timfost
Puritan Board Senior
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)
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)
