Thread: Is a Universal Reference in the Atonement "Unreformed"?

Originally Posted by py3ak

Another point on the history. If a signatory of Dort, Westminster, etc., argued for other views in their writings, it may be as well to inquire whether those writings were before or after their signing, or both. If before, the judgment of charity would declare that their minds changed, possibly as a result of the discussion. If after, then they may be chargeable with a genuine inconsistency.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Are there any writings that speak on this? I sense that if opposites shook hands and both signed a document in which they disagreed, I would be concerned with only asking why and for what reason. Did Gillespie (100% limited) sjhake ahnds with Calmay (HU) on this issue?

Matt said: Universalist tendencies in signers of the creeds and confessions don't make universalist sympathizers Reformed, it makes them foolish for signing confessions without thinking through the implications of those confessions theologically and biblically logically. It doesn't make Calamy logically and biblically "ok" because he signed the WCF. Instead, it makes him part of a really great group of minds who disagreed with him. It doesn't say anything about the WCF being Reformed, but it does say volumes about what Calamy understood or not.

I concur with an Amen on this point. But do we know why he signed? Did he believe his view was allowed by the confession? As an aside, did each part of dort of the WCF allow for signatures and other parts some could abstain? Or did the document as a whole have to be signed at the end?

Originally Posted by py3ak

Another point on the history. If a signatory of Dort, Westminster, etc., argued for other views in their writings, it may be as well to inquire whether those writings were before or after their signing, or both. If before, the judgment of charity would declare that their minds changed, possibly as a result of the discussion. If after, then they may be chargeable with a genuine inconsistency.

Mitchell discusses Calamy et al. on pages lv and following in his introduction to the Mitchell/Struthers edition of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly. He tries very hard to see accommodation of the Davenant school in the standards but admits difficulties and tries to read the standards in a light in which Calamy et al could "sign" on.

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Also, one MUST think about this topic inside the two wills of God aspects that I write about in my book, "The Two Wills of God." If you theologically place these ideas inside the same theological box while trying to debate this on the one view problem, you have debates like this go on that are never reconciled. There is a great chasmic difference between how we theologically view decreetive applications of God's work, and how God views them.

This is an excellent point, something Rev. Winzer just struck on as well. The problem I have with the manner this is developed is that it does the same thing with passages that are addressed to the broad audience of the Church to build up and exhort and then insist they must be understood as true of every Church member "in some sense" instead of understanding that when you talk to a broad audience you do so with the judgment of charity. In other words, simply because Paul states "...when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..." cannot be inferred that he intended to imply that even the reprobate participated in the benefits to a lesser degree than the elect simply because they are hearing the announcement. These things do, indeed, convert the heart and are preached to all with the demand that they believe upon them but that doesn't mean they participate in them "in some sense" if they do not have faith born from above.

They key may be this, that while "[t]hey certainly did not succeed in getting any positive approbation of their opinions inserted" "it is just possible that the language of this section [WCF chapter 3] may have been so arranged, that they felt warranted in accepting it as not positively condemning them." Mitchell/Struthers, lvi-lvii.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by py3ak

Another point on the history. If a signatory of Dort, Westminster, etc., argued for other views in their writings, it may be as well to inquire whether those writings were before or after their signing, or both. If before, the judgment of charity would declare that their minds changed, possibly as a result of the discussion. If after, then they may be chargeable with a genuine inconsistency.

Mitchell discusses Calamy et al. on pages lv and following in his introduction to the Mitchell/Struthers edition of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly. He tries very hard to see accommodation of the Davenant school in the standards but admits difficulties and tries to read the standards in a light in which Calamy et al could "sign" on.

Again, I must ask can anyone tell me what benefits the reprobate enjoy?

I wonder if one could speak of the passages saving the world "ontologically," in other words: a reaffirmation, resucitation and restoration of creation. Christ's death had cosmic effect. That preserves the "he died for the elect" passages without exegetical gymnastics.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Well said, Matthew!

My only quibble would be that while you do a fine job showing that the atonement was not universal, that is not the whole question. Some of those who see universal "aspects" in the death of Christ would agree with you, even denying a hypothetical universal atonement. Common grace, for instance, has sometimes been argued as a product of the atonement by some who would be one with you on your five points of dispute.

So, you demolish any basis for a universal, even hypothetical, atonement and show how the confessions do not allow for it. This is so, as others have also pointed out in this thread, even if some signatories to Dort and the WCF were ambivalent (or even disagreed) on that point. However, you do not address the addition by some that their is a vague universal benefit to the atonement (e.g., some arguments for common grace) that does not relate to salvation.

Dennis,

Yes, I know I did skirt that on purpose because that would take considerable time on unwinding other theological issues around it.

I have written exstensively in "Two Wills" on things like common grace and so forth. So I leave it to the reader to go there. It would take too long to reformulate that for the PB.

One thing that I think would be VERY helpful on that issue is reading some of Edward's sermons. He does quite a bit to talk about what happens to the reprobate here, and what God's will is for those who are not elect, and what Christ's work does in relation to them.

Might I make a quote from my work?

John Gerstner quotes and explains Edwards on this when he says, “Edwards preached that all that happens to the wicked in this “world prepares ‘em” for the pit (Isaiah 30:33). In his “improvement” of the sermon on Proverbs 29:25, Edwards warns his people that while they rejoice in their prosperity, they do not all know but that they are being fed for the slaughter. (See Gerstner, Rational, 176 [emphasis mine]. Gerstner’s footnote is the following: Also, Unpublished MS sermon on Proverbs 29:25, 'They are safe that trust in God,” p. 2, between Fall 1722 Spring 1T13. Unpublished MS sermon on Job 18:15.)

What happens here is that people don't like the idea that Christ's work does in fact have a specific fuction for the reprobate - it prepares them for hell, and all thier worldly works and functions simply fatten them up for the slaughter.

Hard, but true.

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

What happens here is that people don't like the idea that Christ's work does in fact have a specific fuction for the reprobate - it prepares them for hell, and all thier worldly works and functions simply fatten them up for the slaughter.

Hard, but true.

Maybe I'm being simplistic here (feel free to correct), but I've found that when one seeks to push universal aspects upon the atonement (in a positive way for the reprobate) there is usually an underlying view that the atonement is ultimately about man, and not God. Thus, God must include everyone in some way in order to give all a chance. (which is basically an appeasement to our fallible minds)

First, the idea of common non saving benefits purchased by Christ is demeaning to what Christ did in becoming man and dying to save His people from their sins. How can such benefits be considered even for a moment as commensurate to the greatness of His work? "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved," John 3:17. To speak of God sending His only-begotten Son for the purpose of obtaining temporal mercies to such as shall be damned is simply unworthy of consideration.

Secondly, the non saving benefits all point towards making men "salvable." So it is effectively another gospel from the apostolic one which taught that Jesus Christ actually and effectively and radically saves His people from their sins.

Thirdly, if these common benefits are purchased by Christ, why are not all men put in possession of them? It is often alleged that the preaching of the gospel is a benefit purchased by Christ to the reprobate. If so, why are not all reprobates granted the privilege of hearing the gospel? In order for them to be common benefits, it is necessary that the benefits be received in common by all men. The fact that the benefit is not received in common by all men demonstrates they are not something purchased by Christ.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

But we must apply this message to saints also. What does universalism do for them? Nothing less than throw the whole scheme of salvation into doubt and rob them of that assurance which belongs to them in Christ. What has become of the inspired logic of the apostle, Rom. 5:10, who argues, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life?" or that of Rom. 8:34, where it is maintained that because Christ has died there is none to condemn those for whom He died? It has all become empty rhetoric; for the death of Jesus Christ, with all His saving benefits, is made hypothetical, conditional upon something the believer must do in order to complete the work.

Hypothetical universalism is contrary to reformed pastoral theology.

I want to give this a hearty AMEN.

I think some people spend so much time trying to convince everybody that the Atonement has a universal purpose that they lose the emphasis that the Scriptures place on the worth of its very specific purpose.

I can't tell you the number of Christians who I've taught here whose eyes have become wide as saucers as they consider for the first time that Christ has secured salvation for them in His Atoning, once-for-all, sacrifice. Everything was completed. They add nothing to it and, further, Christ intercedes for them to ensure the work is complete, that nothing can snatch them from His hand.

But many are so obsessed to try to theorize on a universal aspect of this work that it robs the congregation at large of the important Truth. Notice that site referenced, for instance. It obsesses to show that there must be some universal aspect. If I'm going to "obsess" about anything in the Word then let it be the infinite worth of Christ's Sacrifice for His own that definitively paid the price for sin and that He entered the heavenly sanctuary where I now have bold access through the veil of His flesh!

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

I think one of the important "things" to remember in dealing with Dort about this issue, is that they did not add into their statement the application of universals for the atonement to the reprobate EVER. What they DID say was that it is "sufficient"...(and then others place in there for, all, more, everyone, or whatever hypothetical infinity you want to place on it). In other words - DOrt's thought was - "If Jesus DID die for all, or everyone, His atonement WOULD HAVE been able to save all or everyone." It was not a statement about the efficacy of the atonement, but the value of the atonement.

Bingo.

B. B. Warfield argues convincingly for the exclusion of the Amyraldian view from the confessional formulation. In commenting on chapter 3, section 6, in his article on "The Making of the Confession," he writes (Works, 6:143, 144):

It might seem somewhat more to the point, possibly, to recall that in this section the language is so ordered as to seem to deal with the actual ordo salutis rather than directly with the ordo decretorum. It is asserted that the ordo salutis is the result of the decreeing of the means by which the elect are brought to glory. But what is subsequently asserted is that none but the elect are (actually) redeemed by Christ, effectually called, etc. — the mind being abstracted for the moment from the intention to the performance. The Westminster Amyraldians — if we may venture so to call them — had, of course, freely admitted the distinction between the elect and non-elect in the application: it was only in the impetration that they disputed it: and it might perhaps seem to them possible to confess that though Christ had died for all, the merits of His death had actually been applied only to some, and to contend that only this is actually expressed by saying that none but the elect “are redeemed by Christ.” Even this, however, appears more subtle than satisfactory; and in any event it would seem quite obvious that the Assembly intended to state in this clause with adequate clearness their reasoned and deliberate conviction that the decree of election lies behind the decree of the gift of Christ for redemption, and that the latter is to be classed as one of the means for the execution of the decree of election. This is the definite exclusion of the Amyraldian view, and anything that can be made really consistent with this conception of the ordo decretorum will be found to differ fundamentally from Amyraldism.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

First, the idea of common non saving benefits purchased by Christ is demeaning to what Christ did in becoming man and dying to save His people from their sins. How can such benefits be considered even for a moment as commensurate to the greatness of His work? "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved," John 3:17. To speak of God sending His only-begotten Son for the purpose of obtaining temporal mercies to such as shall be damned is simply unworthy of consideration.

Secondly, the non saving benefits all point towards making men "salvable." So it is effectively another gospel from the apostolic one which taught that Jesus Christ actually and effectively and radically saves His people from their sins.

Thirdly, if these common benefits are purchased by Christ, why are not all men put in possession of them? It is often alleged that the preaching of the gospel is a benefit purchased by Christ to the reprobate. If so, why are not all reprobates granted the privilege of hearing the gospel? In order for them to be common benefits, it is necessary that the benefits be received in common by all men. The fact that the benefit is not received in common by all men demonstrates they are not something purchased by Christ.

Thanks. For the record, I am NOT an Amyraldian, nor to I seek to defend the position. I was simply reacting to the fact that you stated a fairly complete case against a universal atonement but did not touch upon the issue at hand, what of those who accept a limited atonement but who see the text teaching some universal benefits (other than redemption). Your three points succinctly dispatched the issue. Thanks.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

What an excellent discussion has been generated!

When it comes to the issue of a "double-end" view on the atonement and it's compatibility with Dort and the WCF we must note a couple of things that revolve around the Lombardian formula "sufficient for all efficient for the elect", a fomula that was interpreted in several ways:

[1] Concerning "efficient for the elect": Dort and the WCF affirm this: that Christ's atonement fully saved only the elect. Both single-enders and double-enders are agreed on this point. No double-ender has ever said that Christ's death in any way secures the salvation of reprobates. Hence, simply reproducing statements that affirm Christ's saving the elect from Dort or the WCF doesn't resolve the issue. Both sides are agreed.

[2] Concerning "sufficient for all": Neither Dort nor the WCF made a judgement on the variety of interpretations expressed at both synods. There is no explicit denial of either a single or a double-end view.

In other words, Dort and the WCF left the interpretation of "sufficient for all" open. The first time a judgement was made about this was in the Consensus Helvetica, which was not officially received.

Hence, about Dort, Richard Muller could make these sorts of statements:

[Jonathan] Moore [in his book] also underestimates the presence of non-Amyraldian or non-speculative forms of hypothetical universalism in the Reformed tradition as a whole and thereby, in the opinion of this reviewer, misconstrues Preston’s position as a “softening” of Reformed theology rather than as a continuation of one trajectory of Reformed thought that had been present from the early sixteenth century onward. Clear statements of nonspeculative hypothetical universalism can be found (as Davenant recognized) in Heinrich Bullinger’s Decades and commentary on the Apocalypse, in Wolfgang Musculus’ Loci communes, in Ursinus’ catechetical lectures, and in Zanchi’s Tractatus de praedestinatione sanctorum, among other places. In addition, the Canons of Dort, in affirming the standard distinction of a sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the elect, actually refrain from canonizing either the early form of hypothetical universalism or the assumption that Christ’s sufficiency serves only to leave the nonelect without excuse. [...] In other words, the nonspeculative, non-Amyraldian form of hypothetical universalism was new in neither the decades after Dort nor a “softening” of the tradition: The views of Davenant, Ussher, and Preston followed out a resident trajectory long recognized as orthodox among the Reformed.

“English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology,” by Jonathan D. Moore. Reviewed by Richard A Muller, Calvin Theological Journal, 43 (2008), 149-150.

And in an article:

This pattern [of John Cameron's covenantal theology] has major implications for understanding the Salmurian soteriology. It indicates a covenantal or federal continuity with Reformed predestinarianism that has been left unexamined in discussions of hypothetical universalism. Against Moltmann’s assessment, it offers an element of the Salmurian theology that presses it away from rather than toward Arminianism; and against Armstrong’s thesis, it demonstrates the point, recognized even by seventeenth-century opponents of Amyraldianism like Francis Turretin, namely, that views of Cameron and his Salmurian successors were not heresy and, like it or not, where consciously framed to stand within the confessionalism of Dort. In the specific case of Cameron’s covenantal thought, it ought to be understood not as a protest against various developments in Reformed theology but rather as an integral part of the rather fluid and variegated history of early Reformed covenantal thought. Richard Muller, “Divine Covenanters, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006), 36-37.

Hence, concerning Matthew's statement:

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

I think one of the important "things" to remember in dealing with Dort about this issue, is that they did not add into their statement the application of universals for the atonement to the reprobate EVER. What they DID say was that it is "sufficient"...(and then others place in there for, all, more, everyone, or whatever hypothetical infinity you want to place on it). In other words - DOrt's thought was - "If Jesus DID die for all, or everyone, His atonement WOULD HAVE been able to save all or everyone." It was not a statement about the efficacy of the atonement, but the value of the atonement.

Matthew, thanks for the comment. However, I don't see how one could read this (Owen's) interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula into Dort. Look at the words:

Article 3:

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

There's no "could've been sufficient". The words are a compromise statement allowing for several views.

Moreover, Dort explicitly says this about the atonement's relationship to the unbeliever:

Article 6:

And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Depending on which position one takes, both sides affirm that Christ secured the salvation of the elect and only the elect in his his death on the cross. Upon that foundation there are a variety of other views, which are compatible with reformed confessionalism. By all means let's discuss them, but let's not start saying either view is not confessionally reformed.

Every blessing.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Thanks. For the record, I am NOT an Amyraldian, nor to I seek to defend the position. I was simply reacting to the fact that you stated a fairly complete case against a universal atonement but did not touch upon the issue at hand, what of those who accept a limited atonement but who see the text teaching some universal benefits (other than redemption). Your three points succinctly dispatched the issue. Thanks.

Dennis, have I missed the posts which show some benefits other than redemption? I cannot see them.. There are 5 benefits from the cross according to the writ, which of these 5 can be experienced by the reprobate?

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Article 3:

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

This is related directly to the intrinsic value ONLY. Christ would not have had to bleed nor hang on the cross longer to atone for one more sin. Not one single ender has ever denied the infinite INTRINSIC value, yet HU's go beyond this.

Originally Posted by dort

Article 6:

And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Again HU's go beyond this in explination. The relationship to the unbeliever is simply no blood was shed for them by design.

What is the actual difference between a conditional atonement (HU) and arminianism? They both say the reason people are in hell is becasue they do not repent and believe. I could agree at face value with that, but do they not both error by ending here? Could an HU say, it is because hey are not of Christs sheep who did not shed His blood for them? Or They were never chosen to repent and believe? They seem very similiar.

Davenant did not see the canons of Dort as specifically excluding his "dual reference" thinking on the atonement and therefore concurred. Following the Synod in his Dissertation on the Death of Christ, Davenant taught that the Canons did not teach a strictly limited atonement, but allowed for a dual reference view of the atonement. Like Amyraut would do in the following years, Davenant marshaled dozens of quotations to show that his views were consistent those of the fathers and Reformers, especially Calvin.

Davenant argued that the formula “sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect” is meaningless unless there was some sense in which Christ died for all -- i.e. more than a mere intrinsic sufficiency. On the other hand, unlike Amyraut, Davenant maintained that the atonement still reflected a particular intent for the elect alone.

What I hear modern dual reference guys saying is that there must be a universal provision in the atonement for the reprobate in order for there to be a "sincere offer" on God's part. It is tied to notions of a volitional desire in God for the salvation of all and necessarily involves conditional decrees on God's part.

Whether Davenant and a dual reference atonement may be legitimately regarded as within a broader reformed tradition (a la indications in Mueller), I cannot say. I will say it goes beyond my understanding of the intent of Dort and the WCF/LBCF.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

When it comes to the issue of a "double-end" view on the atonement and it's compatibility with Dort and the WCF we must note a couple of things that revolve around the Lombardian formula "sufficient for all efficient for the elect", a fomula that was interpreted in several ways:

[1] Concerning "efficient for the elect": Dort and the WCF affirm this: that Christ's atonement fully saved only the elect. Both single-enders and double-enders are agreed on this point. No double-ender has ever said that Christ's death in any way secures the salvation of reprobates. Hence, simply reproducing statements that affirm Christ's saving the elect from Dort or the WCF doesn't resolve the issue. Both sides are agreed.

[2] Concerning "sufficient for all": Neither Dort nor the WCF made a judgement on the variety of interpretations expressed at both synods. There is no explicit denial of either a single or a double-end view.

Marty,

Would you please spell out precisely what it is that you believe this double-end is? What is it in the atonement that you believe extends to the non-elect? You keep quoting folks who say that HU views were accepted. I would really like to see what it is that you believe the Atonement secures in an Hypothetically Universal way for the reprobate?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Marty,

Would you please spell out precisely what it is that you believe this double-end is? What is it in the atonement that you believe extends to the non-elect? You keep quoting folks who say that HU views were accepted. I would really like to see what it is that you believe the Atonement secures in an Hypothetically Universal way for the reprobate?

Yes please do Marty. It is the bottom of the 9th, with 2 outs, 2 strikes, men on first and third and you are down by 3 runs.

Rich I would go one step further and ask what the men who hold to HU say the benefits are. All I see is them saying "I believe the atonement has benefits for all head for head" But I cannot find one writing of anyone who can tell me what those benefits are.

Matthew, thanks for the comment. However, I don't see how one could read this (Owen's) interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula into Dort. Look at the words:

Quote:
Article 3:

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
There's no "could've been sufficient". The words are a compromise statement allowing for several views.

The very idea they are portraying is that Christ sacrifice is sifficient to save the whole world.

Everything God does is infinite, so they said His death is of infinite value, and it is sufficient to save everyone.

He didn't save the whole world. The sufficiency caluse, again is of value, not of practicality.

It is hypothetical in that regard.

His "sufficiency" is a non issue since His death was of infinite value for the elect and did not save anyone else. Its great if one wants to beg the question "Could God have saved the whole world in Christ's death?" But the reality is that it is a hypothetical value relating it to the reprobate.

Coulda, shoulda woulda....it doesn't matter.

Now can someone hold to Dort and say "I beleive that Christ's death was sufficient to save the wholoe world?" Of course.

That's different than saying that there are SPECIFIC salvatory benefits for the reprobate as a result of Christ's death. Dort and Westminster do not touch on that, and do not beleive that.

Thanks for the clarity Matt. It does seem that this simple statement of "sufficiency" is being taken too far. Suppose I had a million dollars. With that money I decided I was going to feed 10,000 people in my town. Well, suppose that would take about $100,000. My ability is sufficient to feed the whole town. However, it is only efficient for the 100,000. Maybe that helps.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Rich I would go one step further and ask what the men who hold to HU say the benefits are. All I see is them saying "I believe the atonement has benefits for all head for head" But I cannot find one writing of anyone who can tell me what those benefits are.

This question has been asked several times and deserves an answer. I know of no reformers who have stated this, but I will post it here in case someone else does. Since some contemporary theologians have written on this, let me simply offer this for the discussion. I also have some more extensive research on this elsewhere, which I can provide later if anyone is interested.
The argument is along these lines: All men deserve immediate physical and spiritual death because of their sin. Therefore, every breath is an act of God's mercy. The very fact that men can enjoy the pleasures of life are evidence of God's mercy. Mercy is forgiveness. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Therefore Christ's atonement has a temporal benefit for all men but a spiritual benefit for the elect only. This mercy makes the resurrection of the condemned that much more horrible as it brings greater culpability.
Such an understanding does not deny limited atonement. However, if I understand correctly, it does redefine it in a manner that, while not necessarily from a reformed perspective, does harmonize with some confessions. I'll leave the discussion as to whether that is true or not to those who are more confessionally and historically savvy.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Would you please spell out precisely what it is that you believe this double-end is? What is it in the atonement that you believe extends to the non-elect? You keep quoting folks who say that HU views were accepted. I would really like to see what it is that you believe the Atonement secures in an Hypothetically Universal way for the reprobate?

Sure, I'd be happy to. Sorry if I haven't made this clear, I've been extremely busy these recent days packing as I depart O/S for 6 months this week, and have been jumping onto the PB in the few spare moments that have arisen. I just haven't been able to keep up with all the discussion. I've answered this question before on other threads, and I'm happy to answer it again here.

First let me say, isn't this a thread about what historically constitutes a reformed view of the atonement? Isn't that what we're debating?

What I believe has long pedigree in the tradition, so I'll begin by quoting those (I follow) who can put it in better words than me:

Let me start with the Heidelbergers. Firstly, David Paraeus whose additions to Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg catechism says this:

They [a historical group of theologians] affirm, therefore, that Christ died for all, and that he did not die for all; but in different respects. He died for all, as touching the sufficiency of the ransom which he paid; and not for all; but only for the elect, or those that believe, as touching the application and efficacy thereof. The reason of the former lies in this, that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith. For it cannot be said to be insufficient, unless we give countenance to that horrible blasphemy (which God forbid!) that some blame of the destruction of the ungodly results from a defect in the merit of the mediator. The reason of the latter is, because all the elect, or such as believe, and they alone, do apply unto themselves by faith the merit of Christ’s death, together with the efficacy thereof, by which they obtain righteousness, and life according as it is said, “He that believeth on the Son of God, hath everlasting life.” (John 3:36.) The rest are excluded from this efficacy of Christ’s death by their own unbelief, as it is again said, “He that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36.) Those, therefore, whom the Scriptures exclude from the efficacy of Christ’s death, cannot be said to be included in the number of those for whom he died as it respects the sufficiency of his death, but only as to its efficiency; because the death of Christ is also sufficient for their salvation, if they will but believe; and the only reason of their exclusion arises from their unbelief. It is in the same may, that is, by making the same distinction that we reply to those who ask concerning the purpose of Christ, Did he will to die for all? For just as he died, so also he willed to die. Therefore, as he died for all, in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom; and for the faithful alone in respect to the efficacy of the same, so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit, that is, he willed to merit by his death, grace, righteousness, and life in the most abundant manner for all; because would not that any thing should be wanting as far as he and his merits are concerned, so that all the wicked who perish may be without excuse. But he willed to die for the elect alone as touching the efficacy of his death, that is, he would not only sufficiently merit grace and life for them alone, but also effectually confers these upon them, grants faith, and the holy Spirit, and brings it to pass that they apply to themselves, by faith, the benefits of his death, and so obtain for themselves the efficacy of his merits.

In this sense it is correctly said that Christ died in a different manner for believers and unbelievers. Neither is this declaration attended with any difficulty or inconvenience, inasmuch as it harmonizes not only with scripture, but also with experience; for both testify that the remedy of sin and death is most sufficiently and abundantly offered in the gospel to all; but that it is effectually applied, and profitable only to them that believe. The Scriptures, also, everywhere, restrict the efficacy of redemption to certain persons only, as to Christ’s sheep, to the elect and as such as believe, whilst on the other hand it clearly excludes from the grace of Christ the reprobate and unbelieving as long as they remain in their unbelief. “What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:15. See, also, Matt. 20:28; 26:28. Is. 53:11. John 10:15. Matt. 15:24.)

Secondly, the Heideberger Jacob Kimodoncius who addressed the issue against the Arminians:

What shall we say to that which follows, “Who gave himself a ransom for all?” The answer is plain by the things that have been spoken before. For he truly gave himself a price of redemption sufficient for all, none excepted at all of the whole universality of men: but because the unbelievers do not apply redemption to themselves, the wrath of God abides on them. Also, he gave himself the price of reconciliation for all that belongs to the universality of the elect, and to his own body. Again, for all indefinitely, that is, for whomsoever Jews and Gentiles, high and low, masters and servants, as it has been often already said. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 56.

Here is William Twisse on the synod of Dort:

For like as God doth not conferre these on any of ripe yeares vnles they believe, so Christ hath not merited that they should be conferred on any but such as believe. And accordingly professe that Christ dyed for all, that is, to obteyne pardon of sinne and salvation of soule for all, but how? not absolutely whether they believe or no, but only conditionally, to witt provided they doe believe in Christ. So that we willingly professe, that Christ had both a full intention of his owne, and commandment of his Father to make a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, so farre as therby to procure both pardon of sinne and salvation of soule to all that doe believe, and to none other being of ripe yeares, according to that Rom. 3:24. we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. v. 25. Whome God hath sett forth to be a propitiation (or reconciliation) through faith in his blood. But we further say, that there are other benefites redounding to us by the death of Christ, to witt, the grace of faith and of repentance. For like as these are the gifts of God wrought in us by his holy Spirit, so they are wrought in us for Christ his sake, according to that of the Apostle, praying for the Hebrewes, namely that God will make them perfect to every good worke, working in them that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ. Now, as touching these benefites, we willingly professe, that Christ dyed not for all, that is, he dyed not to obtaine the grace of faith and repentance for all, but only for God’s elect; In as much as these graces are bestowed by God, not conditionally, least so grace should be given according to mens workes, but absolutely, And if Christ dyed to obteyne these for all absolutely, it would follow here hence that all should believe and repent and consequently all shoulde be saved

William Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles Preface, p17

And finally one of my favurite authors, the Wesminster divine, Henry Scudder:

8. Some others go farther: they acknowledge that God’s justice must be satisfied, and they think it is satisfied for them, dreaming of universal redemption, by Christ, who indeed is said to die to “take away the sins of the world.” This causeth their conscience to be quiet, notwithstanding that they live in sin.

It must be granted, that Christ gave himself a ransom for all. This ransom may be called general, and for all, in some sense: but how? namely, in respect of the common nature of man, which he took, and of the common cause of mankind, which he undertook; and in itself it was of sufficient price to redeem all men; and because applicable to all, without exception, by the preaching and ministry of the gospel. And it was so intended by Christ, that the plaster should be as large as the sore, and that there should be no defect in the remedy, that is, in the price, or sacrifice of himself offered upon the cross, by which man should be saved, but that all men, and each particular man, might in that respect become salvable by Christ.

Yet doth not the salvation of all men necessarily follow hereupon; nor must any part of the price which Christ paid, be held to be superfluous, though many be not saved by it.

But know, that the application of the remedy, and the actual fruit of this all-sufficient ransom, redoundeth to those who are saved only by that way and means which God was pleased to appoint, which, in the case of adults, is faith, by which Christ is actually applied. Which condition, many to whom the gospel doth come, make impossible to themselves, through a wilful refusal of the gospel, and salvation itself by Christ, upon those terms which God doth offer it.

Upon this sufficiency of Christ’s ransom, and intention of God and Christ, that it should be sufficient to save all, is founded that general offer of Christ to all and to each particular person, to whom the Lord shall be pleased to reveal the gospel: likewise that universal precept of the gospel, commanding every man to repent, and believe in Christ Jesus; as also the universal promise of salvation, made to every one that shall believe in Christ Jesus.

Although, in one sense, it is true, Christ may be said to have died for all, yet let no one think to enjoy the benefits of his precious death and sacrifice, without serious diligence to make their calling and election sure. For God did intend this all-sufficient price for all, otherwise to his elect in Christ, than to those whom he passed by and not elected; for he intended this not only out of a general and common love to mankind, but out of a peculiar love to his elect. He gave not Christ equally and alike to save all; and Christ did not so lay down his life for the reprobate as for the elect. Christ so died for all, that his death might be applicable to all. He so died for the elect, that his death might be actually applied unto them. He so died for all, that they might have an object of faith, and that if they should believe in Christ, they might be saved. But he so died for the elect that they might actually believe, and be saved. Hence it is that Christ’s death becometh effectual to them, and not to the other, though sufficient for all. Now that many believe not, they having the means of faith, the fault is in themselves, through their wilfulness or negligence; but that any believe to salvation, is of God’s grace, attending his election, and Christ’s dying out of his especial love for them; and not of the power of man’s free-will: God sending his gospel, and giving the grace of faith and new obedience to those whom of his free grace he hath ordained to eternal life, both where he pleaseth and when he pleaseth.

Furthermore, it must be considered that notwithstanding the all-sufficiency of Christ’s death, whereby the new covenant of grace is ratified and confirmed, the covenant is not absolute, but conditional. Now what God proposeth conditionally, no man must take absolutely. For God hath not said that all men without exception shall be saved by Christ’s death: although he saith, Christ died for all; but salvation is promised to those only who repent and believe.

Wherefore, notwithstanding Christ’s infinite merit, whereby he satisfied for mankind; and notwithstanding the universality of the offer of salvation to all to whom the gospel is preached; both scripture and experience show, that not all, nor yet the most, shall be saved, and that because the number of them who repent, and unfeignedly believe, whereby they make particular and actual application of Christ and his merits to themselves, are fewest. For of those many that are called, few are chosen. Wherefore let none ignorantly dream of an absolute, universal redemption, as many simple people do. For though Christ be said to suffer to take away the sins of the whole world, yet the scripture saith, that the whole world of unbelievers and of ungodly men shall perish eternally.

Henry Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk in Security and Peace reprint. (Glasgow: William Collins, 1826), 279-282.

In other words, I (following these divines and a whole host more) believe that the sufficiency of Christ's death means that any person could be saved by Christ's death if they should repent and believe. It is this sufficiency that grounds the well-meant offer of the gospel. However, only the elect will repent and believe, because Christ's death efficiently won the elect's repentance and faith. But the unrepentance and lack of faith in the reprobate is not a deficiency in Christ's death; it is sufficient to save them should they have repentance and faith, hence Dort:

Article 6:

And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

This is the classic interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula, which has had a far longer pedigree than the Owenian interpretation.

God bless you Rich.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I know of no reformers who have stated this, but I will post it here in case someone else does.

There's plenty of reformers (and more) here who state it.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Thanks for the clarity Matt. It does seem that this simple statement of "sufficiency" is being taken too far. Suppose I had a million dollars. With that money I decided I was going to feed 10,000 people in my town. Well, suppose that would take about $100,000. My ability is sufficient to feed the whole town. However, it is only efficient for the 100,000. Maybe that helps.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Rich I would go one step further and ask what the men who hold to HU say the benefits are. All I see is them saying "I believe the atonement has benefits for all head for head" But I cannot find one writing of anyone who can tell me what those benefits are.

This question has been asked several times and deserves an answer. I know of no reformers who have stated this, but I will post it here in case someone else does. Since some contemporary theologians have written on this, let me simply offer this for the discussion. I also have some more extensive research on this elsewhere, which I can provide later if anyone is interested.
The argument is along these lines: All men deserve immediate physical and spiritual death because of their sin. Therefore, every breath is an act of God's mercy. The very fact that men can enjoy the pleasures of life are evidence of God's mercy. Mercy is forgiveness. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Therefore Christ's atonement has a temporal benefit for all men but a spiritual benefit for the elect only. This mercy makes the resurrection of the condemned that much more horrible as it brings greater culpability.
Such an understanding does not deny limited atonement. However, if I understand correctly, it does redefine it in a manner that, while not necessarily from a reformed perspective, does harmonize with some confessions. I'll leave the discussion as to whether that is true or not to those who are more confessionally and historically savvy.

I have heard this and mentioned it very early in this thread. I will not allow this answer becasue it is easily refuted. It is mere speculation that sin would reap immediate death if it was not for Christs death. There is no scripture taken correctly that would present this. God's long suffering towards the vessels fit for destruction is not at all tied to the atonement. Christ's death has no temporal benefit for the elect neither, it is strictly eternal and not earthly.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Thanks. For the record, I am NOT an Amyraldian, nor to I seek to defend the position. I was simply reacting to the fact that you stated a fairly complete case against a universal atonement but did not touch upon the issue at hand, what of those who accept a limited atonement but who see the text teaching some universal benefits (other than redemption). Your three points succinctly dispatched the issue. Thanks.

Dennis, have I missed the posts which show some benefits other than redemption? I cannot see them.. There are 5 benefits from the cross according to the writ, which of these 5 can be experienced by the reprobate?

If you read what I wrote, you will see that my point was not to adduce benefits, nor to defend HU. I simply noted that the points addressed the limited atonement which was not in dispute. I would love to hear of the benefits too. But, the answer given me was what had been requested, clear and succinct.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Would you please spell out precisely what it is that you believe this double-end is? What is it in the atonement that you believe extends to the non-elect? You keep quoting folks who say that HU views were accepted. I would really like to see what it is that you believe the Atonement secures in an Hypothetically Universal way for the reprobate?

Sure, I'd be happy to. Sorry if I haven't made this clear, I've been extremely busy these recent days packing as I depart O/S for 6 months this week, and have been jumping onto the PB in the few spare moments that have arisen. I just haven't been able to keep up with all the discussion. I've answered this question before on other threads, and I'm happy to answer it again here.

First let me say, isn't this a thread about what historically constitutes a reformed view of the atonement? Isn't that what we're debating?

What I believe has long pedigree in the tradition, so I'll begin by quoting those (I follow) who can put it in better words than me:

Let me start with the Heidelbergers. Firstly, David Paraeus whose additions to Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg catechism says this:

They [a historical group of theologians] affirm, therefore, that Christ died for all, and that he did not die for all; but in different respects. He died for all, as touching the sufficiency of the ransom which he paid; and not for all; but only for the elect, or those that believe, as touching the application and efficacy thereof. The reason of the former lies in this, that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith. For it cannot be said to be insufficient, unless we give countenance to that horrible blasphemy (which God forbid!) that some blame of the destruction of the ungodly results from a defect in the merit of the mediator. The reason of the latter is, because all the elect, or such as believe, and they alone, do apply unto themselves by faith the merit of Christ’s death, together with the efficacy thereof, by which they obtain righteousness, and life according as it is said, “He that believeth on the Son of God, hath everlasting life.” (John 3:36.) The rest are excluded from this efficacy of Christ’s death by their own unbelief, as it is again said, “He that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36.) Those, therefore, whom the Scriptures exclude from the efficacy of Christ’s death, cannot be said to be included in the number of those for whom he died as it respects the sufficiency of his death, but only as to its efficiency; because the death of Christ is also sufficient for their salvation, if they will but believe; and the only reason of their exclusion arises from their unbelief. It is in the same may, that is, by making the same distinction that we reply to those who ask concerning the purpose of Christ, Did he will to die for all? For just as he died, so also he willed to die. Therefore, as he died for all, in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom; and for the faithful alone in respect to the efficacy of the same, so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit, that is, he willed to merit by his death, grace, righteousness, and life in the most abundant manner for all; because would not that any thing should be wanting as far as he and his merits are concerned, so that all the wicked who perish may be without excuse. But he willed to die for the elect alone as touching the efficacy of his death, that is, he would not only sufficiently merit grace and life for them alone, but also effectually confers these upon them, grants faith, and the holy Spirit, and brings it to pass that they apply to themselves, by faith, the benefits of his death, and so obtain for themselves the efficacy of his merits.

In this sense it is correctly said that Christ died in a different manner for believers and unbelievers. Neither is this declaration attended with any difficulty or inconvenience, inasmuch as it harmonizes not only with scripture, but also with experience; for both testify that the remedy of sin and death is most sufficiently and abundantly offered in the gospel to all; but that it is effectually applied, and profitable only to them that believe. The Scriptures, also, everywhere, restrict the efficacy of redemption to certain persons only, as to Christ’s sheep, to the elect and as such as believe, whilst on the other hand it clearly excludes from the grace of Christ the reprobate and unbelieving as long as they remain in their unbelief. “What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:15. See, also, Matt. 20:28; 26:28. Is. 53:11. John 10:15. Matt. 15:24.)

Secondly, the Heideberger Jacob Kimodoncius who addressed the issue against the Arminians:


Here is William Twisse on the synod of Dort:



And finally one of my favurite authors, the Wesminster divine, Henry Scudder:

8. Some others go farther: they acknowledge that God’s justice must be satisfied, and they think it is satisfied for them, dreaming of universal redemption, by Christ, who indeed is said to die to “take away the sins of the world.” This causeth their conscience to be quiet, notwithstanding that they live in sin.

It must be granted, that Christ gave himself a ransom for all. This ransom may be called general, and for all, in some sense: but how? namely, in respect of the common nature of man, which he took, and of the common cause of mankind, which he undertook; and in itself it was of sufficient price to redeem all men; and because applicable to all, without exception, by the preaching and ministry of the gospel. And it was so intended by Christ, that the plaster should be as large as the sore, and that there should be no defect in the remedy, that is, in the price, or sacrifice of himself offered upon the cross, by which man should be saved, but that all men, and each particular man, might in that respect become salvable by Christ.

Yet doth not the salvation of all men necessarily follow hereupon; nor must any part of the price which Christ paid, be held to be superfluous, though many be not saved by it.

But know, that the application of the remedy, and the actual fruit of this all-sufficient ransom, redoundeth to those who are saved only by that way and means which God was pleased to appoint, which, in the case of adults, is faith, by which Christ is actually applied. Which condition, many to whom the gospel doth come, make impossible to themselves, through a wilful refusal of the gospel, and salvation itself by Christ, upon those terms which God doth offer it.

Upon this sufficiency of Christ’s ransom, and intention of God and Christ, that it should be sufficient to save all, is founded that general offer of Christ to all and to each particular person, to whom the Lord shall be pleased to reveal the gospel: likewise that universal precept of the gospel, commanding every man to repent, and believe in Christ Jesus; as also the universal promise of salvation, made to every one that shall believe in Christ Jesus.

Although, in one sense, it is true, Christ may be said to have died for all, yet let no one think to enjoy the benefits of his precious death and sacrifice, without serious diligence to make their calling and election sure. For God did intend this all-sufficient price for all, otherwise to his elect in Christ, than to those whom he passed by and not elected; for he intended this not only out of a general and common love to mankind, but out of a peculiar love to his elect. He gave not Christ equally and alike to save all; and Christ did not so lay down his life for the reprobate as for the elect. Christ so died for all, that his death might be applicable to all. He so died for the elect, that his death might be actually applied unto them. He so died for all, that they might have an object of faith, and that if they should believe in Christ, they might be saved. But he so died for the elect that they might actually believe, and be saved. Hence it is that Christ’s death becometh effectual to them, and not to the other, though sufficient for all. Now that many believe not, they having the means of faith, the fault is in themselves, through their wilfulness or negligence; but that any believe to salvation, is of God’s grace, attending his election, and Christ’s dying out of his especial love for them; and not of the power of man’s free-will: God sending his gospel, and giving the grace of faith and new obedience to those whom of his free grace he hath ordained to eternal life, both where he pleaseth and when he pleaseth.

Furthermore, it must be considered that notwithstanding the all-sufficiency of Christ’s death, whereby the new covenant of grace is ratified and confirmed, the covenant is not absolute, but conditional. Now what God proposeth conditionally, no man must take absolutely. For God hath not said that all men without exception shall be saved by Christ’s death: although he saith, Christ died for all; but salvation is promised to those only who repent and believe.

Wherefore, notwithstanding Christ’s infinite merit, whereby he satisfied for mankind; and notwithstanding the universality of the offer of salvation to all to whom the gospel is preached; both scripture and experience show, that not all, nor yet the most, shall be saved, and that because the number of them who repent, and unfeignedly believe, whereby they make particular and actual application of Christ and his merits to themselves, are fewest. For of those many that are called, few are chosen. Wherefore let none ignorantly dream of an absolute, universal redemption, as many simple people do. For though Christ be said to suffer to take away the sins of the whole world, yet the scripture saith, that the whole world of unbelievers and of ungodly men shall perish eternally.

Henry Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk in Security and Peace reprint. (Glasgow: William Collins, 1826), 279-282.

In other words, I (following these divines and a whole host more) believe that the sufficiency of Christ's death means that any person could be saved by Christ's death if they should repent and believe. It is this sufficiency that grounds the well-meant offer of the gospel. However, only the elect will repent and believe, because Christ's death efficiently won the elect's repentance and faith. But the unrepentance and lack of faith in the reprobate is not a deficiency in Christ's death; it is sufficient to save them should they have repentance and faith, hence Dort:

Article 6:

And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

This is the classic interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula, which has had a far longer pedigree than the Owenian interpretation.

God bless you Rich.

I am very confused by these men;s word's. This is paradox theology at its best!!!! It still does not answer my question what the benefits are. Unless you are stating the benefit is this" If you repent and believe, there is a big enough atonement for you" This si not benefit for teh reprobate though. It is true in a a sense, but not dependant upon man at all. Does Scudder speak of a conditional covenant also? This confuses me too!!!! Pareaus is also confusing using laguage of applying these benefits to ourselves. I rememebr debating this in KMK's thread on the HC where Ursinus said the same type of stuff.

AS an aside, why speak on a hypothetical? The more I read these men, it is only done to vindicate God with the error of the WMO. A prime example how one falshood leads to another.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Thanks. For the record, I am NOT an Amyraldian, nor to I seek to defend the position. I was simply reacting to the fact that you stated a fairly complete case against a universal atonement but did not touch upon the issue at hand, what of those who accept a limited atonement but who see the text teaching some universal benefits (other than redemption). Your three points succinctly dispatched the issue. Thanks.

Dennis, have I missed the posts which show some benefits other than redemption? I cannot see them.. There are 5 benefits from the cross according to the writ, which of these 5 can be experienced by the reprobate?

If you read what I wrote, you will see that my point was not to adduce benefits, nor to defend HU. I simply noted that the points addressed the limited atonement which was not in dispute. I would love to hear of the benefits too. But, the answer given me was what had been requested, clear and succinct.

I know that Dennis. I thought you meant someone posted these benefits in another post. Sorry

I think the assessments below by two great theologians are spot on:

Herman Bavinck observed that "little by little" the Reformed doctrine of particular atonement (Isa. 53; Canons of Dordt II) “had to yield to newer views” and that Amyraldianism was prominent in this and facilitated further departures. "The hypothetical universalism of Amyraut, according to which Christ died for all humans on condition of faith and repentance on their part, also found acceptance among many Presbyterians in England and Scotland. It paved the way for Grotius' theory that forgiveness is not really based upon Christ's satisfaction; rather, Christ's exemplary suffering creates the possibility of its application. This theory was embraced as scriptural and orthodox not only by Wesleyan Arminians but also by many [liberalising] Reformed theologians" (Reformed Dogmatics, John Bolt [ed.], John Vriend [trans.] [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], vol. 3, p. 358). Later Bavinck mentions specific theologians in various countries who, under Amyraldian and other influences, departed further from the truth of the cross of Christ: "First, the doctrine of particular satisfaction [limited atonement] was weakened along the lines of Grotius and Amyraut, then it was totally rejected: in England by Daniel Whitby (against whom Jonathan Edwards took action); in America by the Edwardsean or New England Theologians: Bellamy, Hopkins, Emmons, and others; in Germany by P. Volkmann and others; and in the Netherlands by Venema" (p. 463).

George Smeaton said: “[Amyraldianism] is a revolt from the position maintained at the Synod of Dordt, under the guise of an explanation” (The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 540) and “By those who were competent to take the measure of Amyraldianism—such as Rivetus, Maresius, and Spanheim—it was regarded as a subtle form of Arminianism" (The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 361).

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

This is the classic interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula, which has had a far longer pedigree than the Owenian interpretation.

God bless you Rich.

Thank you for clarifying. I thought that's what you were driving at but I wanted to make sure I understood explicitly what I thought you were stating implicitly. I actually think there are better ways to categorize this notion than in the doctrine of the Atonement.

I agree with Nicolas that there really are no benefits of Christ's Atonement extended to the reprobate. I don't actually understand why an HU would argue that a person is not responsible to respond to the Gospel if the atonement didn't extend to them in some sense nor do I understand why believing the atonement extends to the reprobate in some sense would affect who we proclaim this News to.

I also agree with Rev. Winzer that even this HU view has sort of a Limited Double End. In other words, it's not the "whole world" that hears of the Death and Resurrection of Christ but billions have never heard the Gospel. Really there is not a "double end" of the Atonement but a triple end:

1. The Elect who hear the News, believe, and receive all the benefits.
2. The Reprobate who hear the News, reject, and receive the benefit that, if they had received, they would have received Christ and His benefits.
3. The Reprobate who never hear the News and do not receive any benefit from the Atonement whatsoever.

Thus, in this view, wouldn't be accurate to say that Christ died for the whole "hearing" world?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I agree with Nicolas that there really are no benefits of Christ's Atonement extended to the reprobate. I don't actually understand why an HU would argue that a person is not responsible to respond to the Gospel if the atonement didn't extend to them in some sense nor do I understand why believing the atonement extends to the reprobate in some sense would affect who we proclaim this News to.

Rich: The follow are the reason why this schema was invented:

1)Christ's death must somehow be designed for the reprobate in order to render them inexcusable for their unbelief.

2)A universal aspect of the atonement is perceived as necessary for a WMO of the gospel.

3) There is a fear that God might be charged with injustice if an atonement is not somehow provided for all.

This whole idea is senseless. Let us take the other grace thoughts in tulip and see how ridiculous it is.

“ Irresistable grace is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.”

" Unconditional election is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.”

"Perseverance is sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect."

It is really arminianism cloaked under calvinistic theologians, and I use that term loosely here. Arminianism says Christ dies sufficiently for all, if all would believe.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

AS an aside, why speak on a hypothetical? The more I read these men, it is only done to vindicate God with the error of the WMO. A prime example how one falshood leads to another.

Nicholas

Does God want the wicked to repent and believe the gospel?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

AS an aside, why speak on a hypothetical? The more I read these men, it is only done to vindicate God with the error of the WMO. A prime example how one falshood leads to another.

Nicholas

Does God want the wicked to repent and believe the gospel?

Absolutley not. For if He did, then they would repent. It isnt a game of hypotheticals. Scripture presents no hypotheticals, man does to wiggle away from His sopvereignty. Unless God does not get what He desires, or leaves it up to men to decide. If the later is the case, then we are most lost. Do you not find the thought that God wants all men head for head to repent, but yet does not provide an atonement for their sin? Now you want to talk about injustice, this is a vindictive arbitrary god (i cant even capitalize it) who would do that. Yet, since man cannot delve into the book of life, they can NEVER use this as an excuse. In fact noone in scripture has.

Man has a duty to repent and believe, but God has no duty in this regard. Besides the reprobate will never repent nor believe, therefore it doesnt matter. Thise who advocate the WMO

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

AS an aside, why speak on a hypothetical? The more I read these men, it is only done to vindicate God with the error of the WMO. A prime example how one falshood leads to another.

Nicholas

Does God want the wicked to repent and believe the gospel?

Absolutley not. For if He did, then they would repent. It isnt a game of hypotheticals. Scripture presents no hypotheticals, man does to wiggle away from His sopvereignty. Unless God does not get what He desires, or leaves it up to men to decide. If the later is the case, then we are most lost. Do you not find the thought that God wants all men head for head to repent, but yet does not provide an atonement for their sin? Now you want to talk about injustice, this is a vindictive arbitrary god (i cant even capitalize it) who would do that. Yet, since man cannot delve into the book of life, they can NEVER use this as an excuse. In fact noone in scripture has.

Man has a duty to repent and believe, but God has no duty in this regard. Besides the reprobate will never repent not believe, therefore it doesnt matter

So why does God command sinners to repent if, in some sense, he does not want them to repent? Is God pleased that they don't repent and continue living in rebellion against Him?

Daniel and Nicolas,

I think we're talking apples and oranges here as Dr. McMahon noted and I quote again below. I think the problem that I have in this HU view of the Atonement is that it actually puts forward a frustrated decretive sense to God's Will. I think the announcement of the Gospel belongs to the things revealed for us. Obedience to the Gospel is probably better thought of as belief in the person and work of Christ rather than something the person ought to be thinking of in terms of breaking God's heart if he refuses.

In other words, the typical "The Savior is longing to open the door, why won't you let Him come in?" view of the Gospel "invitation" pictures a God who is puppy eyed and forlorn in His desire to save. I often tell people that God is not going to be heartbroken for eternity that you didn't invite Him into your heart. The presentation of the Gospel in the Scriptures is more forceful/direct. A person is not invited to believe the Gospel but commanded to believe it.

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Also, one MUST think about this topic inside the two wills of God aspects that I write about in my book, "The Two Wills of God." If you theologically place these ideas inside the same theological box while trying to debate this on the one view problem, you have debates like this go on that are never reconciled. There is a great chasmic difference between how we theologically view decreetive applications of God's work, and how God views them.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Nicholas

Does God want the wicked to repent and believe the gospel?

Absolutley not. For if He did, then they would repent. It isnt a game of hypotheticals. Scripture presents no hypotheticals, man does to wiggle away from His sopvereignty. Unless God does not get what He desires, or leaves it up to men to decide. If the later is the case, then we are most lost. Do you not find the thought that God wants all men head for head to repent, but yet does not provide an atonement for their sin? Now you want to talk about injustice, this is a vindictive arbitrary god (i cant even capitalize it) who would do that. Yet, since man cannot delve into the book of life, they can NEVER use this as an excuse. In fact noone in scripture has.

Man has a duty to repent and believe, but God has no duty in this regard. Besides the reprobate will never repent not believe, therefore it doesnt matter

So why does God command sinners to repent if, in some sense, he does not want them to repent? Is God pleased that they don't repent and continue living in rebellion against Him?

I think you are the one who has to answer this q Daniel, since you believe there is some latent desire in God and grace is actually confered in preaching to all head for head. Scipture does not present the call to repent and believe designed for both reprobate and elect alike.

I do not know if He is pleased in the sense of Happy, what I do know is there end is sealed from the beginning and cannot be changed. There is no blood shed for the reprobate in ANY sense at all.

To come back to the OP, if "universal reference" is defined as a reference to each and every man without exception, then clearly the answer is, Yes, a universal reference in the atonement is unreformed. For all the universalist's attempts to prove otherwise, the reformed tradition maintains a real, definite, saving atonement limited to the elect alone. Whatever is said in relation to hypothetical sufficiency and indefinite expressions does not amount to a correction or even a qualification of the tenet of particular redemption. The atonement was made by Jesus Christ with the single intention of saving only the elect. This is what the reformed faith teaches. Anything contrary to it is not the reformed faith.

Are we scared that some sinner somewhere might believe and not get saved because he was not elected? Therefore we present the gospel with this bent, presenting the good news as if all men could hypothetically be saved because God has provided an atonement for all men. That is just Arminianism, and that is what many Calvinists today are really saying with their well meant offer error. They are saying that God has provided an atonement for every man, thereby really rejecting the implications of Limited atonement.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

To come back to the OP, if "universal reference" is defined as a reference to each and every man without exception, then clearly the answer is, Yes, a universal reference in the atonement is unreformed.

Matthew, isn't what defines the reformed tradition that which fits in with the reformed confessions? Isn't that what we're dicussing here?

By your statement you have just tarred some of the most eminent divines as "unreformed".

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Matthew, isn't what defines the reformed tradition that which fits in with the reformed confessions? Isn't that what we're dicussing here?

By your statement you have just tarred some of the most eminent divines as "unreformed".

The Confessions are quite clear in their teaching of particular redemption.

The only thing these eminent divines have been tarred with is misrepresentation. They simply do not teach what you want them to. They affirm that Christ died only for the elect. While they maintain there is an indefinite reference to mankind as a whole, they never state that Jesus Christ died for each and every man without exception. Again, while they allow a hypothetical sufficiency in the death of Christ should it have pleased God to apply it to each and every man without exception, they never state that Christ died sufficiently for the non-elect. This is the difference between these eminent divines and yourself -- you maintain that Christ in some real sense died for all men without exception; they did not.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

This is the difference between these eminent divines and yourself -- you maintain that Christ in some real sense died for all men without exception; they did not.

Matthew, with respect, please interact with the many citations I've made of the divines rather than preach at me. It will only generate heat not light.

Blessings.