.
Order of Contents
Articles 4
Collections 2
Quotes 25
Historical 1
Removal of Legal Obstacles 2
Christ Died for World Sufficiently
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
.
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.
.
Order of Quotes
Aquinas
Vermigli
Calvin
Tossanus
Bremen Consensus
Kimedoncius
Bucan
Byfield
Wolleb
Preston
Mayer
Culverwell
Ames
Ball
Rutherford
Genevan 1649 Articles
English Annotations
Trapp
Turretin
Riissen
Mastricht
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
Predestination & Justification, tr. Frank A. James (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 2003), vol. 8, p. 62
“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.”
.
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)
.
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
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.”
.
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.”
.
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.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
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.”
.
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
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
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 the 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…”
.
Quotes
In 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.
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.”
.
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)
.
Nicholas Byfield
.
Andrew Rivet
.
William Ames
.
Get quotes from Atonement Provides Common Grace to Reprobates page.
.
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