect). In John 3:16, make "the world" which Christ loved, to mean "the elect world," and we reach the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him—i. e., the elect it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ. In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, "whole world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as "we," in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that *since Christ made expiation for every man*, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins. Dabney, _Lectures_, p525



We can see Dabney's all-encompassing view of Christ's satisfaction in other writings of his:


> Now, we find every condition which was lacking to the human substitute beautifully fulfilled in the case of Christ. He was innocent, owing for himself no debt of guilt. He gave his own free consent, a consent which his Godhead and autocracy of his own being entitled him to give or to withhold. (See John x. 17, 18.) He could not be holden by death; but, *after paying the penal debt of the world*, he resumed a life more glorious, happy, and beneficent than before.
> _Christ Our Penal Substitute_, p24.



It is clear then, to the 'candid mind', to use Dabney's telling phrase, that in the original quote I provided, in saying that "Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent" which, if true, would, as C. Hodge says, "_ipso facto _liberate", Dabney argues for an unlimited satisfaction made for every man which is suspended upon the condition of belief. This satisfaction for all enables the "Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit." When the Father 'sees fit' being determined by decree not as a necessary consequence of the expiation alone. For Dabney, redemption, or we might say, the 'application' of that satisfaction, is what he calls 'atonement', i.e. reconcilliation. So we see that, in the way that Dabney defined 'atonement', whilst, in one sense I suppose you could say that "there is no suspension in the 'atonement' " since we see that he defines 'atonement' as occurring only at the point of belief, yet, nevetheless, we also see that this 'atonement' is "grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ" and is only made effectual "*when the sinner believes*" such that it is very clearly conditioned on belief. 

The satisfaction is unlimited and made for every man. The 'atonement' (reconcilliation) is limited by decree. For Dabney this view upholds particular redemption by not only fitting the scriptures that speak of limitation in God's intent but also those that speak to a universal provision without having to recourse to dubious logic which, sadly, so many modern-day Calvinists seem to want to do.

Grace and peace to all and Soli Deo Gloria!
Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Actually,
Matthew is fairly candid about Dabney. He identifies him as "necessitarian" instead of "voluntarist". But he points out that according to his reading, by allowing for the voluntarist view Dabney undercuts his stated position. Can't a guy disagree with Dabney? Because basically that's what Matthew is doing. He seems throughly straightforward about it too. He thinks Dabney was *wrong* to assert a "suspension". He certainy isn't trying to force Dabney to read differently. He thinks Dabney was being _inconsistent_.

Obviously, you think Dabney was being consistent, as you interpret him. But you certainly aren't interpreting _Matthew_ with much charity. It's not too much of a stretch to figure Rev. Winzer in the top 5 "well-read" posters on this board.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

armourbearer said:


> I grant that Musculus, Davenant, Calamy, Polhill, Baxter, Shedd, and Ryle shared the conviction of an "objective provision" for the reprobate. Ursinus, Howe, Flavel, Boston, and Dabney used language relative to either the intrinsic value of Christ's death or to the conditional provision of salvation, but they nowhere suggest that Christ made an objective provision for any other than the elect. As for Bullinger, Bunyan, or Doddridge, I abstain from commenting on people I have only read fragments of, which would be a wise procedure for others to follow.


I have already dealt with Dabney. 

When we consider that Howe said, for example:


> If thou wilt not be reconciled, Christ did, as to thee, *die in vain*; thou canst be nothing the better. Think what it must come to, that so precious blood, (infinitely exceeding the value of all corruptible things; silver and gold, &c. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19,) *should be shed, to redeem and save such as thou, and yet do thee no good*?
> 
> Taken from *Howe On Blood Guiltiness *
> 
> (HT: The *T*raffic *B*eggar)


It is at least questionable to say that Howe did not hold to an 'objective provision'.

Martin


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

Contra_Mundum said:


> Actually,
> Matthew is fairly candid about Dabney. He identifies him as "necessitarian" instead of "voluntarist". But he points out that according to his reading, by allowing for the voluntarist view Dabney undercuts his stated position. Can't a guy disagree with Dabney? Because basically that's what Matthew is doing. He seems throughly straightforward about it too. He thinks Dabney was *wrong* to assert a "suspension". He certainy isn't trying to force Dabney to read differently. He thinks Dabney was being _inconsistent_.
> 
> Obviously, you think Dabney was being consistent, as you interpret him. But you certainly aren't interpreting _Matthew_ with much charity. It's not too much of a stretch to figure Rev. Winzer in the top 5 "well-read" posters on this board.


Well, if he were being that candid, surely it would have been easier simply to say that he disagrees with Dabney. 

Of course he is free to disagree with Dabney - but not to try to make Dabney say something he does not. And, frankly, your assertion that he does not do this flies in the face of the obvious but let him speak for himself I am sure he is able.



> Methodist Articles of Religion" (1784) are the responsible creed of the vast Wesleyan bodies of Britain and America. Many of these propositions are adopted verbatim from the "Thirty-nine Articles." This is true of Article II. which contains an identical assertion, in the same words, of the doctrine of Christ's penal substitution. The Catechism of the "Evangelical Union" teaches these doctrinal views, in which all the churches concur which are represented in the "Evangelical Alliance." This document omits the peculiar, distinctive doctrines in which these churches differ from each other. It was the work of Dr. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL. D., 1862, Lesson XXVIII., Question 4: "What did he (Christ) suffer there? " "He suffered unutterable pains in body and soul, and *bore the guilt of the whole world*."
> 
> Such is the tremendous array of the most responsible and deliberate testimonies of all the churches of Christendom, save one little exception, the Socinian, in support of our doctrine concerning the penal substitution of Christ.
> _Christ Our Penal Substitute_, p104.


Notice here how Dabney is arguing for unity with the Methodists (who obviously hold to a form of universal atonement) agreeing that Christ suffered for the "whole world". Clearly he couldn't have meant this as code for the elect. I'd say its very clear that Dabney consistently argued for unlimited satisfaction/expiation and limited atonement/reconcilliation. So, to argue that his voluntarism negates his statement that 'satisfaction is suspended on belief' fails because Matthew's argument is built upon a faulty assumption that Dabney shares his view that the extent of the expiation is co-extensive with that of the actual reconcilliation and that the expiation necessarily 'purchases' faith. Witness Matthew's original assertion with my Dabney-derived comments interspersed:

"He is allowing for the fact that substitution is an act of free grace alone."
Me: True.

"Hence there is no substitution apart from election." 
Me: True, yet only in the sense that if there had been no election there would be no substitution and clearly, as we have seen from Dabney, NOT that the satisfaction is only for the elect.

"The same election purposes to give faith to make the substitution effective."
Me: Again true, and, further, as Dabney says: "the limitation is in the decree ... *and nowhere else*" 

"Ergo, it is not that satisfaction is "suspended on the man's belief," but that there is no satisfaction where there is no belief."
Me: And so we see that the 'ergo' is in fact a 'no go' since we have seen that Dabney holds to an unlimited satisfaction, _ergo _there *is *satisfaction where there is no belief. It couldn't be any clearer. In fact, as I have maintained all along, the logic just doesn't work in any event. For anyone who is able to set aside dearly held beliefs for a moment and consider the logic more objectively on its own can see that the conclusion does not automatically follow from the premise without making some unstated (and unsubstantiated) assumptions - assumptions which we have seen Dabney implictly deny. 


Martin


----------



## Skeuos Eleos

Contra_Mundum said:


> It's not too much of a stretch to figure Rev. Winzer in the top 5 "well-read" posters on this board.


Well an _argumentum ad populum _proves nothing. In fact, all the more important to have the 'checks and balances'. What strikes me as odd is that you were so quick and keen to defend him, especially when you haven't really interacted with my arguments. I think that demonstrates the need for such caution.

Martin


----------



## MW

Skeuos Eleos said:


> It is clear then, to the 'candid mind', to use Dabney's telling phrase, that in the original quote I provided, in saying that "Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent" which, if true, would, as C. Hodge says, "_ipso facto _liberate", Dabney argues for an unlimited satisfaction made for every man which is suspended upon the condition of belief.



Clearly Dabney's distinctions are misunderstood if he can be made to say what he so vehemently denies. If Dabney explains the "process" of the atonement, one is not at liberty to make his statements apply to the "product." It is as clear as day that there is a time separation between Christ's offering Himself and man believing in Christ. This is all Dabney alludes to when he speaks of "suspension." In the final product, there is no suspension, because the efficacy of what Christ has done is wholly dependent upon the eternal counsel of God, which knows no intervals of time. Dabney comes to this point. He shouldn't be stopped on the way to making this point and made to stand to account before he has reached his conclusion.

As for the quotation from Systematic Theology to the effect that "Christ made expiation for every man," one is obliged to observe the context. He is interacting with the usual Calvinistic manner of explaining the "universalistic" texts. He is not siding with Arminians. He merely states what the text "seems" to be saying. He does not tell us what he thinks the text "is" saying. As he explains himself he makes it clear that he is sensitive to the historical process whereby the secret counsel of God is manifested. At most it is safe to say that Dabney taught that Christ died for every man upon condition that he believe. Which, as Dabney himself tells us, is not atonement.

On the very next page Dabney provides a classic reformed definition of the object of faith: "What then is the objective proposition, on which every sinner is commanded tob elieve? It is not, that 'Christ designed His death expressly for me.' But it is, 'whosoever believeth shall be saved.' This warrant is both general and specific enough to authorize any man to venture on Christ. The very act of venturing on Him brings that soul within the whosoever." This is the classic reformed way of stating the warrant to believe. It is not founded in some universal atonement for all, but in the conditional offer of the gospel for all.

Systematic and contextual reading yields the meaning of the author.


----------



## MW

Skeuos Eleos said:


> I have already dealt with Dabney.
> 
> When we consider that Howe said, for example:It is at least questionable to say that Howe did not hold to an 'objective provision'.
> 
> Martin



Now poor Howe is going to suffer from the same deconstruction as Dabney. What is worse, we are going to be subjected to the fallacy of deriving principia from phenomena. But once the principia is understood the phenomena is easily reconciled. Howe states, "to redeem and save *such as thou*" because the gospel offers Christ *generally* to sinners as sinners, but conditionally, because without faith the sinner is condemned already. I wish people would read works from cover to cover. The men wrote them that way.


----------



## MW

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Notice here how Dabney is arguing for unity with the Methodists (who obviously hold to a form of universal atonement) agreeing that Christ suffered for the "whole world".



No, he is quoting the Methodists to show that the general consent of the various branches of the church hold to "penal substitution." He expressly says so. He is not saying that these branches agree on the extent of the atonement. That flies in the face of obvious fact.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not too much of a stretch to figure Rev. Winzer in the top 5 "well-read" posters on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Well an _argumentum ad populum _proves nothing. In fact, all the more important to have the 'checks and balances'. What strikes me as odd is that you were so quick and keen to defend him, especially when you haven't really interacted with my arguments. I think that demonstrates the need for such caution.
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Something sounded odd about the above connection. Where's the appeal in what I said to someone's or something's popularity?

From Wikipedia:


> An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."



"Well-read," in the context of my commentary, offered in the context of _your_ commentary on Matthew's scholarship


Skeuos Eleos said:


> ...it is you who *needs to become more familiar with what Dabney says* as a whole.... I can't think of any other explanation for, frankly, what looks like a smokescreen generated to try undermine Dabney's statement


doesn't refer to Rev. Winzer's "popularity" on this board, but to my view that given the breadth of his familiarity with the writings of historic Presbyterianism, amply demonstrated (whatever you may think of his conclusions!) over the body of his contributions here (and off site), I put him in the category with Dr. McMahon, Dr. R. Scott Clark, Rev. David T. King, and maybe a couple others. I think the accusation (as I bolded it above) is patently absurd.

(not that it's important, but I am noplace--probably not even the top 50)


----------

