On the Sufficiency of the Atonement

Order of Contents

Articles 5+
Collections 2
Quotes 32+
Historical 1
Removal of Legal Obstacles 2
Christ Died for World Sufficiently 7+
Not for Demons 1
Latin 5

Articles

Anthology of the Post-Reformation

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 18, section 28 in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Bizer, tr. Thompson (1861; 1950), pp. 475-77

Heppe references Olevian and Riissen on sufficiency.

1500’s

John Calvin – Institutes, Book 2, ch. 17, section 1 ff.

Ursinus, Zachary – A Preface of an Oration… by a certain student of divinity in the famous University of Heidelberg…: To whom the benefit of the Death & Resurrection of Christ appertains: and how Christ died for all men [by way of sufficiency] in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)

“Concerning the story and benefit of our Lord’s resurrection… directing our course as it were by the loadstar of scripture we pronounce by virtue and authority thereof that so precious and inestimable a benefit belongs unto all the faithful, and to them alone; and we exclude the wicked and unbelievers, as long as they remain such, from having any interest therein…

The answer hereunto is twofold, either of which is true and sound. First, as often as the Gospel extends the fruit of Christ’s merits and benefits unto all, it must be understood (as says Saint Ambrose) of the whole number of the faithful and elect. For this is the usual and common voice found everywhere throughout the whole course of the gospel…

Howbeit there is another answer no less true, wherewith we may satisfy the most contentious wranglers; that Christ died for all men absolutely and without exception to wit, if you respect the sufficiency of the merit, and the price which He paid. It is out of all doubt and controversy that the death of the Son of God is of such weight and worth that it may serve to purge and cleanse the sins not of one world only, but thousands of worlds; if at least all men would apprehend by faith this salve of sin. But the question concerns the efficacy and participation itself of the fruits which we mainly deny to be common to the believing, and unbelieving, or to be generally promised or given in the〈…〉; and we hold it no sound doctrine to 〈…〉 in this respect Christ died alike for all ???? and reprobate…

For what slander is there, if this be none. When we distinguish the worth of the merue from the efficacy and participating of the benefits, and restrain according to Scripture and the judgement of the soundest Fathers this participation to the whole number of the faithful alone gathered from amongst the Jews and Gentiles; do we then deny that Christ died for all?…

They [opponents] run on still, and say He died for all and every of these not only in respect of the sufficiency of his sacrifice and satisfaction, but also in regard of the efficacy of the same. What means this new device I pray? That forsooth Christ by his death and bloodshedding has truly and effectually delivered from death, purged from sin, sanctified, reconciled unto God, and restored unto his grace and favor by his death and bloodshedding all and every single man, yea even those who are not saved, but have been ever since Caine, etc. are at this day, and shall be hereafter damned… they neither perished, nay perish, nor shall perish, for their sins (whereas they are washed away by the blood of Christ Jesus) but for unbelief alone.” – pp. 132 & 134, 142

1600’s

Du Moulin, Peter – ch. 27, ‘How Far, & in What Sense Christ Died for All? The Opinions of the Parties’ in The Anatomy of Arminianism… (1619; London, 1635), p. 196 ff.

Moulin first surveys the opinions and statements of the Arminians and then concludes the chapter with a positive statement of his (and others’) position:

“VIII. …We acknowledge that Christ died for all; but we deny that by his death salvation and forgiveness of sin is obtained for all men: or that reconciliation is made for Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Judas, etc. Neither do we think that remission of sins is obtained for anyone whose sins are not remitted; or that salvation was purchased for him, whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemn: for this were a vain purchase…

IX. And when we say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe, yea, and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole world did believe in Him: and that the cause why all men are not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but in the wickedness and incredulity of man.

Finally, Christ may be said to reconcile all men to God by his death, after the same manner, that we say that the sun doth enlighten the eyes of all men, although many are blind, many sleep, and many are hid in darkness: Because if all and several men had their eyes, and were awake, and were in the midst of the light, the light of the sun were sufficient to enlighten them. Neither is it any doubt but that it may be said, not only that Christ died for all men, but also that all men are saved by Christ, because among men, there is none saved but by Christ: after the same manner that the apostle saith, 1 Cor. 15:20, that ‘all men are made alive by Christ’, because no man is made alive but by Him.” – pp. 198-199

Alsted, Johann H. – 2nd Article, ‘On the Universality of the Merit of Christ’s Death’ in Polemical Theology (Hanau: Eifridus, 1627), pt. 6, sect. 1, pp. 679-80 Latin

Burgess, Anthony – The True Doctrine of Justification… (London: Underhill, 1654), pt. 2, sect. 2

sermon 8, ‘More propositions about the sufferings of Christ for sin: their usefulness, sufficiency and extent; with answers to more objections of the Socinians’

sermon 10, ‘Of the fulness, perfection and infinite worth of Christ’s satisfaction, as further demonstrating God’s righteousness in our justification’

Coccejus, Johannes – ‘Whether Christ Satisfied for All’ in ch. 61, ‘On the Satisfaction of Christ’ in Sum of Theology (Geneva, 1665), trans. AI at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“But here it is asked, since Christ is said to have tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9), and for all (2 Cor. 5:15), and to have given Himself a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6), whether this can and ought to be understood of all men without exception, even of those who become not partakers of righteousness and life, nor are elected and given to Christ by special grace: at least with a distinction between sufficiency and efficacy?

We answer… there are grave reasons why we dare not speak in this manner, in whatever sense.”

Collection of Quotes

Ponter, David – ‘The Classic “Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect” and its Revision’ at Calvin & Calvinism The webmaster is a hypothetical universalist.

The phrase that the atonement was “sufficient for all, effecient for the elect” was popularized in the Middle Ages by Peter Lombard. The phrase is a bit ambiguous, capable of different understandings.

This documentary collection of 50 quotes is organized into three groups: (1) Proponents of the ‘Classic’ meaning of the phrase, (2) proponents of a ‘Transitional’ meaning, and then (3) proponents of the ‘Revised’ meaning.

The ‘Classic’ meaning seems to have been consistent with a general atonement, which hypothetical universalists continued. The ‘Revised’ meaning is that of, for example, Owen and many of the limited atonement, reformed, that Christ’s death is intrinsically, by its nature, sufficient to save all, but was not intended (or externally applied) to. The ‘Transitional’ meaning is something inbetween.

This historical development of the interpretation of the Lombardian formula is partially confirmed by William Cunningham, The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866), Essay 7, ‘Calvin & Beza’, p. 397:

“It is true that Calvin has intimated more than once his con-
viction, that the position laid down by some of the schoolmen, viz.
that Christ died ” sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis,”
is sound and orthodox in some sense. But then he has never, so far
as we remember or have seen proved, explained precisely in what
sense he held it, and there is a sense in which the advocates of
particular redemption can consistently admit and adopt it.†

† When the subject of the extent of the atonement came to be more fully and exactly discussed, orthodox Calvinists generally objected to adopt this scholastic position, on the ground that it seemed to imply an ascription to Christ of a, purpose or intention of dying in some sense for all men. For this reason they usually declined to adopt it as it stood, or they proposed to alter it into this form, — Christ’s death was sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect. By this change in the position, the question was made to turn, not on what Christ did, but on what His death was; and thus the appearance of ascribing to Him personally a purpose or intention of dying, in some sense, for all men, was removed.”

Byrne, Tony – ‘Sufficiency / Efficiency’ at Theological Meditations The webmaster is a hypothetical universalist.

This documentary collection includes quotes by 40 or so theologians of various persuasions.

Quotes

Order of

Aquinas
Vermigli
Calvin
Tossanus
Zanchi
Bremen Consensus
Perkins
Bucan
Byfield
Pareus
Gomarus
Wolleb
Preston
Mayer
Culverwell
Ames
Thysius
Walaeus
Rutherford
Ball
Genevan 1649 Articles
English Annotations
Trapp
Turretin
Riissen
Mastricht
Ness
Boston
Shaw
Bavinck
Girardeau
Vos
Berkhof

1200’s

Thomas Aquinas

Commentary on Lombard’s Sentences, bk. 3, distinction 20, article 3

“Reply to Objection 4: Although the drop of blood that bled in the circumcision would be sufficient for every satisfaction, considering the condition of the divine person, nevertheless it would not be sufficient relative to the kind of penalty. For the human race was obligated to death, for which it was necessary that a death be paid.
…

Reply to Objection 6: The other penalties that Christ endured, although they were sufficient to make satisfaction on behalf of human nature, considering the condition of the one suffering, nonetheless this is not the case when considering the kind of penalty. For all other penalties were not contained in those penalties, as they were in the suffering of death.”

1500’s

Peter Martyr Vermigli

Most Learned & Fruitful Commentaries… upon… Romans… (London: Iohn Daye, 1558), p. 116b HT: David Ponter

“Futher, though all men are not brought to salvation, yet the merit and grace of Christ, was of itself sufficient for all men.”

“Free Will & Predestination” in Philosophical Works, trans. Joseph P. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 1994), vol 4, p. 332 HT: David Ponter

“Not all those who are called are predestined. For Christ said: ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ (Mt. 22:14). But they contend that the calling is universal and that God would wish everyone saved. If it is understood as universal calling because it is offered to all and no one is excluded by name, it is true. If it is also called universal because the death of Christ and his redemption is sufficient for the whole world; that also is most true. But if this universality is meant so that He it is in everyone’s hand to receive the promises, I deny it: because to some it is given, to others it is not given. As if we did not see also that for a long time the very preaching of the Gospel was not given to many places, ages, and nations. God would have all to be saved, provided they believe. He gives faith to whom it seems good to Him. For He may justly do with his own what he will.”

Predestination & Justification, tr. Frank A. James (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 2003), vol. 8, p. 62 HT: David Ponter

“They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that ‘Christ died for us all’ and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it might be sufficient for all the world’s sinners.

Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The [Medieval] Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually.”

On Calvin

J.V. Fesko, ‘Socinus & the Racovian Catechism on Justification’ being ch. 13 in Michael Parsons, Aspects of Reforming: Theology & Practice in Sixteenth Century Europe (Paternoster, 2013) See also Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms under Meritum Christi.

“Scholars have previously noted that Calvin’s doctrine of Christ’s merit and satisfaction bears the imprint of the nominalism of John Duns Scotus (ca. 1265-1308). Both Calvin and Scotus affirm the idea that the worthiness of Christ’s merit lies in the value assigned to it by God’s decree–it has no intrinsic worth or value. God could have ordained things in such a manner as to have an angel make satisfaction and earn a sufficient amount of merit to redeem sinners…

Based upon Calvin’s idea that Christ could not merit anything apart from God’s good pleasure, or his acceptatio… it should be noted that Calvin was not unique but merely affirmed a mainstream opinion on the matter.”

Daniel Tossanus

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. 4 trans. Michael Lynch (Heidelberg, 1589) Tossanus (1541-1602) was a French reformed theologian and professor of New Testament at Heidelberg, Germany.

“31. But the sense of these places [1 Jn. 2 and 2 Pet. 2] is that Christ gave Himself (which we easily acknowledge) as a sufficient price for the whole world and for the false teachers themselves. Even so, those alone are effectually redeemed who acknowledge this grace; not those who delight themselves in their own captivity, and are rejecters of Christ, such as are the reprobate.

32. We have already warned above about those universal passages that they ought to be, in certain places, restricted to all the elect, whom the Lord has [as his own], not only in Judea but also in all parts of the world, in which sense it may also be said that “the blood of Christ is a propitiation for the whole world”—although this text we freely acknowledge to be about sufficiency.”

Jerome Zanchi

Theological Places on Eph. 5, Place 1, ‘On the Sacrifice of Christ’ tr. by AI by WesternCatholike in Commentary on Ephesians, 2nd Part ed. Hartog (d. 1590; Amsterdam, 1889; 2024), p. 1 Latin

“4. For whom He offered it, for us, the elect, that is, for sinners. This sacrifice was effectively offered for the salvation of the elect alone, although it is sufficient for the redemption of the whole world.”

Bremen Consensus (1595)

“Consequently, though we indeed confess that the death of Christ in respect to its perfection is a universally sufficient offering for the sin of the whole world, we clearly and distinctly declare and teach that without an application by faith, the death of Christ is profitable to no one, and that accordingly its fruit and effect are particular to believers alone. This was formerly stated by Augustine… The Scholastics have spoken in this manner: ‘Christ is dead for all men so far as the sufficiency of merit is concerned, but truly and solely for all believers so far as efficacy to salvation is concerned’ (Lombard… Thomas [Aquinas], Super Apocalypism, chap. 5; [Nicholas of] Lyra on 1 John 2).” (ed. Dennison, Reformed Confessions 3.662-63)

William Perkins

An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 472

“We grant that Christ’s death is sufficient to save many thousand worlds: we grant again it is every way most effectual in itself: but that it is effectual in, or unto the person of every man, that we deny.”

1600’s

William Bucanus

Institutions of Christian Religion (London, 1606)

p. 235

“Unto whom is the death and passion of Christ profitable?

Although He might have been a sufficient price for the sins for all men, yet actually and effectually he died for his elect only, who receive Him and believe Him, Matt 1:21. “He will deliver his people from their sins.” John 10:15. “I lay down my life for my sheep.” and Chap. 17:19 “I sanctify myself,” for otherwise it would follow that Christ died [without] profit, and to no purpose in regard of many, and that the efficacy of Christ’s death could be made void by men.”

pp. 433-34

“Is not Christ the Redeemer of all men?

No: for He is a Redeemer neither to Pharaoh, nor Judas, neither unto Ciaphas, nor Herod, neither unto Julian, not in brief to all those that are damned or without hope, for whom they neither He died.

Did Christ die for all men?

His death was sufficient for all, say the Schoolmen, but effectual only for the Elect and them that are faithful. If we respect the virtue and force of Christ’s blood, it is sufficient for the redemption of all: but if we look upon the purpose and eternal counsel of God, and the goodwill of the Mediator, he died for the elect only. John 10:15, I lay down my life for my sheep, says Christ, and 17:9, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them whom thou have given me. Therefore He neither offered sacrifice for it, neither did He redeem it. And verse 19, For their sakes who believe, and whom the Father has given Me, I sanctify Myself. And Matt 26:28, My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Nicholas Byfield

An Exposition Upon the Epistle to the Colossians (1617), p. 99

“‘Who has made us fit’. Doctrine: We are neither naturally happy, nor universally so; not naturally, for we are made fit; not born so, not universally; for He has made [us] fit, not all men. Christ died for his sheep only (John 10), for his Church only (Eph. 1), not for the world (John 17). And therefore when the Scripture says, Christ died for all men, we must understand it:

First, in respect of the sufficiency of his death, not in respect of the efficiency of it.

Secondly, in respect of the common oblation of the benefits of his death externally in the Gospel unto all.

Thirdly, as his death extends to all the Elect: for all, that is, for the Elect.

Fourthly, for all, that is, for all that are saved, so that none that are justified and saved, are so, but by the virtue of his death.

Fifthly, for all, that is for all indefinitely, for all sorts of men, not for every man of every sort.

Lastly, He died for all, that is not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also.”

David Pareus

‘Oration on the Synod of Dort & the Remonstrants’ Articles’ trans. AI (1619; Monergism, 2026), Article 2, ‘Concerning the Death of Christ for All’, p. 24

“…the question is not whether the death of Christ, by the amplitude of its price and merit, is sufficient for the liberation of all men from death and their reconciliation to God, if all were to believe?… For the orthodox [Reformed] and the Innovators [Arminians] alike affirm the former…”

Francis Gomarus

‘Theological Disputation on the Death of Jesus Christ’ trans. AI (Groningen: 1621) Latin at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“LXXV. But by reason of the latter, distinctly, not all but many are named. For even though, on account of the infinite dignity of Christ’s Person, the price of His death is of infinite value (so that it would abundantly suffice for the salvation of even a thousand worlds, if they believed), nevertheless it is demonstrated in the Sacred Scriptures by this distinction of many from the rest, and by other invincible reasons, that He died as Savior not in the place and for the good of all, even the reprobate, but only of the elect.”

Johannes Wolleb

Abridgment of Christian Divinity in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), pp. 105-6

“XXIII. While Christ’s passion is minimized by the foregoing errors, those who teach that he died for all human beings (pro omnibus et singulis) broaden the object of his passion more than is allowable.

Of course, if we take into consideration the magnitude and worthiness of the merit, we admit that it would suffice for the redemption of ten worlds; but if we take the plan of God and the intention of Christ into consideration, then it is false to say that Christ died for every person. For this reason others say that his death was sufficient for all, but not effective for all; that is, the merit of Christ, because of his worthiness, is sufficient for all, but it is not effective for all in its application, because Christ did not die with the intention that his death be applied to all. Why should He die for those for whom He would not pray?”

On John Preston

This is Thomas Ball’s (1590-1659) narrative of Preston’s debate with the Arminian Francis White (1564-1638). From Ball, The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston, ed. by E. W. Harcourt (London: Parker & Co., 1885), p. 135

“Dr. Preston answered that Christ was in Himself sufficient to save all; and might be said to be provided for that end and use; as a medicine is to cure infected poison, though it cures none actually but those that drink it. “Habet in se quod omnibus prosit, sed, si non bibitur, non,” as in 1 John 5:11-12. But many did not thus apply Christ, because they had him not so offered and exhibited as others had, Matt 11:21; Luke 10:13, for God gave some faith and repentance, as I have showed.

The serpent (Moses was commanded to make), was in itself sufficient to cure those that were bitten, Num. 21:8-9, yet cured none but only those who looked on it. “So, as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness, shall the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believed in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,” John 3:14-15.”

John Mayer

Commentary on the Whole Bible (London, 1631)

vol. 1, pp. 495–98 on 1 Tim. 2:4-6

“It is enough to show it to be good and acceptable to God to pray for all that He is best pleased with, and prefers the salvation of all, as He at the first made all, and since sent his Son into the world to give Himself, as a ransom for all. But how can it be thus said either, seeing that if the ransom be payed for all, all are not delivered?

To this it is generally answered, that Christ’s giving of Himself to the death was a ransom sufficient to save all men, according to the signification of the word αντίλυτρον [redemption], used to set forth the ransoming of captives, when one is given to death for the delivering of another. For Christ alone was worth all the world, and his death equivalent to the dying of all men by everlasting death. When therefore He gave himself to the death for us, He suffered on his part so much as was sufficient to save all men, that neither on the part of God, nor of Christ Jesus there might be any want [lack], but the want might be altogether in themselves in such as are damned. Christ died for all [in the sense of sufficiency described above], the Gospel is preached to all, and all enjoy the holy Sacraments, which are the means of salvation; but such, as are not hereby moved to faith and repentance, shall perish not withstanding through their own default…”

vol. 3, p. 146 on 2 Pet. 2:1

“Touching that saying, ‘Denying the Lord that bought them;’ none are properly said to be bought by the Lord, but the elect; yet in a large sense, all to whom the Gospel comes are said to be bought by Him, yea all men, because the price He paid is sufficient to ransom all; neither is it by any defect therein that any perish, but through their own wickedness and unbelief.”

Ezekiel Culverwell d. 1631

as quoted by Erroll Hulse, ‘Adding to the Church – The Puritan Approach to Persuading Souls’

“But as much as many being called by the Gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in their infidelity, this comes not to pass for want of, or by any insufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ offered upon the Cross, but by their own default.”

On William Ames

David Lachman, The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988), pp. 28-29

“While William Ames is willing to say that ‘in respect of that sufficiency which is in the mediation of Christ, He can be said to have satisfied for all, or everyone,’ he restricts both the purchase and application of redemption to the elect. ‘The redemption of Christ is applied to all and only those, for whom it was obtained by the intention of Christ and the Father.’ [William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity. (London: Edward Griffin for John Rothwell, n.d.), pp. 69-70]

Thus, though it is true that various temporal benefits are given to others as well, ‘it is rightly said: Christ did only satisfy for those that are saved by Him.’ [Ibid., pp. 100-101.] Reflecting this, the offer of Christ in the gospel ‘is an objective propounding of Christ, as of a means sufficient and necessary to salvation.’

Although Christ is able to save all who come to Him, and the promises of Christ ‘are propounded to all without difference, together with a command to believe them,’ [Ibid., pp. 110-111.] the offer which is often propounded promiscuously, by special propriety belongs to and is directed to the elect, for whom Christ was intended by the Father. [Ibid., p. 102]”

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. 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.”

Anthony Thysius

Disputation 29, ‘On the Satisfaction by Jesus Christ’ trans. AI in Synopsis of Pure Theology at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“XXIX. Therefore the end of Satisfaction, to whom, or the object, is solely the elect and true believers of both the Old and New Testament. For although it could extend itself to all men with respect to the greatness, dignity, and sufficiency of the price considered in itself, nevertheless it was particularly expended for those whom the Father elected and gave to the Son, and who by God’s gift would believe in God and his Son.”

Anthony Walaeus

Theological Disputation on the Universality of the Death of Christ tr. by AI by Chaznvo (Leiden, 1636) Latin

“VII. We indeed admit that if we consider the value of Christ’s death, it is of such great worth, both because of the perfection of the expiation for our sins and because of the infinite dignity of Christ, the God-man, that it is not only sufficient to expiate the sins of the faithful but also to save all the descendants of Adam, even if they were much more numerous, provided they embraced its merit with true faith. And thus, the reason that all are not saved lies not in the insufficiency of Christ’s death, but in the depravity and unbelief of man.”

Samuel Rutherford

Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1639-1642; 1668; 2019), ch. 9, ‘Of Universal Redemption’, ‘Whether Reprobates are required to believe in Christ, He not having died for them?’, pp. 94-95

“It is not able to be said that Christ does not in any way pertain to reprobates. Christ pertains to them even (1) by right [jure] in the offer of the Gospel, (2) by the sufficiency of the death of Christ, (3) by the right of sharing in a common nature, (4) by right of the common, first transgression being expiated by Christ, (5) by right of the New Covenant being preached to the reprobate out of the grace of Christ, (6) by right of the charge of God inciting so that reprobates receive Christ.”

Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647)

p. 197

“How did Christ condemn and pass sentence on the wicked world in his death?

1. He did it legally, in that his offering of a sufficient ransom for sin, there is a seal put on the condemnation of all impenitent men, that they shall ‘not see life but the wrath of God’ (that they were by nature under, being the captives of the Law) ‘abides on them,’ Jn. 3:36. ‘Because they believe not in the Son of God,’ Jn. 16:9. Christ’s dying day was the unbelievers’ doomsday.”

p. 233

“Position 1. As there is no merit, good deserving, work or hire in the miserable sinner dying in his blood, dead in sins, out of his wit and disobedient, deceived and serving diverse lusts, Eze. 16:4-8; Eph. 2:1-4; Tit. 3:3-4, so there is as much love, man-kindness and free grace in heaven in the breast of Christ as would save all in hell, or out of hell. I speak this in regard, not of the Lord’s intention, as if He did bear all and every one of mankind a good will, purposing to save them.

But because their lies and flows such a sea and ocean of infinite love about the heart and in the bowels of Jesus Christ as would over-save and out-love infinite worlds of sinners (so all could come and draw and drink, and suck the breasts of overflowings of Christ’s free grace) in regard of the intrinsical weight and magnitude of this love, that if you appoint banks to channel or marches to bound this free love, God should not be God, nor the Redeemer the Redeemer.”

p. 399

“11. To believe in Christ is to believe that omnipotency can save Judas, Pharaoh and all, every mortal man, so they believe in Christ;”

p. 419

“To all these we may add that the Lord in commanding reprobates to rest on Christ for salvation, though no salvation be purchased for them, deals sincerely and candidly with them: for first He commands them to believe no intention in God to save them by the death of his Son, nor says He any such thing to them, but only commands them to rely on Christ as an all-sufficient Saviour.”

p. 421

“Assertion 4. The third object of faith is the sufficiency and power of Christ to save: 1. The Scripture makes the object of coming, which is believing, Jn. 5:40; Jn. 6:35; Mt. 11:27, to be Christ’s ability and power, Heb. 7:25, ‘to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them.'”

p. 445

“Answer: You are neither to lay such a supposition down that either you are excluded from the number of those that Christ died for or included in that number: neither of the two are revealed to you, and secret things belong to the Lord. It is enough to you that: 1. you are not excluded, for anything that is revealed to you. 2. That thou have need of Christ, and are a guilty sinner. 3. That thou art commanded to believe:

As for Christ’s not shedding of his blood for thee; say it were so: it’s no more absurd that you are obliged to believe on Christ as an all sufficient Redeemer for remission of sins (though remission be not purchased to you in Christ’s blood)…”

p. 447

“[Let] No man spin hell to himself out of the wool of unbelieving despair: If Christ be so willing to redeem and draw his own all, and can go as near hell as seven devils: Have noble and broad thoughts of the sufficiency of Jesus to save:

1. Consider and say with feeling and warmness of bowels to Christ, all the redeemed family that are standing up before the throne, now in white, and are fair and clean and without spot, were once as black mores [North Africans] on earth, as I am now:”

The Covenant of Life Opened... (1655)

p. 239

“2. It is to be considered, how many ways Christ may be said to give Himself [Greek], a ransom for us, or in our place.

1. Christ has sufficiently died for all [the elect] in their room to redeem them. For, pro [Greek], ‘for men’, notes ever the decree and intention of Christ dying for men; but the sufficiency and worth and intrinsical dignity of Christ’s death depends not upon the decree and intention of God, for the worth of the death and the blood of Him who is God, Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 2:8, and the Lord of Glory is infinite, because of the infinitness of the Person, before and without the decree of God.”

John Ball

Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (1645), pp. 205-6, According to Mitchell and Struthers, who compiled the 1800’s edition of the Notes to the Westminster Assembly, Ball’s work “was held in high esteem by the Puritans, and [was] recommended by Reynolds, as well as Calamy and several other members of the Westminster Assembly.”

“The second sort of divines (Contra-Remonstrants) [those against the Arminians] distinguish the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s death. In respect of the worth and greatness of the price, He died for all men: because it was sufficient for the redemption of every man in the world if they did repent and believe; and God might, without impeachment of justice, have offered salvation to every man in the world had it been his pleasure.

In the efficiency, as every man or any man has fruit by the death of Christ, so Christ died for him. But this is not of one kind: some fruit is common to every man; for as Christ is lord of all things in heaven and earth, even the earthly blessings which infidels enjoy may be termed fruits of Christ’s death. Others proper to the members of the visible Church, and common to them, as to be called by the word, enjoy the ordinances of grace, live under the covenant, partake of some graces that come from Christ, which, through their fault, be not saving; and in this sense Christ died for all that be under the covenant. But other fruits of Christ’s death, according to the will of God and intention of Christ as Mediator, be peculiar to the sheep of Christ, his brethren, them that be given unto him of the Father, as faith unfeigned, regeneration, pardon of sin, adoption, etc.; and so they hold Christ died efficiently for his people only, in this sense,–namely, so as to bring them effectually to faith, grace, and glory.”

Genevan 1649 Articles

Donald D. Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685 Th.D. diss (Knox College in cooperation with Toronto School of Theology. 1971), pp. 231-35 For context see ‘Donald Grohman on Dort and the 1649 Genevan Articles’ at Calvin & Calvinism and Grohman.

“Rejection of the errors of those:

Who teach that Christ died for each and everyone sufficiently not only with regard to the worth, but even by reason of the intention, or for all conditionally if they believe; or who assert that Scripture teaches that Christ died for all men in general, and particularly that the Scripture passages Ezek. 18:21, etc., and 33:11; John 3:16; I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9 ought to extend to each and every man, and that the universality of love and grace is proved by them.”

The English Annotations

2nd ed. (1651), Mr. Downham and Mr. Reading?, on 2 Peter 2:1

“Denying. By total apostasy, or evil life, unbelieving the servants of Christ, Tit. 1:16. See more on Jude 4.

The Lord that bought them. That gave a price sufficient for them, even his own precious Blood, Acts, 20:27; 1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19. Or, by whom they professed that they were redeemed: and therefore they should not have denied him.”

John Trapp

Commentary on the Bible, on 2 Pet. 2:1

“Verse 1. Denying the Lord that bought them…

Or, ‘that bought them,’ viz. in laying down a sufficient price for all sinners, in taking upon him the common nature of all men, and in preaching to them in the gospel that he died for sinners indefinitely, offering salvation, and beseeching them to receive it.”

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).”

Leonard Riissen

XII, 11; as quoted by Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 477-78

“…the satisfaction of Christ might be said to be sufficient for the sins of one and all, if so it had seemed good to God; for since it was of infinite value, it was quite sufficient for the redemption of one and all, if it had seemed good to God to extend it to the whole world. And here belongs a distinction used by the Fathers and retained by various theologians, that Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectually only for the elect; which phrase, understood of the worthiness of Christ’s death, is very true, although it is less accurate if referred to the will and counsel of Christ. For the Son gave himself to death, not with the purpose and intention of acting personal substitute in the room of one and all, to give satisfaction for them and secure them salvation; but for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed and whose head he was to be, he was wiling to give himself up.”

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB)

vol. 4, bk. 5, ch. 12, section 27, p. 427

“All the Reformed agree in this, that there is such a great value and price in the death of Christ, from the infinite dignity of the person, that it could be sufficient for saving each and every person, but because neither the Father nor the Son willed that death to be destined for redeeming each and every person, it cannot be fittingly said that Christ died for each and every person…”

vol. 5, bk. 6, ch. 1, ‘The Nature of Application’, section 17, p. 10

“[Objection to a limited application of redemption:] (4) That the redemption of Christ is of infinite value. I respond, And hence it certainly could be sufficient for each and every one to be redeemed, if only, from the intention of the Father, the Redeemer had willed to destine and devote it to all; the contrary of which He Himself declares (John 17:9).”

1700’s

Christopher Ness

An Antidote against Arminianism, or a Succinct Discourse to Enervate & Confute all the Five Points thereof… (Cockerill, 1700), ch. 11, p. 88

“6. Christ was sufficient as a medicine to save the whole world, as the brazen serpent was to heal all Israel, yet only those that looked up were healed: So ’tis only those that apply this medicine, Habet in se quod omnibus prosit, sed si non bibitur non medetur. Prosper.”

Thomas Boston

The Marrow of Modern Divinity… with Notes by the Rev. Thomas Boston (London: Tegg, 1837), p. 106, Notes of Boston

“This deed of gift and grant, or authentic gospel-offer is expressed in so many words, ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16). Where the gospel comes, this grant is published, and the ministerial offer made, and there is no exception of any of all mankind in the grant. If there was, no ministerial offer of Christ could be warrantably made to the party excepted, more than to the fallen angels; and without question, the publishing and proclaiming of heaven’s grant unto any, by way of ministerial offer, presupposes the grant, in the first place, to be made to them: otherwise, it would be of no more value than a crier’s offering of the king’s pardon to one who is not comprehended in it. This is the good old way of discovering to sinners their warrant to believe in Christ; and it does indeed bear the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for all, and that Christ crucified is the ordinance of God for salvation unto all mankind, in the use-making of which only they can be saved; but not an universal atonement or redemption.”

1800’s

Robert Shaw

Exposition of the Westminster Confession, pp. 112-13, commenting on WCF 8.8, “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same:”

“What language, then, could affirm more explicitly than that here employed, that the atonement of Christ is specific and limited — that it is neither universal nor indefinite, but restricted to the elect, who shall be saved from wrath through him.

The sacrifice of Christ derived infinite value from the dignity of his person; it must, therefore, have been intrinsically sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole human race had it been so intended; but, in the designation of the Father, and in the intention of Christ himself, it was limited to a definite number, who shall ultimately obtain salvation.”

Herman Bavinck

Reformed Dogmatics (Backer Academic, 2004), 3:246

“We no more need to know specifically for whom Christ died than we need to know specifically who has been ordained to eternal life. The calling indeed rests on a particular basis, for it belongs to and proceeds from the covenant, but it is addressed in keeping with God’s revealed will and with the inherently all-sufficient value of Christ’s sacrifice – also to those who are outside the covenant in order that they too may be incorporated into that covenant and in faith itself receive the evidence of their election.”

John L. Girardeau

Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism, pt. 1, Section 3, Objections [to Election and Reprobation] from the Moral Attributes of God Answered; 4. Objection from Divine Veracity, pp. 359-93

“It follows from this view that, as the atonement of Christ was, in itself, sufficient, had God so pleased, to ground the salvation of all men, it is sufficient to ground the universal offer of salvation. Men are invited to stand on a platform which is broad enough to hold them all, to rest upon a foundation which is strong enough to support them all, to partake of provisions which are abundant enough to supply them all.

When, therefore, God invites all men to seek salvation in Christ, He is not insincere in offering them a platform too narrow to hold them, a foundation too weak to sustain them, provisions too meagre to supply them. Were they all to accept the invitation, they would all be saved. So much for the intrinsic sufficiency of the remedy for human sin and misery. So far the Calvinist is not chargeable with representing God as insincere in the matter of the gospel offer.

It will be urged, however, that notwithstanding his admission of the absence of limitation, as to the intrinsic sufficiency of the atonement, the difficulty remains in view of his doctrine that there is limitation, as to its extrinsic design and application. It was not rendered for all, it is not intended to be effectually applied to all…”

1900’s

Geerhardus Vos

“The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God” in The Presbyterian & Reformed Review (1902), 13:1-37, p. 19

“It must be granted, however, that, altogether apart from the exegesis of these passages, some sort of reference of the atonement to every man may be affirmed…

The Bible gives us no right to say that Christ in His atoning work acted as the legal substitute of every individual human being. But certainly neither does it require us to assert that for the non-elect the atonement is void of all benefit or significance. Every man is indebted for great privileges to the cross of Christ. The continued existence of the race in spite of sin, but for it [the cross of Christ], would have been impossible. The atonement by its universal sufficiency renders the gospel a message which can be preached to every human being, and the offer of the gospel illumines the entire earthly existence of every one to whom it comes by the hope that he may find himself through faith one of the actual heirs of redemption.”

Louis Berkhof

Systematic Theology (1950; Banner of Truth)

VI. The Purpose & Extent of the Atonement, 4. Objections to the Doctrine of a Limited Atonement, pp. 397-98

“d. Finally, there is an objection derived from the bona fide [with good faith] offer of salvation…

…
(3) The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each one. It consists in:

(a) an exposition of the atoning work of Christ as in itself sufficient for the redemption of all men;
…

(c) a declaration that each one who comes to Christ with true repentance and faith will obtain the blessings of salvation.”

V. Calling in General and External Calling, C. External Calling, 2. The Characteristics of External Calling, b. It is a bona fide [good-faith] calling.

“(1) One objection is derived from the veracity of God… Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that God does not offer sinners the forgiveness of sins and eternal life unconditionally, but only in the way of faith and conversion; and that the righteousness of Christ, though not intended for all, is yet sufficient for all.”

Historical Theology

On the Middle Ages

Hogg, David – ch. 2, ”Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some’: Definite Atonement in the Medieval Church’ in eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological & Pastoral Perspective (2013), pp. 75-96

On the Removal of Legal Obstacles by way of the Atonement

Intro

This question is very related to, but not quite the same as ‘Reprobates (in Contrast to Devils) are made Salvable or Reconciliable by Christ’s Atonement’. For instance Rutherford affirms reprobates are made salvable by Christ’s atonement, but denies below that Christ dying for all is necessary to make salvation and the preaching of the gospel possible for all. Both issues, as stated, are ambiguous and might be answered affirmatively or negatively depending on how the terms are further defined. To put it another way, the terms in these stated issues are capable of a good sense, though also of erroneous senses.

As seen below, numerous limited atonement advocates affirmed the removal of legal obstacles by the atonement, making salvation possible to all men (in contrast to angels).

Collection

Ponter, David – ‘The Doctrine of the Removal of Legal Obstacles’ at Cavin & Calvinism 16 quotes The webmaster is a hypothetical universalist.

Near all of these quotes affirm that Christ removed the legal obstacles for all men to be saved by the sufficiency of his atonement, including proponents of limited atonement, such as, John Brown of Haddington, Charles Hodge, R.L. Dabney, W.GT, Shedd and A.A. Hodge. B.B. Warfield argues against the view.

Against

Quote

Samuel Rutherford

The Covenant of Life Opened... (1655), p. 239 Rutherford is clearly arguing against the Arminian conception here.

“2. It is to be considered, how many ways Christ may be said to give Himself [Greek], a ransom for us, or in our place.

…
2. Nor is it true that Christ’s dying for all and every one (which is a dream) makes salvation possible to all so that the Covenant is preachable to all upon condition of believing, Acts 10:43. ‘To Him’ (Jesus anointed, who went about doing good and so was man, v. 38) ‘to Him’ (who was slain in our nature, not for all and every man, v. 39, ‘to Him’) whom God raised up the third day, v. 40. To Him gave all the prophets witness (as it is, v. 43) that through his name, whoever believes in Him shall have remission of sins.”

Proponents of the View that Christ Died for the Entire World in order to provide an Atonement Sufficient for it

Order of

Intro
Article 1
Quotes 10+
Contra 1

Intro

Many (or most) of the reformed, especially later in the 1600’s, affirmed that Christ’s atonement is sufficient to save the whole world, if such persons believed, or were decreed to. If Christ in fact accomplished this by his death, it may seem reasonable to conclude that Christ intended this in his death. Many of the early reformed affirmed exactly this, while yet holding that Christ in his atonement only acted as a federal head for, and atoned for the sins of, only the elect, which redemption He then effectually applies to the elect, and only them.

Thus, while affirming a universal aspect to Christ’s death, they could yet affirm (if given the opportunity) WCF 8.8: “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same…”

Articles

1600’s

Pareus, David

Article 2, ‘Of Christ’s Death & Merit’ in Aphorisms of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Reformed Churches in Zachary Ursinus, The Sum of Christian Religion… (London: Young, 1645), pp. 694-98

“I. We believe that Christ our Redeemer did truly die in the flesh for our sins, and that with one oblation, He has forever consecrated those who are sanctified.”

“II. We believe also that this death of Christ alone, is a perfect and sufficient ransom, to expiate and abolish all the sins of the whole world, that the merit of his justice is immense, that the medicine of his death is universal, the ever-flowing and inexhausted spring of life eternal.”

“III. But this we know, that this is the immoveable and catholic doctrine of the Gospel, Jn. 3:18, 38. He that believes in the Son of God, has life eternal; he that believes not in the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on Him.”

“IV. Although then this most divine panace or catholic remedy is proposed to all in the Gospel, yet we believe that no efficacy of it can be transfused, except there be an applying of this by faith in the Son of God, even as there can be no efficacy in physic or medicaments, except the sick patient hearken to the physician, and apply his medicines; which metaphor the Holy Ghost uses in this case.”

“V. It is then out of doubt, that all they, and only they, are partakers of the efficacy of Christ’s death; that is, of redemption, reconciliation with God, remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life, so many as receive by faith these benefits in the Gospel: but such as pass over this life without faith, remain forever excluded from this power and benefits of his death.”

“VI. We know that the evangelical promises are universal, and appertain to all: but not to the incredulous and unconverted Turks, Jews, heathens, Epicures, so long as they remain such, but to all believers; for to all promises there is the condition of faith in Christ annexed, either implicitely, or explicitly, that which the plain text of Scripture shows.”

“VII. When the Scripture then says that Christ died for all, that He gave Himself a ransome for all, that He died for all, that He is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world: this is necessarily understood, either of the greatnesse of the price, or of the sufficiency of his merit for all men, or of the effectual redemption of all Jews and Gentiles that embrace by faith the benefits of his death: For in these, says Ambrose, a certain kind of universality is conceived [see footnote]. And this is no more repugnant [as the adversaries claim it is] to the doctrine of the Gospel than if some [adversaries] should say that Christ by his death did indifferently redeem and reconcile to God faithful Christians, and faithless Turks, heathens, Epicures, hypocrites, etc. although they receive not the merit of Christ by faith: which [latter] opinion [of the adversaries] is both impious, and repugnant to God’s Word.”

“VIII. Hence is that received and fit distinction, that Christ died for all men, in respect of the sufficiency of his merit, or the greatnesse of the price: but in respect of the efficacy and fruit of his death, he died for all, and onely for the beleevers; seeing not all, but only the faithfull receive him: but the rest reject him through infidelity.”

“IX. Thus, besides the Schoolmen, the orthodox fathers also teach: so Prosper Aquitanicus, in the year of Christ 460, Response to the Objections of Vincent., Objection 1:

Whereas it is rightly said that our Saviour was crucified for the redemption of all the world, for undertaking the affairs of human nature, and for the common loss in Adam: yet it may be said that He died only for these to whom his death was profitable.

And Cyril on John l. 11, ch. 19, says,

That Christ is an advocate for the sins of all the world: that is, not only for the Jews, but also for other nations; or, for all who, being called by faith, attain to righteousness and sanctification; so that the benefit of a mediator, not without cause, belongs only to them whose mediator and high-priest He is.

X. But, of all men, Augustine speaks most clearly, whose opinion (because it is altogether ours) I thought to set in opposition to some sycophants. Thus he speaks (tome 1, ad Art. falso imp., article 1):

If we consider the greatness and power of the price, and that it belongs to the only cause of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world; but they that pass out of this life without faith and the sacrament of regeneration, they are not partakers of redemption. Whereas then by reason of that one nature of all, and the one cause of all, undertaken by our Lord truly, all are said to be redeemed, and yet not all are delivered from captivity, doubtless the property of redemption is in them out of whom the prince of this world is ejected: and now they are no more the vessels of Satan, but the members of Christ.

Whose death is not so spent upon mankind that they also who are not regenerated should appertain to his redemption; but so, that what by one example is done for all, by a particular sacrament should be celebrated in each one: for that cup of immortality, which was composed of our infirmity, and of our verity, and of divine verity, it has in itself that which may benefit all, but if it be not drunk, it does not cure.”

Philip Pareus: “XI. We therefore, with all our heart, reject the Epicurean blasphemies of the late Pelagians, namely Huberus, Puccius and such like: by which the foundation of Christian faith is utterly overthrown: as:

1. That Christ so died for all men, that by his death truly and undoubtedly all men are freed from all sin and condemnation, whether they believe or not.

2. That by Christ’s death God was reconciled to all mankind, and that He has truly received into his favor the whole race of mankind, whether they be Turks, Jews, or Epicures.

3. And that He has also received them to mercy who before his death were in Hell: for Huberus in his 66th Thesis says that Christ died effectually for them.

4. That remission of sins is given equally to all.

5. That the pardon of sin is general.

6. That the reprobates were as well saved by Christ as others.

7. That all, and every one, by the bounty and universal grace of God the Father in Christ, are saved.

8. That as Christ was the Creator, so He is the Redeemer of all and every one.”

Philip Pareus, To the Reader: “This doctrine, of the efficacy of Christ’s death, Dr. Pareus handled more at large in the first part of The Golden Ladder of Salvation, where he wrote a particular Exercise of it: as also in the Epitome of Arminianism, or The Examination of the Five Articles of the Remonstrants in the Netherlands: as also in the Body of Christian Doctrine to the 40th Question, edit. posthumae: also Collegio 18, disp. 23, ‘Of Christ’s Death for All’: and, lastly, in that peculiar speech, which we placed among the orations declaimed in the university, Tome 2, Opera Theologica of Dr. Pareus.

In which writings he defends and retains that distinction of the Schoolmen and ancient fathers, of sufficiency and efficacy, with other orthodox divines: But the good old man, a little before his death, when he understood that in the provincial synod of Dort this was called into question unwisely by some brethren, under Parues’s name and authority, he began to think more seriously of it, supposing that it was not altogether so necessary; whereas without it, these [in Greek], or ‘seeming contradictions’ of Scripture, may seem to be fitly reconciled.”

‘A Piece of a Speech concerning that Question, To whom properly do the benefits of Christ’s sufferings and death belong? [the elect only] And how Christ is said to die for all [with respect to sufficiency]…’ in Zachary Ursinus, Sum of Christian Religion… (London: Young, 1645), pp. 807-11

“we affirme, that, according to the same Scripture, these precious fruits do belong to all the elect, and to them alone: but, as for the incredulous and impious, so long as they remaine such, we exclude them from these benefits…

As for the wicked, and such as want [lack] justifying faith, why should they partake so much happiness, who please not God?… Who belong not to Christ, who are not heirs, neither have right to, or in that life, how can Christ or his benefits belong to them?… For, if infidels belong not to Christ, they are none of Christ’s: We conclude strongly from the correlative, that Christ and his benefits belong not to the wicked: and as they are not Christs, so neither is Christ theirs. And how, I pray, should Christ belong to them whom He will, in the Last Judgment, pronounce before all the world, to be strangers from Himself, from his benefits, from his Kingdom?…

But, you will say, ‘Christ died for all, therefore rose again for all.’ The answer is double: One is, as often as the Gospel extends the fruits of the works and benefits of Christ to all, this is to be understood of all those that believe in Christ: for, this is the perpetual and constant voice of the Gospel… Therefore, the Gospel debars from the benefits of Christ, all infidels; not only by a plain exclusion, but also by that condition of faith and repentance… So then, Christ is said to die for all, to wit, all that do or shall believe in Him; for whom alone He prayed, and in whom alone He finds the faith of his death: but as for infidels and reprobates, for whom Christ prayed not, whom He never acknowledged for his own, upon whom the wrath of God abides forever, to extend, I say on these the benefits of Christ, what is it else but against his own command to give that which is holy unto dogs, and to cast pearls before swine? These [things] we could solidly defend by authority of Scripture and orthodox Fathers…

There is another answer usual in the schools, by which we may gratify the contentious, that Christ absolutely died for all, if you consider the amplitude and sufficiency of his price and merit: for, it is out of controversy, that the death of the Son of God is of that value, that it suffices to expiate the sins, not only of one, but of millions of worlds, if so be they had faith to apply this physic to their sins.

But the question is properly of the efficacy and participation itself of these fruits, when we demand if Christ died for all: because, to die for another, is properly to die in the stead and place of another, so that he is freed from death, and saved alive; as when David, weeping, cried out, ‘I wish I had died for thee, O Absalom’; that is, I wish I had died in thy stead, that thou mightest have lived.

But we utterly deny that this participation of Christ’s merits is common to all unbelievers, as well as to those that believe; or that this is promised or exhibited in the Gospel: for, in this regard, we conclude that Christ did not die properly for all, even for unbelievers and reprobates.

But here some unlucky patrons of infidels, taking it ill that we do not divide the pearls equally amongst sheep and swine, cry out, that we deny the blood of Christ… But first, we protest against such bitter calumnies, making our appeale to the unanimous consent of the orthodoxall Church, and the perpetual voice of the Gospel, that we deny not, but honor the blood of Christ, when we say, it is poured out, not for those that slight it, and tread Christ under their feet; but for those who by faith are justified through it…

They contend that Christ died for all. Who denies this? for this is the Scripture phrase. They add that He died for all and singular. Neither do we simply deny this; to wit, in that sense which we showed a little before: although we do not find the Scripture speak so.

They go on: that He died for all and singular alike; for the elect and reprobate, for Cain and David, for Judas and Peter, for the damned, as well as for those that are saved, without any respect of faith or infidelity. This is hard. They proceed, finally, that He died for all and singular, not only in respect of sufficiency, but also in regard of the efficacy of the price. But what is this? to wit, that Christ by his death has truly delivered from death, purged from sin, sanctified, and reconciled to God all absolutely, even those who are not saved, but have been damned ever since Cain, and are damned, and furthermore are to be damned; all those, they say, He has received into his favour.

This is that impious monster, by which they conclude another, no less impious and false: to wit, that wicked men, whosoever have perished, do, or shall perish, that they have perished, do, and shall perish not for their sins (for they were expiated by the blood of Christ), but only for their incredulity [unbelief]…. but how monstrous are these to Christian ears?” – pp. 807-9

Quotes

Vermigli
Ursinus
Tossanus
Bremen Consensus
Kimedoncius
Byfield
Du Moulin
Prynne
Alsted
Rivet
Ames
Wendelin

1500’s

Peter Martyr Vermigli

Predestination & Justification, tr. Frank A. James (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 2003), vol. 8, p. 62 HT: David Ponter

Zachary Ursinus

Daniel Tossanus

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. 4 tr. Michael Lynch (Heidelberg, 1589) Tossanus is strong on limited atonement in the rest of the disputation.

“31. But the sense of these places [1 Jn. 2 and 2 Pet. 2] is that Christ gave himself (which we easily acknowledge) as a sufficient price for the whole world and for the false teachers themselves. Even so, those alone are effectually redeemed who acknowledge this grace; not those who delight themselves in their own captivity, and are rejecters of Christ, such as are the reprobate.

Bremen Consensus (1595)

ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions 3.662-63

This was formerly stated by Augustine… The Scholastics have spoken in this manner: ‘Christ is dead for all men so far as the sufficiency of merit is concerned, but truly and solely for all believers so far as efficacy to salvation is concerned’ (Lombard… Thomas [Aquinas], Super Apocalypism, chap. 5; [Nicholas of] Lyra on 1 John 2).”

On Jacob Kimedoncius

G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), pp. 117-18 Kimedoncius (c.1550-1596) was a reformed, professor of theology at Heidelberg and a particularlist with regards the atonement.

“In his larger Concerning the Redemption of Mankind [1598], 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 [reformed turned Lutheran] 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.”

1600’s

Nicholas Byfield

An Exposition Upon the Epistle to the Colossians (1617), on Col. 1:12, p. 99

“‘Who has made us fit.’ Doctrine: We are neither naturally happy, nor universally so; not naturally, for we are made fit; not born so, not universally; for He has made [us] fit, not all men. Christ died for his sheep only (Jn. 10), for his Church only (Eph. 1), not for the world (Jn. 17). And therefore when the Scripture says Christ died for all men, we must understand it:

First, in respect of the sufficiency of his death, not in respect of the efficiency of it.

Secondly, in respect of the common oblation of the benefits of his death externally in the Gospel unto all.

Thirdly, as his death extends to all the elect: for all, that is, for the elect.

Fourthly, for all, that is, for all that are saved, so that none that are justified and saved, are so, but by the virtue of his death.

Fifthly, for all, that is for all indefinitely, for all sorts of men, not for every man of every sort.

Lastly, He died for all, that is not for the Jews only, but for the gentiles also.”

Pierre Du Moulin

The Anatomy of Arminianism… (1619; London, 1635), ch. 27, ‘How far, and in what sense Christ died for all’, pp. 226-28

“VIII. We do very much differ from this opinion [of Arminians]: We acknowledge that Christ died for all; but we deny that by his death salvation and forgiveness of sin is obtained for all men: or that reconciliation is made for Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Judas, etc. Neither do we think that remission of sins is obtained for anyone whose sins are not remitted, or that salvation was purchased for him, whom God from eternity has decreed to condem: For this were a vain purchase. And seeing Christ does everywhere say that He died for his sheep, and for those whom his Father gave Him, He does sufficiently declare that He died for the elect.

IX. And when we say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe, yea, and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole world did believe in Him: And that [is] the cause why all men are not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but in the wickedness and incredulity of man.”

William Prynne

The Church of England’s Old Antithesis to New Arminianism… (London: Matthewes, 1629), p. 50

“5. That Christ Jesus died sufficiently for all men (his death being of sufficient merit to redeem and save them), but primarily and effectually for the elect alone, for whom alone He has actually and effectually obtained remission of sins, and life eternal.”

Johann H. Alsted

Polemical Theology (1627), pt. 6, section 1, article 2, pp. 679-80 tr. by AI by Onku

“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. Jn. 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. Mt. 20:28, Jn. 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. Jn. 10:15. And in these all and alone there is a certain special universality, as is in Ambrose, bk. 1, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, ch. 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.”

Andrew Rivet

William Ames

Marcus F. Wendelin

Christian Theology 3rd ed. (1634), Species of the Office of Christ, pt. 3 Wendelin admits that Christ died for the world to make a sufficient atonement for all, yet Christ dying for someone properly means to deliver them; hence he does not like the language of Christ dying for all sufficiently. He then argues against hypothetical universalism.

“But if to believe that Christ died for oneself is the same thing as to believe that the death of Christ is sufficient of itself to expiate one’s sins, we do not deny that reprobates are also bound to believe this: which is perfectly true, whether they believe it, or not. For, the value of Christ’s death is such, that it is of itself sufficient for the altogether complete expiation of the sins of all men, even if they should be ten thousand times more: even if God did not determine it for the expiation of the sins of all.

So indeed in this controversy it is customary among many to make a distinction, that they say, that Christ died sufficiently for all, even reprobates; but efficiently only for the elect: which words, suitably explained, and applied to amplify the value of the merit of Christ, we readily admit: even if we have not made use of this distinction from the beginning: because the impropriety in the words appears to be overly harsh. For to [have] died for someone, if we speak properly, is to die for the favor of someone, or in the place of someone, so that he might be delivered from death: and if a voluntary death is met for another, it presupposes the greatest possible love, as Christ testifies, Jn. 15:13. Now, if you should add, ‘sufficiently only, not efficiently’, this not very suitable sense will emerge: Christ, impelled by the greatest possible charity, died in the place of reprobates, so that they might be delivered from death, sufficiently indeed, but not efficiently, that is, they are never actually delivered.

Those that say, that Christ dies also for reprobates, not indeed so that they might actually be delivered, but so that they might be able to be delivered, tacitly suppose (or they really do not say anything relevant), that it is in the power and ability of reprobates to apprehend Christ’s offered merit by faith: since without faith they are not even able to be delivered.

Likewise (which I wish properly to be observed), that God decreed from eternity to save all men and each through Christ, under this condition, that they believe upon Christ, the Redeemer of all men and each. Which no Orthodox theologian would admit, as Pelagian or Semi-pelagian dogma. I leave unmentioned, that God foreknew from eternity, that a great many were not going to believe, and that He decreed that He was not going to give faith to them, which is not able to be had, except with Him freely giving. Why then would He have decree salvation, and have determined means of salvation, that is, the death of His Son, under a condition, which He foreknew that He was not going to fulfill, and the ability of the fulfilling of which He denied in His eternal decree. Not even man plans so imprudently.

But let us dismiss these things. Nevertheless, we think that it is more rightly and plainly said, that the death of Christ is sufficient in itself for the expiation of all the sins of men, than, Christ died sufficiently for all, even reprobates.”

Get quotes from Atonement Provides Common Grace to Reprobates page.

Contra Christ Dying for the World Sufficiently

Quote

Henry Alting

Logical & Theological Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession (Amsterdam: Janssonius, 1647), Syllabus of Controversies with Lutherans, Controversy 4, on Predestination, Question 3, 4. ‘Whether for All & Every Person Christ Died’, p. 237 trans. AI

“‘Christ died for all sufficiently, for the elect alone efficiently: that is, He indeed satisfied for all, but only the elect apply His satisfaction to themselves.’

Response: We have said above that the death of Christ is in itself sufficient for the redemption of all, yet destined only for the elect. But that He died sufficiently for all, and efficiently for the elect, can in no way be said. I. Because the division of efficiency and sufficiency implies a contradiction with the thing divided. For if He died for all, it follows that He willed by His death to expiate the sins of all, and to obtain their remission. For this the particle for (pro) requires, indicating the end, as does the very phrase. But if He willed to expiate, then certainly He also actually expiated. The reason is that whatever He ever willed to effect, He brought to effect; whether as the omnipotent God, or as the faithful servant of the Father, whom the Father always heard. If He actually expiated the sins of all individuals, therefore He died efficiently for all and each individual; which nevertheless this distinction denies.

II. A distinction that removes theological principles is faulty. The distinction of sufficiency and efficiency removes theological principles. The reason is that it separates those things which God has joined in the covenant Jer. 31:33–34. For those whose Savior Christ is, He is their Savior both by merit and by efficacy together, not by one only. Therefore.”

No Salvation is Offered to Demons, No not by Christ’s Atonement

Quote

1600’s

Johannes Coccejus

ch. 61, ‘On the Satisfaction of Christ’ in Sum of Theology (Geneva, 1665), trans. AI at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“Second, He did not offer Himself for angels, because He is not the epilēptōr (ἐπιλήπτωρ), the undertaker and redeemer of angels (Heb. 2:16). Therefore, we think it imprudently said that Christ’s blood suffices to redeem demons (Cornelius Jansen, Augustinus, tome 3, p. 382).

Third, Christ sanctified and offered Himself for the seed of Abraham, whose epilēptōr He is (Heb. 2:16).”

Latin Articles

1600’s

Bergius, Conrad – Two Disputations on the Sufficiency & Efficiency of Christ’s Death, 1641, held and forged in Bremen (d. 1642; Coloniae ad Suevum: George Schultz, 1648)

Bergius (1592-1642) was a German reformed professor of theology.

Voet, Gisbert – On the End to Which of the Satisfaction & Merit (including Sufficiency & Efficiency) 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 – p. 254, point 8 in 2nd Article, ‘On the Universality of the Death of Christ’ in The Anti-Synod Writings, or Animadversions on those Dogmatics which the Remonstrants Exhibited in the Synod of Dort & Later Divulged (Amsterdam, 1646)

Buxtorf, Jr. Johann – A Theological Disputation on the Sufficiency of Christ’s Merit (Basil: Georg Decker, 1651)

Buxtorf, Jr. (1599-1664) was a reformed professor of Hebrew, Old Testament and Theology at Basel.

Maresius, Samuel – A Theological Judgment on the Questions of Grace & Universal Redemption, Partly Refutative, containing 10 Exercitations, Against the Apology of John Daille, published in Belgium, contra the Common & Constant Judgment of the Reformed Churches & Schools of the Belgic Federation, and All Others, to which is Appended Brief Strictures to the Recent Vindications of the Same Daille, which are Most Wordy & Contumacious… (Groningen, 1658)

Exercitation 2. Places customarily used to support universal redemption are weighed: 1 Tim. 2:6, the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of the death of Christ; Rom. 5:18; Heb. 2:9, ‘every man’, what it is; Jn. 1:9 & 1 Jn. 2:2, in which the true sense is propounded and vindicated: other testimonies on the term ‘world’ 58-102

“2. Nor do we want to absolutely reject that judgment which distinguishes between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death, so that it extends to individuals; [but] here it [1 Tim. 2:6] is restricted to only the elect and believing.

We know indeed this distinction was constantly received in the schools from the time of Lombard (Sentences, bk. 3, distinction 20, letter ‘c’) and Pope Innocent III (On the Mystical Mass, bk. 2, ch. 41), in which things already has shined not only Primasius, Prosper and others of the ancients, but even so at some time Augustine himself, To the false articles imputed to himself, article 1…

Indeed the Synod of Dort itself evidently intimates that in the Second Head of Doctrine, sections 3 & 8…

But yet we choose fairly enough not to bring this distinction to the place of Paul upon which we treat. That is to be demonstrated shortly.”

Related Pages

Limited Atonement

Atonement Provides Common Grace to Reprobates

Reformed Books Online

Free, Biblical, Reformed, Historic Books & Articles Online

On the Sufficiency of the Atonement