Considering the "Multiple Intentions View" of the Atonement

~ fundyreformed

In my last post I introduced the debate on the atonement that Seth McBee is hosting over at Contend Earnestly. Seth calls himself a 6 Point Calvinist, and dubs his view the “Unlimited/Limited Atonement” position. Yet Bruce Ware also calls that same view “4 Point Calvinism”, and I read an article which claims Benjamin Warfield interacted with what we would call “4 Point Calvinism” today, when he took on “Post-Redemptionism”. To confuse matters even more, Eric Svendsen posits a similar view which he calls “4.5 Point Calvinism”. Then there is the historical variety of this position called Amyraldianism, which seems to be specifically what Warfield was opposing.

In light of the confusion of determining whether we are really discussing 4, 4.5, or 6 point Calvinism, and to simplify things somewhat, I’m going to simply go by another name Bruce Ware has for this position: “The Multiple Intentions View”.

Now if someone else can straighten me out on how the various positions listed above differ from each other, by all means make an attempt! But for now, let me update where I’m at in evaluating the “Multiple Intentions View”.

1) I recently read an excellent article by Dr Roger Nicole entitled “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement“. Nicole explains why it is that both sides of the debate can claim Calvin for support. He makes a good case for Calvin actually supporting limited atonement, and does an excellent job tracing the history of this particular debate surrounding Calvin. Of special note was this quote from Calvin: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

So all that is to say, quoting Calvin one way or another isn’t going to really win the debate. And ultimately Scripture matters much more than the opinion of Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else.

2) Next, I should point out a convincing exegesis of John 3:16 which does not demand a universal atonement and does not do violence to the term “world”. In this open letter to Dave Hunt, James White gives a good exegesis of the passage (scroll about half-way down and look for the heading “John 3:16”). [So far only John 3:16 has been discussed in the debate at Contend Earnestly.]

3) While I do see how this “multiple intentions view” would be easier to hold to, when it comes to explaining some seemingly universal passages, I have to wonder how different it actually is to the normal limited atonement position anyway.

a) In both systems a bona fide offer of the gospel is made. There is no necessary connection between such an offer and an actual payment/provision for sins having been made. It is enough that God knows who will respond to the offer and has secured the payment for those as part of his intent in Christ’s death.

b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

c) Basically, I see no reason to have to hold to a universal atonement for sins in order to legitimately hold to a universal preaching of the gospel to all people.

4) Another problem area concerns the bearing of God’s wrath which Christ accomplished in His death. His death satisfied God’s wrath in a substitutionary way for a certain people. I don’t see how the “multiple intentions view” adequately owns up to a substitutionary idea of the atonement. Is not an intentional substitution for certain, specific people inherent in the idea of substitutionary atonement?

5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

6) I also found the following summary by Bruce Ware to be helpful in explaining and distinguishing the three main positions.

7) Finally I should admit there is much more that can be studied with regard to this position. David of Calvin and Calvinism has compiled tons of info and quotes from various theologians which touch on this topic. Browse his “For Whom Did Christ Die?” category for many pertinent articles. Personally, I want to review my blogging pal Bnonn’s articles on the issue as well [here, here & here]. And I think it would also be worthwhile to explore Eric Svendsen’s posts on his “4.5 Point Calvinism”.

Now if there were just more time for all this reasearch!……

24 thoughts on “Considering the "Multiple Intentions View" of the Atonement”

  1. In this interview, John Piper discusses with Bruce Ware, the difference between Ware’s view and the traditionalist view.

    In this sermon, Mark Driscoll thoroughly addresses the topic.

  3. To quickly respond:

    1) I recently read an excellent article by Dr Roger Nicole entitled “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement“. Nicole explains why it is that both sides of the debate can claim Calvin for support. He makes a good case for Calvin actually supporting limited atonement, and does an excellent job tracing the history of this particular debate surrounding Calvin. Of special note was this quote from Calvin: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

    David: There is a lot of misinformation on this. You can scope out a couple of papers on this.

    Calvin and Heshusius.pdf

    Calvin_Heshusius.pdf

    If the hypertext does not work I can send the pdfs to you. They are in the files section of the Calvin and Calvinism list for those who are already members. If you are not and want a copy, buzz me a note at the theology online blog.

    The question to ask Bob, is that to Heshusius, Calvin says “wicked” not reprobate. By wicked he means unbeliever. This language is parallel expression in Vermigli and Bullinger and others. Wicked for Calvin here does not denote reprobate. Thus Calvin is not speaking to limited atonement: Christ did not die for the reprobate. Rather, he speaks to Christ not dying for the wicked so that they can think to feed of Christ in the supper.

    Bob: So all that is to say, quoting Calvin one way or another isn’t going to really win the debate. And ultimately Scripture matters much more than the opinion of Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else.

    David: Surprisingly thats the ONLY comment from Calvin that can be adduced, and even that does prove Nicole’s point. He just converts “wicked” into reprobate.

    2) Next, I should point out a convincing exegesis of John 3:16 which does not demand a universal atonement and does not do violence to the term “world”. In this open letter to Dave Hunt, James White gives a good exegesis of the passage (scroll about half-way down and look for the heading “John 3:16?). [So far only John 3:16 has been discussed in the debate at Contend Earnestly.]

    David: See my reply on Seth’s blog.

    3) While I do see how this “multiple intentions view” would be easier to hold to, when it comes to explaining some seemingly universal passages, I have to wonder how different it actually is to the normal limited atonement position anyway.

    David: very different.

    a) In both systems a bona fide offer of the gospel is made. There is no necessary connection between such an offer and an actual payment/provision for sins having been made. It is enough that God knows who will respond to the offer and has secured the payment for those as part of his intent in Christ’s death.

    David: what then is offered to the world?

    b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

    David: is it not then double speak to speak of a non-electing love, a non-electing desire for the salvation of all, a non-electing call, etc?

    c) Basically, I see no reason to have to hold to a universal atonement for sins in order to legitimately hold to a universal preaching of the gospel to all people.

    David: okay. That its biblical is a good one. The impossibility of converting world into elect is another good one. 🙂

    David: let me ask you a question Bob.

    John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe.

    David: is the one who believes not, a sub-set of world? Clearly the one who believes, is; so is ‘the one who believes not,’ also a subset? If not, why not?

    4) Another problem area concerns the bearing of God’s wrath which Christ accomplished in His death. His death satisfied God’s wrath in a substitutionary way for a certain people. I don’t see how the “multiple intentions view” adequately owns up to a substitutionary idea of the atonement. Is not an intentional substitution for certain, specific people inherent in the idea of substitutionary atonement?

    David: because there are two doctrines of substitutionary atonement. And can you state your objection specifically?

    5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

    David: Sure. We can show you how Warfield misunderstood Amyralt.

    7) Finally I should admit there is much more that can be studied with regard to this position. David of Calvin and Calvinism has compiled tons of info and quotes from various theologians which touch on this topic. Browse his “For Whom Did Christ Die?” category for many pertinent articles.

    David: the thing is, this theology predates Amyraut by centuries. He was just *one* trajectory. There were so many others before him by decades even centuries who held to this.

    Take care,
    David

  4. Some followup comments:

    Bob: In light of the confusion of determining whether we are really discussing 4, 4.5, or 6 point Calvinism, and to simplify things somewhat, I’m going to simply go by another name Bruce Ware has for this position: “The Multiple Intentions View”.

    David: it does simplify things. Personally I don’t like Ware’s descriptor either. I prefer classic and moderate Calvinism. After this, this is what it is.

    Bob: Now if someone else can straighten me out on how the various positions listed above differ from each other, by all means make an attempt! But for now, let me update where I’m at in evaluating the “Multiple Intentions View”.

    David: I am not sure Ware understands the issues. I have not seen him express the real point of unlimited representation and imputation of sin. Thats one reason I would not want to lock myself into his position or his labeling as yet.

    David: But when God _offers_ a remedy to the world, if there is no sufficient remedy for this world, then God is not sincere. Imagine a doctor. He has a cure. It is, however, only genetically coded for class A men and women. Let class A stand for any quality you like, short, fat, italians, etc. The doctor offers to cure to men of class B, saying this is sufficient for you. It’s a lie. For Owen, his point is that it could have been sufficient for them, had it been originally made for them, genetically. But as it stands, right now, its not sufficient for class B. And so to try and offer it o class B is not credible.

    If Christ only bore a penal relationship with the elect, and not with the elect, he cannot offer that penal satisfaction for the men and women of the non-elect class.

    b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

    David: if Scripture teaches it, then these questions are subordinated to that, and so must be rejected. And with regard to the Call, it has a double reference. The love of God has a double reference. The will of God for the salvation of man has a double reference. And no problem there. So the problem here is?

    5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

    David: We can easily show where Warfield attacks a strawman. None of his criticisms are valid in our opinion and we can show this, if you wish. It just takes time to work through it all.

    David

  5. David,

    I’m working through all of this, and I’m eager to see further support for your position beyond John 3:16. So I’m eagerly awaiting the next installments in the debate at Contend Earnestly. I will read your stuff over there too. Don’t come blasting with both barrels, I want to honestly hear your view before rejecting. This is just where I’m at right now. I’ll respond to your comments here more fully later tonight. I work nights so I was sleeping most of the day, and I have family to spend time with too! :^)

  6. Hey Bob,

    I was not trying to blast you with both barrels. Sorry if my tone came across like that. Ill try harder to write in a lighter tone.

    David

  8. Hey Bob…

    I hope you are doing well…it has been fun working through all this alongside you…

    Keep asking questions, of us, and yourself in this stuff…it is interesting to say the least…

    If we ever come across as nasty…that is not our intent…Hope you haven’t seen it that way…

  9. Bob.
    By the way, the statement that you found from Calvin can be pretty misleading if not understood correctly. Here is the quote you give from Calvin:

    “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

    This is a rebuttal statement made to Heshusius and Steve from Controversial Calvinism has done an excellent paper on the subject on what is going on. I feel as though it is very honest and forthright. Take a look when you get a chance, it is only 19 Pages long.

    Understanding Calvin’s Argument Against Heshusius

    Enjoy!

    Have a great weekend

  10. Yes! This someone else, me, can actually straighten you out. But you’re not going to like it and it takes a bit of borrowing some of your time. Since Jesus’ commands “Give to the one who asks you and the one who wants to borrow from you do not turn him away”, I am surely certain you would not want to have an intentional disobedience of a command publicly displayed, would you? I have to say, what an opening you have given.

  11. Robert, are you prepared?
    “And from EACH man too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” Gen. 9:5c NIV.
    Bob are you in the classification of each man too?

  13. Yeah I’m for real. You can lean in any direction, but not too far. The man who refuses to obey Jesus no matter what the man says about himself is a man who is not remotely associated with Jesus. Testing is not illegal and is standard procedure for the follower of Jesus.
    Are you in the classification of EACH man too? Yes or No?

  14. If you boys don’t answer the question you are in contempt of no less than two of Jesus’ commands. Answering by more than Yes or No, silence that is, and refusing to “Give to the one who asks you. Like I said you can lean, but not too far. Is this clear? Bobby issued a challenge and his mouth has over loaded his ……………, well you get the picture, right?

  16. I did not say “And from each man too I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.”, God did. “If you love keep my commandments.” the Lord thy God said this. So by willfully disobeying him He proves that it is a certification that you do not love him no matter how much thou doth protest. A fisher of men has been trained to catch men. Are ya in need of more proofs such as demanding a sign?

  18. “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
    Which law is Paul referring to and which of the two of you Bob or Phil has the slightest idea of how you obey this law?

  19. “Considering the ‘Multiple Intentions View’ of the Atonement” indeed! God has only one set purpose for each man. Any explanation used explain the reason and benefit relative to Jesus’ crucifixion which does not instruct the man who hears that explanation that one outstanding issue relative to Jesus life having been taken by bloodshed is remaining to be resolved or the man by law sins beyond remedy is indeed a false explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion. ALL current explanations of Jesus’ crucifixion identifiable as a salvation gospel disseminated by any church anywhere in the world today are all totally false.
    Yeah I’m for real, and have already proven it by two questions you two birds absolutely refuse to answer. For no man regardless can save himself from the penalty of eternal death by not obeying a law of God of one word. That is fact.

  20. Hey Theodore, I just now today found out about your comments here. I don’t get email notices on older posts. I’ll read through your stuff and get back to you.

  22. Yes. Every contemporary church is teaching a salvation system which has not been perfected by the crucifixion of Jesus. One has only to notice that God has prepared a table before the Lord in the presence of his enemies. This table sits right down front of every “Christian” church in existence.
    “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13 What law?

  23. In Matt. 16:18 and 28:18-20, Jesus promised his church would be successful and he would be with his church to the end of the age. A wholesale apostasy from true doctrine is declared by Jesus not to be possible. This matches other teaching in Scripture.

    You are making a strong charge to claim every church is wrong. On what basis can you claim that?

Comments are closed.