Hypothetical Universalism at Westminster; John Owen "Novel"

[Afterthought]

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/11/truly-reformed-tr-reformed-cat.php

"Take for example the hypothetical universalist position on the atonement. I myself am not a hypothetical universalist. But I am also aware that up to a quarter of the Reformed tradition, including the early Reformers, were hypothetical universalists. Indeed, if a hypothetical universalist came to the Western Canada Presbytery to be examined - let's call him Edmund - I would not view his position as striking at the vitals of the Confession. It is a close one, but the better versions of hypothetical universalism - which differ from the views of Amyraut or Cameron - are practically indistinguishable from certain versions (yes, versions!) of particular redemption. John Owen was actually the novel theologian when he wrote The Death of Death. In fact, Owen was an innovative theologian for his time, rarely afraid to say things differently or in a new way."

Thoughts on the article in general? But I'm especially interested in knowing how much of the quoted paragraph is true/in what sense it is true.

 

[TylerRay]

Jones has some good things to say here, but his paradigm is flawed. We must remember that he is in the PCA, which does not hold strictly to a confession of faith. That being the case, the PCA is marked by differing groups, "TRs," "BRs," "Doctrinalists," "Culturalists," "Pietists," etc. This is the result of the officers of the church not being united by a common confession. Instead, they are united by a "tradition," whatever that means. The standard of what is acceptable doctrine shifts from the confession to whatever has been held by reformed folks at whatever time. It is not hard to imagine what difficulty arises when trying to set boundaries in such a situation.

The best way is strict subscription. In our own church, the officers are accountable to a document, not to a tradition. If it contradicts the confession, it may not be taught. If it does not contradict the confession, it may be taught. The point that Dr. Jones makes about Adam's reward is a great example of the kind of leeway given in the confession. As to hypothetical universalism, I don't know enough about the different views to speak to the matter.

 

[TylerRay]

I'll add further that I agree with Jones that catholic or irenic spirit in doing theology is more than commendable. If a Papist or Arminian makes an excellent statement that does not harm the doctrine of the confession, we should have no problem affirming that statement. We should be willing to read broadly, albeit cautiously.

 

[MW]

What are these "better" versions of hypothetical universalism? No good can come from a theory which can speak of the work of Christ as being less than real. The kind of catholicity that can depreciate the reality of what Christ has done is not "Christian" catholicity, let alone "Reformed."

The article as a whole is really only saying that all truth is God's truth no matter where it comes from. But this is not catholicity. The same can be said of an heathen poet. Thomas Goodwin speaks of the ingenious Papist, but he discriminates by calling him a Papist, which shows that caution is needed in making use of harmful implements like these.

 

[timfost]

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/11/truly-reformed-tr-reformed-cat.php

"Take for example the hypothetical universalist position on the atonement. I myself am not a hypothetical universalist. But I am also aware that up to a quarter of the Reformed tradition, including the early Reformers, were hypothetical universalists. Indeed, if a hypothetical universalist came to the Western Canada Presbytery to be examined - let's call him Edmund - I would not view his position as striking at the vitals of the Confession. It is a close one, but the better versions of hypothetical universalism - which differ from the views of Amyraut or Cameron - are practically indistinguishable from certain versions (yes, versions!) of particular redemption. John Owen was actually the novel theologian when he wrote The Death of Death. In fact, Owen was an innovative theologian for his time, rarely afraid to say things differently or in a new way."

Thoughts on the article in general? But I'm especially interested in knowing how much of the quoted paragraph is true/in what sense it is true.

I think we have to be careful here. A “hypothetical universalist” of the School of Saumur (Amyraldianism) is not the same as someone who speaks about salvation hypothetically. The bible is full of places that speak hypothetically (e.g. if you would have done this, then I would have done this) and the reformation is full of those who embodied such language. Such hypothetical language is even employed in regards to salvation (see John 3:18, 2 Thes. 2:10, etc.).

The School of Saumur went beyond speaking about hypotheticals this way. They ordered the eternal decrees of God so that the decree to redeem men preceded the decree to elect. Therefore, according to this thought process, God intended to save all of humanity prior to decreeing to elect a part of humanity. In this way, they speak about a conditional decree as well as an actual decree. According to this thinking, God intended or purposed to save all of humanity by a separate decree.

(As an aside, the ordering of God’s decrees was very normal at this time. Consider supra and infralapsarianism. Personally, I don’t see much sense in ordering the decrees of God when they were decreed outside of time in contrast to the ordo salutis which plays out in time. But that’s another conversation…)

Part of the problem in assessing whether 25% of early reformers were hypothetical universalists comes from the narrowed language developed against the Arminians. Whereas it was fairly common to speak about Christ suffering for all of the human race (see Heidelberg 37), the Arminian debate narrowed the terminology used to describe Christ’s sufferings.

The reformers who spoke of Christ’s death being for all often applied the sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis (“sufficient for all, effective for the elect”). Even for those who advocated that Christ died for all (and there are many who did), this does not equate with Amyraldianism.

Owen, in Death of Death spoke about sufficiency differently from these early reformers. He used it to speak exclusively about the value of the death, but would never have said that Christ died “sufficiently for all” as many of the others would have said.

Unfortunately, many reformed people have simplified the doctrine of the atonement to “Christ died for the elect and did not die for everyone else” to the extent that everyone else who doesn’t favor the same language is labeled a 4-point Calvinist. Those non-Amyraldians who advocated that Christ died for all certainly never implied that Christ intended to save all by His death. But too often the reformed classify those who speak about the universality of Christ’s sufferings as Amyraldian, a very misguided accusation.

Even after the Arminian debate there were those who maintained that in a certain sense Christ died for all (normally relating it to the free offer) while strongly coming against Amyraldianism (see Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, etc.). Interestingly, the Canons of Dort never simplify the atonement to “Christ died for the elect and did not die for everyone else.” A good argument can be made that they actually used the older formula of sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis in the Second Head of Doctrine, Articles 3-6 while maintaining the intention and design of the atonement was for the salvation of the elect alone (Article 8).

Regardless of the terminology that we employ, we should be very careful not to judge the universal language favored by many of the reformers. If there is question in regards to distinguishing between true hypothetical universalism and speaking about Christ’s death in terms of universals, one can normally understand the distinction when the intention and design of Christ’s death is inquired into.

If you’re interested, I can provide ample reading in regards to this subject.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Here is a great recent resource by J. V. Fesko (2014) The Theology of the Westminster Standards.
http://www.amazon.com/Theology-West...eywords=Theology+of+the+westminster+standards

It discusses the strain (or strand) of English hypothetical universalism that existed among the early English reformers, ala Ussher, Calamy, Davenant, Baxter and others, and how their background in the 39 articles fed this view. However, the fact that it existed does not in my mind give it particular credence.

 

[timfost]

All this to say that the 25% number in the OP is probably misplaced, since hypothetical universalism specifically had to do with the double intention/decree of God for the salvation of the human race-- a doctrine that most of the reformed would frown upon. Baxter and Davenant might be good examples of such a category, but their beliefs wouldn't comprise a quarter of the reformation.

 

[MW]

since hypothetical universalism specifically had to do with the double intention/decree of God for the salvation of the human race

According to historians the British hypothetical universalists did not have recourse to the dual decree for which Amyraldism became renowned. Personally I think it is absurd to speak of the atonement without referring to divine intention; nevertheless historians have noted this as a marked difference between the systems.

 

[timfost]

since hypothetical universalism specifically had to do with the double intention/decree of God for the salvation of the human race

According to historians the British hypothetical universalists did not have recourse to the dual decree for which Amyraldism became renowned. Personally I think it is absurd to speak of the atonement without referring to divine intention; nevertheless historians have noted this as a marked difference between the systems.

Would you say that the distinction between the systems of hypothetical universalism is that one promoted a double decree and the other promoted the atonement without divine intention? Or do they both share a universal intention in relation to the atonement with a distinction in how they speak about the decree/s of God?

 

[MW]

Would you say that the distinction between the systems of hypothetical universalism is that one promoted a double decree and the other promoted the atonement without divine intention? Or do they both share a universal intention in relation to the atonement with a distinction in how they speak about the decree/s of God?

I think if they spoke of "intent" they meant it in a secondary sense as a moral consequence of the death of Christ rather than something directly purposed. This is especially the case where they were exploring the offer of the gospel rather than the atonement itself.

Particularists would refer to the moral consequences as a part of the providential order under the economy of grace rather than the fruits of Christ's death. The death of Christ has "occasioned" them but not "caused" them. James Durham has an excursus in his Commentary on Revelation which helpfully outlines the issues.

 

[timfost]

Based on the reading I've done on hypothetical universalism, I haven't come across a discussion of the different types and nuances within that group. Can you (or anyone else) recommend some good reading that distinguishes the various nuances among them? (Jim mentioned one source...)

Thanks!

 

[MW]

Based on the reading I've done on hypothetical universalism, I haven't come across a discussion of the different types and nuances within that group. Can you (or anyone else) recommend some good reading that distinguishes the various nuances among them? (Jim mentioned one source...)

Here is a good introduction: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...LJZHGRqdxpLu-C38w&sig2=IFhpa7dPJacPBxTwlEiX7g

There is also a section in Fesko's "Theology of the Westminster Standards;" Richard Muller's article, “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition;" Gatiss', Shades of Opinion; Moore's Thesis on John Preston, Ford's book on Ussher, and Crisp's Deviant Calvinism, and a few other works.

From a particularist point of view the variations all amount to the same error because a leap is made from the hypothetical to the real somewhere in the process. This might account for the reason they tend to be treated under the same head from the particularist point of view. As Hodge noted, the introduction of the hypothetical concept requires the rebuilding of the soteriological structure as a whole.