Davenant:

1) I wish that in this litigious age we had before our eyes this specimen of Christian charity and modesty, by which, as it appears to me, that tempest which was excited by the preaching of Godeschalcus was so happily settled and appeared. For in the following ages I find no contests about the aforesaid controversy. At length theological questions came into the hands of the Schoolmen, who, although they were fruitful artificers of disputes, yet were unwilling to renew this subject. To them it seemed sufficient to teach that Christ died for all sufficiently, for the predestinated effectually; which, since no one could deny, no handle was given for using the saw of contention. The Doctors of the Reformed Church also from the beginning spoke in such a manner on the death of Christ, that they afforded no occasion of reviving the contest. For they taught, That it was proposed and offered to all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life only by those that believe. At the same time, they judged it improper to mingle the hidden mystery of Election and Preterition with this doctrine of the Redemption of the human race through Christ, in such a manner as to exclude any one, before he should exclude himself by his own unbelief. Let us hear their own words. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 336-337.

2) Under the word death, then, we comprehend that infinite treasure of merits which the Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, by doing and suffering, procured and laid up for our benefit. Again, when we say that this death or this merit is represented in the holy Scriptures as the universal cause of salvation, we mean, “That according to the will of God explained in his word, this remedy is proposed indiscriminately to every individual of the human race for salvation, but that it cannot savingly profit any one without a special application. For an universal cause of salvation, or an universal remedy, includes these two things: first, that of itself it can cure and save all and every individual: secondly, that for the production of this determinate effect in each individual it should require a determinate application. Not unaptly, therefore, did Aquinas say, “The death of Christ is the universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man may be said to be the universal cause of damnation. But it is necessary that an universal cause should be applied particularly to each individual, that its proper effect may be experienced.” Further, what we maintain in our proposition, that this universal cause of salvation is applicable to all and every individual of mankind, at once excludes the apostate angels. to whom (whatsoever may be thought of the intrinsic value and. sufficiency of this remedy) according to the revealed will of God, its universality is not extended. Nor even with respect to men can it be extended so universally as to be applicable to every one under every state and circumstance. For it is not applicable to the dead or the damned, but to the living: nor to the living under every condition, but under the conditions ordained by God. The death of Christ was not applicable to Peter for salvation, if Peter had persisted in denying Christ to the last. And the same death of Christ was capable of application to Judas, if Judas had repented and believed in Christ. For this cause, therefore, we have not merely said that it is applicable to all and every individual of mankind, but on this being added, from the ordination of God, and the nature of the thing. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 341-2.

Read the rest of this entry »

Calvin:

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools.  Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is  declared to be the only true salvation of the world. John Calvin, 1 John 2:2.

[Note: For now I will pass over the question of whether or not Calvin rejects this formula in his Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, when speaking of this same verse and issue. If we assume, as I think most scholars do, that what Calvin does say here is what he did actually believe, we have to then consider what he meant.

According to AA Hodge, Calvin expressed his commitment to the classic ‘unrevised’ formula. Thus the idea that Calvin thought only that the “suffering for all” referred to a mere hypothetical suffering for all is not credible. On the contrary, from his wider writings it is more than clear that Calvin considered this suffering for all, actual and not hypothetical.

Read the rest of this entry »

Paraeus:

1) But are not all redeemed by Christ, died he not for all? Says not the Apostle Peter that he bought these “false prophets,” by whom he is denied? To this Augustine well answers, that all are said to be redeemed, according to the dignity of the price: which would suffice for the redemption of all men, if all by faith did receive the benefit offered. But as many as pass the time of their being in this life in infidelity, they remain unredeemed through their own fault. The sealed therefore are only redeemed, because they alone by faith receive the grace of redemption, through the grace of election, which God vouchsafed them (not to the others) from all eternity. David Pareus, A Commentary Upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist, John (Amsterdam: Printed by C.P. Anno, 1644), 333-334.

2) Others reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages of Scripture by making a distinction between the sufficiency, and efficacy of the death of Christ. For there are certain contentious persons, who deny that these declarations which speak in a general way, are to be restricted to the faithful alone, that is, they deny that the letter itself, or the simple language of Scripture does thus limit them, and in proof thereof they bring forward those passages in which salvation seems to be attributed, not only to those that believe, but also to hypocrites and apostates, as it is said : “Denying the Lord which bought them.” And, also, when it is said that they “have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins.” (2 Pet. 2:1; 1:9.) But it is manifest that declarations of this kind are to be understood either concerning the mere external appearance, and vain glorying of redemption, or of sanctification; or else of the sufficiency, and greatness of the merit of Christ. That it may not, therefore, be necessary for us to contend much with these captious and fastidious persons concerning the restriction of those passages which speak so generally (although it is most manifest in itself) and that those places which speak of the redemption of hypocrites may the more easily be reconciled, some prefer (and not without reason according to my judgment) to interpret those declarations, which in appearance seem to be contradictory, partly of the sufficiency, and partly of the application and efficacy of the death of Christ.

Read the rest of this entry »

Vermigli:

“They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that “Christ died for us all” and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it might be sufficient for all the world’s sinners. Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually.” Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, trans., by Frank A. James, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 2003), 8:62.

[Note: It may be objected that because the translation reads that the death might be sufficient for all, Vermigli was speaking merely of a hypothetical sufficiency. However, the following things need to be considered. 1), “might” in old English more often denoted ‘should.’ For example, to cite the KJV John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. The original Geneva translation: GNV John 3:17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world, that he should condemne the world, but that the world through him might be saued. In the original translation of the Common Places of Vermigli, many times “might” has this signification. Thus, when the ideas are brought together, Vermigli is granting that Christ did die for all with regard to the sufficiency of his death so that the death of Christ should be sufficient for all sinners. 2), from within the quotation itself, it is not all that credible that Vermigli would identify this alleged hypothetical sufficiency with the Scholastic doctrine that Christ had actually redeemed all men sufficiently. 3), the allegation also ignores Vermigli’s clear affirmations of universal redemption and ransom. 4), It has already been conceded by Cunningham, AA Hodge, et al, that it was not until the time Dort, and after, that the formula underwent its fundamental revision. It would be anachronistic to retroject the later revision into Vermigli.]