.
Subsection
Atonement Provides Common Grace to Reprobates
Contra Amyrauldianism & Hypothetical Universalism
.
.
Order of Contents
Statement of Question
Bible Verses
Articles
Books
Quotes
Latin
Early & Medieval
Post-Reformation
What ‘All’ Means
Simplicity & Atonement
‘Same’ vs. ‘as Much’
LA: Consistent with Further Designs in Atonement
Reprobates made Salvable
Baptists
.
Statement of the Question
Francis Turretin
Institutes, vol. 2, 14th Topic, ‘The Mediatorial Office of Christ’, Question 14, sections 9-11, pp. 458-59
“IX. Hence the state of the question is easily elicited. (1) It is not asked with respect to the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ–whether it was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men. For it is confessed by all that since its value is infinite, it would have been entirely sufficient for the redemption of each and every one, if God had seen fit to extend it to the whole world. And here belongs the distinction used by the fathers and retained by many divines–that Christ ‘died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only.’ For this being understood of the dignity of Christ’s death is perfectly true (although the phrase would be less accurate if referred to the will and purpose of Christ).
But the question properly concerns the purpose of the Father in delivering up his own Son and the intention of Christ in dying. Did the Father appoint his Son for each and every one and, did the Son deliver himself up to death with the design and intention of substituting himself in the place of each and every one to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for the same? Or did he resolve to deliver himself up for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed and whose head he was to be?…
Hence it is sufficiently evident that it is not here treated of the revealed will (eurestias) of God only, but of his secret will (eudokias) under which the death and mission of Christ fall (as all must agree).
X. (2) The question does not concern the fruits and efficacy of Christ’s death–whether each and all will be actually made partakes of these [and hence be saved]… Our opponents acknowledge that these are to be extended to believers only.
Rather the question refers to the design of God in sending his Son into the world and the purpose of Christ in his death. Were these such that Christ by substituting himself in the place of each and every one, made satisfaction and obtained the remission of sin and salvation for them all or for the elect only? They affirm the former; we affirm the latter.
XI. (3) We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world , that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God’s word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionable flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. Rather the question is whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were (by the counsel of God and the will of Christ himself) intended for each and every one (as they hold); or for the elect only (as we assert).”
.
Bible Verses (not exhaustive)
Old Testament
Gen. 4:3-5 “Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.”
Ex. 12:23 “For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”
Ex. 24:8 “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”
Lev. 4:20 “And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.”
Lev. 5:6 “And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.”
Lev. 16:15-16 “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: and he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.”
Lev. 16:30 “For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.”
Dt. 7:6-8 “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
2 Chron. 29:24 “And the priests killed them, and they made reconciliation with their blood upon the altar, to make an atonement for all Israel:”
Ps. 79:9 “Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name’s sake.”
Ps. 130:7-8 “Let Israel hope in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.”
Isa. 43:3-4 “For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.”
Isa. 52:14-15 “As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.”
Isa. 53:4-6, 8
“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all…
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”
Eze. 37:23 “Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.”
Eze. 45:17 “he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.”
Mic. 7:18-20 “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.”
Zech. 9:11 “As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.”
.
New Testament
Mt. 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
Mt. 18:11 “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
Mt. 20:28 “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
Mt. 26:28 “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Mk. 10:45 “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
Lk. 19:10 “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Jn. 10:11 “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”
Jn. 10:15 “I lay down my life for the sheep.”
Jn. 11:51-52 “but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”
Jn. 15:13 “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Jn. 17:9 “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.”
Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
Rom. 3:24-25 “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
Rom. 4:25 “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”
Rom. 5:2 “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
Rom. 5:8-10 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
Rom. 5:18 “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”
Rom. 8:32-34 “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”
1 Cor. 1:30 “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:”
1 Cor. 6:19-20 “know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price:”
2 Cor. 5:18-21 “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
Gal. 1:4 “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:”
Gal. 2:20 “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
Gal. 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:”
Gal. 4:4-5 “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Eph. 1:7 “ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”
Eph. 1:14 “…until the redemption of the purchased possession…”
Eph. 2:14-16 “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”
Eph. 5:2 “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.”
Eph. 5:25-27 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
Phil. 1:29 “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him…”
Col. 1:13-14 “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
Col. 1:20-22 “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:”
1 Tim. 1:15 “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”
Titus 2:14 “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”
Heb. 1:3 “…when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:”
Heb. 2:17 “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
Heb. 9:12, 14-15 “…but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
Heb. 9:28 “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
Heb. 10:10 “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Heb. 10:14 “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
Heb. 13:12 “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”
1 Pet. 1:2 “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”
1 Pet. 1:18-19 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
1 Pet. 2:24 “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”
1 Pet. 3:18 “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:”
1 Jn. 1:7 “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
1 Jn. 4:9-11 “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.”
Rev. 1:5-6 “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father…”
Rev. 5:9 “for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”
.
John Owen: “…for, notwithstanding all their pretences, it will appear that they [of the opposite opinion] hang the whole weight of their building on three or four texts of Scripture— namely, 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Jn. 3:16-17; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2, with some few others [e.g. Jn. 1:29; 1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:1]— and the ambiguity of two or three words, which themselves cannot deny to be of exceeding various acceptations.” Death of Death, ‘To the Reader’ in Works 10:153-54
.
Articles
1500’s
Tossanus, Daniel – A Theological Disputation on that Place of Paul, 1 Cor. 15:22, ‘As in Adam All Die, so in Christ All shall be Made Alive’, & of this Question, Whether Christ has Died for All?, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 trans. Michael Lynch (Heidelberg, 1589)
Tossanus (1541-1602) was a French reformed theologian and professor of New Testament at Heidelberg, Germany.
“Tossanus… engaged in a literary battle with [the Lutherans, Samuel] Huber and [Aegidius] Hunnius… All three [other German] works [of Tossanus] maintain that Christ came into the world for his people, and pour scorn on the idea that Christ could have died for those now damned. The ‘all’s of the Bible are to be understood as referring to all believers. The sufficiency of the death of Christ for all is freely granted, but the fruit or effect limited to believers, so that it is said that Christ both did and did not die for all, depending on the sense in which the assertion is made.
The discussion ranges around faith rather than predestination, which is hardly touched upon, and the position espoused is, in summary, that Christ died for believers.” G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 117
Zanchi, Jerome – The Sum of ch. 4 of the Tractate touching Christ our Advocate contained in Four Propositions in Sundry Positions out of the Praelections of Zanchi which were carped at by his Adversaries in Speculum Christianum, or A Christian Survey for the Conscience, containing Three Tractates… (d. 1590; London, 1614)
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William –
Walaeus, Anthony – Theological Disputation on the Universality of the Death of Christ tr. by AI by Chaznvo (Leiden, 1636) 5 pp. Latin
Despite the ambiguous title, Walaeus here clearly argues for limited atonement.
Rutherford, Samuel
Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), ch. 9, ‘On Universal Redemption’
6. ‘Whether all are directly obligated in the same way and by the same principle [jure] to believe in Christ announced by the gospel? We deny with a distinction against the Remonstrants.’, pp. 90-92
Rutherford distinguishes that all sinners are to believe in Christ by the same law, with regard to the evangelical mandate and conscience, but that all are not to believe by the same law, so far as the decree of God goes, distinguishing elect and reprobate, based on who Christ died for.
17. ‘Is Every Person to Believe that Christ Died for Him? [Denied]’, pp. 92-93
Only those who accept Christ have the promise to believe that Christ died for them.
18. ‘Whether Reprobates are required to believe in Christ, He not having died for them? [Yes]’, pp. 94-95
ch. 9, ‘On Universal Redemption’ in Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI by Monergism (1639-1642; Utrecht, 1668; 2024), pp. 357-403
1. Whether Christ died for each and every person? We deny against the Remonstrants.
2. Whether Christ procured reconciliation for each and every person by his death, and that truly, not by that act conferring it? We deny against the Remonstrants.
3. Whether those may perish for whom Christ has died? We deny against the Remonstrants.
4. Whether these three things are effects of the death of Christ: 1. That God does not will anyone to perish because of the sin of Adam. 2. That he casts off none from himself because of sins preceding the calling of the gospel. 3. That none are afflicted with an eternal punishment or cast off from the communion of a heavenly life on account of sins of infirmity. We deny against the Remonstrants.
5. Whether the gospel can be preached in every place and time? We deny against the Remonstrants.
6. Whether all are directly obligated in the same way and by the same principle [jure] to believe in Christ announced by the gospel? We deny with a distinction against the Remonstrants.
7. Whether unbelievers are objects of eternal punishment because, although they can, they do not believe? We deny against the Remonstrants.
8. Whether the Remonstrants say rightly and by consequence from their principles that Christ did not die only for the finally impenitent? We deny.
9. Whether, by the death of Christ, the merciful affection in God, by which He wills all to be saved, is changed into an absolute purpose to give eternal life to those who believe? We deny against the Remonstrants.
10. Whether Christ thus endured the lot of those for whom He died in order that God would consider the punishments owed to them as dead? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
11. Whether Christ intercedes generally for all, but specially and truly only for those who believe? We deny against the Remonstrants.
12. Whether Christ merited faith and regeneration for none? We deny against the Remonstrants.
13. Whether Christ embraced those He died for with the greatest love? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
14. Whether reconciliation is by the active efficiency of God’s will to save in place of a will to damn? We deny against the Remonstrants.
15. Whether the foundation of Christian certainty is in this, that Christ died for all, and of desperation rather, that He died only for those elected absolutely? We deny against the Remonstrants.
16. Whether the reprobate are made reconcilable to God by the death of Christ? We deny against the Remonstrants. [The Arminians simply affirm it. We distinguish…]
17. Whether each and every truly reprobate person must believe Christ to have died for them? We deny against the Remonstrants.
18. Whether it may be required by [divine] law from reprobates that they believe in Christ? We affirm against [what] the Remonstrants [say of our position].
19. Whether none can rest in Christ in faith, except that he first know that He was given by God to him as a savior? We deny against the Remonstrants.
The Doctrine of Universal Atonement Proven False & Unscriptural, from his Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself, no date, 88 paragraphs
This work is commended by John Owen in his preface to The Death of Death.
Turretin, Francis
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (d. 1687; 1679–1685; P&R, 1992) This is also in: ch. 5, ‘The Extent of the Atonement’ in On the Atonement, pp. 115-195
vol. 1, 4th Topic
17. ‘Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny.’ 395-417
vol. 2, 14th Topic
14. ‘Did Christ die for each and every man universally or only for the elect? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.’ 455-83
Brown of Wamphray, John – ‘Arguments Against Universal Redemption’ †1679 36 pp.
.
1700’s
Ness, Christopher – Ch. 2, ‘Of Universal Redemption’ in An Antidote Against Arminianism: or a Treatise to Enervate & Confute all the Five Points Thereof… (1700; London, 1838) This has a recommendation by John Owen.
.
1800’s
Cunningham, William – ‘Arminian View of the Atonement’, ‘Extent of the Atonement’, ‘Evidence as to the Extent of the Atonement’, ‘Extent of the Atonement and the Gospel Offer’, ‘Extent of the Atonement and its Object’ & ‘Extent of Atonement, and Calvinistic Principles’ 1870 69 pp. from Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 301-370
Cunningham was a professor of the Free Church of Scotland.
Walker, James – ‘The Extent of Redemption’ 1888 15 pp. being section 3 of ch. 3, ‘The Atonement’ in The Theology & Theologians of Scotland: Chiefly of the Seventeenth & Eighteenth Centuries, pp. 79-94
A survey of the 1600’s Scottish covenanters on the extent of the atonement, from a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.
Spurgeon, Charles – Particular Redemption a sermon on Matt 20:28, 1858, 31 paragraphs
Janeway, Jacob – ‘The Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement Illustrated and Defended’ †1858 21 pp. in A Series of Tracts on the Doctrines, Order & Polity of the Presbyterian Church, vol. 1
This tract defending Limited Atonement from scripture is one of the best there is.
Janeway was an Old School Presbyterian, ministerial colleague of Dr. Ashbel Green, and the president of the board of Princeton Seminary from 1849-58.
.
1900’s
Murray, John – ‘On Romans 8’ 15 pragraphs from Redemption Accomplished & Applied
Boettner, Loraine – ‘Limited Atonement’ 28 paragraphs
Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Purpose & Extent of the Atonement’ (1950) 16 paragraphs, from his Systematic Theology
Schwertley Brian – ‘Limited Atonement’ n.d. 64 paragraphs
.
2000’s
Riccardi, Mike – ‘Triune Particularism: Why Unity in the Trinity Demands a Particular Redemption‘ in The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 33, no. 1 (Spring, 2022), pp. 159-85
.
Books
1500’s
Kimedoncius, Jacobus – Of the Redemption of Mankind, Three Books, wherein the Controversy of the Universality of Redemption & Grace by Christ, & of his Death for all Men, is Largely Handled. Hereunto is Annexed a Treatise of God’s Predestination in One Book (London, 1598) In Latin (1592)
Kimedoncius (c.1550-1596) was a reformed, professor of theology at Heidelberg.
Kimedoncius’s opponent in this work was Samuel Huber (1547-1624), who was a convert from being reformed to Lutheranism. As such, he advocated a general atonement with a particular election.
“But Harsnett’s association of a rigorous particularism with ‘Geneva’ should not be taken so as to exclude the Heidelberg school. In this connection two outstanding but now less well-known divines should be mentioned, namely Jeremias Bastingius and Jacobus Kimedoncius.
These divines, in works that were repeatedly published in England in the 1580’s and 1590’s, offered ‘Perkinsian’ interpretations of such texts as John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and 1 John 2:2… He also taught that Christ’s priestly satisfaction and intercession were only for the elect; that under the preaching of the gospel, sinners are not required to believe that Christ died for them personally; that a universal gospel call does not necessitate a desire in God to save the reprobate; and that the gospel promise is strictly particular.
Kimedoncius’ work was personally licensed by Bishops Richard Bancroft of London and Richard Vaughan of Chester. Kimedoncius’ work therefore serves as an example of how strict Elizabethan particularism, with the blessing of the establishment, was also nourished by continental sources.” – Jonathan D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism… (Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 67-68
“In his larger Concerning the Redemption of Mankind, Kimedoncius… appealed again to the sufficient-efficient distinction. ‘The blood of Christ was shed for those only that are predestinated, as touching efficacy: but for all men as touching sufficiency.’
Kimedoncius was sensitive to Huber’s charge that limited redemption was a novelty introduced by Beza at Montbeliard, and cited fathers and schoolmen to ‘prove’ the antiquity of the position. Calvin, Beza Grynaeus and other Reformed leaders were also cited as favoring the sufficient-efficient distinction. According to Kimedoncius, when the Reformed have said that Christ did not die for all, and Beza is specially singled out for this ‘defence’, they are not to be taken ‘absolutely and without restraint’ but as following ‘the old distinction’. The Reformed, Kimedoncius maintained, agree that if all would believe, all would be saved…
As well as acknowledging universal sufficiency, Kimedoncius indicated other legitimate understandings of universal redemption. It is universal in the sense that the whole church is redeemed, and that all who are saved are saved only through Christ, and that Christ is a ransom for all classes.” – G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), pp. 117-8
.
1600’s
Stalham (d. 1681) was a puritan clergyman, minister and divine who was ejected in 1662. He then pastored a congregationalist church till his death. According to Calamy, he was ‘of strict congregational principles.’ He dedicated one work of his to the Westminster Assembly. He wrote numerous works against the Quakers.
This work is commended by John Owen in his preface to The Death of Death.
Owen, John – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, being a Treatise of the Redemption & Reconciliation that is in the Blood of Christ; wherein the whole Controversy about Universal Redemption is Fully Discussed (†1683) 320 pp.
.
1800’s
Haldane, J.A.
The Doctrine of the Atonement, with Strictures on the Recent Publications of Drs. Wardlaw & Jenkyn (1847) 368 pp.
.
1900’s
Kuiper, R. B. – For Whom Did Christ Die? A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement Buy (1959; Wipf & Stock, 2003) 104 pp.
.
2000’s
eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson – From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological & Pastoral Perspective Buy
.
Quotes
Order of
1500’s
Olevianus
Ridley
Pareus
1600’s
Alsted
Hoornbeek
1800’s
Rabbi Duncan
.
1500’s
Caspar Olevianus
De Substantia Foederis Gratuiti inter Deum et Electos (Geneva, 1585), pp. 67-72 as translated in G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 114
“In the eternal counsel of God… this ransom was not destined for any other than those who believe… that is, those whom the Son of God makes believers.”
“If He had made intercession and sacrifice for reprobates too, then clearly, their sins having been paid for by the sacrifice of the Son of God, the justice of God would not allow Him to require a debt already paid by the Son, nor would the justice of God be able to punish them with eternal death for their sins inasmuch as satisfaction has been made by Him.”
.
Nicholas Ridley †1555
John Foxe, Acts & Monuments, 19th century edition, volume 7, Written in prison before his execution by fire.
“…Not only the Lord’s commandment is broken, his cup is denied to his servants, to whom He commanded it should be distributed, but also with the Mass is set up a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice to satisfy and pay the price of sins both of the dead and the quick, to the great and intolerable insult of Christ our Savior, his death and passion, which was and is the one only sufficient and everlasting available sacrifice satisfactory for all the elect of God, from Adam the first, to the last that shall be born in the end of the world…”
.
On David Pareus
As given in G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 116, citing ‘A Piece of a Speech, Concerning that Question, to whom Properly doe the benefits of Christ’s Sufferings and Death Belong? And, how Christ is said to die for all?’, pp. 808-811 in Theological Miscellanies of Dr. David Pareus (London, 1645) (pp. 667-844 of The Summe) A fuller Latin version is in ‘Miscellanea‘, cols. 39-44, in Ursinus’s Opera 3.
“On the understanding that the death of Christ belongs to ‘the universalitie of the faithfull’, people discover whether Christ died for them by employing the syllogism:
‘Christ prayed and died for all believers; I believe; Ergo, Christ died for me.’
Pareus rejected the alternative:
‘Christ died for all men; I am a man: Ergo, Christ died for me.'”
.
1600’s
Johann H. Alsted
Polemical Theology (1627), pt. 6, section 1, article 2, pp. 679-80 tr. Onku with AI
“I. What was the will and intention of the Father and the Son in undergoing the death of the cross?
Arminians: The will and intention of the Father in delivering the Son to death, and of the Son in undergoing it, was that reconciliation and remission of sins might be obtained for all and every one, both those that perish and those that are to be saved, but applied only to believers. Therefore, although those things are obtained for all and every one, yet they are applied only to believers.
Censure: The will and intention of the Father in delivering the Son to death, and of the Son in undergoing it, was that the Son, through the ransom of his precious blood, might both obtain and apply remission of sins and eternal life to those whom the Father gave to him from eternity. Matthew 20:28; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:25; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:21-22. To this pertain also those passages of Scripture, where Christ is said to have laid down his life for his sheep, to have given himself for his Church, to have redeemed the Church with his own blood. John 10:15; Ephesians 5:23, 25; Matthew 1:21; Acts 20:28.
II. Whether Christ died for all men universally?
Arminians. Christ underwent death for all individuals both of the perishing and of those to be saved, as to the obtaining of salvation, as much for Cain and Judas, as for Abel and Peter: not however for the former, as such or about to perish, nor for the latter, as believers; but indiscriminately for these and those considered in the common lot of the fall and sin..
Censure. Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole world, as to the worth and sufficiency of the λύτρον [ransom]. But by reason of efficacy, and the application of faith by him, according to the gratuitous election of God, he is the Savior of the elect only. John 10:15. But in Scripture Christ is said to have died for all, 1 Tim. 2:6, Heb. 2:9, and for many, namely the elect, sons of God and believers. Matt. 20:28, John 17:9, 19, Rom. 3:22. Which ἐναντιοφανές [seeming contradiction] that it may be taken away, it is to be held, that Christ is said to have died for all in three ways:
In the beginning he died efficaciously for all his sheep. John 10:15. And in these all and alone there is a certain special universality, as is in Ambrose lib. 1 de vocat. gent. c. 3. The Apostle expresses that universality of believers in Rom. 3:22.
Then in certain places of Scripture by the word “all” is understood the indeterminate and universal object of the death of Christ: which are all men, without exception of peoples, condition and sex: so that by this phrase the amplitude of grace in the New Testament is signified.
Finally Christ is said to have died for all, if the sufficiency or magnitude of the price is regarded. For indeed the death of the Son of God, and of the immaculate lamb, is the one, perfect, and sufficient λύτρον [ransom], sufficient for expiating and deleting all the sins of the whole world: by which sufficiency all the reprobate are rendered inexcusable.
III. Whether the death of Christ and his resurrection, and also his intercession, are of equal extent?
Arminians: Christ died adequately for all sinners, he rose again and intercedes with the intention of saving adequately for believers.
Censure: As Christ died adequately for all and only the elect, so for them alone did he intercede in his state of humiliation, for them alone he rose again, and for them alone he now intercedes in heaven. Isaiah 53:17; John 10:15; 17:9; Hebrews 9:24.”
.
Johannes Hoornbeek
‘Theological Disputation on Faith’ tr. Onku with AI (Leiden: Johann Elsevir, 1661) Latin
“4. He made satisfaction only for those who are saved through him.”
.
‘Theological Disputation on the Satisfaction of Christ’ tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht, 1650) Latin
“VIII. The end of Christ’s satisfaction is the reconciliation with God of the elect alone; this is sufficiently confirmed from the passages adduced above.”
.
1800’s
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan, late-1800’s
“It is a monstrous doctrine: ‘Christ died for me, and I may die the second death’; only God does not hold them by their logic.”
“To die for the sake of sinners whose sin is not actually taken away would be a clear waste of moral action.”
.
Latin
1500’s
Tossanus, Sr., Daniel
A Theological Disputation on that Place of Paul, the divine, 1 Cor. 15:22, ‘For as in Adam All Die, so in Christ shall all be made Alive’: and of this Question: Whether Christ has Died for All? (Heidelberg, 1589) 51 theses This has been transalted into English above.
Tossanus (1541-1602) was a French reformed theologian and professor of New Testament at Heidelberg, Germany.
“Tossanus… engaged in a literary battle with [the Lutherans, Samuel] Huber and [Aegidius] Hunnius… All three [other German] works [of Tossanus] maintain that Christ came into the world for his people, and pour scorn on the idea that Christ could have died for those now damned. The ‘all’s of the Bible are to be understood as referring to all believers. The sufficiency of the death of Christ for all is freely granted, but the fruit or effect limited to believers, so that it is said that Christ both did and did not die for all, depending on the sense in which the assertion is made.
The discussion ranges around faith rather than predestination, which is hardly touched upon , and the position espoused is, in summary, that Christ died for believers.” G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 117
Kimedoncius, Jacob
Theses on the Universality of Redemption & Grace through Christ (Heidelberg, 1591) 14 pp., 55 theses
This was written against Samuel Huber, who was reformed, but then turned Lutheran. Lutherans held to a universal atonement with a particular election.
In this work, Kimedoncius “used the sufficient-efficient distinction to forward his aim of showing that effective redemption is limited to those who by faith receive it. He also pointed out the uselessness of a universal atonement to those already damned before Christ died.” – G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 117
A Synopsis of Redemption & Predestination: with the Assertion of Theses on the Universality of Redemption & Grace through Christ, Against Samuel Huber, & Theses on Predestination by Johann Brentius out of his Commentary on Romans 9 are Added (Heidelberg, 1593) 160 pp. This work is different from both the above and his work on The Redemption of Mankind in Three Parts, though all of these were published between 1591-3.
.
1600’s
Piscator, Johannes – A Tract on the Grace of God, in which is Disputed the Controversial Question, Whether the Saving Grace of God may be Universal? or, Whether God wills every man to be saved? to Jacob Junius, Secretary of Nassau; to which is added, by the same Johannes Piscator, a Refutation of the Atrocious Calumny which a certain one has made of him on Divine Predestination through an odious interpretation; also, an Explication of the Question of the Object of Predestination (Herborne, 1614) 178 pp. Index
This work was written against the Lutheran, Niels Hemmingsen (1513-1600).
Alsted, Johann Heinrich – Pt. 6, Section 1, ‘Of the Dogmas of Jacob Arminius & his Disciples’, 2. ‘The Universality of the Merit of the Death of Christ’ p. 679-680 in Polemical Theology, Exhibiting the Principal Eternal Things of Religion in Navigating Controversies (Hanau, 1620; 1627)
Alsted (1588-1638)
Walaeus, Antonius – A Theological Disputation on the Universality of the Death of Christ (Leiden, 1636)
This work is especially against the Remonstrant Arminians.
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 9, ‘On Universal Redemption’ in The Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668), pp. 372-427
Voet, Gisbert – On the End to Which of the Satisfaction & Merit in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 3 Abbr.
“Whether Christ suffered and died for every single man, none excepted? It is denied.
Whether and in what sense the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death in this matter is to be admitted? It is explained.
Whether therefore it is rightly able to be said that Christ died and satisfied as mediator and a sponsor for all sufficiently? It is denied.
Whether Christ so died for all and every single man that he procured [impetrarit] for those reconciliation with God and the remission of sins? It is denied.
Whether the death of Christ expiated the sin of Adam and original sin in all men, and even through that the whole human genus was assumed into the Covenant of Grace, and lastly sufficient grace was being acquired and communicated for faith and regeneration for all and every single man? It is denied, contra the Anabaptists, Puccius, Huber [a Lutheran], etc.
Whether all and every single man is given from the Father to Christ? It is denied.
Whether Christ on the cross bore up [in] the person of the elect ones? It is affirmed.
Whether He neither was able or ought to have died for the elect? It is denied.
Whether Christ was a priest for all men, even Pharaoh? It is denied.
Whether the intercession of Christ is twofold, one, universal for all men, even unbelievers, the other for the particular faithful ones? It is denied.
Whether Christ always achieves the end of his death? It is affirmed.
Whether the proper and thus truly spoken end of Christ’s death is the application of reconciliation and the remission of sins? It is affirmed.
Whether the procuring and application of reconciliation are not of equally wide extent, but are separable, so that reconciliation may not be applied to all for whom procuring has been wrought? It is denied contra the Remonstrants.
…
Whether the efficacy of the death of Christ in the production of faith and regeneration, or with respect to the event, stands wholly within us? It is denied.
Whether God has prepared on his part to propose the word of reconciliation, secured through the death of Christ, to all and every man? It is denied.
Whether the ransom (lutron) of Christ is sufficient even to redeem devils? It is denied.
Whether all and every man ought to believe Christ has died for him, whether absolutely or even hypothetically? The latter is affirmed.
[This might mean that every person ought to believe that Christ died for him on a certain hypothesis being posited, namely if he believes.]
Whether, hence, all the impious are condemned because they did not believer Christ died for them? It is denied.
Whether Christ’s death has been accomplishing out of the greatest love which He loved all those for which He died? It is affirmed.
Whether the fruit of Christ’s resurrection, even of his ascension and session at the right hand, pertains to all and every one for whom He died? It is affirmed.
Whether unbeleivers or impenitents are able to console themselves in the death of Christ? It is denied.
Whether the Remonstrants [Arminians] in their second article defend the laud and glory of divine grace, and further, the efficacy of Christ’s merit, against us? It is denied: certainly they nowhere greatly overturn.
Whether Christ fulfilled the law in our place by holy living? It is affirmed against the Socinians.
Whether Christ fulfilled the law even for Himself, and was bound to fulfill, and further, hence, He merited for Himself? The former is affirmed, the latter is distinguished.
…
Whether the satisfaction for us being looked into is able to be the end of our faith? It is distinguished.”
Ames, William
2nd Article, On the Universality of the Death of Christ, 7 chs. in The Anti-Synod Writings, or Animadversions on those Dogmatics which the Remonstrants Exhibited in the Synod of Dort & Later Divulged (Amsterdam, 1646), p. 145 ff.
Elenctics about Particularity against the Remonstrants: the Scholastic Dispute with Nicholas Grevinchovio on a General Redemption & Election out of Foreseen Faith, with a Scholastic Reply to the Prolix, Opposing Response of N. Grevinchovio in the Dispute in Works, vol. 5 (Amsterdam, 1658) ToC
Braun, Johannes – Ch. 7, ‘Of Universal Grace’, pp. 299-303 in The Doctrine of the Covenants, or A System of Didactic and Elenctic Theology (Amsterdam, 1691)
Braun (1628-1708)
.
1700’s
Heidegger, Johann Heinrich – 19. ‘Of the Office of Jesus Christ’, 56-58, ‘Of the Extent of the Death of Christ’ in The Marrow of Christian Theology: an Introductory Epitome of the Body of Theology (Zurich, 1713)
.
.
The Early Church on Limited Atonement
Collections of Quotes
Owen, John – ‘Some Few Testimonies of the Ancients’ 3 pp. at the end of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ in Works, 10.422-24
Most of Owen’s excerpts are from the the early church up through A.D. 440. He cites: Eusebius, Ignatius, Clement, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Prosper & the Council of Valence in A.D. 855.
Gill, John – ‘Part 4, ch. 2, Of Redemption’ 44 pp. in The Cause of God and Truth, pp. 442-86
Gill gives extended excerpts of 33 early Church fathers up through A.D. 390. here is the table of contents.
.
On Augustine & the Pelagians
Francis Turretin
Institutes, vol. 2, 14th Topic, ‘The Mediatorial Office of Christ’, Question 14, p. 455
“II. Among the ancients, it appears that the universality of redemption was contended for by the Pelagians and Semipelagians. Hence Prosper [of Aquitaine, c. 390 – c. 455 AD] (concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy) says, ‘This is their definition and profession that Christ died for the whole human race and that no one is excluded from the redemption effected by his blood’ (Letter to Augustine 6 [ACW 32:43; PL 33.1005]).
And among the damnable errors which they boasted of having found in Augustine was this also: ‘The Savior was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world.’ Faustus (Rhegiensis) [a semi-pelagian prelate, d. c. 485 A.D.] says, ‘They wander far from the path of piety who say that the Savior did not die for all’ (De Gratia Dei et Libero Arbitrio 1.4 [PL 58.789])”
.
The Medieval Church on Limited Atonement
Quotes
On Gottshalk of Orbais
Steven Lawson
‘Gottschalk’ (2009)
“But, unlike Augustine, Gottshalk [of Orbais, c.803-868] taught a specific death by Christ for the elect:
“Our God and master Jesus Christ [was] crucified only for the elect.”
It has been said that Gottschalk provided the first clear articulation and defense of a particular redemption in church history. Although men previous to him had made strong statements about the basic aspects of this doctrine, Gottschalk first demonstrated the strong relationship between predestination and the extent of the atonement.
Gottschalk wrote, “Christ died only for the elect,” asserting that Christ died exclusively and triumphantly for the sins of His people.””
.
Robert A. Peterson
Calvin & the Atonement (Mentor, 1999), pp. 115-120
“[Jonathan] Rainbow convinces me that Gottshalk [of Orbais, c.803-868] and [Martin] Bucer [1491-1551] (in debates with Anabaptists) taught limited atonement before Calvin. I must modify my judgment, therefore, and argue that limited/unlimited atonement was not a debated issue within reformed circles until the time of Calvin’s successor, [Theodore] Beza. I thus agree with Robert Letham that the extent of the atonement ‘only became a major issue in the next generation’…”
.
On Anselm
R. Scott Clark
‘Limited Atonement’, footnote 21
“Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033–1109), whom all the Reformers followed in their substitutionary doctrine of atonement, seems to imply a definite atonement throughout his work, Why the God-Man? (Cur Deus Homo). See Cur Deus Homo, 2.19 [see especially pp. 105-6].”
.
eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, & Pastoral Perspective, p. 86, footnote 33.
“…In book 1, chapters 16-18 [of Why God Became Man], Anselm is pressed by his interlocutor, Boso, to explain whether or not the number of the redeemed will make up the number of fallen angels or if the number of the redeemed will bring to completion a number greater than the number of angels created.
The outcome of the matter, in Anselm’s opinion, is that the number of the redeemed will not merely equal the number of the fallen angels but will exceed the total number of angels to a predetermined perfect amount. In this respect, [Peter] Lombard is continuing in the same vein of thought by arguing that the number of the redeemed is fixed in accord with the predetermined plan of God.”
.
In Romanism
Francis Turretin
Institutes, vol. 2, Question 14, p. 456
“III. The same controversy was afterwards renewed among the Romanists, some of whom defended the universality of redemption (with the Semipelagians), others its particularity (with Augustine and his genuine disciples).
This controversy lay principally between the Jesuits and Jansenists, of whom the former (an offshoot of the Pelagians) warmly contend for the universality of Christ’s death, while the latter with great firmness defend its particularity, following their founder, Jansen, who has argued this subject very largely and with great solidity in his Augustinus (‘De Gratia Christi Salvatoris,’ 3.20 [1640/1964]. pp. 369-80), his Apologia Jansenii published in 1644, Art. 17,19,20+ and in Catechismo de Gratia, c. 7, de Predesti. q. 65+.”
.
Articles
1800’s
Smeaton, George – pp. 481-525 of ‘Historical Sketch of the Doctrine of Atonement’ (1870) 45 pp.
Smeaton surveys the Early and Medieval Church on the atonement in general, and references the extent thereof at times when it comes up.
.
2000’s
eds. Gibson, David & Jonathan Gibson – From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective Buy (2013)
Haykin, Michael A.G. – ch. 1, ”We Trust in the Saving Blood’: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church’, pp. 33-56
Hogg, David – ch. 2, ”Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some’: Definite Atonement in the Medieval Church’, pp. 75-96
Johnson, Charles – ‘Thomas & TULIP’ (2020) 20 paragraphs at Reformed Theology Delatinized
“Thomas taught the sufficiency-efficiency distinction, a form of limited atonement. From his comments on 1 Tim. 2:9…”
.
.
Post Reformation History on Limited Atonement
Articles
Denlinger, Aaron C. – ‘Swimming with the Reformed Tide: John Forbes of Corse (1593-1648) on Double Predestination & Particular Redemption’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66/1 (2015), pp. 67-89
Trueman, Carl – ‘John Owen & Andrew Fuller’ in Eusebeia (Spring, 2008), pp. 53-69
.
John Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement
Book
Rainbow, Jonathan – The Will of God and the Cross: a Historical and Theological Study of Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption Buy
“This was probably the definitive work against RT Kendal’s thesis that Calvin was not a Calvinist in his view of the atonement. Kendal and others believed that Calvin and Arminius shared the common view that Christ died for all. The thesis was quickly adopted by many evangelical theologians. Jon Rainbow’s book, in my humble opinion, was the definitive reply to the Calvin against the Calvinists thesis…” – Rev. Chris Gordon
.
What does ‘All’ in Greek Mean?
Article
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – pp. 422-30 of Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647)
Rutherford gives five rules, which are concisely:
“…the word… ‘Christ died for all‘ does never signify all and every one of mankind, by neither Scripture, nor the doctrine of adversaries: but is, as all divines say, to be expounded according to the subject in hand, secundum materiam substratam.
Hence our 1st Rule, ‘All’ often signifies the most part, Mk. 1:64, ‘they all condemned him to be guilty of death,’ ‘the whole counsel,’ Mt. 26:59, yet Joseph of Arimathea consented not to his death, Lk. 23:51, and the flood destroyed them ‘all,’ Lk. 17:27, yet eight persons were saved; so ‘all Judah,’ Jer. 13:19, was carried into captivity. ‘All’ is often the same with many, ‘all the sheep of Kedar shall be gathered to thee,’ that is many, and Gen. 41, ‘and all the land came to Egypt,’ when the matter bears a clear exception, and other Scriptures expound it; then sure Christ’s dying for all must be expounded for his giving Himself a ransome for many, Mt. 20:28, compared with 1 Tim. 2:6…
[Rule] 2. All skilled in the mother languages, and all divines say that the particle ‘ali’ [in Greek] is taken pro singulis generum, vel pro generibus singulorum; ‘all and every one of kinds, and for the kinds of all,’ though not absolutely excluding any kind.
1. The word ‘all’ is in materia necessaria, ‘in a necessary matter,’ taken for all and every one. ‘God made all nations of one blood,’ Acts 17:26. He ‘knows the hearts of all men,’ Acts 1:24; Rom. 3:12, ‘All have sinned,’ Rom. 5:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Tim. 4:10; Jam. 1:5; Phil. 2:10-11.
2. All without exclusion of particular men in a contingent matter is sometimes so taken, Mt. 26:33, ‘Though all be offended,’ Lk. 6:26; Rev. 4:26.
3. When ‘all’ is spoken of God’s works for men, or in men, especially works of mere grace opposite to men’s works: ‘all men,’ then is not taken in the largest sense, as Mr. Moor imagines: So our text; ‘I when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Me,’ cannot be meant of all men without exception:
1. Because it’s a clear restriction of calling of multitudes under the Messiah’s Kingdom after his death, and cannot but speak against a universal drawing in the times of the Old Testament.
2. Christ draws not all to Himself by the Gospel, because thousands hear not of Him; not virtually, for we read of no calling or drawing of Christ lifted up on the cross and crucified by the works of Nature: So God blesses all nations, not all and every one; God saves all Israel and turns away iniquity from Jacob, and forgives the sins of Israel; and God only saves, and only pardons believers. But will Mr. Moor say, God saves and pardons all and every man in Israel?
Rule 3. There is hence a third rule, that ‘many’ is placed for all the elect, as Mt. 10:28, He ‘gave Himself a ransom for many.’ Mk. 14:14, ‘This is my blood of the New Testament, that is shed for many,’ as Rom. 5:15, ‘Through the offence of one, many were dead,’ that is, all were dead: So the sheep of Christ, Jn. 10:11, the scattered sons of God, Jn. 11:52, his people, Mt. 1:21, his brethren, Heb. 2, that he died, ‘for,’ must be exclusive of those that are not his sheep, not his brethren, not his people, not the sons of God…
Rule 4. In the matter of our redemption, especially in the New Testament and prophecies of the Old of the same subject, Christ died for all, pro generibus singulorum, for men of all nations, some of all kinds…
Rule 5. [Greek] or [Greek] is undeniably expounded of all that are saved only and is restrictive; such a physician cured all the city; that is, no man is cured but by him. Ex. 28:•4, Jethro says to Moses, ‘What is this that thou doest? thou sittest alone and all the people stand by thee from morning till evening,’ (for judgement)… Num 11:13 and his words bear not that all the people without exception came for judgment, that had been unpossible; but because there was then no other judge but Moses, the sense is cleare; all that were to be judged, they were to be judged by no other but by Moses only. Rev. 13:8, ‘And all that dwell in the earth worshipped the beast,’ that is, all seduced to Popish idolatry were seduced by the beastly vicar of Christ and his limbes; Jn. 11:48, ‘If we let him alone, all will believe in him;’ that is, none will believe in us, nor follow us; and all seduced men, shall be seduced by him… That Christ in this sense should be the Savior of all men, that He should have a negative voice in the salvation of all, that all the ransomed ones should come through his hands, is no other thing than Peter says, Acts 4:11, ‘That there is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved,’ and none comes to the Father, but by him, Jn. 14:6…”
.
On Divine Simplicity: God’s Will Cannot be Ineffectual regarding the Atonement
Quote
Sebastian Rehnman
‘A Particular Defence of Particularism’ Ref in Journal of Reformed Theology, vol. 6, issue 1 (2012), pp. 24–34
“An intention or a conscious goal is that which an agent aims to accomplish and the means are that which is used for attaining the intention. When the agent acts according to its nature, then the end of the action and the end of the agent is one and the same. But when the means are not fitted for the intentional end, then a distinction must be inferred between the end of the action and the end of the agent; between the intention and the intender.
Now, the doctrine of divine simplicity implies that in God intention and Intender—act and Agent—cannot be other than one and the same. In humans intention and intender—acts and agents—may not be one and the same. In God the means for attaining the salvation of the elect are not, indeed cannot, be disproportionate to that end. There cannot be conditions—conditional redemption—to God. For according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, each thing is related to God, but God is not (reciprocally) related to anything.
Yet, universalism anthropomorphically pictures God as using means that are not proportionate to the end and assumes that there is one intention in some salvific act and another intention in some other salvific act. Particularism upholds the doctrine of simplicity and consistently maintains the otherness of God in intending to save humans in Christ. Every salvific action of God is particular in intention, since in God intention and Intender cannot be other than one and the same.”
.
On the Distinction Between ‘the Same’ (idem) and ‘the as Much as’ (tantundem)
Articles
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – pp. 44-56 in Aphorisms of Justification… (London: Francis Tyton, 1649), Thesis 7, Explication, 6th question
Baxter argues for tantundem and against the idem. Owen responds to Baxter below.
Owen, John – pp. 6-32 in Of the Death of Christ… the Price He Paid & the Purchase He Made…Vindicated from the Exceptions & Objections of Mr. Baxter (London: Peter Cole, 1650), ch. 2, ‘…Of the Nature of the Payment made by Christ…’ This is also in Works, ed. Goold (T. & T. Clark, 1862), 10:437–48
Owen argues against tantundem and for the idem against Baxter. In order to argue that Christ suffered the same punishment as should have been ours, he distinguishes accidentals.
Polhill, Edward – ‘On Christ Suffering the Idem & the Tantundem: A Mediating Position’, pp. 153-4 in The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees in The Works of Edward Polhill (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1988)
Polhill (1622-1694) was an English hypothetical universalist.
Jacomb, Thomas – ‘On Christ Suffering the Idem & the Tantundem: A Mediating Position’, pp. 608-9 in Several Sermons Preach’d on the Whole Eighth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1672)
Gillespie, Patrick – ‘On Christ Suffering the Tantundem, Not the Idem of the Law’s Punishment’, p. 406 in The Ark of the Covenant Opened: Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption… (London, 1677)
Brooks, Thomas – ‘On Christ Suffering the Idem & the Tantundem: a Mediating Position’, pp. 148-49 in A Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures (1763)
Brooks (1608-1680)
van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 4, bk. 5, ch. 12, ‘The Death of the Mediator’
section 5, ‘What is the Death of Christ?’, ‘Is it the Same Death, or One Equivalent to ours?’
Mastricht affirms tantundem.
section 8, ‘The Spiritual Death of Christ: Certainly Not the Same as Ours. But yet Analogous & Equivalent to Ours…’
section 9, ‘The Eternal Death of Christ: What & to What Extent it was Undertaken by Christ’
section 20, ‘Did Christ Suffer in his Soul?’
Witsius, Herman – ‘On Christ Suffering the Just Equivalent, Not the Idem [Same] of the Law’s Punishment’, pp. 50-52 in Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain (Glasgow, 1807)
Witsius (1636-1708)
.
A Collection of Articles
‘Qualitative Equivalency Versus Quantitative Equivalency’ at Calvin & Calvinism
This linked index includes 32 articles by:
Ursinus, Ball, Clifford, Truman, P. Gillespie, Manton, Woodbridge, Baxter, Warren, Witsius, M. Henry, D. Williams, J. Gibbon, Symington, Dick, Wardlaw, L. Woods, Cunningham, W.L. Alexander, Shedd, Dabney, A. Clifford.
Mediating: Brooks, Jacomb, Polhill, Petto.
Contra: Owen, G. Payne, J. Dagg, W. Styles.
.
Quote
William Cunningham
Sermons: from 1828-1860 (1872; rep. Still Waters Revival, 1991), Sermon 28, ‘The Atonement: Scripture Doctrine & Current Theories’, on Gal. 4:4-5, pp. 408-9
“We believe it can be proved to be the clear and certain teaching of Scripture, that Christ, having become our surety and substitute, took our place and assumed our responsibilities as transgressors of God’s law, and in consequence, endured the penalty we had incurred, and thereby rendered satisfaction to the Divine Justice and Law for our sins,—a satisfaction which was the true and adequate ground of all subsequent procedure on God’s part towards us, in bestowing forgiveness and spiritual blessings.
Christ’s death, according to this view, was not merely penal in its general character, but it was on His part the endurance of the penalty we had merited,—the same penalty we had incurred;—the same, not, of course, in its circumstances or its external aspects, but in its legal value,—its moral worth, its real significance, as a compliance with the requirements of law, which denounced punishment and demanded satisfaction. It is true, indeed, that all orthodox divines have not attached quite so much importance as Dr. Owen does, to the distinction between the idem and the tantundem,—‘the same,’ and ‘the as much,’—a distinction which he presses so strongly in the exposition of this subject.
Some divines of the highest eminence and orthodoxy have admitted that the substance of what Scripture teaches on this subject might be held to be declared by asserting that Christ suffered as much as sinners had deserved,—the tantundem and not the idem,—provided due care was taken to guard against the loose and vague generality of representing Christ’s death merely as a substitute for the penalty,—a phrase which may mean almost anything or almost nothing,—and to keep up distinctly and prominently the idea of substantial identity, or sameness as really attaching to it, when viewed as a judicial infliction in accordance with the provisions of law.
But though some difference of phraseology has been sanctioned by high authority on this subject, there has been a very general concurrence of opinion among orthodox divines, that it is no real declaration of the scriptural doctrine of the Atonement to say that Christ’s death was a substitute for the penalty which men had incurred, or even to say that it was an equivalent for the penalty, unless the idea of substantial identity, or sameness,—sameness in worth and value, in import and significance,—be kept up, by its being represented as a full equivalent and an adequate compensation.
This, at least, seems necessary in order to embody the sum and substance of what Scripture teaches upon the subject; and nothing short of this can be fairly held to be implied in the position that Christ suffered as a substitute for us, and thereby rendered satisfaction for our sins to God’s Justice and Law. Our [Westminster] Confession of Faith says (ch. 11, section 5) that both ‘the exact justice and the rich grace of God are glorified in the justification of sinners.’ And we are persuaded that it may be regarded as a general test of the soundness of men’s views upon this whole subject, that they not only assent honestly and intelligently to this statement of our Confession…”
.
Limited Atonement is Consistent with Broader Designs in the Atonement which do not Involve a General Atonement
Webpage
The Atonement Provides Common Grace Benefits for the Reprobate
.
Notes
See the ‘Statement of the Question’ regarding Limited Atonement above by Turretin.
Limited atonement advocates such as Du Moulin, Kimedoncius, Byfield et al., who were against a general atonement, did not shy away from affirming that Christ died to make a sufficient atonement for all, and died for all people in this sense.
The national French synod of Alancon did not have an issue with a multi-intentionality, but only that Amyraut & Testard used the language of Christ dying ‘equally’ for all.
.
Order of Quotes
Ames
Cotton
Edwards
.
1600’s
William Ames
The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1, ch. 24, ‘The Application of Christ’, p. 150
“9. As for the intention of application, it is rightly said that Christ made satisfaction only for those whom He saved, though in regard to the sufficiency in the mediation of Christ it may also rightly be said that Christ made satisfaction for each and all. Because these counsels of God are hidden to us, it is the part of charity to judge well of every one, although we may not say of all collectively that Christ equally pleads the cause of each before God.”
.
The Anti-Synod Writings, or Animadversions on those Dogmatics which the Remonstrants Exhibited in the Synod of Dort & Later Divulged (Amsterdam, 1646), 2nd Article, ‘On the Universality of the Death of Christ’
ch. 1, p. 254, point 9
“The state of this controversy agitated is not principally turned on this hinge, Whether for all and every person Christ died? but, To which ends, and what fruit of Christ is in them, for whom He died?”
.
ch. 5, thesis 1, p. 178
“Remonstrants: ‘Whoever ought to believe in Jesus Christ, for them Christ has died. But all and every person ought to believe in Christ. Therefore.
Refutation 1: The proposition which you want, having a certain appearance of truth, is to be simply denied, unless however it is understood of the sufficiency of Christ’s death and of the end of his work.”
.
John Cotton
John Cotton to James Ussher, 31 May 1626 in Sargent Bush, Jr. (ed.), The Correspondence of John Cotton (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), pp. 111-12
“Though I yield some degree of efficacy in Christ’s death unto all; yet I conceive it far short, both of impetration [legal undertaking and payment of sins] and application of that gracious atonement, which is thereby wrought to the elect of God; whence also it is that I dare not preach the Gospel indifferently unto all, before the Law; nor the worth of Christ, before the need of Christ. Children’s bread is not meet for whelps; and full souls will despise honey-combs.”
.
1700’s
Jonathan Edwards
The “Miscellanies” (1722), WJE Online vol. 13, t. ‘Universal Redemption’, p. 174
“Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves [New Lights?], whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that.
This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration.
Now Arminians, when [they] say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction.”
.
Reprobates (in Contrast to Devils) are made Salvable, or Reconciliable, by Christ’s Atonement
See also, ‘On the Removal of Legal Obstacles by Way of the Atonement’.
.
Order of Contents
Article 1
Collection 1
Quotes 2
.
Article
Rutherford, Samuel – ‘Whether the Reprobate are made Reconcilable by the Death of Christ?’ [Distinguish] in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: The Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter, trans. T. Fentiman & C. Johnson (RBO, 2019), pp. 90-92
“Hence, it is not allowed that Christ has died for the reprobate, yet by the death of Christ they have been made reconciliable in this sense:
1. Because Christ assumed the nature which is common; it is not conceded that it was common to all, but it was the nature of Abraham, the father of the believing (Heb. 2:16). Hence, the devils are not at all made salvable by Christ, of course, as the angelic nature has not itself been united to his person.
2. Because Christ has expiated the common sin of Adam on the tree of the cross, though it is not conceded that it was as common, but as it was in the elect and the believing.
3. Because the grace of the preaching of the Gospel has been procured [impetrata est] by the death of Christ to reprobates born in the visible Church, and the sacrifice of Christ has been made approved and of simple complacency to them. Wherefore they are called to the Supper (Mt. 22; Lk. 14:16) and are called to Christ (Mt. 11:16; 23:37-38; 1 Cor. 1:18,23; [sic] Acts 14:46; Prov. 1:24-25; Isa. 6:10-11; 65:2-3). These previous things cannot be said of devils.”
.
Collection
Byrne, Tony – ‘Saveable’ at Theological Meditations The webmaster is a hypothetical universalist.
This is a documentary collection of 35 or so theologians of various persuasions affirming that all men are made saveable by Christ’s atonement.
.
Order of Quotes
Hughes
Tong
.
1600’s
Obadiah Hughes
Matthew Poole’s Commentary, on Hebrews 2, verse 9
“‘For every man;’ to render sin remissible to all persons, and them salvable, God punishing man’s sin in Him, and laying on Him the iniquities of us all, Isaiah 53:4-6; 1 John 2:2; and so God became propitious and pleasable to all; and if all are not saved by it, it is because they do not repent and believe in Him, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; compare John 10:15.
This was evident to and well known by these Hebrews, as if they saw it, the work, concomitants, and effects of it demonstrating it. And this now in the gospel is evident to faith: it was so certainly visible and evidently true, as not to be denied but by infidels.”
.
William Tong
Matthew Henry’s Commentary, on Hebrews 2, verse 9
“What are the fruits of this free grace of God with respect to the gift of Christ for us and to us, as related in this scripture-testimony…
[3.] That God had made Him a little lower than the angels, in his being made man, that He might suffer and humble Himself to death. [4.] That God crowned the human nature of Christ with glory and honour… that by his sufferings He might make satisfaction, tasting death for every man, sensibly feeling and undergoing the bitter agonies of that shameful, painful, and cursed death of the cross, hereby putting all mankind into a new state of trial.”
.
On Baptist History
On Early “Particular” Baptists
Wenkel, David H. – ‘The Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement among the Early English Particular Baptists’ in Harvard Theological Review 112:3 (2019), pp. 358–75
Abstract: “This essay challenges the view that the early English Baptists who are often labeled as ‘Particular Baptists’ always held a doctrine of strict particularism or particular redemption. It does so on the basis of the two London Baptist Confessions of 1644 and 1646.
The main argument asserted here is that the two earliest confessions of the English Particular Baptists supported a variety of positions on the doctrine of the atonement because they focus on the subjective application of Christ’s work rather than his objective accomplishment. The first two editions of the earliest London Baptist confession represent a unique voice that reflects an attempt to include a range of Calvinistic views on the atonement.
Such careful ambiguity reflects the pattern of Reformed confessionalism in the seventeenth century. This paper then goes on to argue that some individuals did indeed hold to ‘strict particularism’—which is compatible with, but not required by, the first two confessions.”
.
.
.
Related Pages