Calvinist views on the atonement

[Jimmy the Greek]

As an ice-breaker, since I'm new to the Board:

I would like to solicit your opinions in the formulation of a list of theologians illustrating the spectrum of views regarding the atonement found in Calvinism. It has been suggested in literature that John Owen represents one of the strictest views of the atonement, allowing little or no reference to the non-elect, while Amyraut represents perhaps the lowest Calvinistic view, involving essentially a universal atonement with Christ dying for all alike. So, let me begin with this bracketed list followed by a couple of more comments:

John Owen
?
?
?
?
?
?
Moise Amyraut

I suggest that we purposely not list Calvin himself and limit ourselves to those who came after him. Let me throw out some names I would like to see appropriately placed in the list: R. B. Kuiper, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Francis Turretin, William Cunningham, WGT Shedd, the Hodges, BB Warfield, Norman Douty and perhaps a few significant others (no order implied). I am assuming that all those between Owen and Amyraut are not properly regarded as the same and may be ranked, even though differences may be somewhat subtle.

Anyone interested? Just re-copy the list in your reply with names added where you see fit. I am of course also interested in accompanying comments, clarifications, and rationale.

 

[MW]

I would like to solicit your opinions in the formulation of a list of theologians illustrating the spectrum of views regarding the atonement found in Calvinism.

Sorry to put a dampener on the inquiry, but there is only one Calvinistic view of the atonement, and that is the one maintained by John Owen. The rest are aberrant.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I would agree with Owen too. I think the only views really up for discussion would be those articulated or allowed in the Reformed confessions.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

I'm confused how any alternative view of the atonement can be considered Christian than the one preached by the original founders and then Reformers of the church.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm

 

[MW]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm

 

[elnwood]

I'm confused how any alternative view of the atonement can be considered Christian than the one preached by the original founders and then Reformers of the church.

So John Calvin's view of the atonement cannot be considered Christian? Read his commentary on John 3:16. He clearly teaches that it was for love of the world, that is, all indiscriminately, that Christ was given.

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

 

[ajrock2000]

Sorry to put a dampener on the inquiry, but there is only one Calvinistic view of the atonement, and that is the one maintained by John Owen. The rest are aberrant.

Yep, John Owens view = the only Biblical view. This is not something that men are 'seeking' to find the answer. It is found quite clearly in the Scriptures. Men who teach universal atonement have absolutely no scriptural foundation to stand on, same goes for non-existent doctrines such as 'free will', dispensationalism, etc, etc.

 

[MW]

So John Calvin's view of the atonement cannot be considered Christian? Read his commentary on John 3:16. He clearly teaches that it was for love of the world, that is, all indiscriminately, that Christ was given.

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

This has been discussed previously and in some depth. Calvin is referring to the free offer of the atonement in the gospel proclamation, not the divine purpose which renders the death of Christ an effective atonement for a particular people.

 

[Ezekiel3626]

Read John Owen too, but don’t imagine that John Owens’s book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ represents the only strain of Calvinist thought on the issue. It doesn’t. In fact, far from it.

(a statement by Phil Johnson in the aforementioned article)

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm

 

[elnwood]

This has been discussed previously and in some depth. Calvin is referring to the free offer of the atonement in the gospel proclamation, not the divine purpose which renders the death of Christ an effective atonement for a particular people.

Correct, but I think he is teaching more than just the free offer. But he is still saying that Christ died for the elect and the unelect for the purpose of offering the atonement to them. This is known as "hypothetical universalism" that Amyraut held to. I do not believe that John Owen would hold to this.

 

[bookslover]

Sorry to put a dampener on the inquiry, but there is only one Calvinistic view of the atonement, and that is the one maintained by John Owen. The rest are aberrant.

Quite. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died only for the elect; that is, He died only for all those people chosen by God for salvation even before He created the universe and everything (and everyone) in it. Those are the only people Christ died for, and those are the only people who will be saved.

 

[MW]

Correct, but I think he is teaching more than just the free offer. But he is still saying that Christ died for the elect and the unelect for the purpose of offering the atonement to them. This is known as "hypothetical universalism" that Amyraut held to. I do not believe that John Owen would hold to this.

As stated, this has already been discussed. Please look up the archives.

According to reformed orthodoxy, the atonement may be considered either, (1.) in relation to the divine purpose, or (2.) in relation to the proclamation of the gospel. There is no "middle knowledge" or "conditional decree," which creates any intention of benefit in the blood of Christ for the non-elect. The apostle states clearly that he endured all things "for the elect's sake," 2 Tim. 2:10, thereby indicating that the gospel is proclaimed to all for the sole purpose that the elect may obtain salvation by means of it. There is no divine purpose to provide any saving benefit to the non-elect in the death of Christ. This was John Calvin's stated position, as noted in the archives; and it is the doctrine of the reformed church. There is only the purpose to provide for the proclamation of the gospel to all nations, as is clear from Eph. 3, and even this shows that the centre of this purpose is the church.

 

[polemic_turtle]

To be quite sure, this has been gone over and over and over before, so please excuse us if the thread seems to be stopping very quickly. I believe I know where you're coming from( does the name "Dr. Curt Daniel" ring a bell? ). He represented the views of the atonement within the reformed camp as ranging from Albert Barnes( who he quoted as saying "there is nothing in the atonement which is not equally for all" ) to William Rushton( who uses limited atonement to deny the free offer ). I know the dilemma pretty well; I'm still trying to figure out certain things. In fact, let me use this opportunity to ask a few questions I have. Even if I don't understand the answers right now, I'll think of the as I go further down the road.

Logically, there is no cause for Christ to die for anyone other than those who will be saved( the elect ). However, why then is the word kosmos used to describe this group of people? Doesn't "kosmos" signify that which has been set in order? How does this point to the elect? Speaking English like I do, I understand the way we speak of the "world, flesh, and the devil". I associate the word "world" with the humanistic order of sinful men. However, how should I associate this word with the chosen of God? Should I drop the word "world" and use a better translation of the word "kosmos"? If so, what fits better?

I thank you fellows for helping me figure out the arguement: A. W. Pink really turned me off when he laid down his cards and said that we must understand the word "world" as "the elect" because nobody else will be saved. It wasn't very persuasive of him to say that. Just because that's true doesn't mean that we don't have statements about the "lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world". Please help me find something better than Mr. Pink's argument.

 

[MW]

Certainly the word "world" should not be so quickly identified with the elect as to exclude the warrant which all men have to believe upon Christ as He is offered in the gospel; that would only serve to bias the historical process by which the elect are manifested. However, from the perspective of divine intention, we must acknowledge that the benefits which are conferred upon the "world" can only be the world of the elect, and that the eschaton will make this perfectly evident.

 

[Staphlobob]

I thank you fellows for helping me figure out the arguement: A. W. Pink really turned me off when he laid down his cards and said that we must understand the word "world" as "the elect" because nobody else will be saved. It wasn't very persuasive of him to say that. Just because that's true doesn't mean that we don't have statements about the "lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world". Please help me find something better than Mr. Pink's argument.

I find the above paragraph to be confusing. On the one hand you say "It wasn't very persuasive ..." Yet in the very next sentence you acknowledge "Just because that's true ..." Perhaps you meant to say something else?

OTOH I like Pink. The "world/kosmos" is a perfect description of the elect. Its use is often in synechdoche (a part being used to signify the whole). E.g., in John 12:19 the Pharisees are complaining that "the whole world" is gone after Jesus. Does that mean the Eskimos were heading south? Or that tribes in the rain forests of Brazil were building boats to cross the Atlantic to get to Him? Of course not.

Similarly in 1 Timothy 6:10 Paul says "the love of money is the root of ALL evil." All evil? What about pride? Gluttony? Envy? Of course it's also a synechdoche being used.

Perhaps I haven't done as much study of this as I should. Yet here's where I am with the issue at the moment. I'm certainly willing to have others show me something different.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

You need to remember that 'world' often has a generic connotation (e.g. Jew and Gentile, all kinds of people), depending on the context. Word studies are flawed!
Surely, the efficacy of the atonement cannot be doubted - Christ is the Saviour of those who are saved - or else, I speak reverently, the cross would be a failure.
Why would God punish again (in hell) those for whom Christ died? It is unjust and casts doubt on the concept of substitution not to mention the wisdom of God.
The issue is simple: What did the cross achieve? What was its design? To make salvation possible rather than actual? Sounds very Aristotelian to me.
Calvin never addresses the extent of the atonement systematically - it was not an issue. He can be cited by opposing parties.
Have you read J Packer - http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html?
Owen has never been refuted.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Yikes. Maybe I should have simply asked if you would help me rank the noted theologians with regard to their standing on the atonement. Would that have helped? Or maybe you all are just tired of talking about the atonement. I'm not.

If Owen is the most orthodox (as I see it), who on the list sits with him and who falls below him in acceptability. Do Turretin and Warfield sit in the same pew with Owen? I tend to think so. That's the pew I sit in?

Shedd, Chas. Hodge, and Kuiper are Calvinists wouldn't you say? But I see them as incorporating "dual reference" or "dual aspect" terminology regarding Christ's death that puts them below Owen on the atonement. I am interested in others takes on this.

I read that Amyraut never waivered on his claim that he agreed with Dort (whether you might agree or not), yet his hypothetical universalism is unacceptable to most Calvinists. So I put him on the bottom. I heard it suggested that Davenant was an "improvement" over Amyraut, not accepting his conditional covenant or hypothetical universalism, but seeing the atonement essentially as a provision for all, yet not for all alike. I have not read Davenant per se, so I'm not sure. If so, however, then incipient "Davenantism" is rampant among self-proclaimed Calvinists.

These are the thoughts behind my original post. I thought the discussion could be beneficial. If you don't, feel free to opt out of the thread.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

I still agree with Phil Johnson.... Owen's view is not the end all of the discussion.

 

[JM]

What's the difference between what Dabney taught and what Amyrault taught about the atonement?

 

[VanVos]

Also what do with we do with equivalentism as held by Tom nettles. Is there still more room for discussion among Owenites?