04-30-2008, 02:22 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,267
Thanks: 1,458
Thanked 337 Times in 201 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyhyde  Ken,
Here is a part of Ursinus' lecture on Q&A 37:
"Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction.
Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof . . ." (The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 215)
Also, I would add, as I have when I preach Q&A 37, that the Catechism is merely using biblical language. | Here is the full quote from Ursinius: Quote:
Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction.
Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin ; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us.
| I understand that from other places Ursinius is apparently a 5 pointer, but what he says here sounds an awful lot like "potentially for all; effective for the elect", does it not? No doubt I am missing some nuance.
__________________  |