This article is a florilegium, if you will, of quotes from the most eminent divines of the Reformed church regarding the extent of Christ's death, as interpreted in light of the scholastic Peter Lombard's famous formula: "sufficient for all, efficient for some." I will present materials from differing sides within the Reformed tradition: strict (Owenian) limited atonement and English hypothetical universalism. I'll categorize each section by the author, and include the author in each citation. Though it seems redundant, I wish to do it for the purpose of making copying and pasting easier (for the theological keyboard warriors reading this article who wish to make a quote-mine; we're all guilty of it at some point or another). I'll also include the judgment of Reformed synods and divines as to whether Amyraldianism is considered within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy.
Peter Martyr Vermigli
“They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that “Christ died for us all” and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it might be sufficient for all the world’s sinners. Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually.” (Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, trans., by Frank A. James, [Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 2003], pg. 62)
Zacharias Ursinus
"The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him–for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made–but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ." (Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans., G.W. Willard [Philipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 1994], pg. 215)
Willam Bucanus
"Q: Unto whom is the death and passion of Christ profitable? Ans: Although he might have been a sufficient price for the sins for all men, yet actually and effectually he died for his elect only, who receive him and believe him, Matt. 1:21. “He will deliver his people from their sins.” Joh. 10:15. “I lay down my life for my sheep.” and Chap. 17:19 “I sanctify myself,” for otherwise it would follow that Christ died profit, and to no purpose in regard of many, and that the efficacy of Christ’s death could be made void by men." (William Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, Framed Our of God’s Word, and the Writings of the Best Divines, Methodically Handled by Questions and Answers, Fit For All Such as Desirous to Know, or Practice the Will of God, trans., by Robert Hill [Printed in London by George Snowden, 1606], pg. 235.)
"His death was sufficient for all, say the Schoolmen, but effectual only for the Elect and them that are faithful. If we respect the virtue and force of Christ’s blood, it is sufficient for the redemption of all: but if we look upon the purpose and eternal counsel of God, and the goodwill of the Mediator, he died for the elect only. Joh. 10:15, I lay down my life for my sheep, says Christ, and 17:9, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them whom thou have me. Therefore he neither offered sacrifice for it, neither did he redeem it. And vers. 19 For their sakes who believe, and whom the Father has given me, I sanctify myself. And Matt. 26:28, My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (William Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, Framed Our of God’s Word, and the Writings of the Best Divines, Methodically Handled by Questions and Answers, Fit For All Such as Desirous to Know, or Practice the Will of God, trans., by Robert Hill [Printed in London by George Snowden, 1606], pgs. 433-434)
David Paraeus
"It is in the same may, that is, by making the same distinction that we reply to those who ask concerning the purpose of Christ, Did he will to die for all? For just as he died, so also he willed to die. Therefore, as he died for all, in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom; and for the faithful alone in respect to the efficacy of the same, so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit, that is, he willed to merit by his death, grace, righteousness, and life in the most abundant manner for all; because would not that any thing should be wanting as far as he and his merits are concerned, so that all the wicked who perish may be without excuse." (David Paraeus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Q 40; pp., 223-224 [Williard translation])
The Hague Conference of 1611
"That to this end He has first of all presented and given to them his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, whom He delivered up to the death of the cross in order to save his elect, so that, although the suffering of Christ as that of the only-begotten and unique Son of God is sufficient unto the atonement of the sins of all men, nevertheless the same, according to the counsel and decree of God, has its efficacy unto reconciliation and forgiveness of sins only in the elect and true believer." (“The Counter Remonstrance (1611)” in, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed., James T. Dennison, [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014], 4:46-47)
William Ames
“The sufficiency of [Christ’s] death does not refer in the same way to reprobate mankind as to devils. . . . He paid a sufficient payment price [lytron] for all human beings whosoever, if only they would embrace it, but not for devils.” (William Ames and Nicholaus Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus [Rotterdam: Matthias Sebastiani, 1615], pg. 55)
Pierre du Moulin
“We acknowledge that Christ died for all; but we deny that by his death salvation and forgiveness of sin is obtained for all men: or that reconciliation is made for Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Judas, etc. Neither do we think that remission of sins is obtained for anyone whose sins are not remitted; or that salvation was purchased for him, whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemn: for this were a vain purchase…And when we say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe, yea, and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole world did believe in Him: and that the cause why all men are not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but in the wickedness and incredulity of man.” (Pierre du Moulin, The Anatomie of Arminianism [London, 1635], pg. 198)
William Twisse
“The truth is, we deny that Christ died for all, in as much as he died not to procure the grace of faith and regeneration for all, but only for Gods elect; and consequently neither shall any but God’s elect have any such interest in Christ’s death, as to obtain thereby pardon of sin and salvation, for Arminians themselves confess that this is the portion only of believers. But seeing pardon of sin and salvation are benefits merited by Christ, not to be conferred absolutely but conditionally, to wit, upon condition of faith; we may be bold to say that Christ in some sense died for all and every one, that is, he died to procure remission of sins and salvation unto all and every one in case they believe; and as this is true, so may we well say, and the Council of Dort might well say, that every one who hears the Gospel is bound to believe that Christ died for him in this sense, namely, to obtain salvation for him in case he believe. But what think Arminians; are we bound to believe that Christ died for us in such a sense, as to purchase faith and regeneration for us?” (William Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles Reduced to the Practice [Amsterdam, 1631], 3rd Part, 1st Section, p. 165)
John Davenant
"The most learned Belgic Professors, in their judgment exhibited at the Synod of Dort, confess the same thing (Act. Synod. Dordt. p. 88). “We confess, say they, that the merit and value of the death of Christ is not only sufficient to expiate all, evert the greatest sins of men, but also those of the whole posterity of Adam, although there should be many more to be saved, provided they embraced it with a true faith.” But it would not be sufficient to save all, even if all should believe, unless it be true that by the ordination of God this death is an appointed remedy applicable to all. If it be denied that Christ died for some persons. it will immediately follow, that such could not be saved by the death of Christ, even if they should believe. What is usually answered to this argument by some, viz. “That God has not commanded his ministers to announce that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the universality of the call, that the death of Christ is. according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all” seems to me to be said very inconsiderately. For faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them, but which makes the death of Christ, which is applicable to all from the Divine loving-kindness to man, actually applied and beneficial to individuals. The death of Christ was a sacrifice established in the Divine mind, and ordained for men from the beginning of the world; nor could it profit any one if he should believe, unless it had been offered for him before he believed. When therefore we announce to any one, that the death of Christ would profit him if he believed, we presume that it was destined for him, as applicable before he believed. (John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 358-359.)
“The death of Christ is acknowledged as the universal cause of human salvation, and Christ himself has died for all sufficiently, not on account of its mere sufficiency or its intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient to redeem a thousand worlds; but on account of the evangelical covenant established by the merit of this death with the whole human race, and of the divine ordination depending upon this covenant, according to which remission of sins and eternal life is, on account of the merits of Christ having died, declared to be exhibited before whoever will believe, under the possible condition of faith.” (John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pgs. 401-402)
“But granting the intrinsic sufficiency of the ransom to redeem a thousand worlds, at the same time it must be granted that this same ransom is not yet offered in any way for many men, nor yet offered up sufficiently. For as ten thousand pounds are enough, and more than sufficient to liberate five debtors, who each owe two hundred pounds; yet if this entire sum should be offered and paid to the creditor for two only by name, the other three being excluded, the sufficiency and superabundance of this ransom in itself will not effect, that it may be said to be given and paid sufficiently for those three: thus, in this common cause of the human race, although the precious blood of Christ be a ransom more than sufficient for blotting out the debts of every individual, yet it cannot be from thence inferred that he was sufficiently offered for them, who, in the very act of offering, are openly excluded.” (John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pg. 408)
“When Davenant says that Christ died for all sufficiently, he understands the sufficiency to be a conditional ordained sufficiency, because the death of Christ does not immediately liberate any, except on condition of faith.” (Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy [Oxford University Press: 2021], pg. 115)
William Perkins
“We willingly admit that Christ died for all (as the Scriptures assert the same thing), but we absolutely deny that Christ died equally for each and every one with respect to God, or that he died for the damned in the same way as for the elect, and that also effectually on God’s part.” (William Perkins, On the Manner and Order of Predestination)
“The exhibiting of the Mediator is that whereby the Son of God, being born man in the fullness of time, does pay the price of redemption (λύτρον) to God for the sins of men. The virtue and efficacy of this price being paid in respect of merit and operation is infinite; but yet it must be distinguished, for it is either potential or actual. The potential efficacy is whereby the price is in itself sufficient to redeem everyone without exception from his sins, albeit there were a thousand worlds of men. But if we consider that actual efficacy, the price is paid in the counsel of God and as touching the event only for those which are elected and predestinated. For the Son does not sacrifice for those for whom He does not pray, because to make intercession and to sacrifice are conjoined.” (William Perkins, On the Manner and Order of Predestination)
Leiden Synopsis
"Moreover, the end, object, and “for whom” of satisfaction is only the Elect and true believers of both the Old and the New Testament. For although with respect to the magnitude, dignity, and sufficiency of the price, considered in itself, it may be extended to all people, yet it is particularly a payment for those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, who by the gift of God will believe in God and his Son. Wherefore Scripture everywhere says that he spent himself “for his own,” and “for us,” “for the sheep,” and “the Church.” Matthew 20:28, 26:28; 1 John 3:16; Acts 20:28 etc." (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, [Leiden: 1642], pg. 356)
Johannes Wollebius
"Of course, if we take into consideration the magnitude and worthiness of the merit, we admit that it would suffice for the redemption of ten worlds; but if we take the plan of God and the intention of Christ into consideration, then it is false to say that Christ died for every person. For this reason others say that his death was sufficient for all, but not effective for all; that is, the merit of Christ, because of his worthiness, is sufficient for all, but it is not effective for all in its application, because Christ did not die with the intention that his death be applied to all." (Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae trans. John W. Beardslee in Reformed Dogmatics [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House: 1965], pg. 105)
Francis Turretin
“Hence the state of the question is easily elicited…It is not asked with respect to the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ–whether it was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men. For it is confessed by all that since its value is infinite, it would have been entirely sufficient for the redemption of each and every one, if God had seen fit to extend it to the whole world. And here belongs the distinction used by the fathers and retained by many divines–that Christ ‘died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only.’ For this being understood of the dignity of Christ’s death is perfectly true (although the phrase would be less accurate if referred to the will and purpose of Christ).” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 14th Topic, Q. 14, section 9)
Amyraldianism: An Error, but not a Heresy
“Also, it should be pointed out again that the doctrinal difference between the Saumur theologians and Turretin do not involve any of the fundamental tenets of the Reformed faith. Turretin himself mentions this fact in a letter to Jean Claude which we shall consider later in this thesis. As we have seen various times in this chapter, Turretin refers to the Salmurians as fellow Reformed pastors and theologians, and the Salmurians certainly view themselves as being within the Reformed tradition. In fact, Amyraut goes to great lengths in attempting to prove that the orthodox Reformed theologians are in agreement with him. Thus, even though this controversy was a serious and lengthy one, nevertheless it was entirely an internal dispute within the Reformed churches concerning non-fundamental matters.” (Donald Davis Grohman, “The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685,” Th.D. diss, pg. 120)
“Nor indeed is there a reason for the honorable foreign brothers, whom we otherwise cherish and fraternally esteem as having obtained a faith of equal standing (ίσοτιμον πιστιν λαχοντας), to be angry with us about a disagreement that has been brought to light for good and weighty reasons, or to keep saying that we are furnishing anyone with an opportunity for schism. For on both sides, by the grace of God, the foundation of the faith remains, and in both cases, gold and silver and not a few precious stones have been built upon it out of the Word of God. The unity of the mystical body and of the Spirit is secure, “Just as we were called in one hope of our calling; for us there is one Lord, one special faith”–and in that same faith a holy concord and bond of hospitality is to be preserved–”one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all things, and in all of us” (Eph 4:4-6). Accordingly, among us the chain and bond of a most tender love will always remain secure, and, by the grace of God, the most sacred obligations of the communion of the saints will remain in a state of good repair.” (“Preface” to the “Formula Consensus Helvetica” in, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed., James T. Dennison, [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010], 4:518-519)
No comments:
Post a Comment