You can check out some debate over on Mandy Curley's site. Amyraldian by the way is a term used to label those Calvinists who do not hold to Limited, or particular atonement - the teaching that Christ only died for some (the elect) and not for the whole world.
We could also ask about why this debate matters so much? That would be a really great question to ask to people of both sides.
For me, it goes to the nature of God and to a very significant hermeneutical issue: do we assume that behind the God we meet in scripture is another more logical God? And, do we let the narrative of Scripture govern our theology or is our theological system the determiner of scripture? (BTW I am immune to the insult 'Barthian'!). It is worth noting that many of the texts that LA proponents offer as evidence do not overtly teach it to the exclusion of the non-LA position. Carson in his Love of God book is quite excellent on this. I have a couple of theological (rather than exegetical) points to add for consideration:
1 - i haven't seen anyone deal with my contention that LA is the result of starting the theological system with an abstract doctrine of God conditioned by the philosophy of Aristotle rather than with the drama of salvation-history and especially Christ. You can see this tendency in Owen and others however biblically committed they thought they were. Owen uses Aristotelian language and categories which then govern his whole theological system.
2 - a conceptual difficulty also arises because the atonement is conceived of as being an amount of 'stuff' that you can limit, like liquid in a bottle.
3 - the syllogism on which in depends (something like 'what God wills, sin cannot deny') is perhaps the problem. There is a hermeneutical problem here, isn't there, because the nature of God has already been decided...
4 - it is worth asking how the doctrine of creation - and God's love for all that he has made - fits in.
5. The relation of election in the whole biblical narrative to God's plan for the whole world needs to be accounted for. God's particular election has the whole cosmos in view, even when you think of Abraham and Israel...
6. LA (I would argue) is not Christocentric enough: since the full revelation of God's wrath and his love in his Son, the whole world is now judged according to this standard... The rejection of God's offer of redemption really is inexcuseable. But if LA holds of course it isn't a real offer anyway...
7. I am always suspicious of theology falling into too neat a 'system.' This is not an anti-rationalism: rather it suggests that theology has become beholden to some other system of rationality other than its own...
Of course there is more to say, and more lucidly.
16 comments:
Thank you Michael for posting this subject. I have troubles with LA as well and don't like it for the reasons you said, which I found a few ahaaa moments of YES!
However the difficulty then lies in how you understand predestionation and how it fits in with LA?
If you believe that God has predestined some to be saved and some not, then LA fits in nicely with that doctrine, and I can't see how you could believe in Predestination and not LA?
For if there is a true elect chosen to be saved by God, instead of those who would accept Christ being foreknown by God, then truly LA has to be the only option.
I would with the 39 articles affirm that God elects some to be saved.
I do not subscribe to the doctrine of a double predestination however (ie that he 'elects' some to be damned.)
That would make God a monster.
I feel unequal to the task of engaging in theological discussion with such people who are older, wiser and know what they are talking about, but here goes...
Michael:
I would be interested to know how you reconcile not believing in double predestination with Romans 9.14-23. Also, how can God's reprobation of some not be a necessary corollary of his election to salvation of some?
Craig:
I guess the Amyraldian would historically say that particular redemption fits in with predestination in that, while Christ died for all without exception, the application of that salvation and the granting of the faith to lay hold of it is only made to the elect.
This doesn't seem to work, though. It suggests disunity in the intentions of the different works of the persons of the Trinity, the incarnate Son dying with the intention to save all men, the Spirit applying the salvation to some men only.
Moreover, if Christ actually died in the place of all without exception, taking the penalty for their sins, then all must be saved (which Scripture won't allow). Either that, or Christians are robbed of all assurance - if some for whom Christ had paid the penalty for sin were not ultimately saved (the non-elect), then on what grounds could any of us who are trusting in Christ be sure that at the judgment, we will be aquitted because Christ died in our place?
Furthermore, the final condemnation of some of those in whose place Christ died (i.e. the non-elect) would mean that they could charge God with being unjust, twice demanding payment, "first at my bleeding Surety's hand, and then again at mine."
Would not *that* make God a monster?
P.S. For "aquitted", read "acquitted".
Please Daniel: do not assume anything about my age or wisdom (and certainly not about my knowing what I am talking about!) There is enough hiding behind this older/wiser thing without me doing it too...
Anyhoo: the 'necessary corollory' argument for double predestination doesn't quite follow... that is, there is a difference between actively choosing some for life and leaving others unchosen and actively choosing some to live and some to die. I guess this is where some like to argue about when God decrees what exactly - although this is pretty much speculation of the kind Calvin himself was at pains to repudiate.
As for Rom 9 - well spotted. I think it is important to say that here Paul is talking about the (temporary) hardening in particular of Israel which was so that Gentiles could come in... In part his argument is about God's right to do what he will, too - 'what if God wanted to' he says. That's not quite the same as saying 'God does such and such...'
My problem is with this paragraph:
"If Christ actually died in the place of all without exception, taking the penalty for their sins, then all must be saved (which Scripture won't allow). Either that, or Christians are robbed of all assurance - if some for whom Christ had paid the penalty for sin were not ultimately saved (the non-elect), then on what grounds could any of us who are trusting in Christ be sure that at the judgment, we will be aquitted because Christ died in our place?"
a) Because assurance is a work of the Holy Spirit, is it not? But I do not divide the intentions of the Trinity in this at all. Their tasks or roles may certainly differ.
b) 1 John 2:2 "...and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world..." Hmm...
c) Partly, there is problem of the clarfication of penal substitution. The trouble here is that the emphasis is on Christ paying for my individual sins at the expense of his paying for and defeating all human sin and evil. If we follow that he only died to pay for some sin, then his work is not a complete defeat of sin and evil - or it is hard to see that it is. I think you will find that the emphasis in all the classic PSA texts (and there aren't that many of course!) refer to sin not sins, and less to individuals than to a collective group. Think 2 Corinthians 5, where it he becomes sin (singular) for us (plural)...
Thanks for replying, Michael.
I wonder if you could clarify what you mean in point (a) - even if assurance is a work of the Holy Spirit, the ground of the assurance that he works will still be that the punishment for one's sins has been fully paid at the cross, and if there are some whose punishment has been taken who are not saved and are sent to hell, then we can have no certainty that we will not still be punished for our sins. And Paul seems to make the cross the grounds of assurance of salvation in Romans 8.32ff.
Regarding point (b), "not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" doesn't have to mean every individual without exception, but could mean "not for John and his readers, but also for believers throughout the world" or "Gentiles as well as Jews".
In point (c), you write, "The emphasis is on Christ paying for my individual sins at the expense of his paying for and defeating all human sin and evil." If Christ had paid for all human sin and evil, then either everyone would have to be saved, or that the punishment of some people's sins would have to be paid twice, with the associated problems of God's justice and assurance. Also, you mention the "us" in 2 Corinthians 5 as an example of PSA texts referring less to individuals than to a collective group: isn't the "us" referring to believers? In that case atonement would still be particular.
In a previous post, you also addressed Romans 9.14-23 in the subject of double predestination. I agree that, as with all passages, context is key, but isn't Paul appealing to a more general principle about God's electing purposes to the situation with the salvation of ethnic Israel. So in v. 17 he uses the example of God actively hardening of Pharaoh (cf Exodus 4.21, 7.3, 9.12, 10.27) for the purpose of showing his wrath and power (cf Exodus 9.16) and making known his glory for those prepared for mercy. I agree with you that 'what if God wanted to' is not the same as 'God does such and such', but Paul does seem to add to the 'what if God wanted to' by in effect saying, 'as in fact God has done' appealing to God's redemptive programme. Indeed in Romans 11.7-10 Paul explicilty refers to the elect obtaining salvation and the rest being hardened, a hardening which continues from one generation to the next.
I hope you don't mind me responding at such length!
Yours in Christ,
Daniel.
Here is the link to Mandy's site that MPJ mentions. The discussion there is far longer and more involved...
Daniel - thanks for that. More to come on your other points, but this to say about 1 John 2: - the natural reading is not your reading now, is it? You really have to read it with one eye shut to get that sense out of it.
On double predestination: it is interesting that the 39 articles stop well short of this teaching though there was opportunity and pressure to affirm it. Perhaps this may seem illogical, because a predestination to life only would seem to involve the corollory of predestination to death. However, the early Reformers did not want to press logic to go beyond the teaching of scripture and so affirm what it did not. In Rom 9:22,23 Paul uses a passive 'fitted to destruction' for those who are vessels of destruction; whereas he actively attributes to God the making of vessels of mercy. In Eph 1, Phil 2 and 2 Thess 1, only the election of believers is described.
The opposite of election is not reprobation but non-election (says W. Griffith Thomas). God does not stand in parallel relations to good and to evil.
I eagerly await your comments on my other points. Just a brief response to today's post, though.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the phrase "whole world" on its own does not have to mean "all without exception". An example of that would be Romans 1.8 ("your faith is proclaimed in all the world"), which clearly cannot mean "all without exception". "All the world" and "the whole world" in Romans 1.8 and 1 John 2.2, respectively, use the same Greek words (although obviously in different cases).
With double predestination, I am interested to know why you go to the early Reformers rather than later writers, when the early Reformers, who by virtue of their point in time would not have brought the Church's doctrine as close to Scripture as later writers (e.g. the Prayer Book seems to teach baptismal regeneration - "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate"). In contrast to the Thirty-Nine Articles, Westminster (III/vii) does teach double predestination ("The rest of mankind God was pleased...to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.") and does not see it as pressing logic beyond Scripture, citing in support of this doctrine as it does (in addition to Romans 9) Jude 4 and 1 Peter 2.8, which seem unequivocal to me. Also, I don't want to appear pernickity, but it seems in Romans 9.22 that the passive "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" parallels verse 23's "vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory", suggesting that the vessels of wrath were prepared so by God, and in any case, in the very previous verse (21), the potter actively makes one vessel for honoured use and dishonoured use, which Paul then applies to those being saved and those not.
True, but Griffith Thomas points out a difference in verbal structure in his case.
The thing about 1 John 2 is that he says 'us' AND THEN says 'the world'...
Jude 4 talks of a certain group of false prophets.
sorry, didn't read your post about the Rom 9 passive carefully. Hence the incoherent response above.
The vessels of wrath are 'prepared for destruction'; the vessels of mercy are those God himself prepared. An interesting difference here - it isn't strict parallelism.
In Eph 1. 5, 9; Phil 2:13 and 2 thess 1: 11 where predestination to life IS asserted, there is no mention of what happens to everyone else at all...
Also 1 Peter 2:8 - who does the destining there? and when?
Hi Michael. I've also been interested in Amyraut's theology of predestination, although I don't think it holds out any real promise for a contemporary theology of election. Materially, it doesn't really depart very much from the stricter Reformed view, since for Amyraut the only "universalism" is a "hypothetical universalism" -- this is still miles away from an affirmation of the actual universality of grace!
Anyway, it's interesting that Amyraut was perhaps the greatest Calvin scholar of his day. He regarded himself as a disciple of Calvin, and he engaged with Calvin's own work much more deeply than perhaps any of his Reformed contemporaries. So the relationship between Calvin's view and Amyraut's "hypothetical universalism" has always been a fascinating historical problem.
Hey Brother,
I'm digging your blog. I feel you on the theology. I'm just going to bear down and say from the perspective that you are articulating is pretty much where I'm coming from theologically.
1) I hold the same view of election.
2) I hold the same of the atonement.
I have been calling myself and telling others in the past 3 years that I'm a calvinist (please note the small "c"). But to nail my beliefs down that are identical so far to what I've seen you put down on this blog. Thank you for the clarification.
Hey there.
You may find this interesting:
Classic and Moderate Forms of “Calvinism” Documented Thus Far
The blog/site primarily posts primary source documentation with little to no comment.
The original swiss Reformers clearly advocated an unlimited expiation and redemption.
Take care,
David
Post a Comment