The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - The Heidelberg Catechism and unlimited atonement

Amazing Grace · #15 (**permalink**) 04-30-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

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.

To be honest, this could be one of the worst explinations I have read regarding the atonement from a particular redemption truth. This goes beyond Amyrauldism into some synergistic arminianism. If you told me Wesley said this or Arminius himself, I would not doubt it. (making a mental note not to use Ursinius to ague the "L")

Now granted many will come to his defense and try to clarify this with other areas of his writings, but I have no problem calling it like I see it. This is terrible!!!!! SO you are not missing anything Ken. There should be absolutely zero ambiguity on such an important revelation of the Word regarding the atonement. To say this in one place, discredits the persons whole testimony.