Archive for the ‘Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect’ Category

Hardy:

2. But when the schools speak of Christ’s dying for all sufficiently, and accordingly some expositors [Cathus. Serra in loc.], interpret this expiation ’sufficient for the sins of the whole world;’ it is as the learned Davenant hath excellently observed, and solidly proved, another kind of value, to wit, such as ariseth from divine ordination; and thus, though we must exclude angels, and consider men only as riatores, whilst they are in the way, since (as St Bernard truly) the blood of Christ which was shed on earth goeth not down to hell [Sanguis effusus super terram nou descendit ad inferos.—Bern, in Cant. Serm. 75.] yet we are by the whole world to understand omnes et singulos, all and every man that hath been, is, or shall be, in the world; so that we may truly assert, it was the intention of God giving Christ, and Christ offering himself, to lay down such a price as might be sufficient, and so upon gospel terms applicable to all mankind, and every individual man in the whole world.

To unfold this truth aright, I shall briefly present two things to your consideration:

1. A price may be said to be sufficient, either absolutely or conditionally. A price is then absolutely sufficient, when there is nothing more required to the participation of the benefit but only the payment of the money; and thus we are not to conceive of God’s ordination, that Christ’s death should become an actual propitiation without any other intervenient act on our part. He died not in this sense for any, much less for all. When, therefore, we say God would that Christ should lay down a price sufficient, and so applicable to every man, it is to be understood in a conditional way, upon the terms of faith and repentance. And hence it is, that though Christ dying suffered that punishment which was designed to be satisfactory for the sins of every man, yet God doth justly inflict the punishment upon the persons of all them who are not by faith partakers of Christ’s death, because it was intended to satisfy for them only upon condition of believing.

2. Know further, that though God intends Christ’s propitiation conditionally applicable, aeque’, as well to every as any man, yet he did not ex aequo, equally intend it for every man. It is one thing to say. He is a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world, and another thing to say, He is a propitiation as fully for the sins of the whole world as he is for ours. It is observable in Scripture that some places speak of Christ laying down his life for his sheep, John x. 15, and giving himself for his Church, Ephes. v. 25, and others of Christ’s dying for all, and tasting death for every one. In one place he is called the Saviour of the body, ver. 23, and in another, the Saviour of the world, John iv. 14. Nor will it be hard to reconcile these, if we distinguish of a general and a special intention in God, that the fruit of his philanthropia, love to mankind, this of his eudokia, good will to some particular persons. By the former, he intends Christ’s propitiation applicable to all; by the latter, he decreeth it to be actually applied to some. According to this it is that St Ambrose saith, [Christiis passus est pro omnibus; pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est—Amhros.in Luc.] “Christ suffered generally for all, and yet specially for some,” and Peter Lombard,[Christus se in ara crucis obtulit pro omnibus, quantum ad pretii sufficientiam; sed pro electis tantum quoad efficaciam, quia pradestinatis tantum salutem efficit.—P. Lumb. dist. seciinda.], Christ offered himself on the altar of the cross for all, as to the sufficiency of the price; for the elect only, as to efficacy, because he effects salvation only for them that are predestinated.

Suitably hereunto it is that divines conceive a double covenant to be intimated in Scripture—the one universal and conditional, the other special and absolute; the one made with all, and every man, upon these terms, ‘Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish,’ John iii. 16; the other made with Christ concerning a seed which he should see upon making his soul an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10, to whom he promiseth not only salvation by Christ upon condition of believing, but the writing his law in their hearts, Heb. x. 16, whereby they are enabled to perform the condition, and so infallibly partake of that salvation. By all which, it appeareth that notwithstanding God’s special affection, and decree of election whereby he hath purposed this propitiation shall be actually conferred upon some, we may truly assert, God hath a general love whereby he hath ordained the death of Christ an universal remedy applicable to every man as a propitiation for his sins, if he believe and repent. And hence it is that this propitiation, as it is applicable, so it is annunciable to every man. Indeed, as God hath not intended it should be actually applied, so neither that it should be so much as actually revealed to many men; but yet it is, as applicable, so annunciable, both by virtue of the general covenant God hath made with all, and that general mandate he hath given to his ministers of preaching the gospel to all, so that if any minister could go through all the parts of the world, and in those parts singly, from man to man, he might not only with a conjectural hope, but with a certain faith, say to him, God hath so loved thee that he gave his only son, that if thou believe in him, thou shalt not perish; and that this is not barely founded upon the innate sufficiency of Christ’s death, but the ordination of God, appeareth in that we cannot, may not, say so to any of the fallen angels, for whom yet, as you have already heard, Christ’s death is instrinsically sufficient. Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 140-141. [Some spelling modernized, some reformatting, footnotes cited inline, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Leiden Synopsis:

Moreover, the end, object, and “for whom” (? or cui) of satisfaction is only the Elect and true believers of both the Old and the New Testament. For although with respect to the magnitude, dignity, and sufficiency of the price, considered in itself, it may be extended to all people, yet it is particularly a payment for those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, who by the gift of God will believe in God and his Son. Wherefore Scripture everywhere says that he spent himself “for his own,” and “for us,” “for the sheep,” and “the Church.” Matthew 20:28, 26:28; 1 John 3:16; Acts 20:28 etc.

Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, Antonius Thysius, and André Rivet, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (Leiden, 1642 [1625]). 356. [Some reformatting of the translation; and Underlining mine.]

[Notes: This work was originally published in 1625, and co-written by three Dort delegates; Rivet was invited to Dort but prevented from attending by the King of France. The common English name for this work was the Leidin Synopsis. This was a very popular work in Scotland in the 17th century and among the Continental Reformed.  The Synopsis expresses the revised version of the sufficiency-efficiency formula; while the satisfaction is of infinite value,  the sufficiency of the price may be extended to all people. Thus, it is not actually sufficient for all people, for this sufficiency for all is is properly hypothetical only.]

[Credit to Lee Gatiss for bringing this to my attention, and for the translation. Gatiss also has a blog here.]

Troughton:

And lastly, some learned men (who are more sober and moderate then those whom I oppose) do say (but without ground from Scripture, as I humbly conceive) that Christ dyed for every man and woman in the world, in respect of the sufficiency of his merit but not in respect of efficacy. That we should extend the sufficiency and merit of Christ’s death and bloodshed, beyond the purpose, decree, and intention of the Father and the Son, for my part I cannot see any clear ground: ‘tis true, the death and bloodshed of Christ may be said to be sufficient for every man in respect of the intrinsic virtue therefore, it being the blood of God [Acts 2:18.], the blood of that person who is the infinite God. But I conceive that it cannot properly be said to be a sufficient ransom for every man; and why, but because it is not properly a ransom or price paid for every man, nor never was so intended: So then, the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death, are to be jointly limited to them for whom he died and paid the price of redemption; nor did Christ shed one drop or dram of blood in vain; it was by the counsel and appointment of God, that Christ should lay down his life only for them whom the Father gave him; and none of them shall be lost.

I remember the popish Schoolmen have such a distinction of grace sufficient, and grace effectual [Hales 3. Summa. 9.69. Thom. m. 1, 2, 3, 109.]: God (say they) affords grace sufficient to everyone, but not grace effectual. Sufficient grace (as they hold) is that by which a man may be saved, if he will not be wanting to himself; effectual grace is that which saves a man indeed: But this is groundless. Where God tells Paul that his grace is sufficient for him: This sufficiency is not to be abstracted and separated from the efficacy of grace [2 Cor. 12:9.].

William Troughton, Scripture Redemption Restrayned and limitted; or An Antodote against Universal Redemption, in Ten Reasons or Arguments, Deduced from Scripture (London: Printed by J.M. for L. Chapman at  the Crown in Popes Head Alley, 1652), 52-53. [Some reformatting; italics original; some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture references cited inline; and underlining mine.]  [Note: It is probable that Troughton is following closely the wording of Owen on this point.]

18
Aug

James Ussher (1581-1656) on the Sufficiency of Christ’s Death

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Ussher:

The Satisfaction of Christ1

“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8

You have heretofore heard that point of Christian doctrine which concerns the knowledge of our misery and wretched estate by nature. The substance of all is that we are the children of wrath and disobedience, as well as others. You see then in what state every man stands before he has made his peace with God. You see what the Holy Ghost says, “They are the sons of disobedience, and children of wrath, as well as others.” I tell you this not to discourage a sinner or drive him to desperation, but because it is fitting that he should know the estate in which he is. If they will try arguing with God, if they oppose Him, the Lord will come with a bar of iron, and will break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. “Those, mine enemies, that will not have Me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before Me.”

It is fitting that every man know this, and it is only to awaken us; otherwise, to what purpose do we preach to you? Till the law awakens us, we sleep securely in our sins till the dreadful trumpet of Mount Sinai comes with thundering and lightning. Ephesians 5:14: “Awake thou that sleeps.” Unless this awaken us, in what case are we? We are sleeping men who are dreaming (Jude 8). A sleeping sinner will be a dreaming sinner: he never sees things they are in their proper shape. He thinks, like the church of Laodicea, that he is rich and lacks nothing, when he is really poor, miserable, blind, and naked. He thinks he be admitted into heaven as soon as the best, but this is a dream. “As the hungry man dreams, and behold he eats, but when he awakes, behold he is empty; or as thirsty man that dreams he drinks, but awakes and behold he is faint” (Isaiah 29:8). Thus it is with us: we think we are entering upon the suburbs of heaven, and yet we are but in a dream and are asleep.

Now being thus awakened, consider what you have to do when the dreadful trumpet of the law has awakened you. Consider your state; if you sleep this night, hellfire will be your portion. It would be better for you therefore to awaken yourself before the flames of hellfire awaken you. Consider likewise that you must not be led by yourself; you must renounce your own will. Our states may be pleasing to us, to enjoy in a dream our heart’s lusts here on earth; but consider that unless you cross your will here, it shall be crossed hereafter; yea, it shall be the main cross a man shall have in hell (besides the eternal weight of God’s wrath) that he can will or desire nothing but he shall be crossed in it-not the least thing he desires but he shall have the contrary. Learn then what a woeful thing it is to be our own lords, to follow our own lusts and pleasures; see what we shall gain by it. We shall never enjoy the least portion of our will in the world to come; if we would have but a drop of cold water, we shall be crossed in it. We shall have the opposite of everything we desire.

Read the rest of this entry »

Overall:

Therefore it must not be said, that this which is so clear in it self [that Christ died for all] ought to be explained from an extravagant and rigid Conception of Secret Predestination; but we are rather to interpret that Secret by a thing which is plain in itself; that so it may be truly consistent with what was rightly enough delivered in a common Saying of the Schools, That Christ died for All sufficiently; For the Elect and Believers effectually: Had they not corrupted their meaning by the following Hypothesis: The Death of Christ had been sufficient for All, if God and Christ had so intended.”

John Overall, “The Opinion of the Church of England Concerning Predestination,” in A Defence of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England by John Ellis (London: Printed for H. Bonwicke, T. Goodwin, M. Wotton, S. Manship, and B. Tooke, 1700), 133-134. [Original italics removed; italics mine; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) The subject here is theology behind the classic Lombardian sufficiency-efficiency formula. 2) Overall makes the proper point that for some, the secret will had become the ground and baseline from which our understanding of God’s predestination was mediated and understood. Rather, Overall wants  his readers to locate the grounds of our knowledge of God’s predestination (and plan of salvation by implication) in the revealed will. The revealed should mediate our knowledge of the secret will, and not the other way around. It cannot be denied that all lapsarian speculations thoroughly inverted the natural biblical order and original spirit of the first Reformers on this point.  3) Overall appears to be the earliest, whom we have documented, who rightly spots and condemns the emerging revision of the Lombardian formula. This revision he calls, and accurately so, a corruption. 4) More importantly, Overall correctly notes that the revised formula converts an actual sufficiency into a bare hypothetical sufficiency. Again, this insight from Overall is the earliest example of this critique that we have been able to document so far.]