Response to Turretinfan & Arminius on the Atonement
Turretinfan recently made this comment and asked a question, here.
Good question. I will give a three part answer.
1) the decree to save believers should not be understood as foreknowledge of individual believers (i.e. Sue and John, but not Robbie), but rather the formula that anyone who believes shall be saved
2) that decree was preceded by a decree that Christ, by His death, shall be the basis of salvation (this decree can't be limited to the elect, because is explanatorily prior to the decree of election)
3) the decree regarding Christ's death means salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death
Glad you are reading Arminius, Turretinfan!
God be with you,
Dan
Today, in fact only a few minutes ago, I found this interesting discussion,
from which - for the moment - I've excerpted only the name:
When [this man] was charged with teaching, Christ has died for all men and
for every individual, he responded, "This assertion was never made by me either
in public or private except when it was accompanied by such an explanation as
the controversies which are excited on this subject have rendered necessary.
"For the phrase here used possesses much ambiguity: Thus it may mean either that
'the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one,' or that
'the redemption, which was obtained by means of that price, is applied and
communicated to all men and to every one' . . . Of this latter sentiment I
entirely disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved that
believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption . . ."
Who is the person speaking this?
Frankly, I don't think this view is far from the quasi-Amyraldian
"unlimited/limited" view that is has been espoused by various folks. What is
interesting, though, is that the source of this interesting position is not a
quasi-Amyraldian, an Amyraldian, or even a so-called "moderate Calvinist." The
person speaking this in outright Arminian. In fact, it's Arminius himself.I
would sincerely ask folks who call themselves "moderate Calvinists," to consider
whetherthey really think that the synod of Dordt agreed with the Remonstrants on
this point.
Likewise, I would ask Arminians to consider whether their own
position here is tenable.
After all, how is purchasing a redemption for both believers and
non-believers consistent with decreeing to save only believers?
.
Good question. I will give a three part answer.
1) the decree to save believers should not be understood as foreknowledge of individual believers (i.e. Sue and John, but not Robbie), but rather the formula that anyone who believes shall be saved
2) that decree was preceded by a decree that Christ, by His death, shall be the basis of salvation (this decree can't be limited to the elect, because is explanatorily prior to the decree of election)
3) the decree regarding Christ's death means salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death
Glad you are reading Arminius, Turretinfan!
God be with you,
Dan
Comments
would you care to reply to Turret's answer at his blog?
i am curious about what would you say about it..
Best,
Odeliya
Are you the Odeliya from Crosswalk? I always enjoyed your comments there.
I responded to T'fan here.
God be with you,
Dan
Indeed I've had a privilege to talk with you there,appreciate your help and always give your site/book recommendations for “Armin-m 101 and beyond” to others.
( while I don’t have a theological affiliation in terms of Arminianism/Cavinism, for I only studied the subject for about a year.)
I commend you on good answers to Packer’s points as well. Your opponent was honest and reasonable but I always stumble when I see “ sufficient for All- efficient for Elect” point of view coming from a Calvinist side. As of now I see it as contradicting their position.
I will be checking yours/TF’s debate on both of your sites, gentlemen.
God bless you richly,
Odeliya.
The issue with sufficiency is a tricky one. In one sense, the Calvinist viewpoint does hold Christ death was sufficient for all, but in another sense they don't.
Calvinists think that Christ's death could have saved everyone and that if additional people had been elected and the intention of Christ death had included them, they would be saved. That is to say Christ wouldn't have had to suffer any more to save any more people; His death was of enough "value" to save everyone. Sounds great, right?
But notice the words "if" and "would" and "could". That's right, there view is based on a hypothetical scenario. In a way, they view Christ's death as hypothetically sufficient for all, not actually sufficient for all. Now that Christ has actually died only for a limited number, only that number can and will be saved. Christ's blood (now that if has been shed) cannot save the reprobate. So we say Christ’s death wasn't sufficient for them. Conversely, we say that based on Christ’s death, His blood can save everyone.
God be with you,
Dan
Yes, I do see logical inconsistencies once we look deeper into the issue, and basically, Calvinism does affirm universal atonement by keeping “Sufficient for all“ part when presenting their position.
I enjoyed your Owen reviews. I do like him, but remember being essentially eaten alive when arguing against his “sin of unbelief and how it proves Calvinistic position” theory from “Death..” book. I wish I read your good arguments before. My opponents would have still eaten me alive, I presume, but I least I would have tasted bitter ;)
You can give me the Platinga article link you gentlemen were talking about, to check it out. I would appreciate it.
Best,
Odeliya