Bullinger's belief in Strict Limited Atonement and Unicorns

This is starting to frighten me. Yesterday, I posted something from my friend David on Bullinger's view of the atonement. David made a great comment in his post. He said:

These works have added a lot of useful material for my Bullinger file. What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise.

One may not agree with the doctrine. One may claim it is illogical. One may claim it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Predestination. One may claim that later Calvinists refined and smoothed out earlier inconsistencies. One can think and believe all that. What one cannot do is be dishonest about the plain and undeniable historicity of the doctrine in early Reformed theology.

What is starting to frighten me is the bullheaded process of just outright denying that the Reformers believed in universal atonement. Now, when we say this, we aren't denying that they also believed in limited atonement, we are saying that they believed both. Our friend Turretinfan cannot accept this. He goes to great lengths to try and outright deny that Bullinger or others ever believed in a universal atonement. So, he not only denies unlimited atonement but he now tries to just say, "nuh uh" when we constantly prove otherwise that a lot of the Reformers would agree with us. He might as well try and prove that Bullinger also believed in unicorns. I can accept that he doesn't believe in the unlimited view of the atonement, but this is getting ridiculous how much he twists words and ignores plain language to try and refute that the reformers didn't believe in the unlimited aspect of the atonement. With his arguments I am going to start to debate why Bullinger and the Reformers believed that leprechauns rode in on unicorns with fairy dust to take over Montana. No matter how hard Turretinfan, and others mind you, try and refute the plain language of Bullinger and others, it is still there for all to read. Take a look at this comment from Bullinger (from David's follow up post):

Also they declare by the way, whom he has redeemed: that is to wit, men of all tribes, &c. In which rehearsal he does imitate Daniel in the 7. chapt. and signifies an universality, for the Lord has died for all: but that all are not made partakers of this redemption, it is through their own fault. For the Lord excludes no man, but him only which through his own unbelief, and misbelief excludes himself. &c. Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ. (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, Dwellyng ouer Aldersgate, 1573), 79-80.

Can you honestly tell me that Bullinger is not clear as day here? It is now to the point to where we say it is sunny outside and Turretinfan says that it is snowing and it is midnight.

If you would like to see to what lengths Turretinfan is going to try and prove that there are unicorns in the language of Bullinger click here. To see David's rebuttal, click here.

If you don't agree with us, fine. I can take that. But stop with this pretend world that makes no sense at all. At some point, you have to just say, I don't agree with some of the Reformers and move on. But to continue to try and have a smear campaign is retarded.

Read More......

The Reformed Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement

This is a post that my friend David did over at theology online. I really liked it and hope that it will shed some light on those who refuse to believe that the unlimited view of the atonement is merely Arminian or by deviant Amyraldians. Take a look and also take a look at the links included within the post. David has compiled quite the list that is overwhelmingly in the favor of the Reformed TRUE understanding of the atonement. Here it is, enjoy:

For the last few months I have been working my way through some rare out-of-print works by Henry Bullinger.

These works include:

Henry Bullinger, Common Places of Christian Religion, (Imprinted at London by Tho. East, and H. Middleton, for George Byshop, 1572).

Henrie Bullinger, The Summe of the Foure Euangelistes Comprehending both the course of the historie, and also severall points of doctrine set foorth in the same, pointing foorth as it were with the hand, that IESVS is CHRIST, the only perfect and sufficient Saviour of all the Faithfull, (Imprinted at London: William Ponsonby at the signe of the Bishops head, 1582).

[Henry Bullinger], Looke from Adam, And behold The Protestants Faith and Religion (London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, for Thomas Pavier, and are to be sold at his shop in Ivie Lane, 1624).

Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ. (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, Dwellyng ouer Aldersgate, 1573).

[Henry Bullinger], An Holsome Antidotus or counter-poyson agaynst the pestylent heresye and secte of the Anabaptistes newly translated out of the Latin into Englysh by John Veron, 1570.

Henry Bullynger, A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children against the pestiferous secte of the Anabaptytses. set furthe by the famouse Clerke, Henry Bullyinger: & nowe translated out of Laten into Englysh by Jhon Verone (Imprynted at Worceter by Jhon Oswen, 1551).

These works have added a lot of useful material for my Bullinger file. What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise. When it comes to the Web’s many many uber-Calvinists and uber-apologists who insist that this doctrine was either invented by heretical Arminians or by deviant Amyraldians, it is now clear that they are just wrong. Some of our internet cowboys need to get their head out of their posterior on this point. One may not agree with the doctrine. One may claim it is illogical. One may claim it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Predestination. One may claim that later Calvinists refined and smoothed out earlier inconsistencies. One can think and believe all that. What one cannot do is be dishonest about the plain and undeniable historicity of the doctrine in early Reformed theology. To do that is just to engage in mindless smear campaigns and sectarian polemics. When we add other early Reformation leaders like Luther, Zwingli, Musculus, Gualther, Calvin and many others, it is either willful stubbornness or willful ignorance to deny the evidence of history. When folk over there at Puritanboard or on Paltalk or on the various boards out there, call the doctrine of ‘double-reference’ theory of the atonement “blasphemy” those persons exhibit some of the worst forms of ignorance imaginable.

It’s time that our uber-calvinists out there on the big wide web leave behind their sectarianism and arrogance and rethink their approach to Reformed theology and to those who deviate from them the merest nanometer.

David

Also...here are the links to the quite large database of quotes and references compiled by David on the Reformed view of the atonement, love of God, desire of God, etc.

THE Index

Read More......

Book on the Atonement

I am, once again, leaving for a week next week, this time for some vacation with the family. When I return I will be finishing up the Five Points of Calvinism and then probably getting back to my other series, which was my view on the Ordo Salutis. For now, I wanted to let all know that there is a book that Dr. Bruce Ware recommended to me after I emailed him with some questions. If you ever want to ask him a question, he is very open and willing to answer questions you have for him, so I would encourage you to do so if there is certain parts of his ministry or theology you want to inquire.

For me, it was the extent of the atonement of Christ. I have been doing a ton of study on the subject and have a great teacher behind the scenes that I have been able to glean much knowledge from. If you want to read his thoughts on the subject and collection of quotes from famous Calvinists from the past, go to Theology Online. As I spoke to Dr. Ware about this subject, he pointed me to a book by Dr. Michael Thomas called The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus. I hope that after reading this it will be further revelation of what the reformers and historic Calvinists believed before Beza and Owen took Calvinism off track, as the Remonstrants did the Arminians. I will be giving my findings and beliefs on the atonement when I hit the atonement part of the Five Points of Calvinism. I will tell you, that at this point, I am thoroughly convinced that not only does the Bible teach the unlimited/limited view of the atonement, but so did many, and I mean many, of the historic Calvinists and also, Calvin himself.

I hope that when I bring my findings that we can engage on this site as we always do, with Scripture first and foremost, theological persuasion second and experience a distant third.

May your weekend be blessed and may we all return to the book faithfully handed down to the saints.

Read More......

Our First Importance

I want to be clear here first and foremost: I love a good discussion on theology that is open, biblical and honest. But what I want to bring to our discussion today is of FIRST importance. Take a look:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 15:1-4

There are some points I want to make and then I will actually open up this passage to some discussion on some old school theology. Notice that Paul gives us a look at not only what has happened in the past but also where we should be in the present.

First, Paul tells us that he is speaking to his brethren, the saved, the elect, the chosen because of the gospel preached and they received. In our society and church that loves to show plays and theatrical dramas or dance, this is another good example that faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. We, as teachers, pastors and theologians need to remember to never leave our post of proclaimers of the truth. This is the only way that people are converted to the saving knowledge of our Saviour.

Notice also that Paul says that they, the Corinthians "also stand" in the gospel. This is speaking of the truth that perseverance is proof of conversion. This correlates very well with the antithesis of Psalm 1:1 that states the one who is not blessed is the one who "stands in the path of sinners." To stand in the gospel is to live the gospel, to breath the gospel, to preach the gospel. Are you standing in the gospel, or are you of "that faith that doesn't save" that even the demons believe in? Good questions to examine ourselves with.

But notice where our first importance lies: the gospel. We get into a lot of discussions and allow our minds and fellowship be broken with many loving brothers in Christ over matters that aren't essential to the eternal proof, the eternal FIRST IMPORTANCE. I believe this is why Whitefield and Wesley could minister together, they were humble in their theology knowing the gospel was the first importance. I am not one who proclaim that the Arminians preach a different (heretical) gospel, and in my humble opinion if you truly believe this you preach an elitist gospel that definitely didn't save the thief on the cross. Now I love debating and discussing with my Arminian friends, but my hope would be that afterwards we would both scour the streets together telling all sinners to repent and believe, to understand the first importance. Remind yourself this week what must be of first importance in your life. It isn't your job, it isn't your ministry, it isn't your family, it isn't your wife, it is the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!

A post on the blogosphere wouldn't be complete though without asking the "ole skool theology" question. The unlimited atonement folk (not just Arminians here) would state that Paul defends the thought that Christ died for all in this passage. This is not a new discussion, it is actually a very old one. One that more of the reformers held to than many of us like to admit. Take a look at what Paul says: I delivered to you...Christ died for OUR sins...

The unlimited atonement folk would say that since none of the other facts changed since Paul delivered the message, such as, Christ being buried and raised on the third day, then we must also take Paul's words to mean that Paul delivered to the Corinthians when they were not believers that Christ died for our sins...meaning Christ died for all the sinner's sins to whom Paul was proclaiming, regardless of whether they ended up repenting or not. I hope I made this point clear, and if I didn't just ask. I am sure that this will cause some good discussion on the subject.

Read More......