How is this answer NOT teaching unlimited atonement?

__________________

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.

__________________
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church
www.oceansideurc.org
Carlsbad/Oceanside, California

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

See G.I. Williamson, The Heildelberg Catechism: A Study Guide (P&R Publishing, 1993), pages 70-71 for a very good explanation of this question.

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

With all of the above responses, I naturally agree. Here's what Ursinus wrote in his other Catechisms:

Large Catechism QA 79

What do you understand when you say that he suffered?

Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in that final act of redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb.

Small Catechism QA 26

What do you believe about Christ's suffering?

That all the torments and insults which he sustained in soul and body, as well as the awareness and horror of God's anger, unbearable for all creatures, are the unique and sufficient sacrifice by which he has redeemed me and all believers from eternal death and has gained for us forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, the Holy Spirit, righteousness and eternal life.

__________________
Wes Bredenhof
Co-pastor, Langley Canadian Reformed Church
Langley, British Columbia
www.bredenhof.ca

Does anyone have access and facility with the original German or the Dutch translation? I don't trust the American translators. I like Schaff's translation, but he would definitely have an axe to grind in this regard.

__________________
Kenneth A. Pierce
Senior Minister
Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA)
5301 Old Canton Rd.
Jackson, MS 39211
(601)977-0774
www.trinitychurchpca.com

See this thread:

Heidelberg Catechism in German and Latin

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"On land, at sea, at home, abroad, / I smoke my pipe and worship God." -- J.S. Bach

One thing we must remember is there is a underlying assumption that the HC is written for believers. Also, it is a fact that Christ would not have had to bleed more, be whipped more, nor hang on the cross longer to redeem anyone.

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

The German text is Schaff vol 3. The Latin text is available in a few places, namely Niemeyer's Collectio.

I don't think that Schaff did anything unfair here.

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

ps. we were just discussing this Mon night in the Reformed Confessions class. Limited atonement is implicit in Q. 20:

And in 29 and 30 and 31:

Remember too that the Catechism (any catechism) is to be read left to right, not right to left. That is to say that it is cumulative and ea q/a assumes the foregoing.

rsc

Does that explain why the HC is a lot more devotional in nature than the Westminster Standards?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

"all mankind" does not mean every man woman and child past, present, & future.

If it said 'every man' I would have a bone to pick. Mankind is far from every man.

Furthermore, there is a distinction made between "all mankind" and the object of the application which is "our" and "us."
I don't see how it would be teaching unlimited atonement.

__________________
Benjamin
FPCNA
Indianapolis, IN

All the endes of the worlde shall remember themselues,
and turne to the Lord: and all the kinreds of the nations
shall worship before thee. For the kingdome is the Lords,
and he ruleth among the nations. Psalm 22:27-28

Perhaps Daniel. I have heard it explained as being "pastoral'' in nature. Whatever that means!!

Here is the full quote from Ursinius:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amazing Grace,

Need we add that the Catechism is not, nor was it intended to be, an exhaustive credal document. It is after all a teaching tool for children, and it is correct insofar as it goes.

Is it any different than Peter saying Christ propiated for the sins of the whole world? Obviously, Peter is no low Calvinist or Arminian. The only point is that, if God had deigned to save all men, he would have needed no more than the death of Christ to do it. Period.