Luther:

Part 1:

Early Luther: The “Many” as the elect:

1) The second argument is that “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc. These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 “everything for the sake of the elect.” For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: “This is My blood which is poured out for you” and “for many”–He does not say: for all”–“for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24, Matt. 26:28). Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans,” [1515-16] in Luther’s Works, 25:375-376.

Mature Luther: The “Many” as all:

2) Christ, Like Adam, Affected All Men Isaiah here uses the word “many” for the word “all,” after the manner of Paul in Rom. 5:15. The thought there is: One has sinned (Adam), One is righteous (Christ), and many are made righteous. There is no difference between “many” and “all.” The righteousness of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior, is so great that it could justify innumerable worlds. “He ‘shall justify many,” says he, that is to say, all. It should, therefore, be understood of all, because He offers His righteousness to all, and all who believe in Christ obtain it. (W 40 III, 738 f–E op ex 23, 523 f – SL 6, 720). Cited from: Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 2:601. [Note: this lecture was first delivered in 1544, but only later put into print in 1550.]

The Latin from the Weimar edition:

3) ‘Iustificabit multos’. Loquitur more Pauli: Rom. 5. utitur hoc [Rom 5,15] vocabulo ‘multos’; Hoc loco: ‘omnes’; est in relatione: ‘unus peccavit’, ‘unus iustus’, et: ‘multi iustificantur’. Nulla differentia est inter ‘multos’ et ‘omnes’. Iusticia Christi, unigeniti Filii Dei, Domini ac salvatoris nostri, tanta est, ut infinitos mundos possit iustificare. ‘Iustificabit multos’, inquit, id est, ‘omnes’. Intelligatur igitur de omnibus, quod offerat omnibus suam iasticiam, quam omnes consequuntur, qui in Chrihtum credunt. D. Martin Luther’s Werke (Weimar: H. Böhlau,1930), 40/III: 738. [Note: I have not been able to find this quotation in the Pelikan English edition of Luther’s works.]

Sufficient Redemption:

1) But these five verses have been explained by some in many other ways, in a very labored way: Some in a farfetched way, some tropologically, some in a mixture of everything. Therefore some, according to the Hebrew, have put it thus: “Redeeming a brother, a man will not redeem a man,” if you will; that is, Christ redeeming His brother, namely, anyone chosen, for He is also a man in the church, though He is the Redeemer. He will not redeem, namely, the heel and those who boast, etc., or, a man, that is, Judas and his ilk. And He will not give God a ransom for him, namely, for Judas and his ilk, and the price of the redemption of their soul, but He will be quiet forever (that is, Christ Himself will rest) and live eternally. And He will not see destruction, though He sees the wise (according to this world) dying. But this explanation is a little too forced, because although Christ did not effectively give His ransom for Judas and the Jews, He certainly gave it sufficiently. It is rather that they did not accept it. Therefore it should not be denied that it was given, but rather it should be denied that the benefit of the propitiation was accepted. Again, putting “man” in the accusative in place of in the nominative is more a guess than an explanation. Again, construing the “wise” here as the wise of this world does not seem to make sense, since there follows immediately the senseless and the fool shall perish together. For that reason the former explanation seems better. Martin Luther, “First Lectures on the Psalms,” in Luther’s Works 10:228.

2) Through the help of the Holy Spirit, God’s saints understood what Moses was saying. Others, the boorish and carnally-minded mass of people, did not understand him for the reason that Scripture uses these same words with reference to a physical and particular deliverance. If one, therefore, does not pay attention to the context, one will never understand the burden of Moses’ petition: that Christ might come into the flesh and redeem the world from sins and death. This is that plenitude and abundance of mercy which Psalm 130 designates as “plenteous redemption” (Ps. 130:7). With this ransom, by which Christ made payment for sins, an endless number of worlds could have been redeemed. Martin Luther, “Selected Psalms,” in Luther’s Works, 13:134

Christ shed his blood and died for the world:

1) How, then, do we rid ourselves of the earthly? Our Gospel, which they condemn so deplorably, gives us the answer, namely, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, of whom we confess in our Christian Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ.” He “comes from above”; He is not of the earth but from above, as we read in 1 Cor. 15:47. He was not conceived by an earthly being but by the Holy Spirit from above. He brings heavenly things with Him; He becomes man, dwells and lives on earth, prays, fasts, and does good to many. Reason, in its ignorance, says nothing about this. No man has ever descended from heaven, been conceived by the Holy Spirit, suffered under Pontius Pilate, or died for the whole human race. We must all join the little children in confessing: “We believe in Jesus Christ, who was conceived, was born, and suffered.” This Man’s work alone accomplished everything. All that we are and have is of the earth, but He who is from above does it all with His death and blood. Even one little drop of His blood helps the entire world; for this Person is very God, begotten of the Father from eternity. He holds the ransom money for me, not for Himself. He was not born, nor did He suffer and die in order thereby to become the Son of God; for He was this already. No, He suffered and died that I might become a son of God through Him and that I might derive my righteousness, wisdom, and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30) from above. Martin Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” in Luther’s Works, 22:459.

2) This, too, is a comfort, as we have heard. Their hatred for you will not arise because of any evil deeds or sins, or because you might be scoundrels and thieves, murderers or adulterers. It will arise solely because you want to preach of Me and say that I shed My blood and died for the world, and that it cannot be, and must not attempt to be, saved otherwise than through Me. This will be the reason for all the hatred and persecution in the world, and it is surely a praiseworthy reason. Martin Luther, Martin, “Sermons on the Gospel of St,” in Luther’s Works, 24:279.

3) You hear “the merit of Christ” here. But if you weigh these words more carefully, you will understand that Christ is completely idle here, and that the glory and the name of Justifier and Savior are taken away from Him and attributed to monastic works. Is this not taking the name of God in vain? Is this not confessing Christ in words but denying His power and blaspheming Him? I myself was once stuck in this mire too. Although I confessed with my mouth that Christ had suffered and died for the redemption of the human race, I thought that He was a judge, who had to be placated by the observance of my monastic rule. Therefore whenever I prayed or celebrated Mass, I always used to add this at the end: “Lord Jesus, I come to Thee and pray that the burdens of my order may be a recompense for my sins.” But now I thank the Father of mercies, who has called me out of the darkness into the light of the Gospel and has endowed me with an abundant knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake, as Paul says (Phil. 3:8-9), “I count everything as loss, yes, count it as skubula, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on the rule of Augustine, but that which is through faith in Christ,” to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be praise and glory forever and ever. Amen. Martin Luther, “Lectures on Galatians,” in Luther’s Works, 26:154.

World redeemed:

Read the rest of this entry »

R.L. DABNEY

Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect alone:

1) But the arguments which we adduced on the affirmative side of the question demonstrate that Christ’s redeeming work was limited in intention to the elect. The Arminian dogma that He did the same redeeming work in every respect for all is preposterous and unscriptural. But at the same time, if the Calvinistic scheme be strained as high as some are inclined, a certain amount of justice will be found against them in the Arminian objections. Therefore, in mediis tutissime ibis . The well known Calvinistic formula, that “Christ died sufficiently for all, efficaciously for the Elect,” must be taken in a sense consistent with all the passages of Scripture which are cited above. Dabney, Lectures, 527.

The sufferings of Christ of equal value to all the guilt of the world:

1) Christ Suffered the
very Penalty.

The Reformed assert then, that Christ made penal satisfaction, by suffering the very penalty demanded by the law of sinners. In this sense, we say even idem fecit.

The identity we assert is, of course, not a numerical one, but a generic one. If we are asked, how this could be, when Christ was not holden forever of death, and experienced none of the remorse, wicked despair, and subjective pollution, attending a lost sinner’s second death? We reply: the same penalty, when poured out on Him, could not work all the detailed results, because of His divine nature and immutable holiness. A stick of wood, and an ingot of gold are subjected to the same fire. The wood is permanently consumed: the gold is only melted, because it is a precious metal, incapable of natural oxidation, and it is gathered, undiminished, from the ashes of the furnace. But the fire was the same! And then, the infinite dignity of Christ’s person gives to His temporal sufferings a moral value equal to the weight of all the guilt of the world.  Dabney, Lectures, 505.

Dabney and infinite and unlimited expiation with limited intention to apply:

1)

The Five Points of Calvinism:
Particular Redemption

Did Christ die for the elect only, or for all men?” The answer has been much prejudiced by ambiguous terms, such as “particular atonement,” “limited atonement,” or “general atonement,” “unlimited atonement,” “indefinite atonement.” What do they mean by atonement? The word (at-one-ment) is used but once in the New Testament (Rom. 5:11), and there it means expressly and exactly reconciliation. This is proved thus: the same Greek word in the next verse, carrying the very same meaning, is translated reconciliation. Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ’s sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual.

But sacrifice, expiation, is one—the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam’s race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all. We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ’s expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. This is the blessed sense in which the Apostle John says (1 Jn. 2:2): “Christ is the propitiation (the same word as expiation) for the sins of the whole world.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Shedd:

Redemption limited, atonement unlimited:

1) Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God, and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term “redemption,” consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of “atonement,” and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:470.

On the difference between extent and intent:

1) Having considered the nature and value of Christ’s atonement, we are prepared to consider its extent. Some controversy would have been avoided upon this subject, had there always been a distinct understanding as to the meaning of words. We shall therefore first of all consider this point. The term extent” has two senses in English usage. (a) It has a passive meaning, and is equivalent to value. The “extent” of a man’s farm means the number of acres which it contains. The “extent” of a man’s resources denotes the amount of property which he owns. In this signification of the word, the “extent” of Christ’s atonement would be the intrinsic and real value of it for purposes of judicial satisfaction. In this use of the term, all parties who hold the atonement in any evangelical meaning would concede that the “extent” of the atonement is unlimited. Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind. If this were the only meaning of “extent,” we should not be called upon to discuss it any further. For all that has been said under the head of the nature and value of the atonement would answer the question, What is the extent of the atonement? Being an infinite atonement, it has an infinite value. (b) The word has an active signification. It denotes the act of extending. The “extent” of the atonement, in this sense, means its personal application to individuals by the Holy Spirit. The extent is now the intent. The question, What is the extent of the atonement? now means: To whom is the atonement effectually extended? The inquiry now is not, What is the value of the atonement? but, To whom does God purpose to apply its benefits?*

[* footnote:] To “extend “the atonement might be understood to mean, to “offer” the atonement. But this is not the meaning in this connection. To extend, in the sense now being considered, is not only to offer the atonement but also to render it personally efficacious by regenerating grace. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2: 464.

2) In modern English, the term “extent” is so generally employed in the passive signification of value that the active signification has become virtually obsolete, and requires explanation. Writers upon the “extent” of the atonement have sometimes neglected to consider the history of the word, and misunderstanding has arisen between disputants who were really in agreement with each other.

Read the rest of this entry »

Scudder:

1) 4. Be persuaded of God’s love to you in these good things, which he gives to you: First, He loves you as his creature, and if only in that respect he doth preserve you, and do you good, you are bound to thank him. Secondly, You know not but God may love you with a special love to salvation; God’s revealed will profess as much, for you must not meddle with that which is secret. I am sure he gives all-sufficient proof of his love, making offers of it to you, and which you are daily receiving the tokens of, both in the means of this life, and that which is to come. Did not he love you, when, out of his free and everlasting goodwill towards you, he gave his Son to die for you, that you, believing in him, should not die, but have everlasting life? What though you are yet in your sins, doth he not command you to return to him? and hath he not said, he will love you freely? What though you cannot turn to him, nor love him as you would, yet apply by humble faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, as your only savior and great physician, and endeavor, in the use of all good means, to be, and do, as God will have you; then doubt not but that God doth love you; and patiently wait, till you see it in the performance of all his gracious promises unto you. Henry Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk in Holy Security and Peace reprint. (Glasgow: William Collins, 1826), 182. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

2)
Presumption
from universal
Redemption
Removed

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,” [John 1. 29.]. This causes their conscience to be quiet, notwithstanding that they live in sin.

Answer. It must be granted, that Christ gave himself a ransom for all [1 Tim. 2. 6.]. 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 in 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.  For of being infinite value (because he was the eternal Son of God that suffered; and so it was to be, because he was to feel the wrath of an infinite God) receives not the consideration of more or less. And the whole price and merit of Christ are not to be applied by parts, but the whole merit is to be applied to each particular man that shall be saved.

But know, that the application of the remedy, and the actual fruit of this all-sufficient ransom, redounds to those who are saved only by that way and means which God was pleased to appoint, which, (for men of years) is faith [John 3: 16, John 3: 12.], by which Christ is actually applied. Which condition, many (to whom the gospel does come), make impossible to themselves, through a willful 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 [Mat. 28: 19, Mar. 16: 15.], 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 [Mat. 3: 2,7, and 8, Mat. 1: 15, Acts 17: 30.], as also the universal promise of salvation, made to every one that shall believe in Christ Jesus [John 3:16.].

Although, in an orthodox sense rightly understood , Christ may be said to have died for all, yet let no one think, nor anyone present presume he shall be saved. For God did intend this all-sufficient price for all, otherwise to his elect in Christ, then to those whom he passed by and not elected; for he intended this not only out of a general and common 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 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, might be saved. Hence it is that Christ’s death becomes effectual to them, and not to the other, though sufficient for all. Nay that many believe not, they have the means of faith, the fault is in themselves [Matt. 13:14, 15, Acts 28:26,27, Isa. 6:9.], through their willfulness or negligence; but that any believe to salvation, it is of God’s grace [Matt. 13:11.], attending his election, and Christ dying [Acts 13:48.] out of his special 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 has ordained to eternal life [John 3:8.], both where he pleases and when he pleases.

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 proposes conditionally, no man must take absolutely. For God hath not said that all men without exception shall be saved by Christ’s death: but salvation promised to all, only under the condition of repenting and believing in Christ that died; I call them conditions not for which God ordained men to life [Acts 13:4.]; but conditions to which they were ordained, by which as by the fittest way (man being a reasonable and voluntary agent) God might glorify himself in bringing them to eternal life.

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 [Mat. 20:16.]. Wherefore let none ignorantly dream of an absolute, universal redemption, as many simple people do. Nor yet let any think that because of the large extent of Christ’s redemption, they may be saved when they will. For though Christ be said to suffer to take away the sins of the whole world [John 1:29, 1 John 2:2.], yet the scripture saith, that the whole world of unbelievers and of ungodly men shall perish eternally [2 Pet. 2:5, Jude 14, 36.].

Henry Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk (London: Printed for Lodowik Lloyd, at the Green Dragon in Pauls Churchyard, 1674), 331-336. Another edited edition is:  Henry Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk in Security and Peace reprint. (Glasgow: William Collins, 1826), 279-282. [Some spelling modernized, marginal headers and footnotes cited inline; one Scripture citation corrected; as much possible, original citation form retained, though standardized; original italics from the 1674 edition removed; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony.