Jump to content

Hypothetical universalism

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypothetical Universalism is a Reformed Limited Atonement variant doctrine which states that Christ died sufficiently for every person, thus being sent to the whole world as a sacrifice for our sins, however, His death is only efficient for those who are elect, or predestined for salvation.[1] Hypothetical Universalism systems, such as those held by Zacharias Ursinus,[2] John Calvin,[3][4] William Twisse,[5] John Davenant,[6] and the Heidelberg Catechism[7] are commonly accepted as being proper to the Reformed Tradition, especially amongst the Dutch Reformed Churches and the Reformed Anglican faction in the Church of England.[8]

History

[edit]

Overview

[edit]

The earlier Christian tradition especially the patristic period had a major influence on the Reformed theological tradition in the early modern period.[9][10]The desire for doctrinal catholicity is especially evident in early modern English Protestantism. The Church of England’s 1571 Canons of Church Discipline expressly stated that preachers:

“[...] shall take heede, that they teach nothing in their preaching . . . but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the olde Testament, or the newe, and that which the catholicke fathers, and auncient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.”[11]

The judgements and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers were held in high authority due to their chronological closeness to the life of Jesus Christ and the Apostolic Era and were hotly debated during the Reformation as both the Hypothetical Universalists and those against, commonly referred to as Owenians, fought to defend their interpretation of the early sources as correct.[12]

Richard Muller rightly says that

“[t]he Reformers and the Protestant orthodox held the tradition in relatively high esteem and continued to cite the councils of the first five centuries and church Fathers generally as authorities in doctrinal matters”[13]

The topic of Christ's atoning sacrifice and the extent of His death were from the start an intensely debated point, with Johann Windeck writing against Jacobus Kimedoncius and Theodore Beza in his Controversiae de mortis Christi efficacia[14] in which he provides over 25 pages of apologetic for his view on Christ's atonement. Bishop John Davenant also set out to defend his view of Hypothetical Universalism through a survey of the 5th century, regarding Augustine he notes that Vincentians accused him of teaching that the Lord Jesus did not "suffer for the salvation and redemption of all human beings.”[15] This claim was often levied at the Augustinians by their opponents and later interpreters of Augustine would presume this as true.[16] The question of what Augustine truly believed regarding Christ's death remained a question in the 17th century, Cornelius Jansen, an expert on Augustine, who was said to have read through all of Augustine ten times, wrote in his famous Augustinus that there's no place in Augustine's writings where he writes that Christ was said to die for all human beings, none excepted, or that Christ gave himself as a ransom for all, or was crucified or died for all.[17]

Richard Baxter presents a different argument, he argues in Catholick Theologie that Augustine denies that Christ's death redeems any but the faithful, however, he asserts that the way Augustine uses the term "redemption" concerns the liberation of the captive sinner.[18] This argument became a key hermeneutical tool in the particularist language of the early and medieval church Fathers. So according to Baxter's argument, when Augustine seems to deny universal redemption, he denies only the "actual deliverance" for all by the death of Christ.[19]

Reference

[edit]
  1. ^ Davenant 1650, p. 402.
  2. ^ Ursinus, Zacharias (1616). Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (PDF). p. 372. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-06-28. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us.
  3. ^ Calvin, John (1539). "5". Commentary on Romans. Translated by Owen, John. Strasbourg. p. 211. Archived from the original on 10 December 2024. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
  4. ^ Calvin, John (1 August 1560). "2". Commentary on Acts. Geneva (published 1560). p. 64. Archived from the original on 11 December 2024. Retrieved 11 December 2024. Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.
  5. ^ Twisse, William (1631). The Doctrines of the Synod of Dort and Arles (PDF). Amsterdam. pp. 170–171. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 December 2024. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
  6. ^ Davenant 1650.
  7. ^ Ursinus, Zacharias; Olevianus, Caspar (1563). The Heidelberg Catechism. Heidelberg. p. 15. Archived from the original on 11 December 2024. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
  8. ^ Haykin, Michael Anthony George; Jones, Mark (2011). Drawn into controversie: reformed theological diversity and debates within seventeenth-century British Puritanism. Reformed historical theology. Göttingen Oakville (Connect.): Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. p. 25. ISBN 978-3-525-56945-0. Given that there was a significant hypothetical universalist trajectory in the Reformed tradition from its beginnings, it is arguably less than useful to describe its continuance as a softening of the tradition. More importantly, the presence of various forms of hypothetical universalism as well as various approaches to a more particularistic definition renders it rather problematic to describe the tradition as "on the whole" particularistic and thereby to identify hypothetical universalism as a dissident, subordinate stream of the tradition, rather than as one significant stream (or, perhaps two!) among others, having equal claim to confessional orthodoxy.
  9. ^ Backus, Irena Dorota (2003). Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation: (1378 - 1615). BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-12928-3.
  10. ^ Han, Byung Soo (2015). Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561-1610). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-666-55085-0.
  11. ^ Church of England (1571). A booke of certaine canons, Concernyng Some parte of the discipline... 1571. Internet Archive. p. 23.
  12. ^ Lynch 2021, p. 24.
  13. ^ Muller, Richard A. (2003). Post-reformation reformed dogmatics. 2: Holy scripture: the cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8010-6299-5.
  14. ^ Windeck, Johann Paul (1603). Controversiae de mortis Christi efficacia inter Catholicos et Calvinistas hoc tempore disputate (in Latin). Arnoldi Quentelii. pp. 228–256.
  15. ^ Prosper, of Aquitaine (1963). Defense of St. Augustine. Internet Archive. Westminster, Md. : Newman Press ; London : Longmans, Green and Co. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-8091-0263-1.
  16. ^ Davenant 1650, p. 319–320.
  17. ^ Jansenius 1640, p. 162.
  18. ^ Richard Baxter (1675). Richard Baxter's Catholick Theologie. London : Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard. p. 57.
  19. ^ Lynch 2021, p. 30.

Bibliography

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hypothetical_universalism&oldid=1263723832"