[comments below]

Overall:

CHAP. II.

Concerning the Death of Christ.

The Opinion of our Church concerning the Death of Christ is so plain, and every where so consistent with it self; That Christ died for All Men, or for all the Sins of all Men; that it is to be wondered, that any of us should ever have ventured to call it in Question. It is said in the II. Article,

that Christ truly Suffered, was Crucified, Dead, and Buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice, not only for Original Guilt, but also for all the actual Sins of Men.

Article VII. As well in the Old as New Testament, everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.

Article XV. ‘Christ came to be a Lamb without Spot, who by Sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the Sins of the World. And again, Article XXXI, The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption, Propitiation, and Satisfaction for All the Sins of the whole World, both Original and Actual.

And the same is to be met with in the common Catechism, as the most plain sense of the second part of the Creed, wherein it is proposed to every one to believe in God the Son, who hath redeemed him and all Mankind; according to the Nicene Creed, who for us Men and for our Salvation, descended, &c. And in many other places of our public Liturgy; as in the Prayer of Consecration in the Sacrament:

O God! who didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our Redemption, who made there, by his one Oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World.  And to every single Person to whom the Sacrament is administered, ’tis said, ‘The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee.’ And again, ‘His Blood which was shed for thee, preserve they Soul, &c.’

The Death of Christ therefore considered in it self must be a Price sufficient for All Men, if it was given for All. But the Scripture says plainly, That God gave his Son for the World, and lays a Condition thereon, not the Death of Christ, but the Faith of Man; and from thence Salvation is to follow conditionally: That the Son was so given, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved: But whether Men believe or not, God gave his Son for them, and through him offered Salvation on the Condition of Faith. Now that Men should perform this Condition, God does both command in his Word, and by the Grace of his Holy Spirit does actually excite and co-operate: So that if they do not believe, the fault may be in Men, and not in God: As on the contrary, if they do believe, that must be attributed to Divine Grace, and not to any Humane Virtue. Whence it is plain, that it was God’s Will and Design that Christ should die for All; though All, through their own unbelief and impenitency, do not from thence receive the fruits of salvation. But then there are some effects of this that do redound to All; as the Common Vocation; The Warnings and Encouragements, not only of the external Word, but of internal Grace too: And lastly, the General Resurrection of All. For because Christ by his Death and Resurrection did overcome Death, and rose again from the Dead; as the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. For the same Reason has Christ obtained to himself a Dominion over all men, because he died for All; as St. Paul has abundantly shown [Rom. 14:9; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15]. Which Places, as they sufficiently prove that Christ died singly for All, so they signify to us, that both the general Promises of Salvation to all Believers, with whatsoever is sufficient for common Grace, and also the Purpose of particular Election, and Grace effectually persevering; nay, and the Preparation and Foreknowledge of these, are all founded in the same Christ, and in his Death, fore-seen from all Eternity. So that out of the side of Christ’s dying upon the Cross, not only the Sacraments of the Church, but likewise all saving Goods and Graces must be understood to flow. And this Opinion is so manifest in the Scriptures, that Calvin has every where interpreted them of All. Thus upon Heb. 9.20 he says, that [Many] is taken for [All.] So again upon Rom. 5.18, 19. “It is certain,” says he, “that all Men do not receive Advantage from the Death of Christ, but then this is owing to their own Infidelity that hinders them (who was otherwise sufficiently rigid about Predestination) in explaining those very places, which others brought to take away the universality of Christ’s Death (as in some it is said that he died for Many). Which words do plainly enough favor the common Opinion. 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), 131-134.  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; italics original; marginal references cited inline; and underlining mine.]  [Excellent academic secondary source: Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (UK: The Boydell Press, 2005), 64-92.] [Original Latin edition first published in 1650.]

[Notes: 1) The predestinarian theology of Overall is disputed. It is sometimes alleged that he embraced the  theology of Peter Baro.  2) On the contrary, in these articles, Overall does seem intent on walking a middle way between extreme predestinarian views, on the one hand, and those who would ground predestination upon simple divine foreknowledge, on the other. 3) It is quite probable that sources such as Wiki have it wrong on this point (cf. Milton). However, at the end of the day, even if it were established that Overall truly supported the theology of Peter Baro, the information and comments in this excerpt are of such value that their inclusion here in this file is worth-while. 4) To that end, the reader should note a) the confessional opinion of the Reformation church of England; b) the stated position of Calvin; and c) the reference to hypothetical sufficiency, as opposed to an actual sufficiency as defined in the Augustinian tradition.]

[Thanks to Tony for the transcription and to Chris for the heads-up.]

Vos:

The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation”
The Bible Student 4:40-45. [1901]

Among the various forms under which the Apostle Paul sets forth the objective saving work of God centering in the cross of Christ, that of reconciliation occupies a prominent place. The main obstacle to a proper understanding of the truth embodied in this term lies in the inadequacy of the English rendering. In common parlance, the statement that one person reconciles another is most naturally taken to mean that the former changes the subjective frame of mind of the latter, so as to render his disposition from an unfriendly to a friendly one. Now the Greek word katallassein, while it may be used in this manner, has a far wider range of meaning, and may, under given circumstances, express a transaction which does not include a subjective change of mind at all. Katallassein tina simply means to bring somebody into a reconciled relationship. This may be done by the subject of the verb giving up his own hostility, or by his inducing the other party to give up his hostility, or by both. And that which is laid aside may in every case be either the outward attitude and course of action or the inward feeling and disposition of enmity. The same possibilities of interpretation belong to the passive form, katallassqai proj tina. In view of this the question, what are the precise implications of the word when used by Paul in a specific soteriological sense, must be determined solely from the context in each individual instance.

Ritschl has endeavored to establish for the phrase, “God reconciles us,” the meaning that God effects a change in our disposition whereby we are moved to cherish friendly instead of unfriendly feelings towards Him. He argues mainly from the correlative term, “alienated,” in Colossians 1:21, “And you being .  .  . alienated .  .  . yet now hath he reconciled.” But this term by no means describes a subjective alienation of mind; it rather describes an objective breach between God and man, the only doubtful point being whether the immediately following clause, “enemies in your mind in your evil works,” repeats the same thought in a different form or adds to the objective the subjective aspect of the matter. A brief examination of the most important passages will show how little support there is in reality for Ritschl’s subjectivizing view. In 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19 we find the reconciling act of God represented as something finished once for all, before the message of it reaches the sinner. In the eighteenth verse this appears from the use of the aorist participle: “All things are from God who did reconcile us unto himself through Christ”; and also, from the coordination of this participle with the other participle, “who did give unto us [Paul] the ministry of the reconciliation.” Just as the commission of Paul was a single, definite, objective act, the coordinated act of the reconciliation must have been of the same kind, and the latter must have preceded the former. On Ritschl’s view the reconciliation ought to have consisted in Paul’s conversion, but his own conversion did not furnish the theme of the apostle’s preaching, as is here affirmed of the reconciliation. Or, if it be replied that not his own conversion, but the change of heart of men in general, formed the substance of his message, we may point to the use of the article before reconciliation. It was not a ministry of reconciliation in the sense that it aimed at producing a change in the hearts of men, but the ministry of the reconciliation, i.e., the ministry which conveys the message of the reconciliation as an already accomplished fact. Equally conclusive is the representation of the nineteenth verse: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” This hn katallasswn cannot mean, as some have proposed, God was endeavoring in Christ to reconcile, or God was laying in Christ the basis for reconciling, both of which renderings would involve the subjective view of the matter. Paul uses the periphrastic conjugation in order to give greater emphasis to the fact that it was God and no one else who did in Christ reconcile the world.

From all this it appears that the apostle means by reconciliation an objective transaction accomplished by God in Christ. Still the possibility remains that the apostle’s conception of it may have been wide enough to include alongside of this a change of disposition or of attitude on the part of men also. The twentieth verse is quoted in favor of this: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.” Here the imperative mode places it beyond dispute that something to be experienced by the Corinthians subjectively is intended. But it would be hasty to infer from this that his subjective experience cannot have been anything else than a change from hostility to friendship towards God. Undoubtedly the passive form of the verse might mean this. But, grammatically considered, it may just as well have another meaning. It may be rendered with equal correctness by “let yourselves be restored to a relation of friendship.” The context alone can decide here. Now, if Paul had intended to say, “After God has on his part shown his willingness to be reconciled, do ye on your part show the same by laying aside your feeling of enmity,” he would naturally have indicated this contrast between God and man by adding the pronoun umeij “be ye also reconciled.” Further, it is evident that what Paul here desires of the Corinthians is the application of what has been done by God, the human response to the divine act. And the response must in its general character resemble that to which it answers. Now all the terms used show, as we shall presently see, that on God’s part this act did not consist in a change of disposition, but simply in the removal of certain objective conditions which rendered it impossible that He should deal with men on the basis of friendship. If, then, God reconciled us by providing an objective righteousness, the natural inference is that we will be reconciled in response to this by appropriating this righteousness subjectively, i.e., by the act of believing. God reconciled us and we let ourselves be reconciled; on neither side is a change of disposition referred to, although in the case of men it is of course presupposed as underlying the act of faith. Finally, the connection of thought between verses 20 and 21 shows how the idea of an appropriation of the objective work of Christ lay uppermost in Paul’s mind. This connection is as follows. Because God has brought about the reconciliation in Christ, Christ Himself is supremely interested in the attainment of the end for which it was designed. This being so, the appeal made by Paul is in reality an appeal made on behalf of, for the sake of, in the interest of, Christ. The motive urged is the fear lest Christ’s work should be in vain: “In the interest of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors—in the interest of Christ we beseech you, let yourselves be reconciled to God.” But the 21st verse shows under what aspect the work of Christ, which would be frustrated if men did not let themselves be reconciled, comes under consideration: “Him that knew no sin, he made sin for our sakes, in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” Plainly here the primary effect of men letting themselves be reconciled is represented as consisting in this, that they become the righteousness of God in Christ. We conclude, therefore, that not the experience of conversion, but the exercise of justifying faith forms the subjective reflex of the reconciliation.

Read the rest of this entry »

A’ Brakel:

1) Fourthly, nothing exists or comes to pass apart from the operation of God. God sustains everything by His omnipotent and omnipresent power. Nothing can move without divine cooperation and thus everything transpires according to His decree, be it either by the Lord’s initiation or permission, directing things in such a manner that they accomplish His purpose. Thus it becomes evident that the Lord has prior knowledge concerning all things. You will comprehend this with more clarity and be less confused if you keep in mind that God is omniscient and has decreed all that transpires. His knowledge is not derived from existing matters and secondary causes as is true for man. Keep in mind that from God’s perspective, who is the first cause of all things, everything is an absolute certainty even though it appears to be uncertain when viewed from the perspective of secondary causes. From God’s perspective there are no contingencies; such is only true from man’s perspective. Thus, in defining the freedom of the will we must not think of it as functioning independently from God, on an equal plane with His will, or as a neutral entity; rather, this freedom is a function of necessity. Thus, the freedom of the will does not contradict the certain foreknowledge of God. Man, without coercion and by arbitrary choice, performs that which God has most certainly decreed, and of which He was cognizant that it would occur. Wilhemus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans., by Bartel Elshout, (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publ., 1992), 1:104-105

2) God’s Government and Sin

Nevertheless God’s government also encompasses sin, for otherwise the entire human race, being sinful in its deeds, would be removed from God’s government. God’s government regarding sin cannot be denied by someone who believes God’s Word, from which we will prove this with utmost clarity.

For a correct understanding of God’s government relative to sin we must take notice of three matters which pertain to every sin: the natural activity, the deviation in this activity, and God’s government in bringing this activity to a good end.

(1) The natural activity, considered in and of itself, proceeds from God. This has been demonstrated in discussing the second act of providence, cooperation.

(2) We shall soon demonstrate that God governs sin to a good end.

(3) The deviation, the abuse of the energizing power of God, the corruption of this power, and the irregularity of the activity as far as manner and objective are concerned whether such activity is internal or external do not proceed from God, but from man himself. Man is nevertheless not independent in the act of sin for he corrupts the energy upon which he depends for his activity. God’s government concerning sin relates 1) to its commencement, 2) to its progression, and 3) to its ultimate outcome.

Read the rest of this entry »

Brown:

§ 2. The love of God to the world the origin of the plan of salvation.

There is another idea to which I wish for a little to turn your attention on this part of the subject. The love in which the economy of salvation originates, is love to the world. “God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son.” The term “world,” is here just equivalent to mankind. It seems to be used by our Lord with a reference to the very limited and exclusive views of the Jews. They thought God loved them, and hated all the other nations of mankind. These were their own feelings, and they foolishly thought that God was altogether such an one as themselves. They accordingly expected that the Messiah was to come to deliver Israel, and to punish and destroy the other nations of the earth. But “God’s ways were not their ways, nor his thoughts their thoughts. As the heavens are high above the earth, so were his ways above their ways, and his thoughts above their thoughts.”⁸⁷

Some have supposed that the word “world” here, is descriptive, not of mankind generally, but of the whole of a particular class, that portion of mankind who, according to the Divine purpose of mercy, shall ultimately become partakers of the salvation of Christ. But this is to give to the term a meaning altogether unwarranted by the usage of Scripture. There can be no doubt in the mind of a person who understands the doctrine of personal election, that those who are actually saved are the objects of a special love on the part of God; and that the oblation of the Savior had a special design in reference to them. But there can be as little doubt, that the atonement of Christ has a general reference to mankind at large; and that it was intended as a display of love on the part of God to our guilty race. Not merely was the atonement offered by Christ Jesus sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, but it was intended and fitted to remove out of the way of the salvation of sinners generally, every bar which the perfections of the Divine moral character, and the principles of the Divine moral government, presented. Without that atonement, no sinner could have been pardoned in consistency with justice. In consequence of that atonement, every sinner may be, and if he believe in Jesus certainly shall be, pardoned and saved. Through the medium of this atonement, the Divine Being is revealed to sinners, indiscriminately, as gracious and ready to forgive; and the invitations and promises warranting men to confide in Christ for salvation, are addressed to all, and are true and applicable to all without exception or restriction. The revelation of mercy made in the Gospel, refers to men as sinners, not as elect sinners. Their election, or their non-election, is something of which, when called on to believe the Gospel, they are necessarily entirely ignorant, and with which they have nothing to do. ” The kindness and love of God toward man,” the Divine philanthropy, is revealed. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” He appears in the revelation of mercy as the God who “has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” ” The grace of God” revealed in the Gospel ” brings salvation to all,” without exception, who in the faith of the truth will receive it.⁸⁸

I am persuaded that the doctrine of personal election is very plainly taught in Scripture; but I am equally persuaded that the minister misunderstands that doctrine who finds it, in the least degree, hampering him in presenting a full and a free salvation as the gift of God to every one who hears the Gospel; and that the man abuses the doctrine who finds in it anything which operates as a barrier in the way of his receiving, as a sinner, all the blessings of the Christian salvation, in the belief of the truth. Indeed, when rightly understood, it can have no such effect. For what is that doctrine, but just this, in other words,–It is absolutely certain that a vast multitude of the race of man shall be saved through Christ?’ And it is as certain, that if any one of those to whom that salvation is offered, remains destitute of it, and perishes eternally, it is entirely owing to his own obstinate refusal of what is freely, honestly, presented to him. The kindness of God, as manifested in the gift of his Son, is kindness to the race of man; and when, as an individual, I credit the kindness of God to man, so strangely displayed, so abundantly proved, I cannot find any reason why I should not depend on this kindness, and expect to be saved even as others.

Whenever a man hesitates about placing his dependence on the mercy of God, because he is not sure whether he be elected or not, he gives clear evidence that he does not yet understand the Gospel. He does not apprehend “the manifestation of the love of God to man.” When he sees God in Christ reconciling the world to himself, “he does not need to ask, Is the plan of mercy such as I am warranted to embrace? may I not somehow be excluded from availing myself of it? These, and similar suggestions, which draw away his mind from the voice of God to the speculations of his own mind, are no more regarded.” He sees God rich in mercy, ready to forgive; just, and the justifier of the ungodly. He cannot but place his confidence in him. ” Jehovah,” as it has been happily said, “by the manifestation of what he has done, especially in sending Christ, and delivering him up, the just in the room of the unjust, pleads his own cause with such subduing pathos, that there is no more power of resistance; but the person, who is the object of the demonstration, yields himself up to the authority and glory of the truth.”⁸⁹ The sinner, thus cordially believing the Gospel, gladly and gratefully receives “the Savior of the world” as his Savior, and trusts that by the grace of God he shall partake of “the common salvation.” John Brown of Broughton, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1854), 49-51. [Some spelling modernized; footnotes and values original; and underlining mine.]

_______________________
⁸⁷Isa. iv. 8, 9.

⁸⁸Tit, iii, 4, 2 Cor. v. 19. Ezek, xxxiii, 11. 1 Tim. ii, 3, 4. Tit. ii. 11

⁸⁹Hogg of Alyth–View of the Economy of Grace, pp. 14, 15.