Can a black coffee Calvinist with the Canons of Dort tattooed on his back (he’s broad shouldered, of course) affirm that Christ did in fact pay an objective and sufficient price for the sins of the non-elect? The answer is yes. But of course, many today would recoil at the thought and demand that the “4-point Calvinist” or worse, “Amyraldian,” as he will no doubt be called, turn in his Reformed papers and hang out in the corner, somewhere near the cluster of shivering and pitiable Arminians.
But is this justified historically?
Join us as we talk with historian, Michael Lynch, about early Reformed thought and the issue of the extent of the atonement.
I would especially point the listener to his lecture “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship,” and his excellent entry”Confessional Orthodoxy and Hypothetical Universalism: Another Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith.”
It would also behoove the reader to check out John Davenant’s profound treatment of the subject of the extent of Christ’s death here.
I would also heartily recommend that listeners check out several of my posts on the subject over at “The Sound of Doctrine.” See especially:
- Limited Expiation and the Universal, Well-Meant Gospel Offer: A Logical Problem
- Limited Expiation and The Universal Well-Meant Offer: Illustrating Further the Logical Problem
- In Defense of Moderate Calvinism: “Wait! He Said What?!?” Reformed Quotes on the Extent of the Atonement and God’s Universal Saving Will