I just sent an email to an Arminian (John), and I am seeking to explain the historical and theological differences among Calvinists. Some of the context from the other emails is missing, so the reader will just have to deal with what is said here.
I mention the differences between Calvinists and Arminians as well, but the discussion largely centers around the inhouse debates among Calvinists. John owns the copyright to Norman F. Douty's book, Did Christ Die Only For the Elect? Douty is also a dualist with respect to the design of Christ's death, so I am seeking to explain and clarify his (as well as mine) bifocal theology.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John,
Below are some excerpts from your emails that I will respond to. Your words are in yellow:
"When I used the term "four pointer" (Four-point Calvinist), I was using it according to the usual definition. That is the position that rejects what you call the "Owenist" position (which also includes other people that advocated that stance). I would like to point out that all Christians, except those who accept the heresy of universalism, limit the atonement in some sense. High Calvinists limited it in terms of its extent, others in terms of its application."
I understand. Your terminology is fair to popular usage. I am attempting to point out to people that those called 4 pointers really don’t reject limited atonement, but rather a strictly limited atonement associated with Owen. Owen's strict view is very popular today for some reason. Almost every book arguing for Calvinism today that addresses the limited atonement question regurgitates Owen’s arguments. To label those Calvinists who reject Owenism as "4 point Calvinists" presupposes one version of limited atonement. It gives ground where I am unwilling to give ground. It caters to the Owenic propaganda and misrepresentations, even if that is not the intention of the one using the descriptions.
I agree that all genuine Christians limit the atonement in some sense. I am not sure what you mean by "High Calvinists limited it in terms of its extent, others in terms of its application." What confuses me is the way you are using "extent." Perhaps you meant to say "intent." What concerns the historic Calvinist is the decretive will of God in the matter. This decree is absolutely fundamental to the Calvinistic system. Since Calvinists and Arminians differ over the nature of election, this issue was at stake in the debates over the design of Christ’s death. What was God’s purpose, will, design, or intent in Christ’s death? This question gets at the heart of the differences between both theological systems. The Arminians think of God as EQUALLY willing everyone’s salvation. The High and Hyper-Calvinists think of God as only willing the salvation of the elect. The Dualists say that God wants everyone to be saved, but especially the elect (see 1 Tim. 4:10). All the Calvinists argue that only the "unconditionally" elected believe. By "unconditional" is meant "non-meritorious," but not that faith can't be spoken of as a kind of instrumental condition.
The design or intent is what gets at the heart of the debate, but not the application. The terms of the application come into play in the discussion, but the fundamental issue is divine intent. The "extent" term gets at the application. The efficacy is only extended as far as the elect because only the elect fulfill the condition or terms for the application (by the enabling grace of God).
"The position that Christ's atonement is "sufficient for humanity and efficient for the elect" is one that all can accept (again, except universalists)."
The Lombardian formula "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" has been variously understood. Douty rightly points out that not everyone has understood this formula the same way. Owen was aware of the changes and modifications he was making, unlike today’s Owenists. Here’s something I typed on a discussion board that attempts to get at the distinctions:
Here's a start at making some of the distinctions in the senses of "Sufficient for All" among "Calvinists."
1) Limited Sufficiency: The sins of the elect alone were imputed to Christ. Limited imputation follows from limited legal representation due to the death being filtered through the grid of the covenant of redemption. The sufferings of Christ were a part of the necessary satisfaction, and thus his sufferings were measured by the justice of the imputation (Equivalentism). Christ suffered so much for so many sins. His death is therefore only sufficient for the elect. There is no necessary connection between the offer of the gospel and the death that Christ died. Some who hold this view deny free offers. Usually this view is associated with Hyper-Calvinism, but a few High Calvinists hold to this position. Christ death is only sufficient for the elect by the ordination of God.
2) Actual and Hypothetical Sufficiency: The sins of the elect alone were imputed to Christ. Limited imputation follows from limited legal representation due to the death being filtered through the grid of the covenant of redemption. The nature of Christ’s person determines the worth of his satisfaction, therefore it is of infinite value. This infinite value is necessary because the sins of the elect are infinitely guilty, and not because of the guilt of the world being imputed to him. The actual sufficiency (what is really the case in this world) in Christ corresponds to the just punishment due the elect alone. The hypothetical aspect pertains to the non-elect. If it was hypothetically the case that God elected more people, then there would be no difference in what Christ did. However, the actual sufficiency is fenced in by God’s decree concerning the elect. The actual sufficiency bears no relationship to the sins of the non-elect. There is no necessary connection between the offer of the gospel and the death that Christ died. This view is mostly associated with High Calvinism, but some Hyper-Calvinists hold to it. Christ's death is actually sufficient for the elect by the ordination of God, and hypothetically sufficient for the non-elect.
Hans Boersma, in his book A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy says, "Baxter is well aware of the weakness in Owen’s argument and therefore make it the occasion of a special argument for universal redemption. He chides "our new Divines," who "have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying that [Christ died for all Men sufficienter] They will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus] But only that [It is sufficient to have been a price for all.]" (p. 217) One can see the hypothetical sufficiency idea in the "sufficient to have been" expression. Owen was using possible worlds or modal logic when it came to the sufficient for all concept. It wasn’t really sufficient for all in this actual world, but it could have been in another logically possible world, had God so intended.
3) Actual Sufficiency for All, and Unequal Intent: The guilt of the sins of all mankind were imputed to Christ when he died. The imputation corresponds to the requirements of the law with respect to every person. Christ, in his death, removes the legal barriers that stand in the way for God’s forgiving any person. God intended this death to be a universal provision for all mankind in order that they may be saved, but not that he equally wants everyone to be saved. The command to indescriminately offer the gospel to everyone through the gospel is based on the real availability of this sufficient satisfaction to every man. Christ really suffered and died the death that was due every man in his infinite person. This view is associated with Moderate or Low Calvinism. Christ's death is actually sufficient for every person, whether elect or non-elect, by the ordination of God.
A non-Calvinist/Arminian view may look something like this:
4) Actually Sufficiency for All, and Equal Intent: The guilt of the sins of all mankind were imputed to Christ when he died, because there is no special/unconditional decree in the Calvinist sense. The imputation corresponds to the requirements of the law with respect to every person. Christ, in his death, removes the legal barriers that stand in the way for God’s forgiving any person. God intended this death to be a universal provision for all mankind in order that they may be saved, because he equally wants everyone to be saved. The command to indescriminately offer the gospel to everyone through the gospel is based on the real availability of this sufficient satisfaction to every man. Christ really suffered and died the death that was due every man in his infinite person. This view is associated with Arminianism. Christ's death is actually sufficient for every person, whether elect or non-elect, by the ordination of God.
I hope you can see the differences between position #2 and position #3. Notice what the following two men say:
Calamy says,
"I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense; but that that I hold is in the sense of our divines [e.g. Bishop Davenant] in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all. . . that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving Christ, and Christ in giving himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe. . ."
Quoted in A. F. Mitchell and J. Struthers (eds.), Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (London, 1874), 152.)
Here’s the Davenant quote again:
"No divine of the Reformed Church, of sound judgment, will deny a general intention or appointment concerning the salvation of all men individually by the death of Christ, on the condition if they believe. For the intention or appointment of God is general, and is plainly revealed in Holy Scripture, although the absolute and not to be frustrated intention of God concerning the gift of faith and eternal life to some persons, is special, and limited to the elect alone. So I have maintained and do maintain." - Davenant's Opinion on the Gallican Controversy.
The two men above are connecting divine intentionality to the general or universal sufficiency. This is what the Owenists move away from in the case of the non-elect. It becomes a mere hypothetical sufficiency for the non-elect. Douty insists on an "ordained sufficiency" as opposed to a "bare sufficiency" for this very reason (see page 39 in Douty). The High and Hyper-Calvinists tend to minimize or do away with God’s revealed/preceptive will. This is why I accuse them of decretalizing passages (they press passages to fit the secret/decretive will of God). This comes through in the debates surrounding the divine design or intent of Christ’s death.
"Anyway, I would argue that four-pointers do exist if we define that term strictly. They don't accept the High Calvinist positions that: a) God does not love the nonelect, b) that while the atonement had infinite value, it was ONLY for the elect (sovereignly chosen from eternity past); c) that the elect were actually saved at the cross, and d) that faith for the elect was purchased at the cross as well. (Despite item D, High Calvinists basically make saving faith a superfluous after thought. Four-pointers seem to take it more seriously.)"
Four pointers are only called that because they reject Owenism. They don’t really reject limited atonement. The success of the Owenic propaganda among Calvinists can be seen in how the labels and categories are used. If one rejects Owenism, then they are seen as rejecting limited atonement. This presupposes only one version of limited atonement. That’s an error. Arminians may use the 4 point description for their own reasons. Perhaps it’s the case that they think "4 point" Calvinists agree with them on the issue of the design of the atonement. That’s also not true. The issues and categories are more complicated than is expressed in most of the popular literature. Both the Owenists and Arminians have an interest in using the description "4 point Calvinist." The Owenist likes people to presuppose that those who reject their version of the L don’t really hold to limited atonement at all. The Arminians like the expression "4 point Calvinist" because it seems to presuppose that such a person would be in agreement with the Arminians on the L. Neither one of those presuppositions is correct. There are significant category differences in the theological frameworks. Read the differences again between positions #3 and #4 in the sufficiency section above to get a basic idea.
High Calvinists do not teach that God does not love the non-elect. It is only the Hyper-Calvinists who teach that. Even Owen and Turretin accepted that God loves the non-elect in some sense, but not equal to his special love for the elect. That's a crucial difference. Also, the High Calvinists want to insist on the necessity of faith to be saved as well, but they do slip into saying that the elect were saved when Christ died in their method of argumentation. As Douty says, they tend to confuse what is provisional with what is possessed.
High Calvinists do teach that faith was literally purchased in the death of Christ. This is where they move into the direction of arguing that there is an intrinsic limitation in the death itself, and not merely in the intent or design. Commercialism or pecuniary debt payment categories are introduced into their argument at this point.
Even though the lines may get blurred at times, we need to be careful to distinguish between High and Hyper-Calvinism. There is a significant difference between the two, even though it is my contention that the High Calvinists open the door to Hyperism without going through that door themselves.
"Can you explain to me how the Dortians would be considered 4-pointers? I don't see anything in their final report that supports that, but maybe I missed something."
The representatives at Dort had significant differences. There were some who took the strictly limited view, and those who took a much broader, dualistic perspective on the design of Christ’s death. The canons of the Synod of Dort do not exclude either the strict view or the broad view. They only excluded an Arminian view. Dort is insufficient in it’s conclusions to decide which version of limited atonement AMONG THE CALVINISTS is correct, but it’s clear that they rejected Arminianism as non-Reformed and anti-biblical.
I have not said that the Dortians would be considered 4 pointers, although the strict advocates may like to consider some there as "4 pointers." Some Arminians may like to do that as well for the above stated reasons. It becomes difficult to explain to non-Calvinists what the inhouse debates are among Calvinists. If I try to describe an inhouse debate among Calvinists to one who does not share their theological categories, there is a very high potential for confusion because the ideas are filtered through a different paradigm. It’s possible for them to understand, but it just gets difficult for any of us to recognize our grids and filters and set them aside for a moment to objectively consider a theological area that is heavily disputed.
"I am fascinated by the E document you have on your site--an extended critique of Owen's "Death of Death." Incredibly the author is from a Reformed seminary. What is his ultimate disagreement? Is he a "dualist"? Do you have any contact info for Neil Chambers? I would really like to encourage him to turn his thesis into a book."
I have printed out my copy of Chambers thesis, but I have not read it through yet. I have read spots and read extensive quotations, but I haven’t read it entirely yet. I will be doing so as soon as I finish A. C. Clifford’s Atonement and Justification book. A fellow dualist recommended Chambers to me, so I am inclined to think that Chambers is also a dualist but I am not sure. His work is largely exegetical in nature. Some of us on the Calvin and Calvinism Yahoo discussion board are dealing with the systematic and philosophical issues involved in the debates in addition to the exegetical. None of us know Neil Chambers, but one has tried to figure out how to contact him with no success yet. I think we would also like to see Chambers material put in book form. The Dualists have a particular interest in this because of the theological and exegetical fallacies we perceive in the Owenic paradigm.
"Also, I notice that on one of your sites, you mentioned a radio interview with Pastor Gene Cook. Well I know of Gene. Believe it or not, I was involved in a formal Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate with him at a church in San Diego in May 1998. It was a great experience for both of us. I would call it about "even" as far as who did better or worse. Gene has gone on to debate other people on other issues."
I have been speaking with Gene Cook for a few years now. I will have to inquire about your debate with him. I am glad that you came away from it with a sense of edification even while there were still significant disagreements.
Gene heard me refuting Hyper-Calvinists in a voice/chat program called Paltalk. He had Hyper-Calvinistic inclinations in the past, so he wanted to discuss the issues on his radio show. The recording on my blog is from one of the shows we did. When we recorded it, I still held to a strict view on the atonement. I have had significant changes since that time on the issue of the design of Christ’s death. Gene has remained a High (not to be confused with Hyper) Calvininst on that point. We have been discussing that issue some at his website (http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/index.php) I have been debating and scrapping with High and Hyper-Calvinists on that board. Many of them are fence sitters who go back and forth between High and Hyperism. They’re wobbling and very imbalanced. Some are unfortunately leaning on John Gill's (Gill was hyper) interpretation of passages.
I altered my position after a thorough meditation on the implications of the well-meant offer of the gospel and John 3:16. There’s no way to honestly get around John 3:16 in my opinion. The evidence against my strict view was increasing, and my strictly limited system was under a great deal of stress. A significant paradigm shift was in order. A friend helped me to see the historic Calvinistic position in a new light. I became aware of a dualistic view going back to some of the early church fathers. It resolves many of the difficulties from my perspective. I find it very biblically and rationally satisfying. There is no need to decretalize or explain away passages like 1 John 2:2 or 2 Peter 2:1. Such passages are coherent and compatible with my theological view today. I also find myself in agreement with things Calvin had to say. In that sense, I am more like Calvin than the "Calvinists" today. Being in agreement with Calvin does not make one right (he’s not the standard of truth), but it just points to a degree of historical inaccuracy among the Higher Calvinists. They’re not taking into consideration Calvin’s significant category differences. He was working with a different paradigm than the Owenists are. Some Calvinists acknowledge this, but most do not. It’s very unfortunate. As you know, we are not only called to be honest with scripture, but with theological positions in history. It is my goal to be honest and competent in both areas, whether biblical or historical theology.
Grace to you,
Tony
"That reprobate and deplorably wicked men do not receive it, is not through any defect in the grace of God, nor is it just, that, on account of of the children of perdition, it should lose the glory and title of universal redemption, since it is prepared for all, and all are called to it." Wolfgang Musculus Common Places, p. 151.
No comments:
Post a Comment