The Great Limited Atoement Debate (updated)

Here are all my comments so far on the great debate raging on Mandy's blog between Oak Hill-ers and Moore College, Sydney-ers over effectual redemption:

Obviously some of this stuff is easier to follow (if you care!) on the blog, but there are over 90 comments no, so do set aside enough time each day to keep up!

* * *

Well, a few thoughts from me, which I hope will be enjoyable, helpful and godly: 9 points of Calvinism:

0. By the way, did you know that in the dinning hall at Oak Hill there is a crest with the motto, "Be Right and Persist!". Wise words, I think we can all agree.

1. Yes, lets be nice. Lets not be rude or silly either - especially about Dr William's excellent arguments and superior mind, morals and practice. Childlike but not childish

2. Shouting texts that you misunderstand and that your opponents know about already and have dealt with perfecly well already is not an argument. DO CAPITAL LETTERS REALLY HELP? Perhaps enclsosing what you want to emphasise in * s like *this* is a better way of indicating emphasis in plain text?

3. Lots of the Moore people seem to need to distinguish: in what sense in this context etc? Avoid the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy. Or indeed, "this word makes me think of this so this is what it must always mean whoever uses it wherever". True, a bit of presupositional (Van Til-esque) perspectivalism, (Frame et al) would always help. Good reccomended reading, Thomo. Maybe I've broken some of Frame's rules here?

4. I dont think there is an Oak Hill line or argument on this or a complete consensus amongst faculty or students so that party spirit is not the greatest help.

5. What is the difference between over-systematising and thinking through the true and necessary consequence of a passage and making sure you dont expound one text such that it is repugnent to another, as the Westminster Confession and 39 Articles would admonish us? Is not God faithfull and consistent and coherent? Do not the revealed things belong to us and is it not our duty and our glory to search them out, rather than making a virtue of the supposed incoherence (to us) of God's revelation, because we cannot know the unsearchable mind of God? What is it with all this Barthian anti-rationality stuff anyway?

6. So is Revd ? Mr ? Dr? Professor? Dave Barrie getting rid of the P petal now too? There are surely many unquestionable perseverence of all true believers to the end texts. I reckon we could easily show that the perseverence of the saints is the Orthodox consensus throughout time. Maybe there arent famous names as everyone thought it?

7. Some of the debate may be confused as some of the American Alburn Avenue Covenantal Objectivists Reformed Is Not Enough chaps use the term Christian to mean Baptised Non-excommunicate included in the objective covenant professing (if adult) and Believer to mean truly regenerate elect to ultimate salvation.

8. Is the "stretched" "natural" "plain sense" reading stuff just a way of saying "natural to me", ie i havent heard your argument before and it seems a bit strange to my excentric and parochial ears?

9. Yes, good point, Ros.Please would someone list the HyperCalvinists at Oak Hill - or indeed pretty much anywhere today AND - oops, *and* - show a necessary or even "natural" link to limited atonemnet? It is interesting that Dr Williams is being so active in Divinci Code evangelism at the moment when he neednt bother and might have better things to do with his time. (Even if perhaps he is being a bit too evidentialist and argumentative for some of our Barthian friensds?) A covenant sucession Covenant Household generational theology style is more likely to lead to less cold contact evangelistic effort, perhaps, but that's hardly the Limited Atonement point.

Ah, that's better.

* * *

Where there are some questions of point of historical fact /information in this discussion, why don't we get some real experts (apologies if you are one and you've said something here and I don't know) to tell us the answers? e.g. Dr Williams? e.g. Professor Trueman on (Mr Jensen's) the John Owen is sold out to Aristotelainism though he thinks he's sticking to the Bible stuff. We could ask them for their take on the whole thing while they're at it!

* * *

Thank you Prof Mr Dr (My?) Captain Barrie and (Arch? X2?) Bishop Jensen et. al. for the historical references, the blogging tips etc.I agree we LA boys ought to get to work on the historical consenus examples for L & P, though I imagine Carl Truman and Garry Williams have it all at their finger tips so I'm going to wait and see if they come up with the goods before bothering to attempt any work on it.Yes, sorry for all the typos. I blame them on the gift of dyslexia and laziness etc.Michael, could I buy you a pint in Oxford or London some time?

* * *

Oh the comments by Drs Sach, Jeffrey and Field here are just outstanding.Mr Thomposn deserves to be created DD(Oxon) for his contributions to this blog alone and appoined Ajunct Professor of Reformed Theology at Moore College.By the way, are there any plans for the *Reformed* Theological Review to change its name, does anyone know? Evangelical or Lutheran or Sydney or B. Knox Memorial might be more accurate adjectives?As well as Dr Trueman's work (on Owen and Protestant Scholasticism) hasn't Professor Richard Muller (Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics etc) absolutely killed many of the methodological, hermeneutical, philosophical, historical and even exegetcial errors being mouthed here? At Oak Hill many of the 1st years wrote on "Protestant Scholasticism: Zenith or Nadir of Reformed Thought?". PS was basically a jolly good thing. Would any of the Oak Hill boys be able to link to their essays, please? Dr Williams suggested maybe yours, Sachy or Jeffery, would help us?Even Professor Paul Helm's classic on Calvin againts the Calvinists would help us here, would'nt ut?PS Presumably when the exams are over, some of you will be able to devote your energies full time to this vitally important discussion?

* * *

We at Oak Hill should just say how much we love the Jensens and Moore College and B. Knox and Professor Peterson. We owe so much to John Chapman and friends.But it seems we have been reading different books for the last few years? You are getting more deeply into Barth.We are more in love with Edwards, Owen, Augustine, Acquinas - even!I'm sorry if the rhetoric volume of my posts has been too high at times: I didn't mean to be rude or offensive or cause a brother to stumble.By the way, I understand that Professor Paul Helm's reply to James Torrance in their exchange might especially hlep us.Who are the authors and what are the books you guys are excited about in all this?

* * *

PS - obviously I accept your kind offer of a pint. Will anyone join us from Oxford or fly in from Moore T C for it, I wonder?

* * *

And I'm sure you've all thought of this but "I lay down my life for the sheep" in the context of John 1o seems to teach limited atonment very clearly.On its own the text does not require it. Christ could say that and still die for the sheep and also for unmentioned others.But the context of the drama proves the atonement is limited. It is hard to see a sensible or significant way in which the shepherd can be said to lay down his life for the wolves, hirlings, theives, robbers and not-my-sheep-ones against whom he defends the sheep. Thus the atonment is not universal: it is, as it were, against not for the enemies of Christ.I do not think this presses the parabolic or allagorical sense too far. Christ seems to be speaking in a pretty much more or less this equals that way.This point that the enemies die and are not died for is obvious from all the conflict stuff in the Bible, as David Field's material also suggests.A Christus Victor (Christ defeats his enemies - cosmic and otherwise - by his cross) model of the atonement thus teaches Limited Atonement, much to the surprise of Chalke et. al.

* * *

So on my re-reading-scan of all thses comments, there are no outstanding questions of substance for the real atonement guys, but the proponents of a limited atonemnent have a number of clear and specific questions of importance listed above to get to work on?Does anyone disagree?We LA chaps need some distractions (structured procrastination) from proper work, so, come on, what should be on our "To Do" list?Maybe proving the historical case that Calvin clearly believed LA & Owen was thoroughly Biblical? But it does seem that's all been done in books we all have in our libraries...So what shall we do today? Maybe those pints?