Michael J. Lynch on John Davenant’s (1572–1641) Correction of Those Misreading Prosper of Aquitaine’s First Letter to Augustine

Another argument for reading Prosper as initially affirming that Christ died for the elect alone has been offered by Haykin:

In a letter to Augustine, he also challenged the view of the so-called Semi- Pelagians that “the propitiation which is found in the mystery of the blood of Christ was offered for all men without exception.” From the letter it is clear that Prosper does not agree with this statement, and Augustine does not refute Prosper in his reply. In his later career, Prosper appears to have either softened this commitment to definite atonement, or even rejected it in favor of an advocacy of the universal salvific will of God based on his reading of 1 Timothy 2:4.¹¹⁷

Haykin misreads Prosper’s Letter to Augustine. First, it is not “clear [that] Prosper does not agree with” the view of the semi-Pelagians that Christ died for all.¹¹⁸ Here is the fuller context of the Prosper quotation in question:

For this is their [viz., the semi-Pelagians’] argument and profession: that every human being has sinned by sinning in Adam, and no person is saved by their own works, but by regeneration through the grace of God: nevertheless, God put forward Christ as a propitiation which is in the sacrament of the blood of Christ for all human beings without exception in order that whosoever wishes to come to faith and baptism is able to be saved.¹¹⁹

In the first sentence, which begins an enumeration of the semi-Pelagian positions on grace, Prosper says that the semi-Pelagians also teach that “every human being has sinned in Adam, and no person is saved by his or her own works, but by regeneration through the grace of God.” Are we to believe that just because Prosper lists this as a position of his opponents that he must disagree with it? Haykin assumes, following Blacketer, that what Prosper explains as the view of his opponents is rejected by Prosper. Yet Davenant himself warned against Haykin’s false assumption:

Therefore, it should be observed that when Hilary and Prosper are noting the opinion of the semi- Pelagians, many things are mixed together, some of which agree with the truth, and others savor of error. When, therefore, they record that the semi-Pelagians declared that all people sinned in Adam, and that our Lord Jesus Christ died for the whole human race, and some other things, they do not note these ideas as the errors of the semi-Pelagians, but in order to show how far they agree with the orthodox, and so that they may explain the whole order and connection of the semi-Pelagian doctrine. Those, then, greatly err who think that all the things which are attributed to the semi-Pelagians by Prosper and Hilary are erroneous and Pelagian.¹²⁰

Furthermore, Haykin fails to address the remarks Prosper gives regarding the semi-Pelagian opinion later on in the letter.¹²¹ As Davenant noted, what Prosper rejects is not the position that Christ died for all. Rather, the objection seems to be the attached condition, “even if he lives his whole life in complete estrangement from [God],” coupled with a denial of unconditional predestination, resulting in a predestination to faith which is dependent upon free choice.¹²²

Haykin at one point confesses, “Prosper admitted that Christ may be said to have died ‘for all’ because he took on the human nature that all humanity shares and because of the ‘greatness and value’ of his redeeming death,” while also teaching that “Christ ‘was crucified only for those who were to profit by his death,’ that is, only the elect.”¹²³ This position, ironically enough, sounds quite similar to the position Davenant himself would go on to defend in De Morte Christi.
_______________
117. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’” 72–73.
118. Cf. almost the same language in Blacketer, “Definite Atonement,” 310.
119. Prosper, Epistola ad Augustinum, 880; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 39. [Lynch knows that the label “semi-Pelagian” is problematic. See p. 180n67].
120. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (328).
121. Prosper, Epistola ad Augustinum, 883– 84; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 43–44.
122. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (329).
123. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’” 72.

Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, ed. R. A. Muller, et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 38–40.

David Allen also recently noted the following:

Augustine asserted that Christ died for the sins of Judas, and in many places in his writings he asserted that Christ died for the sins of all humanity. Some have maintained that Prosper of Aquitaine, early in his career, taught “definite atonement,” based on an early letter that he wrote to Augustine (e.g., Michael A. G. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood’: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church,” in Gibson and Gibson, From Heaven He Came, 72–73). But they falsely assume that just because Prosper attributed to the Massilians (or the so-called Semi-Pelagians) the belief that “Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has died for the whole of mankind [pro uniuerso autem humano genere mortuum esse dominum nostrum Iesum Christum]” (Prosper of Aquitaine, “Letter to Augustine,” in Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De Letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 43; Letter 225.6), he therefore must have disagreed with it. This is clearly a false inference since he also attributed to them the belief that “Every man has sinned in Adam, and no one is reborn and saved by his own works but by God’s grace” (Prosper, Defense of Augustine, 36; Letter 225.3). Augustine and Prosper both believed that. John Davenant dealt with this erroneous inference long ago. See John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, 2 vols., trans. J. Allport (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1832), 2:328. See also Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 38–40.

David L. Allen, “A Critique of Limited Atonement,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. D. L. Allen and S. W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 74–75, n. 8.

Michael Lynch on John Davenant’s (1572–1641) Life and Impact

Dr. Michael Lynch discusses the context of John Davenant’s life and his impact at the Synod of Dort and contributions to our understanding of election and atonement.


Source: The Davenant Institute

Michael Lynch on “The Five Points of Calvinism: Myth and Reality”

HT: The Davenant Trust

Michael J. Lynch on “Covenant Theology and Hypothetical Universalism? A Look at John Davenant’s Federal Theology”

In December of 2015, Lynch lectured at the Junius Institute on John Davenant’s covenant theology and so-called “hypothetical universalism.” Here is the lecture:

Michael J. Lynch on “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship”

The Junius Blog has posted the following:

Earlier this year [2014] Michael Lynch, a PhD student at Calvin Theological Seminary, presented at a Junius Institute Colloquium on the topic, “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship.

Here is the audio on YouTube:


Lynch also recently spoke at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society held on November 19-21, 2014, in San Diego, CA. His subject was "In Mediis Tutissime Ibis": An Examination of Robert Lewis Dabney's View of the Extent of Christ's Satisfaction (click for audio). He blogs here (click). Regarding his thesis, Lynch wrote:

Robert Lewis Dabney is generally regarded as the preeminent Southern Presbyterian theologian of the nineteenth century. His published writings extend to all sorts of subjects including politics, philosophy, biography, and, of course, theology. His most controversial writings from a contemporary point-of-view are those where he defended southern slavery, but in his own time he also caused quite a stir vis-à-vis the nature of imputation and Christ’s satisfaction.

At the 1863 General Assembly of the Old School (OS) Southern Church, a committee including Dabney was formed to discuss the prospect of reunion with the New School (NS) Southern Church. The OS concern against this proposed reunion was the supposed lack of doctrinal fidelity in the NS Church to Westminsterian orthodoxy. During the reunion debates, OS theologians Benjamin Palmer and A. A. Porter charged Dabney with denying confessional orthodoxy by teaching an indefinite atonement. At one point Dabney responded to Porter, “he demands that we shall say Christ was only the elect’s substitute, and bore the guilt only of the elect’s sins. We reply, show us the place where either the Bible or Confession of Faith says so.” Dabney’s writings on the nature and extent of the satisfaction demonstrate substantial disagreement with traditional OS opinion. This essay will argue that Dabney taught a middle-way position on the extent of the atonement occupying an area between that of limited satisfaction on the one hand, and the Wesleyan doctrine of universal redemption on the other.

In defense of this thesis, I will analyze Dabney’s magnum opus, Lectures on Systematic Theology, as well as his more occasional writings touching on the atonement. Chief among these occasional writings is Dabney’s argument for the plan of union between the OS and NS South—especially his defense of the plan’s doctrinal declaration in an OS newspaper, The Southern Presbyterian.

Here is Lynch’s discussion of “The Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement: What is Hypothetical Universalism?” with Javier Perdomo:



Also, here is Lynch discussing “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism” with Edwin Báñez on Scholasticism Reformed:

Some Important Moderate Calvinist Writings

First there is James Ussher. One should first read his The True Intent and Extent of Christ’s Death and Satisfaction Upon the Cross, and then his An Answer of the Archbishop of Armagh to Some Exceptions Taken Against His Aforesaid Letter. The student would do well to start here.

Then there is John Davenant’s very important work A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, As To Its Extent and Special Benefits. It’s contained in volume 2 of his exposition on the book of Colossians. See also Michael Lynch’s excellent and improved translation of this work (John Davenant, On the Death of Christ and Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael J. Lynch [Landrum, SC: Davenant Institute, 2024]) and his important doctoral dissertation on John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy.

Edward Polhill’s Essay on the Extent of the Death of Christ (extracted from his treatise on The Divine Will Considered in It’s Eternal Decrees, and Holy Execution of Them [2]) is also important reading. It counts as both a reaction against Owenism and against Arminianism.

Richard Baxter’s work on the Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (or here for a recent edition) should be read as well. His work does have some problems, though, and it’s not organized very well. It doesn’t surprise me that it has not been reprinted. Nevertheless, it is important, even as a response to John Owen’s Death of Death from a moderate Calvinistic perspective. In addition to his above work, one could also read this brief extract from his Catholick Theologie on “Of Universal Redemption.” For more from a Baxterian perspective, these extracts from John Humfrey’s Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in a Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works and The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption, as well as from his Free Thoughts are worthwhile. William Lorimer is an example of another Baxterian.

Note: The above writings by Ussher, Davenant, Polhill, and Baxter should not be considered “Amyraldism,” as they did not depend upon Amyraut, though there are definite conceptual similarities and shared historical reliance on earlier thinkers (i.e., early church fathers and early Reformers). Modern Reformed historiography, such as in Richard Muller’s recent lectures and writings (as well as Jonathan Moore’s work on John Preston), has shown that the moderate English variety of so-called Hypothetical Universalism (originally a pejorative label) is distinct from the Saumur variety, and existed prior to Amyraut, even going back to early Reformers such as Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, and others. With that said, if one wants to learn about the Amyraldian variety of moderate Calvinism, see the writings listed here (click).

One can consult sections from books that can be found here:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/p/the-atonement.html

And here:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=8466

If one wants a modern book written from a classic-moderate perspective on the extent of the atonement, then I would recommend the following:

Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998).