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 »

Rous:

But the same men that are so hard against the Saints, yet they are very kind to the Reprobates, and they that will not allow a particular grace to give unto the Saints a sure salvation, will allow a general grace to give unto all, (Reprobates and all) an uncertain salvation; Yea, to speak the truth under the show of a general salvation, they give no salvation at all. For man fallen will not stand, by that grace wherein man perfect did fall: so that if effectual grace be taken away, salvation is taken away. But what say they? Christ dyed for all. True, but what of that? Therefore all men have grace to be saved by Christ’s death. A miserable inconsequence. There can be nothing follow but this, Therefore Christ gave himself a sufficient ransom for all. The ransom is sufficient for all, it is offered to all, but all men doe not receive it. Man by his fall hath deprived himself of grace, by which he may accept the promises of grace, so that his own incapacity, hinders him from accepting this general remedy. A King at his Coronation gives a general pardon; yet this doth not prove that all men are able particularly to apply this general pardon. There are some that think themselves rectos in Curia, and that they need it not, some are negligent and careless of their estates; and a third sort are ignorant of it, and a fourth is poor and cannot sue it out. So in the general pardon offered in Christ Jesus, there are some justificiaries, as the Scribes and Pharisees that think they need it not, there are some that with Esau despise it for carnal profanity, there are some that are hardened and blinded being ignorant of Gods Righteousness in Christ Jesus, though they have it Preached, yea though they have a zeal of God and such are Jews; and they cannot sue out a pardon by believing in him of whom they have not heard. But this is the sum of the truth: Man being wholly fallen by free-will though assisted with a general and sufficient grace, lost his free-will, grace and life eternal. God in his mercy gives a Savior with a sufficient ransom for all the sinners of the world, that of all the world he may take whom he pleases, and by effectual grace join them to Christ in an eternal union of blessed felicity. If Christ had not dyed for all, God could not of all have saved whom he pleased. If he had given effectual grace to all, all would be saved; and then God had been all Mercy, and no Justice; if he had given effectual grace to none, none would be saved, and then God would have been all Justice, and no Mercy. But God purposed to show, both Mercy and Justice, leaves some in the state of the fall, to which man voluntarily cast himself, and by effectual grace join others to Christ unto eternal salvation. His Justice cannot be accused, but his Mercy ought to be magnified: And wee are infinitely more bound to God for his sure Mercies in that Effectual Grace, by which he certainly saves millions, then to Arminians for their general grace, by which they go about certainly to damn all.

Francis Rous, The Truth of Three Things, Viz, the Doctrine of Predestination, Free-Will, and Certainty of Salvation, as It is Maintained by the Church of England, Wherein the Grounds of Arminianism is Discovered and Confuted ([London]: no.pub., 1633), 70–72. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; and underlining mine.]

[Credit to Tony for the find.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Troughton:

And lastly, some learned men (who are more sober and moderate then those whom I oppose) do say (but without ground from Scripture, as I humbly conceive) that Christ dyed for every man and woman in the world, in respect of the sufficiency of his merit but not in respect of efficacy. That we should extend the sufficiency and merit of Christ’s death and bloodshed, beyond the purpose, decree, and intention of the Father and the Son, for my part I cannot see any clear ground: ‘tis true, the death and bloodshed of Christ may be said to be sufficient for every man in respect of the intrinsic virtue therefore, it being the blood of God [Acts 2:18.], the blood of that person who is the infinite God. But I conceive that it cannot properly be said to be a sufficient ransom for every man; and why, but because it is not properly a ransom or price paid for every man, nor never was so intended: So then, the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death, are to be jointly limited to them for whom he died and paid the price of redemption; nor did Christ shed one drop or dram of blood in vain; it was by the counsel and appointment of God, that Christ should lay down his life only for them whom the Father gave him; and none of them shall be lost.

I remember the popish Schoolmen have such a distinction of grace sufficient, and grace effectual [Hales 3. Summa. 9.69. Thom. m. 1, 2, 3, 109.]: God (say they) affords grace sufficient to everyone, but not grace effectual. Sufficient grace (as they hold) is that by which a man may be saved, if he will not be wanting to himself; effectual grace is that which saves a man indeed: But this is groundless. Where God tells Paul that his grace is sufficient for him: This sufficiency is not to be abstracted and separated from the efficacy of grace [2 Cor. 12:9.].

William Troughton, Scripture Redemption Restrayned and limitted; or An Antodote against Universal Redemption, in Ten Reasons or Arguments, Deduced from Scripture (London: Printed by J.M. for L. Chapman at  the Crown in Popes Head Alley, 1652), 52-53. [Some reformatting; italics original; some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture references cited inline; and underlining mine.]  [Note: It is probable that Troughton is following closely the wording of Owen on this point.]

Cox:

As to the EXTENT of the atonement, we believe that it was for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Those in general who hold that theological system which is called generically Calvinistic, and who hold it perhaps with equal decision and sincerity in common, though palpably not with equal correctness in degree, are divided here, some holding the fullness of the atonement for all men; others, the limitation of its nature, as atonement, to all the finally saved. The issue is joined–and while human imperfection continues in the church, controversy will not cease to be the consequence. Any thing almost is better than stagnation and a dead calm; just as a living dog is better than a dead lion. Besides, if brethren would–as they could and as they ought–debate honestly and in a manly way, without acerbity or impeaching motives, or personalities of unkindness, why should it be deprecated or avoided? Such are the prejudice, the ignorance, the selfishness, and the indolence of poor human nature, and the miserable and guilty remains of these even in the faithful, that controversy often becomes necessary as the alternative of what is infinitely worse–dereliction of duty, truth, and hope! we therefore contend for the fullness of the atonement, and with full conviction of what the truth is, as well as with liberal and kind feelings, but no .servility or cowardice, towards those who differ from us. Indifference will not do, nor temporizing, nor ambiguity, nor tameness. Christ expects everyone of his ministers to do his duty-and there is no alternative, no succedaneum, no evasion, to be endured. As free, and not using our liberty for A CLOAK OF MALICIOUSNESS, but as the servants of God, let us vindicate the truth, and look to its Great Author for our reward!

The government of God is properly two-fold–moral and providential; the one of duties, the other of events; the one referring to law, to right, to goodness, the other to the economics of the whole; and both ordered with sovereign wisdom and eternal prosperity and glory. In proportion as the partialities of the mind are found to incline more to events than to duties, more to destiny than to accountability, more to our passive than to our active relations, the providential department of God fills the field of vision; and because the event is, that the elect, and they only, are saved, therefore we are apt to think and to favor the theory that the others were in no sense the objects of mediatorial mercy. It suits our wisdom then, to think the atonement as perfectly limited in its nature as it is in its application–and we say Christ died for the elect alone. On the contrary, those who make room in their minds for the moral in the providential government of God, and see things as they are, find no difficulty, but the glorious reverse, in accrediting the fullness of the atonement.

Reasoning from facts to theories, and not from theories to facts, we ask, what are the revealed facts in the case? Is salvation in fact offered to the elect alone? or to a part, and not to all? to them that are saved only, or to them also that perish? Is there any offer, not on the basis of atonement? Is there any salvation to offer, save that of Christ? Is it not offered to every hearer of the gospel? Is it not commanded to be sped in all the world and to every creature? Are not the neglecters and the rejecters of the gospel, guilty of rejecting or neglecting the great salvation of Christ? Is not this their chief sin, and the allied or antecedent cause of all others? Are they not mainly punished for this crime? Is it not here by way of eminence incomparably the greatest of their offences against God, and so THE condemnation? And if so, then–how much transcendental ingenuity must it require to reconcile these plain facts, with the theory that limits atonement, and all saving provisions in Christ, to the elect alone! Does God offer what has no existence? Or has he another gospel which is not ANOTHER for the non-elect?

Read the rest of this entry »