This is old news, but still worth posting. Carl Trueman was interviewed on Reformation 21 awhile back and he was asked this question:
Following on from the previous question, it is sometimes argued that the Hodges (Charles and Archibald Alexander) as well as R. L. Dabney, did not agree with Owen’s view of “limited atonement,” in particular disagreeing with the use of the “double jeopardy” argument that Owen employed. What do you make of this?Whether Owen put heavy stress on that particular argument (among others) and literal payment concepts
Aha, here you probe one of my weaknesses. I rarely read the Hodges and gave up on Dabney many years ago. Indeed, I am an early modernist in terms of scholarship, and, with the exception of Warfield, have really no interest in American theology and have never found any non-contemporary American theologian to be that helpful compared to the European Reformed Orthodox of the seventeenth century. Thus, I have to plead ignorance on their comments on this point. As to the `double jeopardy’ argument, that is not a strong element of the limited atonement argument; I would not rest my case on that point; and neither did Owen. Far more significant is the covenant of redemption (which, as noted above, was seen by the Reformed Orthodox to be defensible on exegetical grounds), and the issues raised by the Socinian critique of what we now call penal substitution, along with Hugo Grotius’s response to the same.
to sustain his viewpoint can be debated, but here one can see that Trueman clearly doesn't think it is a "strong element" in the "limited atonement argument." Nevertheless, it is like Atlas among contemporary American Calvinists. It seems as though the whole world is resting upon that issue in order to sustain their strictly limited viewpoint, since it so frequently and inevitably comes up. I would be willing to bet my entire library that some "half-witted gargoyle" [credit to Steve for this humorous expression] is going to stand up and pose the "dilemma" to the panel of speakers at the upcoming John 3:16 Conference during the Q&A time, as if no one has ever considered it before. And on their face will be a look of utter invincibility. I might be willing to pay someone to snap a photo of it when it happens.For an interesting critique of a related Trueman article by Flynn some time ago, see HERE.
7 comments:
The double jeopardy argument, is a distraction technique. If the shed blood of Christ was the only requirement of God to pull us from hell, then faith in the shed blood of Christ is nothing more than awareness of the blood being shed. The bible places more emphasis on faith than it being just a mere eye opening. "without faith it is impossible to please God". Faith is a requirement. To use the argument that Christ shed his blood for those who will never have faith equals atonement with God, would also mean, as a believer , I was never in jeopardy of hell. It would follow that the elect had atonement with God before they believed. The rebuttal to double jeopardy is eternal justification. There are only a few options for the use of this argument either 1) Yesterday was the first you heard of it and you have not walked it through to realize the accusation it will bring against you. 2) You believe in eternal justification 3) Your too tired or cannot defend your position.
This is interesting. It makes sense that many of the older dispy's were not quick to jump on the Tulip wagon [Ryrie, Chafer, Walvoord] because they typically rejected or were at least skeptical of the idea of the covenant of redemption as defined in Reformed theo. Without embracing that covenant - there is little motivation to apply strained exegesis to I John 2:2, John 3:16, II Pet. 2:1, I Tim. 2:6 . . .
I think the parable of the Wedding Feast gives us the best biblical image of the gospel invitation. [Matt. 22:1ff] The King genuinely invites individuals to come and sit at his feast - the table is prepared - provision has truly been made for them - there is real food on a real table. They reject - the invitation goes to others. We're ready to say - 'Ah - Jesus was an Arminian' - then He slams the door on that idea closing with - "many are called but few are chosen" - pulling us back to 'Classical' Calvinism.
As you imply Tony, this comment is somewhat at odds with our own experience of 'limited atonement' advocates. I couldn't help wondering though: does he say this because he is aware of the argument's weakness?
I hope you'll forgive me for indulging myself in noting the irony that we moderates are often referred to Nicole, Helm, et al (indeed Trueman also) and even accused of being one-sided in our reading yet isn't Trueman a strong critic of our position yet has not read the 'non-contemporary Americans theologians'?
Martin
Hi Cadis,
You make some very good points. Your first point echoes something brought up in an article by Tony Lane: "...our salvation is made certain, not merely possible, by the combined work of Father, Son "and" Holy Spirit (ie, not by the cross alone, taken in isolation)." The work of the Holy Spirit is to apply the work of Christ through the instrumentality of faith, which is an absolutely vital part for being united to Christ and his work. I think it is true that the double payment argument undermines the importance of the office of faith in salvation.
You've also caught on to the fact that the flip-side of sincere offers in the gospel are sincere threats. Not only are all sincerely promised life in the gospel call, but all that hear it are also sincerely threatened with hell unless they repent. Despite the fact that Christ died for the elect, even they are sincerely threatened and abide under God's wrath until they do so. I also agree with you that the double payment argument entails a justification before faith position, or possibly eternal justification. If Christ literally paid for the sins of the elect, then on what grounds are they abiding under God's wrath? Is it because of unbelief? But Christ died for the unbelief of the elect. Didn't he purchase righteousness and faith for all of them? Then is it not their right to go free? Why the delay in the application? Some have tried to say that it's because many of the elect do not yet exist. If all of the non-existent elect fell when Adam fell, then why aren't all of the elect justified when the last Adam fulfills all righteousness at the cross?
Hi Jerry,
I think you make some good points as well. If there is nothing in the satisfaction of Christ for the non-elect because he did not substitute for them, then what is it that is being offered to the non-elect? There is no food for them in his flesh. All things are NOT prepared in their case. On the Owenic scheme, it seems as if the non-elect are being offered the hollow of a donut. Neither will talk of a hypothetical sufficiency solve this dilemma for them. They cannot admit that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, so the non-elect are not salvable at all. How can they possibly receive a well-meant offer? Is God offering to save them apart from the shedding of blood? Only a voluntarist who rejects the necessity of Christ's death for the forgiveness of sin could go that route, and Owen moved away from that position later on, as Trueman himself notes in audio lectures about Owen.
Hi Martin,
I agree. Our own experience, and some of our documentation about "literal payments," show that this idea was crucial for the argument. I don't know whether or not Trueman is aware of the argument's weakness. I suspect that he might be, given the article David posted on commercial issues. He clearly wants to move away from that.
Good point about Trueman's reading as well. I might also add that even if he wants to stay with his reading of European Reformed Orthodox theologians of the seventeenth century, is he not aware of Davenant, Polhill and others? They were speaking against the double payment argument. Is Trueman presenting us with the kind of diversity we have discovered within that century? Is he reading Charnock? I wish he was aware of what David has posted on the CalvinandCalvinism blog.
Hi Tony - I was reminded of some words of Albert Barnes who seemed to be very interested in this issue as well
"But if Christ died only for a part, if there is a large portion of the human family for whom He died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalising them with the offers of that which does not exist, and which He knows does not exist. It is of no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and He knows who the elect are, and yet He offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all . . . God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating His character." [Commentary on II Cor. 5:14]
Post a Comment