Calvin:

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools.  Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is  declared to be the only true salvation of the world. John Calvin, 1 John 2:2.

[Note: For now I will pass over the question of whether or not Calvin rejects this formula in his Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, when speaking of this same verse and issue. If we assume, as I think most scholars do, that what Calvin does say here is what he did actually believe, we have to then consider what he meant.

According to AA Hodge, Calvin expressed his commitment to the classic ‘unrevised’ formula. Thus the idea that Calvin thought only that the “suffering for all” referred to a mere hypothetical suffering for all is not credible. On the contrary, from his wider writings it is more than clear that Calvin considered this suffering for all, actual and not hypothetical.

Read the rest of this entry »

Paraeus:

1) But are not all redeemed by Christ, died he not for all? Says not the Apostle Peter that he bought these “false prophets,” by whom he is denied? To this Augustine well answers, that all are said to be redeemed, according to the dignity of the price: which would suffice for the redemption of all men, if all by faith did receive the benefit offered. But as many as pass the time of their being in this life in infidelity, they remain unredeemed through their own fault. The sealed therefore are only redeemed, because they alone by faith receive the grace of redemption, through the grace of election, which God vouchsafed them (not to the others) from all eternity. David Pareus, A Commentary Upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist, John (Amsterdam: Printed by C.P. Anno, 1644), 333-334.

2) Others reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages of Scripture by making a distinction between the sufficiency, and efficacy of the death of Christ. For there are certain contentious persons, who deny that these declarations which speak in a general way, are to be restricted to the faithful alone, that is, they deny that the letter itself, or the simple language of Scripture does thus limit them, and in proof thereof they bring forward those passages in which salvation seems to be attributed, not only to those that believe, but also to hypocrites and apostates, as it is said : “Denying the Lord which bought them.” And, also, when it is said that they “have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins.” (2 Pet. 2:1; 1:9.) But it is manifest that declarations of this kind are to be understood either concerning the mere external appearance, and vain glorying of redemption, or of sanctification; or else of the sufficiency, and greatness of the merit of Christ. That it may not, therefore, be necessary for us to contend much with these captious and fastidious persons concerning the restriction of those passages which speak so generally (although it is most manifest in itself) and that those places which speak of the redemption of hypocrites may the more easily be reconciled, some prefer (and not without reason according to my judgment) to interpret those declarations, which in appearance seem to be contradictory, partly of the sufficiency, and partly of the application and efficacy of the death of Christ.

Read the rest of this entry »

Vermigli:

“They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that “Christ died for us all” and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it might be sufficient for all the world’s sinners. Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually.” Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, trans., by Frank A. James, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 2003), 8:62.

[Note: It may be objected that because the translation reads that the death might be sufficient for all, Vermigli was speaking merely of a hypothetical sufficiency. However, the following things need to be considered. 1), “might” in old English more often denoted ‘should.’ For example, to cite the KJV John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. The original Geneva translation: GNV John 3:17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world, that he should condemne the world, but that the world through him might be saued. In the original translation of the Common Places of Vermigli, many times “might” has this signification. Thus, when the ideas are brought together, Vermigli is granting that Christ did die for all with regard to the sufficiency of his death so that the death of Christ should be sufficient for all sinners. 2), from within the quotation itself, it is not all that credible that Vermigli would identify this alleged hypothetical sufficiency with the Scholastic doctrine that Christ had actually redeemed all men sufficiently. 3), the allegation also ignores Vermigli’s clear affirmations of universal redemption and ransom. 4), It has already been conceded by Cunningham, AA Hodge, et al, that it was not until the time Dort, and after, that the formula underwent its fundamental revision. It would be anachronistic to retroject the later revision into Vermigli.]

Thomas Aquinas:

1) I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q 48.2.

2) The very least one of sufferings was sufficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, it sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q 46.5.

3) 1 John 2:22 He is the propitiation for our sins, for some efficaciously, but for all sufficiently, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all: but it has no efficacy except for the elect because of an impediment.  Thomas Aquina, “Commentaria 1 Tim. 2:1-6a,” in Omnes D. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas Commentaria. (Liege: H. Dessain, 1858), 3:68. [Personal translation, Marty Foord.]

David Paraeus citing Aquinas:

4) Thomas writes: “The merit of Christ, as to its sufficiency, extends equally to all, but not as to its efficacy, which happens partly on account of free will, and partly on account of the election of God, through which the effects of the merits of Christ are mercifully bestowed upon some, and withheld from others according to the just judgment of God.”   [Source: Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 224.]

5) Of the redemption purchased by the passion of Christ we may speak in a double sense & signification, either respecting the sufficiency thereof; & so his passion redeemed all because as concerning himself he delivered all.   [Source: David Paraeus]

John Davenant quoting the same:

6) Aquinas also observes (Quest. disp. de grat. Christi. art. 7, reap. ad 4,) The merit of Christ as to its sufficiency equally regards all men, but not as to its efficacy; which arises partly from free-will, partly from the election of God, through which the effect of the merits of Christ is mercifully conferred upon some, but is by his just judgment withdrawn from others.    [Source: John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 543.]

Kimedoncius citing Aquinas:

7) Hereupon Thomas in 1 Tim. 2. says: “Christ is the propitiation for our sins: for some effectually, for but for all sufficiently, because of the price of his blood is sufficient to save all, but it has not effect but in the elect, because of an impediment.”  And more clearly upon 5. Apoc. he says: “We speak of the Lord’s passion two manner of ways. Either according to the sufficiency, and so his passion redeemed all: for it is sufficient to redeem and save all, although there were even more worlds, as Anselm says, lib. 2. Cur Deus &c., homo. cap. 14. Or according to efficiency and so not all are redeemed by his passion, because all cleave not to the redeemer, and therefore not all have the efficacy of redemption.” The same man says: “The merit of Christ as touching the sufficiency is alike to all, but not as touching the efficiency: which happens partly through freewill, partly through God’s election, by which the effect of Christ’s merit is bestowed upon some mercy, but it is withdrawn fro others by the just judgment of God [Idem summa de veritate materia 26. quest. 7.].

Against the Gentiles, lib. 4. cap. 55, he alleges this cause of the foresaid distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. “The death of Christ” (says he), “is as a certain universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man was as it were the universal cause of damnation. But the universal cause must be applied to everyone particularly, that he may receive the effect of the universal cause. The effect of the sin of our first parents comes to everyone by our fleshly birth. But the effect of death of Christ comes to everyone by spiritual regeneration, whereby man is after a sort joined unto Christ, and incorporated unto him.” Other testimonies of this author we have before alleged.   [Source: Iacob Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston for Hvmfrey Lownes, 1598), 235. ]   [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal comments cited inline.]