Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyhyde  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. |
Danny, the atonement did not change from Paul for 1600 years. Historic documents must be read in light of scripture. What he said in this specific quote Ken showed is not scriptural. It wasnt as if a light went on in the 17th century that changed the explination of definite atonement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyhyde 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. |
If you mean article 3, Dort does not go as far as Ursinius did here. In fact in the rejections 1.3.5.6 clarify article 3 perfectly. Ursinius should have used the distinction of scripture instead of Lombard. Again, I do not deny the intrinsic value of His death. As I clearly stated above, He would not have had to bleed or suffer anymore to expiate one more sin. Yet the intrinsic value cannot ever be spoken of absent of the decreed intent. This is where ursinius failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyhyde 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. |
Yet this application is not self approbated by man. When Ursinius states:
the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, he most certainly implies a cooperation on our part. AS if faith flows from our own will. Perhaps he did not believe what he said here, and used the wrong words, but again, error on wording in this doctrine is never excusable.
[quote=dannyhyde;398413]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.[/qoute]
Danny, again, I am only speaking of the quote Ken provided. I am not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I just will not use him for any defense of the "L". With good reason may I add. I do not know what you mean about the SOD not modying the HC in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyhyde 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). |
I am not as concerned about what they debated at Dort, I am not trying to vidicate the HC, nor Dort. The main goal of this dialogue is to point out where Ursinius sounds like Cameron more than Cameron sounds like Cameron. I honestly do not want to read anything on the Atonement by John Davenant, or anyone attached to the flavor of the School of Saumur.