Notice: register_sidebar_widget is deprecated since version 2.8.0! Use wp_register_sidebar_widget() instead. in /home/q85ho9gucyka/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3931
Calvin and Calvinism » 2009 » April » 24

Archive for April 24th, 2009

24
Apr

Laurence Proctor on Amyraut’s “Christ Died Equally For All”

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in Historiography

Proctor:

78. De Grat (Gen) 116-7.  In this way, Amyraut could say that Christ died equally for all. In the statement that Christ died pro omnibus equiliter (explained Daillé, Apologiae ii 632), the theologians of Saumur meant the adverb to signify that there is none for whom Christ did not die; it does not mean that all are equal in affection or will of God in giving Christ to die. Cf. Drost, Specimen 25: Amyraut and Testard explained the death of Christ for all equally in terms of sufficiency.

For the of the Synod on this matter, see Quick, Synod ii 354: “Whereupon, although the Assembly were well satisfied, yet nevertheless they decreed that for the future that the phrase of Jesus Christ’s dying equally for all, should be forborne, because the term equally was formerly, and might be so again, an occasion of stumbling for many.”

Amyraut explained the two uses of the adverb in De Grat (Gen) 223.

Lawrence Proctor, “The Theology of Moïse Amyraut Considered as a Reaction Against Seventeenth-Century Calvinism” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1952),  footnote 78, p., 376. [Note: Proctor’s oringinal underlining converted to italics.]

Credit to Tony

Mayhew:

At present I will show, what is in Scripture affirmed, with Respect to the Extent of Christ’s Death, with Relation to the End and Object of it. And here, not to insist on what is said about his mediatorial Righteousness, in Rom. Chap. 5. betwixt the 12th and the 19th Verses, where his Righteousness is opposed to the Sin of the First Adam, as a sufficient Remedy against the Mischiefs and Miseries brought on Mankind by it; I shall only recite some of those Passages of Scripture, wherein the Universality of Christ’s Death, as it respects the Persons for whom he died, seems to be plainly and fully asserted. Thus we are told, that God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life, John 3. 16. That he is the Propitiation for our Sins: And not for ours only, but for the Sins of the whole World, 1 John 2. 2. That he tasted Death for every Man, Heb. 2. 9. That he gave himself a Ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. That he died for all, 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. And that he is the Savior of all Men, especially of those that believe, 1 Tim. 4. 10.

That the most obvious Sense of these Texts of Scripture, is, That Jesus Christ died for all Men without Exception, I think very evident. Nor is it at our Liberty to recede from this, without some urgent Necessity compelling us to it, which I suppose can never be shown; but instead thereof, I will show a Necessity of taking of them in the full Latitude in which they are expressed. I do not therefore wonder, that there have been a great many eminent Divines, in the English Nation, who have been far from being Arminians, that have plainly and fully asserted Christ’s dying for all, as I could easily manifest, did I rely on human Authorities, as I do not.

Yet I shall mention one Instance of this, not so much on the Account of the Authority of the Man (though I know of no Man whose Authority would go farther in this Case) as because I think he fairly states wherein the Difference lies betwixt himself and some others, and particularly betwixt what he held and I now hold, and consequently wherein the Crisis of this Controversy does, in my Apprehension, lie.

The Person I intend is the learned Dr. Twisse: And the Book from which I shall take some Passages, is entitled, The Riches of God’s Love to the Vessels of Mercy, &c. Part 1. Page 5. “We are often demanded,” says he, “whether every one that hears the Gospel be not bound to believe that Christ died for him? Now I say this Phrase, Christ died for me, includes many Things, as the Benefits which arise unto me by the Death of Christ, may be conceived to be many. But let these Benefits be distinguished, and we shall readily answer to the Question made, and that perhaps differently, as namely, affirmatively to some, negatively to others; as thus, Do you speak of Christ’s dying for me, that is, for the Pardon of my Sins, and for the Salvation of my Soul, I answer affirmatively and say, I am bound to believe that Christ died for the procuring of these Benefits unto me, in such Manner as God hath ordained; to wit, not absolutely but conditionally, to wit, in Case I do believe and repent. For God hath not otherwise ordained, that I should reap the Benefits of Pardon and Salvation, by virtue of Christ’s Death and Passion, unless I believe in him and repent.”

Read the rest of this entry »