Atonement and Sufficiency

[MW]

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]

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.

Thank you.

 

[timfost]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

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]

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.