Thursday, April 17, 2008

Further Response from Trey

Trey has (I think) clarified that he does not want to come down on the matter of the Atonement one way or another.

"There are lots of folks who don’t want to come down on the matter one way or another. R. L. Dabney was one of those. David Ponter is also one. But like Dabney, while not taking a side on the issue, i see Ponter’s views as aligning most closely with Infralapsarianism, not with Amyraldism."

I disagree with Trey, but there you have it. I see Dabney's views coming down pretty clearly on the "strict" Limited Atonement side, and I see Ponter's view coming down to the Amyraldian side of Dabney's views.

Trey also seems to suggest that somehow there is confusion being made between Infralapsarian and Amyraldian. I am familiar with both categories, and I don't see the connection that is being made.

This matter, however, has generated more heat than light on the matter, so I don't have further comments on Trey's further remarks at this time.

-TurretinFan

2 comments:

Trey Austin said...

Out of curiosity, how could you completely miss the fact that i was speaking about ordered decretalism and not one's view of the atonement? Are you seriously that distracted that you couldn't read what i actually wrote?

Turretinfan said...

Well, Trey, there is an important relationship between the order of the decrees and the function/purpose/intent of the atonement.

For example, in both Surpalapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, the decree that Christ be sacrificed ordinarily follows the decree to predestine some to everlasting life.

In contrast, in Amyraldianism and Arminianism, the decree that Christ be sacrifice ordinarily precedes individual election.

-TurretinFan