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 » June » 18

Archive for June 18th, 2009

18
Jun

William Burkitt (1650-1703) on Hebrews 2:9 and 14

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in Hebrews 2:9 & 14

Burkitt:

1) Hebrews 2:9:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man

Observe here, 1 The wonderful humiliation and abasement, the exinanition and deep depression, of the glorious Jesus: he was made for a little time lower than the angels: that is, he was made man, and mortal, and did suffer death. Observe, 2 The manner of our Lord’s death: he tasted it, he did really taste of it, and but taste of it; he tasted death, that is, he died really, and not in appearance only, he lasted it. Implying that he underwent the bitterness of it: he found out experimentally what death was by dying, as a man finds out the bitterness of a thing by tasting. Again, he did but taste of it, he was not finally overcome and vanquished by it; he continued but a short time under it, it was not possible that he should be long holden of it; the dignity of his person rendered a short continuance of him under the power of death sufficient for our redemption. Observe, 3. The persons for whom he tasted death, or died: for others, not for himself; that is, for their room and stead; he underwent that death in our stead, which we should have undergone in our own persons. Observe, 4. The extent of Christ’s death; he tasted death for every man; that is, Christ by his death has made God propitious to every man, made sin remissible, and every man saveable; the death of Christ renders God willing to be reconciled unto all sinners; faith renders him actually reconciled. The reason why every man doth not obtain salvation, is not for want of a sufficient propitiation. Observe, 5. The moving cause which inclined God to deliver up Christ to death, and to transfer our punishment upon him, and that was his own grace and free good-will, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Observe, 6. The glorious reward of our Lord’s sufferings with reference to himself. We see Jesus, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. As Christ’s meritorious sufferings for us, so shall our patient suffering for him, be rewarded with the highest glory in heaven, 1 Pet. V. 10. “The God of all grace, who hath called us into his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect,” &c.   William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 2:586-587.589. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Baxter:

1) 11. Christ is a sufficient Savior, able and willing to save only those that he died for. Supposing that he satisfied not for any Man, he is not sufficient or willing to save that Man though he should believe. How can it be said that by the sufficiency of his Ransom he is able to save them, for whom it was no Ransom? Indeed the sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction is on principal object of that part of Faith which consists in Assent. But I shall show anon, that if any Man be bound to believe Christ’s satisfaction sufficient to justify him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe an untruth.  Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 115-116.

2) Arg. 9th A Sufficientia pretii pro omnibus.

If Christ died for all men quad sufficientiam pretii, then he has satisfied for all. But he died for all men, quoad sufficientiam pretii Ergo, &c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Protestant Divines, who use ordinarily this distinction to solve the doubt, whether Christ died for all? viz., he died for al sufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually. And indeed this one distinction rightly understand, and this answer thence fitted, is most full and apt for the resolution of the question. The Schoolmen go the same way. The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Arminians, who on that reason deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying [Christ died for all men sufficienter] they will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus.] For all our former Divines (and the most of these times; so far as I can discern) who acknowledge that Christ died for all men quoad sufficientiani pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they say the same, and as much as I, and therefore I need not say much more to them.  Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 133-134. [Contents within square brackets original.]

Read the rest of this entry »