Tags
amyraldianism, atonement, baptist, Bruce Demarest, Bruce Ware, calvinism, calvinist, christian, christianity, church history, doctrine, election, John Calvin, limited atonement, Multiple Intentions View, reformed theology, religion, Richard Baxter, Sam Storms, southern baptist, spirituality
I want to begin this post with a disclaimer and a warning. The disclaimer: I’m about to wade into theological water way over my head. Okay… here goes… glub, glub, glub… (that’s the sound I make when I’m sinking). The warning: Long post ahead!
I’m going to include quite a few links below, and then pose a question. If you’ve never really thought much about this issue, I’d like for you to read as much of the linked information as possible (especially Bruce Ware’s paper on the “Multiple Intentions View” of the atonement).
One more thing, before I get to the links. Most people who know me very well consider me a Calvinist. However, that label means so many different things to so many different people, and can be so unnecessarily divisive that I don’t care for it. Nothing at all would be lost if it just went away, in my opinion. At any rate, my allegiance is to the Word of God, rather than to any particular system of theology, although I believe systematic theology is an important discipline.
The Links and Some Thoughts
A few weeks ago our pastor taught on the atonement as part of a series on the person and work of Christ. He leans toward the view of Bruce Demarest, articulated in The Cross and Salvation
My pastor also mentioned Bruce Ware in his message. Ware is a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and considers himself a 4-point Calvinist. He proposes a view of the atonement he calls the Multiple Intentions View.
Another somewhat different form of 4-point Calvinism is Amyraldianism. (If you follow that link it leads to a pretty good overview by Sam Storms of Moises Amyraut’s theology.) Richard Baxter, a Reformed Anglican who held to a form of Amyraldianism, once wrote,
When God saith so expressly that Christ died for all [2 Cor. 5:14-15], and tasted death for every man [Heb. 2:9], and is the ransom for all [1 Tim. 2:6], and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world [1 Jn. 2:2], it beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for all, than flatly to deny it. (quoted in the article, ANGLICANISM, AMYRAUT AND THE ATONEMENT)
That, I think, is what Bruce Ware and Amyraut and others have attempted to do–to explain in what sense Christ died for all.
For whatever it’s worth, it doesn’t seem accurate to me to call either Ware or Amyraut a 4-point Calvinist. If I understand their positions correctly, neither of them concede any of the traditional 5 points of Calvinism. Rather, both add a point. Amyraut believed in a definite atonement of the elect, but he also believed that God wills salvation in more than one way. Bruce Ware believes in a definite atonement as well, but he also believes that God has more than one intention in the atonement.
Although there are variations of these views, all of them are generally categorized as moderate or classic Calvinism. There are a number of websites that advocate some form of moderate Calvinism. One that I visit occasionally is Calvin and Calvinism.
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit recently and discussing it with with my pastor and some of my online friends. One of my good blog friends, James Galyon, recently introduced a new feature on his blog. Anyone can ask him any kind of biblical or theological question, which he will answer on a subsequent Monday. James has a good mind and a gracious heart. He would be happy to tackle any question you might have.
Anyway, I took him up on his offer and asked a question about the extent of the atonement. You can see my question, his answer, and the rather spirited discussion that it prompted at The Doctor is IN.
So much for the links.
The Question
Have any of you ever wrestled with this particular issue? I’m not qualified for a debate on the subject (remember my disclaimer), nor am I interested in one. I’m just offering my humble opinion, and asking you to feel free to offer yours, as well.
After many, many years of pondering this issue, I believe that my own view conforms most closely to Bruce Ware’s. The thing I appreciate most about his view is that it tries to take into account and give due weight to all of the biblical passages, without doing harm to the apparent meaning of any one of them in particular. I find that to be both rare and refreshing.
who am i? 
I am sure I will get into this quite a bit in my studies going forward, but no, I have not spent much time wrestling with this up to now.
While I am a firm believer that one nneds to understand theology to be able to defend one’s faith; that it is important to understand differing viewpoints in order to discuss them and propound one’s own views.
I just worry that too much to and fro regarding differing viewpoints is doing more to advance Satan’s kingdom on earth rather than God’s in heaven.
Given I am into studying for the new term, I will watch the conversation here with great interest, but sadly, with less involvement.
Glad to have found your blog Barry (I wonder are we related in some tenuous past ancestor, may be William himself).
I’ve only dipped a little in the MI View, it stands at odds with Owen’s “double jeopardy” view…that much I know!
I’ll read Ware’s document.
If you haven’t already listened to this 9 Marks interview you’ll be able to hear Piper and Ware discuss the issue.
http://media.9marks.org/2007/03/01/particular-redemption-the-new-perspective-and-more-with-john-piper-and-bruce-ware/
Hey there,
Your analysis is spot on. I did start to grimace at the 4 point label. Then I saw your qualifier-correction.
Regarding Amyraut, the problem is, his theology has been defined by his opponents, which definition is then transmitted to following generations. Amyraut’s own clarifications have rarely been allowed to correct the mythological Amyraut.
I am scanning through the article at 2 Worlds, and I saw this comment:
“The agreement between these Calvinists, and with Christians such as Drs. Demarest and Ware, is obvious. Turretin’s next sentence, however, distinguishes the multi-intentioned view (and others) from the historic Reformed view.”
David: The problem is, the situation is historicat actuality somewhat reversed. Of course the problem is when we play the “historic Calvinism” card. Both high and classic Calvinism have historic precedents. Both are historic representations of that broad movement we call Reformed Theology. The questions need to be framed on other hinge questions and statements.
What we need to be more accurate in, is in describing classic first generation Reformed theology. Once we do that we then get a better picture and appreciation for the complexity and diversity with in the broader Reformed movement.
Thanks
David
Just on the Suretyship note, you have in Calvin comments like this:
He loved Him, and yet his was His will to afflict Him for our sins. For He did not look upon the righteousness, integrity and perfection that was in Jesus Christ; but rather took Him has being there in the place of all sinners. So we see that Jesus Christ was laden with all our sins and iniquities; not because he was guilty of them, but because He was willing for them to be imputed to Himself, and to render account for them and make the payment. John Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, Sermon 3, 53:4-6, p., 70.
And in others, the expiation was made in behalf or all sinners (eg Musculus, Bullinger, et al).
Take care,
David
I’ll have to come back to this a bit later – work today. I’m pretty familiar with this issue, though not with the modern day players. I can say that the view of Amyraut is considered by most in reformed circles to be in error, and is viewed as “hypothetical universalism”. Though you may have covered that. My own pastor used to hold this position, though I think he’s backed away from it in favor of the more standard infralapsarian position. I’ll take time later to listen to the information you’ve presented. This is all very heady stuff, and very interesting and possibly useful as long as we remember that this is an intra-mural Calivinistic discussion, doctrinal fine tuning if you will. I’ve read John Frame on this and he doesn’t even think it’s something that can even be known really. But, I’ve got to run. I come back to this.
Hey Laurie,
If you don’t my attempt to answer your concern there.
The so-called Amyraldian order of the decrees were actually created because of a misreading of Amyraut’s theology. Amyraut spoke of an ordering, basically as a teaching term. However, his early comments were misread as positing a literal set of absolute decrees, with one universal and conditional (ie hypothetical) followed by a limited absolute (ie unconditional) decree.
There is a lot of confusion in some of this. For example, when Amyraut spoke of a conditional decree, he was actually using classic language from Zanchi and Bucer, et al. Further, it denoted the revealed will, not the decretive will (as we know it).
You can see some of this here, and if you go to my index page here, scroll down to the section on conditional decree and you will see how others have used this language and in what context. You can also see some snippets from Amyraut on the ordering of the decrees etc.
As to the hypothetical aspect of Christ’s death, for these guys it is not that if someone believes, then Christ will die for them, or that their faith conditions the death itself. Rather, what they believed was that Christ, as to the sufficiency of the sacrifice, died for all. This satisfaction was unconditionally accepted by the Father. But now, the extension (ie application) of it to the individual is a condition proposed to men in the offer of the Gospel.
Hope that helps,
David
As usual, its impossible to think and say everything, all the time, everywhere.
I should add, properly speaking, infralapsarianism, is not incompatible with classic and moderate Calvinism. It just all comes back to the question in the post: how does one define the limitation of the atonement.
David
I agree with David that it is unfortunate that Amyraut’s view of the atonement has been defined by his opponents. Some now regard him with disdain, when, in fact, he was attempting to explain the atonement as fully as possible while retaining a Reformed view.
Speaking of the Reformed view, when I wrote of the “historic Reformed” position, I’m speaking of the position affirmed repeatedly by Reformed creeds, confessions and catechisms (which is *not* the multi-intentioned view).
Hey Barry- I just came across your blog through High Calling Blogs. There is just too much here for me to comment on, but I’m really enjoying your blog. Your post on the atheist and Africa, The God Who Smokes has got me all fired up about a new book to read, and it just goes on. I’ll be sifting through it, but great job! God bless and happy blogging!
Andy and Laurie,
I appreciate your caution in approaching this subject. I believe it’s warranted. Many debates, in the end, only dishonor God.
It’s unfortunate in one sense that the atonement ever became a matter of debate; it should be fuel for worship. When I’m in my right mind, I am profoundly humbled by the fact that Christ would die for me. Amazing!
I would greatly prefer to leave the issue right there, but I feel compelled by both the complexity of God’s own revelation of the atonement, and the subsequent controversy over it in the church, to do the best I can to understand it.
Thanks again, both of you, for your honesty and humility.
David,
Thanks for providing some additional historical background. It certainly seems that reformed views of the extent of the atonement have been very rich and diverse, right from the beginning.
Paul,
I was glad to find your blog, too. Incidentally, in addition to being a Wallace, I am also a direct descendant of the Gregory clan. We may indeed have had some long forgotten common ancestor in Wales!
Regarding the “double jeopardy” objection, not all 5-point Calvinists think Owen’s argument is valid. See here for an example, and check out the links in the article.
James
I appreciate your helpful insights into complex historical and theological issues. Your comments are always a valuable addition to any discussion. Well… your insight into the NFL playoffs this year may be an exception.
Matt
Thanks for the visit, and the kind words of encouragement. I enjoyed browsing your blog, too.
TO ALL,
Thanks for taking the time to weigh in on this difficult issue, and doing so in a gracious, thoughtful, and constructive manner.
Keep the comments coming!
Hey James,
There is some complexity here in that the early Reformed didn’t really see their view of the expiation as “multi-intentional.” Rather that is a term we now use to describe a position.
You can go to my index page and see material from Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Gualther, Rollock and many others, showing that they taught a dual intentional expiation/redemption, for all men sufficiently, for the elect efficiently.
The sufficiency model of he early Reformers is not the same as that of Owen and the High Orthodox theologians. Owen even admits this.
You also say: “Speaking of the Reformed view, when I wrote of the “historic Reformed” position, I’m speaking of the position affirmed repeatedly by Reformed creeds, confessions and catechisms (which is *not* the multi-intentioned view).”
David: That’s a little tricky too. The Second Helvetic clearly held to an unlimited expiation and redemption model. The Heidelberg Catechism, likewise, even as Ursinus himself explains it. The Declaration of Thorn held to a moderate view on the expiation as well. This was a rare confession drafted to unite the Polish Reformed churches, and others in that area.
There are also fragments from early Reformed confessions which advocate an unlimited expiation.
I know about the Helvetic Concensus, but that was not accepted universally and was soon repealed. The WCF is the closest you could get I think. But then even there it is complex. Muller himself comments on this too.
I don’t know of any confession which expressly limits the atonement (akin to what is represented in Owen’s Death of Death.
Some of these confessional pieces can be seen on my index page.
You should also read Muller on Amyraut and Dort. Basically Muller argues that Dort is not speaking about the extent of the expiation, not even to making a negation of it.
All the info is at listed at my index page, here.
Thanks and take care,
David
Hey Barry,
You say: “Thanks for providing some additional historical background. It certainly seems that reformed views of the extent of the atonement have been very rich and diverse, right from the beginning.”
David: yes you are right. It is for that reason I decided to publish my research notes on the various early Reformed theologians at the C&C blog. Our biggest enemy has been ourselves, our own ignorance of Reformed theology from the historiographical point of view.
Thanks,
David
Barry,
I still haven’t found time to read through all you information, but have glanced through the comments. You’ve got some very well informed commenters! I’m with you on wanting to know as much as can be known through Scripture. I love doctrine and will keep asking it questions until there are no more answers to be found there. I think that we should seek to know everything it is possible to know about God as He has revealed Himself to us – certainly He wouldn’t have revealed things if He didn’t want us to know them. I still intend to get back to this. I hope you’ll keep us all posted.
Hey Paul,
If you are still reading…
I should have picked this up before.
Paul said:
“I’ve only dipped a little in the MI View, it stands at odds with Owen’s “double jeopardy” view…that much I know!”
You can see refutations of double-payment/jeopardy dilemmas by Charles Hodge, W Shedd, and R Dabney.
David
Thanks David,
I knew there were plenty of theologians who differed with Owen, I was just merely observing that Owen differed on that point with the MI view.
I think it is important that the Atonement is not separated from the remainder of the Redemptive Plan particularly the Eternal Covenant of Redemption and the High Priestly Office of Christ, and I think both these issues must harmonise and inform our understanding of Atonement.
Also I think it would be a misdescription of most five point Calvinsts to describe them as only seeing one intention in the Atonement, I think I could pretty much agree with all of Ware’s points apart from 2 (in his description of the MI view), and from here I’m sitting at least some of his texts to prove point 2 are tenuous exegetically and have well founded alternative expositions.
Thus for me multi-intentioned is not the best term for Ware’s position, 4 point Calvinist is.
Hey Paul,
If I may ask, would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean, for example, on the atonement’s relation to the High Priestly Office?
And thanks for your willingness to converse, as well as your tone. I appreciate that.
Thanks,
David
Barry,
After listening to Dr. Curt Daniel’s excellent series of lectures on the history of Calvinism, this has become one of my new favorite topics. It used to be the reason I refused to even consider Calvinism. When pressed, I now call myself a 4-and-a-half point Calvinist (though I prefer the simple label, “Reformed”) – because I believe in a limited intention as well as an unlimited intention in the atonement. This has also been expressed as “sufficient for ALL, but efficient only for the elect.” Ultimately, the goal is to be Biblical, not to be closest to Calvin, or the other Reformers, or the historic teaching, or even to be coherent to the Nth degree. I can make a much more logical case for strict 5-point Calvinism with a completely limited atonement, but I can’t square it with Scripture so it doesn’t convince me.
It seems to me that various people (such as Bruce Ware) have offered good, Biblical clarifications to limited atonement. However, some theologians are still holding onto it because they’re afraid it will lead us down some kind of slippery slope into Arminianism (or worse). But we have to hit the Biblical balance and stay there.
That’s my two cents, as a more or less unschooled observer. Or should I say it’s my one cent, with two sides?
Hey there Derek,
Without wanting to sound my own horn, the question of 4.5 Calvinism has also come up here at Mike’s blog, and I posted a comment on why I don’t think describing this theology by way of numbers is helpful.
Thanks,
David
David,
I read your comment on Mike’s blog, and I agree that the 5 points are not the best descriptors. But they are used ubiquitously, and I find it helpful within a limited context to give myself the 4.5-point label (in other words, my friends know what I mean by it!). I really like what you said about the lapsarian projects being traps. For that, you get a gold star from me!
I appreciate your site because it gives the scholarly and historic groundwork which validates the “moderate” position within Reformed theology. In the past, I rejected Calvinism because I saw only the rigid, hyper caricature of it. Folks like you, Dr. Daniel, Tony Byrne, and of course Calvin himself have my head spinning now! Since discovering moderate Calvinism, I’m like a kid in a candy shop.
Hey Derek,
That’s really cool to hear. One of the things we have talked about is that the moderate position has a greater potential of crossing the siege lines and reach out to non-Reformed traditions.
Thanks,
David
David with regard to the high priestly office of Christ and its relationship to the Atonement I mean merely this . Those who are saved are those who are atoned for and likewise those for whom He intercedes. There are none who are interceded for who are not atoned for and therefore not saved…and you can switch the words around any way you like…..there is a definite number atoned for, interceded for and saved and they are the same people.
My view is best summarised here (though I’m sure you are all familiar with it)
http://vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html
hey Paul,
Thanks for answering that.
Now if I may be bold and press this.
You have two key lines of thought nested in your comment here. I will separate them out.
1] “Those who are saved are those who are atoned for and likewise those for whom He intercedes. There are none who are interceded for who are not atoned for and therefore not saved”
David: paraphrase:
‘All the saved are “atoned for” and “interceded for.’
&
‘All the “interceded for” are “atoned for.’
David: agreed.
2] “…and you can switch the words around any way you like…..there is a definite number atoned for, interceded for and saved and they are the same people.”
David: this seems to be saying something like this: All the “atoned for” are the “interceded for”?
David: If I summarize the argument, it seems to be this:
All those for whom Christ died, are effectually prayed for by Christ.
My question would be, if I have summed up your line of thought here, how would one prove that last proposition?
If you dont want to talk about this, that’s fine. I am not trying to beat anyone up or thump my chest, just wanting to perhaps highlight a logical problem in that argument.
Take care,
David
Yes David, no problem, as I believe that must be the final line in the equation when you take such verses as these together,
Hebrews 7:24, 25 “24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”
John 17:8-10 “8 “For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. 9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 “And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.”
John 10:15, 16 “15 “As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
There is a definiteness (is there such a word?) and limited nature to both the intercession of Christ and the purpose of the death of Christ and both are intrinsically connected.
Barry,
I told you it’d be a while before I could sort through this a bit – and the comments keep piling up. I’ll sound like a simpleton compared to the preceding contributors. I’m no scholar. I get overwhelmed with the characters and the various names they’ve coined for their postions and their historic places. I’ve read what you’ve provided, and Shedd and Frame, and looked a bit to some lectures I’ve listened to from RTS. I listened to the supralapsarian view and agreed with it. I listened to the infralapsarian view and agreed with it. It really seems to me that they’re talking past each other. The Amyraldian view, (as it’s understood today, apologies if, as the above commenters say, he’s been mis-represented) or “hypothetical universalism”, I find difficult, because I have a really difficult time imagining the God who knows and decrees the end from the beginning – knowing perfectly well what He intends to accomplish and that He will accomplish it -operating in the realm of hypotheticals and carrying out real means for merely hypothetical ends. This is not to say that God is incapable of considering courses of action which He does not actually take, just that He does not take real action for merely hypothetical ends. This is also not to say that what I’m capable of imagining is the best regulative priniciple, but where Scripture is not explicit, that’s pretty much what I’m left with.
I do find the “double jeapardy” view compelling. I also find it very difficult to understand how we can separate the death of Christ from His resurrection in it’s effects. For instance: “who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25) Was he sacrificed (“delivered up”) for all to justify (be “raised” for) only some? Those He died for will be justified (Rom. 8:29-30).
Yet I do believe there is a sense in which Christ died for the world, and in which “God so loved the world”: it is only because Christ was slain from the foundation of the world that those who hate him live out their unrepentant lives receiving patience and kindness from God. It is on the basis of the atoning sacrifice that any human enjoys any good thing. It is only on the basis of the cross that the human race continued beyond Adam and Eve. But I may have drifted off topic.
As for the “supra” and “infra” views, like I said before, I agree with them both. They seem to be both biblical answers, but not necessarily to the identical question. And here I agree with John Frame in his Doctrine of God. (He urges agnosticism in the matter.) I’ll provide a few quotes.
“For defenders of the supralapsarian view, the important point is that God’s foremost concern in his decrees is to display his grace in a chosen people.”
“The infralapsarian view makes no judgment as to God’s foremost concern. It simply asks us to imagine the process as if God were thinking of the order in which events would occur. Here the governing principle is mostly what I have called condition-realization. It is therefore important to understand that the two list have different concepts of order.”
He lists several reasons why we should remain agnostic here:
1)The two positions equivocate on the meaning of order and therefore can’t be precisely compared with one another.
2) Scripture never explicitly presents a complete and definitive order of thoughts in God’s mind, in any of the relevant senses of order.
3) Scripture warns us against trying to read God’s mind…
4)Surely, in one sense, all of God’s decrees presuppose each other and exist for the sake of each other. God formulates each decree with all the others in view. Each influences the others. This fact makes it very difficult to list decrees according to any of the proposed principles of order. (This is why I have trouble with the notion of “hypothetical universalism.)
5)In God’s mind, where the decrees take all others into account, all my be considered ends, and all may be considered means…
6)There are therefore reciprocal relationships among the purposes of God….Creation provides the backdrop for redemption, but redemption restores creation. Redemption presupposes creation, but creation itself is in the image of redemption.
7)I know of nothing in Scripture that settles the question whether God in eternity views the elect as “creatable” or as “created”…..God views us in all states, actual and possible.
8)The question whether God envisions his elect as taken from a fallen humanity, or somehow existing apart from the Fall, does not make much sense
He makes three more points, but it’s past midnight and I’m running out of steam. At this point, I remain a 5-point Calvinist. It took the Scripture to get me to that place, and if I’m wrong, may God through His Scripture correct me.
Derek,
I haven’t heard Dr. Daniel’s series on Calvinism. Googling it just now, I see there are 75 lectures! I’d like to tackle them, but I don’t know when I’d find time. Why don’t you do a blog series on them?
Also, I could not agree more with your statement: “I can make a much more logical case for strict 5-point Calvinism with a completely limited atonement, but I can’t square it with Scripture so it doesn’t convince me.”
Laurie,
As I alluded to in my original post, it’s not that I concede any of the five points of Calvinism, although I would use the term definite atonement in the place of limited atonement. However, I have been convinced by Scripture that in addition to a definite atonement, there is an umlimited expiation (1 John 2:2), a view shared by R.L. Dabney and others. I would have to say, as Derek did, that although logic pulls me toward a strict 5-point Calvinism, it is Scripture that leads me away from it.
Barry,
Dr. Daniel’s series of 75 lectures is divided into a “history” section and a “theology” section. I’ve listened to the whole history section, about 20 lectures. It’s like a graduate course in Church History, and it gives you lots of perspective on the various debates and controversies. A word of caution – if you start to listen to the series, you probably won’t be able to stop until you get all the way through.
Derek
Hey Paul,
Thanks again for replying. I know that this can be a provocative subject. If you want to stop at any time, just let me know. I am not trying to troll.
Paul: Yes David, no problem, as I believe that must be the final line in the equation when you take such verses as these together,
David: So if I recap the critical premise. I will reduce the language to its simplest. And by “intercession” here I always mean the effectual intercession, unless I specify otherwise. By “prayed for” I mean this effectual intercession as well.
The argument then would claim that if fail to be effectually prayed for (ie saved by it) then they are not “died for.”
So the premise is: all the died for are prayed for.
You also have a line there which is interesting. You say: “when you take such verses as these together.” I assume you mean, when you have the cumulative effect? or when you have all the aspects are put back to back, any alternative conclusion is impossible. I think that would be something like the Trinity Doctrine? When one puts all the relevant verses together, the denial of the Trinity is impossible?
Paul cites:
Hebrews 7:24, 25 “24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” [emphasis mine]
David: The premise is, all the died for, are prayed for. However, here the verse simply says, ‘all the coming ones’ are prayed for.
You would agree that all the died for are “all the coming ones” are not the same. For example, some “died for ones” are still non-existent, some “died for ones” are still in alive in unbelief.
Let us put the premises back to back:1) All the died for are prayed for
2) All coming are prayed for.We can see that 2 in no way implies 1.
Paul cites:
John 17:8-10 “8 “For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. 9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 “And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.”
David: There are some interesting things assumed here.
The question is: who are the “given ones.”
If we attend directly to the text, the given ones are the 11 Apostles. The context:John 17:6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 9 “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
I don’t think anyone would claim that Jesus does not have the 11 in mind here, to the exclusion of Judas. And so, while Judas perished, the 11 given to Christ were delivered. The prayer comes to Christ asking for their continued preservation etc.Now, even if we say that the 11 here represent all the elect, all the elect as they too are given to Christ, does anything change? I don’t think so.
And so the premise comparison comes to this:
1)All the died for are prayed for
3) All the given ones are prayed for
Premise 3) does not entail 1).
Even if we put 2 and 3 together, is 1 entailed?
1) All the died for are prayed for
2) All the coming ones are prayed for.
3) All the given ones are prayed for
The two critical verses which allege that for all whom Christ prays for, are all the died for, do not prove or entail that conclusion, either by way of a necessary deductive inference, or an inductive inference.
Now the next verse you cite,
John 10:15, 16 “15 “As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
Paul comments: There is a definiteness (is there such a word?) and limited nature to both the intercession of Christ and the purpose of the death of Christ and both are intrinsically connected.
David: I don’t see it, Paul. I agree that all prayed for, are died for. This interconnectedness is explicit. To be prayed for, one must be died for, for the grounds of the prayer is the death of Christ. But now to say, all the died for are prayed for, that does not follow.
Regarding Jn 10: I would direct your attention to Dabney:
In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach but partial force to some of the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turrettin, e.g., That Christ says, He died “for His sheep,” for “His Church,” for “His friends,” is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object. Dabney, Lectures, p., 521.
David: What Dabney says here is powerful. The rule is, one cannot infer a universal negative (or negation) from a simple positive. For example, no one would image that when the Apostle Paul said, ‘Christ died for me’ that Christ only died for Paul. Rather, we think emphasis, specificity, but not to the point of exclusivity. John says to his second Son, “Danny, I love you.” But it would be wrong for first son, third sister, wife, to infer that Dad loves Danny to the exclusion of these others. It is called the negative inference fallacy.
Rather, what John 10 does is deny the claim that Christ died for no one with no special emphasis or intentionality. But it does not prove that Christ died for others with some other intentionality or manner. Make sense?
So if we put all the premises from these verses together, tell me what you think:
1)All the coming ones are prayed for.
2)All the given ones are prayed for
3) The Sheep are Emphatically died for.
4) All the died for are prayed for
We know that the sheep are prayed for, especially as they “come to Christ” as per Heb. Premise. We can even grant that the “given ones” of John 17:9 are all the sheep of John 10. But does that add anything? Not really in my opinion.
If we come back to the Trinity, as an exemplar of a doctrine sustained by an accumulation of verses, we note that for the Trinity, each step in the logical chain is whats called a necessary inference. The inference “has” to follow. It has to follow that a bachelor is an unmarried male. It has to follow that a triangle has three sides. It has to follow that if there is but 1 God, and all three persons of the Trinity claim to be this God, and that Scripture cannot be broken, that the Trinity is true.
Further, each inference, in the chain of reasoning to the Trinity, is valid and sound. Valid as in violates no rule of logical inference, and sound being true. I would say the inferences you take from your verses suffer badly on this point.
So to wrap this up, from the passage in Hebr., we see that all the comings ones are prayed. From Jn 17, all the given ones are prayed for. From John 10, all the sheep, for whom Christ died, are prayed for. But these separately or put together do not prove that all the died for are prayed for.
The Westminster Confession:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. 1:6.
The WCF is right. Our doctrines must be valid, ie true logically, and sound, that is, true to Scripture, in all its parts.
I know what I say here looks very clinical and rationalist, but when one thinks about it, its more exegetically driven than the argument being opposed here.
What do you think?
Thank again for your patience,
David
Here’s what I think (slightly tongue in cheek), I’m thinking that the Westminster Divines believed that the verses that I set out do indeed by good and necessary inference teach what I wrote because that is what they write in 8:8
VIII. To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.
Who these people? They identified in 8:5
V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.
Shaw in his exposition of the WCF states:
“The intercession of Christ proceeds upon the ground of his atoning sacrifice; they must, therefore, be of the same extent with regard to their objects; but he does not pray for the world, but only for those who were given him out of the world; his sacrifice must, therefore, be restricted to that definite number.—1 John ii. 1, 2; John xvii. 9.
So in answer to your question I agree with your own assessment, I think your understanding seems somewhat rationalist, and as one of the previous commenters noted logic cannot be the judge of this controversy (said against 5 points earlier interestingly).
The Puritans and Westminster Divines saw these texts in the same way I do.
I’ll probably not continue in this discussion a) because I’m not inclined to type as much as some people, that not a criticism, just a fact 🙂 b) I’m not going to solve the controversy, principally because c) I’m not adding anything new here, I, a bit like Laurie above, am content with the present light I have in the Westminster understanding of the Atonement and have seen nothing in Ware or anyone else that disproves them. I still believe his (Ware’s) texts for unlimited atonement as a doctrine in itself, are poorly exegeted.
Don’t take me bowing out of the conversation as a lack of patience, more as a case of me not being particularly interested in blog discussions of a controversial nature, particularly given the time it takes. Also I’m just a working pastor, for a lot of you guys this seems to a specialist subject, its not for me, it is just one of many thing I take interest in, again please don’t take that as a criticism, just a fact.
Thanks for the conversation.
Paul
Hey Paul,
So what did you think about my response to the claim that all those for whom Christ died, he effectually prays for?
Paul: Here’s what I think (slightly tongue in cheek), I’m thinking that the Westminster Divines believed that the verses that I set out do indeed by good and necessary inference teach what I wrote because that is what they write in 8:8
David: Okay, but what do you think of the counter-argument I made via Scriptures?
David: So let’s look at this, all the while granting that the WCF is not Scripture:
[WCF:] VIII. To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.
Paul: Who these people? They identified in 8:5
[WCF:] V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.
Paul: Shaw in his exposition of the WCF states:
“The intercession of Christ proceeds upon the ground of his atoning sacrifice; they must, therefore, be of the same extent with regard to their objects; but he does not pray for the world, but only for those who were given him out of the world; his sacrifice must, therefore, be restricted to that definite number.—1 John ii. 1, 2; John xvii. 9.
David: How does this advance your argument? It just repeats its. Notice the critical line I have added bold to. How does he know that? What in Scripture sustains that as a necessary inference?
All he does is link together 1 John 2:2 with John 17:9. Regarding the WCF on this point, you may be interested in reading Muller on this, and Lee Gatiss
Quite a few of the WCF divines were moderate Calvinists. Baxter says from personal interviews etc, that approximately 1/3 of the divines held to the moderate position. For myself, I cant bring myself to think that Calamy, Seaman, Marshall, Ainsworth, Arrowsmith, Scudder, and the others, (including Twisse had he lived long enough) signed a confession which allegedly repudiates their position. This applies to some of the signatories when Manton republished the Confession years later.
Paul: So in answer to your question I agree with your own assessment, I think your understanding seems somewhat rationalist, and as one of the previous commenters noted logic cannot be the judge of this controversy (said against 5 points earlier interestingly).
David: Ouch. 🙂 There is a problem here, Paul. Apart from the idea that non-logic or illogic can never govern any argument we construct, no doctrine can violate the rules of valid inference. The Reformation is founded on this assumed axiom. There is a difference between Rationalism and being being rational. Rationalism is the claim that the agent is the one who pre-determined what is and is not theologically/logically possible. So for example, Unitarians predetermine that it is theologically and logically impossible for a being to one in nature, and three in person. But all good and true Christian doctrines are aligned with the logical rules of valid inference, for example, the first three laws of logic. Rationalism says the agent is the source of the propositions themselves. To be rational means that rules govern the inferences I make from propositions.
Paul: The Puritans and Westminster Divines saw these texts in the same way I do.
David: Traditions of men? 😉 Some Puritans, and some Westminster Divines, Paul. In my index page I have documented some puritans and some WCF divines who held to my position. This list is not complete or exhaustive by far.
Paul: I’ll probably not continue in this discussion a) because I’m not inclined to type as much as some people, that not a criticism, just a fact 🙂 b) I’m not going to solve the controversy, principally because c) I’m not adding anything new here, I, a bit like Laurie above, am content with the present light I have in the Westminster understanding of the Atonement and have seen nothing in Ware or anyone else that disproves them. I still believe his (Ware’s) texts for unlimited atonement as a doctrine in itself, are poorly exegeted.
David: Well, I don’t think I was trying to cover every angle in this. My thought was to just address this one angle. It would not be good to think that because someone else, namely Ware, may have some problematic claims, that arguments on the opposing side are non-problematic. Nothing Ware says impacts my response to the argument that Christ effectually prays for all those whom he died for.
David: One last thought, our doctrines must be built from the bottom up, from Scripture up. All the premises in any deductive chain of argument, must themselves be sustained by Scripture, by way of sound inferences.
Paul: Don’t take me bowing out of the conversation as a lack of patience, more as a case of me not being particularly interested in blog discussions of a controversial nature, particularly given the time it takes. Also I’m just a working pastor, for a lot of you guys this seems to a specialist subject, its not for me, it is just one of many thing I take interest in, again please don’t take that as a criticism, just a fact.
David: Okay I wont press you on this.
Paul: Thanks for the conversation.
David: Thanks too.
Take care,
David
Having received so much help from Dr Ware in the areas of the Trinity, Divine providence, and the humanity of Christ, I am willing to consider his position.