Hey CC,

Early Pink expressly denied any well-meant offer of grace as taught by mainstream evangelical Calvinists like Calvin, down to Fuller. Pink is not just attacking the Arminian perspective here. In his other works he comes out clearly in denying the free offer of the gospel to all. Later he did moderate some of his expressions, but its probable that his core theological commitments remained the same.

Thanks for stopping by.
David

Hey Derek,

Ive read a lot of pink, especially when I was in my hyper days back in Australia. Pink was certainly strange. I am not sure why he had become so popular among Banner of Truth circles. And Ive never found his expositions to be that good or helpful.

You can see this trajectory in Baptist history with Gill, Brine, Booth, Rushton and others. Later Pink began reading more of the Puritans, but by then his theological core had been laid. Had he lived longer, he may have done away with more of his early hyper categories. Who knows.

Thanks,
David

Hey Stephen,

1) Thanks for stopping by. To be clear here, I never said Pink was a hyper because he affirmed limited expiation and satisfaction for sin. He was hyper because in his early days he denied the well-meant offer of the gospel. You can see this in book The Sovereignty of God and the Satisfaction of Christ.

2) You say: I do not see Christ dieing for Judas. It makes no sense for him to do so.

David: Well there are lots of things I could say. a) he displays God’s compassion to Judas; b) sustains the grounds for the gospel offer to Judas; and c) renders Judas culpable on the supposition that Judas rejects Christ. etc etc.

3) As to dying for a particular people, we do not dispute that, but that he died only for a the elect, we do dispute.

4) I have dealt with many of the passages cited. But here I cite Pink on his revision of the classic Lombardian sufficiency-efficiency formula: that’s all.

5) Stephen: Are we saved by the death of Christ or not? If he died for all, and yet all are not saved, then you cannot say that the reason why some are saved is due strictly to Christ dieing for them.

David: We are saved by the death of Christ, yes, but through the instrumental means of faith, etc etc. Faith is not a meritorious or co-efficient condition, Stephen. Nonetheless, faith is a duty which all must perform. Christ may die for all, therefore, and all who are saved are saved by the means of Christ’s death.

I would encourage you to browse the blog’s many pages and get a feel for where we are coming from. That should help frame any questions or challenges in a better way. And I think a lot of your challenges and questions will be answered by searching through this site.

Thanks,
David

Hey Stephen,

Ah, well I dont know who reads or follows this site. Thanks for the clarification. If you dont mind I will use numbered points to keep the points focused.

1) You say: “Pink, like I, believe that faith is required for salvation, but affirming this does not mean that one has to believe in unlimited atonement. ”

David: Well that’s actually a little tricky, in that what is the non-elect duty-bound to believe? and to believe in? I would say unlimited expiation makes the divine requirement that all men believe explicable.

2a) You say: “Are you saying that Christ could not offer Judas salvation…”

David: I would say God could not make a sincere offer to Judas something which he does not have to give. If there is no provision for Judas, then God could not make a pretense of sincerely offering that provision to Judas.

2b) You say: “or be compassion towards him, unless he die for him?”

David: Such compassion could only be explicable, in the final analysis, on the supposition of a penal satisfaction for Judas. There is no easy sound-bite answer to this, but here is a stab at it: only a penal satisfaction for a man enables God to extend compassion to that man, in a way that does not violate his holy law and nature; else God is just by sheer act of the will, alone, expressing compassion to that man, which for whom holy law has nothing by inexorable and necessary condemnation.

2c) You say: “How does that make sense? Are you saying that God cannot condemn Judas unless he die for Judas?”

David: I would say Judas is condemned for his sin, for sure, but he cannot be condemned for rejecting a benefit which was never made for him, has no proper regard for him, never in any sense intended for him, etc etc.

2d) “Does that not make the death of Christ a means of damnation rather than of salvation?”

David: I am not sure I follow the relationship between this and what was said previous. The death of Christ is a means of life to all. This is proper and intrinsic to its nature and purpose. However, on the supposition of refusal, such refusal increases culpability. To reject a good thing offered, for sinful reasons makes one more guilty than one who has had nothing offered at all. Make sense?

Thanks,
David

Hey again,

1) You say: “Those verses that say that Christ died for a particular class of people exclude those who are not in that class. I know you disagree, but those verses make no sense if Christ does not intend the exclusion of others not in the class.”

David: You must know my answer then. In logic it would be a false inference. All one could infer is specificity and emphasis, not exclusivity.

2) You say: “If I say that “I went to the store for Joe,” I don’t normally mean that I went for any besides Joe. The normal interpretation would mean that I went to the store only for him.”

David: But its all about what someone like me could infer from your statement. That’s the point. You tell Steve “I am going to the shop for Joe.” Can I infer that you are going to the shop for Joe only? No. Perhaps you pick up something for yourself as well, or for someone else. Its all about good and necessary consequence, especially when it comes to matters of such importance as the death of Christ.

3) You say: “Yes, it is in the realm of the possible that I could mean that I also went to the store for others, but this would be an unusual connotation. Jesus said that he laid down his life “for his sheep” in John 10 and also says to some “you are not of my sheep.””

David: Why unusual? It happens all the time. Rarely does a person operate by a single unalloyed motive or intention. We are constantly multi-tasking, as it were. And if I have good evidence that you are also going to the shop for other reasons, based on other statements you have made, then it’s less and less unusual. As to the sheep, you know you are making a false inference there. The point of John 10 is not about the scope of the death, but the faithfulness of the shepherd, as he is not one who runs away. The pharisees were not his sheep in that they were not followers, not hearers, ie., not believers.

The connection is just a false disjunction. I know its appealing, but is because it’s a superficial reading of the texts and what those texts can properly imply. I think Dabney nails it:

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.

Dabney is spot on: we can only infer emphasis.

I appreciate the tone of your questions, Stephen.

Thanks,
David

I should add:

You say: “Yes, it is in the realm of the possible that I could mean that I also went to the store for others…”

David: I meant to pick this up too. You’ve now conceded the point or at least enough of it. :-) If you apply this to the standard limited reading of John 10:15, you cannot claim that the verse precludes the possibility that Christ may have died for others and that he did so in a different sense. And so, all you could propose now, is a probabilistic argument for limited satisfaction. And to that I would still say it’s an unnecessary inference.

David

Hey Stephen,

Preamble remarks:

Keep in mind your original words were: “Those verses that say that Christ died for a particular class of people exclude those who are not in that class. I know you disagree, but those verses make no sense if Christ does not intend the exclusion of others not in the class.”

David: I read you there as saying that Christ died for a class [namely the elect] such that he did not die for those outside of that class [namely the non-elect]. So I took your words as a denial that Christ died for the non-elect. And then you said “I know you disagree,” which led me to believe you are arguing for a strict limited satisfaction for the sins of the elect alone. Make sense?

Secondly, my answer here is a little protracted. I try to flesh out the problem wherein can see whats going on in our various assumptions regarding the use and import of Jn 10:15 and 26.

1) You say: I not only allow the possibility but avow it. Nothing I said denies this. My view is that Christ died in some sense “for” all men but that he died particularly and specially for the elect.

David: So what should I be disagreeing with? :-)

2) You say: The question is, however, in what does that particularity or specialness consist? Is it not in the fact that he actually atoned for the sins of the elect?

David: Okay… We have the potential ambiguity there in the phrase “actually atoned for”?

Christ made an expiation for all the sins of all sinners. The limitation is only in the intent to apply, not in the nature or extent of the satisfaction. If we nail this down, we can ask the question: “for whose sins was Christ punished?” I say he was punished for all the sins of all sinners. In so suffering for all human sin, Christ sustained an objective satisfaction and expiation for all sin. Objectively, he atoned for all sin. Subjectively, however, the application of that atonement is not until one comes to faith.

So no, if we come back to John 10, v15 cannot be used to prove that Christ only suffered for the sins of the sheep (elect) that he made an atonement only for them, etc etc. Make sense?

3) You say: I also appreciate your spirit in this discussion.

David: Most of the folk who proffer a challenge to our position are generally hostile and with that, generally they turn out to be hypercalvinists. So I get a little gun-shy when I first meet folk online. And also, it’s sometimes hard for me to get a feel for where a person is coming from or what specifically they are trying to target (in response to Ive either said or implied).

4a) You say: I know I could be wrong. I do not allow my views on the atonement to keep me from saying to any man that

David; We would say that while you say this, on the terms of limited satisfaction for sin, it cannot be explicable. To explain what I mean there, check out this from Polhil:

1. I argue from the will of God. God’s will of salvation as the fontal cause thereof, and Christ’s death, as the meritorious cause thereof, and are of equal latitude. God’s will of salvation doth not extend beyond Christ’s death, for then he should intend to save some extra Christum.

What he means there is that under the terms of a limited satisfaction for the sins of elect alone, God would desire (revealed will) the salvation of the non-elect in such a way that it is a desire that they be saved apart from the work of Christ. It is a desire that is is apart from the means whereby they can be saved. To us, that makes no sense and so we think Polhil is spot on.

4b) You say: 1) God loves you, and…

David: The same thought applies here to the love of God.

4c) You say: 2) You can be saved if you believe in the Lord and call upon his name, and 3) Christ died for you so that you might have this opportunity to be saved.

David: At the level of the human person making this statement, this works, but as soon as we move to the divine person, this statement becomes impossible. When God speaks through the minister making his offer to the non-elect, how can God honestly say to them: “if you believe you will be saved”? And “Christ’s death gives you an opportunity to be saved”?

Make sense?

5) You say: “The passages that Pink referred to do prove that Christ did something for the elect, sheep, or church, on the cross, that he did not do for those not in that category. They show the specialness of the atonement. Christ is speaking of something that he is doing peculiarly for the ones mentioned.”

David: That is the tricky thing about that passage. Nothing in vs 15 and 26 indicates any distinction in the death. If we change the terms the point should be clearer:

a) I lay my life down for believers.
b) You are not a believer.
c) Therefore I did not lay my life down for you.

The problem should be clear now, iii) does not follow. And on a few levels, the logic and the inferences are bad.

Try this:

a) I lay down my life for my friends.
b) You are not my friend (ie., my enemy).
c) Therefore I did not lay my life down for you (non-friend: ie., enemy).

We can streamline all this by reading non-friends as enemies. But we know from Romans 5 that Christ did die for his enemies.

We actually cant make a lot about the diversity of “intention” of the one dying, or in senses in which he may or may not have died for others. Rather, from the actual texts at hand, the issues are, 1) the faithfulness of Christ, and 2) the sinfulness of the Pharisees. All that could be inferred is that the Pharisees were not the sheep for whom Christ died (which is not saying that he did not die for them, which is normally why Jn 10:15 is cited).

6) You say, “Christ loves all men, but he especially loves his wife. And, he especially died for her.”

David: But this underscores the problem in another way. Bear with me for a moment. If we only had the single statement “John loves his wife,” we could not make any inferences about John’s love for others: I know its tempting, but we really could not. It is only when we have other statements about John and his love for his wife, and in a wider context, that we can form other inferences regarding his love for others. We understand from the wider context (what marriage means etc, that John has a family etc) that John has a special marital love for his wife, and so forth. And we can understand how he can also have a special love for his mother, father, daughter, son, brother etc. All valid nuances.

Then we come to the issue, is the statement “to die for” exactly the same as “to love”? In the latter, we would say that “love” is an affection and in all cases it is remains an affection, and yet it differs in quality or quantity when different people are in mind. But how exactly is that comparable to the death of Christ under a strict limited satisfaction for model?

Under the limited satisfaction model, it cannot be about changing the quality or the quantity of “dying for” someone, either he died for someone, or he didn’t. Either Christ suffered for the sins of elect only, or for the sins of all men. There can be no “third thing” (tertius quid) or mediating degrees here. Make sense?

6a) You say, “Yes, Christ loves all men, but he especially loves his wife. And, he especially died for her.”

David: If Owen is correct, its inexplicable to say that in some sense he died especially for the elect, and less-than-especially for the non-elect. Right? And lets ignore the issue of the side-effect benefits of common grace for now. If we focus specifically on the vicarious and penal satisfaction for sin, that satisfaction cannot thought of having more or less quantity or quality or specialness about it.

So to come back to John 10:15 and 26, we can see that the verse cannot speak to degrees of specialness in the “dying” for the sheep, in and of itself.

We could only speak of the intent on the part of Christ: There is a specific intent in Christ to lay down his life for his sheep. At this point, tho, who would disagree with that?

One last thing, thanks for being patient with me.
David

Hey Phil,

I am not sure what you mean here. I don’t see where the conflation would be. The sufficiency speaks to the nature of the satisfaction. All that was necessary to save one man, was all that was necessary to save the next man, and so on, without limitation. And this was intended of course. Sufficiency speaks to applicability: able to be applied to all and any man.

The efficiency of the satisfaction speaks to the intention of God with regard to effectual application of the satisfaction.

The Owenic view with its limited imputation of sin has to deny that the satisfaction is sufficient for the non-elect (apart from the bare and rather empty abstracted sufficiency), for the sins of the non-elect were not imputed to Christ: Christ sustained no means whereby the non-elect are savable; whereby the satisfaction could be applied to them.

The Owenic defect aside, I dont see how the two aspects could be reasonably denied (apart from the Owenic limitation of sufficiency of course).

And as classic-moderate Calvinists:

1) Who would deny that all that Christ accomplished for one man, was equally applicable to the next man (ie that it was sufficient for all men)?

2) Who would deny that God intended to effectually apply the satisfaction to the elect?

The Owenic view I grant is meaningless for it collapses the sufficiency into the efficiency.

Thanks,
David

Hey Phil,

Sure, the problem with the revision of the formula, the sufficiency collapses into the efficiency.

For Owen, the sufficiency for all is only a hypothetical sufficiency. Normally, we all would locate the hypothetical in the efficiency: in that had God elected more, the efficiency would have been applied to them. But with Owen, and the collapse of one into the other, both have only a hypothetical relationship with mankind in general.

I agree that we should connect extent vs intent ideas when dealing and speaking about the formula as that can help. Historically, tho, the formula is critical, in that a lot of the time it comes down to the question of the sufficiency of the satisfaction.

Thanks,
David