With renewed vigor, the men of 3GT re-engage the topic of the extent of the atonement (with Austin defending the universal side of particular atonement, Kyle a limited view of particular atonement). Barry plays the role of referee, calling fouls and low blows. In the second segment, we talk about Austin’s recent moving adventure to Pensacola. Lastly, Barry raises the subject of variation in the body of Christ, drawing attention to Martin Bucer’s work Concerning the True Care of Souls. [But actually, that isn’t quite the end. A brief moment of violence might just burst out at the end-end]
Extent of the atonement: Beginning – 29:14
Our moving experiences: 29:14-39:00
Variation in the Body of Christ: 39:00-Nearly the End
Violent ending? 1:00:55-End
Resources:
- For one of the best lectures enumerating the differences between advocates of limited and unlimited sufficiency, be sure to check out Michael Lynch’s “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship.”
- For helpful resources on the Reformer’s views of the extent of the atonement, see David Ponter’s excellent website: Calvin and Calvinism.
- Martin Bucer: Concerning the True Care of Souls
- Pet Education.com reminds us of the possible side effects of Dramamine for cats: “May see sedation, dry mouth, and inability to fully empty the bladder. Diarrhea, vomiting, and loss of appetite are less commonly seen.” Just say’n.
Three Guys Theologizing 
Hi guys!
Just to follow up on my comment on the previous episode as invited to. As I briefly stated the last time, the sufficient-efficient distinction needs proper definition to be meaningful and non-contradictory. Christ’s atonement cannot be for the elect only but also not for the elect only in the same way. The extent of the atonement cannot be both limited and universal in the same way. I find that the best way to come at this is the classic distinction between God’s decretive and preceptive wills. In terms of the intent of the atonement, it is for the elect alone, because we are talking about God’s eternal decree. Who God intends to be saved will invariably and inevitably be saved – thus, efficiency.
But in the outworking of God’s decree in time, God’s dealings with man are such that history, which includes contingency and second causes, is meaningful. God’s revelation and disposition to all sinners is that they repent and be saved. There is no differentiation between elect and reprobate here because God’s decree is not in view, only God’s precept or revealed will. The big question is first whether the Gospel is offered to all, and second, what is offered in the Gospel? Is it a mere command to repent? Is it a hypothetical possibility of salvation? Or actually Christ’s atoning blood? If it is the last, upon what basis do we offer it if it is not in fact sufficient for all? There would then be a true hindrance ad extra between some sinners (reprobate) and salvation, i.e., Christ’s blood cannot atone for my sins. The efficiency-sufficiency distinction thus preserves the historically/covenantally meaningful act of offering the Gospel to all without distinction, without having to descend into hypothetical universalism
LikeLike
Thanks for the comments.
Are you familiar with the view of John Davenant (and those like him)? While he would fall into the hypothetical universalism camp, he would be distinct from Amyraldianism. I think Davenant’s views are better. Given your desire to uphold the traditional formula (as would I), I think you would find him palatable.
I’m concerned chiefly with two things: (1) grounding the universal offer in a real provision (sufficient for all), and (2) not sweeping certain biblical passages under the proverbial rug.
Fesko breaks down the sufficient/efficient formula into 4 camps. He says,
I think there are cases of blurring in history between points 2 and 3, and I think a fair number of people who would articulate 4 confusedly go on to talk like position 3 when it comes to the universal offer.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Sorry, for some reason I logged in with a different account in the last comment.
I haven’t done any work on Davenant, and Fesko’s list is helpful. I think there are significant variations within 2 and 3 too, especially as to how or whether there is an accrual of the benefits of redemption to all in common grace. Then there’s those who do “in some sense” partake of the Holy Spirit and are members of the visible church but “fall from grace,” those who deny the Lord who bought them (2 Pet. 2:1).
I agree that there is a tendency to explain away Scriptural data that doesn’t fit into our dogmatic moulds, but we all have to systematise the data somehow. At least now I find keeping the distinction between God’s decrees and covenantal dealings most helpful, so that there is no contradiction. In God’s eternal counsel, Christ’s atonement is only for the elect, but in time, it is offered to all and applied to all who will come (and remain in it). And I know that doesn’t clarify things anymore, but that’s where I am.
LikeLike
I think that’s a fair and very level-headed view on the matter! Thanks again for weighing in.
LikeLike