Mr. Albrecht criticizes my video for not providing citations and for being "cut and paste" apologetics. Of course, the text of my discussion was not cut and paste, and I surely hope Mr. Albrecht isn't suggesting that when I quote the early church fathers I have to avoid using their exact words, cut and paste from their writings.
Mr. Albrecht's criticism (and consequently my response) is divisible into sections by father:
In this discussion, Mr. Albrecht quotes from Jimmy Akin's "Tiptoe through TULIP" (although he doesn't cite it). But Albrecht just doesn't get Akin's point in the article, "There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance." Mr. Albrecht also doesn't get the Reformed view. Please note that I'm not endorsing or recommending Mr. Akin's article. I think his attempt to suggest that Calvinism and Roman Catholicism are largely compatible is wrong and is potentially misleading (whether that's due to deceptive intent or simple ignorance on Mr. Akin's part, I don't pretend to know).
Mr. Albrecht fails to realizes that the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" position is fully consistent with the Limited Atonement position. It's even how John Calvin himself interpreted 1 John 2:2, one of the key passages in the limited atonement debate.
Mr. Albrecht also provides a fragmentary quotation from another (essentially unrelated) writing of Theodoret to try to suggest that Theodoret didn't believe in Limited atonement. It's such a short work, that I've reproduced the whole thing below.
True friendship is strengthened by intercourse, but separation cannot sunder it, for its bonds are strong. This truth might easily be shown by many other examples, but it is enough for us to verify what I say by our own case. Between me and you are indeed many things, mountains, cities, and the sea, yet nothing has destroyed my recollection of your excellency. No sooner do we behold any one arriving from those towns which lie on the coast, than the conversation is turned on Cyprus and on its right worthy governor, and we are delighted to have tidings of your high repute. And lately we have been gratified to an unusual degree at learning the most delightful news of all: for what, most excellent sir, can be more pleasing to us than to see your noble soul illuminated by the light of knowledge? For we think it right that he who is adorned with many kinds of virtue should add to them also its colophon, and we believe that we shall behold what we desire. For your nobility will doubtless eagerly seize the God-given boon, moved thereto by true friends who clearly understand its value, and guided to the bountiful God "Who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," netting men by men's means to salvation, and bringing them that He captures to the ageless life. The fisherman indeed deprives his prey of life, but our Fisher frees all that He takes alive from death's painful bonds, and therefore "did he show himself upon earth, and conversed with men," bringing men His life, conveying teaching by means of the visible manhood, and giving to reasonable beings the law of a suitable life and conversation. This law He has confirmed by miracles, and by the death of the flesh has destroyed death. By raising the flesh He has given the promise of resurrection to us all, after giving the resurrection of His own precious body as a worthy pledge of ours. So loved He men even when they hated Him that the mystery of the œconomy fails to obtain credence with some on account of the very bitterness of His sufferings, and it is enough to show the depths of His loving kindness that He is even yet day by day calling to men who do not believe. And He does so not as though He were in need of the service of men,— for of what is the Creator of the universe in want?— but because He thirsts for the salvation of every man. Grasp then, my excellent friend, His gift; sing praises to the Giver, and procure for us a very great and right goodly feast.Theodoret, Letter 76, To Uranius, Governor of Cyprus
As I explain in the video, the comment "He thirsts for the salvation of every man" - while certainly not phrased in the most precise way, especially given the preceding clarification "He does so not as though He were in need of the service of men,— for of what is the Creator of the universe in want?" but nevertheless, when read in context (something Albrecht fails to do) we see that Theodoret is speaking of the universal command to repent and believe proclaimed by God to all, through the instrumentality (the means) of men, as Theodoret expresses it: "For your nobility will doubtless eagerly seize the God-given boon, moved thereto by true friends who clearly understand its value, and guided to the bountiful God "Who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," netting men by men's means to salvation, and bringing them that He captures to the ageless life."
Jerome sometimes uses the expression "whole world" with reference to Jesus' death so Albrecht assumes this means universal atonement. Unfortunately, Albrecht fails to realize that this can be simply an expansive term, as Prosper of Aquitaine clearly explained about the same time in church history.
Albrecht claims he doesn't understand how Christ redeeming only some and not all men supports limited atonement. The reason he doesn't understand, of course, is that he's not familiar with limited atonement.
For Augustine, Albrecht just says "same thing." Talk about cut-and-paste! Only this time he just cuts, and doesn't paste the same arguments he has taken from the apologetic work of Jimmy Akin in the first section.
Albrecht does not seem to understand what "not bearing" the sins of all has to do with the doctrine of limited atonement. This is, unfortunately, because Mr. Albrecht doesn't seem fully to understand limited atonement.
Just waves his hands and says he doesn't even understand how I could "twist" what the Bede says to support limited atonement. Well, at least he's honest about not understanding on this one.
Albrecht, in conclusion, claims that there are numerous other examples he could bring up. Perhaps, though, he would have done better to first understand the doctrine that he's attacking and the relation of that doctrine to what the fathers are teaching. There may indeed be some issue (and I will address this at a later time - since the issues involved have little to do with Albrecht's comments) with the Chrysostom quotation, but the rest are certainly fine.
Albrecht claims: "The early church didn't believe in the limited atonement in the Calvinist sense or in any sense - if you will - and a clear reading of them in their context will bring that out." On this as well, Mr. Albrecht missed the point: the point is not that the early church had a single unified voice on the issue of limited atonement. No, the point is that a significant number of important fathers held to limited atonement. Therefore, calling it "heresy" is an irrational claim for folks like "OneTrueChurch" to make, unless he is willing to condemn those of the church fathers who taught it, together with the Calvinists.