# Is there a problem with the use of "sufficient" in Limited atonement discussions?



## austinbrown2 (Aug 17, 2006)

Preface: It is often remarked by those who hold to limited atonement (5-pointer sense) that Christ´s death is sufficient for all, because of its infinite value, but is efficient only for the elect. In conjunction, the sins of the elect are atoned for, but the non-elect´s sins are not atoned for. This is the crucial distinction in the 5-point scheme. 

Question: If the sins of the non-elect are not placed upon Jesus, then in what sense is His death sufficient for them? 

Reflection on the question: The term "œsufficient" means "œas much as is needed, equal to what is specified or required; enough"¦ satisfies a requirement exactly"¦" 

What does the infinite value of Christ´s death have to do with the non-elect if it doesn´t have any reference to atonement? If we say that His death is sufficient for all, but sufficiency doesn´t include atonement for their sin, then we are merely talking about the perfection of Christ´s atonement with respect to the actual design, which is only for the elect´s sins. We could say that Christ´s death would have been perfectly sufficient for all had God chosen to include their sins, but as it stands, the non-elect´s sins are not included in the design, and therefore the death of Christ is certainly not sufficient for them. It would only be sufficient if and only if the sins of the non-elect were imputed to Him. But they are not. 

So why use language that is terribly confusing- maybe even contradictory? This language of sufficient suggests (to me at least) that Christ´s atonement is some kind of right of pardon obtained that can be applied to anyone who believes; a kind of spring of perfect water that can be dished out to those who believe, but doesn´t actually have reference to the actual sins of the people in its original act. But this isn´t the 5-point Reformed contention. 

Conclusion: So, again, shouldn´t we say that Christ´s death is not sufficient for the non-elect, but this insufficiency isn´t a reflection of some kind of inherent deficiency in Christ´s work, rather the insufficiency for the non-elect is one of design and intention precisely because God did not impute their sins to Christ on the cross? 

Austin


----------



## DTK (Aug 17, 2006)

Historically, Muller has pointed out what the formula meant for those who used it in addressing the atonement. Although I appreciate Dr. Tom Nettles' desire to address this, as he did in his book on Baptist history, _By His Grace and For His Glory_; nonetheless, I think the formula "sufficient for all" does have a valid place in the history of Reformed theology in seeking to explain the issue...


> *Richard A. Muller:* Reformed theology also presented, both in the Reformation and the era of orthodoxy, a doctrine of the mediatorial work of Christ that paralleled the Reformed emphases on salvation by grace alone and divine election. Whereas Calvin, Bullinger, and others of their generation did not make a major issue of the limitation of Christ´s atoning work to the elect alone, later Reformed thinkers elaborated the point, particularly because of the controversies in which they became involved. There has been some scholarly disagreement on this issue"”and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between "œCalvin" and the "œCalvinists," as if Calvin taught a "œuniversal atonement" and later Reformed writers taught a "œlimited atonement." Yet, when the terms and definitions are rightly sorted out, there is significant continuity in the Reformed tradition on this point.
> 
> The terms "œuniversal" and "œlimited atonement" do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view"”or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over "œatonement," broadly understood, but over the "œsatisfaction" made by Christ for sin"”and the debate was never over whether or not Christ´s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation"”God´s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ´s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ´s work for the faithful alone"”and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ´s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. The Reformed orthodox did teach the doctrine more precisely. In response to Arminius, they brought the traditional formula of sufficiency for all sin and efficiency for the elect alone to the forefront of their definition, where Calvin and Bullinger hardly mentioned it at all. The orthodox also more clearly connected the doctrine of election to the language of the limitation of the efficacy of Christ´s death, arguing that the divine intention in decreeing the death of Christ was to save only the elect. This solution is presented in the Canons of Dort in concise formulae.
> 
> It is well documented that some of the delegates at Dort held that the sufficiency of Christ´s death reflected the divine will to save all people, if all would come to believe and therefore found the formulae restrictive. As the seventeenth century progressed, Reformed theologians such as John Davenant in England or John Cameron and Moyses Amyraut in France offered various conceptions of a hypothetical universalism," according to which the sufficiency of Christ´s death was willed hypothetically or conditionally for all human beings"”on condition of belief"”prior to the divine decree to save the elect by grace. This view was considered problematic by the majority of the Reformed orthodox, given that it conceived of a unrealized (indeed, an intentionally unrealized) will in God. Still, inasmuch as the doctrine never claimed to broaden the efficacy of Christ´s death on the assumption that nonelect individuals might actually believe, it can hardly be identified as an actual alternative to the more typical Reformed teaching of the limitation, by the will of God, of the efficacy of Christ´s death to the elect. If there is a difference between Calvin and the "œCalvinists" (or between Bullinger or Musculus and the Reformed orthodox) on this point, it is simply that, in the case of the Reformers, one must make a little effort to "œconnect the dots," whereas the Reformed orthodox made sure, against various doctrinal adversaries, that the picture was presented in full. Arguably, in the confessional context of seventeenth-century orthodoxy, this full presentation included both the hypothetical universalism of Davenant, Cameron, and Amyraut and the more strictly divided sufficiency/efficiency formula of Turretin, Heidegger, and the other signatories of the Formula Consensus Helvetica; although, equally so, it may be argued that some of the forms of hypothetical universalism included speculative elements that fell outside of the main trajectory of Reformed theology. Richard A. Muller, _After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 14-15.



DTK


----------



## Answerman (Aug 17, 2006)

This is what is called a heretical hypothetical, which in this case you make the following If/Then statement, "If God had intended to save all of the human race with Christ's substitutionary atonement, then Christ's sacrifice would have been sufficient for all." The problem with this is that this is not what God intended, so I think that saying it this way is not very helpful.

Also this is more of a reactionary statement when Arminians give Calvinists a hard time on limited atonement. I see this as a baiting tactic that Arminians use to take the focus off of the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice and when Calvinists respond with this hypothetical, then I think that it shows that he has fallen for the bait. I would think that a better response would be to not fall for this trick and keep the focus on the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice, since if you stick to your guns on this point the Arminian has no where to run.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 17, 2006)

The use of the phrase "sufficient for all" has to do with the nature of Christ and His sacrifice, not people. The phrase is a useful and Biblical one in that it describes the inifinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice were only sufficient for the elect, it would say that the value of Christ's death was finite, not infinite, and would militate against the Biblical teaching that Christ is God.

No less a theologian than John Owen (champion of limited atonement/particular redemption in his matchless _Death of Death in the Death of Christ_) used the phrase.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The use of the phrase "sufficient for all" has to do with the nature of Christ and His sacrifice, not people. The phrase is a useful and Biblical one in that it describes the inifinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice were only sufficient for the elect, it would say that the value of Christ's death was finite, not infinite, and would militate against the Biblical teaching that Christ is God.
> 
> No less a theologian than John Owen (champion of limited atonement/particular redemption in his matchless _Death of Death in the Death of Christ_) used the phrase.



Good points, Fred.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The use of the phrase "sufficient for all" has to do with the nature of Christ and His sacrifice, not people. The phrase is a useful and Biblical one in that it describes the inifinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice were only sufficient for the elect, it would say that the value of Christ's death was finite, not infinite, and would militate against the Biblical teaching that Christ is God.
> 
> No less a theologian than John Owen (champion of limited atonement/particular redemption in his matchless _Death of Death in the Death of Christ_) used the phrase.



G'day Fred,

Are you familiar with Owens distinction between internal and external sufficiency? The atonement is only internally sufficient for all, not externally. The atonement is not sufficient for all men for it was not made for all men. Owen says its not sufficient for the non-elect, its only that 'it could have been sufficient for all, had God chosen otherwise.' Dort maintains that it actually is sufficient for all men.

Possible worlds logic helps to explain Owen's point. Had God elected all men (in another possible world) then the atonement would have been sufficient for all them too. 

But in this world (this actual world) it is not sufficient for all, for it was not made for all men of this actual world.

This construction is different to Calvins', and then J Edwards, C Hodge, Shedd and Dabney's.
Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-17-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 17, 2006)

My take:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/McMahonJesusDeathSufficientEfficient.htm

...with a bit of satire.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Aug 17, 2006)

*To C Matthew McMahon and DTK and others (in that order)*

Thank you McMahon! That was very helpful and directly addressed a weakness in the seemingly universal nomenclature utilized these days. When people say "sufficient for all" they sure don't sound like they are talking about something that COULD have happened. It is said in the present tense, and I must say that it is highly misleading... at least it really confused me as I have been wrestling with this issue. 

DTK: Thanks for the post. It was helpful. 

For the others who have responsed: Consider a response from someone to me on this very question, "No it is not...... because the life and work of the Son of God is of unlimited value. Therefore, any sin ever committed or that will be committed or that could be imagine this one sacrifice was good enough to cover them. Therefore, it is sufficient in that sense. "

I responded: "Riight, it WOULD be good enough to cover them if it falls within the scope of the imputation, but the sins of the non-elect are not imputed to Christ, right? If so, then the death of Christ is presently not sufficient for them. Is my logic off here?

I grant that it could certainly be sufficient in the way you are defining things, but the terminology is confusing to me. When someone says that Christ's death is sufficient (present tense) for everyone, this causes me to reflect upon the cross and what was accomplished there. But if I know that the sins of the non-elect were not imputed to Christ and if propitiation was not made for them at the cross, then how can I talk about a present tense sufficiency for those who were not atoned for? It isn't sufficient for THEM, precisely because atonement was not made for them. The unlimited value of Christ's work has no bearing upon them (atonement anyway) unless something was accomplished in space time history at the cross, namely, his bearing their sins. But this didn't happen.

So my beef is with the misleading (to me anyway) terminology. Why not say that Christ's death is so wonderfully unlimited in its perfections that it COULD have atoned for every sin every committed, but as it is, God's design was for a smaller segment of humanity. The death of Christ is sufficient and effective for them only."

Now read C Matthew McMahon's article.

Peace,
Austin


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 17, 2006)

From Owen, the master:



> 1. The first thing that we shall lay down is concerning the dignity, worth,
> preciousness, and infinite value of the blood and death of Jesus Christ.
> The maintaining and declaring of this is doubtless especially to be
> considered; and every opinion that doth but seemingly clash against it is
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2006)

Some have found  this lecture  helpful.

rsc


----------



## MW (Aug 17, 2006)

I don't believe a difference can be posited between Dordt and Owen. The following is from a small paper I wrote in reply to a person who was asking if the sufficiency of Christ's death is Calvinistic.

A Calvinist must not only be prepared to say, but is also obliged to maintain and affirm, that Christ's death was sufficient to pay for every sin of every man ever committed. The Articles of the Synod of Dort, chapter II, sections 3-6, state quite clearly the Calvinistic doctrine:

"This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." sect. 3.

The sufficiency of Christ's death arises from a) His person: "of the same eternal and infinite essence with God the Father and the Holy Spirit; b) His passion: "because his death was conjoined with the feeling of the wrath and curse of God, which we by our sins had deserved." sect. 4.

This sufficiency results in, and is essential to, the universal promulgation of the gospel imperative, sect. 5: "Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Which promise ought to be announced and proposed, promiscuously and indiscriminately, to all nations and men to whom God, in his good pleasure, hath sent the gospel, with the command to repent and believe."

The failure of men to respond to the gospel imperative does not in any way detract from the sufficiency of Christ's death, sect. 6: "But because many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own fault. (John iii. 19, 20. v. 44. Heb. iii. 5.)"

In maintaining that Christ's death is sufficient to pay the price for every sin that was ever committed, the Calvinist is referring to the "intrinsic worth" of Christ's work. It is a consideration of what the death of Christ is in itself, and so, of what it could possibly have accomplished if God had so designed it.

The effect, or "extrinsic merit," of Christ's death, is considered in sections 7-9 of chapter 2 of the Articles of Dort. There the efficacy of Christ's death for the elect alone is considered with regard to what Christ's work actually did accomplish.

We call that sufficient which is "as much as is needed." When a Calvinist says that Christ's death is sufficient for all, he is simply stating that Christ's death is all that is needed to pay the price for all the sins of all people.

We call that efficacious which "produces the desired result." When a Calvinist says that Christ's death is efficacious for the elect only, he is simply stating that Christ's death actually does pay the price for all the sins of the people whom God has chosen to save.

John Owen, in his masterpiece on the subject, provides the following Biblical considerations for the sufficiency of Christ's death:

"The Scripture, also, to this purpose is exceeding full and frequent in setting forth the excellency and dignity of his death and sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of the unity of his person, "God's own blood," Acts xx. 28; exalting it infinitely above all other sacrifices, as having for its principle "the eternal Spirit," and being itself "without spot," Heb. ix. 14; transcendently more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible things, 1 Pet. i 18; able to give justification from all things, from which by the law men could not be justified, Acts xiii. 28. Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world." - Works, Vol. X, pp. 295, 296.

John Owen then proceeded to give the same two-fold basis for maintaining the sufficiency of Christ's death as the Articles of the Synod of Dort, namely, the person and passion of Christ. He also made the above distinction between the intrinsic worth and extrinsic merit of Christ's death, stating:

"And this sets out the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be applied unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God. It was in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price to have bought and purchased all and every man in the world. That it did formally become a price for any is solely to be ascribed to the purpose of God, intending their purchase and redemption by it." ibid.

Subsequently, John Owen explains, as did the Synod of Dort, that the fulness and sufficiency of Christ's death is the foundation, a) of "the general publishing of the gospel unto all nations, with the right that it hath to be preached to every creature, Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in." (ibid. 297.) b) of the preachers of the gospel justifiably calling "upon every man to believe, with assurance of salvation to every one in particular upon his so doing, knowing, and being fully persuaded of this, that there is enough in the death of Christ to save every one that shall so do." (ibid. 298.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 17, 2006)

> So my beef is with the misleading (to me anyway) terminology. Why not say that Christ's death is so wonderfully unlimited in its perfections that it COULD have atoned for every sin every committed, but as it is, God's design was for a smaller segment of humanity. The death of Christ is sufficient and effective for them only."


So your haggle is that the Reformers used different terms than you would?

I prefer the historic formulation of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement.


----------



## MW (Aug 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Some have found  this lecture  helpful.



Prof. Clark,

There is much to appreciate in this paper. Something that could be updated is the url, where you cite your writings in the footnotes. Blessings!


----------



## austinbrown2 (Aug 18, 2006)

*For Paul and Semper*

Semper: I wouldn't say that I am haggling over how the Reformers used the term. I take a bit of umbrage at your comments. 

I spelled out very clearly my having trouble with the terminology. Good theology is speaking clearly and plainly. If I have to read 8 Puritans to see how they used the word, note how 2 disagree, three are ambiguous and 3 agree, AND i can't look up the word in a solid english dictionary and find out the intended meaning, then what is this student of theology supposed to do when he is writing a 20 page paper on the subject? 

I can assure you that my raising questions doesn't stem from a heart of rebellion against creeds. It's merely thinking critically.


Paul: You make a good point about the Amyraldians of the day. How they use the exact terminology and how 5-pointers use the same terminology does differ in meaning. That is confusing. 

Austin


----------



## austinbrown2 (Aug 18, 2006)

*To Armourbearer and Fredtgreco*

Thank you for the comments. But as you well know, Owen is very hard to understand- at least he is for me. Help me understand this one point:

Owen makes a distinction between the external and internal atonement. When he talks about the internal he seems to be focusing on the intrinsic unlimited power of Christ's death. Ok. Owen says, "It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, *IF* it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose..."

Ok, this makes sense to me. The point is clearly defined. 

But...

He goes on to say things that appear to suggest something else a bit more which introduces confusion in my mind. Correct me here... but he seems to be saying that if we consider the cross as it stands, what actually happened in time space in our history books, is (present tense) sufficient for all men. But how can it be sufficient for them- even if it was a death of infinite worth- if the non-elect's sins were not placed on Christ at the cross in our history? 

When we say it is sufficient for all, my ears hear a present tense reality. But the present tense reality of sufficiency for the non-elect is false. Right? There sins were not dealt with by the infinite value of Christ's death, therefore it is not sufficient for all right now.

This is my problem with the terminology. I have listended to 5 lectures on the subject and all of them throw around the language of "sufficient for all" strongly implying that it is present tense potentiality. But it isn't a present tense potentiality, right? 

If 5-pointers mean nothing else than infinite value by sufficiency that could have dealt with all sins, ok, great, I gladly accept the definition... but that "*COULD* have" is paramount. It could have been sufficient if and only if their sins were imputed to Christ. The above definition or concept is then dragged over into discussions that strongly imply a present tense sufficiency. But that isn't the case. 

Austin


----------



## Flynn (Aug 18, 2006)

G'day Fred,

You cite Owen as saying:

Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, _if_ it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world.

David: Austin has picked it up. The English is a contrary to fact 
hypothetical subjunctive. "He would have been saved, if he had only reached out."

Owen again:

It was in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price to have bought and purchased all and every man in the world. That it did formally become a price for any is solely to be ascribed to the purpose of God, intending their purchase and redemption by it.

David: Its not actually sufficient for them because it was never a price for them.

Cunningham, Walker, Berkhof, all note that the formula underwent a revision in the late 16th and 17thCs. Owen himself notes that some Protestant Divines understood it one way, but that was incorrect. Its only correct when its stated in terms of the conditional hypothetical.

So Owen emphasised its internal sufficiency, and negated its actual external sufficiency.

Witsius says it a little better with the same intent:

We therefore conclude, 1st. That the obedience and sufferings of Christ,
considered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of the
person, of that value, as to be have been sufficient for the redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ, that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them. Economy of the Covenants, 2.9.2, vol 1, p., 256.

So the value of the satisfaction considered as to its mere abstracted value is infinite. But considered in terms of his extenal applicability, it is limited to the elect alone. It would have only been sufficient for all, IF Christ had undertaken to make a satisfaction for all.

Contrary to this, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney, Shedd etc say that Christ actually did make a satisfaction of infinite value for all.

As to Dort, the most that can be said is that its takes a middle ground. But it does seem that 2:6 does imply a position contrary to Owen's.


Austin has it right.

Take care,
David


----------



## austinbrown2 (Aug 18, 2006)

*To Flynn*

You said: Contrary to this, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney, Shedd etc say that Christ actually did make a satisfaction of infinite value for all.>>>>>

My knowledge of these men on this subject is pretty limited (save Dabney), but I find the statement fascinating. Do you think they are inconsistent, tend towards the Amyraldian scheme, or...?

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## Flynn (Aug 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> You said: Contrary to this, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney, Shedd etc say that Christ actually did make a satisfaction of infinite value for all.>>>>>
> 
> My knowledge of these men on this subject is pretty limited (save Dabney), but I find the statement fascinating. Do you think they are inconsistent, tend towards the Amyraldian scheme, or...?
> ...



G'day Austin,

No not at all. Generally the charge is completely without credibility or knowledge.

Ive posted Shedd, Dabney and C Hodge on this board months ago. If anyone wants to call them tending toward Amyraldianism or whatever, then to me thats just foolish. There is not a lot I can say at that point, but kindly agree to disagree.

If you ever hear the charge Amyraldianism, ask the person to define it _with_ primary source documentation. We have to be mature and wise with the shibboleths and labels (Christian swear words) we through out there. Andrew Fuller was called an Arminian. Boston was called an Arminian and and Amyraldian. Carey was called Arminian. But these have been three of the greatest advocates of evangelical Calvinism in recent history. 

I would encourage you to read C Hodge Shedd and Dabney on this. In the archives of this board, in the Calvinist forum, you should find a number of quotations Ive posted from these three.

Ill add this, what strikes me as odd is the historical impact of men like Bullinger and Musculus. Both were Reformed, Predestinarians, Augustinians, etc. They were in the 1550s. Amyraut was doing his thing in the 1630-40s. But both said that Christ died to make a sufficient sacrifice for all sin, all the sin of this world. Who would intelligently say they were Amyraldians or tending to Amyraldianism? We act as if they never existed. I could say more, but I wont.

take care,
David

[Edited on 8-18-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 18, 2006)

I don't understand all the hand wringing. The words "sufficient" and "sufficiency" are the language of worth and value, not purpose. To say something is is sufficient does not imply at all that it is intended. Owen says as much in the place where I quoted.

For example, a hershey bar costs $1. I have $10,000. I have money sufficient to buy 10,000 hershey's bars. But I have no intention of doing that, and the very fact that I have $10,000 says nothing about my intention to by hershey bars.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I don't understand all the hand wringing. The words "sufficient" and "sufficiency" are the language of worth and value, not purpose. To say something is is sufficient does not imply at all that it is intended. Owen says as much in the place where I quoted.
> 
> For example, a hershey bar costs $1. I have $10,000. I have money sufficient to buy 10,000 hershey's bars. But I have no intention of doing that, and the very fact that I have $10,000 says nothing about my intention to by hershey bars.



G'day Fred,

It has to do with remedy. You cant offer a remedy that is insufficient for the sins of the this world. 

The Owenic remedy is only sufficient for another hypothetical possible world.

You have $10000, you bought one choccy bar. You then offer that one bar to the everyone sitting on the 100,000 seat footy stadium. Umm?? That will go down well. 

Cunningham tried to disconnect the sufficiency from the free offer. Dabney called him short-sighted. I think Dabney was spot on.


Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-18-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## polemic_turtle (Aug 18, 2006)

But if you bought a candy bar for $1 you wouldn't say you paid sufficient for every candy bar in the world, would you? Even if you _could_ have, you didn't. So you can't say you paid a price sufficient for anything more than that which you actually paid for.

That is the problem at hand: Was the atonement of equal worth to the world or the elect? If Christ died (only) for the elect, then it wouldn't be honest to say that, properly speaking, the atonement was worth anything above that amount purchased. If Christ died only for the elect, strictly speaking, then His death wasn't sufficient above that which it was efficient. He was; His death wasn't.

Of course I don't think that's the historical reformed position, but I believe that Equivalentism is pretty much the logical conclusion of the popular conception of "Limited Atonement".


----------



## MW (Aug 18, 2006)

Austin,

Why is Christ's death able to stand in the place of what a sinful man deserves? It is the gracious purpose of God. Considered in itself the death of Christ possesses the virtue to redeem all men. In God's purpose it is only designed to redeem an elect, specific number of people.

This is not an hypothetical contrary to fact condition. Owen's statement is factual, showing the one sense in which the reformed are prepared to accept the view of hypothetical as over against actual (or definite) atonement. He is qualifying that one place of common ground which the Reformed seem to share with his Arminian opponent. Which he does for the purpose of showing that the Reformed view provides for a gospel offer, whereas the Arminian view offers nothing.

If the statements of Owen and Dordt were merely hypothetical, then they could not have based the indiscriminate offer of the gospel on the sufficiency of the death of Christ. All reformed theologians acknowledge the hypothetical death of Christ for all men in the gospel offer: what the Marrow of Modern Divinity somewhat clumsily expresses as "Christ is dead for him;" but which it more properly defined as "a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind." The Larger Catechism (answer 32), speaks of God freely providing and offering to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by Him."

Blessings!

[Edited on 8-19-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## MW (Aug 18, 2006)

For what it's worth, William Cunningham did not deny the sufficiency of Christ's death as something actual. His major concern was to guard against the scholastic manner of phrasing the doctrine, "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis." The "pro" implied that Christ did something on the behalf of all men , that Christ died for all men intentionally. This, as Cunningham ably showed, is to confuse the ideas of intrinsic worth and extrinsic merit.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 19, 2006)

G'day Matthew:

You say: 
If the statemen ts of Owen and Dordt were merely hypothetical, then they could not have based the indiscriminate offer of the gospel on the sufficiency of the death of Christ. All reformed theologians acknowledge the hypothetical death of Christ for all men in the gospel offer: what the Marrow of Modern Divinity somewhat clumsily expresses as "Christ is dead for him;" but which it more properly defined as "a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind." The Larger Catechism (answer 32), speaks of God freely providing and offering to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by Him."

David: Thats the point. Owen said that with regard to its internal sufficiency, it is infinite. With regard to its external, it is not sufficient for all the men of this world. It could have been, had God elected all the men of this world. But as it stands, its not sufficient for all the men of this world for it is not a payment for them. Your acknowledgment that this annulls the grounds of the offer is exactly the problem. There is no sufficient remedy for all the men of this world.

Take care,
David


----------



## Flynn (Aug 19, 2006)

G'day Matthew,

You say:



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> For what it's worth, William Cunningham did not deny the sufficiency of Christ's death as something actual. His major concern was to guard against the scholastic manner of phrasing the doctrine, "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis." The "pro" implied that Christ did something on the behalf of all men , that Christ died for all men intentionally. This, as Cunningham ably showed, is to confuse the ideas of intrinsic worth and extrinsic merit.



Well to be clear, I didnt say he tried to deny it. I said:

"Cunningham tried to disconnect the sufficiency from the free offer. Dabney called him short-sighted. I think Dabney was spot on."

Which is exactly what he does. The sufficiency of the atonement should not be the basis of the gospel offer. 

Take care,
David


----------



## Flynn (Aug 19, 2006)

Well its Paul again.

Paul says:

The "if" does not have to imply the possible worlds schema. It can be read as you or I (rightly) read it. That is, the death of Christ was enough to save all men. The enough is the key.


David: Well he does say, if it had so pleased God. He goes on to expressly deny that the blood was a sufficient price and ransom for all, for it was not a ransom for all. Death of Death, p., 184.

What is also important is that he notes that the older formula was not only different but that it entailed that Christ's death was a sufficient for all the sins of the world. Owen expressly denies this. It only conditionally sufficient for all the sins of the world, if God had so chosen to include them in the ransom.

Paul continues: For example, oxygen may be *necessary* for human life, but it's not *sufficient* in that *more* is needed, i.e., it's not *enough.*

David: but thats really referring to the kind of thing, but never to any actual amount of oxigen. 

Paul: So I read Owen as saying,

"If the Lord had so deemed to save everyman then Christ's death would have been enough to do it, Christ suffered *enough.*


David: Sure. Owen said that there was an infinitely valuable expiation, such that had God elected more, that same infinitely valuable expistion _would have been _ sufficient for them too. For this he makes the distinction between internal and extension.

Paul: 
I find it interesting that David Ponter says,

"The English is a contrary to fact hypothetical subjunctive. "He would have been saved, if he had only reached out." !!

I don't read it that way *at all.* Rather, he would be saved if God would have predestined him to that end. If God had chosen one more than He did, Christ would not have had to suffer one more; he suffered *enough.* And *that's* what sufficient means here, In my humble opinion.

David: But thats not the contention at all Paul. Owen is not saying so much suffering for so much sin. You are missing me and/or Owen. What Owen clearly does say are 4 things;

1) The older Protestants said that Christ obtained a sufficient ransom for all the sins of this world. He actually accomplished something for this world.

2) But thats wrong.

3) The ransom is not sufficient for the sins of the world for its not a ransom for the sins of he world.

4) had God intended it to be a sufficient ransom for the sins of the world, then it _would have been_ sufficient for the sins of the world.

But the problem is, thats not this world. In this actual world, he denies that its sufficient for all the sins of the world. Its right there on p. 184. Its not sufficient for the sins of the world, not because the atonement is intrinsically insufficient, but because it is not a payment for the sins of the world.

So lets get it right about what I am saying about Owen.  

Durham is crystal clear on this, representing this tradition well:

In respect to itself, and as abstractly from the covenant of redemption, wherein it is contrived as to all the circumstances of it, in which sense, as his death and sufferings are of infinite value and worth, so they are (as divines commonly speak), of value to redeem the whole world, if God in his design and decree had so ordered, and thought meet to extend it. James Durham, Christ Crucified: The Marrow of the Gospel in 72 Sermons on Isaiah 53 (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 2001), p., 343.

So sure, its able to save all and every sinner, had God so wished. But its actually not sufficient, in another sense, for those whom God did not wish to save.

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. 

Twisse had this twist on it: He died for all in case they do believe.

And to note, even Baxter's Owen's arch-enemy noted that the formula had been revised, and so noted his objection.

If Owen himself admits that he revises the formula as understood by older protestant divines, why all the need to try and avert the implications of what he himself was honest enough to admit?

Take care,
David


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> Semper: I wouldn't say that I am haggling over how the Reformers used the term. I take a bit of umbrage at your comments.
> 
> I spelled out very clearly my having trouble with the terminology. Good theology is speaking clearly and plainly. If I have to read 8 Puritans to see how they used the word, note how 2 disagree, three are ambiguous and 3 agree, AND i can't look up the word in a solid english dictionary and find out the intended meaning, then what is this student of theology supposed to do when he is writing a 20 page paper on the subject?
> ...


OK. I read you clearly. I think your statement amounted to tempest in a teapot. No need to take umbrage. We're men and can disagree without getting upset when someone challenges your thinking. If you're going to take on historic language then be prepared for some sharp criticism for saying "I would say it this way instead...."


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Flynn_
> 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, 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.

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 21, 2006)

G'day Matthew:

Ah history claims: this is exactly what I love.

The language of double-reference is loaded with some historical baggage, good and bad... well mostly bad.



> 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. [Edited on 8-21-2006 by armourbearer]



Regarding Calvin, on another thread you said this:

I think it is anachronistic to say that Calvin believed in either an unlimited or a limited atonement. His commentaries come down on both sides, and they do so without making a distinction between the atonement as made by Christ and as offered in the gospel. As a post-Dordt reader of his commentaries I can understand his unlimited sayings as referring to the offer of the gospel and his limited sayings as referring to the work of Christ itself. However, I am conscious that in doing so I am metamorphosing Calvin in order to make him comprehensible to a later age which used categories of thought he was not bothered by. 

end

So here you offer two explanations:

1) in his commentaries he comes down on both sides

2) then you interpret him (without sources) that when he spoke in terms of unlimited atonement he referred to the gospel offer.

I suppose you have some harmonizing strategy to make your statements fit.

Calvin does seem to hold to the older version when he says:

They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true Calvin on 1 Jn 2:2. The absurdity is not the formula but the claim that even Satan will be saved, etc.

Now before you jump, the new revision of the formula has no prior source than Beza. It would be anachronistic to read Beza revisionist interpretation back into Calvin. And I might be a case of question begging.

So the question comes to this: In Calvins theology, what did Christ suffer sufficiently for the whole world?

As to the claim that its not Reformed:

See Bullinger:

Imputed Righteousness. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ's sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5:19 ff.; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us. Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XV Of the True Justification of the Faithful.

Now we must in redemption consider by degrees, who it is that is redeemed, from whence, by whom, how, when, and to what purpose and end. Touchyng this matter we have in hand, the very title of this place, speaketh of the redemption of mankinde. Mankinde comprehendeth not once or two nations, but the universal world, that is, all the nations of the whole world, all men from the first to the last. Israel was redeemed sundry tymes out of the power of hys enemies, out of Egypt, sometimes from the tyranny of the Cannanites out of Babylon. But here is not meant of some special redemption of any people, but of the same which is generally of all. We know that all be not partakers of this redemption, but the losse of them which be not saved, doth hinder nothing at all, why it should not be called an universal redemption, which is appointed not for one nation, for all the whole world. 

...for it is not for lacke of the grace of God, that the reprobate and desparatly wicked men do not receyve it: nor is it right that it should loose his title and glory of universal redemption because of the children of perdition, seying that it is ready for all men, and all be called unto it. So he redeemed the worlde, what soever do become of the reprobate, is most iustly called the Saviour of the worlde... And this redemption is also universal for this cause, it is so appointed unto all men, that without it no man is, nor can be redeemed. 
Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Henry Bynneman, 1578), p., 305.

And I have discussed Shedd, Dabney and C Hodge on this before. One from Dabney should suffice:

See how manfully Christ approaches His martyrdom, and how sadly He sinks under it when it comes! Had He borne nothing more than natural evil, He would have been inferior to other merely human heroes, and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just. "Socrates died like a philosopher; but Jesus Christ as a God," we must give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ´s crushing agonies must be accounted for by His bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world. Lectures, p., 511. 
And in case, Dabney explicitly denies that world means elect, or is restricted to the elect, or all kinds of elect, etc etc.


Back to Calvin, Musculus and Bullinger, its clear that both were part of the older tradition of Protestant divines that Owen admits to. But in his mind, they got it wrong.

It is Reformed, its just a different Reformed than you are willing to accept existed. Indeed it existed side by side with the other tradition. If you dont like what Bullinger and Musculus said, thats not my problem. But it is undeniable that this has been part of our Reformed tradition.

Hope that helps,
David

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2006)

David, I don't believe you have met the burden of proof needed to establish a dichotomy in the reformed tradition. As I said in the post you quoted, after Dordt Calvin's unlimited statements can be understood in the context of the gospel offer; his limited statements in the context of the work of Christ. This is true for the whole of this so-called older reformed tradition you have postulated. Your wish is not historical theology's command.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> David, I don't believe you have met the burden of proof needed to establish a dichotomy in the reformed tradition. As I said in the post you quoted, after Dordt Calvin's unlimited statements can be understood in the context of the gospel offer; his limited statements in the context of the work of Christ. This is true for the whole of this so-called older reformed tradition you have postulated. Your wish is not historical theology's command.



G'day Matthew:

Thats it? Thats your response? I cite Bullinger. I cite Musculus. I cite Dabney and your rejoiner is that? Come on. Surely you can do better than that? You wont even interact with Musculus, Bullinger or Dabney, but you assert that the burden is on me. Oh man. You still blow me away.

I could have cited Vermigli where he affirms the Scholastic maxim that all men have been redeemed sufficiently. I could have cited the Hiedelberg Catechism, with Ursinus and David Paraeus comments where they affirm that Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the elect efficient (q37, Lords day 15). You should check out the comments to that question. Actually I will look at posting it all later.

And as for the tradition with respect to the atonement, J Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney and Shedd all say that Christ bore the wrath due to the sins of the world. He made an expiation and satisfaction for the guilt of the world. 

Have you ever checked out the interpretive history of 2 Peter 2:1? Trapp, Poole, and Adams and Calvin all allow or posit the interpretation that here the meaning is that Christ paid a sufficient price for all sinners, and so is said to have redeemed them in this sense. 2 Pet 2:1 historically has been one of the key texts originally used to justify the unlimited sufficiency of Christs redemption as an ordained unlimited sufficiency. Check out Calvin on this verse (with Jude 4). This shows that there was an early interpretive tradition that has been obscured.

You say this:

As I said in the post you quoted, after Dordt Calvin's unlimited statements can be understood in the context of the gospel offer; his limited statements in the context of the work of Christ. 

David: Can you prove this? Can you sustain it from Calvin? Seriously, how would you go about proving this directly from Calvin? I mean, how does the reader here know you are not just making this up?

At a personal level I really dont care if you disagree with this tradition, yet this Reformed tradition is easily documentable. But to just try and blow it off is not credible. 

Give me something more than a suggestion that its all in my imagination.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-22-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 22, 2006)

That other Reformed Tradition. Copy and paste this, print it out. Read it carefully. Follow the logic and argument. Look for the key phrases, sins of the whole world, sins of the whole human race, sins of all mankind, take notice of how it says Christ died for all sufficiently, but the application is limited to the elect, and if you still turn around and say this tradition never existed right in the heart of Reformed orthodoxy, then I cant believe such an assessment is an expression of honesty.

If any want to discuss this, I am open.

The text: there may be typos and gliches. I will clean it up later. 

The authors: some of these comments were written by David Paraeus, Ursinus's student. None believe he differed from his teacher here. Some are from Ursinus directly.

Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

1) The answer to this question consists of two parts:--Salvation through Christ is not bestowed upon all who perished in Adam; but only upon those who, by a true faith, are ingrafted into Christ, and receive all his benefits. 

The first part of this answer is clearly proven by experience, and the word of God. " He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." " Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 36; 3: 3; Matt. 7 : 21.) -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. The other part of the answer is also evident from the Scriptures. "As many as received him to them, gave he power to become the sons of God." "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." (John 1: 12. Is. 53 : 11.) The reason why only those who believe are saved, is, because they alone lay hold of, and embrace the benefits of Christ; and because in them alone God secures the end for which he graciously delivered his Son to death; for only those that believe know the mercy and grace of God, and return suitable thanks to him. 

The sum of this whole matter is therefore this: that although the satisfaction of Christ, the mediator for our sins, is perfect, yet all do not obtain deliverance through it, but only those who believe the gospel, and apply to themselves the merits of Christ by a true faith. [p., 106.] 


2) Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. , But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction. Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished b j us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us. [p., 215.] 

3) FIFTEENTH LORD'S DAY.

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "he suffered?" Answer. That he, all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the,,end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation; and obtain for us the favor of God, righteousness, and eternal life.... 


I. What are we to understand by the Passion of Christ, or what did Christ suffer? 

By the term passion we are to understand the whole humiliation of Christ, or the obedience of his whole humiliation, all the miseries, infirmities, griefs, torments and ignominy to which was subject, for our sakes, from the moment of his birth even to the hour of his death, as well in soul as in body. The principal part of his sorrows and anguish were the torments of soul, in which he felt and endured the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. By the term passion, however, we are to understand chiefly the closing scene, or last act of his life, in which he suffered extreme torments, both of body and soul, on account of our sins. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." "Surely he hath borne our griefs. He was wounded for our transgressions." "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him." (Matt. 26 : 38; 27 : 46. Is. 53 : 4, 5, 10.) 

What, therefore, did Christ suffer? 1. The privation or destitution of the highest felicity and joy, together with all those good things which he might have enjoyed. 2. All the infirmities of our nature, sin only excepted : he hungered, he thirsted, mas fatigued, was afflicted with sadness and grief, &c. 3. Extreme want and poverty; "The Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Matt. 8 : 20.) 4. Infinite injuries, reproaches, calumnies, treacheries, envyings, slanders, blasphemies, rejections and contempt; "I am a worm, and no man; and a reproach of many." "He hath no form or comeliness, and when we shall see him there is no beauty that ve should desire him." (Ps. 22: 6. Is 53 : 2.) 5. The temptations of the devil; "He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4 : 15.) 6. The most reproachful and ignominious death, even that of the cross. 7. The keenest and most bitter anguish of soul, which is doubtless a sense of the wrath of God against the sins of the whole human race. I t was this that caused him to exclaim, upon the cross, with a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" as if he should say, Why dost thou not drive away from me such severe anguish and torments? Thus we see what, and how greatly Christ has suffered in our behalf. But since the divine nature was united to the human, how is it possible that it was so oppressed and weakened as to break forth in such exclamations of anguish; and especially so when there were martyrs who were far more bold and courageous? The cause of this arises from the difference which there mas in the punishment which Christ endured and that of martyrs. St. Lawrence, lying on the gridiron, did not experience the dreadful wrath of God, either against his own, or against the sins of the human race, the entire punishment of which was inflicted upon the Son of God, as Isaiah saith, he was stricken, and smitten of God for our sins: We say, then, that St. Lawrence did not feel the anger of an offended God piercing and wounding him; but felt that God was reconciled, and at peace with him; neither did he experience the horrors of death and hell as Christ did, but he had great consolation, because he suffered on account of confessing the gospel, and was assured that his sins were remitted by and for the-sake of the Son of God, upon whom they were laid, according to what is said, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.". (John 1 : 29.) Hence it is easy to be accounted for, why St. Lawrence seemed to have more courage and presence of mind in his martyrdom, than Christ in his passion; and hence it is also that the human nature of Christ, although united to the Godhead, was made to sweat drops of blood in the garden, and to give vent to the mournful lamentation, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" Not that there was any separation between the natures in Christ; but because the humanity was for a time forsaken by the Divinity, the Word being at rest, or quiet, (as Irenaeus saith) and not bringing aid and deliverance to the afflicted humanity until a passion altogether sufficient might be endured and finished. [p., 212-213.]

4) III Did Christ die for all?

In answering this question we must make a distinction, so as to hamonise those passages of Scriptures which seem, to teach contradictory doctrines. In some places Christ is said to have died for all, and .for the whole world. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." "That he, by-the-grace of God, should taste death for every man." "We thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them, and rose again." "Who gave himself a ransom for all," &c. (John 2 : 2. Heb. 2 : 9. 2 Cor. 5 : 15. 1 Tim. 2 : 6.) The Scriptures, on the contrary, affirm in many places, that Christ died, prayed, offered himself, &c., only for many, for the elect, for his own people, for the Church, for his sheep, &c.'' I pray for them; I pray not for the world; but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine," that is, the elect alone. " The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." " I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He shall save his people from their sins." " This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." " Christ mas once offered, to bear the sins of many." "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities." " Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it." (John 17 : 9. Matt. 20 : 28; 15 : 24; 1 : 21. Heb. 9 : 28; Is. 53 : 1; Ep. 5 : 25.) 

What shall we say in view of these seemingly opposite passages of Scripture? Does the word of God contradict itself? By no means. But this will be the case, bless these declarations, which in some places seem to teach that Christ died for all, and in others that he died for a part only, can be reconciled by a proper and satisfactory distinction, which distinction, or reconciliation, is two-fold. 

There are some who interpret these general declarations of the whole number of the faithful, or of all that believe; because the promises of the gospel properly belong to all those that believe, and because the Scriptures do often restrict them to such as believe: "Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish." The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe." That through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." It is in this way that Ambrose interprets those passages which speak of the death of Christ as extending to all: The people of God," says he, "have their fulness, and although a large portion of men either neglect, or reject, the grace of the Saviour, yet there is a certain SPECIAL UNIVERSALITY of the elect, and fore-known, separated and discerned from the generality of all, that a whole world might seem to be saved out of a whole world; and all men might seem to be redeemed out of all men," &c. In this way there is no repugnancy, or contradiction; for all those that believe are the many, the peculiar people, the Church, the sheep, the elect, &c., for whom Christ died, and gave himself. 

Others reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages of Scripture by making a distinction between the sufficiency, and efficacy of the death of Christ. For there are certain contentious persons, who deny that these declarations which speak in a general way, are to be restricted to the faithful alone, that is, they deny that the letter itself, or the simple language of Scripture does thus limit them, and in proof thereof they bring forward those passages in which salvation seems to be attributed, not only to those that believe, but also to hypocrites and apostates, as it is said : "Denying the Lord which bought them." And, also, when it is said that they "have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins." (2 Pet. 2 : 1; 1 : 9.) But it is manifest that declarations of this kind are to be understood either concerning the mere external appearance, and vain glorying of redemption, or of sanctification; or else of the sufficiency, and greatness of the merit of Christ. That it may not, therefore, be necessary for us to contend much with these captious and fastidious persons concerning the restriction of those passages which speak so generally (although it is most manifest in itself) and that those places which speak of the redemption of hypocrites may the more easily be reconciled, some prefer (and not without reason according to my judgment) to interpret those declarations, which in appearance seem to be contradictory, partly of the sufficiency, and partly of the application and efficacy of the death of Christ. They affirm, therefore, that Christ died for all, and that he did not die for all; but in different respects. He died for all, as touching the sufficiency of the ransom which he paid; and not for all; but only for the elect, or those that believe, as touching the application and efficacy thereof. The reason of the former lies in this, that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith. For it cannot be said to be insufficient, unless we give countenance to that horrible blasphemy (which God forbid!) that some blame of the destruction of the ungodly results from a defect in the merit of the-mediator. The reason of the latter is, because all the elect, or such as believe, and they alone, do apply unto themselves by faith the merit of Christ's death, together with the efficacy thereof, by which they obtain righteousness, and life according as it is said, "He that believeth on the Son of God, hath everlasting life." (John 3 : 36.) The rest are excluded from this efficacy of Christ's death by their own unbelief, as it is again said, " He that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3 : 36.) Those, therefore, whom the Scriptures exclude from the efficacy of Christ's death, cannot be said to be included in the number of those for whom he died as it respects the efficacy of his death, but only as to its sufficiency; because the death of Christ is also sufficient for their salvation, if they will but believe; and the only reason of their exclusion arises from their unbelief. I t is in the same may, that is, by making the same distinction that we reply to those mho 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 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. But he willed to die for the elect alone as touching the efficacy of his death, that is, he would not only sufficiently merit grace and life for them alone, but also effectually confers these upon them, grants faith, and the holy Spirit, and brings it to pass that they apply to themselves, by faith, the benefits of his death, and so obtain for themselves the efficacy of his merits. 

In this sense it is correctly said that Christ died in a different manner for believers and unbelievers. Neither is this declaration attended with any difficulty or inconvenience, inasmuch as it harmonises not on1y with scripture, but also with experience; for both testify that the remedy of sin and death is most sufficiently and abundantly offered in the gospel to all; but that it is effectually applied, and profitable only to them that believe. The Scriptures, also, everywhere, restrict the efficacy of redemption to certain persons only, as to Christ's sheep, to the elect and as such as believe, whilst on the other hand it clearly excludes from the grace of Christ the reprobate and unbelieving as long as they remain in their unbelief. "What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2 Cor. 6 : 15. See, also, Matt. 20 : 28; 26: 28. Is. 53 : 11. John 10: 15. Matt. 15: 24.) 

Christ moreover, prayed only for the elect, including those who were already his disciples, and also such as would afterwards believe on his name. Hence he says, "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." (John 17 : 9.) If, therefore, Christ would not pray for the world, by which we are to understand such as do not believe, much less would he die for them, as far m the efficacy of his death is concerned; for it is less to pray, than to die for any one. There are also two inseparable parts of the sacrifice of Christ"“intercession and death. And if he himself refuse to extend one part to the ungodly, who is he that will dare to give the other to them. 

Lastly, the orthodox Fathers and Schoolmen, also distinguish and restrict the above passages of Scripture as we have done; especially Augustin, Cyril and Prosper. Lombard writes as follows: "Christ offered himself to God, the Trinity for all men, as it respects the sufficiency of the price; but only for the elect as it regards the efficacy thereof, because he effected, and purchased salvation only for those who were predestinated." Thomas writes : " The merit of Christ, as to its sufficiency, extends equally to all, but not as to its efficacy, which happens partly on account of free will, and partly on account of the election of God, through which the effects of the merits of Christ are mercifully bestowed upon some, and withheld from others according to the just judgment of God." Other Schoolmen, also, speak in the same manner, from which it is evident that Christ died for all in such a may, that the benefits of his death, nevertheless, pertain properly to such as believe, to whom alone they are also profitable and available. 

Obj. 1. The promises of the gospel are universal, as appears from such declarations as invite all men to come to Christ, that they may have life. Hence it does not merely extend to such as believe. Ans. The promise is indeed universal in respect to such as repent and believe; but to extend it to the reprobate, would be blasphemy. "There is," saith Ambrose, as just quoted, "a certain special universality of the elect, and foreknown, discerned and distinguished 'from the entire generality." This restriction of the promises to such as believe, is proven from the plain and explicit form in which they are expressed. " That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." " The righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon a11 them that believe." "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.'' "Whosever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." "He became the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him." And from the words of Christ: give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine," &c. (John 3 : 16. Rom. 3 : 22. Matt. 11 : 28. Acts 2 : 21. Heb. 5: 9. Matt. 7 : 6.) 

Obj. 2., Christ died for all. Therefore his death does not merely extend to such as believe. Ans. Christ died for all as it regards the merit and 2 efficacy of the ransom which he paid; but only for those that believe as it respects the application and efficacy of his death; for seeing that the death of Christ is applied to such alone, and is profitable to them, it is correctly said to belong -+ properly to them alone, as has been already shown. [pp., 221-225] 

Olevianus has the same explanation for this question: Christ bore the sins of the world.

Clearly, Ursinus and Paraeus were among those Protestants whom Owen says got it wrong. 

David.

[Edited on 8-22-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2006)

David,

You seem surprised that I haven't wasted my time by interacting with what you obviously regard as weighty evidence for your position. I am sorry, but you are proving the wrong point. I have already affirmed, after the tradition of Dordt and Owen, the sufficiency of Christ's death for all. What you are trying to prove is the double reference theory of the atonement, and your particular thesis is that the early reformed tradition taught it. But apart from Musculus you have not provided any evidence in that direction. Musculus held that Christ died for all men, but intercedes only for the elect. He also appears to have taught infant communion.

Cunningham says quite explicitly, "the advocates of a limited or definite atonement do not deny, but maintain, the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ´s satisfaction and merits." (HT, 2:331.) So when you proceed to prove that earlier reformed divines held to the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction and merits, you have not succeeded one whit in proving your thesis. This is what all reformed divines hold in common. When men perish it is through no lack in Christ's sufferings. There is enough virtue in His sufferings to have redeemed all men.

The double reference theory of the atonement does not teach that Christ's death is sufficient for all, but that Christ died for the purpose of saving all men on condition that they believe. This ascribes to Christ a purpose or intention of dying for all men. This is a completely different proposition from the one that asserts Christ's death is sufficient for all. The traditional reformed view is that which found expression in the Marrow of Modern Divinity, that the virtue of Christ's death is offered to all men upon condition that they will believe. That is, Christ is dead for all hypothetically in the gospel offer. Hence all have a warrant to take Christ for their Saviour without first settling the question whether or not they are elect and Christ died for them.

Concerning Calvin, it has already been admitted that his statements come down on both sides. One cannot expect him to express himself according to the orthodoxy that was formulated after him. He was not privy to the abuses of the "sufficienter" language, which emerged after his death. Yet it is clear that he denied any saving virtue in the death of Christ for all men. Consider the following from "the eternal predestination of God," 94, 95:

"Hereupon follows also a third important fact, that the virtue and benefits of Christ are extended unto, and belong to, none but the children of God." "That the Gospel is, in its nature, able to save all I by no means deny. But the great question lies here: Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men?"

It is upon this basis, and how Calvin states the matter himself, that I argue the unlimited statements can be applied to the preaching of the gospel, while the limited statements may be referred to the death of Christ itself.


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Flynn_
> Twisse had this twist on it: He died for all in case they do believe.



This requires to be set straight. Twisse is speaking of what men are bound to believe in the gospel, not what Christ has done. In the Riches of God's Love, 1:153, Twisse specifically takes note of this distinction: "Now to believe the Gospell is one thing, the summe whereof is this, That Jesus Christ came into the World to save sinners; but to believe in Christ is another thing, which yet this Author distinguisheth not."

Then, on p. 154, he subsequently states that it is the gospel proclamation in which Christ is said to die for men on condition they believe, but only in the sense that the forgiveness and salvation merited by Christ are offered in the gospel: "I suppose, as out of the mouth of all our Divines, that every one who hears the Gospell (without distinction between Elect and Reprobate) is bound to believe that Christ died for him, so farre as to procure both the pardon of his sinnes, and the salvation of his soule, in case he believe and repent."

That Twisse did not believe Christ died for all men is clearly stated on p. 193: "To the contrary, that Christ died not for all; I prove thus: First, the reason why none can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect, is because Christ died for them Rom. 8 [Margin: Rom. 8.33, 34]. If therefore Christ died for all, none can lay any thing to the charge of a Reprobate, more then to the charge of Gods Elect. Secondly, Christ prayed only for those who either did or should believe in him; and for whom he prayed for them only he sanctified himselfe. Ioh. 17 [Margin: Iohn 17.9, 19]. And what is the meaning of the sanctifying of himselfe for them, but that he meant to offer up himselfe in Sacrifice upon the crosse for them; as Maldonate confesseth, was the joynt interpretation of all the Fathers, whom he had read. Thirdly, did he dye only for all then living, or which should afterwards be brought forth into the World, or for all from the beginning of the world? If so, then he dyed for all those that already were damned. Fourthly, if he dyed for them, then Christ hath made satisfaction for their sinnes; and is it decent that any man should fry in Hell, for those sinnes for which Christ hath satisfied? Lastly, if Christ hath died for all, then hath he merited Salvation for all; and shall any faile of that salvation which Christ hath merited for them? Is it decent that God the Father, should deale with Christ his Sonne, not according to the exigence of his merits? If we had merited salvation for our selves would God in justice have denied it unto us? Why then should he deny any man salvation, in case Christ hath merited salvation for him?"

[Edited on 8-23-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 23, 2006)

G´day Matthew,

Matthew:

You seem surprised that I haven't wasted my time by interacting with what you obviously regard as weighty evidence for your position.

David: I detect the knives coming out Matthew, talking to me is a _waste_ of time. For my part, interacting with good challenging primary sources shouldnt be a waste of time.

Matthew: I am sorry, but you are proving the wrong point. I have already affirmed, after the tradition of Dordt and Owen, the sufficiency of Christ's death for all. What you are trying to prove is the double reference theory of the atonement, and your particular thesis is that the early reformed tradition taught it. But apart from Musculus you have not provided any evidence in that direction. Musculus held that Christ died for all men, but intercedes only for the elect. He also appears to have taught infant communion.

David: Apart from Musculus? There is also Bullinger. That was not the only example I could have cited. There are more in the same confession and more in his Decades. We also have Vermigli and Ursinus and Paraeus. There are also more from Dabney, (which along with Shedd and C Hodge), I´ve already posted in this forum). I cant make you want to engage these primary sources. I can only try and start to make you aware of them.


John Owen: it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and everyone, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom. Death of Death, p., 184.

David: Owen says, along with others, that the death of Christ was not "˜externally´ sufficient for all men. It as an innate internal infinite sufficiency, but that its only infinitely sufficient for the sins of the elect. This is clearly the opposite of Bullinger, Ursinus and Musculus.

Matthew: Cunningham says quite explicitly, "the advocates of a limited or definite atonement do not deny, but maintain, the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ´s satisfaction and merits." (HT, 2:331.) So when you proceed to prove that earlier reformed divines held to the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction and merits, you have not succeeded one whit in proving your thesis. This is what all reformed divines hold in common. When men perish it is through no lack in Christ's sufferings. There is enough virtue in His sufferings to have redeemed all men.

David: Like I said, I cant make you read what Ursinus, Calvin et al actually said. I cant make you read even Owen´s confession that some early Protestant divines held to this other construction, but they are wrong. I cant make you see that these other Reformed held to an "œordained" sufficiency, while Owen et al, only held to an innate internal sufficiency.

Matthew: The double reference theory of the atonement does not teach that Christ's death is sufficient for all, but that Christ died for the purpose of saving all men on condition that they believe.

David: Well thats why thats your label, not mine. 

Matthew: This ascribes to Christ a purpose or intention of dying for all men. This is a completely different proposition from the one that asserts Christ's death is sufficient for all. The traditional reformed view is that which found expression in the Marrow of Modern Divinity, that the virtue of Christ's death is offered to all men upon condition that they will believe. That is, Christ is dead for all hypothetically in the gospel offer. Hence all have a warrant to take Christ for their Saviour without first settling the question whether or not they are elect and Christ died for them.

David: Well thats all nice and neat and dandy. But it says nothing about the early history of Reformed thought with regard to the extent of the sufficiency of the atonement. You can think all that, but its still clear that the early Reformed thinkers held that Christ´s death is sufficient for all sinners. 

Part of the problem is that this is so psychologically threatening to you. I could show you a 100 citations from the early Reformers, and you would still deny their force. For example the burden of proof claim you made and tried to impose upon me. I could say, okay, here are 10 citations from Bullinger, 7 from Dabney, 8 from Shedd, 6 from C Hodge, 9 from J Edwards, 3 from Musculus, 15 from Calvin, and I know you still would just deny their force. 

So to close this discussion: When Calvin says that Christ suffered for all sufficiently but for the elect sufficiently, he clearly meant it in the sense as outlined by Ursinus and Paraeus:

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "he suffered?" Answer. That he, all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the, end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation; and obtain for us the favor of God, righteousness, and eternal life.

And part of the answer Paraeus give us: The principal part of his sorrows and anguish were the torments of soul, in which he felt and endured the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind... 

Matthew: Concerning Calvin, it has already been admitted that his statements come down on both sides. One cannot expect him to express himself according to the orthodoxy that was formulated after him. 

David: But thats where you seemingly want to have your cake and eat it too. You say, he comes down on both sides, but then you just allege that when he seemingly came down on the unlimited side, he was only referring to the free offer of the gospel. Well that clearly means he did come down on both sides.

Matthew: He was not privy to the abuses of the "sufficienter" language, which emerged after his death. 


David: Well stop press: what that is really saying: if Calvin had been around later he would not have beleived what he did. Thats so second quessing Calvin, along with special pleading. The sufficiency doctrine was already being abused to prove absolute universalism: and yet he consistently maintained the same exegetical and theological response his whole life. So this evasive move has no substance


Mattwe: Yet it is clear that he denied any saving virtue in the death of Christ for all men. Consider the following from "the eternal predestination of God," 94, 95:

"Hereupon follows also a third important fact, that the virtue and benefits of Christ are extended unto, and belong to, none but the children of God." "That the Gospel is, in its nature, able to save all I by no means deny. But the great question lies here: Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men?"

David: Sure, who here is claiming that Calvin imagined that the saving virtue of the death of Christ, its _benefits_, _extend_ to the reprobate. And we know that he denied that the Lord ordained the salvation of all men. By will secret, the death of Christ is intended only for the elect. Fine. So what have you proved exactly? Youve proved, that for Calvin there is a sense where he believed Christ did not die effectually for the reprobate. But this is exactly what one would expect to find in Calvin, given that he has affirmed that Christ _suffered_ for all sufficient, but for the elect efficiently. What you have to prove is the flip side of the formula: that when Calvin ever spoke of the suffering and death of Christ, in an unlimited sense, he was


But now, if we use the tool Paraeus and others outlined, the tool of twofold intentionality, we can allow Calvin to also say: "œcan be applied to the preaching of the gospel, while the limited statements may be referred to the death of Christ itself." [see below where you say this].

But can this be proven? Can you establish that claim? 

Also, in all honesty, calling upon one´s deepest commitment to personal integrity, can that "œalleged theory" adequately explain the following:

Since then, this robber was a man disapproved of by all, and God called him so suddenly, when our Lord made effective for him His death and passion which He suffered and endured for all mankind, that ought all the more to confirm us.... But though our Lord Jesus Christ by nature held death in horror and indeed it was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgment-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for He was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble himself to such condemnation for our sakes... Calvin, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 9, Matt 27:45-54, pp., 151, and 155-156.

There is no room to doubt that our Lord discoursed to them about the office of Messiah, as it is described by the Prophets, that they might not take offense at his death; and a journey of three or four hours afforded abundance of time for a full explanation of those matters. Christ did not, therefore, assert in three words, that Christ ought to have suffered, but explained at great length that he had been sent in order that he might expiate, by the sacrifice of his death, the sins of the world,--that he might become a curse in order to remove the curse,--that by having guilt imputed to him he might wash away the pollutions of others. Calvin, Luke 24:26

And stuff like this: 

And secondly again, thereafter as we see the mischief prevail, let us bring these back unto God which are gone astray, and labor to stop those that lead their neighbors after that fashion to destruction, and seek nothing but to turn all upside down: let such men be repressed, and let every one that hath the zeal of God show himself their deadly enemy, breaking asunder whatsoever may hold us back: and whither there be friendship or kindred between us, or any other or the straightest bonds in the world: let us bury everywhit of it in forgetfulness, when we see the souls that were bought with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, so led to ruin and destruction: or when we see things that were well settled... Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 10, 2:11-14, p., 216-7/155.

His language of redemption here comes right out of that interpretative tradition that you would prefer to have never existed. 

Matthew: It is upon this basis, and how Calvin states the matter himself, that I argue the unlimited statements can be applied to the preaching of the gospel, while the limited statements may be referred to the death of Christ itself.

David: The problem is, that is not an adequate theory. It does not do justice to Calvin´s many statements that Christ suffered and/or bore the sins of the whole world/whole human race. Nor does it do justice to his statements that men who were redeemed by Christ perish. The two-fold intentionality model is the soundest way to understand Calvin as, indeed, it was THE model of choice of the early Reformation theologians (of Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed). And the two-fold intent model says that Christ bore the sins due to every one, to all sinners (Institutes, 2.16.2): for its human sin that was imputed. It is the application [as per also: Ursinus/Paraeus, Shedd and Dabney] of this unlimited expiation that is limited to the elect, but the secret will of God. And so in this way, and only in this way, can the satisfaction of Christ be said to be sufficient for every sinner. For now the satisfaction is applicable to any and every sinner.

He calls the Spirit ANOTHER Comforter, on account of the difference between the blessings which we obtain from both. The peculiar office of Christ was, to appease the wrath of God by atoning for the sins of the world, to redeem men from death, to procure righteousness and life; and the peculiar office of the Spirit is, to make us partakers not only of Christ himself, but of all his blessings. And yet there would be no impropriety in inferring from this passage a distinction of Persons; for there must be some peculiarity in which the Spirit differs from the Son so as to be another than the Son. Calvin Commentary, John 14:16.

Paraeus: He died for all, as touching the sufficiency of the ransom which he paid; and not for all, but only for the elect, or those that believe, as touching the application and efficacy thereof. Comm Heidelberg, p., 215.

In the end I cant make your acknowledge the presence of this other Reformed tradition. Maybe one day you will take a peek at it.

David


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 23, 2006)

> David: I detect the knives coming out Matthew, talking to me is a _waste_ of time. For my part, interacting with good challenging primary sources shouldnt be a waste of time.



 Sounds like Doug Wilson who claimed he was just interacting with the Westminister Confession in his diatribe against the Christian faith; Reformed is Not Enough.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Sounds like Doug Wilson who claimed he was just interacting with the Westminister Confession in his diatribe against the Christian faith; Reformed is Not Enough.




Hey Moderators... [self-deletion]... 

oh whats the point

David



[Edited on 8-23-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 23, 2006)

> oh whats the point
> 
> David



Exactly! What is the point? Whether it is shown from the writings of Turretin, Calvin or Twisse, or anyone else for that matter that you have unfairly quoted and have marshaled in support of a position that none actually held or advanced, you just plod ahead merely waving off refutation after refutation as if they were just so many gnats on a camping trip. I played the same game with you in 1999 and Matthew is playing the same futile game with you again here. And to think you can even take offense when someone suggests that debating you is waste of time. 

Maybe there is a point after all. 

[Edited on 8-23-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 23, 2006)

While we are setting things straight. 

Lets be clear here, I had said:



> Twisse had this twist on it: He died for all in case they do believe.



cut

You cite some stuff from Twisse:

Then, on p. 154, he subsequently states that it is the gospel proclamation in which Christ is said to die for men on condition they believe, but only in the sense that the forgiveness and salvation merited by Christ are offered in the gospel: "I suppose, as out of the mouth of all our Divines, that every one who hears the Gospell (without distinction between Elect and Reprobate) is bound to believe that Christ died for him, so farre as to procure both the pardon of his sinnes, and the salvation of his soule, in case he believe and repent."

David: As an aside, I cant even begin to imagine how a pure Owenist could imagine that from hearing the gospel, even a reprobate was bound to believe that Christ died for him. The only reason Twisse could say this is because of what Ive posted below.

Matthew: 
That Twisse did not believe Christ died for all men is clearly stated on p. 193: "To the contrary, that Christ died not for all; I prove thus: First, the reason why none can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect, is because Christ died for them Rom. 8 [Margin: Rom. 8.33, 34]. If therefore Christ died for all, none can lay any thing to the charge of a Reprobate, more then to the charge of Gods Elect. Secondly, Christ prayed only for those who either did or should believe in him; and for whom he prayed for them only he sanctified himselfe. [cut cut cut cut]

David: well all thats well and good. But now,

From another work: he said all this [copy paste and print and read CAREFULLY]:

1) And In the stating of this thesis we have a miserable confusion, as if these men delighted to fish in troubled waters. For when we say Christ dyed for us, our meaning is that Christ dyed for our good, and a benefite redoundes unto us by the deathe of Christ, now, it may be, there are diverse benefites redounding unto us by the deathe of Christ, and they of so different nature, that, in respect of some, wee spare not to professe, that Christ dyed for all, and in respect of others, the Arminians themselves are so farre from granting that he dyed to obteyn any such benefite for all, as that they utterly deny them to be any benefites at redounding to any by the deathe of Christ. Though we willingly acknowledge them to be benefites redounding to us by the death of Christ, albeit not redounding unto all, but only God's elect. Now if this be true, is it not a proper course which this author takes in confounding things so extreamely different? And that it is so as I have sayde, I now proceede to shewe in this manner. We say, that pardon of sinne and salvation of soules are benefites purchased by the deathe of Christ, to be enjoyed by men, but how? not absolutely, but conditionally, to witt, in case they believe, and only in case they believe. For like as God doth not conferre these on any of ripe yeares vnles they believe, so Christ hath not merited that they should be conferred on any but such as believe. And accordingly professe that Christ dyed for all, that is, to obteyne pardon of sinne and salvation of soule for all, but how? not absolutely whether they believe or no, but only conditionally, to witt provided they doe believe in Christ. So that we willingly professe, that Christ had both a full intention of his owne, and commandment of his Father to make a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, so farre as therby to procure both pardon of sinne and salvation of soule to all that doe believe, and to none other being of ripe yeares, according to that Rom. 3:24. we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. v. 25. Whome God hath sett forth to be a propitiation (or reconciliation) through faith in his blood. But we further say, that there are other benefites redounding to us by the death of Christ, to witt, the grace of faith and of repentance. For like as these are the gifts of God wrought in us by his holy Spirit, so they are wrought in us for Christ his sake, according to that of the Apostle, praying for the Hebrewes, namely that God will make them perfect to every good worke, working in them that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ. Now, as touching these benefites, we willingly professe, that Christ dyed not for all, that is, he dyed not to obtaine the grace of faith and repentance for all, but only for God's elect; In as much as these graces are bestowed by God, not conditionally, least so grace should be given according to mens workes, but absolutely, And if Christ dyed to obteyne these for all absolutely, it would follow herhence that all should believe and repent and consequently all shoulde be saved William Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles Preface, pp. 15-17 

2) Now for the cleering of the truth of this, when we say Christ dyed for us, the meaning is, that Christ dyed for our benefite. Now these benefites which Christ procured unto us by his death, it may be they are of different conditions, wherof some are ordeyned to be conferred only conditionally, and some absolutely. And therefore it is fit we should consider them apart. As for example it is without question (I suppose) that Christ dyed, to procure pardon of sinne, and salvation of soule, but how? absolutely, whether men believe or no? Nothing lesse, but only conditionally, to witt, that for Christs sake their sinnes shall be pardoned and their soules saved, provided they do believe in him. 

Now I willingly confesse that Christ dyed for all in respect of procuring these benefits, to witt conditionally, upon the condition of their faith, in such sort that if all and every one should believe in Christ, all and every one should obteyne the pardon of their sinnes, and salvation of their soules for Christs sake William Twisse The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles 3.1, pp. 143-144. 

3) For as touching the benefite of pardon of sinne, and salvation procured by Christs death, we say that Christ dyed to procure these for all, and every one, but how? Not absolutely; for then all and every one should be saved; but conditionally, to witt, upon condition of faith; so that if all and every one should believe in Christ, all and every one shoulde be saved. [?] 

And if it appeare that but a small number believe and persevere in true faith, it is manifest in the issue, that but fewe are saved, and that albeit Christ dyed to save all and every one conditionally, yet he died to merit faith for a very fewe. Nowe what is become of this Authors riddle, and the pretended contradiction betweene these two propositions? William Twisse The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles 3.2, p. 152. 

4) The truth is, we deny that Christ dyed for all, in as much as he dyed not to procure the grace of faith and regeneration for all, but only for Gods elect; and consequently neyther shall any but Gods elect have any such interest in Christs death, as to obteyne therby pardon of sinne and salvation, for Arminians themselves confesse, that this is the portion only of believers. But seing pardon of sinne and salvation are benefites merited by Christ, not to be conferred absolutely but conditionally, to witt, upon condition of faith; we may be bold to say, that Christ in some sense dyed for all and every one, that is, he dyed to procure remission of sinnes, and salvation unto all and everyone in case they believe; and as this is true, so way we well say, and the Councell of Dort might well say; that every one who heares the Gospel is bound to believe that Christ dyed for him in this sense, namely, to obtayne salvation for him in case he believe. William Twisse The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles 3.3, p. 165. 

So summary:

1) Twisse did say Christ died for all IN CASE THEY DO BELIEVE. I was totally spot on. 

2) Twisse can say this because he did hold that in some sense Christ died for all conditionally.

3) Therefore he can say that from the Gospel, even the Reprobate were expected to believe that Christ died for me.

4) That last claim was eventually completely dropped from Protestant Scholastic theology as assurance or knowledge that Christ died for me can only be known as on the basis of a reflex act of faith.

5) Twisse therefore was clearly transitional here. He represents a movement away from the early theology, to the more Owenic type.

So where do we stand now? And finally Mods wont you do something about Gerety?

At every turn Ive actually had to correct Matthew's use of the primary sources. At no turn has he refuted my alleged 'twistings.' 

All this bandwidth to what profit? So far I dont even have confidence that Matthew is reading the citations Ive supplied.

David


[Edited on 8-23-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2006)

David,

I did not say talking to you was a waste of time; although if you are going to become defensive I can see it will capitulate to that. There are no knives here. I said interacting with your arguments is a waste of time, because your arguments are proving the wrong thing. Hence I didn't give you the long rebuttal you thought you obviously deserved.

I will engage primary sources when the relevant material is brought to the forum. To date Musculus is the only one which even hints at your hypothesis, and even he is too far left field to prove what you aim at, because he claims Christ died for all men pure and simple. Surely you don't believe that was the earlier reformed tradition!

Concerning John Owen, if you carefully read the words you cite, it might prove to be something of an eye-opener for you. Quote: "it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and everyone, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom. Death of Death, p., 184." Also to be found in Works, 10:296.

Now listen very carefully to what Owen is saying. There is in the death of Christ a sufficiency for all men, only not as a ransom. Why? "For its being a price for all or some doth not arise from its own sufficiency, worth, or dignity, but from the intention of God and Christ using it to that purpose." On this basis Owen "therefore" denies it is not a ransom for all. Which is exactly what Calvin before him denied also, and on the very same basis.

If we examine the subject closely, how can we not arrive at the same conclusion. To be a ransom Christ has to substitute Himself in the place of particular individuals, and satisfy divine justice on their behalf. This cannot be done for all men, else all men would be saved.

Now you say: "I cant make you read even Owen´s confession that some early Protestant divines held to this other construction, but they are wrong."

This is a misquoting of Owen, if you are referring to his statement in the context of what you cited above. He only said "divers Protestant divines." Nothing about *earlier* divines. And it is clear from church history that Amyraldians were regarded as Protestant divines.

You write: "You can think all that, but its still clear that the early Reformed thinkers held that Christ´s death is sufficient for all sinners."

Of course, as has been shown from Cunningham, later Reformed thinkers held the same thing. Which leaves you without a feasible dichotomy whereby to prove your hypothesis. Hence you could quote, not 100, but 1000 citations, and they would all be saying the same thing, but they would not be proving David Ponter's hypothesis.

Please note your quotation of the Heidelberg Catechism. What does it establish? Nothing more than Owen himself later acknowledged. Christ suffered the wrath of God due to sinners of mankind. Who doubts that? That is what Christ *suffered* intrinsically. Now, what does the Catechism say as to the purpose of this suffering, as indicated by the purpose clause beginning with "that so?" For whose benefit did He suffer? "That so ... he might redeem our body and soul." That is the extrinsic purpose, and it is limited in the persons for whom it is intended.

Concerning Calvin, you concede the point: "Sure, who here is claiming that Calvin imagined that the saving virtue of the death of Christ, its _benefits_, _extend_ to the reprobate."

When we say that Christ died *for* someone, we are claiming that He died so as to secure certain benefits in their place and for their good. And here you admit that Calvin never imagined any benefits in the death of Christ extending to the reprobate. There is nothing more to discuss. Any "unlimited" statement concerning the extent of the atonement cannot be twisted to teach that there is any benefit for all men in the death of Christ. This is everything Owen later contended for.

But, as expected, Calvin will not be permitted to set the boundaries of his own thought, and you contend: "It does not do justice to Calvin´s many statements that Christ suffered and/or bore the sins of the whole world/whole human race."

At which point, if Calvin is not permitted to say in what manner his words should be understood, it is a waste of time discussing it. Ditto for this so-called earlier reformed tradition.


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2006)

> David: As an aside, I cant even begin to imagine how a pure Owenist could imagine that from hearing the gospel, even a reprobate was bound to believe that Christ died for him. The only reason Twisse could say this is because of what Ive posted below.



It is not good to depend on your imagination when studying theology, David. Simply deal with what Twisse says, and it will be clear that the lines of Owen thought were earlier drawn by "the very learned Twisse," as Owen calls him.



> From another work: he said all this [copy paste and print and read CAREFULLY]:



The problem of course with your copy and paste method of doing theology is that it falls into the hands of post-modern decontextualisation, and fails to consider what a man has to say in the contours of his own thought. Now if Twisse's distinction, as already provided for you out of Riches of God's Love, were to be acknowledged, it will be clear that all he says about Christ's death being hypothetically for all is within the context of its gospel proclamation. Now you could choose to ignore this vital distinction, but you would only make yourself liable to the same neglect which Twisse charged on his contemporary interlocutor.

Concerning the Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles, pp. 15-17, what does he say? "So that we willingly professe, that Christ had both a full intention of his owne, and commandment of his Father to make a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, so farre as therby to procure both pardon of sinne and salvation of soule to all that doe believe, and to none other being of ripe yeares."

Note the qualifier, "so farre as therby to procure..." This is orthodox reformed theology. In suffering what all men's sins deserved, Christ procured salvation to all those that do believe. This salvation is offered to all men on condition they will believe, but it is procured only to those who do believe. Moreover, he goes on to say that Christ procured this faith only for the elect. Hence Christ dies to procure salvation only for the elect.

As for what follows, it is the language of polemics, David. As you read it in the context of what the opponent taught, you see that the polemicist is going out to meet his opponent's argument, and by degrees leads the reader back to the gates of orthodoxy.

Concerning your quotation on pp. 143-144, what does Twisse qualify first? He uses the same argument as that whih was provided from Riches of God's Love:



> But, first let me touch, by the way, one argument for the mayntenance of our doctrine in the generall. It is apparant Ioh. 17. that Christ professeth he prayed not for all, but only for those whom God had given him v. 9. or shoulde herafter believe, that is, be given unto him v. 20. And it is as cleere that like as for them alone he prayed, so for them alone he sanctified himselfe vers. 19. Now what is it to sanctifie himselfe, but to offer up himselfe upon the crosse, by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers whom Maldonate had read, as himselfe professeth on that place of Iohn.



What he proceeds to state, by way of argument, must be understood from this clarifying position. And what does he state? It amounts to this. Christ died for all on condition they will believe; Christ's death procured the condition, namely, faith, and that only for the elect. Hence Christ died only for the elect. Now the conditional offer of Christ is that which is given in the gospel. The unconditional sacrifice of Christ is that which took place in Christ's death, as Twisse's own distinction has made clear.

That which you quote from page (?), which is page 152, as the head of the page clearly indicates, is to be understood in the same light. To understand it any other way is to propound what Twisse calls "this author's riddle," which was the positing of a contradiction between Christ dying for all and for some. So that when we come to the portion quoted from page 152, it is clear that Twisse is saying, that to die upon a condition of faith, and to procure the condition of faith for only a few, is to die only for those few for whom faith has been procured. In other words, "to die for all upon condition," is merely to die for them hypothetically, not actually. Hence there is no contradiction, or riddle.

And all this is summarised so effectively in your last quotation, that I am at a loss to know why you quoted it, since it proves the exact opposite of what you intended. On page 165, he writes:



> "The truth is, we deny that Christ dyed for all, in as much as he dyed not to procure the grace of faith and regeneration for all, but only for Gods elect; and consequently neyther shall any but Gods elect have any such interest in Christs death, as to obteyne therby pardon of sinne and salvation



And this proves that Twisse never held the doctrine that Christ died sufficiently for all; quite clearly he only held to a hypothetical death of Christ for all as proclaimed in the gospel, i.e., on condition that they believe.

Now let us come to your summary, and see with what boldness you bury your Ponterifications.



> 1) Twisse did say Christ died for all IN CASE THEY DO BELIEVE. I was totally spot on.



But then he qualified that this condition is propounded in the gospel, which qualification you ignored, and consequently only succeeded in hitting the spot of your own imagination.



> 2) Twisse can say this because he did hold that in some sense Christ died for all conditionally.



In which context he maintains that the condition was also procured by Christ for the elect. Hence Christ only died in actual fact for the elect.



> 3) Therefore he can say that from the Gospel, even the Reprobate were expected to believe that Christ died for me.



This is blatantly false. This is the point Twisse's interlocutor was making. Twisse makes a different point:



> Surely the doctrine of Dort, teacheth not that God would have a man first believe that which is false, when he commandeth every one to believe that Christ dyed for him; like enough it is false in the judgment of the Synod that Christ dyed for every one: but where doe they say, or acknowledge that God commandeth every one to believe that Christ dyed for him? Can he shewe this, if he can, why doth he not; but he came only upon the Stage to play some gamboles, which done, his discourse is at an ende. They maynteyne, like enough, that not all and every one, but all and every one that heares the Gospell, is bounde to believe in Christ, but it is incredible unto me that they should professe that every one is bound to believe that Christ dyed for him. (Pp. 164-165.)



Note that these are the exact same pages that you made your last quotation from. Hence your misrepresenting of Twisse is inexcusable.



> 4) That last claim was eventually completely dropped from Protestant Scholastic theology as assurance or knowledge that Christ died for me can only be known as on the basis of a reflex act of faith.



Which is what Twisse himself claims. Only upon believing in Christ can one be assured that Christ actually died for them: "But looke what evidence we have of a mans faith, in the judgment of charitie, the same evidence we have of his election in the judgment of charitie. For the Apostle doth clearly conclude the election of the Thessalonians, by his observation of their faith, &c. 1 Thes. 1.1, 3.4, and 2. Thes. 2.13."

He calls his interlocutor a comedian (p. 159) for making the very point you believe you have derived from Twisse.



> 5) Twisse therefore was clearly transitional here. He represents a movement away from the early theology, to the more Owenic type.



Quite clearly Twisse was nothing of the sort; unless your imagination counts for something, David. When you are ready to discuss the *reality* of reformed theology, I am sure we could engage in more profitable discourse.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 24, 2006)

G'day Matthew,

David: Actually I was not getting defensive. I only see that in you. Nor was I offended as per Gerety's claim. But telling your dialogical partner that interacting with the evidence he cared enough to present is "œa waste of time" does not bode well. Try doing it with a serious face to someone in real life, and see what it communicates. Its far better to say, one does not have the and/or interest.

David,

Matthew:
I did not say talking to you was a waste of time; although if you are going to become defensive I can see it will capitulate to that. There are no knives here. I said interacting with your arguments is a waste of time, because your arguments are proving the wrong thing. Hence I didn't give you the long rebuttal you thought you obviously deserved.

David: Okay, if that makes much difference [doubtful] you neither interacted with any of the citations apart from an assertion regarding Musculus. The infant communion thing is irrelevant here (thats a REAL guilty by association argumentm btw).

Matthew: 
I will engage primary sources when the relevant material is brought to the forum. To date Musculus is the only one which even hints at your hypothesis, and even he is too far left field to prove what you aim at, because he claims Christ died for all men pure and simple. Surely you don't believe that was the earlier reformed tradition!

David: Wow. He invokes the sufficiency principle. And Bullinger? And Dabney? You didnt engage them at all. You have engaged a single Calvin quotation. And as for Ursinus... you offer a clearly false gloss on what was said.

Matthew:
Concerning John Owen, if you carefully read the words you cite, it might prove to be something of an eye-opener for you. Quote: "it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and everyone, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom. Death of Death, p., 184." Also to be found in Works, 10:296.

Matthew: Now listen very carefully to what Owen is saying. There is in the death of Christ a sufficiency for all men, only not as a ransom. Why? "For its being a price for all or some doth not arise from its own sufficiency, worth, or dignity, but from the intention of God and Christ using it to that purpose." On this basis Owen "therefore" denies it is not a ransom for all. Which is exactly what Calvin before him denied also, and on the very same basis.

David: Once again: Owen says as to its internal sufficiency it is sufficient for all. But not as it its external sufficiency. Externally, it could have been, had God so chosen. But as it stands, its not. Its not because its not a ransom for all. But remember that word price, where Owen says its not a price for all.

Matthew:
If we examine the subject closely, how can we not arrive at the same conclusion. To be a ransom Christ has to substitute Himself in the place of particular individuals, and satisfy divine justice on their behalf. This cannot be done for all men, else all men would be saved.

David: Well clearly Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Vermigli and others didnt think that. You are using Owen´s trilemma, which clearly these earlier Reformers didnt buy into. And beside, that is a theological argument which is properly irrelevant to the question at hand, which is: Is the death of Christ sufficient for all the men of this world? Owen said no. Why he said no is beside the point. Others said yes. Why they said yes is also beside the point. The point is: the formula underwent a revision post Calvin. Its not sufficient for all the sins of this would for it was never a price paid for all the sins of this world.

Matthew: Now you say: "I cant make you read even Owen´s confession that some early Protestant divines held to this other construction, but they are wrong."

This is a misquoting of Owen, if you are referring to his statement in the context of what you cited above. He only said "divers Protestant divines." Nothing about *earlier* divines. And it is clear from church history that Amyraldians were regarded as Protestant divines.

David: Oh dear. You will haggle over that? Well he couldnt have meant later. So thats ruled out. He could have meant present. Sure. But he clearly didnt mean to exclude earlier. He also cites the Schoolmen.  And we do know that more earlier devines, rather than present, were stressing sufficient redemption. 

Matthew:
You write: "You can think all that, but its still clear that the early Reformed thinkers held that Christ´s death is sufficient for all sinners."

Of course, as has been shown from Cunningham, later Reformed thinkers held the same thing. Which leaves you without a feasible dichotomy whereby to prove your hypothesis. Hence you could quote, not 100, but 1000 citations, and they would all be saying the same thing, but they would not be proving David Ponter's hypothesis.

David: this is getting surreal. The documentation is clear enough. The original formulation was that Christ died for all sufficiently, paid a sufficient price for all men, but died for the elect efficiently. He actually paid a price for all the men of this world. But that was later revised and denied. The sufficiency for all the men of this world is merely abstracted and hypothetical.

Matthew:
Please note your quotation of the Heidelberg Catechism. What does it establish? Nothing more than Owen himself later acknowledged. Christ suffered the wrath of God due to sinners of mankind. Who doubts that? That is what Christ *suffered* intrinsically. Now, what does the Catechism say as to the purpose of this suffering, as indicated by the purpose clause beginning with "that so?" For whose benefit did He suffer? "That so ... he might redeem our body and soul." That is the extrinsic purpose, and it is limited in the persons for whom it is intended.


David: Oh wow Look at what you do to his wording. 'He died, he suffered the wrath "˜due to sinners´,' youve made it an abstraction. He suffered the kind wrath due to a sinner. But thats not what he says: he suffered the wrath due to all sinners. And in doing this, he MERITED life for all. He goes on to say Christ died for all in one sense, but for the elect in another. He says Christ died for all in a two-fold manner.

Paraeus: 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 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: Matthew, your reading of Paraeus and Ursinus is just not honest. They adopted the very version of the formula adopted by the scholastics. The man even cites Lombard and Aquinas. He adopts the very position Owen says was wrong. They assert that Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind, the whole human race, not merely that he suffered for sin in some abstracted way.

Matthew: Concerning Calvin, you concede the point: "Sure, who here is claiming that Calvin imagined that the saving virtue of the death of Christ, its _benefits_, _extend_ to the reprobate."

When we say that Christ died *for* someone, we are claiming that He died so as to secure certain benefits in their place and for their good. And here you admit that Calvin never imagined any benefits in the death of Christ extending to the reprobate. There is nothing more to discuss. 

David: Well once again you have misquoted me. I didnt say that. I said this:

"œSure, who here is claiming that Calvin imagined that the saving virtue of the death of Christ, its _benefits_, _extend_ to the reprobate. And we know that he denied that the Lord ordained the salvation of all men. By will secret, the death of Christ is intended only for the elect."

I said saving virtue. I said ordained. Right? And I located that in the secret will with regard to Calvin.

In no way does that deny any other form of expression in Calvin.

Matthew: Any "unlimited" statement concerning the extent of the atonement cannot be twisted to teach that there is any benefit for all men in the death of Christ. This is everything Owen later contended for.

David: What does that mean? Is that how you treat Calvin? Calvin says the benefits are not ordained to be extended to the reprobate. We all agree. But he does say that the expiation was for all the sins of all mankind, that he suffered for all mankind. He even goes on to say that certain men for whom Christ paid the price and redeemed, are not finally saved, but you just assert all that means nothing.

David: I know I could present 1000 quotations from Calvin and as youve admitted, it would not prove anything to do.

Matthew: 
But, as expected, Calvin will not be permitted to set the boundaries of his own thought, and you contend: "It does not do justice to Calvin´s many statements that Christ suffered and/or bore the sins of the whole world/whole human race."
At which point, if Calvin is not permitted to say in what manner his words should be understood, it is a waste of time discussing it. Ditto for this so-called earlier reformed tradition.

David. Sure. I didnt expect you to just drop the your current understanding and just go "œoh yes, I was wrong... they did have a different formula, they did think that." Denial is the always the first response to the documentary evidence. Maybe later you will pick some of this up again and examine it a little more objectively.

I know youve just admitted that a 1000 citations from these guys wouldnt be enough to change your mind, wont proving anything.

But here is my method.

I know that if I cited Calvin where he says Christ either 

1) Died for the sins of, or was appointed to redeem, or redeemed: the whole world/whole human race/all mankind.

You will just put a spin on it that he didnt mean really the whole human race, all mankind, etc. I know that as a given. 

So in response to that apriori denial, what I´ve tried to do is find particulars: individual examples where he says given people have been redeemed, or for whom Christ died and paid a redemptive price, but yet who fail to be saved. From these particulars. Moving inductively from these to his universal statements, demonstrating that in the light of these particular examples of voided redemption etc, when he said Christ died for all the sins of the world he meant it.

The other strategy is to look for like statements in his contempories, and if these can be identified as NOT holding to an Owenic version, if they use the exact same phrases as found in Calvin, it´s a strong case that Calvin likewise held to the same thology. After all,where O where will you EVER find in Owen or Turretin the phrase that Christ 
died for ALL the sins of the world. 

So along with the other examples I´ve supplied, lets point out that Calvin clearly held that Christ paid a redemptive price for some men who fail to obtain final salvation.

Calvin: Must we leave the poor church of God in the power of wolves and robbers? Must all the flock be scattered, the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ trampled under foot, and souls which he redeemed at so costly a price go to destruction, and all order be set aside, and must we still be silent and shut our eyes... Moreover let us mark that also that which is added, "œThat they subvert whole houses." If one man only were misled by them, it would be too much: for mens souls ought to be precious to us seeing that our Lord Jesus Christ has esteemed so high of them, as not to spare his own life, for our salvation and redemption." Calvin, Sermons on Titus, Sermon 7, 1:10-13, p., 1103. 

For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27

And one good example from his Commentaries:

Hence it ought to be observed, that whenever the Church is afflicted, the example of the Prophet ought to move us to be touched (sumpatheia) with compassion, if we are not harder than iron; for we are altogether unworthy of being reckoned in the number of the children of God, and added to the holy Church, if we do not dedicate ourselves, and all that we have, to the Church, in such a manner that we are not separate from it in any respect. Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief. And especially the ministers of the word ought to be moved by this feeling of grief, because, being appointed to keep watch and to look at a distance, they ought also to groan when they perceive the tokens of approaching ruin. Calvin, Isaiah 22:4.

Now, I am fully convinced that its only dishonesty that motivates a man, upon reading these quotations, who then turns them on their heads, trying to assert he never meant what he said, he really meant this that and the other thing, but never what he actually said.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 24, 2006)

Matthew:

It is not good to depend on your imagination when studying theology, David. Simply deal with what Twisse says, and it will be clear that the lines of Owen thought were earlier drawn by "the very learned Twisse," as Owen calls him.

David: Well I actually don´t care a brazz razoo for Twisse. All my point was that I was right: He did say Christ died for all in case they believe, contra Gerety and contra your "œlets set the record straight" post.

Thats all I needed to do. That language "œChrist died for all in case they do believe" was clearly dropped later. And its clearly not language one finds in early Reformation thought. Thus I conclude, and rightly, that it reflects a transitional expresion and theology.

Twisse:
Concerning the Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles, pp. 15-17, what does he say? "So that we willingly professe, that Christ had both a full intention of his owne, and commandment of his Father to make a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, so farre as therby to procure both pardon of sinne and salvation of soule to all that doe believe, and to none other being of ripe yeares."

David: And I know that Twisse says world there means elect. Sure. But nonetheless, he did say Christ died for all in case they do believe. Thats all I need and needed.

Matthew citing and working from Twisse:
Note the qualifier, "so farre as therby to procure..." This is orthodox reformed theology. In suffering what all men's sins deserved, Christ procured salvation to all those that do believe. This salvation is offered to all men on condition they will believe, but it is procured only to those who do believe. Moreover, he goes on to say that Christ procured this faith only for the elect. Hence Christ dies to procure salvation only for the elect.

David says: Fine. Like I said, I actually don´t care about Twisse overall. I don´t like reading him or his theology overall. But nonetheless he did say Christ died for all in case they do believe, and thats all I said in my opening comment about him: Christ died for all in case they do believe.

Cut cut

Matthew: Concerning your quotation on pp. 143-144, what does Twisse qualify first? He uses the same argument as that whih was provided from Riches of God's Love:

David: Nonetheless he did say Christ died for all in case they do believe, and he clearly has a component of Christ dying for all conditionally.

Cut
Matthew:
What he proceeds to state, by way of argument, must be understood from this clarifying position. And what does he state? It amounts to this. Christ died for all on condition they will believe; Christ's death procured the condition, namely, faith, and that only for the elect. Hence Christ died only for the elect. Now the conditional offer of Christ is that which is given in the gospel. The unconditional sacrifice of Christ is that which took place in Christ's death, as Twisse's own distinction has made clear.

David. Nonetheless he did say Christ died for all in case they do believe. That was only what I said and intended to say.

Matthew: That which you quote from page (?), which is page 152, as the head of the page clearly indicates, is to be understood in the same light. To understand it any other way is to propound what Twisse calls "this author's riddle," which was the positing of a contradiction between Christ dying for all and for some. So that when we come to the portion quoted from page 152, it is clear that Twisse is saying, that to die upon a condition of faith, and to procure the condition of faith for only a few, is to die only for those few for whom faith has been procured. In other words, "to die for all upon condition," is merely to die for them hypothetically, not actually. Hence there is no contradiction, or riddle.

David: Fine. I have no problem with any of that. But still I was right, he said Christ died for all in case they do believe.

Matthew: And all this is summarised so effectively in your last quotation, that I am at a loss to know why you quoted it, since it proves the exact opposite of what you intended.

I only intended to prove that he did say in fact:

We say, that pardon of sinne and salvation of soules are benefites purchased by the deathe of Christ, to be enjoyed by men, but how? not absolutely, but conditionally, to witt, in case they believe, and only in case they believe. I find he says that at least 5 times in the citations I provided.

Matthew:

Now let us come to your summary, and see with what boldness you bury your Ponterifications.

David: oh thats sooo funny. 

Rest cut.

Matthew, I wish you could have put as much effort into reading Bullinger, Calvin, Dabney and Ursinus. 

So one last time. I said, something to this effect: Twisse has his own twist on this, when he says Christ died for all in case they do believe.

Weve set the record straight. I reproduced accurately what he said.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 24, 2006)

I am sure though that the implication of Twisse's claim that Christ did die for all conditionally and hypothetically would suddenly be objectionable when one realises that this presupposes an eternal decree to have Christ die for all men conditionally.

Now where have we heard that before?

And I am sure Turretin would rightly roll over and deny that God could decree that Christ died for all upon conditions which he has determined that the reprobate cant meet, etc etc etc etc.

Having fun,
David


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2006)

Hello again David,

I see you have not advanced the discussion one inch, but still carry on with the same business about a sufficiency for all men, which has been the reformed position all along.

You claim that my statement about Musculus holding to infant communion is a guilt by association argument. This is a disussion about historical theology. You are claiming Musculus is representative of an earlier reformed tradition. I doubt it. Hence I quote his aberrant view about the atonement and infant communion. The only purpose of the statement was to show that he is not representative of the tradition, however formative he may have been in the development of scholastic Protestant theology.

What is next? We have this claim as to why I should waste more time on your primary sources: "Wow. He invokes the sufficiency principle. And Bullinger? And Dabney? You didnt engage them at all. You have engaged a single Calvin quotation. And as for Ursinus... you offer a clearly false gloss on what was said."

"The sufficiency principle?" Read the earlier posts in this thread. Read the multiple statements that have been pointed out to you. All reformed theologians hold "the sufficiency principle." So, in effect, you want me to waste my time interacting with primary sources that prove a point the reformed world already accepts. You are the one arguing a dichotomy, David. The burden is on you to show that this earlier tradition held a DIFFERENT sufficiency principle than the later tradition. Something your primary sources do not do. As for the Calvin quotation, I have already shown the contours of his thought, within which his pre-Dordt statements should be understood.

Then we have some more complaints about Owen holding to internal sufficiency but not external sufficiency. And what is the problem? It is the word "price." You write: "But remember that word price, where Owen says its not a price for all." Exactly. How could it be a price for all? If it were a price for all, then all would be saved.

But poor Owen, within a paragraph you have him denying the very point you just conceded that he made. You write: "Is the death of Christ sufficient for all the men of this world? Owen said no." But above you claimed he said yes.

Concerning Owen's quotation pertaining to divers Protestant divines, you are not interested in quibbling over the word "earlier," but the fact is you are trying to make Owen speak to your hypothesis that there was an "earlier" reformed tradition from which later reformed theologians departed. The fact that he does not say "earlier," means he could have in mind "contemporary" Protestant theologians, one of which he was writing his famous book against. This effectively shows that your quotation of Owen does not support this "earlier" reformed tradition which Owen is supposed have recognised and which "later" theology is supposed to have deviated from.

Now, as you reflect on the Cunningham quotation, it becomes apparent that you do not understand the sufficient/efficient language of reformed orthodoxy, earlier or later. Please tell me how something that is "actually paid" as a "price for all the men of this world" is not efficient, but merely sufficient? How doesn't it save all men, but merely make them savable?

Hastening to the Heidelberg Catechism -- you claim I twist the wording to make it say "He suffered the kind [of] wrath due to a sinner." No, I said "to sinners of mankind." To which you respond: "But thats not what he says: he suffered the wrath due to all sinners." And the difference between "sinners of mankind" and "all sinners" is what exactly? Your comprehension skills aren't working very well, David.

All acknowledge the fact that Christ suffered the wrath of God due to all men. That is where the language of the sufficiency of the death of Christ emerges from. Hence it follows that if God had have chosen to save the whole world, Christ would not have needed to suffer any more. Read Owen; read Cunningham. They all accept this point. So you have only succeeded in wasting precious time by requiring me to deal with a primary source which states nothing more than the later reformed tradition acknowledges.

Where the reformed tradition distinguishes itself is in the fact that it makes the atonement of Christ "definite," thereby necessitating that it be regarded as "limited" in the persons for whom it is intended. Christ did not merely suffer the wrath of God due to sinners of mankind, but He substituted Himself in the place of a certain number of people, and satisfied divine justice on their behalf, thus procuring for them forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. This he did not do on behalf of all men, which both the earlier and later reformed theologians testify of.

I think I have given you more than enough opportunity to prove your hypothesis from the primary sources you have quoted. The only quote I can find which shows another tradition is the following:



> "Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, dies for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer."



I think this is what you are trying to prove, David. But the fact is that this is the second article of the five Arminian articles of 1610.


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2006)

On the poor fate of Mr. Twisse in the hands of David Ponter.



> David: Well I actually don´t care a brazz razoo for Twisse. All my point was that I was right: He did say Christ died for all in case they believe, contra Gerety and contra your "œlets set the record straight" post.



But to do something on condition does not imply that the person does it. Yet you would have Twisse teaching that Christ died for all conditionally, not paying proper respect to the wording he employs in response to the comedian he was answering. Hence you misrepresented Twisse, as you have done with the reformed tradition in general.

The reason why I paid more attention to Twisse is due to the fact that I have typed this book out and proofed it, and hence know it inside out. By showing your faulty scholarship on Twisse, it becomes clear with what dubiety your treatment of other reformed divines should be received.

As for your statement that Twisse affirmed an Amyraldian conditional decree, click your heels three times.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Aug 24, 2006)

if( $calvin['0'] == "died for world" && $calvin['1'] == "some for whom Christ died perish" ) {
$calvin_believed = "Christ died for each and every man."
}

If (Calvin said Christ died for the world) & (Calvin said that we ought to be grieved that some for whom Christ died are even now perishing),
Then, didn't Calvin actually mean (Christ died for each individually, actually)? Why grieve if they're merely hypothetically blood-bought? They didn't actually mean enough to Christ to die for, so why feel anything extra for them on account of Christ?

Calvin said: *Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief.*

Unless it can be shown that he here intends a temporal perishing, then isn't the point proven? That is, that some of those for whom Christ suffered perish, which means they're not elect, which means Christ died for the reprobate? To take one step further, I believe a key word is *provisionally*. It seems to come up in such discussions.

If you can get my drift, I think that's an important part you haven't covered yet, brother. Matthew. I've seen this point brought up and I'd be interested in seeing how you interpret it.


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> If you can get my drift, I think that's an important part you haven't covered yet, brother. Matthew. I've seen this point brought up and I'd be interested in seeing how you interpret it.



This has already been dealt with above. If Calvin is permitted to set the boundaries of his own thought, within which his statements are to be interpreted, he says quite clearly in "the eternal predestination of God," 94, 95:

"Hereupon follows also a third important fact, that the virtue and benefits of Christ are extended unto, and belong to, none but the children of God." "That the Gospel is, in its nature, able to save all I by no means deny. But the great question lies here: Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men?"

Hence, what Christ actually accomplished on the cross does not belong to any but the children of God, in virtue of the eternal counsel of the Lord. Where he speaks unlimited language, he is clearly referring to the death of Christ as conditionally held out in the gospel and/or what men profess to believe as a result of the gospel.

It IS that simple. We cannot impute Arminian categories to Calvin's language because the debate had not emerged as yet. Calvin held to an inscrutable decree that ordained all things. There is no post-Calvin Amyraldian conditional decree in Calvin's writings, albeit David Ponter will do his utmost to find one there.

I hope that clarifies.


----------



## puritan reformed (Aug 25, 2006)




----------



## puritan reformed (Aug 25, 2006)

:bigsmile:


----------



## py3ak (Aug 25, 2006)

Mr. Winzer;

Your explanations on this thread have been generally convincing to me. I have also enjoyed the fact that you demonstrate a considerable command of brevity and lucidity in your use of language. There is one Calvin quote Mr. Ponter supplied though, which seems like it might stretch the categories you mentioned above.


> For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27


How does this fit in the paradigm?


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> 
> 
> > For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27
> ...



Mr Zartman,

The problem with this cut and paste methodology which Mr. Ponter employs is the disadvantage his reader is placed in, not having the proper context of his authority's statement. Now, from what is quoted above, we might be ready to conclude that the "mean" that God had ordained is the death of Christ, yes? But the sentence prior to the beginning of the quotation reads: "Now the mean whereby we be made partakers of our Lord Jesus Christ, is our embracing of the promises of the Gospel by true faith."

I think Calvin's statement is properly understood when it is perceived that the gospel proclaims the death of Christ as the means whereby sinners are saved; and those who do not believe are damned, not because there is any lack in the death of Christ, but because they do not believe to the saving of their souls, and thus tread under foot the blood of Christ which is offered in the gospel as the means of their salvation.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 25, 2006)

Mr. Winzer (by the way, I am still juvenile enough that Mr. Zartman seems directed at someone else), thanks for the explanation. I believe I see your point.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2006)

Consider also this thought of Calvin, immediately after the quoted portion:



> Therefore it standeth us on hand to receive the promises of the Gospel by faith, if we desire that Jesus Christ should communicate himself unto us, and that he should bring us to the possession and enjoyment of the benefits which he hath purchased for us: *so as they belong not to any other than such as are members of his body*, and are grafted into him, and receive him by faith, according as it is said in the first Chapter of Saint John, (John 1:12) that God accepteth and avoucheth those for his children, which believe in his only son.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2006)

We should consider also what Calvin has stated a few pages preceding the quotation:



> Furthermore, let us mark also the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that seeing he hath given himself after that sort for our sins, *he will not suffer his death and passion to be unprofitable, nor the sacrifice which he hath once offered, to be void and of none effect, without bringing forth fruit in us*. But as he hath offered himself once for all: so also will he be our continual Mediator and Advocate, to the end we may be partakers of the cleanness which he hath purchased for us, that being rid of all our foulness we may appear [clean] before God, and speak unto him with open mouth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2006)

Great posts Rev. Winzer. I agree with Ruben. Your position is most convincing and very well articulated in the context of the quotations cited.


----------



## Magma2 (Aug 25, 2006)

> If (Calvin said Christ died for the world) & (Calvin said that we ought to be grieved that some for whom Christ died are even now perishing),
> Then, didn't Calvin actually mean (Christ died for each individually, actually)? Why grieve if they're merely hypothetically blood-bought? They didn't actually mean enough to Christ to die for, so why feel anything extra for them on account of Christ?
> 
> Calvin said: *Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief.*
> ...



Just FYI and even though Rev. Winzer's reply and refutation of David needs no addition, I thought it might be helpful to look again at the wider context from where that citation was pulled (even in isolation I failed to see how this made David´s case). Calvin is not commenting on the plight of the perishing reprobate at all, but rather the church for whom Christ actually died. While the vast majority of us have never, and probably will never, experience any real persecution on account of our faith "“ at least no one I know has ever been put to death for professing the Gospel or even reading the Scriptures "“ such was obviously not the case in Calvin´s day or in some parts of the world today. Which, at least in my mind, renders David´s abuse of Calvin on this point even more perverse and unconscionable:



> Because of the spoiling of the daughter of my people. That he expresses the feelings of his own heart may be inferred from what he now declares, that he is bitterly grieved "œon account of the daughter of his people." Being one of the family of Abraham, he thought that this distress affected his own condition, and intimates that he has good grounds for lamentation. By a customary mode of expression he calls the assembly of his people a daughter. *Hence it ought to be observed, that whenever the Church is afflicted,* the example of the Prophet ought to move us to be touched with compassion, if we are not harder than iron; *for we are altogether unworthy of being reckoned in the number of the children of God, and added to the holy Church, if we do not dedicate ourselves, and all that we have, to the Church, in such a manner that we are not separate from it in any respect. Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, *we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief. And especially the ministers of the word ought to be moved by this feeling of grief, because, being appointed to keep watch and to look at a distance, they ought also to groan when they perceive the tokens of approaching ruin.



[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 25, 2006)

G´day Matthew,

This is going to be long. Ill break it down into 4 sections.

A few posts to catch up on. Ill skip the theology as thats not the question, but the history and the interpretation of Calvin. Ill skip the Arminian side-bar too.

First Matthew Post:

Matthew: 
You claim that my statement about Musculus holding to infant communion is a guilt by association argument. This is a disussion about historical theology. You are claiming Musculus is representative of an earlier reformed tradition. I doubt it. Hence I quote his aberrant view about the atonement and infant communion. The only purpose of the statement was to show that he is not representative of the tradition, however formative he may have been in the development of scholastic Protestant theology.

David: Well one should tell Richard Muller that his position was aberrant. I am sure he would be pleased with that. Given that his views line up with Both Bullinger and Zwingli it´s a strong claim to say his ideas on this were a aberrant. In the end, just to dismiss him, and others as the case may or may not be, is does not do anything. He was still a Reformer of great respect. He invoked the sufficient-efficient principle and operated from it. I am just not prepared to write him off, either for that or for his infant-communion (which has nothing to do with this). 


Cut cut:

Matthew: 
"The sufficiency principle?" Read the earlier posts in this thread. Read the multiple statements that have been pointed out to you. All reformed theologians hold "the sufficiency principle." So, in effect, you want me to waste my time interacting with primary sources that prove a point the reformed world already accepts. You are the one arguing a dichotomy, David. The burden is on you to show that this earlier tradition held a DIFFERENT sufficiency principle than the later tradition. Something your primary sources do not do. As for the Calvin quotation, I have already shown the contours of his thought, within which his pre-Dordt statements should be understood.

David: Matthew, thats been done. Calvin said Christ suffered for all sufficiently for the elect efficiently. We have the Ursinus and Paraeus affirmation and explication of the Lombard formula. You just want to assert that Calvin used the formula with the same theological intent as Owen et al, but he himself expresses assent to the Schoolmen formula. I´ve shown how Calvin asserts that Christ suffered for all mankind. To then 'say well he didnt mean it the way they did,' is question begging. Folk like AA Hodge have no trouble reconising that Calvin used their form of the expression (The Atonement, pp 333). 

Matthew:
Then we have some more complaints about Owen holding to internal sufficiency but not external sufficiency. And what is the problem? It is the word "price." You write: "But remember that word price, where Owen says its not a price for all." Exactly. How could it be a price for all? If it were a price for all, then all would be saved.

But poor Owen, within a paragraph you have him denying the very point you just conceded that he made. You write: "Is the death of Christ sufficient for all the men of this world? Owen said no." But above you claimed he said yes.

David: I said he says its innately infinitely sufficient. Here Paul Manata´s point is spot on. But as to its external sufficiency, it is not sufficient for all men of this world. I am just repeating myself, and Owen.

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 25, 2006)

Cut cut

Matthew:
Now, as you reflect on the Cunningham quotation, it becomes apparent that you do not understand the sufficient/efficient language of reformed orthodoxy, earlier or later. Please tell me how something that is "actually paid" as a "price for all the men of this world" is not efficient, but merely sufficient? How doesn't it save all men, but merely make them savable?

David: I don´t have to. All I have to show is that for the early Reformed, they did think Christ made an expiation of a sufficient price for all the sin of this world, as a payment. 

All I need to do is point out that they did believe this. Eg. we have Paraeus saying it Christ merited life for them, made a ransom for them, sufficiently. But he goes on to explain that by their unbelief they receive not the benefit of this ransom. 

Matthew: Hastening to the Heidelberg Catechism -- you claim I twist the wording to make it say "He suffered the kind [of] wrath due to a sinner." No, I said "to sinners of mankind." To which you respond: "But thats not what he says: he suffered the wrath due to all sinners." And the difference between "sinners of mankind" and "all sinners" is what exactly? Your comprehension skills aren't working very well, David.

David: insults now? You had said this:

"œPlease note your quotation of the Heidelberg Catechism. What does it establish? Nothing more than Owen himself later acknowledged. Christ suffered the wrath of God due to sinners of mankind." 

David: The actual question says sins of all mankind. And the answer repeats the sins of all mankind. 

The propositions "œsinners of mankind" and "œthe sins of all mankind" are very different. It´s a false gloss to try and convert the latter into the former. Its just not honest, Matthew.

All the clues are right there in the explication: two fold sense of Christ death, the hypothetical objectors question, the concluding comments that Christ willed to die for all men in one sense, and willed to die for the elect in another sense. Thats a two-fold intentionality to accomplish something. 


Matthew: All acknowledge the fact that Christ suffered the wrath of God due to all men. That is where the language of the sufficiency of the death of Christ emerges from. Hence it follows that if God had have chosen to save the whole world, Christ would not have needed to suffer any more. Read Owen; read Cunningham. They all accept this point. So you have only succeeded in wasting precious time by requiring me to deal with a primary source which states nothing more than the later reformed tradition acknowledges.

David: Another gloss. Look at what Ursinus said (not Paraeus this time):

The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him--forthe _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. P 106.

And Paraeus says: some prefer (and not without reason according to my judgment) to interpret those declarations, which in appearance seem to be contradictory, partly of the sufficiency, and partly of the application and efficacy of the death of Christ. They affirm, therefore, that Christ died for all, and that he did not die for all; but in different respects. He _died_ _for_ _all_, as touching the _sufficiency_ of the _ransom_ which he _paid_; and not for all; but only for the elect, or those that believe, as touching the application and efficacy thereof.

David: The atonement IS for the sins of the whole world, as to its sufficiency. And we know that this sufficiency was for all man, as opposed to the efficiency of it for the elect, says Ursinus. Paraeus says died for all by paying a sufficient ransom for all. We know that they both then affirm a sufficient satisfaction for all.

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 25, 2006)

Next Matthew Post: 
Matthew: This has already been dealt with above. If Calvin is permitted to set the boundaries of his own thought, within which his statements are to be interpreted, he says quite clearly in "the eternal predestination of God," 94, 95:

"Hereupon follows also a third important fact, that the virtue and benefits of Christ are extended unto, and belong to, none but the children of God." "That the Gospel is, in its nature, able to save all I by no means deny. But the great question lies here: Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men?"

David: And again the qualifications are there: extended and ordained. We all agree. The words extended, benefits etc are used a lot by Calvin. They serve him, in the same way "œapplication" serves us.

David: Calvin held to the original Lombardian formula. And in so doing, he held that Christ suffered the wrath of God for the whole world, sufficiently. And as I´ve shown, Calvin held that the sins of the whole world were charged or imputed to Christ:

That would not have been consistent, if Christ had simply feared death; for the dread he was not delivered from it. Hence it follows, that what led him to pray to be delivered from death was of a greater evil. When he saw the wrath of God exhibited to him, as he stood at the tribunal of God charged with the sins of the whole world. Calvin, Matt 26:39.

Next post: 
Matthew: The problem with this cut and paste methodology which Mr. Ponter employs is the disadvantage his reader is placed in, not having the proper context of his authority's statement.

David: We can get silly about this cos I guess your cutting and pasting of Calvin from his Eternal Predestination tract is okay? But mine not? 

Matthew continues: Now, from what is quoted above, we might be ready to conclude that the "mean" that God had ordained is the death of Christ, yes? But the sentence prior to the beginning of the quotation reads: "Now the mean whereby we be made partakers of our Lord Jesus Christ, is our embracing of the promises of the Gospel by true faith."

Matthew continues: I think Calvin's statement is properly understood when it is perceived that the gospel proclaims the death of Christ as the means whereby sinners are saved; and those who do not believe are damned, not because there is any lack in the death of Christ, but because they do not believe to the saving of their souls, and thus tread under foot the blood of Christ which is offered in the gospel as the means of their salvation. 

David: But he says they trod underfoot, the blood, which was the ransom for their souls? Youve just asserted another gloss, Matthew. The blood of Christ was the ransom for their souls: not could have been, not should have been, but which _was_ the ransom for their souls. 

The tense and wording here points to what was accomplished. They reject the blood which was a ransom [price] for their souls. Like I said, I cant make a person change his mind. 

Next post from Matthew:

Matthew: 

Therefore it standeth us on hand to receive the promises of the Gospel by faith, if we desire that Jesus Christ should communicate himself unto us, and that he should bring us to the possession and enjoyment of the benefits which he hath purchased for us: so as they belong not to any other than such as are members of his body, and are grafted into him, and receive him by faith, according as it is said in the first Chapter of Saint John, (John 1:12) that God accepteth and avoucheth those for his children, which believe in his only son.

David: Sure, Riches don´t "œbelong" to any but the faithful. We all know that.


[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Aug 25, 2006)

Now lets recap.

I´ve posted a number of quotations from various men. Musculus said that Christ had sufficiently redeemed all men. When it comes to Musculus you are as dismissive of him as I am of Twisse. But I do grant that both were Reformed men, and validly so. I do grant that Twisse had his own conception of double-reference. He had Christ accomplishing a hypothetical universal atonement, side by side with a particularist atonement. Both men represent two different trajectories within Reformed historiography.

I´ve cited an example of Bullinger´s position on the death of Christ, for all the sins of the world. I could cite many more. No academic work that I know of tries to convert Bullinger´s theology into something that mirrors Owen´s.

I´ve Cited Ursinus and Paraeus. Both saying that Christ made a sufficient atonement and satisfaction for all the sins of mankind, as distinct from the efficient intention. They both stress that the application of the atonement expresses its particularity and efficacy. Neither affirms that the expiation itself was limited.

I´ve posted a number of excerpts from Calvin which show that he did embrace the Lombardian formula (not the revised one). And to back up his explanation, I´ve cited examples where he too says Christ suffered for all mankind, that he died to expiate the sins of the whole world. And to further sustain that: I´ve shown examples where he says men who have been redeemed, perish [in perdition].

Here are the ones again:

Since then, this robber was a man disapproved of by all, and God called him so suddenly, when our Lord made effective for him His death and passion which He suffered and endured for all mankind, that ought all the more to confirm us.... But though our Lord Jesus Christ by nature held death in horror and indeed it was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgment-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for He was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble himself to such condemnation for our sakes... Calvin, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 9, Matt 27:45-54, pp., 151, and 155-156.

There is no room to doubt that our Lord discoursed to them about the office of Messiah, as it is described by the Prophets, that they might not take offense at his death; and a journey of three or four hours afforded abundance of time for a full explanation of those matters. Christ did not, therefore, assert in three words, that Christ ought to have suffered, but explained at great length that he had been sent in order that he might expiate, by the sacrifice of his death, the sins of the world,--that he might become a curse in order to remove the curse,--that by having guilt imputed to him he might wash away the pollutions of others. Calvin, Luke 24:26

For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27

And secondly again, thereafter as we see the mischief prevail, let us bring these back unto God which are gone astray, and labor to stop those that lead their neighbors after that fashion to destruction, and seek nothing but to turn all upside down: let such men be repressed, and let every one that hath the zeal of God show himself their deadly enemy, breaking asunder whatsoever may hold us back: and whither there be friendship or kindred between us, or any other or the straightest bonds in the world: let us bury everywhit of it in forgetfulness, when we see the souls that were bought with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, so led to ruin and destruction: or when we see things that were well settled... Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 10, 2:11-14, p., 216-7/155.

Hence it ought to be observed, that whenever the Church is afflicted, the example of the Prophet ought to move us to be touched (sumpatheia) with compassion, if we are not harder than iron; for we are altogether unworthy of being reckoned in the number of the children of God, and added to the holy Church, if we do not dedicate ourselves, and all that we have, to the Church, in such a manner that we are not separate from it in any respect. Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief. And especially the ministers of the word ought to be moved by this feeling of grief, because, being appointed to keep watch and to look at a distance, they ought also to groan when they perceive the tokens of approaching ruin. Calvin, Isaiah 22:4.

He calls the Spirit ANOTHER Comforter, on account of the difference between the blessings which we obtain from both. The peculiar office of Christ was, to appease the wrath of God by atoning for the sins of the world, to redeem men from death, to procure righteousness and life; and the peculiar office of the Spirit is, to make us partakers not only of Christ himself, but of all his blessings. And yet there would be no impropriety in inferring from this passage a distinction of Persons; for there must be some peculiarity in which the Spirit differs from the Son so as to be another than the Son. Calvin Commentary, John 14:16.

I can add stuff where he says souls which go to destruction were purchased by the blood of Christ:

But if I make my neighbour to stumble, not only to the breaking of his arm or of his leg, yea or even of his neck" but also to the destroying of his soul: and what a thing is that? For we see that the stumbling blocks which are case in men's ways, serve to the utter destruction and casting down of the silly souls that were purchased by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore when men procure troubles and stumbling blocks in the Church, do they not cause the things to go to destruction, which God has begin to build up? Therefore let us look to ourselves and seeing that God has such a care of our persons, let every [one] of us follow his example: and if we provide afore hand that no hurt may befall to men's bodies, let us have much greater regard of their souls. Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 126, 22:5-8, p., 777

Then we bethink ourselves, sure either we must needs to be hard-hearted and dull-witted, or else we consider thus, behold a man that is formed after the image of God, he is of the selfsame nature that I am, and again behold a soul that was purchased with the blood of the Son of God if the same perish ought not we be grieved. Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 71, 19:17-25, p., 333 

I can do this over and over again. So here is the problem. I cite 1 or 2, I am chastised to for not showing enough evidence to justify this supposed burden of proof I am under. If I show too many, I will be chastised for cutting and pasting without context. I know I have already given enough citations to show that Calvin was not on the same page as folk like Owen. I don´t have to defend or explain his theology, all I need to do is show it. One can engage in apriori denials, but thats not my problem. I cant make a person admit that something was happening in Calvins theology that was not in Owen´s. I cant make folk admit that probably Calvin reflected the early tradition as exhibited in Musculus and others, wherein the schema of explanation was the dual-intentionality model. Christ paid a sufficient price for all men, but an efficient one for the elect.

So far Matthew I cant take your "œreading" of these men as credible. You are just not willing to admit that they are as wrong on this as you think Musculus was. You can easily cast him aside, but its gotta hurt if you do the same with Bullinger, Ursinus and Calvin: hence the glosses and denials. For myself, I am not willing to cast aside any of these men. Until I see some credible interaction from you with regard to these citations, we need to close this conversation. If you cant deal with these citations I know you wont deal with any more I cite. 

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2006)

David, I believe I have said enough to show the inadequacy of your hypothesis; and a debate has to end somewhere, so I will use this post to summarise my points of contention.

1. At no point do you show what the theological difference is between Owen and the so-called earlier reformed school. Owen maintained the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men. He argued that Christ needed not to suffer any more should God have purposed to save all men; he taught that the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men because of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men; and he insisted that men perish, not because of any lack in the death of Christ, but because of their own unbelief. This is all that can be established from the writings of your so-called earlier reformed tradition. Let the record show that I have given you ample opportunity to explain wherein the hypothesised difference is supposed to exist, but you have repeatedly declined to provide any substantial answer, refusing to enter into the theological implications of your hypothesis.

2. You believe you can make this a matter of bare history. It is not. It is a matter of historical theology, and so you are required to understand the theological milieu of this so-called earlier reformed tradition. You are obliged to accept what this tradition explicitly taught, namely,
(1.) That Christ suffered vicariously, standing as a substitute in the place of a sinful people and satisfying divine justice on their behalf.
(2.) That the benefits of Christ's death are to be traced back to the eternal purpose of God, which was later called the extrinsic merit of the death of Christ.
(3.) That the benefits of Christ's death extend only to the elect; and,
(4.) That Christ's death is not profitless, but brings forth fruit in the persons whom it was intended to save.
This much can be gathered from the writings of the earlier reformed tradition. This is what they meant when they taught that the death of Christ was efficacious for the elect only. Subsequently, any explanation of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men cannot reasonably be construed as contradicting these distinctives.

3. The quotations from this so-called earlier reformed tradition, which speak of Christ dying to procure the salvation of all men, can be understood as teaching an indiscriminate offer of Christ to all men in the gospel, wherein Christ and His saving benefits are said to be given or promised to all men upon condition that they believe. Given that these "unlimited" statements can be understood in this context, and that this provides for a harmonised interpretation of their teaching, this is much to be preferred to your hypothesis, which posits that they blatantly contradicted themselves by maintaining that the death of Christ actually procured benefits for the non-elect which shall never come to fruition.

4. Both the Arminian and Amyraldian controversies emerged after the death of Calvin. Neither the Arminian teaching of an universal redemption nor the Amyraldian compromise of a double reference can be imputed to the writings of Calvin. The fact that some of Calvin's statements seem to hint at these later formulations is only owing to the fact that he taught and wrote before the forms of expression were made a matter of controversy. What is clear is the fact that Calvin never so much as hinted at a distinctive teaching which is common to both Arminianism and Amyraldianism, namely, that Christ "intended" to offer a sacrifice for the purpose of saving all men.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 28, 2006)

G'day Matthew,

Matthew: 1. At no point do you show what the theological difference is between Owen and the so-called earlier reformed school. Owen maintained the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men. He argued that Christ needed not to suffer any more should God have purposed to save all men; he taught that the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men because of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men; and he insisted that men perish, not because of any lack in the death of Christ, but because of their own unbelief. This is all that can be established from the writings of your so-called earlier reformed tradition. Let the record show that I have given you ample opportunity to explain wherein the hypothesised difference is supposed to exist, but you have repeatedly declined to provide any substantial answer, refusing to enter into the theological implications of your hypothesis.

David: Its like this. Owen says the Lombardian formula was wrong. Ive shown evidence that Calvin, Ursinus, Musculus held to the Lombardian formula. Ergo: their contructions are wrong. According to Owen.

David: Owen expresses his formula by way of an English Subjunctive called the hypothetical contrary to fact subj. He says "œit could have been sufficient... had..." Calvin or the users of the Lombardian formula never use the subjunctive expression. But Turretin, Ridegely, Witsius, et al, did.

Matthew: 2. You believe you can make this a matter of bare history. It is not. It is a matter of historical theology, and so you are required to understand the theological milieu of this so-called earlier reformed tradition. You are obliged to accept what this tradition explicitly taught, namely,
(1.) That Christ suffered vicariously, standing as a substitute in the place of a sinful people and satisfying divine justice on their behalf.
(2.) That the benefits of Christ's death are to be traced back to the eternal purpose of God, which was later called the extrinsic merit of the death of Christ.
(3.) That the benefits of Christ's death extend only to the elect; and,
(4.) That Christ's death is not profitless, but brings forth fruit in the persons whom it was intended to save.
This much can be gathered from the writings of the earlier reformed tradition. This is what they meant when they taught that the death of Christ was efficacious for the elect only. Subsequently, any explanation of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men cannot reasonably be construed as contradicting these distinctives.


David: All that is well and good. But here is your problem. You are not treating the sources as text, but as theology. You wont allow Calvin to speak his own words, but treat him as according to what you think you should have said. This means that you cant deal with the text in an honest manner.

David: That you might not be able to penetrate the logic of Calvin's thinking, does not mean he didnt say what he said. You refuse to acknowledge what he expressly said because you presently cant understand the terms upon which he said what he said


Matthew: 3. The quotations from this so-called earlier reformed tradition, which speak of Christ dying to procure the salvation of all men, can be understood as teaching an indiscriminate offer of Christ to all men in the gospel, wherein Christ and His saving benefits are said to be given or promised to all men upon condition that they believe.

David: But thats where you are just making all this up. You are just pulling out of your hat. You havent supplied a single source to justify this claim.

Take this for example:

Calvin: You should have kept silence, says Pighius. It would have been a treacherous and abominable silence by which God's glory, Christ, and the gospel were betrayed. Is it possible? So God shall be held up as a laughingstock before our eyes, all good religion shall be torn apart, wretched souls redeemed by the blood of Christ shall perish, and it shall be forbidden to speak? ...shall the church be plundered by the thieving of the ungodly, shall God's majesty be stamped under foot, shall Christ be robbed of his kingdom, while we watch and say nothing? Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p., 19.Now, note that in the footnote, the TRANSLATOR himself says: "œSee 1 Cor 8:11. Unlike Some later Calvinists, Calvin does not appear to limit Christ´s redemption to those who will eventually be saved." G.I. Davies footnote 44.

Now lets look at Calvin on that verse range:

There is, however, still greater force in what follows--that even those that are ignorant or weak have been redeemed with the blood of Christ; for nothing were more unseemly than this, that while Christ did not hesitate to die, in order that the weak might not perish, we, on the other hand, reckon as nothing the salvation of those who have been redeemed with so great a price. A memorable saying, by which we are taught how precious the salvation of our brethren ought to be in our esteem, and not merely that of all, but of each individual in particular, inasmuch as the blood of Christ was poured out for each individual... For if the soul of every one that is weak is the price of Christ´s blood, that man, who, for the sake of a very small portion of meat, hurries back again to death the brother who has been redeemed by Christ, shows how contemptible the blood of Christ is in his view. Calvin, 1 Cor 8:11 & 12. 

David: This like so may of the quotations I´ve adduced have _Nothing_ to do with the gospel offer. These souls that go on to perish have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, which was so great a price. You should cf this with his comments on Roms 14:15 as well.

David: In the end, Matthew, it is the case, whether you will honestly admit it or not, that Calvin was not on the same page as Owen was; you are just not prepared to admit it because of the dire consequences it has for your Hoeksemian claims regarding Reformed historical theology.

Because you cant understand the theology of a sufficient redemption price paid for all sinners, and this price accomplishes an unlimited satisfaction for all sin of this world, not merely a hypothetical "˜could have been... had... God..." so chosen satisfaction.

Matthew: Given that these "unlimited" statements can be understood in this context, and that this provides for a harmonised interpretation of their teaching, this is much to be preferred to your hypothesis, which posits that they blatantly contradicted themselves by maintaining that the death of Christ actually procured benefits for the non-elect which shall never come to fruition.

David: Well we are dealing with Calvin here, not Scripture, Matthew. So its possible that Calvin did contradict himself. I don´t believe he has, but what you say here exhibits the apriori rationalism I´ve seen in you. 

David: A rationalist is not just someone who says that the source of our knowledge can only be autonomous reasoning. A rationalist is also someone who apriorily determines what is and is not logically possible. I see that you missed Clark´s comment in your response to the Free Offer paper of Murray. Murray is not invoking Rationalism, he is merely positing that its not irrational according to the laws of logic. Its Gordon Clark et al, who are the rationalists because they have apriorily dictated to God what is and is not logically and theologically possible for God.

David: So here too, youve already determined the theological impossibility of certain theological idea or set of ideas, so you force-fit Calvin to fit that rationalist apriori. You refuse to allow yourself to admit that maybe you are wrong on Calvin. Then what happens is that given the impossibility that you are wrong, that you don´t understand Calvin, you have to throw me into some other basket: calling me an Arminian or something. The problem is you, Matthew, not Calvin, not me.

Matthew: 4. Both the Arminian and Amyraldian controversies emerged after the death of Calvin. Neither the Arminian teaching of an universal redemption nor the Amyraldian compromise of a double reference can be imputed to the writings of Calvin. The fact that some of Calvin's statements seem to hint at these later formulations is only owing to the fact that he taught and wrote before the forms of expression were made a matter of controversy. What is clear is the fact that Calvin never so much as hinted at a distinctive teaching which is common to both Arminianism and Amyraldianism, namely, that Christ "intended" to offer a sacrifice for the purpose of saving all men.

David: You are just making all this up. You try to second guess Calvin but not a single legitimate piece of evidence can be adduced. Some of us who are more sensitive to the rules of historiography will not buy into this pseudo manner of "˜exegeting´ Calvin. 

Until you can actually deal with Calvin as text, and stop making stuff up about his theology, this conversation is closed. I´ve tried to keep my part of this interaction as friendly as possible, so lets end it here. 

I would like to take up some of your historical theological claims from your crit of Murray, though; but later.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 28, 2006)

This entire thread is the case in point (one of many), that show us that hypothetical "possibilities" are things that get people into trouble theologically.

Let's talk about what Christ _actually did for us_, instead of what He _might_ have done for others? (Like dying for Aliens on planet Zeno). 

Remember Amyraldius.


----------

