Hans Boersma thinks John Owen’s argument on the atonement is founded on incompatible notions. He writes:
On the one hand, Owen insists that it is the covenant of redemption and the death of Christ which give the ius ad rem. On the other hand, he also argues that union with Christ gives the ius ad rem. These two positions are incompatible. It originates from a combination of two irreconcilable thought patterns. He wants to do justice both to the immediacy, the absolute character, of Christ’s benefits- which demands a ius ad rem at the time of Christ’s sacrificial death- and to the fact that “<n>o blessing can be given us for Christ’s sake, unless, in order of nature, Christ be first reckoned unto us.” When, on one occasion, Owen links up the ius ad rem with Christ, this illustrates that he has ultimately not succeeded in separating the ius ad rem from the ius ad re. Having isolated the ius ad rem he is uncertain as to its proper position in the process in justification.
~ A Hot Pepper Corn pg. 107
I think this is basically right. Owen sets the dilemma of Christ’s efficacy in such a stark either/or contrast, that he ought to affirm that the Elect, those purchased by the Covenant of Redemption, were redeemed at the Cross, the place of purchasing. Faith is a sort of by-product of this purchasing.
If Union with Christ is the true location of redemption, then there is room for the moderate position.
I’d love to hear from Matthew on how one is able to be a sacramental, catholic, Owenist.
Steven, when you say “he ought…” is that not what he exactly does? And faith is the direct purchase of the expiation, for Owen.
Further, The impetration (the first aspect of redemption) was accomplished on the cross, but the application of redemption is later in time.
David
Couldn’t Owen “get out of this dilemma” by applying, as Murry does, to the distinction between redemption accomplished and redemption applied?
Josh,
“Redemption accomplished and redemption applied” only works if one is operating in truly penal categories.
Blessings,
Terry
Right, Owen uses monetary categories and ipso facto type efficacy.
Hodge and Dabney reject this approach, though they don’t call Owen by name.
What do you mean by a more moderate position?
Moderate Calvinism of the Davenant variety. There is infinite expiation in the person of Christ. It is really there and offered to all mankind.
IOW, Christ accomplished redemption for all (elect and non-elect) but redemption is applied only the elect?
Well, I’d probably not use the word “redemption” since that implies reconciliation, of which only the Elect will have.
I would say that Christ accomplished an objective expiation for all of the world, which is theirs, should they believe in him.
Steven,
Do you reject “monetary categories” for the death of Christ? If so, why? Also, I have heard you, in the past, say you did not like Owens argument about “double jeoperdy,” would you mind commenting on why you do not like them?
Would you call your position Amyraldian?
Josh,
For some good material counter the “double jeopardy” argument go here.
Just to whet your appetite here is short comment by Dabney:
Blessings,
Terry
Josh,
I do reject the pecuniary understanding of Christ’s death, because those tend to quantify the atonement in illegitimate ways. Christ’s death has an infinite value. He didn’t need to do more to save more.
I would stand with Dabney, Hodge, Polhill and others against double jeopardy. Double Jeopardy rests on a pecuniary understanding of the atonement, it fails to allow for the Biblical language of trampling on Christ’s blood making you more culpable, and it seems to collapse the instrumental means of receiving Christ’s benefits into the benefits themselves.
I am not an Amyraldian, as I have no interest in the distinctive traits of Amyraldianism. The English moderates, as well as the nearly all of the Heidelberg theologians, as well as the Swiss and indeed John Calvin all held to non-Amyraldian forms of unlimited expiation, and I’ll stand with them.
Hey Steven,
What is a non-amyraldian form of unlimited expiation? And what is an amyraldian form of unlimited expiation?
What do they look like that calls for a separation there?
At that point, there is nothing distinctive in Amyraut’s position which separates him from Musculus, Bullinger, Zanchi, and Calvin. Even he idea of “conditional”universalism, (ie hypothetical universalism) is found in Twisse and Zanchi for example.
The covenantal structures of Amyraut are a little distinctive, but also shared by John Owen in terms of his division of works-grace. His hypothetical covenant (ie conditional covenant with all men) comes out of Bullinger–tho recast in Federalist categories for sure–and was at the time a viable Reformed doctrine shared by others, even on-Amyraldians.
The ordering of the decrees is something that can be attached to the Saumur school (Testard), but Amyraut himself rejected all attempts at logical ordering. But lets grant that Amyraut held to this allegedly distinctive ordering of the decrees as attributed to him? How does that impact the nature of an unlimited expiation, which then apparently separates him from Musculus, Bullinger, and the Heidelbergers? Make sense?
And I should add, that given that Amyraut himself repeatedly distanced himself from the sort of ordering attributed to him by his opponents (see Warfield for a summary of the continuation of this) why should we join in and sign-on with this felt-need to diss Amyraut on this point?
The reason I post this is because there is no reason to make out as if Amyraut was the bad guy, or that he was some heretic, or that he was positing some new novel theology, or some Arminian synthesis, to which our heroes must be distanced so as not to be contaminated by Amyraut. That whole approach is so open to abuse.
I am not saying you are doing that, but just this felt-need we have to say our heroes are not Amyraldian as if the shibboleth needs to be entertained by such strategies. For the very “charge” or attempt to label this or that person as Amyraldian is so wrong-headed in the first place. Its not a charge thats worthy of buying into.
Why not just accept diversity and complexity in all this.
So instead of the approach of distancing certain men from Amyraut, I would ask Josh to define for us what exactly Amyraldianism is? And then go from there. ”
Just my 5 cents… I’ll stop here…
Thanks,
David
ps btw, I am NOT an Amyraldian.
pps you dont have to answer any of that, I am not trying to embarrass you.
I’m just trying to be Orthodox dude.
This works for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism
The Wiki on Amyraldianism isn’t particularly helpful.
It’s unhelpful in part because it is vague on what “atonement” means in this context (i.e., is it merely expiation or is it broader than than?) and vague on what it means for that atonement to be “for all alike” (i.e., is it really and concretely offered to each and all or is it merely infinitely sufficient for all on the condition of belief?).
Moreover, what it seems to identify as distinctive of Amyraut (i.e., unlimited expiation and a form of conditional universalism) would be distinctive of any number of Reformed orthodox who would otherwise distance themselves from Amyraut on other related matters.
Rightly or wrongly (in terms of accurately and charitably interpreting Amyraut), in the 17th century “Amyraldianism” was understood to include not only unlimited expiation or conditional universalism, but also the notion that the covenant of grace is made with each and every individual (whether they hear the gospel or not) and that each and every person receives (in some sense) sufficient grace.
Thus, one can hold to unlimited expiation or conditional universalism without being what has traditionally been understood to be “Amyraldianism.” The contemporary Reformed tendency to reduce the theological choices to “Owen vs. Amyraut” is unhelpful and lacks both theological imagination or historical accuracy.
For the record, I merely asked Steven what he would call his view. I was in no way saying what I think his view is. I only wanted to know how Steven classified his view.
Josh,
To be picky, thats not exactly what you asked. You asked: “Would you call your position Amyraldian?”
That is not quite the same as saying: “What do you call your view?”
David
You are absolutely right, that is picky.
Can we deal some something of substance now?
Hey Joel,
you say:
The Wiki on Amyraldianism isn’t particularly helpful.
David: none of those online sources are helpful, as they either follow Warfield uncritically, or are actually written and maintained by a few hypercalvinists.
Joel: Moreover, what it seems to identify as distinctive of Amyraut (i.e., unlimited expiation and a form of conditional universalism) would be distinctive of any number of Reformed orthodox who would otherwise distance themselves from Amyraut on other related matters.
David: Your first thought there is my point too. What is happening on the net and in a lot of so-called academic internet contexts is that they take a definition of Amyraldianism which say has 4 markers. Then they see someone else, say a contemporary, as having 1 or 2 of those markers. They then apply the label to that contemporary. It’s really thoughtless. And then on top of that, the Amyraldian shibboleth is used to condemn, demononize, and quarantine the contemporary person and his or her ideas.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this ‘strategy’ it should be enough to point to men like Bullinger and Musculus and ask if they too were Amraldians. What if someone were to, say, tap into Musculus, completely bypassing Amyraut, would it be intelligent to call him an Amyraldian? No, it would be infantile. But that’s exactly what is happening so much on the net.
Joel says; Rightly or wrongly (in terms of accurately and charitably interpreting Amyraut), in the 17th century “Amyraldianism” was understood to include not only unlimited expiation or conditional universalism, but also the notion that the covenant of grace is made with each and every individual (whether they hear the gospel or not) and that each and every person receives (in some sense) sufficient grace.
David: I still have some angst about this. There were non-hypothetical universalists who yet held to a foedus hypotheticum. I think it might be better to say, an Amyraldian is someone who held to this AND this AND this AND this… What’s is happening today is something more like: an Amyraldian is someone who held to this OR this OR this OR this…
And I also want to say, none of Amyraut’s distinctives were invented by him, but had solid historical precedents. His genius was the arrangement and systemic presentation, following Cameron of course, not the ideas themselves, properly speaking.
Joel: Thus, one can hold to unlimited expiation or conditional universalism without being what has traditionally been understood to be “Amyraldianism.” The contemporary Reformed tendency to reduce the theological choices to “Owen vs. Amyraut” is unhelpful and lacks both theological imagination or historical accuracy.
David: Not just imagination, but maturity also.
The ‘amyraldian’ tag and accusation has become a bogey man to scare people away from and paralyze thoughtful investigation.
Thanks for your input,
David
Josh says:
You are absolutely right, that is picky.
Can we deal some something of substance now?
David says: Defensive?
You might not have noticed, but my post was quite substantive, as was Joel’s.
So I guess I would like to know what you think Amyraldianism is, and how or why do you think Steve’s position is, or is not Amyraldian?
David
David,
You said, “why do you think Steve’s position is, or is not Amyraldian?”
This will be the last time I comment on this particular point, my comment was not to say what I thought about Steven’s view, I only wanted to know what Steven thought his view was. I was not saying what I think about his view, in regard to Amyraldianism.
If, however, you would like to discuss the merits of Steven’s (and others) views, I would thoroughly enjoy that. For example, something we could discuss, I am still unclear how Murry’s answer to the original post (redemption accomplished/redemption applied) does not solve “Owen’s inconsistency.” Or other points.
Hey Josh,
I am confused, if that was going to be your last post, how can we discuss it further with you such that you would enjoy that?
I scoped out the wiki article again. The opening paragraph is the problem. Its all based on Smeaton and Warfield’s caricatured definitions of Amyraut’s beliefs. How they define the matter is part of the myth-continuation I mentioned. So I really hope you will not stay with: “This works for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism” given that the opening paragraph assumes the so-called post-redemptionist lapsarian ordering that Warfield alleges.
If I could try and pull off a funny for a moment, there is no such thing as an Amylapsarian order of the decrees.
thanks,
David
David,
I am beginning to think you are trying to be difficult on purpose, I for one, am not enjoying it. I clearly said that “This will be the last time I comment on this particular point.” Please read all of my comments, in the future, before commenting on them. Thank you.
Would you (or better yet, someone else) care to comment on some of the substance of this post. I really do not care about what is or what is not Amyraldianism. I would much rather discuss the content of this post.
You guys are so sensitive.
Hey Steve,
hey, low blow…
I am just getting more and more confused here.
Regarding ‘the point,’ I think its fair to say that there was Steven’s point, and then there was this other point that was raised in this thread, and that was: “Would you call your position Amyraldian?” Thats two separate points on any fair reading.
And it did appear to me that it was to that point that this comment was made: “If, however, you would like to discuss the merits of Steven’s (and others) views, I would thoroughly enjoy that” referred back to the unlimited expiation/Amyraldian point.
Sorry for my confusion.
Thanks
David
So many smileys….
The problem with Owen and the pecuniary (monetary) understanding of the atonement is that once the debt is paid, its paid. When Jesus writes the check, the debt is canceled.
But that isn’t how salvation works at all. Jesus pays the debt at the cross, but each of us individually are still under God’s wrath until we come to faith in Christ and are united with him, having his blood wash away our sins.
That which causes the debt is sin, and as long as we remain outside of Christ, it is live and able to damn.
To try to simply posit an accomplished/applied formula on top of Owen’s system doesn’t accomplish much. All you’ve said is that the one who paid the debt stipulated a sort of incubation period until the certificate of deposit came to maturity. You might be waiting for it, but it is just a matter of time. The application is epiphenomenal to the accomplishment.
So essentially, the maneuver would be linguistic, but not really substantiative. The Elect who await the maturation of their deposit check are still not actually under divine wrath in such a system. It’s been dealt with and is merely on a timer.
Steven,
If you will, read Hans Boersma’s statement:
“The Church is the continuation of Christ’s presence in the world. Because of the work of the Spirit in believers, their sufferings for the sake of the kingdom are in a real sense the sufferings of Christ himself. This explains how St. Paul is able to say that it is Christ himself who still needs to undergo more sufferings. In the believer’s sufferings Christ himself is suffering.” (Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross, pp. 232, 233)
Do you think there is anything “redemptive” in the sufferings of the Church, the bride, the incarnate Spirit?
It has been my experience that Reformed folks (such as myself), in referring to Christ’s redemption of the elect in the pecuniary sense tend to downplay the “redemptive” aspect of the covenant community (i.e. baptism, eucharist, etc.) Thoughts?
Thanks,
Eric
BTW
I think the Church redeems the world, as it prays for it. As we are put into Christ, we are Christs for the world.
This is also why we need a theology of martyrdom. Like Stephen, we imitate Christ, even to the death. We ask for mercy for our foes, like Christ did.
However, I think we do need to be careful not to confuse the discussion. Christ’s death at Calvary is the unique redemptive act, upon which all else is dependent. The Church isn’t extending Calvary or even re-enacting it, but rather bearing witness to it. Indeed, the Church’s role is to get everyone else back to that point.
Now as far as the sacramental stuff, I wouldn’t want to put those in distinction from the cross either. It isn’t as if we could deemphasize the sacraments by overemphasizing the cross (or vice versa). They are all bound together. Baptism is a picture of Christ’s death and cleansing blood. The Eucharist is a picture of his passion.