Musculus:

“if one died for all therefore all were dead”

Certainly none no-one has great love, which gives its life for its friends. Truly, Christ died not for his friends only, but also [his] enemies, nor for certain people only, but for all people. This is the immeasurable greatness of divine love…

To be sure, we understand not that Christ died for all so that its efficacy reaches commonly to all [people]. Accordingly, it [Christ’s death] is not received by reprobates, unbelievers, and impenitents, although in itself it is sufficient for redeeming the whole human race. Salvation is proposed, which from it, is for all and sufficient for all, and presently may be received by all, “God loved the whole world that he gave his only begotten son, that all who believe in him, may not perish, but have eternal life” John 3. Thus he died for all (because all were dead) that all who believe in him might be brought back to life and be saved.

Wolfgang Musculus, In ambas apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios epistolas commentarii. (Basel: Per Haeredes Ioannis Hervagii, 1566), 174 and 175.

Baxter:

The 7^th text, which I shall urge is, Heb. 10. 26, 27, 28, 29.

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more Sacrifice for sins, but certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery, indignation, which shall devour the Adversaries. He that despised Moses Law, died without mercy, under two or three Witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under Foot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was Sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace?

Hence I raise two Arguments

1. Those who receive the mercies here mentioned are of the number of them for whom Christ died. But such are some Non-elect, Ergo, &c. The Blood of the Covenant is shed before it is sprinkled, or Sanctifies (shed physically or morally) and it cannot sanctify Men, before it is shed for them. For Sanctification, being some degree of application, presupposes It shed for them: I mean, If by Sanctification, be meant, either separation relative from the World to the Church, and to Christ secundum quid: Or else Sanctification real, by giving Men a temporary Faith and other Graces proportionable, and their escaping the pollutions of the World by that Faith. But some think that by Sanctification is meant that cleansing which immediately followed the Sacrifice (the word being used from the Jewish Sanctifyings;) and so by Sanctification, should be meant due conditional justification, or Cleansing which all Men have immediately from Christ crucified before any further personal application. And if this be so, then the Case is plain and past question.

The 2^nd argument is from those words [there remains no more Sacrifice for sins, but, &c.] Here the Apostle proves the incurableness and desperateness of their case, in that there remains no more sacrifice: And this is proper to them when they are Apostates. Now if there were never any Sacrifice for their sins; then this reason will prove their case no more desperate since their Apostasy than before; nor will it prove the case of Apostates any more desperate than the case of all wicked Men for whom Christ died not. But that is contrary to the Text. It is either their own sin or the elects’ sin, or same other men’s for whom the Apostle says, there remains no more sacrifice. If other men’s, then that proves not their case any more desperate than it was: For a sacrifice for other men’s sins hinders nor their case from being desperate before: Besides, it is no loss to them to lose the hopes of life by such a sacrifice: For they could be no hopes. But it is mentioned here as their loss, and the sad consequence of their apostasy. If 100 soldiers be taken prisoners by the enemy, and their former prince shall redeem 50 of them by a ransom, and when he hath done shall send to all the 100 to come to him, and be true soldiers again; and hereupon they all come (though not all alike affected to him) and he tells them all [if ever you sleep on your watch and so be taken by the enemy again, or if you forsake my colors and persidiously turn to the enemy, there remains no more ransom for you,] would not any man wonder both how we 50 not ransomed should come out of prison at all? Or why the prince should tell them, There remained no more ransom for them when they were never ransomed at all? Doubtless the Holy Ghost doth not pronounce these apostates to be therefore miserable, because there remained no more sacrifice for other men’s sins: As if you should say to a man in a consumption, there is now no hope of your life, because the physician hath given one effectual receipt to your sick neighbor, and will give him no more.

But if it be acknowledged (as it must be) that the text means, there is no more sacrifice for the sins of these apostates; then it plainly intimates that there was once a sacrifice for their sin till they by rejection, deprived themselves of the benefit of it.

Read the rest of this entry »

[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 »