Featured Edwards on "Limited Atonement" and Universal Redemption

Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when they say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; 'tis past all contradiction.


(Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies” 25. Universal Redemption.)

 

I don't know him very well, only in passing. But he seems pretty cool and I heard he's a Clemson fan.

 

Think that's bad, read Whitefield's position (there's you some ammo....for another thread).

But...not here. The topic is Limited Atonement or Universal Redemption as defined in the OP.​

 

Each section has "sticky" threads at the start explaining how various administrators are running the category. They are closed after a time of inactivity, when they become long (here I think it's 100 posts), if they stray off the topic, at the request of the one who started the thread, if they become inappropriate (this seems to happen more often in the Cal/Arm and Politics section), and at the discretion of the admin/mod.

 

No sir, I don’t think that was Edwards was “rattled” by “provisional atonement” so much as he simply opposed the Calvinism expressed and understood by many in his time.

Edwards entered Yale when he was 12 years old, and at the age of 13 was studying John Locke. So perhaps Edwards was influenced by his studies of human understanding and will. But I think that the reason he (with Hopkins and Bellamy, among others) argued against the picture many Calvinist held was that he realized Calvinism itself had started to become interpreted through its own theology.

In other words, many of those “logical conclusions” that people make of Calvinism are based on misunderstandings that some Calvinists may actually hold. Edwards saw the inconsistency not in Calvinism but in a Calvinistic tradition that grew out of Calvinism (a misunderstanding of the doctrines taught).

 

I agree. Calvinism is a diverse category. Some of the most influential missionaries were Calvinists, but the "anti-missions movement" also came from that group.

The above is one example. There are some Calvinists who deny on the Cross a way was made that all could be saved, and that all men have an opportunity to be saved. Yet both Scripture and the Canons of Dort state otherwise.

Edwards also tackled what was called the "Old Lights". This is interesting because we've seen this exact same thing happen a couple of times in history. Here, the "Old Lights" were opposed to revivalism. Essentially, they would represent the Calvinists who viewed just about any evangelistic movement as sensationalism (perhaps compared to "easy believism"...but I'm not sure that applies exactly to Edwards). Edwards also seems to have viewed their focus on covenantal theology to be skewed to the point they distorted the personal aspect of salvation.

 

No, that is not what I mean. I was speaking of the "scope of the Atonement". The Canons of Dort present men as having an opportunity to be saved but of their own accord rejecting that salvation. This is consistent with Scripture, but not with the belief of some Calvinists.

By "Old Lights" I was referring to that position of Charles Chauncy (sp?) compared with Edward's position.