Why does Limited Atonement Matter?

[Deleted member 6112]

He thought it was just "an intellectual thing" that really had no bearing at all on the health of the Church

Ask your friend whether doctrinal purity says anything about the health of the Church. Is believing a lie healthy? Christ prayed that the Father would sanctify us by his truth (his word is truth). Doctrinal purity is a means by which God sanctifies his people. To put it another way, the Word of God is a means of grace.

 

[Justified]

He thought it was just "an intellectual thing" that really had no bearing at all on the health of the Church

Ask your friend whether doctrinal purity says anything about the health of the Church. Is believing a lie healthy? Christ prayed that the Father would sanctify us by his truth (his word is truth). Doctrinal purity is a means by which God sanctifies his people. To put it another way, the Word of God is a means of grace.

Yeah, I'd agree. It was a rather frustrating conversation when I had it, to say the least.

 

[timfost]

Rich,

First, thank you for engaging me on this without imputing meaning that I did not intend. I am learning a lot and trying to be able to word things clearly. I also don't want to communicate that I am "beyond reproach" on this issue as I am most certainly not. I know many would disagree with my convictions on this issue, but until I see clearly where I am wrong by scriptures, I cannot violate my conscience for the sake of "going with the flow." If I saw no support for my thought process on this, I would be more apt to keep silent, but I do believe Dort supports what I'm proposing as well as many reformed theologians through history.

I know Matthew has been answering you but I find it interesting that you wrote Amen to what I pointed out in Dordt and then expressed confusion to Matthew following your confidence. In other words, your confusion following your Amen leads me to believe you were actually confused about what you were saying "Amen" to.

Christ merited faith as you pointed out. I've supported this the whole time. Is there anything I said that would make you think otherwise? To this I maintain an "amen."

The point of my quote was to demonstrate that part of the Father and the Son's design of the atonement was that the Son would procure the faith of those who would believe. He didn't merely ensure, by His death, that He had committed an act that other's could theoretically have faith in but He actually procured the faith of those to whom it would be given.

I agree, which is why I repeatedly have spoken about the design of His sufferings. If all that God designed to do with Christ's sufferings is to make salvation possible, no one would be saved. Therefore the divine intention and the Spirit's regenerating work is of utmost consolation to the faithful.

Your follow on questions to Matthew lead me to believe you are confused between the gift of faith and the exercise of faith. Faith is a gift. This does not mean that the Spirit exercises faith for the believer but that the Spirit enlivens us so that we may see our sin, turn from it, and turn to Christ. Faith is thus a gift but it is we who exercise that gift. It is not a gift in the sense that we decide whether or not we want to receive that gift but it is a gift in the sense that we are given life that that live produces repentance and faith.

Again, what made you think I was confused about this? I heartily agree! Are all men required to exercise faith (i.e. saving faith every man's duty) even though they are not morally able to produce it?

So then we return to the issue where you and Matthew started interacting and that's on Dordt's language about the relative worth of the Atonement.

This is where I think you are not reading Dort correctly. There is a difference between saying that Christ's sacrifice had infinite value and saying that because of the infinite value it is legitimately offered. If Christ's satisfaction had no reference to the reprobate, how could it be offered and how can it be rejected? How is there a promise of God with nothing to back it up? Again, please consider John 3:18.

This is precisely what Dort picks up on. Charles Hodge summarizes the thrust of Dort's argument, saying "that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.'" But, if the atonement had no reference to all of mankind, there would be a "want of an atonement." I would submit that the sufficiency of the atonement is more than a doctrine of its intrinsic value but it's the very basis of the free offer. What is there to reject if the remedy has nothing to do with those who reject the Gospel? Certainly God has sufficient grounds for judgment because of original and actual sin, but unbelief is so heinous because it rejects the offered remedy to the disease. If the atonement had no reference to unbelievers, what remedy do they reject (see 2 Thes. 2:10, Heb. 2:3)? Or do they reject anything? I've heard some say that Christ is rejected. But the promise of the gospel offers Christ, which by faith applies the atonement. In my opinion, to say Christ is rejected but not the remedy (atonement) is an unfortunate dicing up the work of Christ and only serves convenient categories as we make the simple doctrine complicated.

We can't read into Dordt some idea that the Atonement is theoretically powerful enough to atone for the sins of all mankind but that it is only able to save those who have faith. One might say that if God had purposed that the Atonement would save all men by Christ's death that it could do so and that's their point. The reason for this is that faith is part of the design of the atonement (as I quoted). It is because of the atonement that men believe. Their faith was purchased by Christ. Those who would believe had their ability to believe (whom the Spirit would grant faith) by His death. Thus, if the design of the Atonement is "theoretically" for all mankind then "theoretically" Christ purchased faith for everyone and "theoreticall" the Spirit makes all men alive and "theoretically" all men exercise that faith.

Please reread second head, articles 5-6. The very thrust of the argument is that the atonement renders unbelievers without excuse. In other words, the atonement had reference to those who perish, though as you rightly pointed out that it's design for eternal salvation was only for the elect. When you say "theoretically for all mankind," please understand that I'm not saying this. I've spoken to the design of the atonement. I'm not saying that Christ's death is equal for all in its design. You quoted Dort second head, article 8 with which I wholeheartedly agree. But let's not neglect the doctrine of article 6 so that we can reconcile with our system. The clear point of 6 is that the atonement holds unbelievers without excuse, not only their original and actual sin (through unbelief is certainly actual sin). If this is true, then according to Dort, it has reference to all, not simply that it's intrinsic worth would be a sufficient price to save all.

I understand now that many Westminster divines would disagree. I respect that and am not asking you to agree with me, only that you don't force Dort into your system and eisegete it's doctrine on this point. (Also, Heidelberg 37 along with Ursinus's commentary may shed some light on the understanding of the atonement with reference to all as promoted in the 3FU.)

Concerning Winzer's comments about legal and evangelical faith, these distinctions sound very much like the hyper-Calvinist categories of legal and evangelical repentance (see Brine and Gill). Peter Toon draws out this history clearly in his book about hyper-Calvinism. Additionally, Winzer's neonomian argument sounds Gospel Standard (article 26) to me and is likewise the almost identical arguments shared by Hussey, Brine and Gill. I hope I'm wrong on seeing the similarity...

It's not my wish to get too far away from the OP. If you would like to continue discussing, I'd be happy to, but it may be more appropriate in a new thread as I don't want to derail this one.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is precisely what Dort picks up on. Charles Hodge summarizes the thrust of Dort's argument, saying "that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.'" But, if the atonement had no reference to all of mankind, there would be a "want of an atonement." I would submit that the sufficiency of the atonement is more than a doctrine of its intrinsic value but it's the very basis of the free offer. What is there to reject if the remedy has nothing to do with those who reject the Gospel? Certainly God has sufficient grounds for judgment because of original and actual sin, but unbelief is so heinous because it rejects the offered remedy to the disease. If the atonement had no reference to unbelievers, what remedy do they reject (see 2 Thes. 2:10, Heb. 2:3)? Or do they reject anything? I've heard some say that Christ is rejected. But the promise of the gospel offers Christ, which by faith applies the atonement. In my opinion, to say Christ is rejected but not the remedy (atonement) is an unfortunate dicing up the work of Christ and only serves convenient categories as we make the simple doctrine complicated.

I think we may be talking past each other. Hodge's point is very subtle and does not deal with the point I was trying to make.

The issue is not whether, theoretically, a reprobate man is prohibited by the Gospel from believing. Christ's satisfaction, as Hodge notes, has to be made for men as sinners and so His atonement is for sinners.

The issue is whether or not the Atonement carries with it the procurement of faith itself. This Dordt acknowledges.

I guess I don't have a problem with the words "free offer" as long as we're talking about the same thing. It is true to say to all that Christ died for sinners and that any man who believes will possess eternal life. To the hearer, he need not know the eternal purposes of God. He need only know that this is true and that there is nothing lacking in Christ's sacrifice to save those who place their trust in Him. The concern I have is when we start trying to move beyond ectypal into archetypal theology and peer into whether or not God has to *desire* the salvation of the hearer for the person to be given a real offer. I don't think one has to get into debates about hyper-Calvinism to state that some theological arguments try to move to things hidden - to make unrealized desires in the Godhead the basis for whether or not an offer is really "free" or "well meant".

Having read Ursinus and Hodge, I believe they are making essentially the same point. Christ's atoning sacrifice fully atones for men as sinners. Insofar as He was a Mediator for sinful men His death sufficiently and perfectly atones for a humanity that is under bondage to the Law. They make the same qualification, however, that the atonement brings with it the evangelical graces necessary. Hodge even goes so far as to say that the intent of the atonement is for the sheep and the fact that Christ made atonement for sinners is collaterally true for all sinners but is not the intent of the atonement itself. One can, at best, speak of the faith of the reprobate in theory because reality makes such things impossible because the atonement's aim is for the elect. It purchases the faith of the elect themselves.

Thus, I would agree with Hodge who says that a man cannot claim that there was no atonement capable of dealing with sin. Yes, a reprobate man in rejecting the Gospel is rejecting a remedy for sin. But the issue I've been dealing with is whether faith, as an evangelical grace, is offered as an option to the reprobate hearer. The reprobate is not rejecting the evangelical gift of faith (because that is irrestible) but He is rejecting the Person and Work of Christ in his sin.

 

[MW]

Additionally, Winzer's neonomian argument sounds Gospel Standard (article 26) to me and is likewise the almost identical arguments shared by Hussey, Brine and Gill. I hope I'm wrong on seeing the similarity...

Wrong on every level, and a misrepresentation.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Concerning Winzer's comments about legal and evangelical faith, these distinctions sound very much like the hyper-Calvinist categories of legal and evangelical repentance (see Brine and Gill). Peter Toon draws out this history clearly in his book about hyper-Calvinism. Additionally, Winzer's neonomian argument sounds Gospel Standard (article 26) to me and is likewise the almost identical arguments shared by Hussey, Brine and Gill. I hope I'm wrong on seeing the similarity...

You ought to be more charitable than that, friend. Rev. Winzer is a minister in good standing in a confessional Presbyterian church, and he has vowed before God to take the Westminster Confession as the confession of his own faith. His comments ought to be read in light of that.

 

[MW]

James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 177: "The Neonomian doctrine of Justification amounts in substance to this — That Christ, by His death, made full satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of all mankind, so as to remove every obstacle to their pardon and acceptance, and to bring them into a salvable state, or to make their salvation possible..."

 

[MW]

Ralph Erskine, Sermons, 5:92: "Some cloud and darken the gospel, by making it a new or milder law, requiring faith, and repentance, and new obedience, instead of the perfect obedience required in the covenant of works. The gospel, properly speaking, is no law, but a promise: and it might be easily evinced, that faith, repentance, and new obedience, are so far from being easier or milder terms, that they are harder conditions to us, in our lapsed state, than perfect obedience was to Adam in a state of innocence. And so the apostle argues against any such new law; Gal. 3:21, "If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law;" or, as it may be read, "Verily righteousness should have been by a law." But there is no such law given to fallen man, as could give life to him; therefore, there is no righteousness, or justification, to be had by a law, but by a promise; no life by any new law, but by a new promise of mercy and grace in Christ Jesus; "By the works of the law, no flesh living can be justified." "Eternal life is the gift of God, through Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

[timfost]

Rich,

Thanks for your response. I was not trying to lay a foundation for the free offer in relation to desire in God, although it is certainly a related point. I also completely agree with you that faith was merited by Christ for His elect. I think a helpful distinction would be in this: the gospel does not offer faith, but salvation through faith. Therefore we hold out salvation based on the condition of faith rather than hold out faith itself, since faith itself does not merit righteousness.

I'm going to allow Hodge to make the point about "universal application" that I was trying to make. Hopefully we can agree with him.

Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died specially for his own people does account for the general offer of the gospel, how is it to be reconciled with those passages which. in one form or another, teach that He died for all men? In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that he died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance. These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design.

I am sorry if my representation was confusing as the above is the doctrine I'm seeking to communicate.

 

[timfost]

Rev. Matthew,

Please understand that I'm not making an accusation and am happy to be wrong. I'm having a difficult time differentiating between your legal and evangelical faith and hyper-Calvinist distinctions, but I don't want to get caught up in words if they mean something entirely different. I only sought to spell out its appearance to me in relation to this conversation.

Tyler,

Thank you for your concern. As I said above, his language was concerning to me. I desire to be charitable and not jump to an emphatic conclusion about what Rev. Winzer meant. Perhaps I stated my concern too strongly. Again, I take your concern seriously (1 Tim. 5:17).

 

[MW]

I'm having a difficult time differentiating between your legal and evangelical faith and hyper-Calvinist distinctions, but I don't want to get caught up in words if they mean something entirely different.

I don't think it is a matter of words. The problem is with systemic preconceptions, as I have pointed out before. Universalist tenets are established on the basis of legalist commitments. Free, evangelical grace is particular grace through and through.

Ralph Erskine, Gospel Sonnets

Law-precepts in a gospel-mold,
We may as gospel-doctrine hold;
But gospel-calls in legal dress,
The joyful sound of grace suppress.

Faith and repentance may be taught,
And yet no gospel-tidings brought;
If as mere duties these we press,
And not as parts of promis'd bless.

If only precepts we present,
Though urg'd with strongest argument,
We leave the wak'ned sinner's hope
In darkness of despair to grope.

The man whom legal precepts chase.
As yet estrang'd to sov'reign grace,
Mistaking evangelic charms,
As if they stood on legal terms.

Looks to himself, though dead in sin,
For grounds of faith and hope within:
Hence fears and fetters grow and swell,
Since nought's within but sin and hell.

But faith that looks to promis'd grace,
Clean out of self the soul will chase,
To Christ for righteousness and strength,
And finds the joyful rest at length.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tim,

The point that Matthew is trying to make is that the Gospel is gift not duty. It is of the nature of the Law that all men are to believe in God and, in that sense, they are required to believe in Christ. There is a duty in the fact that they are creatures and to deny the Son of God incarnate is an example of their rebellion.

Thus, there is a danger in not seeing the particularity of the atonement and seeing it in the abstract as belonging to all men. For then what differentiates it among men is the duty of faith and repentance to that atonement. The Gospel becomes duty.

In contrast, the atonement is particular and brings with it the gift of faith and brings life and blessing to it. There is a call to believe but the call brings life to the hearer and the promise of eternal life grants what it promises. The Gospel is then Good News because it is life and not seen as duty to both the elect and the reprobate alike with only the elect able to meet the conditional duty of faith.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Tyler,

Thank you for your concern. As I said above, his language was concerning to me. I desire to be charitable and not jump to an emphatic conclusion about what Rev. Winzer meant. Perhaps I stated my concern too strongly. Again, I take your concern seriously (1 Tim. 5:17).

Thank you for taking it graciously. It's easy to give a rebuke (especially over the internet). Receiving one is not so easy.

 

[MW]

The only other point I would make is that the outward administration of the gospel in and of itself makes no differentiation between elect or reprobate. "Many are called but few are chosen." The calling is general and indefinite to sinners as sinners. The One who calls has His chosen among those who are outwardly called, and this secret election only becomes manifest in the personal reception or rejection of the outward calling by the sinner. We have to resist bringing the elect and reprobate into the discussion at the point of administration. Calvin has wisely noted this on many occasions. It distorts Calvinism to impose the secret election on the administration of the gospel because it undermines the historical administration by which the eternal decree will be brought to pass in time.

 

[timfost]

The point that Matthew is trying to make is that the Gospel is gift not duty. It is of the nature of the Law that all men are to believe in God and, in that sense, they are required to believe in Christ. There is a duty in the fact that they are creatures and to deny the Son of God incarnate is an example of their rebellion.

I am seriously trying to understand what you are saying. I don't think I ever said that the gospel is a duty. The gospel is the good news of salvation that is received by faith. Faith is the duty, the gospel is the promise of salvation granted when the sooner meets the condition through the regenerating work of the Spirit (WLC 32). Again, Hodge says "Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates. It is in this respect analogous to the moral law." Do we agree on this?

Thus, there is a danger in not seeing the particularity of the atonement and seeing it in the abstract as belonging to all men. For then what differentiates it among men is the duty of faith and repentance to that atonement. The Gospel becomes duty.

Again, faith is the duty. Atonement belongs to all men only in a certain sense and in no way do I promote the Arminian sense in that it was equally intended for all. Again, please see how Hodge qualifies this in my last response to you as He says it more clearly than I am able.

In contrast, the atonement is particular and brings with it the gift of faith and brings life and blessing to it. There is a call to believe but the call brings life to the hearer and the promise of eternal life grants what it promises. The Gospel is then Good News because it is life and not seen as duty to both the elect and the reprobate alike with only the elect able to meet the conditional duty of faith.

Charles Hodge is my favorite author on the atonement. Can we agree on the quote in my previous response to you or do you differ?

Again, I don't mind if you differ, but I'm trying to figure out what the problem was in the first place to my phrase "universal application" if we are in agreement with Hodge...

 

[MW]

It is in this respect analogous to the moral law." Do we agree on this?

No. This is "new law" thinking. The man that doeth them shall live in them. Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. The gospel is not analogous in any way to the moral law. It promises life. It says, Live, and Do this. The law says, Do this, and Live. The gospel administration subordinates the law to its good-news purpose. It does not assimilate it or create a new law. The Mediator did not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it.

Thomas Boston, Human Nature in its Fourfold State:

"Such is the natural propensity of man's heart to the way of the law, in opposition to Christ, that, as the tainted vessel turns the taste of the purest liquor put into it, so the natural man turns the very gospel into law; and transforms the covenant of grace into a covenant of works. The Ceremonial Law was to the Jews a real gospel; which held blood, death, and translation of guilt before their eyes continually, as the only way of salvation: yet their very table, (i.e. their altar, with the several ordinances pertaining thereto, Mal. i. 12) was a snare unto them, Rom. ii. 9, while they used it to make up the defects in their obedience to the Moral Law, and clave to it so, as to reject him, whom the altar and sacrifices pointed them to, as the substance of all: even as Hagar, whose it was only to serve, was by their father brought into her mistress's bed; not without a mystery in the purpose of God, for 'these are the two covenants,' Gal. iv. 24. Thus is the doctrine of the gospel corrupted by Papists, and other enemies to the doctrine of Free Grace. And indeed, however natural men's heads may be set right in this point, as surely as they are out of Christ, their faith, repentance, and obedience (such as they are), are placed by them in the room of Christ and his righteousness, and so trusted to, as if by these they fulfilled a new law."

 

[MW]

William Romaine, Twelve Discourses upon the Law and the Gospel (Whole Works, vol. 3, pp. x.-xi.):

"It highly concerns those persons to consider this matter well, who fancy that Christ came as a great lawgiver, to publish milder terms of acceptance than the moral law had required. They have a notion of Christ, as if he were only the publisher of some new remedial law, which abated something of the demands, and mitigated some of the rigour of the moral law. Whereas he came not to publish any new law, but to save his people from their sins committed against the old law. He came to be a Saviour, and not a lawgiver. Indeed he preached the law, but it was to bring men to the knowledge of sin, and to see and to feel their want of his salvation. But he preached nothing new. He only enforced the law in its spiritual nature, and in its full extent, shewing the length and breadth, the depth and height of the commandment. He would not have his people so much as entertain a thought of his coming to make a change in the moral law. 'Think not,' says he, 'that I am come to destroy the law, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil it:' and he did fulfil it; for he was born under the law, and was obedient to it even unto death. The law was unalterable. It could not change, unless God's most holy mind and will could change, which is impossible, and therefore the law being broken could not remit the deserved punishment, unless some infinitely perfect obedience should be paid, and some infinitely meritorious sufferings should be undergone in the sinner's stead, by which the law might be magnified and made honourable. And the Lord Christ undertook to do this. He vouchsafed to obey and to suffer for his people, to obey the precepts, and to suffer the pains and penalties of the law. The law had indicted them, and found them guilty of disobedience. Christ came to obey for them, as it is written, 'By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' The law had put them under the curse, and he came to redeem them from the curse of the law. The law threatened to punish them, and he came to bear their sins, and the punishment due to them in his own body upon the tree. So that Christ came not to publish a new remedial law, but to glorify the moral law, and to demonstrate the unchangeable nature of it, since no obedience, and no sufferings, but his, which were absolutely perfect, divine and infinite, could work out such a righteousness for any one sinner, as the law required, in order to his being justified in the sight of God."

 

[MW]

Archibald Hall, A Treatise on the Faith and Influence of the Gospel, pp. 104-105:

"It is a capital mistake in this opinion, that the gospel is blended with the law; and upon the ruins of both the law and the gospel, a new mode of divine administration is contrived, under the name of gospel laws. The law and the gospel are entirely distinct from one another, and ought never to be confounded together. A gospel law is a contradiction in terms; for the works of the law and the grace of the gospel stand opposed to one another in the great concerns of our justification before God. To compound the sincere endeavours of men with the grace of God, is to destroy the perfection of the law, and to subvert the sovereignty of saving grace, at one bold stroke. If such a scheme be once admitted, the divine law will no longer exhibit the perfection of beauty that is essential to the eternal God; and the glorious gospel will no longer reveal the riches of his sovereign grace, whereby he has mercy on whom he will have mercy. This dangerous innovation sets aside the necessity of knowing and believing the truths of God, by resting the whole of a man's salvation upon the sincerity of his intentions to please his Maker, whatever his principles may be; and it opens the door to licentiousness of practice, by representing the Lawgiver as demanding only that which is upright, not that which is perfect. Upon the whole, this doctrine concerning a new law is a gross perversion of Christianity."

 

[MW]

Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:426-427:

"Use third of this doctrine may be of confutation to Papists, Arminians, Pelagians, Baxterians, and others, who make the gospel a new preceptive or commanding law, requiring faith, repentance, sincere obedience, and the like, which they say were never required in the moral law from Sinai, whereby they destroy one of the main differences between the law and the gospel; for as I said already, the law is a system of precepts, the gospel a system of promises, or acts of grace strictly considered; and to bring in new commands into the gospel, which were never contained in the moral law, has been, and is, a doctrine of a most pernicious tendency, in regard it derogates from the perfection of the moral law, as if under the gospel there were sins which it doth not forbid, and duties which it doth not require. They who assert that faith and repentance are not enjoined, and that unbelief and impenitency are not forbidden, even in the first commandment of the moral law, contradict our received standards of doctrine, particularly the Larger Catechism explaining the first command; they must needs assert another righteousness than the righteousness of Christ to fulfil the new gospel law, seeing Christ was not made under it, but under the moral law, as a covenant, to redeem us who are under it. When we sinned in Adam we did not break the new gospel law, but the old moral law of the ten commandments; and if Adam never broke that new gospel law they speak of, his posterity cannot be blamed if they want power to repent and believe; and if faith and repentance be enjoined by a new law, it is equitable that a new fund of strength be given in order to our obeying it: and thus the Pelagian universal grace bestowed on every man that hears the gospel is introduced. Many other things might be said on this head, but I do not insist."

 

[MW]

Ralph Erskine, Sermons 2:325:

"The Baxterian scheme is also opposite to this gospel-doctrine: they tell us, that God hath made a new law with mankind; and obedience to that new law and to its commands, is our righteousness; and this obedience gives us a title to heaven, and gives us a title to Christ's blood, and to pardon: And the act of faith is our righteousness, not as it accepts of Christ's righteousness, but as it is an obedience to that new law; the very act and work of faith is, according to them, the righteousness itself: And this faith takes in all kind of works, namely, repentance, love, obedience, and ten or twelve duties of that sort; and all these together are our righteousness for justification. Really (as one says upon this very head) if the apostle Paul were alive, he would excommunicate such ministers."

 

[MW]

Charles Hodge, Commentary on 2 Corinthians 3:6,

"The law, in every form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demanding works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Testament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the light in which it was viewed. And therefore Paul sometimes says it does the one, and sometimes the other. But the spirit giveth life. The spirit, or the gospel, gives life in a sense correlative to that in which the letter (i.e. the law) kills. 1. By revealing a righteousness adequate to our justification, and thus delivering us from the sentence of death. 2. By producing the assurance of God’s love and the hope of his glory in the place of a dread of his wrath. 3. By becoming, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, an inward principle or power transforming us into the image of God; instead of a mere outward command."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am seriously trying to understand what you are saying. I don't think I ever said that the gospel is a duty. The gospel is the good news of salvation that is received by faith. Faith is the duty, the gospel is the promise of salvation granted when the sooner meets the condition through the regenerating work of the Spirit (WLC 32). Again, Hodge says "Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates. It is in this respect analogous to the moral law." Do we agree on this?

No.

I've read the Hodge passage and I think you're inferring something about faith that he does not state.

Earlier Hodge writes:

According to one view, man having by his fall lost the ability of fulfilling the conditions of the covenant of life, God, for Christ’s sake, enters into a new covenant, offering men salvation upon other and easier terms; namely, as some say, faith and repentance, and others evangelical obedience.

It is one thing for Hodge to speak of condition in that portion you cited but it is another to turn that condition into a "duty" as you have done. He speaks of pecuniary and judicial debt in certain places. One might say that the condition to be released from a pecuniary debt is the paying of the debt but it is another thing to say that the fulfillment of that condition is therefore, in God's design, man's duty to fulfill that condition by paying that debt.

I see nowhere that Hodge writes of faith and repentance as anything other than the gift of the Holy Spirit.

When we begin calling faith a duty then we forget that the essence of faith is that it is an evangelical grace. It is not an abstract mental state that men are commanded to muster and they either find it within themselves or they do not. It comes with the Gospel itself by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we exercise faith but not as a duty but as gift. The reprobate knows nothing of faith. Yes, he hears the Gospel of Promise but it is the stench of death to him. Yes, he rejects the Son of God but it is not because he refuses to exercise faith for faith is not a muscle or some internal condition that can be exercised by natural man.

 

[timfost]

Rich and Matthew,

I plan on writing a longer response, hopefully in a few days. I am very busy over the next couple days. I would also like to formulate my thoughts and spend some time in prayer.

I think to one extent we are talking past each other. Thank you so far for the discussion.

Blessings,

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Rich and Matthew,

I plan on writing a longer response, hopefully in a few days. I am very busy over the next couple days. I would also like to formulate my thoughts and spend some time in prayer.

I think to one extent we are talking past each other.

Why not simply state your initial presuppositions and position thereto in plain terms. It seems the discussion is going back and forth circling some agenda you have in mind. It would aid the discussion to make things quite plain and proceed from there.

AMR

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I'll echo the sentiment that "Limited Atonement" is a clearly stated biblical truth, and that Christ in his "High Priestly Prayer" in John 17 makes it plain that God's Word is a means of grace, and a primary factor in our progressive sanctification. Also, those who would argue for any manner of non-limited atonement must deal with Jesus' words in John 10:

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Moreover, those who disagree with us on this point do, in fact, in their theology, set limits on Christ's work. We make the inference from scripture and God's decree; they begin with man and limit the blood to those who have faith.

 

[timfost]

Why not simply state your initial presuppositions and position thereto in plain terms. It seems the discussion is going back and forth circling some agenda you have in mind. It would aid the discussion to make things quite plain and proceed from there.

I agree. I feel like the conversation went way off course. I don't think I have any "agenda." I'm seeking to clarify the "universal application" to which statement came the controversy. I thought I was being confessional in the context of the Three Forms of Unity as I was responding to the OP.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree. I feel like the conversation went way off course. I don't think I have any "agenda." I'm seeking to clarify the "universal application" to which statement came the controversy. I thought I was being confessional in the context of the Three Forms of Unity as I was responding to the OP.

Tim,

I'm not trying to stir the pot here but it does seem like you see the 3FU and the Westminster Standards in fundamental tension on the issue. You even seem to imply that Hodge is saying that Augustinianism has a wider tradition on something. It seems that the presumption is that Hodge's Systematic theology is somehow more 3FU than Westministarian even though he was a Presbyterian(?!). I'm not accusing you of being deceitful but it does seem like you are making some assumptions regarding some sort of "streams of Calvinism" argument regarding the nature and extent of the atonement and then this touched on the issue of whether or not faith is a duty or a gift.

What I think may be happening is not merely some talking past each other but some assumptions you may have made about underlying tensions and that some of your assumptions are being tested as they relate to faith as a consequence of an earlier assumption. In other words, the systematic nature of theology is coming into play and you'll push in one direction (assuming you you understood the nuance of Hodge or Ursinus) and then you are challenged by the "bulge" that creates in another point of doctrine (e.g. the nature of faith) and you don't seem to recognize that the bulge was created that neither Hodge nor Ursinus created but your own assumptions about what they are trying to state.

So far I haven't really read anyting in either man that supports a 3FU vs Westminster on this issue so I don't believe you've established your case yet. Based on another thread where you speak of grace coming to every hearer (in some sense) based on a reading from Calvin I just sense a little bit of an "ad hoc" approach to this that I think you need to more fully work out because quotes are being used from various folks that are not really bearing out their entire theology. At least that's my spider sense on this.

I think you're a fine fellow but please give this a little consideration. I'm not saying I'm a better man than you because I have made and continue to make similar mistakes. I'm just asking you consider that this may be going on because "Calvin versus the Calvinist" arguments rarely work out the way people think they do.

 

[timfost]

Rich,

Thank you for your words of encouragement. I do take them seriously.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not trying to pit the Three Forms over the Westminster. I know that many of the Westminster divines would disagree with some of what I'm saying, but the WCF seems to be silent on this issue. As a member of a church that subscribes to the Three Forms, I was stating a doctrine that I believe is established in the Three Forms. Such doctrine cannot be pitted against the WCF when the WCF does not deal directly with the issue.

I hope that clarifies...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

Thank you for your words of encouragement. I do take them seriously.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not trying to pit the Three Forms over the Westminster. I know that many of the Westminster divines would disagree with some of what I'm saying, but the WCF seems to be silent on this issue. As a member of a church that subscribes to the Three Forms, I was stating a doctrine that I believe is established in the Three Forms. Such doctrine cannot be pitted against the WCF when the WCF does not deal directly with the issue.

I hope that clarifies...

It might. I'm still not sure I understand what those doctrines are...

I do realize that there are some intramural discussions around some issues that are not necessarily hashed out by the Reformed Confessions.

For instance, Hodge's take on the atonement providing for men not being wiped out in the Fall to set the stage for redemption is something I've heard before. I don't know what I think about it.

 

[timfost]

Since I’ve been asked to state some of my presuppositions, I would like to build a defense for what initially sparked controversy, namely seeing a “universal application” in the death of Christ. I will try to reference with scripture and confessions so that you can understand my premise. Hopefully by numbering my presuppositions relevant to this discussion, it should clarify where and why we disagree. If you think I am wrong in any of my presuppositions, I am eager to know why, since I am not above error.
______________________

Definitions:

Hyper-Calvinism: A denial that faith is every man’s duty since man has no ability in himself to produce it. Because man does not have this ability, to offer Christ to him would promote “creature power” and deny special redemption (Gospel Standards 33). This doctrine tends to look at all of soteriology through the lens of God’s secret decree.

Neonomianism: The doctrine that Christ through His obedience has abolished the moral law and therefore provides salvation to sinners on lesser terms, namely faith and repentance. Faith and repentance are seen as a “new law” thus making their obedience law keeping and worthy of salvation through their merits.

Presuppositional statements

1. Faith and repentance are mutually inclusive

Faith and repentance are often used in scripture synecdochically, as one references the positive trust (looking toward) our Savior while repentance specifically turning away from what proceeds from man. Scripture acknowledges this connection (Heb. 6:1). Since faith is the instrument that ingrafts us into Christ, separating it from repentance unto the remission of sins (Luke 3:3) would be nonsense.

2. Faith is a work/duty

God “commands all men to repent” (Acts 17:30) as well as promises “remission of sins” (Luke 3:3) when there is that repentance. Paul contrasts the law that kills to “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27). This is in no way a new law as the neonomians would suggest, but rather a law that establishes the righteousness that Christ merited through his active and passive obedience. In this way, the law of faith establishes the moral law (Rom. 3:31). Furthermore, Paul does not shy away from speaking about faith being a work when he describes the “work of faith” (1 Thess. 1:3) and the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5).

The WCF says that “it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly” (WCF 15.5). Such repentance is repentance unto life as is the title of chapter 15. Faith and repentance are called both a “requirement” (WCF 7.3) for salvation and a “condition” (WLC 32) of salvation. In the Westminster description of the law, both “condition” (WCF 7.2) and “require” (WLC 99) are similarly used, thus shedding light to Charles Hodge’s words which state that the response to the call of the gospel “of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates… [and] is in this respect analogous to the moral law.” This is not neonomian language as has been suggested, but simply Hodge is recognizing the similarities that the Westminster finds and acknowledges that man has this duty, namely to savingly repent.

3. Faith does not merit

Although faith is a duty and a work, the Scripture is clear that it does not merit. Because it does not merit, the reward is called grace (Rom. 4:4-5, 11:6, Heidelberg 21). This runs contrary to neonomianism, as this scheme sets up faith and repentance themselves as the obedience of the new law. Under this doctrine, faith actually merits salvation. In contrast, scripture teaches that it is not the work of faith itself that saves (else it would merit), but is the instrument which ingrafts us into Christ so that we receive His benefits, or His perfect obedience to the moral law (Heidelberg 20, Belgic 22).

4. The gospel

The “promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction…” (Dort second head, article 5). The gospel and the promise contained in the gospel do not go out indefinitely, but definitely, since the promises of God are always good. Dort clearly links this promise to the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice (see articles 3 and 6) so that rejection of the atonement is “wholly to be imputed to themselves.” Christ is definitely offered to sinners as a Mediator upon the condition of faith and repentance (WLC 32). (“Sinners” is not an indefinite but a definite category.)

5. Effectual calling

Effectual calling is not technically part of the gospel, since it is not in our power to offer. Effectual calling “is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, [so that] he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel” (WSC 31). Notice that it is effectual calling that enables us to embrace Christ offered in the gospel. It is the particular quickening that embraces something general. If we synthesize both effectual calling and the gospel, we reduce the gospel to an indefinite category and contradict the distinctions made in the Westminster standards and Dort.

Conclusions

1. During the course of this conversation, there has been resistance to seeing a definite promise of the gospel. It was said “the gospel requires and gives faith.” This is only half true. The gospel requires faith and promises life upon the condition of faith and repentance. I believe that to say that the gospel “gives life” is synthesizing the gospel with effectual calling. This seems to be the reason why Rev. Winzer is very careful to talk about definite and indefinite categories in relation to the gospel, simply because he has not properly distinguished between the definite promise of the gospel to all sinners and (definite) effectual calling.

2. It was said that “If your ‘universal application’ of the atonement depends on the condition of faith, then this faith is man's natural and moral working.” I believe that this is also false. All men are under obligation to exercise saving faith and is a condition set forth in the gospel (WCF 32). Since man cannot produce such faith by himself, Christ gives it to the elect when he effectually calls them. Because all men are under obligation to exercise saving faith does not mean that the promises were not good, nor does it promote “man’s natural and moral working.”

3. It was also said that “God commands all to repent and believe. That is simple enough. This is what the law demands.” If the universality of the command only proceeds from the law, then it cannot by necessity promise life, otherwise, we would be promoting salvation through the law. If it proceeds from the law, but cannot promise life, how is there the promise of remission of sins? Such duties, therefore, proceed out of the gospel as the confessions clearly state.

Final remarks

The atonement has reference to all because it is promised in the gospel. This is at no variance with particular redemption, because it was only ever designed to effectively save those who were elected, who in time are effectively called and receive Christ’s benefits. Part of the design that Christ had in giving His life was so that this good news could be offered with definite promises to particular people (Acts 16:31). Also see Calvin’s commentaries on John 3:16-18, 12:44-50.

A related presupposition to this is that part of the design of the atonement is so that Christ could be offered indiscriminately. This presupposes that at minimum the offer of the gospel is definite and legitimate, at most it is sincere, even from God.

“Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them [who reject God]? It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent” (Calvin’s commentary on John 12:47).