# Atonement and Sufficiency



## timfost (May 27, 2015)

Certainly the most common controversial point in the 5 points of Calvinism is Limited Atonement. I’ve put together the following for the purpose of conversation about the different ways orthodox reformed believers can speak about atonement. I would prefer that his does not become a platform in which the first two descriptions of Christ’s sufficiency are debated. With the third (Amyraldianism), I would hope that there is no debate as it is generally agreed in confessionally reformed circles that Amyraldianism is speculative and laden with error.

Quotes:

“[Christ] makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.” (Calvin’s commentary on Rom. 5:18)
_________________

“Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved… Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof;.. [T]he satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is… 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.”

“[T]he 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.”

“[F]or 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 [condemnation] 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.” (From Ursinus’s commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism)
_________________

Christ’s blood is a sufficient price for all-- but it is effectual only to those who believe. A plaster may have a sovereign virtue in it to heal any wound-- but it does not heal any, unless applied to the wound. (Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, “8 Christ the Redeemer.”)
_________________

“And the reason [for the free offer] is, because Christ died for all, ‘tasted death for every man’ (2 Cor. 5:15; Heb. 2:9); is ‘the Saviour of the world’ (1 John 4:14), and the propitiaion for the sins of the whole world.” (John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted” Ch. 9)
_________________

“But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;" sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object.” (Systematic Theology)
_________________

I could go on to quote Shedd, Bavinck, Turretin and R.B. Kuiper to name a few that either use the sufficient/efficient formula or speak about providential benefits accruing from the death of Christ for all men indiscriminately.

This post is not designed to hash out the specifics in the doctrines themselves, but rather to point out that one is not necessarily a 4-point Calvinist when they believe that Christ’s death has reference to all men indiscriminately. It should be inquired how they apply the “sufficient for all, effectual for the elect” formula. 

There are three applications of this formula that I’ve come across:

1. Christ died sufficiently for every person (Calvin, Ursinus, Shedd, Bunyan, etc.)

2. Christ paid a sufficient price for every person if it was intended for every person (Owen)

3. Christ died sufficiently for all because He decreed the redemption of every man before He elected part of the human race (Moses Amyraut (father of Amyraldianism) and, I believe, Davenant and Baxter)

#1 is how the quotes above applied this doctrine. Owen (#2) made it into a completely hypothetical argument as to intrinsic value and the Amyraldians (#3) used it to speak about a separate decree of God prior to election, the position that is properly called 4-point Calvinism.

Why is this distinction important?

Regardless of where any reformed individual places himself, we should be very slow to judge someone as a 4-point Calvinist because of the specific terminology he uses. Furthermore, this distinction is confessional:

37.	What do you understand by the word “suffered”?

“That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.” (Heidelberg)

Article 6

“And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.” (Canons of Dort, 2nd Head of Doctrine)


----------



## Toasty (May 27, 2015)

Does the expression "sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect" mean the following?

Christ's atonement has the power to save everyone, but Christ only made an atonement for the elect. Christ was capable of dying for everyone, but He chose not to die for everyone.


----------



## timfost (May 27, 2015)

Toasty said:


> Does the expression "sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect" mean the following?
> 
> Christ's atonement has the power to save everyone, but Christ only made an atonement for the elect. Christ was capable of dying for everyone, but He chose not to die for everyone.



Certainly the atonement of Christ was only designed to save the elect. I think the distinction that I listed as #1 is proposed to understand what is rejected when the reprobate reject the gospel. In essence, they are rejecting the salvation offered in the gospel, which is a legitimate offer because of Christ's sufficient atonement. At least this is what I understand Calvin and Hodge to be saying. 

Interestingly, scripture never states that Christ did not die for anyone, but rather states who it was intended to save. This is also how the Canons of Dort are worded. According to the sufficient/efficient distinction in #1, the atonement does not exactly equate with the question "for whom did Christ die?" since He died for all sufficiently. According to #1, it seems the better question is "for whom was the atonement designed to save?"


----------



## MW (May 27, 2015)

timfost said:


> There are three applications of this formula that I’ve come across:
> 
> 1. Christ died sufficiently for every person (Calvin, Ursinus, Shedd, Bunyan, etc.)
> 
> 2. Christ paid a sufficient price for every person if it was intended for every person (Owen)



This is a very confused analysis. Arminians teach that Christ died sufficiently for all and that the effects are only for believers. So category 1 is Arminian. As for category 2, Amyraldians introduced the "hypothetical" scheme. So category 2 is Amyraldian. Neither Calvin nor Owen belong in either of these categories. Calvin never taught that Christ died sufficiently for all. He positively rejected it in some places. He taught that the death of Christ is offered to all for their salvation. And Owen taught the sufficiency of Christ's death for all -- not the extrinsic sufficiency of the Arminians nor the hypothetical sufficiency of the Amyradians, but an intrinsic sufficiency based on the infinite value of Christ's person and passion. In this he was simply echoing Dort.


----------



## timfost (May 27, 2015)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing... Concerning Owen, "hypothetical" was probably a poor word choice on my part. He spoke of sufficient for all in terms of the value.

"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." (Death of Death, bk 4 ch 1)

As far as Calvin, I took from the quote above (Rom. 5:18 commentary) that he would say that Christ died sufficiently for all. Also, he said:

"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..." (commentary on 1 John 2:2)

If Calvin denied this distinction, could you please point me to the reading where he states disagreement? Also, how then would your understand the quotes that I listed?

Also, do the other quotes, especially Heidelberg 37 promote the Arminian view in your opinion?

Thanks


----------



## MW (May 27, 2015)

timfost said:


> He spoke of sufficient for all in terms of the value.



As did some of the others you have quoted. Owen shouldn't be given a peculiar classification as if he taught something different.



timfost said:


> As far as Calvin, I took from the quote above (Rom. 5:18 commentary) that he would say that Christ died sufficiently for all. Also, he said:
> 
> "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..." (commentary on 1 John 2:2)



Calvin did not speak of Christ dying sufficiently for all in Romans 5. He used the indefinite term "whole world." As his comments on 1 John 2:2 demonstrate, Calvin had reason to reject the application of the "sufficient for all" formula to the "whole world." As he said, "I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church."



timfost said:


> If Calvin denied this distinction, could you please point me to the reading where he states disagreement? Also, how then would your understand the quotes that I listed?



Calvin qualified the distinction in a particularist direction. This is evident in his interpretation of 1 John 2:2. The same is stated in his Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God. "For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, *but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed*. Now if the possession of Christ stands in faith, and if faith flows from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to be a partaker of Christ."

How do I understand the quotations? Unless an author qualifies what he says, an indefinite term must be taken indefinitely, not universally.



timfost said:


> Also, do the other quotes, especially Heidelberg 37 promote the Arminian view in your opinion?



No, because Ursinus speaks of a single, particular intention of benefit to the elect. As soon as he includes faith in the benefit of salvation it is obvious that Christ did not die sufficiently to save all men because He did not die to purchase faith for all men.


----------



## timfost (May 28, 2015)

I did not mean to single Owen out. Yes, I agree, he was not alone in this position.

As for Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2, it seems that all he is saying is that he doesn't think the sufficient/efficient formula is applicable to this verse. He states "Though then I allow that what has been said is true..." followed by "I deny that it is suitable to this passage." I'm not sure if this lives up to the claim, "Calvin never taught that Christ died sufficiently for all. He positively rejected it in some places." I'm struggling to see any rejection of "sufficiently for all" in the quote that you provided. Are there any other places where Calvin actually rejects this doctrine?

Also, Calvin's commentary on Rom. 5:18 does not use the word "world" indefinitely, since he applies this doctrine to those who reject Christ. I think you may be reading something different than what was intended in both Calvin's commentaries on Rom. 5:18 and 1 John 2:2.

I'm also struggling to distinguish formula #1 "Christ died sufficiently for every person" which you call "Arminian" from Ursinus's words "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof." #1 in no way was designed to say that Christ did not die effectively for the elect. I'm struggling to see how I said anything different. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you added a qualifier to #1 that I neither said nor meant, "As soon as [Ursinus] includes faith in the benefit of salvation it is obvious that Christ did not die sufficiently *to save* all men because He did not die to purchase faith for all men." I would like to make it clear: Christ did not die sufficiently *to save* all men.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 28, 2015)

Wow guys this has been helpful to me!Thanks.


----------



## MW (May 28, 2015)

timfost said:


> As for Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2, it seems that all he is saying is that he doesn't think the sufficient/efficient formula is applicable to this verse.



If it is not applicable to this verse it could only be owing to a particularist stance, which means he had a distinct view of the formula. This is evident in his reply to Georgius, which I previously quoted. That reply specifically states the sufficient-efficient formula in terms which Owen would later adopt. What applies to Owen applies to Calvin.



timfost said:


> Also, Calvin's commentary on Rom. 5:18 does not use the word "world" indefinitely, since he applies this doctrine to those who reject Christ. I think you may be reading something different than what was intended in both Calvin's commentaries on Rom. 5:18 and 1 John 2:2.



He specifically stated, "because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all." I leave it to you to squeeze blood out of that stone. There is no "sufficiently for all" in his words. Unless he is taken indefinitely you force him to contradict himself. If he is taken naturally, his reference to the "whole world" must be referring to what is "propounded," not what is "extended."




timfost said:


> #1 in no way was designed to say that Christ did not die effectively for the elect. I'm struggling to see how I said anything different.



Consider the following error which was rejected by Dort: "Who use the difference between meriting and appropriating, to the end that they may instil into the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this teaching that God, as far as He is concerned, has been minded to apply to all equally the benefits gained by the death of Christ." Making different beneficiaries of redemption accomplished and redemption applied is an error.



timfost said:


> I would like to make it clear: Christ did not die sufficiently *to save* all men.



I am glad for the clarification, but the traditional formula refers to salvation. It states that Christ died sufficiently to save all men. For what is his death sufficient if not to save? When the reformed revise the formula to remove the idea of intention, they state that Christ's death is sufficient in and of itself to save all men. The reference is to salvation. They qualify, however, that it is divine predestination which gives the death of Christ its salvific virtue, and this is limited to the elect.


----------



## timfost (May 28, 2015)

Dear Rev. Matthew,

Perhaps I am dense. That is a real possibility. Maybe I'm slow to learn. A very real possibility. I ask then, please bear with me a little longer.

Calvin said "Though then I allow that what has been said is true..." Isn't he stating that the doctrine is true, just not applicable to the verse? I might say that the Trinity is true, but not applicable to a particular verse. I am having a really difficult time how you can derive from this that he rejected the formula "Christ died sufficiently for all."

Ursinus said: "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 "they" he was referring to are those who say that Christ died for all. This is precisely what I was trying to convey from #1. #2 advocates do not say that Christ died sufficiently for all as they understand sufficiency in terms of value *alone*. Unless I am missing something, I think that #1 is not necessarily Arminian and falls under reformed classification. 

Am I missing something really obvious here? I do not want this to turn into "endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification." I'm not asking you to even agree with #1, I'm just trying to discuss various reformed positions.


----------



## MW (May 28, 2015)

timfost said:


> Perhaps I am dense. That is a real possibility. Maybe I'm slow to learn. A very real possibility. I ask then, please bear with me a little longer.



I certainly don't think of you in this way. It seems to me, though, that you have a preconception that is getting in the way. Looking at your last paragraph, you seem to think that there are a number of "reformed" options on this. I wonder where the idea comes from. Are you reading the authors for yourself, or are you picking up this idea through some internet site which selectively filters the quotations?



timfost said:


> Calvin said "Though then I allow that what has been said is true..." Isn't he stating that the doctrine is true, just not applicable to the verse?



If you read the section against Georgius it might help to clarify. It is to be found here: Calvin's Calvinism - Section VI

Calvin saw a problem with the "common solution of this question" as it relates to the "benefits" of Christ's death. He revised the "common solution" so as to distinguish between the intrinsic value and extrinsic virtue of Christ's death. This is the revision which Owen followed. Saying "Christ's death is sufficient to save all" is a different proposition to saying that "Christ died sufficiently to save all." The second is the common scholastic solution. The first is the reformed revision.



timfost said:


> #2 advocates do not say that Christ died sufficiently for all as they understand sufficiency in terms of value *alone*.



Your category 2 is Amyraldian, as already noted. There is no "conditional will" in God which would allow for an hypothetical intention.

You are choosing to read Ursinus as saying something different to Owen. As noted, Calvin used the same differentiation which Owen would later use. I don't understand why you are trying to make these authors say different things.


----------



## timfost (May 28, 2015)

> Are you reading the authors for yourself, or are you picking up this idea through some internet site which selectively filters the quotations?



No, I've not received any of this from a website or anything. I've come across all of the quotes listed above from personal reading. I've very much read them in their contexts, and often reread and reread. Calvin and Ursinus were instrumental in getting me out of hyper-Calvinism, and they are both very regular reads for me still.

Honestly, I still see a marked difference between sufficiency as applied by Ursinus and Owen. I do not see that Calvin and Ursinus revised the formula of the "school men" as you say: "Christ died sufficiently to save all." The formula of the school men, as I understand it, is "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis." The formula does not state intention to save all, only sufficiency. 

Perhaps this will help... What I am calling #1 states that the reprobate are actually rejecting salvation offered in the gospel. “[T]he 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.”

In other words, they are rejecting something legitimately offered through unbelief. Note: this is not a denial that faith is a gift of God.

I don't believe Owen could make the above claim due to his definition of sufficiency. From my personal reading, I see a marked difference.


----------



## timfost (May 28, 2015)

Obviously I haven't mastered the "quote" thing yet...


----------



## MW (May 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> Honestly, I still see a marked difference between sufficiency as applied by Ursinus and Owen.



That is only because the Arminian controversy intervenes between them and Owen uses more precise wording to guard against the Arminian error.



timfost said:


> I do not see that Calvin and Ursinus revised the formula of the "school men" as you say:



I have quoted Calvin to that effect. I am sorry you cannot see it. As for Ursinus (or Pareus), if you desire to read him as favouring Arminianism, that is your choice. I think he can be taken in an orthodox way.



timfost said:


> The formula does not state intention to save all, only sufficiency.



"Intention" is implicit in the wording, "Christ died for."



timfost said:


> Perhaps this will help... What I am calling #1 states that the reprobate are actually rejecting salvation offered in the gospel. “[T]he 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.”



That is the Arminian doctrine, as stated in the second of the five articles of the Remonstrants. The Calvinist view makes salvation an act of God's free and efficacious grace.



timfost said:


> In other words, they are rejecting something legitimately offered through unbelief. Note: this is not a denial that faith is a gift of God.



It supposes Christ's death is not sufficient to procure faith or atone for unbelief.



timfost said:


> I don't believe Owen could make the above claim due to his definition of sufficiency.



I don't believe Calvin, Ursinus, or Owen would have made a claim on behalf of universal grace.


----------



## timfost (May 29, 2015)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I still see a marked difference between sufficiency as applied by Ursinus and Owen.
> ...



Yes, I see this change. The change, I thought, was reflected in #1 and #2.


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > I do not see that Calvin and Ursinus revised the formula of the "school men" as you say:
> ...



I do not think Ursinus favors Arminianism in any way.


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > The formula does not state intention to save all, only sufficiency.
> ...



Not necessarily. Shedd:

"Again, the preposition “for” is sometimes understood to denote not intention, but value or sufficiency. To say that Christ died “for” all men then means, that his death is sufficient to expiate the guilt of all men. Here, again, the difference is possibly reconcilable between the parties. The one who denies that Christ died “for” all men, takes “for” in the sense of intention to effectually apply. The other who affirms that Christ died “for” all men, takes “for” in the sense of value. As to the question, Which is the most proper use of the word “for?” it is plain that it more naturally conveys the notion of intention, than of sufficiency or value."

Though we could make a good argument that the word "for" should not be used in relation to Christ's death respecting all, many of the quotes that I shared use it in the sense of value.


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this will help... What I am calling #1 states that the reprobate are actually rejecting salvation offered in the gospel. “[T]he 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.”
> ...



The Arminian doctrine states that Christ died sufficiently for all because it was intended for all. The Amyraldian differs only in the doctrine of ability one has to exercise faith. When used in a reformed context (Ursinus), it holds all men accountable but was not intended to save all. However, he really uses "for" all because of the value. He explains:

"Therefore, as he died for all, in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom; and for the faithful alone in respect to the efficacy of the same, so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit, that is, he willed to merit by his death, grace, righteousness, and life in the most abundant manner for all; because he 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.*"


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, they are rejecting something legitimately offered through unbelief. Note: this is not a denial that faith is a gift of God.
> ...



Christ accomplished through His death exactly what He intended to accomplish.


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe Owen could make the above claim due to his definition of sufficiency.
> ...



Agreed. I am simply asking that we understand that reformed theologians spoke of "for all" in different ways. None of the people I mentioned are advocating universal saving grace as intended for all.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 29, 2015)

I am just beginning to learn some of the details on this topic. So what I am going to ask is truly out of ignorance. What reconciles for my understanding the value of Christ's death with the predestination decree that some are reserved to eternal punishment and some to eternal life? I ask because the value of Christ's death is being used (maybe always or sometimes) with the sense of a value to all men. Sometimes used with the sense of the intention to all men. The latter neatly fits with predestination (reprobate/elect). Yet how is 'value' to be understood? If I am understanding the discussion 'value' is different from 'intention', but theologically how?

Edit: Is the 'value' and 'intent' difference understood respectively as a difference between 'God's nature' and 'God's decree'?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 29, 2015)

Wiliam Cuningham(1805-1861) gives insight into potential misunderstanding of the Reformed position, which serves as a call for care in using the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” terminology.

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. William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 332.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 29, 2015)

If we _reduce_ the discussion of the "value" of Christ's death to a *price tag*, if we tried to describe the worth of it simply in terms of its inherent, intrinsic excellence, measured as it were by some calculus--then we should reckon its value is the highest possible number. It is beyond conception. It certainly is _more than enough_ to suffice to cover the sins of all the elect.

So we admit the impropriety of this thinking, even as we engage it for the sake of gaining a purchase on apprehension. Nor should we think of the sum-total *demerit* of all the elect as if by the same calculus. It too is beyond conception, but for debt. It is not as if the worth of Christ's Person, and consequently his death, is measured against that debt and fitted to it. As if we said, "Here the limit of its value is reached."

But it is also false and improper to think, that the infinitely greater worth of Christ _in itself_--greater far than all the sin and shame of the elect--is translatable into a *purpose* of God, whereby it becomes us to say of it, "God _*intended*_ for the surpassing measure of Christ's death to be fitted over against not only the sin of the elect, but also the sin of each and every reprobate: the aggregate sin of the world; for that he might imply it should cover it all, _if only_ those too might believe, who nevertheless have no election." This kind of thinking is worse than pure speculation, for it attributes a divine intention to the Atonement of which Scripture knows nothing. It only exists to satisfy a rationalist passion.

If somehow we found the staggering, immeasurable aggregate dimensions of the sin of the whole world, it would still vanish in the depths of the infinite mercies of God in Christ; so vast is its intrinsic excellence.

Christ, in our understanding of the Atonement, did not die *for* aggregate sin, but *for* sinners; and particular sinners at that. Intent is not found one way in accomplishment, another way in application; but is the same for both.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 29, 2015)

Mr. Ellis and Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you both. That cleared it up so much!

Does the terminology in each statement properly correspond? Below:

The intrinsic value of the Son of God is His nature.
The extrinsic value of the Son of God is His purpose or intent in being our Redeemer.


----------



## MW (May 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> When used in a reformed context (Ursinus), it holds all men accountable but was not intended to save all. However, he really uses "for" all because of the value.



That is correct. The reformed view limits sufficiency to "value." So now that we have read Ursinus in an orthodox manner, he is found to be saying the same thing which Owen would later say about "value." I am glad our conversation has come to this conclusion. Let's not hear any more talk of Christ dying sufficiently for all men or of Christ's sufficiency being hypothetical.


----------



## MW (May 29, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> If I am understanding the discussion 'value' is different from 'intention', but theologically how?



The value is of divine intention. Man sinned. Christ took human nature to bear the punishment for sin. The punishment that Christ bore is that which man as a sinner deserved. Had God purposed to save one man or every man, Christ would have suffered the same, because He suffered the wrath of God against sin. So in and of itself the mediatorial work of Christ is sufficient to save every man. However, it was only intended to save the elect, and He only stood in the place of the elect when He wrought His great work, so it is only efficacious for the elect.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 29, 2015)

MW said:


> Nicholas Perella said:
> 
> 
> > If I am understanding the discussion 'value' is different from 'intention', but theologically how?
> ...



The strict sense of how the value of the Son of God is understood is precedent on God's intent. It depends on context, meaning, in one sense "in and of itself the mediatorial work of Christ is sufficient to save every man" for the value of Christ is infinite. Yet the value of Christ for salvation is bound by God's original intent, and He intended only the elect and not the reprobate to enjoy Him forever. Since the value of Christ's mediatorial work is determined by divine intention, His sufficiency to save is purposed by God to the elect only. correct? 

What I have trouble with is when you say:



MW said:


> Had God purposed to save one man or every man, Christ would have suffered the same, because He suffered the wrath of God against sin. So in and of itself the mediatorial work of Christ is sufficient to save every man.



There is an infinite value to Christ, but obviously the salvific truth is manifested by God's decree. Thus God could have decreed any of what you say above, but He only determined to save the elect and not the reprobate. Obviously the hypothetical in God could have saved one or all, is not an Amyraldian hypothetical because God has revealed to us His decree and we do not have to speculate. Yet it is a hypothetical based on the true value of the Son of God who is of an infinite value, but it is a hypothetical based on what we think is possible not on what God has determined is possible. His infinite value is only given to who God chooses to redeem and some He chooses not to redeem so they are not given salvation.

I really appreciate all the help that has been provided. The PB is a means of God for what He has revealed by His written Word is taught here in such a wonderful way. Praise God!


----------



## MW (May 29, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Since the value of Christ's mediatorial work is determined by divine intention, His sufficiency to save is purposed by God to the elect only. correct?



Yes. Sufficiency in and of itself does not save. Sufficiency only means that enough has been done to save. Without the divine intention to substitute Christ in the place of sinners no sinner would have been saved. In reformed theology the divine intention to save is limited to the elect.




Nicholas Perella said:


> Obviously the hypothetical in God could have saved one or all, is not an Amyraldian hypothetical because God has revealed to us His decree and we do not have to speculate. Yet it is a hypothetical based on the true value of the Son of God who is of an infinite value, but it is a hypothetical based on what we think is possible not on what God has determined is possible. His infinite value is only given to who God chooses to redeem and some He chooses not to redeem so they are not given salvation.



The Amyraldian hypothetical is an intention to save based on the condition of faith. They then add a further intention to supply the condition in the case of the elect. This makes an intrinsic conditional will in God, which reformed theology rejects. For the reformed the redemption purchased by Christ is not hypothetically resting on faith because Christ purchased faith itself. He stood in the place of a people, which makes a claim in righteousness that His work be applied to the people He stood for.

There is no "hypothetical sufficiency" in reformed thought. The sufficiency is actual. Sufficiency to save, however, is not salvation. Salvation includes the gift of faith.

What is stated as an hypothetical is not something in God but something in the nature of the satisfaction which Christ has made. Since it was made to satisfy for human sin it suffices as the "meritorious cause" of salvation, but this is irrespective of the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are chosen by grace.

So we do not have an hypothetical sufficiency in reformed thought. We have an actual sufficiency in the nature of the thing. The benefits, however, flow certainly to the stated beneficiaries, who are the elect.


----------



## timfost (May 29, 2015)

Question: The quote from Jim Ellis explains



> 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.



It would seem that this is the format of the Three Forms. Is this correct? 

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but as a strict subscriptionist to the Three Forms, this topic is very relevant to me.


----------



## MW (May 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> It would seem that this is the format of the Three Forms. Is this correct?
> 
> I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but as a strict subscriptionist to the Three Forms, this topic is very relevant to me.



The three forms includes Dort. Dort explains the sense in which the Heidelberg should be taken in light of the Remonstrant controversy.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 30, 2015)

MW said:


> The Amyraldian hypothetical is an intention to save based on the condition of faith. They then add a further intention to supply the condition in the case of the elect. This makes an intrinsic conditional will in God, which reformed theology rejects. For the reformed the redemption purchased by Christ is not hypothetically resting on faith because Christ purchased faith itself. He stood in the place of a people, which makes a claim in righteousness that His work be applied to the people He stood for.



The Amyraldian differs from Arminianism because the Arminian states God desires to save all conditioned on their free-will? God loves all people they just have to accept Him? (Free-will being a natural faith not a God given faith?)

Whereas the Amyraldian states Christ has died for all, but conditions the application to the elect who possess a natural faith (not a God given faith?

The Reformed states Christ has died only for His elect.




MW said:


> The sufficiency is actual. Sufficiency to save, however, is not salvation. Salvation includes the gift of faith.
> 
> What is stated as an hypothetical is not something in God but something in the nature of the satisfaction which Christ has made.



I understand. And God decrees who benefits from the sufficiency of Christ. The sufficiency of Christ is of infinite value, but that has nothing to do with what men by grace have applied to them this sufficient work of Christ. God's decree determines the application of God's given faith to His people.


----------



## timfost (May 30, 2015)

The main reason I started this thread was stated at the beginning.



> Regardless of where any reformed individual places himself, we should be very slow to judge someone as a 4-point Calvinist because of the specific terminology he uses.



There are still Reformed people who speak about Christ's death for all, not in any way to procure salvation for each one of them, but to bestow other blessings on them.



> Therefore the statement, so often heard from Reformed pulpits, that Christ died only for the elect must be rated a careless one. To be sure, if by “for” be meant in the place of the statement is accurate enough, for those in whose stead Christ suffered the penalty of sin will not themselves have to suffer that penalty, and therefore their salvation from that penalty is assured. If, however, by “for” be meant in behalf of, it is inaccurate, to say the least. Certain benefits of the atonement accrue to men generally, including the non-elect. (R. B. Kuiper, "For Whom Did Christ Die" 78)



And: 



> [The Calvinist] does not stand alone in upholding those universal aspects of the atonement… _t can be shown that the Calvinist, and he alone, precisely because of his particularism is in the position to do full justice to Scriptural universalism. The particular design of the atonement and its universal design in no way contradict each other. Nor do they merely complement each other. They support and strengthen each other. In final analysis they stand and fall together. The Calvinist can be, must be, and, inconsistencies aside, will be an ardent universalist because he is a zealous particularist. (Ibid, 79)_


_

I would love to start another thread sometime to talk about this. I would hope that we can get beyond Amyraldianism.

I would love to hear opinions. Do you think this would be a beneficial discussion? It is one that I've been wanting to have for a long time but have seemed to never get beyond accusations of Amyraldianism. Perhaps I am unclear about it and very likely, I have a lot to learn in the best way to word it. But this is why I would like to discuss. I'm really happy how this discussion ended up.

Thoughts?_


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 30, 2015)

Those quotations are reflective of the early-to-mid-20th century shift (a profound shift, as it turns out) in the CRCNA--wherein RBK was a minister--toward expanding the notion of "common grace."

It is simply a fact of history, that after the departure of the PRC congregations and ministers, there was a tremendous loss of balance within that denomination. This is not a brief for the PRC in every respect (they are capable of defending themselves anyway). But I simply point to the fact that the victory of the common-grace advocates led, not inexorably (as the PRC do argue) but certainly deliberately toward recasting not only Providence in common-grace terms, but also the Atonement in the same common-grace terms.

RBK's moderating language reflects this shift. RBK ideally represents the center-to-left slide of the CRC mainstream, as led by the faculty of Calvin Seminary and its graduates. When Hoeksema departed, even as polarizing a figure as he was, there was left no one of sufficient vision and personality to lead the holding of an orthodox center. 20th Century leaders in the CRC saw themselves and needing to break out of the "traditionalism" (wooden shoes) of their culture. Liberal theology was the rising wave of the future; K.Barth was both "Reformed" and one of the giants of the era; time to hitch up the cars to that engine.

In basic terms, Reformed theology as best represented in its mature Symbols (on trajectory with all that came before it)--both the West. Stds. and the 3FU--is a movement toward clarifying, defining, and demonstrating both the wonder in magnitude of the Atonement, and its precise *LIMITS*. To speak of the "_*universal*_ aspects of the atonement" is sadly deformation of the tradition.

Liberalizing theology always talks of progress and evolution of our thoughts about God. Liberals accuse conservatives of simply being "traditionalists," devoted to tradition as such. Conserving ("conservative") theology in its best sense is concerned about not losing the gains of the past, not rank traditionalism.

Liberals generally (theological, political, etc.) are all about present consumption: a "use it or lose it" perspective that exalts the present at the expense of the past (*"they're dead, who cares?"*) and the future (*"its only natural for children to war with their parents; I expect and want my children to scorch the earth over my grave"*). Although, in the end they expect to be adulated for a while; after all, they were "on the right side of history."

True conservationism is about living within means, valuing the deposit, seeking sustainable, organic growth. If we're going to talk about the deformation of Reformed theology, it needs to be done with respect to the Confessions and with appreciation for the historical factors that give meaning to the trends.


----------



## timfost (May 30, 2015)

Thanks for your perspective on this. I believe Turretin and Bavinck also spoke of benefits accruing to the reprobate from the death of Christ. In my thinking there was a similarity in what they say with RBK, although it might be stated differently. Similarly, the old reformers, many of whom I quoted, speak about Christ's death procuring the offer of salvation, a benefit extended to all of mankind. Furthermore, both Shedd and Charles Hodge speak about Christ dying for all sufficiently, dying for the elect effectively, if I've read them correctly. Obviously, they lived and wrote well after the Westminster standards were formulated. In fact, Shedd wrote a defence of the standards as you probably already know.

Another interesting thing is that both Dort and Scripture itself never affirm that Christ did not die for anyone. They rather speak about the intent and purpose of His death. The formulation that Christ did not die *in any way* for the reprobate is only logically deduced from the positive, and, in the view of some, only ascribes one positive benefit from the atonement to the elect alone. 

If the moderators don't think this an inappropriate discussion for the PB, I won't seek to continue it. 

Thanks


----------



## MW (May 31, 2015)

timfost said:


> The formulation that Christ did not die *in any way* for the reprobate is only logically deduced from the positive, and, in the view of some, only ascribes one positive benefit from the atonement to the elect alone.



Salvation is revealed by Scripture alone. In the absence of any scriptural reference to other beneficiaries we are safe in following Scripture's silence.

The Scripture assures us that with His Son God will freely give us all things. Those who make these "things" common to elect and reprobate are in effect undermining the assurance of final salvation to the elect.


----------



## MW (May 31, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Whereas the Amyraldian states Christ has died for all, but conditions the application to the elect who possess a natural faith (not a God given faith?



There are two decrees in Amyraldism. The first is to save all men on condition of faith. The second views men as unable to exercise faith and therefore elects certain men and ordains to give them faith. The faith of the elect is God-given. It is the first conditional decree which creates problems. It introduces an universal and hypothetical element into the plan of salvation.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 1, 2015)

MW said:


> Nicholas Perella said:
> 
> 
> > Whereas the Amyraldian states Christ has died for all, but conditions the application to the elect who possess a natural faith (not a God given faith?
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## timfost (Jun 1, 2015)

Rev. Buchanan,

You said:



> Liberalizing theology always talks of progress and evolution of our thoughts about God. Liberals accuse conservatives of simply being "traditionalists," devoted to tradition as such. Conserving ("conservative") theology in its best sense is concerned about not losing the gains of the past, not rank traditionalism.



I thoroughly agree. There is no evolution in theology. It is not subjective, "Schleiermacherian" and man-centered as we are dealing with objective truths. Although RBK spoke of the atonement differently than many others before him, particularly in regards other benefits (i.e. common grace), it was not an entirely new idea. Besides, the notion of saying that Christ died sufficiently for all is older-- more "traditional" than what it developed into during the Arminian controvery.

Personally, I believe that the scriptures warrant the sufficient for all formula, especially in terms of procuring the offer. In this way, I'm not sure if this distinction would fit under the category of "progressive" as it is older than what is now generally accepted as the reformed understanding of sufficiency.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 1, 2015)

Tim,
I can't recall if in the past I myself ever used the phrasing "sufficient for all," or merely referred to the "sufficient-efficient distinction." It has a history, certainly.

I've been on the PB for more than 10yrs, longer than I've been in the ministry actually. I went to seminary in the last century. Rev.Winzer has managed to teach me more than a few things, despite me being an old dog.

Time goes by, and we need to keep learning, and to keep clarifying our meaning sometimes. At some point, the medieval phrasing showed its weakness. Since we now have a more precise expression developed from the previous one, clearly showing its pedigree, why would we wish to take comfort in sliding backward toward the more vague statement, not quite Reformed? Is it because we're tired of being different? We feel the pain of divisions?

We could unravel the whole edifice, lift up the Apostles' Creed, join hands with Rome, the EO, the Copts and Nestorians, and sing kumbayah. That's the trajectory of stepping back, unless we think we simply made a more recent mistake, and have to retrace to correct in order to move forward.

I'd just ask you to ponder the wisdom and clarity of Rev.Winzer's knowledge and contributions. He knows historic Reformed theology. Generally, he has sound advice and a pastoral heart. We all have to be teachable at some point, in order to be a true teacher ourselves.

Blessings.


----------



## MW (Jun 1, 2015)

timfost said:


> Personally, I believe that the scriptures warrant the sufficient for all formula, especially in terms of procuring the offer.



What do you do with the fact that the offer does not come to "all?" Has Christ died in vain in this respect?

What do you do with the fact that the offer shall one day cease? Is it possible for a benefit of Christ's purchase to be revoked?

As the reprobate are not saved, the "offer" that is supposedly purchased by Christ could only be an offer of "salvability." But the gospel offers salvation -- the very salvation Christ Himself has wrought. The hearer is invited to believe in Christ for salvation, not salvability.


----------



## timfost (Jun 1, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Tim,
> I can't recall if in the past I myself ever used the phrasing "sufficient for all," or merely referred to the "sufficient-efficient distinction." It has a history, certainly.
> 
> I've been on the PB for more than 10yrs, longer than I've been in the ministry actually. I went to seminary in the last century. Rev.Winzer has managed to teach me more than a few things, despite me being an old dog.
> ...



I appreciate your point. 



> We could unravel the whole edifice, lift up the Apostles' Creed, join hands with Rome, the EO, the Copts and Nestorians, and sing kumbayah. That's the trajectory of stepping back, unless we think we simply made a more recent mistake, and have to retrace to correct in order to move forward.



I didn't consider stepping back to Calvin, Ursinus and the Heidelberg Catechism a "stepping back" against the reformation.



> I'd just ask you to ponder the wisdom and clarity of Rev.Winzer's knowledge and contributions. He knows historic Reformed theology. Generally, he has sound advice and a pastoral heart. We all have to be teachable at some point, in order to be a true teacher ourselves.
> 
> Blessings.



I will ponder, pray and continue to read. I very much respect your advice, experience and wisdom. I know I have a great deal to learn still. What has appealed to me so much about this distinction is how it does not speculate about what Christ *didnt* do. We so often spend so much time qualifying what "appears" to be universal language in scripture when scripture never articulates the negative "Christ did not die for..." I came to these convictions through reading Calvin, Ursinus and the Canons of Dort as well as studying the doctrine of eternal justification (which doctrine I thoroughly reject).

At this point, I cannot in clear conscience go beyond what I don't see to be clear in scripture. My family went into severe hyper-Calvinism when I was ten years old. I am now 29. Renouncing hyper-Calvinism only happened within the past year and a half. Under the influence of hyper-Calvinism, we bent over backwards to fit scripture into our system. Through study, I feel that the "sufficient for all, effective for the elect" reads most naturally in scripture and clarifies passages like John 3:18, 12:37-41, 2 Thes. 2:10, Heb. 10:26. I felt like scripture was opened up to me for the first time and was no longer a cryptic puzzle that I had to decode. 

I am also aware that my background in hyper-Calvinism could be causing an extreme reaction on my part. Part of the reason that I would like this discussion is so that I can test it, see if it holds up, see if it needs to be modified or even put away.

Thanks


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 2, 2015)

timfost said:


> What has appealed to me so much about this distinction is how it does not speculate about what Christ didnt do. We so often spend so much time qualifying what "appears" to be universal language in scripture when scripture never articulates the negative "Christ did not die for..."



Are there reprobate? Christ did not die for them?

A God given faith in Christ, then the assurance of our faith in Him is understood in the promises more fully in time until complete on that Last Day.

It is an asking of - Do I believe in Him? Do I believe in what He did? That is faith in Christ.


----------



## timfost (Jun 2, 2015)

Thanks, Nicholas. Yes, I understand that it is simple faith and a life that more and more confirms to the Word of God that gives us assurance. I certainly don't question that and I'm thankful for that.

Concerning the reprobate, certainly Christ did not die for them insofar as He determined to leave them in their sins. My struggling with this topic is not because I don't want to believe that there is a reprobate, but rather I only want to use biblical parameters. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology articulated where I'm at right now in my thinking. Shedd also has been helpful. He said:



> The use of the term “redemption,” consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of “atonement,” and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application.



I'm uncomfortable using "atonement" and "Christ's death" interchangeably since His death *by itself* is not what cleanses from sin (covers) but the application thereof by the means of faith.

Surely election and reprobation are unconditional, but actual salvation is always conditioned on faith, a requirement that God always gives the elect in time and space. When the gospel goes out, there is always a promise that whoever believes will be saved. The only way I can understand the verses I quoted in my previous post is with sufficiency.


----------



## MW (Jun 2, 2015)

Shedd's statement was examined here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/76290-atonement-unlimited-redemption-limited-quote

My response was:



> Shedd's statement is self-contradictory, and opens him up to being misunderstood in two ways. First, atonement is often used as a synonym for a specific part of redemption accomplished. See John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied, and the location of his treatment of the atonement. So "atonement" is a subset of the broader term, "redemption." The death of Christ touches on the broader category of "redemption" at the very point "atonement" is discussed. In other words, the two terms are speaking about the same thing when the death of Christ is the subject. It is simply double-speak to make two contradictory statements about the same thing. Secondly, reformed theologians only admit an internal sufficiency in the atonement. This means that Christ's death was infinite in value in and of itself without respect to the specific objects who would benefit from it. The point of the statement is merely to show that Christ has done all that is necessary for the salvation of men as men, and nothing more is needed in order to save any man. The efficacy of the atonement relates to the specific objects and beneficiaries. It is impossible to speak of the atonement being unlimited as to the objects who are its intended beneficiaries because all the sins of all men were not atoned for.


----------



## timfost (Jun 2, 2015)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I believe that the scriptures warrant the sufficient for all formula, especially in terms of procuring the offer.
> ...



Procuring the offer does not guarantee that it goes to all. It warrants the promise to whoever the offer goes out to. It accomplishes exactly what was intended and therefore can not be in vain.


> What do you do with the fact that the offer shall one day cease? Is it possible for a benefit of Christ's purchase to be revoked?



Who has ever said that all of the benefits procured by Christ's sacrifice are eternal? Again, it accomplishes exactly what it was designed to accomplish.


> As the reprobate are not saved, the "offer" that is supposedly purchased by Christ could only be an offer of "salvability." But the gospel offers salvation -- the very salvation Christ Himself has wrought. The hearer is invited to believe in Christ for salvation, not salvability.



Of course the gospel offers salvation-- salvation to all that believe. The condition is laid on all that hear the gospel, but only those who are quickened accept Christ by faith. Those who reject the gospel reject salvation, not "salvability." (John 3:17-18) The promise of salvation is just as much to them that reject as those who are quickened. God hardens the hearts of the reprobate when the gospel comes to them so that they do not believe, yet the promise was still good to them.



> 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
> 
> 40 “*He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts*,
> Lest they should see with their eyes,
> ...



Doesn't this passage show that the promise of salvation was also to them on the same condition of faith and repentance, conditions which He sovereignly withholds unto their condemnation?



> Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
> 
> And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves
> (Dort 2nd head, articles 5-6)


----------



## MW (Jun 2, 2015)

timfost said:


> Procuring the offer does not guarantee that it goes to all.



So it wasn't sufficient for all. You have lost your universal reference.



timfost said:


> Who has ever said that all of the benefits procured by Christ's sacrifice are eternal?



The Bible. Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." 2 Corinthians 4:18, "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."



timfost said:


> Of course the gospel offers salvation-- salvation to all that believe.



Very good. So then Christ didn't procure salvation for all men, but salvation which is for those who will believe. Your qualification contradicts your "sufficient for all" explanation.



timfost said:


> Doesn't this passage show that the promise of salvation was also to them on the same condition of faith and repentance, conditions which He sovereignly withholds unto their condemnation?



Yes, indeed. You are arguing well against your "sufficient for all" explanation.



timfost said:


> Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.



Excellent! Let's hear no more talk of Christ dying sufficiently to procure something which is not intended by God for all men.



timfost said:


> And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves
> (Dort 2nd head, articles 5-6)



Intrinsic sufficiency. This is the orthodox reformed response to the Remonstrants' extrinsic universalism.


----------



## MW (Jun 3, 2015)

William Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, 203-204:



> Because certain benefits, not of a saving nature, spring to all men from the death of Christ, we do not conceive it proper to say that Christ died for all men. It is plain that, in this sense, the phrase expresses a meaning different altogether from that which it bears when used with reference to the subjects of saving grace, or the objects of God's purpose of mercy. And, with nearly the same propriety, might it be affirmed that Christ died for angels, for it is not to be disputed, as we shall afterwards see, that they also derive important advantages from the death of Christ, more especially an enlargement of knowledge and an accession of companions, which, but for this, they could never have enjoyed.


----------



## timfost (Jun 3, 2015)

So maybe we're almost saying the same thing with different words??? 



> But [Christ's death] does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. *It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel*; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. *It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them*. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;" sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. *There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone*. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology)



I am very comfortable with the statement above, and it is how I believe it is appropriate to speak about Christ's death.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 3, 2015)

timfost said:


> I am very comfortable with the statement above, and it is how I believe it is appropriate to speak about Christ's death.



He died for the whole of the human race, because by Christ's death God has elected to save some who will continue the human race, though of a glorified, uncorrupted nature. Not that the whole of the human race is saved in quantity.


----------



## timfost (Jun 3, 2015)

Hodge again:



> Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it. Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, "No man perishes for want of an atonement.



Notice the phrase: "Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men." It is different from: "Christ did not die for the reprobate *in any way*."

I don't think there is any harm staying away from the latter statement as it is not found in scripture. Those who hold to this first form of expression can hardly be characterized as Amyraldian.


----------



## MW (Jun 3, 2015)

Hodge stated,



> The facts which are clearly revealed concerning the death or work of Christ are, —
> (1.) That God from eternity gave a people to his Son.
> (2.) That the peculiar and infinite love of God to his people is declared to be the motive for the gift of his Son; and their salvation the design of his mission.
> (3.) That it was as their representative, head, and substitution, He came into the world, assumed our nature, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the curse of the law.
> (4.) That the salvation of all given to Him by the Father, is thus rendered absolutely certain.



Hodge has exhausted the intent of the death of Christ on the elect. There is nothing left for "all men." Whatever sense he made of "Christ dying for all men," it is a contradiction.

The "other advantages" are the result of the general providential order. They are such things as God ordained for creation at large in view of His purpose to save His people. These "other advantages" are not the reason He sent His Son into the world.


----------



## timfost (Jun 3, 2015)

MW said:


> Hodge stated,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it possible that you have missed something then?



> The "other advantages" are the result of the general providential order. They are such things as God ordained for creation at large in view of His purpose to save His people. These "other advantages" are not the reason He sent His Son into the world.



But Hodge relates these advantages to Christ's death. 

Rev. Matthew, I am not asking you to agree with me. As this is a reformed forum, I have desired to talk about reformed theology concerning this subject. I've only quoted reformed theologians. I've quoted reformed confessions. Do you feel like I am undermining reformed theology when I agree with these reformed men?


----------



## MW (Jun 3, 2015)

timfost said:


> Is it possible that you have missed something then?



No. Please read it for yourself:

"That the peculiar and infinite love of God to his people is declared to be the motive for the gift of his Son; and their salvation the design of his mission."

That is exhaustive. There is no room for any other motive. The introduction of any other motive removes the exhaustive nature of the statement.



timfost said:


> But Hodge relates these advantages to Christ's death.



Without scriptural warrant. Scripture relates these advantages to the forbearance of God, not to the satisfaction of His justice.



timfost said:


> Do you feel like I am undermining reformed theology when I agree with these reformed men?



It doesn't matter what I feel. Reformed men can err. The fact a reformed man states a certain position does not make it reformed. We ought not to agree with a reformed man when he speaks contrary to his own distinctively reformed position.


----------



## timfost (Jun 3, 2015)

So then who is the arbiter of what is actually reformed? 

Is it speculative to believe that Christ's death secures other benefits besides salvation? Then could you please bring to my attention one passage that states that Christ did not die for some?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a pain. I'm not saying that I'm certain that I'm right on this. I simply don't want to go where Scripture doesn't warrant.


----------



## MW (Jun 4, 2015)

timfost said:


> So then who is the arbiter of what is actually reformed?



Dort has worked out a good solution to the problems raised in this area. Westminster has followed in its steps. Both are distinctively particularist.



timfost said:


> Is it speculative to believe that Christ's death secures other benefits besides salvation? Then could you please bring to my attention one passage that states that Christ did not die for some?



It is obviously speculative because Scripture does not teach it, and we are shut up to special revelation in order to know the purpose of God in sending His Son. It can also be regarded as a dangerous speculation because it introduces a distinction where the Scriptures do not distinguish. The Scriptures clearly limit the purpose of God in sending the Son to the elect, as Hodge has clearly stated. Any attempt to broaden this testimony only serves to undermine the faith of God's elect.

There are numerous passages which speak in the same exhaustive tone that Hodge has reflected. They can all be summed up in the definition of Jesus' name, "He shall save His people from their sins." He gives His life a ransom for many. He lays down His life for the sheep, and excludes the finally impenitent from the number of His sheep. He prays for those whom the Father gives Him but not for the world. He loves the church and gives Himself for her. Indeed, the church is His fulness, which means the church is the full expression of His mediatorial office and labour, nothing lacking.


----------



## timfost (Jun 4, 2015)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > So then who is the arbiter of what is actually reformed?
> ...



Let me reiterate that not I, nor any of the men I quoted disagree that the salvation wrought by God by the means of Christ's sacrifice and the efficacious work of the Spirit are anything but particular. It's sad to me that you are still trying to force me against this.

I'm not sure if there is any reason to continue this conversation...


----------



## MW (Jun 4, 2015)

timfost said:


> Let me reiterate that not I, nor any of the men I quoted disagree that the salvation wrought by God by the means of Christ's sacrifice and the efficacious work of the Spirit are anything but particular. It's sad to me that you are still trying to force me against this.
> 
> I'm not sure if there is any reason to continue this conversation...



I am not forcing you into anything; I am just trying to help you see the consequences of certain positions. If one fully rejoices in the Scriptural truth of Christ's full and free salvation for His people there will be no reason to speculate on things of which Scripture says nothing.


----------



## timfost (Jun 4, 2015)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Let me reiterate that not I, nor any of the men I quoted disagree that the salvation wrought by God by the means of Christ's sacrifice and the efficacious work of the Spirit are anything but particular. It's sad to me that you are still trying to force me against this.
> ...



Fair enough!  I appreciate your concern and will continue to think about it. I've included some more Hodge quotes below from the same section. Obviously to him, it was not a contradiction to say that Christ's death extended benefits to the non-elect. I would encourage anyone to read the chapter for themselves to see how Hodge reconciles these doctrines. Hopefully, even though we disagree on exactly how to speak about Christ's death, we can both agree on the design of salvation and Christ's satisfaction and be encouraged that God will glorify Himself in all things.



> Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died specially for his own people does account for the general offer of the gospel, how is it to be reconciled with those passages which. in one form or another, teach that He died for all men? In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that *Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that he died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance.* These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." Every human being who does come is saved. *This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his peop1e, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures.* They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches...
> 
> There is another class of passages with which it is said that the Augustinian doctrine cannot be reconciled; such, namely, as speak of those perishing for whom Christ died. In reference to these passages it may be remarked, first, that *there is a sense, as before stated, in which Christ did die for all men. His death had the effect of justifying the offer of salvation to every man; and of course was designed to have that effect. He therefore died sufficiently for all*...
> 
> *[T]he salvation of all for whom He thus offered Himself is rendered certain by the gift of the Spirit to bring them to faith and repentance, are intermingled with declarations of good-will to all mankind, with offers of salvation to every one who will believe in the Son of God, and denunciations of wrath against those who reject these overtures of mercy. All we have to do is not to ignore or deny either of these modes of representation, but to open our minds wide enough to receive them both, and reconcile them as best we can. Both are true, in all the cases above referred to, whether we can see their consistency or not.*


----------



## Toasty (Jun 4, 2015)

Christ died for the elect alone. He did not die for the reprobate.

God has the power to save everyone, but He did not choose to save everyone.

Christ's atonement has the power to save everyone, but Christ did not die for everyone.


----------



## MW (Jun 4, 2015)

Hodge said:


> He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance.



(1) Some of our apostate race were already suffering the wrath of God in hell. Others, we are told, are reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished. (2) Temporal gifts do not come with God's blessing to the wicked. Hence they could not have been procured with a satisfaction to divine justice. "All things are yours" because "ye are Christ's," and "Christ is God's." (3) Christ's death requires its application to those for whom He died; it does not leave the application hanging in a state of suspense.

As noted, Hodge contradicted himself. He exhausted the intent of the death of Christ on the elect. If his universal reference were admitted it would refute his particularism.


----------



## MW (Jun 4, 2015)

Note A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology:



> Christ came into this world, obeyed, suffered, died, appeared before God, intercedes and sends his Spirit as mediator. These are all essential parts of the same office. *If he died for all*, *therefore*, *he must perform every other mediatorial act for all*, *he must sanctify all*, *and intercede for all*. All these are represented as united in the Scriptures, 1 John ii., 1, 2; Rom; viii., 34; iv., 25; John xvii., 9. As these are all inseparably united in the execution, they must have been united in the design.


----------

