“A certain creditor,” it says, “had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty” [St. Luke 7:41]. 24. Who are those two debtors if not the two peoples, the one from the Jews, the other from the Gentiles, beholden to the Creditor of the heavenly treasure? It says, “The one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty” [St. Luke 7:41]. Extraordinary is that penny on which the King’s image is written, which bears the imprint of the Emperor [cf. St. Mark 12:15-16]. To this Creditor we owe not material wealth, but assays of merits, accounts of virtues, the worth of which is measured by the weight of seriousness, the likeness of righteousness, the sound of confession. Woe is me if I do not have what I have received, truly, because only with difficulty can anyone pay off the whole debt to this Creditor; woe is me if I do not ask, “Remit my debt.” For the Lord would not have taught us so to pray that we ask for our sins to be forgiven [cf. St. Matthew 6:12] if He had not known that some would only with difficulty be worthy debtors [cf. St. Luke 11:4]. 25. But which is the people which owes more if not we by whom more is believed? God’s words were believed by them [cf. Romans 3:2], but His Virgin Birth by us. Ye have the talent [cf. St. Matthew 25:15], the Virgin Birth; ye have the hundredfold fruit of faith [cf. St. Matthew 13:8]. Emmanuel was believed, God with us [cf. St. Matthew 1:23]; the Cross, the Death, the Resurrection of the Lord were believed. Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Therefore, there is no doubt that he who has received more, owes more [cf. St. Luke 12:48]. And according to me, perhaps he who owed more offended more, but through the Lord’s mercy, the case is changed, so that he who owed more loves more, if he nevertheless attains Grace. For he who gives it back possesses Grace, and he who possesses it repays, insofar as he possesses, for the possession consists in the repayment and the repayment in the possession. 26. And, therefore, since there is nothing which we can worthily repay to God–for what may we repay for the harm to the Flesh He assumed, what for the blows, what for the Cross, the Death, and the Burial? Woe is me if I have not loved! I dare to say that Peter did not repay and thereby loved the more; Paul did not repay–he, indeed, repaid death for death, but did not repay other debts, because he owed much. I hear himself saying, because he did not repay, “Who hath given to Him first, that he might be recompensed again?” [Romans 11:35]. Even if we were to repay cross for Cross, death for Death, do we repay that we possess all things from Him, and by Him, and in Him [cf. Romans 11:36]? Therefore, let us repay love for our debt, charity for the gift, grace for wealth; for he to whom more is given loves more [cf. St. Luke 7:42-43].”

Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), 201-202.

Credit to Tony and Curt Daniel.

Preston:

Again, this mus be marked that I say , you must take or receive him: you must not only believe that he is the Messiah, and that he is offered, but there is a taking and receiving that is necessary to make you partakers of that that. is offered, Those words, John 3 make it plain; God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. Giving is but Relative, it implies that there is a receiving or taking required: for when Christ is given, unless he be taken by us, he doth us no good, he is not made ours. If a man be willing ling to give another any thing, unless he take it, it is not his. It is true indeed, there is a sufficiency in Christ to save all men, and he is that great Physician that heals the souls of men; there is righteousness enough in him to justify all the world; but, my Beloved; unless we take him, and apply him to ourselves, we can have no part in that righteousness: this is, plainly expressed in Mat. 22. where it is said the King sent forth his servants to bid men to the Marriage of his son. And so in Ephes. 5. the same similitude and comparison is used by the Apostle, where he setteth forth the union that is between Christ and the Church, by that union there is between the Husband and the Wife. Put the case, that an Husband should offer himself to a woman to marry her, and he should believe it; yet unless there a taking of him on her part, the match is not made; and for it is here and in this thing the essence of faith consists, when Christ offers himself unto you, you must believe that there is such a thing, and that God intendeth it really, but it is the taking that consummates the marriage; and when the Wife hath taken the Husband, then all that is his is hers, she hath an interest in all his goods: so also it is here; there must be a believing that Christ is offered, that he is the Messiah, and that there is a righteousness in him to save us; but that is not enough, we must also take him, and when that is done, we are justified, then we are at peace with God.

John Preston, The Breast-Plate of faith and Love, (London: Printed by George Purstow, and are to be sold in the Companie of the Stationers, 1651), 43-44.

Introductory comments:

1) The key here is to realize that for Charles Hodge, R.L. Dabney and W.G.T. Shedd, kosmos was not reducible to the elect, but denoted mankind at large. They expressly distanced themselves from the idea that kosmos means elect, or all kinds of elect. Hodge notes Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures in that way. And so for Hodge, it is still true that it was for the sins of the world for which Christ suffered or offered an expiation.

2) With Hodge, there are essentially three questions to be asked with reference to the nature and extent of the death of Christ:

I) Q. For whom did Christ engage as surety in order to effectually save?
A. The elect alone.

II) Q. For whom did Christ die?
A. For all men generally, but for the elect especially.

III) Q. For whose sins did Christ suffer and bear punishment?
A. Christ suffered and bore the punishment for the sins due to every man, that is all men, even the sins of the whole world.

The reader should consider these three questions while reading the following material from Charles Hodge.

3) For Hodge, it appears that when the expiation is considered in reference to persons, he prefers to limit its “proper” intent and design. In doing so, Hodge will even limit the impetration of Christ to those whom it is effectually applied. However, when considering the expiation in reference to imputed sin, Hodge wants to speak in terms of the law’s charge against the categories of sin. The condemnation due to one man was the same condemnation due to the next, and the next, and so on indefinitely. Therefore, the satisfaction performed by Christ being sufficient for the first man, is necessarily sufficient for the second man, for the third man, and so on indefinitely for all men. As Hodge says, Christ suffered the condemnation of the law under which all men lay. And in this way, for Hodge, the expiation is a real and actual atoning sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the world. Hodge expressly repudiates the idea that only a fixed amount of sin from a fixed amount of sinners was imputed to Christ. For if that were the case, Hodge would have to concede that 1) had God elected more, the nature of the expiation would have changed, and 2) there can be no commonality with Lutheranism on the nature of the expiation. The effect of this is that we have another version of limited atonement which probably has its source in Jonathan Edwards and other New England theologians. It also probably lies at the back of the distinction made by both R.L. Dabney and W.G.T Shedd, that the expiation is unlimited, while the redemption is limited.

4) This file should not be considered as exhaustive of Hodge’s comments on these issues. I have chosen to include only the most relevant according to my judgement. However, in doing so, I have sought to be true to Hodge’s intent and the context of these quotations.

Hodge’s Explanatory statements:

Removal of legal obstacles

1) In assuming this ground, he is guilty of the same one-sidedness, the same contracted view, which he exhibits in his doctrine concerning the nature of the atonement. It is conceded that the work of Christ does lay the foundation for the offer of salvation to all men. Dr. Beman hence concludes that this was its only end; that it merely opens the way for the general offer of pardon. His theory is designed to account for one fact, and leaves all the other revealed facts out of view, and unexplained. The Bible teaches, however, a great deal more in relation to this subject, than that one fact. It teaches, 1. That Christ came in execution of a purpose; that he suffered, as Dr. Beman expresses it, by covenant, and ratified that covenant with his own blood. 2. That his mission was the result and expression of the highest conceivable love. 3. That it not merely removes obstacles out of the way, but actually secures the salvation of his people. 4. That it lays the foundation for a free, full, and unrestrained offer of salvation to all men. 5. That it renders just the condemnation of those who reject him as their Saviour ; that rejection being righteously the special ground of their condemnation. Charles Hodge, “Beman on the Atonement,” Essays and Reviews, (New York, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 175.

2) Dr. Beman’s theory, therefore, which denies that the death of Christ had a special reference to his own people, is inconsistent with the plainly revealed facts : 1. That he died in execution of a covenant in which his people were promised to him as his reward, to secure which reward is declared to be his specific and immediate design in laying down his life. 2. That the motive which led to the gift of the Son, and of the Son in dying, was not general benevolence, but the highest conceivable love, love for his sheep and for his friends. 3. That the design of his death was not simply to remove obstacles out of the way of mercy, but actually to secure the salvation of those given to him by the Father ; and that it does in fact secure for them the gift of the Holy Ghost, and consequently justification and eternal life…

These suppositions are made simply to show that, according to our doctrine, the reason why any man perishes is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he wilfully rejects the proffered salvation. Our doctrine, therefore, provides for the universal offer of the gospel, and for the righteous condemnation of unbelievers, as thoroughly as Dr. Beman’s. It opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned, as fully as his: while it meets all the other revealed facts of the case. It is not a theory for one fact. It includes them all; the fact that Christ died by covenant for his own people, that love for his own sheep led him to lay down his life, that his death renders their salvation absolutely certain, that it opens the way for the offer of salvation to all men, and shows the justice of the condemnation of unbelief. No MAN PERISHES FOR THE WANT OF AN ATONEMENT, is the doctrine of the Synod of Dort ; it is also our doctrine. Charles Hodge, “Beman on the Atonement,” in Essays and Reviews, (New York, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 181-2.

Read the rest of this entry »

Heppe:

1) [Heppe’s summary:] 28.-But of course it still holds that not for all men did Christ secure satisfaction and merit the imparting of the H. Spirit, but only for those for whom he interceded as surety with the Father’s consent. Although Christ died sufficienter for all men, and although Christ’s obedience and suffering are so absolutely perfect that for this satisfaction the Father might have forgiven the sins of the whole human race, the merit of Christ can really hold efficaciter only for those whom the Father has given him, for whom the Father has accepted the dedication and surety of the Son, and for whom Christ in accordance with his own intention was ready to die and did die.

OLEVIAN (pp. 67-68): The sacrifice of Christ, so perfect in itself is, both by the eternal counsel of God and by the high-priestly intercession of Christ himself appointed only for those whom the Son of God has awakened to faith; sacrifice and intercession belong to each other. Hence although Christ has suffered sufficenter for all, he has done so efficaciter only for the elect. Had he also prayed for the rejected and sacrificed himself for them, they too would have had to be blessed and roused by the H. Spirit to faith (p. 69): “He offered himself for those whom he knew the Father had given him, but never by chance or accident–as some imagine that the grace of sacrifice has been scattered in the air, in order that he who would might snatch it for himself.” Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 475-476

[And then:]

2) That the satisfaction of Christ would be sufficient to atone for sin-guilt in all men, if the Father would let it benefit them all, is generally recognized. CF., e.g., RISSEN (XII, 11): “…the satisfaction of Christ might be said to be sufficient for the sins of one and all, if so it had seemed good to God; for since it was of infinite value, it was quite sufficient for the redemption of one and all, if it had seemed good to God to extend it to the whole world. And here belongs a distinction used by the Fathers and retained by various theologians, that Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectually only for the elect; which phrase, understood of the worthiness of Christ’s death, is very true, although it is less accurate if referred to the will and counsel of Christ.¹ For the Son gave himself to death, not with the purpose and intention of acting personal substitute. in the room of one and all, to give satisfaction for them and secure them salvation; but for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed and whose head he was to be, he was wiling to give himself up.” Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 477-478.

________________________

¹That Rissen’s wording follows the wording of Turretin here almost exactly is because Rissen’s work was based heavily on Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology.