Sclater:

1)

Beloved of God.] There is a general love of God, whereby he embraces all men; as appears by his beneficence, Matth. 5:45. There is a special love, wherewith he loves his elect in Christ, and of this is the place to be understood.

Wiliam Sclater, A Key to the Key of Scripture, or An Exposition with Notes upon the Epistle to the Romanes. 2nd ed. (London: Printed by T.C. for Nicolas Fussell and Humphrey Mosley, and are to be sold at the Ball in Paus Church yard, near the Great North Doore, 1629), 31.  [Some spelling modernized, underlining mine.]

2)

Now that we may hence observe; The unfaithfulness of ungodly ones in the Church of God, hinders not the accomplishment of God’s promises made to the faithful: see the Lord avowing tis to the Jews Ezek. 18. by reasons; first, all souls are God’s, equally his creatures, equally dear unto him; secondly,  open profession, the soul that sins, and that only dies;’ thirdly, more particular application; handled in comparison of equals; as the rebellious son has no immunity by his father’s righteousness; so neither does the innocent son receive any detriment by the disobedience of the father [Hab. 2:4.]. The Just lives by his own faith [Gal. 6.], every man beares his own burden.

Wiliam Sclater, A Key to the Key of Scripture, or An Exposition with Notes upon the Epistle to the Romanes. 2nd ed. (London: Printed by T.C. for Nicolas Fussell and Humphrey Mosley, and are to be sold at the Ball in Paus Church yard, near the Great North Doore, 1629),  254. [Some spelling modernized, underlining mine.] [Note: Compare Calvin on Eze :18:4.]

3)

Argument of love thus disposed: If I have chosen you and your Fathers, and rejected your Brethren and their Fathers, then I love you; but I have loved Jacob and hated Esau: Ergo. What is meant by his love, Paul best expounds, Rom 9. of Election.

The greatest evidence of God’s love, is Election to Salvation: there is a general love to all Creatures; some token of love to Saul, that he was a King, but nothing that that we are elected: all nothing without Election.

William Sclater, A Brief and Plain Commentary with Notes: Not More Useful, than Seasonable, upon the whole Prophecie of Malachy (London: Printed by J.L. for Christopher Meredith at the sign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1650), 11. [Note: Compare Calvin and Knox’s like statements on General Love in relation to Malachi 1:2-3.]

[Brief Biography from the Web:

William Sclater (1575 – 1627), Church of England clergyman

William was baptised at Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire on 25th October 1575. He was the son of the rector, Anthony Sclater (1519/20 – 1620) and his wife Margaret Loughborowe. William went to Eton College and in 1593 was admitted to King’s College, Cambridge. Three years later he became a fellow and in 1598 graduated with a BA and in 1601 proceeded MA.

His career was subsequently as follows:

• 1601 Sclater started preaching in Walsall, Staffordshire. He controversially refused to wear the surplice
• 1604 presented to the vicarage of Pitminster, near Taunton, Somerset
• 1606, even though serving as rural dean, he was still in trouble for nonconformity
• 1608 he proceeded BD
• 1609 was urging other moderate puritans to conform
• 1611 published the sermon The Key to the Key of Scripture
• 1612 published the sermon The Ministers’ Portion
• 1617 proceeded to DD
• 1619 made chaplain and prebendary of Bath and Wells by Bishop Arthur Lake
• 1619 presented with the living of Lympsham, Somerset by Lord Poulett (he also retained Pitminster, which he left in the care of a curate)
• 1623 published the sermon The Question of Tithes

Sclater was a staunch Calvinist and was highly esteemed by leading west-country puritans such as Sir John Horner and Sir John Bampfield. In 1621 Richard Barnard listed Sclater as one of his thirty-four godly ministers to whom he dedicated his clerical manual, The Faithful Shepherd.

In his personal life: He married his first wife (name unknown) in 1609 and through this marriage he had two sons and five daughters. In the 1620s he married his second wife, Marie or Mary, from Mells, Somerset and the couple had one daughter. His eldest son, William, was responsible for postumously editing many of his works. Sclater died in Pitminster in 1627.]

Kimedoncius:

Bullinger, Gualther, Musculus and others are cited, and the confessions of one or two Churches in Helvetia, out of whom these and like kinds of sayings are diligently drawn: to wit, that “Christ, as [Bulling. ser. 2. de Nativit Chri.] much as in him is a Saviour to all, and came to save all”: [The same upon 1 John 1.] “that he pleased God by sacrifice for all the sins of all times”: [Catech. minore. Eccl. Tigur.] “that his passion ought to satisfy for the sin of all men, and that the whole world is quickened by the same“: [Musc. in locis de remiss. p.q.2.] that the grace of remission of sins is appointed for all mortal men,” and such like.

Unto these, I answer, that how soever, and in what sense soever those writers uttered these and the like kind of speeches, it is certain that they were not of the adversaries opinion, that effectually and in very deed all, without exception of anyone, and without any difference of believers and unbelievers, are received into grace, and made partakers of remission of sins, righteousness and salvation of Christ.

Iacob Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston for Hvmfrey Lownes, 1598), 141-142. [Some reformatting, some spelling modernized, marginal comments cited inline, underlining mine.]

[Notes: Kimedoncius “adversary” here is Huberus. Huberus was a Universalist advocating that all men will be finally saved. Huberus attempted to cite various orthodox Reformed and Lutheran theologians, and confessions, to sustain his argument. Kimedoncius’ intent is to demonstrate that Huberus has taken these men and documents out of context. What interests us here is the reference to Catech. minore. Eccl. Tigur. This was an early non-extant Swiss catechism.  This early Reformed Helvetian catechism advocated an unlimited expiation of Christ. Kimedoncius associates this catechism, theologically, with Bullinger, Musculus and Gualther, whose positions on the extent of the expiation are explicit.  Further, another early Helvetian confession was Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession, and it is it likely that this was the other confession Kimedoncius alludes to when he says “confessions of one or two Churches.”]

Introduction:

I recently posted this argument in the comments section of another blog. I thought it was something I should post here so as to have it handy and accessible. This is an argument that comes up again and again.

I have deleted the references to personal names. And I will convert the essay to third person mode as best as I can.

The background argument is a proof for limited atonement by way of the exclusive effectual intercession by Christ as high priest. The argument is usually expressed like this: All whom Christ prays for as high priest, he effectually prays for, thereby effectually saving. This intercession of Christ is as extensive and as limited as is the scope of the expiation. For all whom Christ dies, he necessarily and effectually prays for, and thereby saves. If a given man is not finally saved, then it has to follow that Christ did not effectually pray for that man. If Christ did not pray for that man, then he did not die for him either, as Christ necessarily and effectually prays for all for whom he died. I requested Biblical support for this argument, and three verses were kindly supplied.

I should also say the discussion, albeit brief, was very friendly and with good Christian demeanor on all sides. And thanks to the blog owner for allowing me to post my thoughts in his comments section.

Argument:

“All the saved are “atoned for” and “interceded for.”

For the sake of ease I began to simplify this to:

1) All those for whom Christ died, are effectually prayed for by Christ.

And then I further reduced that to its core:

2) All the died for are prayed for.

In this response, I will assume “prayed for” equals “effectually prayed for as high priest.”

The proof-texts:

1) NAU Hebrews 7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

2) NAU John 17:9 “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours.

3) NAU John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

The Rebuttal:

Read the rest of this entry »

Hardy:

1) 1. That God did inflict death on Christ is undeniable, and who may question the justice of his actions, whenas things are therefore just, because he wills them to be done, whose will is the supreme rule of justice!

2. There cannot be a more necessitating reason of God’s afflicting Christ by death than this; so that if it be not just for God to inflict it upon him on this ground, it is much less upon any other. That Christ should die for the confirmation of his doctrine was needless; it was done sufficiently by miracles. To make way by death to his glory was not necessary; he might have been translated, as were Enoch and Elijah. To die only as an example of patience and fortitude to his followers, is a far less cogent cause than to die as an example of God’s justice and severity against sin; nor need he have died for that end, since the death of any of his apostles might have been exemplary in that kind. Finally, had he died only for the declaration of God’s immense love to us, and not for the demonstration of his severe justice against sin, whilst he had been so loving to us, he had been little other than cruel to Christ . There wanted not other ways to declare his tender affection to mankind, but there was no other way to declare his impartial justice against sin; so that, since the inflicting of death on Christ as a punishment carrieth with it a more urging inducement than any other cause assigned, and since the less cause there is of inflicting death upon any, the greater must needs be the injustice in the inflicter; it evidently followeth that there is nothing can so much clear the justice of God in this act, as (that which the orthodox asserts to be the cause of it) his undergoing the penalty due to our sins.  Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 113.  [Underlining mine.]

2) Suitably hereunto it is that divines conceive a double covenant to be intimated in Scripture—the one universal and conditional, the other special and absolute; the one made with all, and every man, upon these terms, ‘Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish,’ John iii. 16; the other made with Christ concerning a seed which he should see upon making his soul an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10, to whom he promiseth not only salvation by Christ upon condition of believing, but the writing his law in their hearts, Heb. x. 16, whereby they are enabled to perform the condition, and so infallibly partake of that salvation. By all which, it appeareth that notwithstanding God’s special affection, and decree of election whereby he hath purposed this propitiation shall be actually conferred upon some, we may truly assert, God hath a general love whereby he hath ordained the death of Christ an universal remedy applicable to every man as a propitiation for his sins, if he believe and repent. And hence it is that this propitiation, as it is applicable, so it is annunciable to every man. Indeed, as God hath not intended it should be actually applied, so neither that it should be so much as actually revealed to many men; but yet it is, as applicable, so annunciable, both by virtue of the general covenant God hath made with all, and that general mandate he hath given to his ministers of preaching the gospel to all, so that if any minister could go through all the parts of the world, and in those parts singly, from man to man, he might not only with a conjectural hope, but with a certain faith, say to him, God hath so loved thee that he gave his only son, that if thou believe in him, thou shalt not perish; and that this is not barely founded upon the innate sufficiency of Christ’s death, but the ordination of God, appeareth in that we cannot, may not, say so to any of the fallen angels, for whom yet, as you have already heard, Christ’s death is instrinsically sufficient.

Read the rest of this entry »