Forensic Crispianism and TULIP Calvinism’s Doctrine of Imputation in Relation to the Double-Payment Dilemma

Preamble:

This essay will be a little cumbersome so please bear with me. My language here blends in some casual and some technical, at no point am I intending to be pejorative in some of my expressions.

Because I know many are not familiar with my research and interests, I will insert some definitions. For any one with questions, or challenges I will more than willingly address them. I am aware that not every statement I shall make will be understandable and coherent to every reader. All I ask is that any questioner be prepared to have a true “conversation.”

The following is not presented as a bullet-proof essay which absolutely nails down the subject matter. I am aware that some of the following arguments may have vulnerabilities. It must be realized that one cannot say everything all at once every time on a given subject. My goal is to be suggestive with the hope of motivating further discussion, thought, and investigation. I also grant that there may be some yet unknown (to me) premise(s) in Owen’s theology which harmonizes and resolves the sort of problems I am highlighting.

Let me begin by defining my terms.

1) By TULIP Calvinism I mean that form of Calvinism which has been called “high” Calvinism. That label dates back to the 17thC. High Calvinism is essentially the same as what we now call Protestant Scholastic Calvinism. I use the ‘TULIP’ to describe this broad range of Calvinist thought.

2) Dort’s emphasis in its discussion of the extent of the satisfaction is the assertion that Christ did indeed die effectually for some, namely the elect. Thus Dort sought to only establish this simple positive assertion. This was opposed to the Arminian thesis, that Christ died for no one especially and effectually, but that he died for all men with equal ineffectual intentionality.

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Bellamy:

SHOWING A DOOR OF MERCY IS OPENED BY JESUS CHRIST FOR A

GUILTY WORLD.

I COME now to another thing proposed, namely,

III. To show more particularly what way to life has been opened, by what Christ, our Mediator, has done and suffered. In general, from what has been said, we may see that the mighty bar which lay in the way of mercy is removed by Jesus Christ; and now a door is opened, and a way provided, wherein the great Governor of the world may, consistently with the honor of his holiness and justice; his law and government, and sacred authority, and to the glory of his grace, put in execution all his designs of mercy towards a sinful, guilty, undone world. But to be more particular,

1. A way is opened, wherein the great Governor of the world may, consistently with his honor, and to the glory of his grace, pardon, and receive to favor, and entitle to eternal life, all and every one of the human race, who shall cordially fall in with the gospel design; believe in Christ, and return home to God through him.

What Christ has done, is, in fact, sufficient to open a door for God, through him, to become reconcilable to the whole world. The sufferings of Christ, all things considered, have as much displayed God’s hatred to sin, and as much secured the honor of his law, as if the whole world had been damned; as none will deny, who believe the infinite dignity of his divine nature. God may now. therefore, through Jesus Christ, stand ready to pardon the whole world. There is nothing in the way. And the obedience of Christ has brought as much honor to God, and to his law, as the perfect obedience of Adam, and of all his race, would have done; the rights of the Godhead are as much asserted and maintained. So that there is nothing in the way, but that mankind may, through Christ, be received into full favor, and entitled to eternal life. God may stand ready to do it, consistently with his honor. What Christ has done is every way sufficient. “All things are now ready.”

And God has expressly declared that it was the design of Christ’s death to open this door of mercy to all. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.¹ That whosoever, of all mankind, whether Jew or Greek, bond or free, rich or poor, without any exception, though the chief of sinners, that believes, should be saved.” For this end, God gave his only-begotten Son. “He set him forth to be a propitiation for sin, that he might be just, and the justifier of him,–without any exception, let him be who he will,–that believes in Jesus.”

Read the rest of this entry »

A bullet-proof refutation of limited sin-bearing on the terms and grounds of High Calvinist assumptions.¹

Part 1:

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.²

And so 3) is undeniable.

However, God offers forgiveness of sins to all mankind, or at least, to all whom the Gospel comes.³

Assumptions:

c) To offer forgiveness of sins, necessarily implies or presupposes that sins of the offeree are forgivable.

d) One must be able to confer what one offers.

The following syllogism can be constructed:

4) All offers of forgiveness of sins necessarily entails that sins are forgivable.

5) God offers forgiveness of sins to all.⁴

6) Therefore the sins of all are forgivable.

4) has to be true because, one must have the ability to confer what one offers. One cannot offer 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.

Read the rest of this entry »

1) Joseph Truman (1631-1671):

The only colorable objection (that is not virtually answered in what I have said), that I can call to mind, is only from John 17.

[v]9. “I pray for them, I pray not for the world.” Therefore surely (say some), he would not shed his blood for the world, for whom he would not pray. But would any be at pains to read that chapter, he may see that Christ speaks of himself, what he did in that particular prayer at that time, and that particular prayer to verse 20, was only for the Apostles; or at the most for them that were then actually believers. And verse 20, he prays for them that should afterward believe through their word; and so all that he prayed for there were actually believers, or looked on as such; and the substance of the petitions there can agree to none else, as keeping them in truth and unity &c.; and there is not one word in that prayer for God to cause any to believe: so that we may as well argue he never prayed for the conversion of any, because he did not in that prayer, and so never shed his blood for the conversion of any. But can any think that Christ wept over Jerusalem, never prayed for it; or that there were none but the elect that crucified him, when he prayed for his crucifiers. May we not with greater reason argue contrary thus. Surely he did at other times, though not in this particular prayer, pray for the world since he shed his blood for it. All other other objections are reducible to this common one, “That it would be no kindness to die so as to purchase any, but the elect that actually would believe, “That if they believe, and turn they shall live,” because none else have the natural power to turn, to perform the condition, but they that have he actually causes to turn, and so it would be to mock them. Ans. I grant if this was true, it would be but to mock, as to say to a lame man, “If thou will turn, I will give,” (let this lameness come which way i will), but you see men have the natural power to perform the condition, and though they will fall short of the benefit through their wickedness, it does not follow it was no kindness: and cannot any one see, it would as much follow according to your way, that, it would be no justice in God to punish men for not performing the gospel-condition. Joseph Truman, A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675), 185-186. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

2) William Weeks (1783-1848):

P[aulinus]. I cordially agree with you in this, and beg you will bear it in mind when we come, by and by, to see ” What God hath spoken,” as to the extent of the atonement. For the present I wish merely to consider your arguments. What is your fourth argument to prove that Christ died for the elect only?

A[spasio]. It is this: “Christ offered himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice in the office of a priest.” Now, “His priestly office is not performed for any by the halves.” Therefore “for whom Christ offered himself a sacrifice, for the same does he intercede. But he intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own people ; therefore, he died for none but his own people.”

P. I grant that Christ is the priest of his people, and that he does not perform his priestly office for any “by the halves.” But to conclude from this that he will intercede for the salvation of all those for whom he died, is to take it for granted that he could not possibly die for any but his own people. It is to take it for granted, that he could not have any object in dying for any, unless he intended to save them. To assume this is to assume the very point in dispute. To assume the point in dispute, is what logicians call begging the question. It is usually considered an indication of a weak cause, and that the supporter of it feels it to be so.

A. Do you grant, then, that Christ intercedes for none but his own people?

P. No. I grant that he does not intercede for the salvation of any but his own people, for he did not intend to save any others. But he intended to secure the enjoyment of “many blessings and privileges “to the non-elect, as you grant. Now, if he intended by his death to obtain for the non-elect these blessings, I see not why it should be thought incredible that he should ask the Father to bestow them. He intended by his death to procure for the non-elect a period of probation and the offer of mercy: and I see not why it should be thought incredible, that, after having died to procure for them these blessings, he should ask the Father to bestow them.

Read the rest of this entry »