On “Dortian Calvinism,” and Other Sloppy Labels

I recently read a post on Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin's blog dealing with “Dortian” Calvinism and “regular” Calvinism, so I decided to leave a few comments that I will post here as well, with a few adjustments.

___________________________________

In conversations I’ve had with Dr. David Allen (Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), it seems that he was (previously) under the impression that “Dortian Calvinism” was Calvinism with the strict view of limited atonement. He is now very much aware of the historical diversity among Calvinists on the issue of the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. So, the label “Dortian Calvinism” is, for the most part, erroneously being used only to describe Calvinists with the Owenic perspective on the extent of Christ’s death. Through his own studies and through my conversations with Dr. Allen, men of his soteriological persuasion are seeing the historical inaccuracy of such language. I suspect that we will see the decline of the label “Dortian Calvinism” in the future, which is good. There was significant diversity at Dort, and all parties (whether Calvinistic or not) should at least acknowledge that fact.

___________________________________

Incidentally, the labels “5-point” and “4-point” Calvinism should also be dropped, but, unfortunately, I doubt that will be the case, due in part to theological laziness. Even Amyraut taught a limitation in Christ’s intentionality as it related to the elect and consequently in the Holy Spirit’s application of his benefits, but not in the imputation of sin to Christ (unlike Owen). John Davenant, who should be distinguished from the Amyraldian trajectory (as recently acknowledged by Dr. Richard Muller), taught a similar kind of dualism, i.e., Christ suffered for the sins of all men, but with a special intentionality to ultimately apply the benefits of His death only to the elect.

Strict particularists and Dualists (in the English and Bremen delegations, for example) were both present at Dort, and the Dortian language was left ambiguous enough to include both parties. So, if the “5 points” come from Dort, they can all be considered “5 pointers.” If the “5 points” come from John Owen (or Beza, Turretin, etc.), then only the strict particularists can be called “5 pointers.” Lee Gatiss, himself an Owenist on the extent of the atonement, observed:

Those who have since held to Reformed varieties of Hypothetical Uni­versalism have sometimes referred to themselves as “four or four-and-a-half point Calvinists.” This, however, may well be technically inaccurate for some. Despite disagreements with other delegations, [John] Davenant and [Samuel] Ward happily subscribed to the original pristine statement of “five-point Calvin­ism.” Perhaps, then, others who take a less “strict,” non-Genevan view on this issue may also lay claim, historically speaking, to all five petals of the TULIP (though not in the oversimplified way in which this is sometimes de­fined). Richard Baxter certainly considered himself to be in accord with Dort, despite his famous disagreement with John Owen on the issue. 

See Lee Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. D. Gibson and J. Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 163.

Also, notice what J. L. Dagg said about the historical label “particular redemption”:

The adaptedness of Christ’s death to serve as a ground for universal gospel invitations, constitutes it in the view of some persons a universal redemption … Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract.

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990), 326.

Dagg knew about “others” who “maintain the doctrine of ‘particular redemption’” who yet “consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men.” If one reads W. G. T. Shedd carefully, one can see that he fits in this latter description by Dagg. But here’s the point: Just as people automatically associate the label “5 pointer” with Owenism today, even so they automatically equate the term “particular redemption” with the view that “Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect.” The language is imprecise, so this automatic association of ideas may be an error.

We’re better off talking about where people find the limitation as we distinguish between the 1) intent, 2) extent, and 3) application.

1. Does one think Christ has a special intention that corresponds to the concept of unconditional election? All Calvinists must agree that he does. That’s one area where there can be a kind of “limitation.”
2. Does one, in addition to the above, think that the limited special intent also causes a limit in the imputation of sin to Christ, so that he was only judicially punished for the elect? That’s another degree of limitation, and not all Calvinists (even at Dort) agree on this issue.
3. Does one think that the eternal application of Christ’s benefits only to some human beings (the believing elect) results from the Holy Spirit effectually operating in accord with the inter-Trinitarian purpose of unconditional election? This is another area of “limitation.”

All Calvinists must agree to #1 and #3, but they do not all agree on #2. I’m content to call those who agree with #1 and #3 “moderate Calvinists,” while those who also agree with the further limitation in #2 “strict Calvinists,” since Christ was strictly or solely punished for the sins of the elect, not all mankind. That seems fair (and common among historians on both sides of the aisle), and much more accurate than the problematic “4-point” or “5-point” or “Dortian Calvinist” labels. It’s not as easy to explain in conversations because people generally want to use quick and easy bumper sticker theological slogans, rather than critically engage the complex historical facts.