Quote
Mark, without having read--and without the time or desire to read now--the position of your adversaries, I'm also curious to know in what sense you are using the term "dualism", which appears in your title and opening line but not thereafter, to describe their theology?

--------------------
In Christ,

Paul S

Yes, of course. When I wrote that piece I wasn't expecting to write to a wide audience, but rather those who have had some measure of acquaintance with Mr Ponter's views.

Best to let him define himself,

Quote
The original formula, accepted by Calvin, Musculus and Bullinger, et al, was that Christ actually made an expiation, ransom and payment sufficient for all the this worlds sins. So he died _for_ all sufficiently, _for_ the elect efficiently. Or as some of them said: he redeemed all sufficiently, but he redeemed the elect efficiently. Vermigli and Musculus. (David Ponter)

Incidentally, a response to the above assertion by Mr Ponter was provided by Rev. Matthew Winzer.Australian Free Church
Burnie, Tasmania.

He stated,

Quote
David, this is the double reference theory of the atonement. It posits an intention to redeem all men. This is not reformed. Calvin never subscribed such a formula. If this is what you mean by the sufficiency of the atonement, then yes, Owen and Cunningham denied it, along with all orthodox reformed divines.