Yes; good point. It is called a propitiation through faith in His blood. For Goodwin, the covenant with Christ provided that the instrumentality of faith would be merited by the righteousness of Christ. So the atonement could not have an universal reference.
Why does Limited Atonement Matter?
- Thread starter Justified
- Start date
- Status
Yes; good point. It is called a propitiation through faith in His blood. For Goodwin, the covenant with Christ provided that the instrumentality of faith would be merited by the righteousness of Christ. So the atonement could not have an universal reference.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
It seems that the promise you are referring to is in accord with the covenant of redemption. I would heartily agree that this promise is only for the elect. Again, I'm not trying to say that there is a condition in the covenant of redemption or more broadly in the eternal decree of God. I'm simply trying to understand how unbelief relates to condemnation in regards to second causes. Dort does seem to suggest that atonement is rejected.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I see your point, but if the reprobate reject the atonement through the eternal decree of God, is there a discrepancy by stating that in His eternal decree he planned to show His kindness (common grace if you will) through the death of Christ, legitimately offer atonement to many, and add to the condemnation of those who reject it? In terms of His decree, it doesn't seem necessary to add a conditional element to say that it has reference to all. Thoughts?
If we were exact in our terms, "reprobate" would represent those who have been "passed by" with respect to salvation. It is best not to bring elect or reprobate into it as it only raises perplexing questions. Pink quotes Zanchius to this effect. The distinction would have no bearing on the call of the gospel as such. It constructs an artificial covering over the glory of the gospel and only serves to circumvent the historical process by which the eternal decree is brought to pass in time. We cover everything by simply saying the promise is "indefinite," that is, it comes to sinners as sinners.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I agree that we need to be careful when and when not to use the terms elect and reprobate. But since we are discussing the question for whom or in reference to whom in relation to the satisfaction of Christ, doesn't this by necessity come out of the decree of God? As I understand it, the terms elect and reprobate proceed from the decree. For this reason is seems relevant to speak of reprobates when we are discussing the design of Christ's death since they both have to do with His decree. Since God decreed that the reprobate would reject the gospel (His "passing by" was by no means simply inactive permission), can we not also say that they rejected the atonement through God's decree? If so, then the atonement would seem to reference even reprobates as it was rejected by them. If no reference to them, how could they reject it?
I thought we were discussing the gospel offer in relation to the duty to believe. In that context, Many are called but few are chosen. We should be careful to keep calling and election distinct so as not to cover the gospel call with artificial concerns.
This would charge God with the reprobates' rejection of the gospel. As noted, it is best to leave reprobation out of it.
If we have to bring in the order of the things decreed, how capricious would it be to reprobate men after providing atonement for them? The infralapsarian and supralapsarian schemes are protected from this inference because election and reprobation precede the atonement in the order of things decreed.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I'll think about it. As you know, I'm not a fan of the supra/infra positions, as I think speaking of a logical ordering of decrees is only for the human linear mindset. How God interacts with ordering outside of time is above my pay-grade. I like Bavinck's article on that subject.
Thanks for an irenic conversation! I've really enjoyed talking about these things.
Thanks for an irenic conversation! I've really enjoyed talking about these things.
How would the Gospel Standard article below fit into this discussion of how all are commanded to believe? They deny that man's duty is to "spiritually and savingly repent and believe".
DUTY FAITH AND DUTY REPENTANCE DENIED
XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty to spiritually and
savingly repent and believe1. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God2 of themselves*.
1 Gen. 6. 5; Gen. 8. 21; Matt. 15. 19; Jer. 17. 9; John 6. 44, 65.
2 John 12. 39, 40; Eph. 2. 8; Rom. 8. 7, 8; 1 Cor. 4. 7.
*The words supplied in italics are suggested by Mr. J. K. Popham in the Gospel Standard for December 1906, to clarify the intended meaning of the Article.
DUTY FAITH AND DUTY REPENTANCE DENIED
XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty to spiritually and
savingly repent and believe1. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God2 of themselves*.
1 Gen. 6. 5; Gen. 8. 21; Matt. 15. 19; Jer. 17. 9; John 6. 44, 65.
2 John 12. 39, 40; Eph. 2. 8; Rom. 8. 7, 8; 1 Cor. 4. 7.
*The words supplied in italics are suggested by Mr. J. K. Popham in the Gospel Standard for December 1906, to clarify the intended meaning of the Article.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, it fits really well. In regards to the command to repent and believe, we should always differentiate between responsibility and ability. The hyper-Calvinist reasons that since we have no ability, therefore we could not be responsible (and they say that to offer indiscriminately would be to promote "creature power"). The Arminian reasons that if we have the responsibility we must also by necessity have an ability. Both hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism are logical errors that stem from confusion about these terms, seeking to reconcile them by human reason against biblical revelation. The Gospel Standard article that you quoted demonstrates exactly that, which is why hyper-Calvinism has to bring election into evangelism to the extent that they do.
Having been a hyper-Calvinism myself, when talking to people about "the gospel," the question that was most often asked of me was "how do I know I'm elect?" rather than the biblical question "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). If our evangelism evokes the question "how do I know if I'm elect," chances are we have to one extent or another embodied the hyper-Calvinist error.
But that's precisely the point that Matthew is trying to get you to see. He kept bringing you back to the historical question of call (which man knows he is called by the Gospel to believe) and then you wanted to tie that question to election/reprobation. You say you want to avoid the error of the sinner thinking about election/reprobation and wondering: "Am I elect". Yet, when Matthew says it is not appropriate to bring the inscrutable decision of God into the question of the indefinite call you insist that it has to be part of it.
In other words, it seems you're approaching the theological problem created by a hyper-Calvinist's improper importing of God's decree into the Gospel call (how can I know if I can respond) by improperly importing God's decree but determining a way where all inscrutability is removed in order for the call to be real.
I hope what I wrote makes sense.
There is a theology of the Creator as He knows it in Himself and there is the theology of the creature where we can only know what is appropriate for creaturely capacity. As has been pointed out, we know from Revelation that Christ has made an atonement to atone for sinners who repent. It is sufficient to that task. It is enough for the creature to know that and reject the Gospel for him to be condemned for unbelief. That condemnation is of a sort of "law-breaking" in rejecting Christ. It does not matter whether the atonement itself is offered. He is still rejecting his Creator and his work in his rebellion and sin. It is one more example of his rebellion.
The exercise of saving faith, as demonstrated by the quotes, cannot be said to be something that is at the "threshold" of man's ability. To say it's a duty/work is to expressly contradict all of the activity of the Spirit that accompanies the Gospel proclamation. It's making the unbelief of the unbeliever and the belielf/saving faith of the redeemed to be "symmetrical". They are not symmetrical. They do not differ merely by some symmetrical act of the will where one says "yes" and the other "no". The unbeliever is condemned for his unbelief but it is not the case that the believer is praiseworthy for his faith for the faith he exercises is one of the Spirit reaching out through him to cling to Christ.
My mind is distracted right now and I'm having trouble articulating this so I apologize. I do think that if you think through some of the issues you might find it helpful to "reset" and ask yourself if you're trying to avoid being a hyper-Calvinist but approaching the problem from the same manner of thinking too much about election/reprobation when it gets down to the historical question of what a sinner, as a creature, is responsible for.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Rich,
I appreciate your comments, but I actually felt like Matthew and I had a good discussion last night. Our discussion extended beyond the call of the gospel as we discussed the eternal decree of God. I'm concerned that you don't seem to think that saving faith is every man's duty. Do you agree with the Pink and Fuller quotes? You seem to distinguish simply faith from saving faith. You've distinguished faith from believe. Saving faith is the duty of all sinners individually, regardless of election or reprobation. "Sinners" is inclusive of both elect and reprobate. If you want to say that the gospel promises go out indefinitely, that's fine, but we cannot say the same that the duty of all men to all of the commands of God are indefinite, as all decendants of Adam are obligated to God's commands, including "repent and believe the gospel."
I've repeatedly said that man has no ability to exercise saving faith. I mean that. I think you have confused ability and responsibility. I think on this issue, Matthew and I are in agreement.
I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, but if I'm interpreting your words correctly, I think you are hung-up on the above distinction.
I appreciate your comments, but I actually felt like Matthew and I had a good discussion last night. Our discussion extended beyond the call of the gospel as we discussed the eternal decree of God. I'm concerned that you don't seem to think that saving faith is every man's duty. Do you agree with the Pink and Fuller quotes? You seem to distinguish simply faith from saving faith. You've distinguished faith from believe. Saving faith is the duty of all sinners individually, regardless of election or reprobation. "Sinners" is inclusive of both elect and reprobate. If you want to say that the gospel promises go out indefinitely, that's fine, but we cannot say the same that the duty of all men to all of the commands of God are indefinite, as all decendants of Adam are obligated to God's commands, including "repent and believe the gospel."
I've repeatedly said that man has no ability to exercise saving faith. I mean that. I think you have confused ability and responsibility. I think on this issue, Matthew and I are in agreement.
I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying, but if I'm interpreting your words correctly, I think you are hung-up on the above distinction.
People are commanded to repent (Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30). People are commanded to believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31). They have the responsibility to repent and to believe in Jesus. Having this responsibility does not conflict with the biblical teaching that unbelievers are spiritually dead.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Amen!
I don't think the discussion was completed with Matthew. I think he was trying to demonstrate a distinction between a command to all that is attended with a Promise to some. I agree that man is commanded to believe and trust in Christ (something that intellectually sounds just like saving faith) but I also think that saving faith itself (which is an evangelical grace) does not attend the Gospel as duty/work but arises out of Promise as the Gospel creates that faith in the believer. I don't know how to state it better.
Rich, would you then agree with the Gospel Standard article in post 98?
I think we will end up like a dog chasing its tail if we bring the decree into the call. Many are called but few are chosen. We are bound to keep them distinct. Every attempt to treat them as one thing ends up universalising the decree or particularising the call.
The Gospel Standard statement brings the decree into the call. It is hyper-Calvinist because it denies the duty of faith. Faith is a moral duty. It is commanded by the law. It presupposes man once had the ability to obey it and is not able to obey it now because of his fall; therefore it is man's own fault that he does not believe.
"Saving faith" is decreed by God to the elect. It is not a condition of salvation, but God has made faith a part of the order of salvation, and it is therefore necessary. The gospel teaches it, but the command and authority to believe comes from the claims of the moral law on man as a creature made in the image of God.
In sum, to particularise "saving faith" in the gospel call is hyper-Calvinist because it takes something which is offered indefnitely to all and makes it particular to a few.
The Gospel Standard statement brings the decree into the call. It is hyper-Calvinist because it denies the duty of faith. Faith is a moral duty. It is commanded by the law. It presupposes man once had the ability to obey it and is not able to obey it now because of his fall; therefore it is man's own fault that he does not believe.
"Saving faith" is decreed by God to the elect. It is not a condition of salvation, but God has made faith a part of the order of salvation, and it is therefore necessary. The gospel teaches it, but the command and authority to believe comes from the claims of the moral law on man as a creature made in the image of God.
In sum, to particularise "saving faith" in the gospel call is hyper-Calvinist because it takes something which is offered indefnitely to all and makes it particular to a few.
I think I understand what you're saying. I may be drawing too fine a distinction in focusing on this point. I certainly am not denying that men are commanded to believe in the gospel nor that there is a duty for men to believe God (and that this is found in the Law itself). The rejection of the external call of the Gospel is condemned as unbelief because man is bound to obey everything that God commands. That is, the Word says that all who place their trust in Christ will be saved. When a man rejects that he is condemned by the law (which requires belief in what God reveals). Am I making an improper distinction when I say he is condemned for unbelief under the CoW but not for the duty to have saving faith which the Gospel produces?
The reason I ask is because I agree that man is required to have faith in God in the CoW and his inability to believe God is found in himself because he sinned in Adam. His condition is self-inflicted. The CoG, however, recognizes that man is no longer capable of believing God and Christ our Mediator merits righteousness for us and procures the saving faith by which we may believe in His saving work. Thus, saving faith is decreed for the elect to believe on Christ and not to have belief according to the Law (because man has already failed the conditions of the CoW).
So, am I wrong to conclude that man is duty bound to believe God under the CoW but that saving faith is an evangelical grace that is given to fulfill the condition of the CoG and is not a duty of the same sort as man has under the CoW?
Does that make sense?
That is not wrong at all. It is the blessed gospel in which we find every encouragement to take to heart and lay hold of the precious promises of God. The only thing I would say is that the term "evangelical grace" indicates that faith itself is given as an empty hand to freely receive Christ. As such it is not a "duty" or a "condition." It is merely the blessed instrument of appropriating the free gift.
When the Larger Catechism speaks of the covenant of grace "requiring" faith as a "condition," it is merely the condition of interest (or personal claim) in the Saviour. Once the Saviour Himself is ours, His salvation is ours also. So faith is in no sense a condition of salvation.
Apologies for suddenly entering myself into this discussion, but it has been helpful for me!
Thanks for this. The Gospel Standards then make an unwarranted distinction when it comes to what men are called to do in obeying the gospel (Acts. 17.30, 2 Thess 1.8) by bringing the decree into it?
Am I right in understanding that the atonement is in reference to the elect (definite), and that the gospel offer goes all out to all on the grounds of the true promise of God that all who believe will be saved (indefinite)?
Thanks for this. The Gospel Standards then make an unwarranted distinction when it comes to what men are called to do in obeying the gospel (Acts. 17.30, 2 Thess 1.8) by bringing the decree into it?
Am I right in understanding that the atonement is in reference to the elect (definite), and that the gospel offer goes all out to all on the grounds of the true promise of God that all who believe will be saved (indefinite)?
Thanks. This discussion has been sharpened my thinking in trying to articulate "natural" faith and saving faith. It's interesting how much we miss that's on the surface of the Confessions (or even in theological writings) but we have to do a little digging into the overall background of their writing to understand how words are being used differently. The natural question, which Tim has been asking, is "How can it be a duty to believe (or exercise faith if you will) in one sense but not be a duty for man to have "saving faith" in another.
I was struggling to articulate this through the course of this thread because "saving faith" is not describing a "quality" of faith per se but a faith that arises out of evangelical grace. I think the typical notitia, assensus, and fidcuia categories are useful in determining whether or not faith is what it is required to be but it neglects the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace distinction that is in faith itself. From A Puritan Theology:
I think I had always thought that "saving faith" simply meant a type of faith in the past but when we say that Adam had faith in God (believed Him) in his state of innocence, it is not proper to say he possess "saving faith" because Adam doesn't need to be saved. Adam's faith is a natural trust - something required of the creature. Man, still being in that CoW, is required to have natural faith in the Creator and is not excused from that natural faith simply because of his want of original righteousness. Thus, the call of the Gospel presents what God has said about Christ and there is, in fact, a duty of belief but unbelief is condemned not for lack of "saving faith" but "natural faith".
Saving faith belongs to the "realm" of the Covenant of Grace. A man is not even in that realm unless he has been brought to that realm by the Spirit. It arises out of the Spirit's work.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
The above brought to mind the first three chapters of Romans. This has been a deep and very profitable discussion.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I'm still not completely happy with the conclusions of this discussion. Let me provide an excerpt from Berkhof on external calling:
I think we need to be careful in articulating conditions in God's decree and conditions according to second causes. When we consider second causes, we by necessity create conditions. This is biblical. (E.g. Gen. 4:6-7, John 3:18, 2 Thes. 2:10, etc.)
To eliminate conditions is to try to reconcile human responsibility and God's sovereignty. The explanation given for WLC 32 is a very unnatural reading. Since our subject is primarily centered on external calling, we need to be careful to uphold conditions under second causes. I absolutely agree, however, that conditions have no part in God's decree unless we are saying that He conditions on Himself. Certainly His decrees are not changed or conditioned based on acts outside of his decree.
What concerns me about the distinctions that have been made is that when we seek to reconcile human responsibility with God's sovereignty, we begin to go farther than what the scripture allows. This is the fundamental and foundational error of hyper-Calvinism.
I don't think anybody here is a hyper-Calvinist, but I simply want to state what line of reasoning concerns me, especially considering my past and hyper-Calvinism.
I think we need to be careful in articulating conditions in God's decree and conditions according to second causes. When we consider second causes, we by necessity create conditions. This is biblical. (E.g. Gen. 4:6-7, John 3:18, 2 Thes. 2:10, etc.)
To eliminate conditions is to try to reconcile human responsibility and God's sovereignty. The explanation given for WLC 32 is a very unnatural reading. Since our subject is primarily centered on external calling, we need to be careful to uphold conditions under second causes. I absolutely agree, however, that conditions have no part in God's decree unless we are saying that He conditions on Himself. Certainly His decrees are not changed or conditioned based on acts outside of his decree.
What concerns me about the distinctions that have been made is that when we seek to reconcile human responsibility with God's sovereignty, we begin to go farther than what the scripture allows. This is the fundamental and foundational error of hyper-Calvinism.
I don't think anybody here is a hyper-Calvinist, but I simply want to state what line of reasoning concerns me, especially considering my past and hyper-Calvinism.
Faith is the means or instrument that justification is received. Eternal life is received by placing our faith in Christ for our salvation. Moreover, whether or not someone will place their faith is ultimately dependent upon God. God causes people to place their faith in Christ and faith is the means by which we receive justification. Just because God causes people to place their faith in Christ does not mean that people do not have the responsibility to believe in Jesus. All people are commanded to believe in Jesus. All people have the responsibility to believe in Jesus. Moreover, God draws His people to Himself and causes them to believe in Jesus.
I'm not sure I understand your concern. Where have conditions been removed in trying to distinguish saving faith from belief and trust that all creatures are required of under the CoW?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
This is what I'm referring to:
Even though it is rightly said that faith is the empty hand that receives Christ and his righteousness, it is still nevertheless a condition of salvation. It seems like the clear thrust and meaning of catechism question and answer 32 is not that faith is required of the law is of any interest to sinners, but rather is a condition of salvation that should be of interest to sinners.
Again, I'm not suggesting that God's decrees are conditional (and therefore mutable), but since we are not talking about decrees but second causes in receiving that which is freely offered, I think talking about conditions is proper and right. This is why I quoted Berkhof.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Here are some quotes that I think are helpful:
Hodge
"This general call of the gospel is not inconsistent with the doctrine of predestination. For predestination concerns only the purpose of God to render effectual in particular cases, a call addressed to all. A general amnesty on certain conditions may be offered by a sovereign to rebellious subjects, although he knows that through pride or malice many will refuse to accept it; and even although, for wise reasons, he should determine not to constrain their assent, supposing that such influence over their minds were within his power. It is evident from the nature of the call that it has nothing to do with the secret purpose of God to grant his effectual grace to some and not to others. All the call contains is true. The plan of salvation is designed for men. It is adapted to the condition of all. It makes abundant provision for the salvation of all. The promise of acceptance on the condition of faith is made to all."
"And an offering is no sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered."
"The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification.
Rutherford
"The promises to the Elect as intended of God, reveal that both the Lord minds to give the blessing promised, and the condition that is grace to perform the condition, and so they are promises Evangelick both in the matter, and in the intention of the Lord; But as proponed to the reprobate, who are alwayes from their birth to their death under a Covenant of Works, really as touching the LORDS holy Decree, they are materially Evangelick promises, but formally and in the Lords intention legall, as every dispensation to them is legall, forasmuch as the Lord hath decreed to deny the grace, by which they may or can fulfill the condition of the promise, which is proper to the Law, as it is peculiar to the Gospel, that the Lord both gives the mercy promised and also the grace to fulfill the condition of the promise."
Shedd
"The following then, are some of the marks of distinction between common and special grace: (a) In common grace God demands faith in Christ, but does not give it; in special grace God both demands and gives faith, for “faith is the gift of God.”Eph. 2: 8. When God says to a sinner: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,”he makes no promise or pledge to originate faith in him. The sinner, in this case, must originate his own faith, and any sinner that originates it will find that God will be true to his word, (b) In common grace man must of himself fulfil the condition of salvation, namely, believe and repent; in special grace God persuades and enables him to fulfil it. (c) In common grace the call to believe and repent is invariably ineffectual, because man is averse to faith and repentance and in bondage to sin; in special grace the call is invariably effectual, because his aversion and bondage are changed into willingness and true freedom by the operation of the Holy Spirit."
Hodge
"This general call of the gospel is not inconsistent with the doctrine of predestination. For predestination concerns only the purpose of God to render effectual in particular cases, a call addressed to all. A general amnesty on certain conditions may be offered by a sovereign to rebellious subjects, although he knows that through pride or malice many will refuse to accept it; and even although, for wise reasons, he should determine not to constrain their assent, supposing that such influence over their minds were within his power. It is evident from the nature of the call that it has nothing to do with the secret purpose of God to grant his effectual grace to some and not to others. All the call contains is true. The plan of salvation is designed for men. It is adapted to the condition of all. It makes abundant provision for the salvation of all. The promise of acceptance on the condition of faith is made to all."
"And an offering is no sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered."
"The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification.
Rutherford
"The promises to the Elect as intended of God, reveal that both the Lord minds to give the blessing promised, and the condition that is grace to perform the condition, and so they are promises Evangelick both in the matter, and in the intention of the Lord; But as proponed to the reprobate, who are alwayes from their birth to their death under a Covenant of Works, really as touching the LORDS holy Decree, they are materially Evangelick promises, but formally and in the Lords intention legall, as every dispensation to them is legall, forasmuch as the Lord hath decreed to deny the grace, by which they may or can fulfill the condition of the promise, which is proper to the Law, as it is peculiar to the Gospel, that the Lord both gives the mercy promised and also the grace to fulfill the condition of the promise."
Shedd
"The following then, are some of the marks of distinction between common and special grace: (a) In common grace God demands faith in Christ, but does not give it; in special grace God both demands and gives faith, for “faith is the gift of God.”Eph. 2: 8. When God says to a sinner: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,”he makes no promise or pledge to originate faith in him. The sinner, in this case, must originate his own faith, and any sinner that originates it will find that God will be true to his word, (b) In common grace man must of himself fulfil the condition of salvation, namely, believe and repent; in special grace God persuades and enables him to fulfil it. (c) In common grace the call to believe and repent is invariably ineffectual, because man is averse to faith and repentance and in bondage to sin; in special grace the call is invariably effectual, because his aversion and bondage are changed into willingness and true freedom by the operation of the Holy Spirit."
Tim,
I think we may be dealing with another nuance. I think Matthew is using condition in two different ways. He's clearly saying that saving faith is a condition but says it's a condition of interest (being identified as being with Christ) but then says that faith is not a condition so I find the sentence confusing myself but am trying to get a sense of the different ways he might be using the word condition.
I think we may be dealing with another nuance. I think Matthew is using condition in two different ways. He's clearly saying that saving faith is a condition but says it's a condition of interest (being identified as being with Christ) but then says that faith is not a condition so I find the sentence confusing myself but am trying to get a sense of the different ways he might be using the word condition.
- Status
