Burkitt:

1) 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Here our holy Lord discovers the sad and deplorable condition of such professors, who, pretending relation to Christ, do yet bring forth no fruit unto him; he calls there withered branches, fit only for the fire. Learn hence, That such as have had a long standing in God’s vineyard, and contented themselves with a withered profession, are in great danger of having God’s blasting added to their barrenness. All their parts, and gifts, and common graces, will wither, and their fair blossoms of profession will drop off, and at the great day the angels will gather these fruitless branches together, and cast them into hell fire. William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:539-540; John 15:6. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

2) Here the apostle advises the Corinthians, instead of inquiring after the proof of Christ in him, to examine whether they were in Christ themselves; intimating to us, that such are usually most backward to examine the state of their own souls, who are forward to inquire into the spiritual state and condition of others. “You seek a proof of Christ in me, says the apostle: O, rather prove and examine yourselves.” Where note, 1. A duty expressed: “Examine yourselves; prove yourselves.” The word is a metaphor taken from goldsmiths, who with great exactness try their gold; the truth of it by the touchstone, the weight of it by the scale, and the purity of it by the fire. And the repetition of the command, “Examine yourselves; prove yourselves;” implies the great backwardness that is in men’s natures to perform this duty, the great necessity of the duty, and the great diligence and frequency to be used in performing of the duty. Learn hence, that self-examination is an excellent, a necessary, and important duty, belonging to every one in the church, and requires great diligence and faithfulness in the performing of it. ‘Tis necessary in regard of our comforts, and also in regard of our graces; for there are counterfeit graces, as well as real; and common graces, as well as saving; and ’tis a duty that requires diligence and frequency, because the work is difficult, because the heart is backward, because we are deceived, and willing to be deceived; because many have miscarried without it, and many perished by a negligent performance of it: “Therefore examine yourselves; prove yourselves.”

William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:295; 2 Cor. 13:5. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Prefacing Remarks

The reader should keep a few things in mind while reading this short essay.

Firstly, the following is a layman’s analysis of the logic involved in establishing a case for limited atonement from the verses John 10:15 and John 10:26. The intent is to lay out the case in a non-technical manner for lay-readers. It is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of the issues involved.

Secondly, it may be said that there are two types of arguments which use John 10:15 to prove limited atonement. The first is what I would call a strong form of the argument. This strong form of the argument insists that John 10:15 along with 10:26 establish a hard dichotomy between those for whom Christ did and did not die. That is, in no proper sense did Christ die for the non-elect. By “proper sense” I mean either in terms of penal relationship (“For whose sins was Christ punished?”), or divine intentionality to save (either by secret or revealed will). The issue stated this way avoids the distracting claims by some advocates of limited atonement that Christ died for all insofar as he secured common grace benefits for all.

Thirdly, the weaker form of the argument would intimate that John 10:15 suggests a distinction, not so much a dichotomy, namely, that Christ died for some distinctively, as opposed to others. Here the stress would be that John 10:15 shows us that it can be said that Christ died in a distinctive sense for the elect, in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. Stated another way, Christ died for the elect in a distinctive sense, as opposed to the sense in which he (may have?) died for the non-elect. I would still maintain that even this is not sustained by a sound reading of John 10:15.

For the purposes of this essay, it is the strong form of the argument which is under review. The weaker from is dealt with only in the comments section. It is there I will also follow-up on some added rejoinders from another location on the web. Readers need to keep in mind that I do not deny that Christ died for the elect in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. If we speak of the intentionality of Christ, I can say, in the sense that Christ died for the sheep, he did not die for the non-sheep.

Part 1: The Critique

This argument for limited atonement works like this in a syllogism:

major premise:

Christ lays down his life for the Sheep (John 10:15)

minor premise:

The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep (John 10:26)

Conclusion:

Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.

Stated without the prefix comments:

Christ lays down his life for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees

The problem is that its formally invalid.

Lets use an analogy which follows the same form, yet clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the form of the argument.

John loves his children.
Sally is not a child of John.
Therefore, John does not love Sally.

This is an invalid argument. Sally could be John’s wife and mother to his children, and so another person whom John truly and rightly loves.

You can swap out any terms, and the result will be same.

What’s happened, is that the negative inference has been smuggled in, something like this.
The simple positive:

John loves his children

is converted into a simple negative

John loves only his children.

Then the syllogism is followed out:

John loves only his children.
Sally is not a child of John
Therefore, John does not love Sally.

That is now is a valid form of an argument.

And if we bring this back to John 10:15, the syllogism now looks like this with the smuggled in negation:

Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees

Either consciously or unconsciously, many readers have converted “Christ lays down his life for the Sheep” as being identical or as entailing, “Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep.” However, this is is an invalid negative inference.

The problem is, the conversion of the simple positive to a universal negative. This is the negative inference fallacy that Dabney references:

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.

There have been a few attempts by limited atonement advocates to claim that the negative inference fallacy does not apply in this case. These attempts are quite astounding. Imagine a Romanist saying that the proposition, “Justified by faith alone” does not apply here, such that we can make a converse positive inference, that we can be justified by faith and works. We cannot be arbitrary when it comes to enforcing the universal and standard rules of logical inference.

And it should be straightforward that one should never seek to establish a positive argument based on invalid inferences. Such attempts will always and everywhere be invalid. Even repeating the invalid inference ad infinitum will never make it valid.

What is more, with that aside, Scripture declares emphatically,

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

No matter how tempting it is, no matter how important it is to one’s system, it is wrong to insert a negation into a verse where it was was originally present. This problematic is further exacerbated if after smuggling in the extra-textual negation, one then tries to sustain the case for limited atonement. This then becomes grounds for a circular argument.

Lastly, one should also keep in mind that readers of John’s Gospel should not jump to the hasty conclusion that because of what Jesus says in John 10, that the Pharisees are goats (in other words, reprobate). Rather, one cannot preclude the possibility that they are rebellious and wayward sheep:

Isaiah 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Here Isaiah speaks to the apostate house of Israel, as much as he does to the faithful, who have been, themselves wayward sheep. If this is correct, then the contrast would be between obedient sheep versus disobedient sheep (the Pharisees), but not between the elect and the non-elect.

Part 2: The Affirmation

Whats actually going on in John 10 is more like this:

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
John 10:12 “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
John 10:13 “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:16: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

The point is not about the extent of Christ’s death at all, but the faithfulness, the loyalty of Christ to the sheep. The pharisees are the hirelings who abandon the sheep. Jesus is saying to them something like this, “I am not like you, who run away, rather I will lay my life down for the sheep, defending them to the end….” And by implication, we, the sheep, can truly know that Christ will effectually save us.

Thus, the real emphasis and attention should be on this verse:

John 10:16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

In this verse alone we have election, Christ’s intent, and the effectual call.

When we put together v15 and v16, we see in the mind of Christ a special intention to gather and faithfully lay his life down for his sheep so that they may be saved to the uttermost. He came to earth, not as a hireling coming to a field, but to gather those given to him. This is the direction we should move in, not in pressing the limited extent of the expiation.

When rightly understood, then, the verse speaks to a special intent of the satisfaction, not to the extent of the satisfaction.

Thomas:

Proponents of limited atonement have made much of a remark of Calvin to the Lutheran Heshusius on the subject of the Lord’s Supper (e.g. Nicole, op cit., p.222), in “The Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper” (1561), in Theological Treatises, ed. and trans. J.K.S.Reid, Library of Christian Classics vol.22, London 1954, pp. 258–324: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Chirst which was not crucified for them” (p.285). There is no need, however, to understand this in any other way than to imply that the benefits of the atonement are only intended to be effective in the case of those who believe. Over against the Lutheran view that participation in the bread and wine invariably means participation in the body and blood of Christ, Calvin taught that participation in Christ is only through faith. The promise of the gospel is to all, but is only intended to benefit those who believe. Calvin’s many statements of the atonement as being for believers are in full harmony with his view that the atonement is for all, in the context of promise, and for some, in the context of election. For belief is the response both invited by the promise, and given by election. Bell, op.cit., pp.16–17, convincingly expounds this remark of Calvin to Heshusius. Cp. Commentary on John, ch.1.v.29, p.33, “Let us therefore learn that we are reconciled to God by the grace of Christ if we go straight to His death and believe that He who was nailed to the cross is the only sacrificial victim by whom all our guilt is removed.

G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement (Paternoster Publishing, 1997), 39–40, fnt 58.

Daniel:

“We now come to another important quotation from Calvin. This is the ‘very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’ to which Cunningham appeals as the only example he could find.[1] In a refutation of the Lutheran writer Heshusius on the true partaking of the Lord’s body at the Supper, Calvin offers this argument:

But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with the unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world. And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and another to be a judge. . . . Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.[2]

We cannot ignore this example, as Davenant, Morison, Douty and Kendall do.[3] Several options are open to us at the outset. First, this paragraph could teach limited atonement. If so, then either Calvin contradicts his other statements espousing Universal atonement (perhaps without knowing it) or has changed his views on the subject.[4] After all, differences and changes are not entirely without example in Calvin. The tract was written in 1561, a late work. The second option is that affirmed by Cunningham and A.A. Hodge. They feel that this proves that Calvin did not teach Universal atonement. The ‘vague and indefinite statements’ about the atonement written in ‘a more unguarded manner’[5] must be interpreted in the light of this one explicit statement. Calvin’s other statements are then interpreted as Particularist. The third option is that the quotation above does not teach Particularism, though Calvin elsewhere teaches it. The fourth option is that neither in this place nor anywhere else does Calvin assert limited atonement. We seek to prove that the last option is the correct one.

We need not go into much depth on Calvin’s views of the Supper, for that has been done by others at considerable length.[6] We do not have access to the original propositions of Heshusius, but they can be deduced from what Calvin says in reply.

Read the rest of this entry »