Critiques of Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism?

[TryingToLearn]

Michael Lynch has written a great book on Davenant's hypothetical universalism (https://www.amazon.com/John-Davenants-Hypothetical-Universalism-HISTORICAL/dp/0197555144), arguing for its compatibility with Reformed orthodoxy and distinguishing it from Amyraldism. I agree on these points, but I am looking for a critique of Davenant's view in particular, hopefully one informed by this book.

One site argues this:

One potential objection to Davenant’s view on this point is that it breaks up the Trinity’s unity and seems to set the Son against the Father and Spirit.[38] The Father, after all, has chosen a particular people for salvation from before the foundation of the world, while the Spirit’s work is to grant regeneration and faith to the elect, so that they are infallibly brought to salvation. Davenant’s view states that the Son dies not just for the elect, but also somehow for all men generally, which puts him at cross-purposes with the Father and the Spirit.

This objection seems to fail, however. The Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—desires the effectual salvation of the elect alone, and the Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—desires and offers salvation to all. In other words, it is not only the Son who possesses a voluntas signi or praecepti according to which he desires the salvation of all and appoints means for them to be saved, yet without a determinate will to bring about that end by those means. Texts like Ezek 18:23 and 33:11 seem to be equally true of all three members of the Trinity, or God without specification. The Pharisees reject the Father’s purpose (Luke 7:30), and the Father stretches out his arms all day to a disobedient and contrary people (Rom 10:21 [= Isa 65:2]). Likewise, unbelievers resist the Spirit (Acts 7:51), saints grieve the Spirit (Eph 4:3), and the Spirit yearns jealously (Jas 4:5). This twofold manner of the divine will is a matter of the singular, shared Divine will, and so it is true of all members of the Trinity.

(https://claytonhutchins.blog/2019/0...ent-and-the-extent-of-reformed-orthodoxy/amp/)

Are there any serious theological cirques of Davenant in particular, be it modern or in the Reformation (Owen, Turretin?)

 

[ryanpresnell]

Your post reminded me of a blog post I read a while ago in which a quote from Owen on Davenant’s hypothetical universalism is offered:

“As far as the ‘special determination’ of Davenant is concerned, he is a regular particularist of the Owen kind. As Owen’s Death of Christ (written again Baxter’s negative remarks against Owen’s Death of Death) was going through the press Davenant’s dissertation on the death of Christ appeared. Owen has some rather waspish remarks about it in the Introduction, to be found after the Death of Death in volume X of the Goold edition of his Works.

Yea, through the patience and goodness of God, I undertake to demonstrate that the main foundation of his [Davenant’s] whole dissertation about the death of Christ, with many inferences from thence, are neither found in, nor founded upon the word; but that the several parts thereof are mutually conflicting and destructive of each other, to the great prejudice to the truth therein contained. (X.432)

What Davenant saw as the support that the first arrangement gave to the second Owen found the two arrangements to be ‘mutually conflicting and destructive’.”

I know this small excerpt isn’t much in the way of a “serious theological critique”; however, there may be more relevant material in the cited work.