First of all the Catechism is stressing here the identification of Christ with man or humanity. So it is quite a natural or at least possible to imply that we are not saying here that Christ actually died for the sins of every person but that Christ made satisfaction for men (similar to Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:15 that Jesus came to save sinners).

Furthermore, Ursinus explains in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on this question that "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..."

Finally Ursinus notes later in the Commentary that “the forgiveness of sins is extended to all and only the elect; because it is given to such as believe. In as much now as the reprobate never do truly believe, they never receive the forgiveness of sins. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” “To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (John 3:36; Acts 10:43)

I think what we can conclude is that what may be seen as imprecise language on the part of Ursinus is due to the fact that the Arminian controversy did not arise until 45+ years later, wherein the orthodox were required to tighten up or refine the way they spoke about the atonement.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?