Atonement and early the Reformed

[JonC]

So when was limited atonement view codified as being the standard view to be held then?

It was never “codified.” But I do not know when its popularity overtook classic Calvinism. If you look at John Humfrey’s comments in 1692 he acknowledges the division in Calvinism (“you know there are two sorts of such as oppose Arminianism. One that is the high sort, and the other the moderate sort …We that are of this sort, do hold Election to be of particular persons…But Redemption we hold to be universal.”).

But if you have studied the Synod of Dort then you probably ran across it being purposely written to suit either view. The crux of salvation is never, in that document, the Atonement but rather God’s sovereign election and call. "Limited Atonement" that denies Christ's death for the human race is foreign to Calvin and others of that time...except in defense against the misconception they hold that view. So I think it reasonable to hold it arose during the debates over Arminianism, prior to 1619. If you want to know when Calvinism excluded those views of Calvin and others regarding the death of Christ being for the human race, then I suppose the answer is "never." There are still classic Calvinists out there. I think the popularity of the more modern/strict Calvinists is that it adds ammo against Arminianism (regardless of whether that ammo is biblical). It is also more simplistic.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It was never “codified.” But I do not know when its popularity overtook classic Calvinism. If you look at John Humfrey’s comments in 1692 he acknowledges the division in Calvinism (“you know there are two sorts of such as oppose Arminianism. One that is the high sort, and the other the moderate sort …We that are of this sort, do hold Election to be of particular persons…But Redemption we hold to be universal.”).

But if you have studied the Synod of Dort then you probably ran across it being purposely written to suit either view. The crux of salvation is never, in that document, the Atonement but rather God’s sovereign election and call. "Limited Atonement" that denies Christ's death for the human race is foreign to Calvin and others of that time...except in defense against the misconception they hold that view. So I think it reasonable to hold it arose during the debates over Arminianism, prior to 1619. If you want to know when Calvinism excluded those views of Calvin and others regarding the death of Christ being for the human race, then I suppose the answer is "never." There are still classic Calvinists out there. I think the popularity of the more modern/strict Calvinists is that it adds ammo against Arminianism (regardless of whether that ammo is biblical). It is also more simplistic.

I don't know what you are suggesting frankly.....do you know what a reprobate is...if so please give me your definition of reprobation.

 

[JonC]

I don't know what you are suggesting frankly.....do you know what a reprobate is...if so please give me your definition of reprobation.

:laugh: My bad...did I say "reprobation"?? Guess the fingers got ahead of the brain. What I meant to say was "reprobate" as one rejected by God. But I do realize that it also means...among other things...elected to damnation which is an entirely different topic. All I mean here is "non-elect." I believe that we are all under condemnation for rejecting Christ until such time as God draws us (who are being saved) to Himself.

 

[Rippon]

You got the wrong man

Don't post while swilling beer.

 

[Rippon]

Other than colorfully saying that you believe I am wrong...you don’t really seem to offer anything in reply.

I think you are contradicting yourself Jon. And I can't make sense of your contradictions.

But no, I am not saying yea, yea and nah, nah at the same time. I'm saying yea to both the idea that Christ died for the sins of the human race and that His death secured/made certain the salvation of the elect.

The above is what I'm talking about.

The point of the OP, however, was not the correctness of your "limited atonement" view,

It is not my view. That's why I started the other thread on Atonement. "Limited Atonement" sends out a wrong message. I have been saying that for a long time on the BB. And for you to say otherwise is less than observant on your part.

but that your view is not what was historically defined as the Calvinistic view of the Atonement.

Since you have distorted my view you have no room to talk JonC.

 

[Rippon]

I'm having internet difficulties.

 

[Rippon]

look at the Canons of Dort. The “Five Main Points” are not really as simplistic as the summary many would uphold represent them to be.

I have always insisted on the BB that TULIP does no justice to the Canons of Dort.

“The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called.”


"Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice he might deliver us [the elect] body and soul from eternal condemnation."

Don't quote without citing the source of your quotes.

 

[Rippon]

Denying, however, that Christ also died for the sins world is another matter altogether. It is not only a corruption of Scripture, but when it is insisted upon it is a corruption of Calvinistic soteriology (it is not what classic Calvinism taught... I just don't think we need to minimize the Cross to the extent we ignore other aspects taught in the Bible.

The above is a mass of confusion Jon. And the same goes for what you said in post #7 : [paraphrasing]Calvinism is in error for holding that 'Christ did not die for the sins of the world' and that that is foreign to Calvinism and to Scripture.

You have a lot of explaining to do. You claim to hold to particularism yet shoot yourself in the foot while holding to it very tenuously. You have to either fish or cut bait. Your stance is inconsistent and is not logically coherent. Is there a softer way for me to say it? Oh, I know. You are laboring under a misunderstanding.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The above is a mass of confusion Jon. And the same goes for what you said in post #7 : [paraphrasing]Calvinism is in error for holding that 'Christ did not die for the sins of the world' and that that is foreign to Calvinism and to Scripture.

You have a lot of explaining to do. You claim to hold to particularism yet shoot yourself in the foot while holding to it very tenuously. You have to either fish or cut bait. Your stance is inconsistent and is not logically coherent. Is there a softer way for me to say it? Oh, I know. You are laboring under a misunderstanding.

Unless he is a Fullerite. But Jon, the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, that is true. However Christ only died for those the father gave him. This Calvinism --- today and yesterday junk you keep wishing to debate as merely a diversion.

 

[JonC]

Unless he is a Fullerite. But Jon, the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, that is true. However Christ only died for those the father gave him. This Calvinism --- today and yesterday junk you keep wishing to debate as merely a diversion.

My intent is to understand how it is "the same." When people say that Christ died for the sins of the human race" then some hold it is a false doctrine..."maybe 4 point Calvinism", but then that there is no such thing as 4 point Calvinism....etc.... But that Christ died for the human race is exactly what the Reformers said. That is why I (granted, perhaps in error) concluded that there were some differences.

 

[Rippon]

Jon, what is the source for your new revelations? Do you follow David Ponter? You have made a number of statements that I think are not original with you.

From the way you have been posting one would think that there was agreement between Arminius and Calvin --between Ricard Baxter and Theodore Beza. You are sorely mistaken.

 

[JonC]

Since you have distorted my view you have no room to talk JonC.

I was not intentionally returning the favor.

Don't quote without citing the source of your quotes.

I did include the source for those quotes…they were the Canons of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism (I put the reference, however, at the bottom of the page….so I see how it was not clear. The first was from the Canons of Dort, the second the Heidelberg Catechism under the second section).

Since you find it so difficult to understand my words, let’s try the words of others:

“And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.” (Calvin - John 3:16)

I don't buy the argument "God is saying "come everyone" because people don't know if they are actually included or not. The reason is that those who don't come, or who try to come on their own terms (tares) are under condemnation. Perhaps you are correct that they are condemned for not believing even though they were never called effectually. But then it is a command based on an empty fulfillment...I'll have to think about it more.

But Calvin's comment here is what I mean by the death of Christ not being restricted only to the elect.

“The Lord died for all: but all are not made partakers of this redemption” (Heinrich Bullinger)

Perhaps the differences come in with the idea that the penal substitution theory is Atonement.

The above is a mass of confusion Jon. And the same goes for what you said in post #7 : [paraphrasing]Calvinism is in error for holding that 'Christ did not die for the sins of the world' and that that is foreign to Calvinism and to Scripture.

Again, brother, this thread was not about the correctness of Christ’s death being for the human race. It was about that notion being representative of early Calvinism and the primary understanding until Arminius. (You can just say “Oh..I see what you mean…sorry” to save time :smilewinkgrin: ).

 

[JonC]

Jon, what is the source for your new revelations? Do you follow David Ponter? You have made a number of statements that I think are not original with you.

From the way you have been posting one would think that there was agreement between Arminius and Calvin --between Ricard Baxter and Theodore Beza. You are sorely mistaken.

Ultimately I probably have no ideas that are original to me, I'm not that clever. But if you are suggesting I'm copying the works of others...no, this is not the case. Who is David Pointer?

No new revelations. As one who held to the “five points” I started reading Calvin and some of the earlier writings of the Reformed churches. My issue was that there are corners where you turn and have to alter a rendering of Scripture (from its traditional understanding, not that the passage ‘could not mean’ this or that) to fit the “L” petal.

Someone here, perhaps you…I don’t remember…explained that the Atonement encompassed the entire work of salvation (it included God’s drawing of the elect, faith and repentance, etc). Anyway, while that made sense to me it still did not square with how many were presenting the death of Christ (apart from God’s call, faith, etc).

What I discovered was that Calvin and the Reformers did not take the position that Christ died for the sins of the elect only. Calvin seems to have placed the act of effecting salvation in the sheep hearing His voice. He also seemed to place an emphasis on the Cross for the non-elect.

But by the end of the 1600’s is it apparent that there was a division within Reformed thought (it existed prior to 1619 as evidenced by the inclusive language of the Canons of Dort…and the exclusive language of the Helvetic Consensus). The date, BTW, you are looking for is 1675…with the Swiss Reformed via the Helvetic Consensus kicking those poor old “4 pointers” out of the club.

So no, Rippon. It is not a “new revelation,” but a history forgotten.

 

[Rippon]

“The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called.”

I perfectly agree with the above. I have absolutely no problem with it.

What was presented at the Synod of Dort based the state of the elect and reprobate on God’s eternal decree. But it goes further and speaks of the difference being the work of God drawing (God “softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgment God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen”).

I have no objection with the above either.

"Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice he might deliver us [the elect] body and soul from eternal condemnation."

I am in agreement with the second sentence. However, I disagree with "the whole human race" phrase as stated in the following sentence. I will check and see if another reading offers a different view. But remember, the Heidelberg Catechism was chiefly intended for children, so it didn't go into particulars as a fuller Confession would.

How far is your understanding of TULIP from what it claims to represent?

Well, I am sick and tired of repeating the same thing, but --I have always been against the TULIP acronym. It leads to misunderstanding. The actual Canons of Dort need to be appealed to --not a flashcard.

Secondly, the H.C. has nothing to do with TULIP.

 

[JonC]

Well, I am sick and tired of repeating the same thing, but --I have always been against the TULIP acronym. It leads to misunderstanding. The actual Canons of Dort need to be appealed to --not a flashcard.

I agree 100%. The Canons of Dort were not as narrow as the acronym (this, I believe, is obvious given the debates internal to Calvinism during that time and forward) but more importantly the Canons of Dort explain their faith...TULIP briefly and poorly tries to summarize the five points and fails... leading to misunderstandings and straw men (which often pop up on this board).

 

[Rippon]

Ultimately I probably have no ideas that are original to me, I'm not that clever. But if you are suggesting I'm copying the works of others...no, this is not the case. Who is David Pointer?

His name is David W. Ponter. Look him up if you want.

What I discovered was that Calvin and the Reformers did not take the position that Christ died for the sins of the elect only.

You made that discovery, did you? I am not saying all the Reformers held to the particular particularism of John Owen --even Calvin himself. The issue of the Definite atonement didn't become such until 50 years after Calvin's death. But Calvin, Farel, Beza, Vermigli, Viret, Knox and other notables held to particularism --even if it was in the formative stage.

But by the end of the 1600’s is it apparent that there was a division within Reformed thought

Pertaining to what?

(it existed prior to 1619 as evidenced by the inclusive language of the Canons of Dort…and the exclusive language of the Helvetic Consensus).

What are you saying? I have no idea what you are talking about with your 'inclusive" "exclusive" language. What are you referencing?

The date, BTW, you are looking for is 1675…with the Swiss Reformed via the Helvetic Consensus kicking those poor old “4 pointers” out of the club.

Was I looking for a date for anything?

Jon, you are not clear in what you are saying. It's hard to follow your train of thought.

 

[JonC]

I found this which speaks of David Ponter (I assume this is the one you are speaking of).

"The whole 4-point Calvinism vs 5-point Calvinism labeling must be abandoned.
TULIP is not Dort. Nor is the so-called, “The Five Points of Calvinism.”

I hold to all the points of Dort, all 5 of them, so that makes me a 5-point Calvinist; if one must insist on playing the numbers game.

But, for example, I reject the L in “TULIP,” so by that standard I am not a 5-point Calvinist.

TULIP is a truncation and a misuse of classic Dortian Calvinism.

When you label me a 4-pointer, you just perpetuate the standard TULIP category of misinformation. You are letting “TULIP” continue to define the historical categories and control the conversation. To perpetuate the use of TULIP and/or the label “The Five Points of Calvinism,” is to continue to disinform people."

(http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-r...he-terminology-of-4-point-calvinistcalvinism/)

I think he is absolutely correct here. There is an article by the man attached, which I'll read when I get a chance. I don't know if I agree with his views of the Atonement.

 

[Rippon]

I agree 100%. The Canons of Dort were not as narrow as the acronym

Well, since TULIP and brief explanations can be contained on one side of a paper of course it will be narrower than the Canons of Dort, By narrow I take it that you think that the Canons were more flexible on the other four points (leaving Definite Atonement aside for the moment.). How so? Ge specific.

(this, I believe, is obvious given the debates internal to Calvinism during that time and forward)

What "debates" are you talking about? Please don't be vague.

 

[JonC]

What are you saying? I have no idea what you are talking about with your 'inclusive" "exclusive" language. What are you referencing?

What I am saying is that the Canons of Dort speak with an inclusive (inˈklo͞osiv) language. By inclusive I mean “including,” or “containing a specified element as part of a whole” or “with the inclusion of the extreme limits stated.” The language of Dort is inclusive of the view that Christ died for the sins of the human race.

Let’s try out our new word for illustration:

Believing that Christ died for the sins of all men, not that all men are saved but that the Cross is the basis for all of humanity, I also believe the Canons of Dort as they are “inclusive” of my view. TULIP, however, is often taken to “exclude” my views (I hope I didn’t throw you with changing the “in” to “ex.” Exclude (ikˈsklo͞od) means to remove from consideration…to “rule out.” I know they sound similar so it can be confusing.

 

[JonC]

Well, since TULIP and brief explanations can be contained on one side of a paper of course it will be narrower than the Canons of Dort, By narrow I take it that you think that the Canons were more flexible on the other four points (leaving Definite Atonement aside for the moment.). How so? Ge specific.

What "debates" are you talking about? Please don't be vague.

I'm actually not sure why we would "leave Definite Atonement" aside for the moment...as it is this view that we are concerned with here.

It's not a matter of being more "flexible," it's a point that TULIP does not accurately represent the Canons.

By "debates" I mean it was a debatable issue within Calvinism. Am I to assume that you disagree that within post-Calvin orthodox Calvinism the Atonement was debated and there was various views (excluding the obvious Arminian controversy which was ultimately considered "outside" of Calvinism)?