(3). God’s Design and Result Exactly Co Extensive.R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 528–29.
There is no safer clue for the student through this perplexed subject, than, to take this proposition; which, to every Calvinist, is nearly as indisputable as a truism; Christ’s design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate, and all that it effectuates, in its subsequent proclamation. This is but saying that Christ’s purpose is unchangeable and omnipotent. Now, what does it actually effectuate? "We know only in part," but so much is certain.
(a.) The purchase of the full and assured redemption of all the elect, or of all believers.
(b.) A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam’s race who does not die at his birth (For these we believe it has purchased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substantial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are postponement of death and perdition, secular well being, and the bounties of life.
(c.) A manifestation of God’s mercy to many of the non elect, to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sincere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction; because it is only the recipients contumacy which disappoints it.
(d.) A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God’s righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.
(e.) A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God’s compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures.
Had there been no mediation of Christ, we have not a particle of reason to suppose that the doom of our sinning race would have been delayed one hour longer than that of the fallen angels. Hence, it follows, that it is Christ who procures for non elect sinners all that they temporarily enjoy, which is more than their personal deserts, including the sincere offer of mercy. In view of this fact, the scorn which Dr. William Cunningham heaps on the distinction of a special, and general design in Christ’s satisfaction, is thoroughly shortsighted. All wise beings (unless God be the exception), at times frame their plans so as to secure a combination of results from the same means. This is the very way they display their ability and wisdom. Why should God be supposed incapable of this wise and fruitful acting? I repeat, the design of Christ’s sacrifice must have been to effectuate just what it does effectuate. And we see, that, along with the actual redemption of the elect, it works out several other subordinate ends. There is then a sense, in which Christ "died for" all those ends, and for the persons affected by them.
I would like to point out the significance of several things that Dabney says above. He clearly wants to underline the fact that everything that the Godhead "designed" or "purposed" (he's referencing the decretal will by these terms) by the cross eventually has its result. The Calvinists who read the quote will quickly eyeball those sections. However, one needs to also realize the areas where he points out other revealed or general aspects to Christ's work on the cross.
First, he relates common grace to Christ's sacrifice. He says "the temporal benefits," "a reprieve of doom" or "postponement of death and perdition," "secular well-being," "the bounties of life," "a manifestation of God's mercies" such as the "sincere offers of salvation," and "a disclosure of the infinite tenderness" or "compassion of God" are related to the "general design" of Christ's death. These "general designs" are part of what Christ "died for." In other words, there must be a revealed will aspect to Christ's death, otherwise the benefits of common grace and the sincere offers of mercy make no sense.
Secondly, for the above reasons, the non-elect who spurn the sincere offers of mercy have an "enhanced condemnation" because of it. In other words, divine wrath is aggravated because they spurned the well-meant goodness involved in the "general design" of what Christ "died for." However, this does not nullify what God designed by his display of general tenderness, because the rejection of it by the non-elect ultimately redounds to the glory of God's compassion, truth, justice and purity "to all rational creatures."
Thirdly, he takes an occasion to rebuke Dr. William Cunningham for the "scorn" (derisive or contemptuous action or speech, to mock, to jeer, to ridicule or deride, to scoff at, to look down on with disdain, etc.) with which he shows toward the distinction between a "special and general design in Christ's satisfaction." Dabney even calls him "thoroughly shortsighted" because of that. Dr. Cunningham held to a strictly limited atonement view, and even separated the well-meant gospel offer from Christ's sufficiency. One may check his Historical Theology [(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 2:343–370] to see that fact. So, the excellent Reformed theologian R. L. Dabney took him to task in his own Systematic Theology. Too bad some of American Calvinism has forgotten these important issues. Some of them heap the same "scorn" on the "general designs" of Christ's death as Cunningham did. What a shame. We may also call them "thoroughly shortsighted." If they were consistent, they would not only reject well-meant gospel offers, but also common grace, since they are both ultimately rooted in the general accomplishment or revealed will aspect of Christ's death, at least according to Dabney.
16 comments:
So what? Dabney was wrong. He also refuted Amyraut and others holding to Amyraldiansim in his Systematic Theology....
"3D. Amyraut’s.
The view of the Hypothetical Universalists was professedly Calvinistic, and was doubtless, and is, sincerely held in substance by many honest and intelligent Calvinists, (e. g., Richard Baxter, R. Hall, Bellamy) although Turrettin and Dr. Hodge condemn it as little better than Arminianism in disguise. It presents the divine plan in redemption thus. God decreed from eternity, to create the human race, to permit the fall; then in His infinite compassion, to send Christ to atone for every human being’s sins, (conditioned on his believing); but also foreseeing that all, in consequence of total depravity and the bondage of their will, would inevitably reject this mercy if left to themselves, He selected out of the whole a definite number of elect, to whom He also gave, in His sovereign love, grace to "make them willing in the day of His power." The non elect, never enjoying this persuasive grace, infallibly choose to reject the provided atonement, and so, as its application is suspended on faith, they fail to receive the benefit of it, and perish.
Refuted.
This theory, if amended so as to say that God sent His Son to provide a vicarious satisfaction for the sin of all whom His Providence intended to place under the Gospel offers, would be liable to less objection than the others. But several objections lie against it. In the first place, the advantage proposed to be gained by it appears illusory. It was hoped that this view would meet the cavils urged by Arminians against the seeming lack of candor in offering Christ’s sacrifice for reconciliation to those for whom God never designed it. But I submit that this cavil is not in the least dissolved by saying that God designed Christ’s sacrifice to provide satisfaction for every non elect man’s guilt, which would avail for his atonement only on condition of his true faith, while the omniscience of God showed him that this sinner would certainly refuse this faith, in consequence of his total depravity, and God’s purpose was distinctly formed not to remove that depravity by His effectual grace. To say that God purposed, even conditionally, the reconciliation of that sinner by Christ’s sacrifice, while also distinctly proposing to do nothing effectual to bring about the fulfillment of the condition He knew the man would surely refuse, is contradictory. It is hard to see how, on this scheme, the sacrifice is related more beneficially to the non elect sinner, than on the strict Calvinist’s plan. Second, the statement of Amyraut involves the same vice of arrangement pointed out in the supralapsarian and sublapsarian plans. It tends towards assigning a sequence to the parts of the decree, as it subsists in God’s mind. He thinks and purposes it as one contemporaneous, mutually connected whole. The student is referred to the remarks already made upon this error. Third, and chiefly, Armyraut has to represent the graces which work effectual calling, while free and unmerited indeed, as yet the free gift of the Father’s electing love, irrespective of Christ’s purchase, (for that is represented as made in common for all) and not mediated to the elect sinner through Christ’s sacrifice. Since Christ’s intercession is expressly grounded in His sacrifice, we shall have to conceive of the benefit of effectual calling as also not mediated to the sinner by Christ’s intercession. But this is all contrary to Scripture, which represents Christ as the channel through which all saving benefits come, and the very graces which fulfill the instrumental conditions of salvation as a part of His purchase for His people. See, for instance, Acts 5:31; Rom. 8:32; Eph. 1:3, 4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 2:14; 2 Pet. 1:2, 3."
Also in Chapter 35.
Was he "shortsighted" there?
Hi Supa,
What a timely question. I would encourage you read the following post and see what is said:
Dabney on Amyraut and Amyraldianism
Supa,
1) Which of Amyraut's own works have you read?
2) Have you read either Roger Nicole's or Brian Armstrong's doctoral dissertations on Amyraut?
3) Which works have you read that have dealt with the primary source material from Amyraut himself?
4) Also, you seem to want to insinuate that I'm an Amyraldian. If so, what makes you think that?
5) Would you consider Calvin an Amyraldian?
6) What about Shedd and C. Hodge? What about Wolfgang Musculus, Ursinus, Pareus, Vermigli, Edward Polhill and John Howe? Would you consider Vines, Seamen and Edmund Calamy (Westminster Divines) Amyraldians? If so, why, especially given that Warfield distinguishes them from Amyraldians in his work dealing with the Minutes of the Assembly?
Tony,
If I was refuting Amyraut, then your questions would be relevant, but I'm not. My point is that you cite Dabney as a source that is backing your position, but upon further reading we find that he is not exactly on your team.
Regarding question #4, you have posted on Amyraut before, have you not? And defend him and his doctrinal positions, correct?
Regarding Q5 and 6, it really doesn't matter what they were. The point is that you quote theologians to defend your positions as if they believed exactly what you do, but in most cases they don't. That is misleading...
Hey Supa,
Interesting counter. You have a point, for sure. But here is how I would respond: Dabney's critical philosophical and systematic analysis is superb. He could spot a fallacy or a weakness a mile away and even while he was near blind. And thats exactly what he did with regard to Cunningham.
But in terms of his historical knowledge, he was limited, and most likely relied on secondary sources for Amyraut. You can see this from his reading list. He has no direct reference to Amyraut. It is probable that as he says, he mediates his knowledge of Amyraut through folk like Turretin and Hodge. But Cunningham, he does cite. I think he well pinned down Cunningham's weakness. What is more Dabney actually specialised on the free offer issuue; he was very conversant on the contemporary litature of the time.
So I would say, even though he gets some historical facts wrong, his analysis of what he does tackle, is spot on. If you could show that Dabney suffered from a historical misread of Cunningham too, that would be good. It would beef up your case I would think. You might not agree. But like I said, either way, Dabney was well-aware of Cunningham's position, and notwithstanding his historical ignorance of what Amyraut actually taught, his analysis of Cunningham is spot on, I think.
Take care,
David
David,
How would you answer his refutations to Amyraldism then? Where is he incorrect with regard to Amyraut's position, since he was only familiar with him through secondary sources?
Hey Supa,
I have already done that, just today in fact.
Follow the link Tony posted above: Dabney on Amyraut and Amyraldianism.
Supa, if Amyraut actually did only teach what Dabney describes, then for sure, Amyraut was wrong and should be rejected. We would all agree.
The problem is, the definitions or descriptions Dabney gives are incorrect. He is simply following the then common 19thC misperception of what Amyraut actually taught. That common misperception is being reproduced today, over and over, because of 1) the uncritical republication of the bad 19thC historiography, and 2) the uncritical acceptance of Amyraut's opponents, as they are likewise being republished today, eg Owen and Turretin. I should say tho, at times even Turretin concedes the duality in Amyraut's theology, but then goes on to slam it as if that duality is not there at all; thats my personal opinion of course and subject to challenge I am sure.
In many historical fields, 19thC historiography was bad. I dont mean that smugly, but as an academic. Its not possible for me to explain all this right now. But for example only a small trickle of 19thC historically orientated thinkers were picking up on the real Amyraut, as per my source for example.
Take care,
David
supa sunura said...
"Tony,
If I was refuting Amyraut, then your questions would be relevant, but I'm not."
Me:
You're making an association between me and Amyraut. However, it's not the historical Amyraut you're associating me with, but the mythological Amyraut. That's why I asked those 6 questions. I gave you the link to David's recent post but one wonders if you even read it after I posted it.
Here's the gist of what you're saying:
1) Tony says that Dabney is on his team.
2) Tony is actually on Amyraut's team and Dabney refutes Amyraut.
3) Therefore, Dabney is NOT on Tony's team.
The problem is, if you have read what David says, that Dabney is not refuting the authentic Amyraut. He was using unreliable secondary sources for his understanding of Amyraut which, if you had read Armstrong's doctoral thesis, for that is still in print, you would know. Dabney, therefore is NOT shortsighted in my opinion. He was just misinformed on Amyraut.
supa sunura said...
"My point is that you cite Dabney as a source that is backing your position, but upon further reading we find that he is not exactly on your team."
Me:
How do you know he is not exactly on my team? In fact, in the very quote I provide, it shows that he has a universal salvific aspect to his atonement views. He even calls it a "general design." If I believed what the mythological Amyraut believed, then Dabney would not be on my team, just as you have said. However, if my views are generally in accord with the authentic Amyraut who taught a dual aspect, then Dabney is on my team, since Dabney himself has a dual salvific aspect.
supa sunura said...
"Regarding question #4, you have posted on Amyraut before, have you not? And defend him and his doctrinal positions, correct?"
Me:
Yes, I have posted on Amyraut before and have defended him against caricatures. He is often presented as if he thought that Christ suffered with an equal intent to save all. That's bunk. I posted John Quick's account of what Amyraut said when he had to defend himself. I also posted material by Testard.
supa sunura said...
"Regarding Q5 and 6, it really doesn't matter what they were. The point is that you quote theologians to defend your positions as if they believed exactly what you do, but in most cases they don't. That is misleading..."
Me:
It does matter what they were if you're going to assert that I am quoting theologians who don't actually hold to my position. This is what was conveyed when you first replied to my quote. You were implying that I am using primary source material in a way that lacks integrity. I find that offensive since I am doing alot of work to document what I am saying. If you're going to assert that "in most cases they don't say" what I represent them as saying, then actually set forth your case. Give me an example. If you want, take a look at the following quotes by Dabney and point out where I have gone wrong. These quotes are from his work Christ Our Penal Substitute:
"Now, we find every condition which was lacking to the human substitute beautifully fulfilled in the case of Christ. He was innocent, owing for himself no debt of guilt. He gave his own free consent, a consent which his Godhead and autocracy of his own being entitled him to give or to withhold. (See John x. 17, 18.) He could not be holden by death; but, after paying the penal debt of the world, he resumed a life more glorious, happy, and beneficent than before." CoPS, p24.
"But if the great truth be posited that a just ground was laid by Christ's voluntary substitution under the guilt of a world for these penal sufferings, and that by them God's purity, adorable justice, and infinite love for the unworthy are gloriously manifested together, then all these moral and didactic effects of Christ's sacrifice most truly result." Christ Our Penal Substitute, p66-7.
"But if the great truth be posited that a just ground was laid by Christ's voluntary substitution under the guilt of a world for these penal sufferings, and that by them God's purity, adorable justice, and infinite love for the unworthy are gloriously manifested together, then all these moral and didactic effects of Christ's sacrifice most truly result. CoPS, p66-7.
"See how manfully Christ approaches his martyrdom, and how sadly he sinks under it when it comes. Had he borne nothing more than natural evil, he would have been inferior to the merely human heroes; and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just, "Socrates died like a philosopher, but Jesus Christ as a God," we must give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ's crushing agonies must be accounted for by his bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world." CoPS, pp92-3
"Methodist Articles of Religion" (1784) are the responsible creed of the vast Wesleyan bodies of Britain and America. Many of these propositions are adopted verbatim from the "Thirty-nine Articles." This is true of Article II. which contains an identical assertion, in the same words, of the doctrine of Christ's penal substitution. The Catechism of the "Evangelical Union" teaches these doctrinal views, in which all the churches concur which are represented in the "Evangelical Alliance." This document omits the peculiar, distinctive doctrines in which these churches differ from each other. It was the work of Dr. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL. D., 1862, Lesson XXVIII., Question 4: "What did he (Christ) suffer there? " "He suffered unutterable pains in body and soul, and bore the guilt of the whole world."
"Such is the tremendous array of the most responsible and deliberate testimonies of all the churches of Christendom, save one little exception, the Socinian, in support of our doctrine concerning the penal substitution of Christ..." CoPS, p104.
Here are a few from his Lectures:
"In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach but partial force to some of the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turrettin, e.g., That Christ says, He died "for His sheep,'' for "His Church," for "His friends," is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object. Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369. Lectures, p., 521.
"But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16, make "the world" which Christ loved, to mean "the elect world," and we reach the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him—i. e., the elect it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ. In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, "whole world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as "we," in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins. Dabney, Lectures, p., 525.
"Now Christ is a true substitute. His sufferings were penal and vicarious, and made a true satisfaction for all those who actually embrace them by faith. But the conception charged on us seems to be, as though Christ's expiation were a web of the garment of righteousness to be cut into definite pieces and distributed out, so much to each person of the elect, whence, of course, it must have a definite aggregate length, and had God seen fit to add any to the number of elect, He must have had an additional extent of web woven. This is all incorrect. Satisfaction was Christ's indivisible act, and inseparable vicarious merit, infinite in moral value, the whole in its unity and completeness, imputed to every believing elect man, without numerical division, subtraction or exhaustion. Had there been but one elect man, his vicarious satisfaction had been just what it is in its essential nature. Had God elected all sinners, there would have been no necessity to make Christ's atoning sufferings essentially different. Remember, the limitation is precisely in the decree, and no where else. It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term "atonement," has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for satisfaction for guilt, sometimes for the reconciliation ensuing thereon; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. The one is cause, the other effect. The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of katallage, reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. Katallage is personal. Exhilasmos is impersonal. Katallage is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood. exhilasmos is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, has no more relation to one man's sins than another. As it is applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, "limited atonement," "particular atonement," have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited." Dabney, Lectures, p., 528.
Please consider the above quotes and check the sources. After you have done that, reconsider your statement that what I am doing is "misleading." If you do that and still think I am misleading with primary sources, then document it and point it out for me.
Thanks,
Tony
Tony,
I did end up reading the link you posted. So, your contention is that Dabney really didn't understand Amyraut and that Dabney and Amyraut were in complete agreement in reality. Dabney just refuted a straw man representation of Amyraut based upon secondary sources. Is that correct? So no one ever really refutes Amyraut because no one has ever read the primary sources. They are just not available in English (doesn't that say something about the importance of Amyraut?) and all of Reformedville are just wrong about what he believed? Hmmm, Okay, I suppose it's possible...
And it is your assertion that all the theologians you quote to support your doctrinal positions are in agreement with you on these matters? Then why is it that yours is the minority position? Everyone out to lunch on this stuff?
Supa said:
"Tony,
I did end up reading the link you posted. So, your contention is that Dabney really didn't understand Amyraut and that Dabney and Amyraut were in complete agreement in reality. Dabney just refuted a straw man representation of Amyraut based upon secondary sources. Is that correct?
Me:
I believe you when you say you read the link that I posted, but did you grasp David's point in the post? He **explicitly** answers the very question your asking me above.
Supa said:
"So no one ever really refutes Amyraut because no one has ever read the primary sources.
Me:
On the contrary, I've given you people who have interacted with the primary sources. If you want to read someone who has interacted with the primary sources and seeks to refute Amyraut, then check out Roger Nicole's doctoral thesis. If you want to read someone who has interacted with the primary sources and yet presents a sympathatic treatment of his view, then check out Brian Armstrong's doctoral thesis. I've read both of these. Armstrong's book is still in print. Buy it, read it, and see what you think.
It's a complete straw man to say my position is that: "no one ever really refutes Amyraut because no one has ever read the primary sources." Of course there are those who have sought to interact with the primary sources, but I just think Roger Nicole's attempt fails. He has to presuppose that Amyraut taught that Christ equally intends the salvation of all in order to try to refute him. Nicole just ends up knocking over a straw man. Therefore, I conclude that his attempt is unsuccessful. If you know of someone who has successfully refuted Amyraut's basic dualism, then feel free to let me know who it is.
Supa said:
"They are just not available in English (doesn't that say something about the importance of Amyraut?)
Me:
So a theologian is not important unless their works are translated into English? Also, do you have a cut off date for that? Must they be translated into English by a specific date to be deemed important?
Supa said:
"and all of Reformedville are just wrong about what he believed? Hmmm, Okay, I suppose it's possible..."
Me:
This is another straw man. It's not the case that "all of Reformedville are just wrong about what he believed." One might say that a minority of people have it right, but no one is asserting that "all of Reformedville" have it wrong. I think Armstrong and A. C. Clifford are headed in the right direction in their analysis.
Supa said:
"And it is your assertion that all the theologians you quote to support your doctrinal positions are in agreement with you on these matters? Then why is it that yours is the minority position? Everyone out to lunch on this stuff?"
Me:
Do we arrive at truth by counting noses? You've committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy now, in addition to the straw men fallacies above.
Also, if you doubt that the men I have posted agree with me, Ad Fontes! Go to the sources and show me where. You haven't done that yet. So far you're just making provocative comments couched in exaggerated speech. How does that serve this discussion? Propose arguments and interact scientifically with the original source data.
Tony wrote:
I believe you when you say you read the link that I posted, but did you grasp David's point in the post? He **explicitly** answers the very question your asking me above.
Me:
The nature of my question was confirmation of your position, so that I understand you correctly.
Tony wrote:
On the contrary, I've given you people who have interacted with the primary sources. If you want to read someone who has interacted with the primary sources and seeks to refute Amyraut, then check out Roger Nicole's doctoral thesis. If you want to read someone who has interacted with the primary sources and yet presents a sympathatic treatment of his view, then check out Brian Armstrong's doctoral thesis. I've read both of these. Armstrong's book is still in print. Buy it, read it, and see what you think.
It's a complete straw man to say my position is that: "no one ever really refutes Amyraut because no one has ever read the primary sources." Of course there are those who have sought to interact with the primary sources, but I just think Roger Nicole's attempt fails. He has to presuppose that Amyraut taught that Christ equally intends the salvation of all in order to try to refute him. Nicole just ends up knocking over a straw man. Therefore, I conclude that his attempt is unsuccessful. If you know of someone who has successfully refuted Amyraut's basic dualism, then feel free to let me know who it is.
Me:
So, you cite 2 doctoral dissertations. Generally speaking I don't have access to those, but if one of them is in print perhaps I could search for it. 2 writers interacting with the primary sources is slim though.
Tony wrote:
So a theologian is not important unless their works are translated into English? Also, do you have a cut off date for that? Must they be translated into English by a specific date to be deemed important?
Me:
No, not necessarily, but he's apparantly not as important as you seem to think. Generally, important works are translated into English. That's why we have the most voluminous heritage of theological writings of any other language. And the cut off date is Sept. 19, 1986. Anyone translated after that is unimportant (that was a joke).
Tony wrote:
This is another straw man. It's not the case that "all of Reformedville are just wrong about what he believed." One might say that a minority of people have it right, but no one is asserting that "all of Reformedville" have it wrong. I think Armstrong and A. C. Clifford are headed in the right direction in their analysis.
Me:
So, Armstrong and some fella named A.C. Clifford are headed in the right direction. Really, both of them. Straw man indeed!
Tony wrote:
Do we arrive at truth by counting noses? You've committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy now, in addition to the straw men fallacies above.
Also, if you doubt that the men I have posted agree with me, Ad Fontes! Go to the sources and show me where. You haven't done that yet. So far you're just making provocative comments couched in exaggerated speech. How does that serve this discussion? Propose arguments and interact scientifically with the original source data.
Me:
No, we don't arrive at truth by counting noses, but we do confirm truth by the collected testimony of the church, and I don't see that here. Most minority positions are minority positions for a reason.
As far as digging into the sources, I'm not buried in theology books for hours on end. I asked you the question, do the theologians you cite agree with your theological positions en toto?
Hey Supa,
I know giving personal names is not required, but would you mind giving your name?
Regarding your comments here--and I am trying to be as fair and as friendly as I can be--but your questions are coming across very rhetorical and strawman.
Supa said:
So, you cite 2 doctoral dissertations. Generally speaking I don't have access to those, but if one of them is in print perhaps I could search for it. 2 writers interacting with the primary sources is slim though.
David: I am not sure what that should prove. There are other dissertations on Amyraut, not a lot in English. Not a lot that specialise solely on Amyraut.
tell me if I am wrong, but as I read your retorts, it strikes me that you think Tony should feel insecure because his position is in the minority position etc. Is that right? Should he?
Supa:
No, not necessarily, but he's apparantly not as important as you seem to think. Generally, important works are translated into English. That's why we have the most voluminous heritage of theological writings of any other language. And the cut off date is Sept. 19, 1986. Anyone translated after that is unimportant (that was a joke).
David: There are many important works, even in English that have not been republished ever, even within Puritanism. Should we think them wrong and irrelevant?
Supa:
No, we don't arrive at truth by counting noses, but we do confirm truth by the collected testimony of the church, and I don't see that here. Most minority positions are minority positions for a reason.
David: there is that argument again. Are you insecure about creationism? Inerrancy? Academically these fields are in minority. Should they be discarded because of current concensus is in the other direction?
cut
Supa: ...I asked you the question, do the theologians you cite agree with your theological positions en toto?
David: Did Tony ever claim that Dabney agreed with him en toto? If he ever did, you are right to chastise him.
But is it not rather much like this parallel. Do you agree with Dabney's position on slavery (he was pro-slavery) and if you don't do you think his critique of theological error is useless because he was pro-slavery? or that it is wrong to cite him on theological topics where he happens to agree with you?
To close:
I am trying to resolve what looks to me to be some hostility here.
Take care,
David
David,
Supa Sunura is my name, I'm of Indian descent. I did find that amusing though, no offense taken.
As far as the minority position, I think the historical testimony of the church is important. As far as I can tell Tony's view on the atonement is not the widely accepted view.
And I'm not talking about Puritan books that have never been republished since they were first printed. I was referring to works not translated into English. Those works that have proven important over time have eventually made their way into English.
Also, I don't expect academia to view creationism or inerrancy in a favorable way. I'm talking about the church.
Lastly, my question about whether Dabney or anyone else agrees with Tony en toto is in reference to the particular doctrine he is arguing for. Not for every theological position one could hold. That is, is Dabney's view, and Amyraut's, and yours, and Tony's essentially the same view? That is what I'm getting at.
Anyway, sorry for my confrontational manner. I suppose I was a little hostile when I read the rest of Dabney's chapter and found that he specifically refuted Amyraldianism (although apparantly not Amyraut, as you have said), while Tony was quoting him as a proponent of Amyraut. My apologies...
G'day Supa,
You say:
Supa Sunura is my name, I'm of Indian descent. I did find that amusing though, no offense taken.
David: ah okay. I didnt mean any offence, it just looks like a made-up nick.
You say:
As far as the minority position, I think the historical testimony of the church is important. As far as I can tell Tony's view on the atonement is not the widely accepted view.
David: But thats the danger of the bubble effect. In some parts of the church, Tony's view could be fairly normative. Say for instance, true Anglicanism. The 39 articles are clear on an unlimited expiation alongside an unconditional election.
And again, 400 years ago, Tony's position was the mainstream, yours not. The theology outlined by Augustine, but then systematically defended by Prosper, then canonised in Systematic loci by Lombard, was the theology for over a thousand years. At that time only about 5 men were known to have dissented: eg Gottschalk and his supporters (of course I mean within the Augustian branch of medieval theology).
Then the shoe was on the other foot.
Super:
And I'm not talking about Puritan books that have never been republished since they were first printed. I was referring to works not translated into English. Those works that have proven important over time have eventually made their way into English.
David: okay, but I am not sure of the point. But thats okay I am sure.
Supa: Also, I don't expect academia to view creationism or inerrancy in a favorable way. I'm talking about the church.
David: But thats the bubble effect again. If we were at a university, then for sure, men and women would be saying to us, how about the fact that you are in the minority position, etc etc. We would never begin to feel insecure on the basis of a concensus versus minority opinion.
Supa:
Lastly, my question about whether Dabney or anyone else agrees with Tony en toto is in reference to the particular doctrine he is arguing for. Not for every theological position one could hold. That is, is Dabney's view, and Amyraut's, and yours, and Tony's essentially the same view? That is what I'm getting at.
David: I am not sure how that avoids the counter-problem I posed. Say for example, you want to cite Dabney against the Socinians. And say, Soco the Socinian does to you exactly what you did to Tony. You know it would mean nothing at the end of the day for you know that citing Dabney on any one point does not mean you have to be committed to Dabney on every point.
To be clear, Tony has always said that with regard to the expiation, Tony agrees with Dabney. With regard to Dabney on redemption, Tony does not. For Dabney follows a novel position of trying to posit unlimited expiation, limited redemption. In this he follows Shedd, or Shedd follows him. :-)
Tony has never claimed that he agrees with Dabney on both aspects here. None of us have.
Supa: Anyway, sorry for my confrontational manner. I suppose I was a little hostile when I read the rest of Dabney's chapter and found that he specifically refuted Amyraldianism (although apparantly not Amyraut, as you have said), while Tony was quoting him as a proponent of Amyraut. My apologies...
David: No worries. Take Warfield for example. His plan of salvation book. He relies on secondaries sources for his definition of Amyraldianism. But now, everyone relies on Warfield. For example, go to wikipedia, under Amyraldianism, the first citation as an authority is Warfield. I have seen a few folk link back to that article to further the myth.
Or try this, the same header but now in Theopedia. The second reference is Warfield. And now this: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/11/the_amyraldian_view_undone.php
They cite theopedia. Its a closed loop that goes on and on and on
We have found the same basic definitions in literature at James White's cite defining Amyraldianism as 4 point Calvinism etc.
Its a big circle and no one is willing to engage the primary source material apart from 1 or 2 people here and there.
Take this other example. Did you read the citations Tony posted to you where Dabney says Christ sufferd vicariously for the sins of the whole world? Did you know he said that? Did you agree? How many folk do you know know he said that?
Or this: The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death ; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. Thats Shedd.
How many folk--who have had no contact with us on this--do you know, know that Shedd said that? I bet you could count them on one hand, and even with 2 fingers missing. :-)
Its clear to us that the mass of Reoformedville are not even aware that Shedd taught that Christ expiated the sins of the whole human race: This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims.
So there is a problem here, for sure. But we say its not with us, its with fact that some of these basic claims have been missed by the mass of Reformedville. We are not trying to be arrogant; just honest. Anyone who is honest with Shedd will see that he did say Christ expiated all the sin of all mankind. One might say he was wrong, but in honesty, one cannot pretend he didnt say it; and this applies to Dabney as well.
I hope that helps,
Take care,
David
oh sorry I inadvertantly said super and not supa.
David
David will soon be calling you Supra given that he is the typo king :-)
Super Supra Supa said:
"So, you cite 2 doctoral dissertations. Generally speaking I don't have access to those, but if one of them is in print perhaps I could search for it. 2 writers interacting with the primary sources is slim though."
Tony says:
There are others who have interacted with the primary sources, but those are the main ones. Moltmann also wrote his doctoral dissertation on Amyraut, but Armstrong criticizes his lack of organized and precice documentation. Since it's hard to obtain copies of doctoral material from Harvard, I purchased my copy of Nicole's dissertation from Dr. Curt Daniel. He also sells copies of a loose translation of Amyraut's Brief Treatise on Predestination.
Super Supra Supa said:
"No, not necessarily, but he's apparantly not as important as you seem to think. Generally, important works are translated into English. That's why we have the most voluminous heritage of theological writings of any other language. And the cut off date is Sept. 19, 1986. Anyone translated after that is unimportant (that was a joke)."
Tony says:
Your joke proves my point. It's absurd to think that a theologian is unimportant unless they are translated into English. Was Turretin unimportant until he was recently translated? And, if Amyraut is so unimportant, I suppose one has to say that Roger Nicole did a silly thing in spending so much time studying him and his theological context. Anyway, it is not my contention that Amyraut is as important as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and other stalwarts. All I am saying is that his dualistic categories are crucial for understanding a classical Christian conception of Christ's death. Amyraut retained the Lombardian formula (Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect alone), and reasoned it out against higher Protestant Scholastics. Whether or not one agrees with his overall covenantal construct is beside the point. Amyraut had categories that were consistent with Calvin's own views. There is in Calvin, as well as in Amyraut, the idea that Christ voluntarily suffered in the stead of the entire human race, but that the benefit of his death is only applied to the elect. That dualistic principle is in ALL of the authors that I say believe it. Some label the categories differently, but the dual categories are still there nonetheless.
Super Supra Supa said:
"No, we don't arrive at truth by counting noses, but we do confirm truth by the collected testimony of the church, and I don't see that here. Most minority positions are minority positions for a reason."
Tony says:
Ok. Since you want to judge the truth by the concensus of the church, welcome aboard! You now should believe in our position since the overwhelming consensus of the church falls within our view, just as David pointed out above. Not only is the strict view novel, it is a minority position historically and today, unless you only want to associate the "church" with the orthodox Reformed.
Super Supra Supa said:
"As far as digging into the sources, I'm not buried in theology books for hours on end."
Tony says:
Ok. That may be the problem. From the looks of my SiteMeter, it looks like your buried in the internet for hours on end. It's difficult to get good information from the internet sources. Also, the men that we are quoting were buried in theology books for hours on end, so they were well informed as to the traditional teaching of the church, particularly the patristics, which, as Carl Trueman recently noted, was the case for Luther, Calvin and other Reformers.
One other thing: If there is anything that the church desperately needs today, it's to be buried in good theology books for hours on end. If we spent as much time in good theology books (I mean meditative and responsive reading) as we do on our phones, on the TV and on the internet, we would surely be much better off! I hardly think that being buried in theology books is a vice :-) In order to obtain a robust view of the churchs teaching with respect to Christ's death and its implications, a great deal of study is necessary.
Super Supra Supa said:
"I asked you the question, do the theologians you cite agree with your theological positions en toto?"
Tony says:
It depends on what you mean by my theological "positions". What I have been asserting and arguing for is that the men that I cite do in fact have a universal salvific aspect to Christ's death, but not to the negation of a special aspect or intent. In other words, all the men that I am bringing forth in defense of my view have stated that they believed Christ willed to die in the stead of the whole human race, but especially for his church. The men that we cite may label the universal and special aspects with different terms, but the categories are still there. So, Dabney and Shedd, for instance, are in agreement with each other. However, the two men label their categories differently. Dabney speaks of a limited atonement and Shedd of an unlimited atonement. How can that be? They essentially agree because both men are not using the term "atonement" to reference the same category. "Atonement", for Dabney refers to the application of Christ's death in distinction from what he accomplished on the cross, i.e. an unlimited expiation done for all men. For Shedd, on the other hand, "atonement" refers to what Christ accomplished on the cross, as distinct from the application. So, I might say to people that "I believe in Dabney's limited atonement and Shedd's unlimited atonement at the same time :-)" This leaves people confused because they are usually not studied enough to realize the distinct categories referenced by the same "atonement" term. One can see what Dabney believed by his interpretations of key controversial passages themselves. Check his interpretation of John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2, for example. He argues for an unlimited expiation for all men, and even criticizes the higher views as he does it. He's very critical of the double payment argument as well. He slams Cunningham as I pointed out above. He does the same with Turretin in his Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy regarding God's revealed will. He recommends John Howe's take on the revealed will. Dabney even calls supralapsarianism hyper-Calvinism for crying out loud! The evident that Dabney is in our moderate of classical Calvinistic camp is overwhelming, to say the least. He's a strong weapon to use against higher forms of Calvinism. Our use of Dabney is not only defensible, it's bullet proof. Tolle Lege! Tolle Lege!
Supa said:
"As far as the minority position, I think the historical testimony of the church is important. As far as I can tell Tony's view on the atonement is not the widely accepted view."
Tony says:
Not widely accepted where? In the Reformed community? Or in the church at large today and throughout history? If you're looking to form your beliefs around the narrow slice of the church called the "Reformed," then I would think that strange. If your looking to form your beliefs about the cross by looking at the overwhelming teaching of the church at large throughout her history, then I am in the majority. The Beza/Owen view is not only novel, it represents a departure from the overwhelming consensus of the church. Unlike you, however, I am not trying to bring that forth as a means for a falsification of their view. Just because a view is in the minority, it does not follow that it is false. Again, we should not commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy. If you reasoned that way in Athanasius' day, you might have ended up with a seriously abberant Christology!
Supa said:
"And I'm not talking about Puritan books that have never been republished since they were first printed. I was referring to works not translated into English. Those works that have proven important over time have eventually made their way into English."
Tony says:
But isn't it the case that the works were important prior to their translation into English??? Who knows...Maybe in the near future Amyraut's works will be translated and published. It wouldn't suprise me if A. C. Clifford and his Reformed associates worked on and stimulated such a project to take place. Vermigli's works are currently in the process of being organized and translated. To think that a work is unimportant if not translated into English by 2007 is poor reasoning, to say the least. Perhaps if it wasn't for the refined historical theology of the Saumur school (Louis Cappel), you might be following Heidegger and Turretin (who composed the Formula Consensus Helvetica) in their view of inspiration. These wizards believed that the vowel points in the OT were inspired of God :-)
Post a Comment