# The Heidelberg Catechism and unlimited atonement



## KMK

> Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
> 
> Answer: That he, all the time that 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*: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.



How is this answer NOT teaching unlimited atonement?


----------



## dannyhyde

Ken,

Here is a part of Ursinus' lecture on Q&A 37:

"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 . . ." (_The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 215_)

Also, I would add, as I have when I preach Q&A 37, that the Catechism is merely using biblical language.


----------



## Poimen

First of all the Catechism is stressing here the identification of Christ with man or humanity. So it is quite a natural or at least possible to imply that we are not saying here that Christ actually died for the sins of every person but that Christ made satisfaction for men (similar to Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:15 that Jesus came to save sinners). 

Furthermore, Ursinus explains in his _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ on this question that "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..." 

Finally Ursinus notes later in the _Commentary_ that “the forgiveness of sins is extended to all and only the elect; because it is given to such as believe. In as much now as the reprobate never do truly believe, they never receive the forgiveness of sins. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” “To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (John 3:36; Acts 10:43) 

I think what we can conclude is that what may be seen as imprecise language on the part of Ursinus is due to the fact that the Arminian controversy did not arise until 45+ years later, wherein the orthodox were required to tighten up or refine the way they spoke about the atonement.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

See G.I. Williamson, The Heildelberg Catechism: A Study Guide (P&R Publishing, 1993), pages 70-71 for a very good explanation of this question.


----------



## Guido's Brother

With all of the above responses, I naturally agree. Here's what Ursinus wrote in his other Catechisms:

*Large Catechism QA 79*

What do you understand when you say that he suffered?

Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in that final act of redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb.

*Small Catechism QA 26*

What do you believe about Christ's suffering?

That all the torments and insults which he sustained in soul and body, as well as the awareness and horror of God's anger, unbearable for all creatures, are the unique and sufficient sacrifice by which he has redeemed me and all believers from eternal death and has gained for us forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, the Holy Spirit, righteousness and eternal life.


----------



## KenPierce

Does anyone have access and facility with the original German or the Dutch translation? I don't trust the American translators. I like Schaff's translation, but he would definitely have an axe to grind in this regard.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

KenPierce said:


> Does anyone have access and facility with the original German or the Dutch translation? I don't trust the American translators. I like Schaff's translation, but he would definitely have an axe to grind in this regard.



See this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/heidelberg-catechism-german-latin-27065/


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
> 
> Answer: That he, all the time that 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*: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this answer NOT teaching unlimited atonement?
Click to expand...


One thing we must remember is there is a underlying assumption that the HC is written for believers. Also, it is a fact that Christ would not have had to bleed more, be whipped more, nor hang on the cross longer to redeem anyone.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The German text is Schaff vol 3. The Latin text is available in a few places, namely Niemeyer's Collectio.

I don't think that Schaff did anything unfair here.

rsc



KenPierce said:


> Does anyone have access and facility with the original German or the Dutch translation? I don't trust the American translators. I like Schaff's translation, but he would definitely have an axe to grind in this regard.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

ps. we were just discussing this Mon night in the Reformed Confessions class. Limited atonement is implicit in Q. 20:



> *20. Are all men then saved by Christ as they perished in Adam?*
> No, only those who by true faith are ingrafted into Him and receive all His benefits.1
> 1 John 1:12,13. I Corinthians 15:22. Psalm 2:12. Romans 11:20. Hebrews 4:2,3. Hebrews 10:39



And in 29 and 30 and 31:



> *29. Why is the Son of God called Jesus, that is, Savior?*1
> Because He saves us from our sins,1 and because salvation is not to be sought or found in any other.2
> 
> 
> 
> 1Matthew 1:21. Hebrews 7:25. 2 Acts 4:12. * Luke 2:10,11.
> 
> 
> *30. Do those also believe in the only Savior Jesus, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else? *
> No, although they make their boast of Him, yet in deeds they deny the only Savior Jesus,1 for either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or they who by true faith receive this Savior, must have in Him all that is necessary to their salvation.2
> 
> 
> 1 I Corinthians 1:13. I Corinthians 1:30,31. Galatians 5:4. 2 Isaiah 9:7. Colossians 1:20. Colossians 2:10. John 1:16. * Matthew 23.28.
> 
> *31. Why is He called  Christ, that is Anointed?* Because He is ordained of God the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit 1 to be our chief Prophet and Teacher,2 who has fully revealed to us the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption;3 and our only High Priest,4 who by the one sacrifice of His body, has redeemed us, and ever lives to make intercession for us with the Father;5 and our eternal King, who governs us by His Word and Spirit and defends and preserves us in the redemption obtained for us.6
> 
> 
> 1 Hebrews 1:9. 2 Deuteronomy 18:15. Acts 3:22. 3 John 1:18. John 15:15. 4 Psalm 110:4. Hebrews 7:21. 5 Romans 5:9,10. 6 Psalm 2:6. Luke 1:33. Matthew 28:18. * Isaiah 61:1,2. * I Peter 2:24. * Revelation 19:16.



Remember too that the Catechism (any catechism) is to be read left to right, not right to left. That is to say that it is cumulative and ea q/a assumes the foregoing. 

rsc


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
> 
> Answer: That he, all the time that 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*: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this answer NOT teaching unlimited atonement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One thing we must remember is there is a underlying assumption that the HC is written for believers. Also, it is a fact that Christ would not have had to bleed more, be whipped more, nor hang on the cross longer to redeem anyone.
Click to expand...


Does that explain why the HC is a lot more devotional in nature than the Westminster Standards?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

"all mankind" does not mean every man woman and child past, present, & future.

If it said 'every man' I would have a bone to pick. Mankind is far from every man. 

Furthermore, there is a distinction made between "all mankind" and the object of the application which is "our" and "us."


> *redeem our* body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and *obtain for us* the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.



I don't see how it would be teaching unlimited atonement.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this answer NOT teaching unlimited atonement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing we must remember is there is a underlying assumption that the HC is written for believers. Also, it is a fact that Christ would not have had to bleed more, be whipped more, nor hang on the cross longer to redeem anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that explain why the HC is a lot more devotional in nature than the Westminster Standards?
Click to expand...


Perhaps Daniel. I have heard it explained as being "pastoral'' in nature. Whatever that means!!


----------



## KMK

dannyhyde said:


> Ken,
> 
> Here is a part of Ursinus' lecture on Q&A 37:
> 
> "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 . . ." (_The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 215_)
> 
> Also, I would add, as I have when I preach Q&A 37, that the Catechism is merely using biblical language.



Here is the full quote from Ursinius:



> 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 by 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.



I understand that from other places Ursinius is apparently a 5 pointer, but what he says here sounds an awful lot like "potentially for all; effective for the elect", does it not? No doubt I am missing some nuance.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> Here is a part of Ursinus' lecture on Q&A 37:
> 
> "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 . . ." (_The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 215_)
> 
> Also, I would add, as I have when I preach Q&A 37, that the Catechism is merely using biblical language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the full quote from Ursinius:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 by 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that from other places Ursinius is apparently a 5 pointer, but what he says here sounds an awful lot like "potentially for all; effective for the elect", does it not? No doubt I am missing some nuance.
Click to expand...




To be honest, this could be one of the worst explinations I have read regarding the atonement from a particular redemption truth. This goes beyond Amyrauldism into some synergistic arminianism. If you told me Wesley said this or Arminius himself, I would not doubt it. (making a mental note not to use Ursinius to ague the "L")

Now granted many will come to his defense and try to clarify this with other areas of his writings, but I have no problem calling it like I see it. This is terrible!!!!! SO you are not missing anything Ken. There should be absolutely zero ambiguity on such an important revelation of the Word regarding the atonement. To say this in one place, discredits the persons whole testimony.


----------



## dannyhyde

Ken and "Amazing Grace":

First of all, historic documents must be read in their historic context. You cannot expect Ursinus to answer a 17th c. question in the middle of the 16th c. A little sensitivity is needed.

Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.

Third, Ursinus is making the point that while Christ's death has objective value, it also needs to be applied to individual sinners. Notice the last line of the sentence you quoted; now go read Calvin, _Institutes_ 3.1.1. Again, this is traditional language in speaking of the objectivity/subjectivity of salvation.

Fourth, to "Amazing Grace": you need to show a little grace. If Dr. Ursinus is so "terrible," so "beyond Amyraldianism," etc, etc., why did the Synod of Dort not modify the Heidelberg Catechism in any way whatsoever? Have we all been touting the Synod of Dort for 500 years, only to be closet Arminians? I think not.

Fifth, you need to read two things by W. Robert Godfrey:
—“Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” _Westminster Theological Journal_ 37:2 (Winter 1974): 133–71.
—_Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dordt 1618-1619_ (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).


----------



## Amazing Grace

dannyhyde said:


> Ken and "Amazing Grace":
> 
> First of all, historic documents must be read in their historic context. You cannot expect Ursinus to answer a 17th c. question in the middle of the 16th c. A little sensitivity is needed.



Danny, the atonement did not change from Paul for 1600 years. Historic documents must be read in light of scripture. What he said in this specific quote Ken showed is not scriptural. It wasnt as if a light went on in the 17th century that changed the explination of definite atonement.



dannyhyde said:


> Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.



If you mean article 3, Dort does not go as far as Ursinius did here. In fact in the rejections 1.3.5.6 clarify article 3 perfectly. Ursinius should have used the distinction of scripture instead of Lombard. Again, I do not deny the intrinsic value of His death. As I clearly stated above, He would not have had to bleed or suffer anymore to expiate one more sin. Yet the intrinsic value cannot ever be spoken of absent of the decreed intent. This is where ursinius failed.



dannyhyde said:


> Third, Ursinus is making the point that while Christ's death has objective value, it also needs to be applied to individual sinners. Notice the last line of the sentence you quoted; now go read Calvin, _Institutes_ 3.1.1. Again, this is traditional language in speaking of the objectivity/subjectivity of salvation.



Yet this application is not self approbated by man. When Ursinius states:*the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ,* he most certainly implies a cooperation on our part. AS if faith flows from our own will. Perhaps he did not believe what he said here, and used the wrong words, but again, error on wording in this doctrine is never excusable. 



dannyhyde said:


> Fourth, to "Amazing Grace": you need to show a little grace. If Dr. Ursinus is so "terrible," so "beyond Amyraldianism," etc, etc., why did the Synod of Dort not modify the Heidelberg Catechism in any way whatsoever? Have we all been touting the Synod of Dort for 500 years, only to be closet Arminians? I think not.[/qoute]
> 
> Danny, again, I am only speaking of the quote Ken provided. I am not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I just will not use him for any defense of the "L". With good reason may I add. I do not know what you mean about the SOD not modying the HC in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fifth, you need to read two things by W. Robert Godfrey:
> —“Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” _Westminster Theological Journal_ 37:2 (Winter 1974): 133–71.
> —_Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dordt 1618-1619_ (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not as concerned about what they debated at Dort, I am not trying to vidicate the HC, nor Dort. The main goal of this dialogue is to point out where Ursinius sounds like Cameron more than Cameron sounds like Cameron. I honestly do not want to read anything on the Atonement by John Davenant, or anyone attached to the flavor of the School of Saumur.
Click to expand...


----------



## KenPierce

Amazing Grace,

Need we add that the Catechism is not, nor was it intended to be, an exhaustive credal document. It is after all a teaching tool for children, and it is correct insofar as it goes.

Is it any different than Peter saying Christ propiated for the sins of the whole world? Obviously, Peter is no low Calvinist or Arminian. The only point is that, if God had deigned to save all men, he would have needed no more than the death of Christ to do it. Period.


----------



## KMK

Pilgrim Standard said:


> "all mankind" does not mean every man woman and child past, present, & future.
> 
> If it said 'every man' I would have a bone to pick. Mankind is far from every man.



Once again, I am a 5 pointer but the 'all' that Ursinius is talking about is clearly 'every man' for he is answering the objections of the universalist:



> 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


----------



## Guido's Brother

dannyhyde said:


> Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.



Danny's right. I don't get what all the fuss is about. Dort used exactly the same language as Ursinus:

"This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." CoD 2.3


----------



## Amazing Grace

Guido's Brother said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny's right. I don't get what all the fuss is about. Dort used exactly the same language as Ursinus:
> 
> "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." CoD 2.3
Click to expand...


Then let's compare.

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?

Answer: That he, all the time that 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: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.



COD: Art 3 2nd head

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.


I do not believe they are the same at all. Ken's full quote of Obj 4 in Urisinius' lecture demonstrates the difference clearly..

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 by 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.


----------



## KenPierce

Amazing Grace,

It seems to me you are unduly worried about the orthodoxy of Ursinus, when maybe it would be a more pressing concern for you to worry about the orthodoxy of Wes Granberg-Michaelson and Robert H. and Robert A. Schuller?

From an RCA refugee who grew up in W. Mi.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Amazing Grace said:


> I do not believe they are the same at all. Ken's full quote of Obj 4 in Urisinius' lecture demonstrates the difference clearly..



Just saying it doesn't make it so. Look again:

Ursinus: "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..."

Canons: "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." 

Both speak of sufficiency for all, but efficiency only for some (see Canons 2.8). The key word to note is "sufficiency." I'm still scratching my head as to what your problem could be.

Furthermore, as Danny alluded above, the Synod of Dort 1618-19 revised the Belgic Confession to strengthen it against the Arminians. However, they did no such thing with the Catechism. That point reinforces what some of us have been saying: this problem is only apparent, not real.


----------



## KMK

Guido's Brother said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe they are the same at all. Ken's full quote of Obj 4 in Urisinius' lecture demonstrates the difference clearly..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying it doesn't make it so. Look again:
> 
> Ursinus: "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..."
> 
> Canons: "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
> 
> Both speak of sufficiency for all, but efficiency only for some (see Canons 2.8). The key word to note is "sufficiency." I'm still scratching my head as to what your problem could be.
> 
> Furthermore, as Danny alluded above, the Synod of Dort 1618-19 revised the Belgic Confession to strengthen it against the Arminians. However, they did no such thing with the Catechism. That point reinforces what some of us have been saying: this problem is only apparent, not real.
Click to expand...


I guess my problem is I have never been able to gleen any real meaning out of the phrase, "sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis." I know it is an acceptably reformed phrase but I don't see how it teaches anything different than UA. Perhaps I am slow on the uptake.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

It goes to potential and effect.

The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.

rsc


----------



## KMK

R. Scott Clark said:


> It goes to potential and effect.
> 
> The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
> 
> rsc



How is that different than what the 4-pointer teaches? Christ atoned for the sins of all but that atonement is only applied to those who believe. Is the 'divine intent' the only thing that separates 4 from 5 pointers? And how is 'divine intent' reflected in Ursinius the Heidleberg Answer?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The difference is huge.

The entire Reformed doctrine of limited atonement rests on the divine intent. We've never limited the potential or theoretical power of the atonement. It could have, had God so willed, propitiated the divine wrath for all who ever lived. It did not and it did not only because God willed and intended that the atonement propitiate for the elect. 

That's the point. We've never restricted the power inherent in the atonement -- that's a caricature of our theology.

We've only restricted the intent because Scripture requires us to do.

That's not Amyraldianism because it, as I understand them, teaches that the atonement was universal in intent and that particularity occurs only when one actually believes. 

Here's a more comprehensive survey of the doctrine of limited atonement. 

rsc



KMK said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes to potential and effect.
> 
> The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that different than what the 4-pointer teaches? Christ atoned for the sins of all but that atonement is only applied to those who believe. Is the 'divine intent' the only thing that separates 4 from 5 pointers? And how is 'divine intent' reflected in Ursinius the Heidleberg Answer?
Click to expand...


----------



## AV1611

R. Scott Clark said:


> It goes to potential and effect.
> 
> The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
> 
> rsc





From the _Canons, Head 2_: 

*Article 3 - The Infinite Value of the Death of Christ*​This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

*Article 4 - Why His Death Has Infinite Value​*This death is of such great value and worth because the person who submitted to it is not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for these qualifications were necessary for our Saviour. Further, this death is of such great value and worth because it was accompanied by a sense of the wrath and curse of God which we by our sins had deserved.


----------



## JohnOwen007

KMK said:


> Here is the full quote from Ursinius:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. [...]
Click to expand...


If I remember rightly this part of Ursinus' work was not written by Ursinus but Paraeus, who made some additions after Ursinus' death.

The fact of the matter is that there were a variety of interpretations of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula. It is fallacious to think there was one view on the extent of the atonement in the 16th and 17th century. For example, in the 17th century there are the British doubler enders (Ussher, Davenant, John Preston et. al.), who are slightly different but have similarities to the Salmurians (Cameron, Amyraut, etc.).

It must be recognised that these double enders were not condemned by Dort or the WCF. As Richard Muller has recently argued Cameron formulated a position that fit in with the Canons of Dort.

The confession which does condemn the double-intention position (of Davenant and Amyraut) is the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) which was never accepted as an official reformed confession.

Whether we like it or not Amyraldianism is within the reformed tradition. There is latitude here.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the full quote from Ursinius:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I remember rightly this part of Ursinus' work was not written by Ursinus but Paraeus, who made some additions after Ursinus' death.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that there were a variety of interpretations of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula. It is fallacious to think there was one view on the extent of the atonement in the 16th and 17th century. For example, in the 17th century there are the British doubler enders (Ussher, Davenant, John Preston et. al.), who are slightly different but have similarities to the Salmurians (Cameron, Amyraut, etc.).
> 
> It must be recognised that these double enders were not condemned by Dort or the WCF. As Richard Muller has recently argued Cameron formulated a position that fit in with the Canons of Dort.
> 
> The confession which does condemn the double-intention position (of Davenant and Amyraut) is the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) which was never accepted as an official reformed confession.
> 
> Whether we like it or not Amyraldianism is within the reformed tradition. There is latitude here.
Click to expand...




Brother Marty, then would you agree that the full quote provided by Ken has a Davenant / Amyrald slant to it? Do you see any difference? I honestly do not.


----------



## KMK

R. Scott Clark said:


> The difference is huge.
> 
> The entire Reformed doctrine of limited atonement rests on the divine intent. We've never limited the potential or theoretical power of the atonement. It could have, had God so willed, propitiated the divine wrath for all who ever lived. It did not and it did not only because God willed and intended that the atonement propitiate for the elect.
> 
> That's the point. We've never restricted the power inherent in the atonement -- that's a caricature of our theology.
> 
> We've only restricted the intent because Scripture requires us to do.
> 
> That's not Amyraldianism because it, as I understand them, teaches that the atonement was universal in intent and that particularity occurs only when one actually believes.
> 
> Here's a more comprehensive survey of the doctrine of limited atonement.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> It goes to potential and effect.
> 
> The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that different than what the 4-pointer teaches? Christ atoned for the sins of all but that atonement is only applied to those who believe. Is the 'divine intent' the only thing that separates 4 from 5 pointers? And how is 'divine intent' reflected in Ursinius the Heidleberg Answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you, Dr. Clark. I think I get it. Christ's sacrifice was perfect. It would not be possible that it could be any more perfect. Therefore, it was of sufficient intrinsic value to atone for the sins of every man. But just because it was of sufficient intrinsic value, it was never intended by God to atone for the sins of every man but only for the sins of the elect.

I wholeheartedly agree.

But that sure doesn't sound like what the Heidleberg says!



> Answer: That he, all the time that 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:* (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.



This question, albeit taken in isolation, says Christ suffered the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. (Which Ursininius explains is every man) To say, "What Ursinius meant was it was sufficient for all but applied only to the elect," seems to be an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. 

Perhaps there was typo!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Brother Marty, then would you agree that the full quote provided by Ken has a Davenant / Amyrald slant to it? Do you see any difference? I honestly do not.



Dear AG, great to hear from you as always. Yes, I tend to be in agreement with you here. However, I wouldn't want to read later developed ideas back into Paraeus (neither Amyraut's or Owen's) but I would say that Ken's quote is _compatible _with Davenant and Amyraut _et. al_ who came later. Their views are more nuanced than Paraeus.

This is one of the problems with the (endless) discussion about Calvin's view on the extent of the atonement. Later (nuanced) 17th century ideas are wrongly read _back _into 16th century Calvin (on both sides of the debate). In my mind, Calvin didn't say _exactly _the same thing as Amyraut or Owen. But the noises Calvin makes (see them here) we must frannkly admit are compatible with Amyraut (and Davenant). Moreover, most people I've read have misunderstood Amyraut. I personally don't agree with Amyraut's formulation; but it's important he is faifthfully portrayed.

Every blessing brother.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is huge.
> 
> The entire Reformed doctrine of limited atonement rests on the divine intent. We've never limited the potential or theoretical power of the atonement. It could have, had God so willed, propitiated the divine wrath for all who ever lived. It did not and it did not only because God willed and intended that the atonement propitiate for the elect.
> 
> That's the point. We've never restricted the power inherent in the atonement -- that's a caricature of our theology.
> 
> We've only restricted the intent because Scripture requires us to do.
> 
> That's not Amyraldianism because it, as I understand them, teaches that the atonement was universal in intent and that particularity occurs only when one actually believes.
> 
> Here's a more comprehensive survey of the doctrine of limited atonement.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that different than what the 4-pointer teaches? Christ atoned for the sins of all but that atonement is only applied to those who believe. Is the 'divine intent' the only thing that separates 4 from 5 pointers? And how is 'divine intent' reflected in Ursinius the Heidleberg Answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, Dr. Clark. I think I get it. Christ's sacrifice was perfect. It would not be possible that it could be any more perfect. Therefore, it was of sufficient intrinsic value to atone for the sins of every man. But just because it was of sufficient intrinsic value, it was never intended by God to atone for the sins of every man but only for the sins of the elect.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> But that sure doesn't sound like what the Heidleberg says!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: That he, all the time that 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:* (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This question, albeit taken in isolation, says Christ suffered the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. (Which Ursininius explains is every man) To say, "What Ursinius meant was it was sufficient for all but applied only to the elect," seems to be an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole.
> 
> Perhaps there was typo!
Click to expand...




Ken et al: I honestly do not see much wrong with the HC. a, b, & C, qualify the answer with using 'our' and 'us'. SO I have no disagreement here. Even "all mankind" should be looked at as when scripture uses "all" in reference to all believers, etc etc.

That being said, where I see a serious problem is the quote you provided from his lectures. 

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.

This is what is causing me the issue. Christ did not satisfy for all, if He did, then all would be saved. To say that even the suffiency of the satisfaction appeased God's wrat against all men head for head does not seem to line up with scripture. Does this saying lead one to conclude that the whole totality of God's wrath has been satisfied upon His death, yet for some odd reason, men are still sent to hell. Where does wrath once again come from if it was satisfied? It seems to pit the trinity against one another. The Father demands punishment, a substitution is provided, Christ dies and appeases the father's wrath agains all men head for head, but only efficiently for the elect, (as if His death is inefficient for the reprobate), yet the Holy Spirit only applies this satisfaction to those elect in Christ? What wrath is once again kindled against those it is not applied to by the Spirit if it was totally satisfied? 

William Cunningham shines lite on this for me:

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. *Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death*.8

Did Christ die an actual real substitute for, and did He bear the punishment due to all men or some? Scripture says some, the elect, or else all would be saved.Even stating that His death was sufficient for all, or that His atonement was sufficient for all, does carry a universal aspect to it that is not needed nor founded. And this is where Ursinius appears to be laying his head. Again, not the HC, but the full quote provided by Ken.

Another issue that noone else has commented on that seems incorrect also is the second part.

_the latter is accomplished by 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._

Isnt anyone else bothered at all about the implication we ourselves apply this benefit? 

In all seriousness, what would Ursinius have to say for all to be concerned? I am not attempting to say he was heretical, or not profitable in areas of his writing, but this one instance brings forth an area that he should, not could, he should have been much more clear if he was trying to say something else than what he wrote. 

Guido provided this which is much better:

Small Catechism QA 26

What do you believe about Christ's suffering?

That all the torments and insults which he sustained in soul and body, as well as the awareness and horror of God's anger, unbearable for all creatures, are the unique and sufficient sacrifice by which he has redeemed me and all believers from eternal death and has gained for us forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, the Holy Spirit, righteousness and eternal life.

Is there an online version of the 2 Catechisms?


----------



## KMK

R. Scott Clark said:


> ps. we were just discussing this Mon night in the Reformed Confessions class. Limited atonement is implicit in Q. 20:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *20. Are all men then saved by Christ as they perished in Adam?*
> No, only those who by true faith are ingrafted into Him and receive all His benefits.1
> 1 John 1:12,13. I Corinthians 15:22. Psalm 2:12. Romans 11:20. Hebrews 4:2,3. Hebrews 10:39
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 29 and 30 and 31:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *29. Why is the Son of God called Jesus, that is, Savior?*1
> Because He saves us from our sins,1 and because salvation is not to be sought or found in any other.2
> 
> 
> 
> 1Matthew 1:21. Hebrews 7:25. 2 Acts 4:12. * Luke 2:10,11.
> 
> 
> *30. Do those also believe in the only Savior Jesus, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else? *
> No, although they make their boast of Him, yet in deeds they deny the only Savior Jesus,1 for either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or they who by true faith receive this Savior, must have in Him all that is necessary to their salvation.2
> 
> 
> 1 I Corinthians 1:13. I Corinthians 1:30,31. Galatians 5:4. 2 Isaiah 9:7. Colossians 1:20. Colossians 2:10. John 1:16. * Matthew 23.28.
> 
> *31. Why is He called  Christ, that is Anointed?* Because He is ordained of God the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit 1 to be our chief Prophet and Teacher,2 who has fully revealed to us the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption;3 and our only High Priest,4 who by the one sacrifice of His body, has redeemed us, and ever lives to make intercession for us with the Father;5 and our eternal King, who governs us by His Word and Spirit and defends and preserves us in the redemption obtained for us.6
> 
> 
> 1 Hebrews 1:9. 2 Deuteronomy 18:15. Acts 3:22. 3 John 1:18. John 15:15. 4 Psalm 110:4. Hebrews 7:21. 5 Romans 5:9,10. 6 Psalm 2:6. Luke 1:33. Matthew 28:18. * Isaiah 61:1,2. * I Peter 2:24. * Revelation 19:16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember too that the Catechism (any catechism) is to be read left to right, not right to left. That is to say that it is cumulative and ea q/a assumes the foregoing.
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


Here is Ursinius' commentary on Q 20:



> Obj. 2. All those ought to be received into favor for whose offences a sufficient satisfaction has been made. Christ has made a sufficient satisfaction for the offences of all men. Therefore all ought to be received into favor ; and if this is not done, God is either unjust to men, or else there is something detracted from the merit of Christ. Ans. *The major is true*, unless some condition is added to the satisfaction ; as, that only those are saved through it, who apply it unto themselves by faith. But this condition is expressly added, where it is said, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3 : 16.)



"The major is true" says Ursinius. And he does not answer the part of the objection that says "All those ought to be received into favor for whose offences a sufficient satisfaction has been made." He seems to agree with the objector that Christ did make sufficient satisfaction for specific offences of all.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KenPierce said:


> Amazing Grace,
> 
> It seems to me you are unduly worried about the orthodoxy of Ursinus, when maybe it would be a more pressing concern for you to worry about the orthodoxy of Wes Granberg-Michaelson and Robert H. and Robert A. Schuller?
> 
> From an RCA refugee who grew up in W. Mi.



Ken: There is not enough time in a year to speak against Bob and Wes!!!!! How would I even be able to eat or drink?

I assure you, I am not unduly worried about Zach. I wont even get into the fact that I think he denied the Active Obedience of Christ also...


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> Another issue that noone else has commented on that seems incorrect also is the second part.
> 
> _the latter is accomplished by 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._
> 
> Isnt anyone else bothered at all about the implication we ourselves apply this benefit?
> 
> In all seriousness, what would Ursinius have to say for all to be concerned? I am not attempting to say he was heretical, or not profitable in areas of his writing, but this one instance brings forth an area that he should, not could, he should have been much more clear if he was trying to say something else than what he wrote.



I am not overly concerned about that quote only because, as has been pointed out, it was written before the Arminian controversy.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another issue that noone else has commented on that seems incorrect also is the second part.
> 
> _the latter is accomplished by 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._
> 
> Isnt anyone else bothered at all about the implication we ourselves apply this benefit?
> 
> In all seriousness, what would Ursinius have to say for all to be concerned? I am not attempting to say he was heretical, or not profitable in areas of his writing, but this one instance brings forth an area that he should, not could, he should have been much more clear if he was trying to say something else than what he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not overly concerned about that quote only because, as has been pointed out, it was written before the Arminian controversy.
Click to expand...




So that means that one should not be clear on the atonement unless opposition happens? Brother Ken, I do not know about this vien of thought. WHen could it have ever been right to claim we apply the benefits ourself?


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another issue that noone else has commented on that seems incorrect also is the second part.
> 
> _the latter is accomplished by 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._
> 
> Isnt anyone else bothered at all about the implication we ourselves apply this benefit?
> 
> In all seriousness, what would Ursinius have to say for all to be concerned? I am not attempting to say he was heretical, or not profitable in areas of his writing, but this one instance brings forth an area that he should, not could, he should have been much more clear if he was trying to say something else than what he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not overly concerned about that quote only because, as has been pointed out, it was written before the Arminian controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that means that one should not be clear on the atonement unless opposition happens? Brother Ken, I do not know about this vien of thought. WHen could it have ever been right to claim we apply the benefits ourself?
Click to expand...


I think it is an accepted fact that throughout church history controversy has helped to shape and tighten up statements of orthodoxy. The Arminian controversy helped to clarify our language when talking about the atonement. Is there not Scripture that at least sounds, at first blush, to correspond with Ursinius' language?



> Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.



I am not advocating a works gospel but just trying to give Ursinius the benefit of a doubt.


----------



## KMK

Let me just say that I don't get 'overly' concerned about anything. That is just not how I am wired. It might be a character flaw. 

What I meant was that Ursinius' writings seem to demonstrate big misunderstanding about the atonement and how it is applied, but the catechism itself, less so.

It is amazing to me how these old Reformers use language that, if used today on PB, would cause great indignation.

John Calvin: 



> “Who taketh away the sin of the world.” He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin OF THE WORLD,5 he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith. Besides, he lays down but one method of taking away sins. John Calvin, John 1:29.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> I think it is an accepted fact that throughout church history controversy has helped to shape and tighten up statements of orthodoxy. The Arminian controversy helped to clarify our language when talking about the atonement. Is there not Scripture that at least sounds, at first blush, to correspond with Ursinius' language?



Yes, but has it taken 2000 years to explain it correctly?  I always wonder why..

Let me also state that I do not think God believes for us Ken, yet to state that we ourselves apply this benefit of His atonement is not kosher im my estimation according to the writ.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Let me just say that I don't get 'overly' concerned about anything. That is just not how I am wired. It might be a character flaw.
> 
> What I meant was that Ursinius' writings seem to demonstrate big misunderstanding about the atonement and how it is applied, but the catechism itself, less so.
> 
> It is amazing to me how these old Reformers use language that, if used today on PB, would cause great indignation.
> 
> John Calvin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Who taketh away the sin of the world.” He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin OF THE WORLD,5 he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith. Besides, he lays down but one method of taking away sins. John Calvin, John 1:29.
Click to expand...




Yes definately Ken. There have been countless rebuked on the internet for saying much less than some of what we read from them..


AS an aside, does anyone know if Caspar Olevianus has any commentary on any of this? Maybe he is more clear and correct.


----------



## KMK

Here is Ursinius' commentary on Q 20:



> Question 20. Are all men, then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?
> 
> Answer. No; only those who are ingrafted into him, and receive all his benefits by a true faith.
> 
> EXPOSITION.
> 
> Having explained the mode of our deliverance through Christ, we must now inquire carefully who are made partakers of this deliverance, and in what manner it is effected ; whether all, or only some are made partakers thereof. If none are made partakers of it, it has been accomplished in vain. This twentieth question is, therefore, preparatory to the doctrine of faith, without which neither the Mediator, nor the preaching of the gospel, would be of any advantage. At the same tune it provides a remedy against carnal security, and furnishes an answer to that base calumny which makes Christ the minister of sin.
> 
> 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 bom 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.



It sure sounds like Ursinius believed that Christ provided perfect satisfaction for every man, yet not every man obtains that satisfaction because they reject it and do not apply it to themselves.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Here is Ursinius' commentary on Q 20:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 20. Are all men, then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?
> 
> Answer. No; only those who are ingrafted into him, and receive all his benefits by a true faith.
> 
> EXPOSITION.
> 
> Having explained the mode of our deliverance through Christ, we must now inquire carefully who are made partakers of this deliverance, and in what manner it is effected ; whether all, or only some are made partakers thereof. If none are made partakers of it, it has been accomplished in vain. This twentieth question is, therefore, preparatory to the doctrine of faith, without which neither the Mediator, nor the preaching of the gospel, would be of any advantage. At the same tune it provides a remedy against carnal security, and furnishes an answer to that base calumny which makes Christ the minister of sin.
> 
> 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 bom 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure sounds like Ursinius believed that Christ provided perfect satisfaction for every man, yet not every man obtains that satisfaction because they reject it and do not apply it to themselves.
Click to expand...




Then Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief? I am getting more and more confused by his statements.. Not that that is a hard thing to do becasue I get easily cofused at times.. At times he speaks 100% true, and the next clause is a different vien of thought.


----------



## christianyouth

Kimedoncius : Calvin and Calvinism Â» Blog Archive » Jacob Kimedoncius on the Death of Christ: Unlimited Expiation and Redemption
Paraeus : Calvin and Calvinism Â» Blog Archive » David Paraeus (1548-1622) on the Death of Christ: Unlimited Expiation and Redemption

I found this. These guys represent the Heidelberg school.

Hope this helps.


----------



## christianyouth

So have we decided if the Heidelberg teaches Unlimited Atonement? I think those two links should shed some light on it, since they were representative of the Heidelberg school, and clearly both of them held to Unlimited atonement.


----------



## KMK

In my humble opinion, it would appear that the HC does not teach LA. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that it teaches UA. I am willing to give Ursius et al the benefit of a doubt because Owen had not yet come along and defined LA so clearly. It seems to me that since Owen and Dort it is impossible to waffle between UA and LA.


----------



## dannyhyde

christianyouth said:


> So have we decided if the Heidelberg teaches Unlimited Atonement? I think those two links should shed some light on it, since they were representative of the Heidelberg school, and clearly both of them held to Unlimited atonement.



Gentlemen,

This should not even be a question. One of my original points still stands: if the Heidelberg Catechism taught anything incompatible with the Canons of Dort, then why did that Synod not change the Heidelberg Catechism in any way? After all, it did modify the Belgic Confession somewhat. How could the greatest theologians of that age have missed the unlimited atonement in the Heidelberg if it taught such a doctrine? How could 400 years of Reformed theologians, ministers, and members in our churches have missed this if it were so?

I would encourage you all to read Q&Q 37 in light of the Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, and ask yourself if there is a contradiction. Relevant are the following:

*Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
Answer: That he, all the time that 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 favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.*

*Article 3: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.*

*Article 4: This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.*


----------



## KMK

I prefer the WLC:



> Q. 44. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
> 
> A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God,[171] to be reconciliation for the sins of *his people*;[172] and in making continual intercession for them.[173]
> 
> Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
> 
> A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those *for whom Christ hath purchased it*;[251] who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.[252]


----------



## Amazing Grace

dannyhyde said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So have we decided if the Heidelberg teaches Unlimited Atonement? I think those two links should shed some light on it, since they were representative of the Heidelberg school, and clearly both of them held to Unlimited atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> This should not even be a question. One of my original points still stands: if the Heidelberg Catechism taught anything incompatible with the Canons of Dort, then why did that Synod not change the Heidelberg Catechism in any way? After all, it did modify the Belgic Confession somewhat. How could the greatest theologians of that age have missed the unlimited atonement in the Heidelberg if it taught such a doctrine? How could 400 years of Reformed theologians, ministers, and members in our churches have missed this if it were so?
> 
> I would encourage you all to read Q&Q 37 in light of the Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, and ask yourself if there is a contradiction. Relevant are the following:
> 
> *Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
> Answer: That he, all the time that 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 favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.*
> 
> *Article 3: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.*
> 
> *Article 4: This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.*
Click to expand...




Danny, I do nto believe Ken is saying it speaks of universalism. Yet is does slant towards a sufficient for all, efficient for the elect slant. And again the bigger problem is in Ursinus's lectures/commentary compared to the HC itself.

I will have to mention again that the COD articles 2nd head, MUST be qualified with the rejection section in the same head.

I personally see no problem with the HC, only becasue when I read atonement, and see mankind, I only equate that with the elect. Kinda like world doesnt mean worls and all doesnt mean all.


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> I personally see no problem with the HC, only becasue when I read atonement, and see mankind, I only equate that with the elect. Kinda like world doesnt mean worls and all doesnt mean all.



I tend to do that as well, but then I wonder if I am being true to the text. Ursinius does seem to desire to be true to the text.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally see no problem with the HC, only becasue when I read atonement, and see mankind, I only equate that with the elect. Kinda like world doesnt mean worls and all doesnt mean all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to do that as well, but then I wonder if I am being true to the text. Ursinius does seem to desire to be true to the text.
> 
> Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


Well I can only assume he means the elect becasue of putting 'our' and 'us' in the next section. But again, the problem I am having with Ursinus is in his commentary and lectures that you provided, he seems to go against this vien of thought Ken. In conclusion, I do not believe I am reading it as Urisnus may have intended it to be read. I think he was a 'double ender' as marty calls them..


----------



## JohnOwen007

dannyhyde said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> This should not even be a question. One of my original points still stands: if the Heidelberg Catechism taught anything incompatible with the Canons of Dort, then why did that Synod not change the Heidelberg Catechism in any way?



Dear Danny, you make a good point. However, the Canons of Dort allow for a variety of positions on the extent of the atonement. Double-enders (the so-called "hypothetical universalists") like Davenant and Ward along with a single-ender like Gomarus were able to sign the canons.

When we examine the writings of the Heidelbergers, Kimedonicius and Paraeus, we see that they held to something like the double-end view as well, Christ died efficiently for the elect but sufficiently for all, not just in the sense that Christ's death could've been sufficient for all, but that it _actually was_ sufficient for all.

Hence, it seems very natural to me to see Heidelberg 37 as allowing for a "double-end" view of the atonement akin to Kimedonicius and Paraeus.

Richard Muller (in a review of a book in the the latest _CTJ_) contends that this "double-end" view (or "hypothetical universalism"--a phrase I don't think does justice to the position) was an orthodox stream of thought in the reformed tradition and is compatible with Dort:



> Clear statements of nonspeculative hypothetical universalism can be found (as Davenant recognized) in Heinrich Bullinger’s _Decades _and commentary on the Apocalypse, in Wolfgang Musculus’ _Loci communes_, in Ursinus’ _catechetical lectures_, and in Zanchi’s _Tractatus de praedestinatione sanctorum_, among other places. In addition, the Canons of Dort, in affirming the standard distinction of a sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the elect, *actually refrain from canonizing either the early form of hypothetical universalism or the assumption that Christ’s sufficiency serves only to leave the nonelect without excuse*. Although Moore can cite statements from the York conference that Dort “either apertly or covertly denied the universality of man’s redemption” (156), *it remains that various of the signatories of the Canons were hypothetical universalists*–not only the English delegation (Carleton, Davenant, Ward, Goad, and Hall) but also the [sic] some of the delegates from Bremen and Nassau (Martinius, Crocius, and Alsted)–that Carleton and the other delegates continued to affirm the doctrinal points of Dort while distancing themselves from the church discipline of the Belgic Confession, and that in the course of seventeenth-century debate even the Amyraldians were able to argue that their teaching did not run contrary to the Canons. In other words, the nonspeculative, non-Amyraldian form of hypothetical universalism was new in neither the decades after Dort nor a “softening” of the tradition: The views of Davenant, Ussher, and Preston followed out a resident trajectory long recognized as orthodox among the Reformed.



Muller also believes that John Cameron and Salmurian Amyraldianism is very much compatible with Dort:



> This [Cameron's covenantal] pattern has major implications for understanding the Salmurian soteriology. It indicates a covenantal or federal continuity with Reformed predestinarianism that has been left unexamined in discussions of hypothetical universalism. Against, Moltmann's assessment, it offers an element of the Salmurian theology that presses it away from rather than toward Arminianism; and against Armstrong's thesis, it demonstrates the point, recognized even by seventeenth-century opponents of Amyralidianism like Francis Turretin, namely, that views of Cameron and his Salmurian successors were not heresy and, like it or not, were consciously framed to stand within the confessionalism of the Canons of Dort. In the specific case of Cameron's covenantal thought, it ought to be understood not as a protest against various developments in Reformed theology but rather an integral part of the rather fluid and variegated history of early Reformed covenantal thought. ("John Cameron and Covenant Theology" in _Mid-America Jounral of Theology_17 (2006):36-37)



Every blessing in Christ Danny.


----------



## christianyouth

Marty, that's a great point. It would seem that the argument Rev. Daniel used could actually bolster the 'double enders'. If unlimited atonement was taught in the Heidelberg and was the dominant view at the time of Dordt, then if Dordt was breaking with that view we would expect two things :
1) Condemnation of the Heidelberg and UA(the Calvinist kind). 
2) That Dordt would have only been signed by adherents to strict LA.

more on 2) - If we are to take the condemnations against the Arminian view of UA to be condemnations against any view of UA, we have to disregard the historical fact that 'double enders' signed the Canons of Dordt. They obviously didn't interpret the condemnations of UA to be condemning their own view of the atonement, otherwise they wouldn't have signed it. 

So the task would be to show that the Heidelberg itself points toward UA, but then show that representatives of the Heidelberg school were proponents of UA, which I think both have been shown. The other thing, and thanks for pointing this out, Marty, is that there were 'double enders' at Dordt. 


So in other words, Rev. Daniel is saying, "The Heidelberg couldn't have taught UA because no where does Dordt condemn the teachings of the Heidelberg" but double enders can turn around and say "Dordt couldn't have taught strict LA because no where does Dordt condemn the teachings of the Heidelberg".:


----------

