.
Subsection
Atonement Provides Common Grace to Reprobates
Contra Amyrauldianism & Hypothetical Universalism
.
.
Order of Contents
Statement of Question
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
.
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).”
.
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
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William –
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
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
.
Order of Quotes
1500’s
Olevianus
Ridley
Pareus
1800’s
Rabbi Duncan
.
.
Quotes
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.'”
.
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.
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 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.”
.
.
.
Related Pages