Thomas Manton on the infinite sufficiency of Christ’s death

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
... Because there is a sufficiency in the merits of Christ for all, so that if it had pleased God to give Christ to all mankind, his justice had been sufficiently satisfied. For there is no defect in the Redeemer, and therefore there are so many general expressions in scripture to set out the value of Christ’s sacrifice; so that if there were ten thousand times more sins committed than there are, here is enough to expiate them all, the person that suffered being so eminent, and the sufferings so great and infinite. Those that perish do not perish out of any defect or insufficiency in the merit of Christ, as if enough were not done to save them; but out of their own fault, because they did not believe it.

Thus it is said, 1 Cor. 15:22, ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;’ that is, as there was a sufficiency in Adam, the first common person, to ruin all his posterity, so there was a sufficiency in Christ to save all that Adam ruined; for it must needs be understood so, for take it literally and it is against all common experience. Many know not Christ, many hate him and will not come unto him: “Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life;’ Rom. 5:18, ‘Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.’ The text proveth nothing but that there was as much sufficiency in Christ to justify, as there was in Adam to condemn. That we may not have too low and undervaluing thoughts of Christ’s sufferings, the scripture speaks thus generally: there is enough for me and thee, and all the world. It is a great injury done to Christ to lessen and extenuate him beneath Adam, as if he were not as able to recover as the other to ruin us. ...

For more, see Thomas Manton on the infinite sufficiency of Christ’s death.

N.B. If you have the time to read through the post in full (beware that it is rather long), how do you understand Manton's position on the atonement in relation to the debate between hypothetical universalists and strict particularists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top