# Peter Martyr on the benefits of Christ's death



## MW (Aug 30, 2006)

*Peter Martyr on the benefits of Christ\'s death*

In another thread, David Ponter quoted the new edition of Peter Martyr's works:



> We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it is sufficient for all the world's sinners.



Please note the wording in the original 16th century translation of the Common Places, part 3, chap 1, p. 31:



> Which we also will easily grant, if only the worthiness of the death of Christ be considered: for, as touching it, it *might be* sufficient for all the sinners of the world.



It is also important to note what the reformer teaches after the quoted portion, for therein he enlarges on what is necessary in order for the death of Christ to be not only hypothetically but actually healthful:



> "¦for thereunto it is necessary, that the death of Christ be healthful unto us, that we take hold of it; which cannot otherwise be done, but by faith: which faith we have before abundantly declared to be the gift of God, and not to be given unto all men.



It should be observed that in this section Peter Martyr is in the process of answering the objections of the adversaries. In the previous section, where he was positively expounding Scriptural teaching, he wrote (p. 19):



> Here we answer, that Christ and his death is the principal and chief effect of predestination. For amongst those things which are of God given unto the elect, is Christ himself, & the fruit of his death. For whatsoever is given unto us by this way, and by this conduit, as it were, is derived unto us from God.



Clearly then, like Calvin, Peter Martyr taught that the benefits of Christ's death are the result of the predestination of God, and these extend only to the elect.

[Edited on 8-30-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## JOwen (Aug 30, 2006)

Thank you for defending the truth brother.


----------



## Flynn (Aug 30, 2006)

G'day Matthew,

David Yeah I caught my typo this morning and have corrected my file.

Now to the point:

Which we also will easily grant, if only the worthiness of the death of Christ be considered: for, as touching it, it *might be* sufficient for all the sinners of the world.


Matthew: It is also important to note what the reformer teaches after the quoted portion, for therein he enlarges on what is necessary in order for the death of Christ to be not only hypothetically but actually healthful:

David: the might does not change anything as it´s the equivalent of should. He is not positing a bare possiblity.

Matthew quoting Vermigli:

"¦for thereunto it is necessary, that the death of Christ be healthful unto us, that we take hold of it; which cannot otherwise be done, but by faith: which faith we have before abundantly declared to be the gift of God, and not to be given unto all men.

Matthew concludes:
It should be observed that in this section Peter Martyr is in the process of answering the objections of the adversaries. In the previous section, where he was positively expounding Scriptural teaching, he wrote (p. 19):

And quoting Vermigli:
Here we answer, that Christ and his death is the principal and chief effect of predestination. For amongst those things which are of God given unto the elect, is Christ himself, & the fruit of his death. For whatsoever is given unto us by this way, and by this conduit, as it were, is derived unto us from God.

And Matthew:

Clearly then, like Calvin, Peter Martyr taught that the benefits of Christ's death are the result of the predestination of God, and these extend only to the elect.

David: David says totally agree. The benefits only extend to the elect. Thats not whats under contention. What is under contention is: Did Calvin et al, hold to the Lombardian formula which posits a unversal objective redemption for all men as part of the sufficient side of the equation, and this as well as the efficient side of the formula.

We all agree that the benefits of the redemption only extend, as in apply, to the elect, but that the price of redemption was still paid for all: just as Calvin, Musculus, Prosper, Augustine, Parause et al, maintained.

So clearly, Vermigli agreed with the Medievals that Christ sufficiently REDEEMED all men. He held to the old formula and its theology. I see you don´t address that.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-30-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## MW (Aug 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Flynn_
> David: the might does not change anything as it´s the equivalent of should. He is not positing a bare possiblity.



Yet when it comes to Owen, he MUST be exegeted according to the strict rules of grammar, because David Ponter MUST find in Owen a teaching that is substantially different from that espoused by the earlier reformers.

Of course the reformer was positing a possibility because he goes on to state what the conditions are whereby the possibility becomes a reality.

But it becomes ever more apparent, the more David Ponter seeks to find a dichotomy in the reformed tradition, what David Ponter is really teaching. He writes:



> We all agree that the benefits of the redemption only extend, as in apply, to the elect, but that the price of redemption was still paid for all: just as Calvin, Musculus, Prosper, Augustine, Parause et al, maintained.



At last David Ponter has bewrayed his real position, namely, that the early reformers held that Christ died for all in the impetration or purchase of redemption, but that the benefits of Christ's death are restricted to the elect in the application. This formula, as any person knows who has even cursorily studied the subject, teaches that Christ died effectually for all men, that His death actually purchased benefits for each and every man in the world, Judas as well as Peter.

Quite clearly, this is NOT the position of the early reformed tradition. As stated in an earlier thread, this is the position of the Arminian articles of 1610.



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



[Edited on 8-31-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 31, 2006)

Matthew, another excellent post.

Guys, without opening another topic, U2U me if you need to, I'm closing this one as well.

[Edited on 8-31-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------

