Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Is the doctrine of Limited/Particular/Definite Atonement, in our view, retained by those who teach that the Atonement was sufficient for the sins of the whole world but efficient for the sins of the elect only? Or does their qualification (that the Atonement had a 'universal' element) move them away from the Dortian doctrine proper?
I ask, because the qualified position above appears to have been the position of many historic theologians (Aquinas and Ryle, to name two) who have had reputations for not teaching 'Limited Atonement' on that basis. The qualified position also seems to be what is on the mind of many when they ascribe the label of 'moderate Calvinism' to the Thirty-Nine Articles (implying, perhaps, that a more robust or 'full' Calvinism would make no such qualification; and/or that the qualified position is basically an Amyraldian stance)...
I ask, because the qualified position above appears to have been the position of many historic theologians (Aquinas and Ryle, to name two) who have had reputations for not teaching 'Limited Atonement' on that basis. The qualified position also seems to be what is on the mind of many when they ascribe the label of 'moderate Calvinism' to the Thirty-Nine Articles (implying, perhaps, that a more robust or 'full' Calvinism would make no such qualification; and/or that the qualified position is basically an Amyraldian stance)...