Thursday, May 12, 2022

John Davenant (1572-1641) vs. Common Objections Against Universal Atonement One Still Hears Today by 5-Point Calvinists

John Davenant (1572-1641) was an English delegate during the Council of Dort (1618-19). He was a defender of “hypothetical universalism” with respect to the extent of the atonement. The following objections (followed by his responses) are two very common objections one hears from modern defenders of Limited Atonement (AKA Particular Redemption) by James White et al.:

Objection 1. First, therefore, it may be objected, That at the time when Christ suffered death, many had been adjudged to hell, and tormented there, but there is no redemption from hell: How then can we content that the death of Christ was ever applicable in any way to these condemned persons? Some, influenced by this argument, have concluded that the innumerable multitude of the wicked, who lived from the beginning of the world until the coming of Christ, and who, on account of their impiety, were cast into hell, had no more right in the benefit of redemption, before the sacrifice of Christ was offered up on the cross, than the devils themselves. Thus the Leyden Fathers speak in a writing which is extant in Vol. 9. Biblioth. Patrum, As the Lord Jesus Christ is by no means said to have suffered for the wicked and condemned angels, so it is not to be believed that he suffered all things for these impious and condemned men.

 

Reply 1. But I answer, When we affirm the death of Christ according to the ordination of God, and the nature of thing, to be a remedy applicable to every man, we consider not merely the outward passion of Christ endured at the appointed moment of time, but the eternal virtue of the death of Christ, bringing salvation to mankind in every age. For Christ, as to the intention of God, was a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and the efficacy of this propitiatory sacrifice could extend itself as much to those who lived before Christ suffered, as to us who live after his passion. If therefore they only mean, that those could not be relieved by the death of Christ in time, who before his death were by an irrevocable decree adjudged to infernal punishment, we confess the same; because they had then ceased to be living in this world, and therefore were not capable of repentance and faith; but if they mean to contend further, that the eternal virtue of the death of Christ was not applicable to such persons while they were alive in this world, because the passion of Christ did not regard them any more than the wicked and condemned angels, that we deny. For it may be truly said of Cain, Esau, or any man who died before Christ suffered, that he might have been absolved from her sins, and saved through the virtue of the sacrifice to be offered up by the Messiah, if he had believed in him; which cannot be said of the condemned angels: because the universal covenant of salvation under the condition of faith, embraces the whole human race, btu does not embrace the fallen angels. It is therefore worthy of observation, that God would not that the death of his Christ should either be applied or applicable under any condition to any of the fallen angels: to all these, therefore, God conducted himself alike and equally. But not equally to mankind; for as to these, although he determined and declared that the death of his Son was applicable to any one under the condition of faith, yet he did not determine to cause it by the benefit of his special mercy to be applied equally to every one. We do not deny therefore what is evident, namely, that the difference between devils and men Consists in this, that from the ordination of God, the death of Christ is a thing ordained for and applicable to mankind; but neither ordained for, not applicable to devils; although after this life, to men placed in hell there is no further possibility of application remaining. Therefore this Consequence is faulty; viz. The death of Christ was not applicable to the damned after their condemnation; Therefore it was never and in no way applicable to them. (John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ As To Its Extent and Special Benefits: Containing a Short History of Pelagianism, and Shewing the Agreement of the Doctrines of the Church of England [Militant Thomist Press, 2021], 54-56)

 

Objection 17. The last objection is derived from those passages in which the death of Christ is expressly referred to certain persons; from which they infer, that they have no regard to others. The passages which are relied on are these, Matt. 1:21, Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. John 10;15, I lay down my life for my sheep. John 11:5, Jesus died, that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad; and such like.

 

Reply 17. From the aforesaid testimonies, and others which are similar, it is well concluded that the death of Christ, according to the will of God, in sending his Son, and of the Son in offering himself, pertains in a special manner to the peculiar people who are known only to God, that is, to the elect. But that special mode is of this kind, that he cannot be said to have died for these alone, but he died for these only with the certain, eternal, gratuities purposes of infallibly saving them, through the free gift of his special mercy flowing from some special providence, which we call predestination. But from testimonies of this kind, which refer to certain persons, the death of Christ, not considered simply, but complicated with the decree of secret predestination, it is wrongly inferred, that this death does not pertain to all men in some general way. But the general mode is of this kind, that we should acknowledge that Christ died for the whole human race, with an evangelical covenant, and that a most sure one, concerning expiating sins and conferring eternal life on each and every man, provided that they should embrace this Redeemer of the world with a true faith. And hence it is, that although some passages occur in the holy Scriptures, in which Christ is said to have died for the elect, or for his own peculiar people, yet none occur in which it is denied that he died for any persons, many occur in which it is asserted that he died for all. For the Spirit of God was willing to shew to those that believed in the death of Christ the special privilege of the elect, but he was unwilling to overwhelm in silence the common privilege of the human race in the same death of Christ, It is our part, therefore, to leave to God the decree of his secret predestination, according to which he determined how far, and to whom, he will effectually apply this death of Christ by the gift of his special grace; and in the meantime, to acknowledge with grateful minds the sun of his revealed Gospel, which promulgates That one died for all, that whosoever should believe in him may have eternal life. On this subject Ambrose says (In Luc. lib. vi. cap. 7), Although Christ suffered for all, yet he suffered especially for us, because he suffered for his Church. (Ibid., 91-93)

 

Blog Archive