ROMANS 8:32 AND THE ARGUMENT FOR LIMITED SATISFACTION (Revisited)

Part 1. Introduction

In Romans 8:32, Paul says,

“He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?”

Paul uses a basic a fortiori argument to demonstrate that if the Father delivered up Christ for us, how much more, then, will he not give us all things. If he did that much for us, how then will he not also do the lesser thing of bringing us to final salvation?

The argument for limited satisfaction:

Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, “God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you.” If Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive “all things” but who are, instead, finally unsaved, Paul’s argument is voided. If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees “all things” for the those for whom he died. But this is exactly what he does say. If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul’s thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

Here is the simplest way I can think of to respond to this argument in order to show why its invalid.

1) The hasty term generalization: “us” (from the text) is converted into a general term, “all,” which is “all” irrespective of faith, when all along, in Romans 8, the “us” explicitly presupposes believers.

E.g., at its simplest:

We for whom Christ died will be given all things

becomes:

All for whom Christ died will be given all things

The first sentence is true to the text, the second is not. It is a non sequitur,

2) If the term conversion is invalid, then the subsequent modus ponens and modus tollens arguments based upon it are invalid.

Modus ponens: If A, therefore B.

Modus tollens: Not B, therefore not A.

That is, on the assertion that “All for whom Christ died will be given all things,” the following arguments are normally constructed:

a) If Christ died for a man, that man must be saved [If A, then B]
b) If that man is not saved, Christ did not die for that man [not B, therefore not A]

From which the general conclusion becomes: “Christ has not died for any man not (actually) saved

So the three flaws in this argument, are:

1) The invalid term conversion
2) The unsound claim that if Christ dies for a man, that man cannot fail to be saved.
3) The invalid inference to a universal category negation (discussed below).

The first assumption, being invalid on its face shows that the conclusion to limited satisfaction is flawed as it engages in unjustified term conversation (equivocation). The second false assumption needs to be proved on grounds other than Romans 8:32 etc., as the text, itself, does not imply it. At this point it just begs the question, formally.

Read the rest of this entry »

Limited Atonement and the Falsification of the Sincere Offer of the Gospel¹

Table of Contents

I. The original argument
II. The counter-arguments
III. Assumptions
IV. The Issue and the Problem
V. What it means to make an offer
VI. The falsity of the conditional
VII. The “conditional” considered as a proposal of means
VIII. What is Harry to believe?
IX. The Objections
X. The truth of the conditional proves unlimited satisfaction
XI. Conclusion

I. The Original Argument²

Assumptions:

a) Let forgivable mean something like “able to have forgiveness conferred,” which I think is basic and sound.
b) Without a legal basis, no sin can be forgiven.

The Following syllogism can be constructed:

1) Only those sins imputed to Christ are forgivable.
2) Only the sins of the elect are imputed to Christ.
3) Therefore only the sins of the elect are forgivable.

1) has to follow unless one wants to deny substitutionary atonement and claim that God can forgive sins for which Christ did not bear and suffer.

2) has to follow for the limited expiation/imputation of sin proponent.³ And so 3) is undeniable.

However, God offers forgiveness of sins to all mankind, or at least, to all whom the Gospel comes.⁴

Assumptions:

c) To offer forgiveness of sins, necessarily implies or presupposes that sins of the offeree are forgivable.
d) For a sincere offer to be sincere,⁵ one must be able to confer and have available what one offers.

The following basic syllogism can be constructed:

4) All sincere divine offers of forgiveness of sins, entails that sins of the offerees are forgivable.
5) God sincerely offers forgiveness of sins to all.⁶
6) Therefore the sins of all are forgivable.

4) has to be true because, one must have the ability to confer what one sincerely offers. God cannot make a pretense of sincerely offering what one does not have the ability to confer.

5) has to be true for any free-offer Calvinist.

6) therefore has to follow as High and Moderate Calvinists rightly maintain.

However,

1) Therefore only the sins of the elect are forgivable.

directly contradicts,

6) Therefore the sins of all are forgivable,

in the same sense and meaning.

II. The Counter-Arguments

I have proposed an argument that God cannot sincerely offer to forgive the non-died-for (NDF) because he is not able to confer forgiveness upon them, therefore, limited expiation and imputation of sin falsifies the sincere and free offer of forgiveness to all men.⁷ My argument is that given the proper and true definition of ‘offer,’⁸ God cannot sincerely, well-meaningly, genuinely, and legitimately offer to forgive a person for whom there is no basis of forgiveness available for that person. Thus, if God should offer forgiveness to someone for whom no forgiveness has been obtained or made possible by the death of Christ, such a divine offer would be insincere, disingenuous, illegitimate and ill-meant.⁹

The first serious response to our argument is that if the particularism of limited expiation and sin-bearing falsifies the free and sincere offer of the Gospel to all men, then so does the particularism of election and preterition. And so the argument unfolds: If the classic-moderate Calvinist can affirm that the particularism entailed in an election (and preterition) does not falsify the free and sincere offer of the gospel to all men, then, likewise, he should not object that the particularism entailed in a limited satisfaction for sin falsifies the free and sincere offer of the gospel to all men. Our response to this is that the particularism in both election and limited satisfaction for sin do not bear a univocal relationship to the gospel offer. I argue that the particularism in election and preterition entails a divine willingness to save some and not to save others, and this particularism is located in the secret will. On the other hand, the particularism of limited satisfaction entails an inability to impart salvation, an inability to impart the very thing offered with regard to the NDF.¹⁰ The problem should be clear when one realizes that the legitimacy and genuineness the divine offer is directly indexed to the availability of the thing offered.¹¹ God cannot sincerely and genuinely offer what he knows he is not able to impart or which is not available for him to impart. Under the terms of limited satisfaction, forgiveness of sins with respect to the NDF is impossible, and so for God to make a pretense of sincerely offering forgiveness of sins to the NDF is insincere and a mockery.

This then leads to the second counter to our original argument. This second reply has two steps. The second objection first challenges the standard definition of the word "offer" by asserting that a simple statement of fact expressed in conditional form properly and rightly constitutes a legitimate and sincere offer.¹² Thus, the argument goes, even on the supposition that a specific hearer is NDF, the conditional statement, "if you believe, you will be saved" made to that hearer, itself, constitutes a legitimate offer of salvation.¹³

Then the argument further attempts to validate the sincerity of that statement to that specific hearer on the basis of the following counter-factual supposition that, ‘An offer that is made to a given NDF person is sincere in that had that person believed, he would have obtained the offered salvation, because it would have turned out that he was died-for¹⁴ all along.’

The background assumptions in this line of rebuttal is that an offer is only insincere in that were a person to embrace the thing offered only to find that the thing being offered does not exist or is not available to be imparted: then, and only then, would the offer be insincere. To further shore up this line of thought, with regard to the offer and the NDF, possible worlds logic is tacitly invoked, such that, upon embracing the thing offered, it would turn out that the offeree was died-for all along.¹⁵

The following is a response primarily to these counter-arguments.

Read the rest of this entry »

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

Part 1:

The following is an outline of a response to the common form of modus tollens argument for limited atonement. This form of the argument is a standard argument in limited atonement literature, from John Owen’s Death of Death, to John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, even to the recent work Pierced for our Transgressions.

This outline takes up one set of responses to the modus tollens argument. It does not attempt to address every relevant issue, permutation or form of possible rebuttal or possible counter. What it does is assume the standard form of the argument, unpack its inner logic and assumptions, and then critiques it.

For the purposes of this outline, I will use the terms and phrases, “delivered up” and “died for” as functionally equivalent.  By “limited atonement” I define and use in this sense, that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ.

The name for Paul’s argument is called an a fortiori argument. To establish a case for limited atonement, this argument is first converted into a modus ponens syllogism and then into a modus tollens syllogism.

Firstly, Logical syllogisms, seeking to obtain necessary conclusions, only work by using universal descriptors, all or none, etc, in the major premise. No necessary conclusion can be obtained by use of terms like, we, some, us, our, you, them, etc.¹

The problem is that the major premise as alleged from Romans 8:32, only says, by way of paraphrase: ‘Us… for whom Christ was delivered (ie., died), will be given all things…’

Who are the us? If the us refers to believers as I would argue it does, then no negation or argument can be formed regarding all those outside of the class “us.” Even if the us is the elect as a total class, the same holds good. This is the first exegetical hurdle the limited atonement proponent has to get over.

Proponents of the modus tollens argument for limited atonement, want to insert an assumption into Paul’s meaning in order to get to the needed “universal” referent into the major premise. In Logic, this is called smuggling in a premise or assumption. Here they have hastily converted the “us” into “all” or “anyone.”

This form of their argument then comes to this:

“Anyone (ie., all) for whom Christ dies, will infallibly be given salvation…”

An initial response would be: How do they know that? The text only speaks to believers or the elect (whoever the us are). Like this: ‘We believers/elect, who have been given Christ, how much more will we believers/elect be given all things…’

Limited atonement advocates have inserted a logical parameter which is not in the original text, and for which there is no exegetical justification.

Furthermore, “for,” can mean, “to die in the place of, to bear the sins of,” or it can mean, “to die for some benefit of.” And as the phrase “to die for” also speaks to intention. In terms of what we can be know from the text, there are two possible options.  Paul may be addressing Christ’s dying for the elect, with an elective intention, which is one possible reading. Or, Paul may be referring to Christ’s dying for believers, specifically, in order to assure them that their salvation is infallibly secure.  However, Romans 8:32, alone, does not preclude Christ dying for others with a non-elective (though salvific in some sense) intention, exactly because the actual referent is restricted to “us.” It says nothing about what Christ may or not have done for others. If these facts are allowed, Paul cannot be read as denying any other sense or divine intention behind Christ’s death. Thus standard modos tollens argument for limited atonement is completely inadequate to deal with these nuances.

Read the rest of this entry »

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

Part 1:

The following is an outline of a response to the common form of modus tollens argument for limited atonement. This form of the argument is a standard argument in limited atonement literature, from John Owen’s Death of Death, to John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, even to the recent work Pierced for our Transgressions.

This outline takes up one set of responses to the modus tollens argument. It does not attempt to address every relevant issue, permutation or form of possible rebuttal or possible counter. What it does is assume the standard form of the argument, unpack its inner logic and assumptions, and then critiques it.

For the purposes of this outline, I will use the terms and phrases, “delivered up” and “died for” as functionally equivalent. By “limited atonement” I define and use in this sense, that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ.

The name for Paul’s argument is called an a fortiori argument. To establish a case for limited atonement, this argument is first converted into a modus ponens syllogism and then into a modus tollens syllogism.

Firstly, logical syllogisms, seeking to obtain necessary conclusions, only work by using universal descriptors, all or none, etc, in the major premise. No necessary and/or universal conclusion can be obtained by use of terms like, we, some, us, our, you, them, etc.¹

The problem is that the major premise as alleged from Romans 8:32, only says, by way of paraphrase: ‘Us… for whom Christ was delivered (ie., died), will be given all things…’

Who are the us? If the us refers to believers as I would argue it does, then no negation or argument can be formed regarding all those outside of the class “us.” Even if the us is the elect as a total class, the same holds good. This is the first exegetical hurdle the limited atonement proponent has to get over.

Proponents of the modus tollens argument for limited atonement, want to insert an assumption into Paul’s meaning in order to get to the needed “universal” referent into the major premise. In logic, this is called smuggling in a premise or assumption. Here they have hastily converted the “us” into “all” or “anyone.”

This form of their argument then comes to this:

“Anyone (ie., all) for whom Christ dies, will infallibly be given salvation…”

An initial response would be: How do they know that? The text only speaks to believers or the elect (whoever the us are). Like this: ‘We believers/elect, who have been given Christ, how much more will we believers/elect be given all things…’

Limited atonement advocates have inserted a logical parameter which is not in the original text, and for which there is no exegetical justification.

Furthermore, “for,” can mean, “to die in the place of, to bear the sins of,” or it can mean, “to die for some benefit of.” And as the phrase “to die for” also speaks to intention. In terms of what we can be know from the text, there are two possible options. Paul may be addressing Christ’s dying for the elect, with an elective intention, which is one possible reading. Or, Paul may be referring to Christ’s dying for believers, specifically, in order to assure them that their salvation is infallibly secure. However, Romans 8:32, alone, does not preclude Christ dying for others with a non-elective (though salvific in some sense) intention, exactly because the actual referent is restricted to “us.” It says nothing about what Christ may or not have done for others. If these facts are allowed, Paul cannot be read as denying any other sense or divine intention behind Christ’s death. Thus standard modos tollens argument for limited atonement is completely inadequate to deal with these nuances.

Read the rest of this entry »