|
Ken and "Amazing Grace":
First of all, historic documents must be read in their historic context. You cannot expect Ursinus to answer a 17th c. question in the middle of the 16th c. A little sensitivity is needed.
Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.
Third, Ursinus is making the point that while Christ's death has objective value, it also needs to be applied to individual sinners. Notice the last line of the sentence you quoted; now go read Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1. Again, this is traditional language in speaking of the objectivity/subjectivity of salvation.
Fourth, to "Amazing Grace": you need to show a little grace. If Dr. Ursinus is so "terrible," so "beyond Amyraldianism," etc, etc., why did the Synod of Dort not modify the Heidelberg Catechism in any way whatsoever? Have we all been touting the Synod of Dort for 500 years, only to be closet Arminians? I think not.
Fifth, you need to read two things by W. Robert Godfrey:
—“Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” Westminster Theological Journal 37:2 (Winter 1974): 133–71.
—Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dordt 1618-1619 (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).
|