Double predestination, part deux

[Skandelon]

No. If I reply now, I shall probably get irritable again.

Take a deep breath and try to be objective.

Why don't you go back and read it again properly so that you understand what he's saying. It's honestly not hard. I'll give you a little hint.

Right back at you... here is the hint for you:

But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism."

Some call it one thing and others call it something else. Clearly, PHIL "wouldn't glorify their position [that of so-called "four-pointers"] by labeling it Amyraldism." Why? Because 4-pointers don't have an explanation for the atonement like Amyraldist do. Thus, the title FOUR rather than FIVE, right?

Tell me Steve, why would Phil end the paragraph praising the founder Moise Amyraut saying, "Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut!" If he didn't respect him as a fellow Calvinistic scholar? And WHO is "they" if not for "so-called four-pointers."

Plus, you've yet to deal with the fact that Phil puts men like Shedd under the Supra camp when clearly his view of atonement's sufficiency for all is well established (as is Hodge's btw).

 

[JesusFan]

JB.....your free to think what you like, but till you adhere to Doctrines of Grace, you aint no Calvinist.

Well, seems to me that my viewpoints would fit within the CAL umbrella, as it is NOT just strict 5 pointers allowed in, correct?

 

[Skandelon]

Steve,

You do know that Phil is best known as one of John MacArthur's ghost writers, right?

MacArthur was once asked in a public forum what he thought of Calvinism in general and here is his reply:

"Let’s go back over it. Number one: Man is totally depraved, no question. Number two: God does choose us to be saved, “Chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.” Right? But Calvin got a little bit far out at this point with his logic. Jesus also said, “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” Calvin couldn’t fit that too well into his logical system. But that’s just the point. That’s a tension, isn’t it? Those are two contradictory terms: God saves us, and yet we have to be involved. But we’re awful sinners, vile. We have no good thing in us. How can we be involved? That’s the marvelous paradox, the mystery of redemption. But Calvin was too hard, you see? He wanted to push too far. Third thing he said was, therefore if only some are elect, Christ only died for the elect. But the problem with that is, it says in I John 2, that “He died not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world.” And then he came up with irresistible grace. And Jesus even says, “You will not come to me that you might have life.” They resisted, in a sense, didn’t they? And in Romans 11, He says, “All day long have I stretched out my arms to a stiff-necked and disobedient people.” "

Seems that MacArthur recognizes and acknowledges a healthy tension in what some espouse as "Calvinism" and true biblical theology. Do you suppose Phil and John disagree on these matters sometimes?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Particular Redemption addresses the L /Limited Atonement portion of the TULIP acronym & indicates LT is a misnomer (suggesting that Christs death has limited value) & this is not what any true Calvinist wants to say. Rather, Christs death on the cross is of infinite value.

Now if you study James Montgomery Boice, he states that those who will be in heaven are those for whom Christ died and those alone. He did not accomplish salvation for those who will not be in heaven, or they would be there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, seems to me that my viewpoints would fit within the CAL umbrella, as it is NOT just strict 5 pointers allowed in, correct?

Nope.....but your coming along. You need to understand Particular Redemption & how it fits into Gods plan of Grace.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

He did not accomplish salvation for those who will not be in heaven, or they would be there.

I understand that, but there is a distinction between accomplishing salvation for every person and "removing all legal impediments" for every person, as Hodge put it.

 

[JesusFan]

Take a deep breath and try to be objective.
Right back at you... here is the hint for you:

Some call it one thing and others call it something else. Clearly, PHIL "wouldn't glorify their position [that of so-called "four-pointers"] by labeling it Amyraldism." Why? Because 4-pointers don't have an explanation for the atonement like Amyraldist do.

Don't we in the "amy" camp basically hold to ALL tenants of DoG, just that there is a particular aspect to the atonement, effectually towards JSUt the elect, but that Jesus death "sufficient for all, but JUST effectually applied to the some!"

Tell me Steve, why would Phil end the paragraph praising the founder Moise Amyraut saying, "Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut!" If he didn't respect him as a fellow Calvinistic scholar? And WHO is "they" if not for "so-called four-pointers

."

That there WERE some pretty prominent Cal theologians who adhere to more of a "4 point" than 5 point view on DoG, just like founders/faculty at DTS!

IF one holds that man is spiritual dead as result of fall, dead in Adam, ONLY those whom God elects to effectually apply Grace towards are the saved, regardless if "4/5" pointers of DoG , WOULDN'T both HAVE TO BE SEEN AS CALS?

Plus, you've yet to deal with the fact that Phil puts men like Shedd under the Supra camp when clearly his view of atonement's sufficiency for all is well established (as is Hodge's btw).[/QUOTE

]

isn't there still a debate if Calvin himself actually held to either limited/unlimited view on the Atonement?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I understand that, but there is a distinction between accomplishing salvation for every person and "removing all legal impediments" for every person, as Hodge put it.

You know, I dont know the 1st thing really about Hodge or the times in which he lived. But if your suggestion is correct then Im surprised he wasn't called to church discipline. Perhaps he was & then the powers that be chose not to publicize it as they would do with reckless abandon today. If I had time, Id really research it ...esp because I could get to Princeton in an hour (will bear that in mind)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

OK, DEEP BREATH..............
Phil Johnson wrote, speaking of Amyraldism

This is a sophisticated way of formulating "four-point Calvinism," while still accounting for an eternal decree of election.

Now what is difficult about that? Amyraldism is "4-point Calvinism" but a sophisticated way of formulating it. Notice that Johnson puts "4-point Calvinism" in inverted commas, because there is really no such thing.

Then Johnson continues

But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism."

Not everone who calls himself a "4-point Calvinist" is an Amyraldian. Most folk I meet who say they are 4-pointers are actually one-pointers, and even the one point is wrong- "Once saved always saved." Amyraldism is the most God-honouring way of trying to square His sovereignty with General Redemption. Unfortunately it fails, but it is at least a good try.

So Johnson concludes

In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)

Surely this is perfectly clear? Amyraldism denies Particular Redemption and is therefore not Calvinism. However it is much more respectable and God-honouring than a lot of the stuff that goes under the false name of 4-point Calvinism but is actually Arminianism.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK, DEEP BREATH..............
Phil Johnson wrote, speaking of Amyraldism

Now what is difficult about that? Amyraldism is "4-point Calvinism" but a sophisticated way of formulating it. Notice that Johnson puts "4-point Calvinism" in inverted commas, because there is really no such thing.

Then Johnson continues

Not everyone who calls himself a "4-point Calvinist" is an Amyraldian. Most folk I meet who say they are 4-pointers are actually one-pointers, and even the one point is wrong- "Once saved always saved." Amyraldism is the most God-honouring way of trying to square His sovereignty with General Redemption. Unfortunately it fails, but it is at least a good try.

So Johnson concludes

Surely this is perfectly clear? Amyraldism denies Particular Redemption and is therefore not Calvinism. However is is much more respectable and God-honouring than a lot of the stuff that goes under the false name of 4-point Calvinism but is actually Arminianism.

Steve

Hopefully this explaination cant be arsed up

 

[JesusFan]

OK, DEEP BREATH..............
Phil Johnson wrote, speaking of Amyraldism

Now what is difficult about that? Amyraldism is "4-point Calvinism" but a sophisticated way of formulating it. Notice that Johnson puts "4-point Calvinism" in inverted commas, because there is really no such thing.

Then Johnson continues


Not everone who calls himself a "4-point Calvinist" is an Amyraldian. Most folk I meet who say they are 4-pointers are actually one-pointers, and even the one point is wrong- "Once saved always saved." Amyraldism is the most God-honouring way of trying to square His sovereignty with General Redemption. Unfortunately it fails, but it is at least a good try.

So Johnson concludes

Surely this is perfectly clear? Amyraldism denies Particular Redemption and is therefore not Calvinism. However is is much more respectable and God-honouring than a lot of the stuff that goes under the false name of 4-point Calvinism but is actually Arminianism.

Steve

So would it be true than that those of my "amy" viewpoint would actually have people lost in hell even though Jesus died for their sins, as some cals would say?

For in my mind, His death would NOT be effectually unless they were elcted by God to get Graced to believe in jesus and than it applied!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Just one other thing......
Johnson wrote, after describing Supra- and Infralapsarianism-

Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.

He continues-

Finally, see the chart (above), which compares these two views with Amyraldism (a kind of four-point Calvinism) and Arminianism.

Steve

 

[Jerome]

Oops. No commas around four-point Calvinism that time:laugh:

You said:

Notice that Johnson puts "4-point Calvinism" in inverted commas, because there is really no such thing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oops. No commas around four-point Calvinism that time:laugh:

You said:

Talk about being a "Fuss-Budget"! :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Steve,

You do know that Phil is best known as one of John MacArthur's ghost writers, right?

MacArthur was once asked in a public forum what he thought of Calvinism in general and here is his reply:



Seems that MacArthur recognizes and acknowledges a healthy tension in what some espouse as "Calvinism" and true biblical theology. Do you suppose Phil and John disagree on these matters sometimes?

When was that Q&A session? It seems as if it was made more than 20 years ago.MacArthur's today would not have responded in that way. His soteriological views have evolved (for the better). Especially his understanding of 1 John 2:2 has seen development. More than 20 years ago he was against special redemption.

 

[Rippon]

Talk about being a "Fuss-Budget"! :laugh:

You say fuss-budget,I say fuss-bucket!

 

[Skandelon]

OK, DEEP BREATH..............
Phil Johnson wrote, speaking of Amyraldism: "
This is a sophisticated way of formulating "four-point Calvinism," while still accounting for an eternal decree of election."

Now what is difficult about that? Amyraldism is "4-point Calvinism" but a sophisticated way of formulating it. Notice that Johnson puts "4-point Calvinism" in inverted commas, because there is really no such thing.

I understand that and agree. There is NO such thing a a real four pointer. That is Phil's point and MINE!!!!

In other words, he gives Amyraldism a place at the table but not "so-called four pointers." Why? Phil tells us:

Because they "account for an eternal decree of election (which IS consistently Calvinistic). And...

Because they are "committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty." (the Calvinistic view of sovereignty) And...

Because unlike so called "four-pointers" who can't "articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional," Amyraldists can and do have a coherent explanation as presented by the scholars I've already quoted...which you ignored again.

Even the scholars listed under the Amyraldists chart call themselves Supras under the Calvinistic model and are known and respected scholars in the Reformed tradition.

You ignore those quotes because it is abundantly clear that this is a legitimate disagreement among respected reformed scholars that you REFUSE to acknowledge because you don't want to eat crow and admit you were wrong about my representation of men like Hodge and Shedd.

But again, some Amyraldists probably go further than others on this particular point. Some may not even be considered Amyraldists because they just tweak their view of atonement by shifting the terms (i.e. Particular redemption). Did you read Shedd's quote? Would you put him under the Amyraldist category after reading that? If not, why?

 

[Skandelon]

Steve, also, if you go back through that thread you will see that I consistently argued that Hodge DID affirm a view of Particular Redemption and thus was a 5 point Calvinists. I NEVER attempted to argue that Hodge wasn't a five pointer, remember?

I simply pointed to the distinction Hodge drew regarding God's satisfaction of justice and thus the "sufficiency" of the atoning work. Shedd's quote goes into more detail. So, I really don't even know why I'm even in the position where I need to argue that the Amyraldism is a real form of Calvinism when I'm not the one who attempted to put Hodge or anyone else in that camp. You just seemed to assume that would be the camp I would put them into based upon the short limited summary comments of Phil on that chart....which he even admitted is not a complete representation of the various nuanced views.

Truth is that one can hold to a view of Particular redemption without holding to a view of limited atonement. Shedd explains that very clearly and Phil listed him and Hodge under the Calvinistic camp while knowing they hold to this distinction. Why can't you?

 

[JesusFan]

Steve, also, if you go back through that thread you will see that I consistently argued that Hodge DID affirm a view of Particular Redemption and thus was a 5 point Calvinists. I NEVER attempted to argue that Hodge wasn't a five pointer, remember?

I simply pointed to the distinction Hodge drew regarding God's satisfaction of justice and thus the "sufficiency" of the atoning work. Shedd's quote goes into more detail. So, I really don't even know why I'm even in the position where I need to argue that the Amyraldism is a real form of Calvinism when I'm not the one who attempted to put Hodge or anyone else in that camp. You just seemed to assume that would be the camp I would put them into based upon the short limited summary comments of Phil on that chart....which he even admitted is not a complete representation of the various nuanced views.

Truth is that one can hold to a view of Particular redemption without holding to a view of limited atonement. Shedd explains that very clearly and Phil listed him and Hodge under the Calvinistic camp while knowing they hold to this distinction. Why can't you?

That is whats strange to me, as reading all of the different Sotierology models, do feel that I am defintly in the "Amy" "4 pointer" Camp, but why is it so hard for some "5 pointers" here to acknowledge that Many prominent theologians of DoG identified themselves within that stream of calvinism?