Various views on the Atonement (part 2)

As was discussed on another thread there are various approaches among Calvinistic scholars with regard to the extent of the atonement.

Calvinists from the "Princeton" tradition (Hodge, Shedd, Dabney etc) taught Christ's "work is equally available for all" and that God "did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men," and "the reason why any man perishes, is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation…It [our doctrine] opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned”

While other Calvinists ('high Calvinists') tended to disagree and instead "affirm an Atonement which fully satisfied God for those on whose behalf it was made" and them alone. (A. Pink)

Respected Calvinistic scholar Richard Muller addresses this apparent distinction:

“There has been some scholarly disagreement on this issue–and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between ‘Calvin’ and the ‘Calvinists,’ ...
The terms ‘universal’ and ‘limited atonement’ do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view–or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ’s work for the faithful alone–and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. (Richard Muller, After Calvin, 14).​

This is the distinction I was attempting to draw in the last thread while being accused of misrepresenting Calvinism. Maybe this article from Muller will provide the needed objective voice for my accusers to (1) acknowledge and define the historical distinction among Calvinists in their handling of biblical atonement, and (2) discuss with objectivity their own views in relation to these apparent distinctions.

My purpose in this is to examine how 'high' Calvinists (like Pink) consistently defend their view of the free genuine offer of the gospel to all people while seemingly denying the concept of 'universal satisfaction' (ref. Muller's quote).

NOTE: Please keep things cordial and on topic. Thanks

 

Not so. That is what Romans 1 and 2 is all about. They have what they need to believe and the reason they perish is the same reason any one else does: unbelief. They knew the truth but traded it in for a lie. Now, they may not have known the whole truth regarding Christ's atoning work on the cross, but they knew enough to acknowledge God as their God. They know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, yet they continue to do them and approve of others doing them. They are "without excuse."

 

Yes, that is the bad news. According to the moral code (be it by law or conscience) all have fallen short, but the good news is that "now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify."

This is a righteousness "APART FROM LAW" (or conscience) which is applied "THROUGH FAITH." Abraham believed and it was credit to him as righteousness. He didn't know the full gospel, but righteousness was credited to him. He wasn't righteous according to the law, he was ONLY declared righteous through faith. Thus, if he hadn't believe he too would have perished for his unbelief. You can't confuse the so-called "law of righteousness" with the true righteousness that comes by faith. There has always only been one way to avoid destruction and it has always been through faith....the law (and conscience) was just put there to reveal that truth more clearly, as a tutor.