The Heidelberg Catechism and unlimited atonement
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ken,
Here is a part of Ursinus' lecture on Q&A 37:
"Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction.
Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof . . ." (The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 215)
Also, I would add, as I have when I preach Q&A 37, that the Catechism is merely using biblical language.
Here is a part of Ursinus' lecture on Q&A 37:
"Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction.
Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof . . ." (The Commentary of Dr. Zacharius Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 215)
Also, I would add, as I have when I preach Q&A 37, that the Catechism is merely using biblical language.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
First of all the Catechism is stressing here the identification of Christ with man or humanity. So it is quite a natural or at least possible to imply that we are not saying here that Christ actually died for the sins of every person but that Christ made satisfaction for men (similar to Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:15 that Jesus came to save sinners).
Furthermore, Ursinus explains in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on this question that "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..."
Finally Ursinus notes later in the Commentary that “the forgiveness of sins is extended to all and only the elect; because it is given to such as believe. In as much now as the reprobate never do truly believe, they never receive the forgiveness of sins. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” “To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (John 3:36; Acts 10:43)
I think what we can conclude is that what may be seen as imprecise language on the part of Ursinus is due to the fact that the Arminian controversy did not arise until 45+ years later, wherein the orthodox were required to tighten up or refine the way they spoke about the atonement.
Furthermore, Ursinus explains in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on this question that "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..."
Finally Ursinus notes later in the Commentary that “the forgiveness of sins is extended to all and only the elect; because it is given to such as believe. In as much now as the reprobate never do truly believe, they never receive the forgiveness of sins. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” “To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (John 3:36; Acts 10:43)
I think what we can conclude is that what may be seen as imprecise language on the part of Ursinus is due to the fact that the Arminian controversy did not arise until 45+ years later, wherein the orthodox were required to tighten up or refine the way they spoke about the atonement.
Presbyterian Deacon
Puritan Board Graduate
See G.I. Williamson, The Heildelberg Catechism: A Study Guide (P&R Publishing, 1993), pages 70-71 for a very good explanation of this question.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
With all of the above responses, I naturally agree. Here's what Ursinus wrote in his other Catechisms:
Large Catechism QA 79
What do you understand when you say that he suffered?
Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in that final act of redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb.
Small Catechism QA 26
What do you believe about Christ's suffering?
That all the torments and insults which he sustained in soul and body, as well as the awareness and horror of God's anger, unbearable for all creatures, are the unique and sufficient sacrifice by which he has redeemed me and all believers from eternal death and has gained for us forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, the Holy Spirit, righteousness and eternal life.
Large Catechism QA 79
What do you understand when you say that he suffered?
Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in that final act of redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb.
Small Catechism QA 26
What do you believe about Christ's suffering?
That all the torments and insults which he sustained in soul and body, as well as the awareness and horror of God's anger, unbearable for all creatures, are the unique and sufficient sacrifice by which he has redeemed me and all believers from eternal death and has gained for us forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, the Holy Spirit, righteousness and eternal life.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
The German text is Schaff vol 3. The Latin text is available in a few places, namely Niemeyer's Collectio.
I don't think that Schaff did anything unfair here.
rsc
I don't think that Schaff did anything unfair here.
rsc
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
ps. we were just discussing this Mon night in the Reformed Confessions class. Limited atonement is implicit in Q. 20:
And in 29 and 30 and 31:
Remember too that the Catechism (any catechism) is to be read left to right, not right to left. That is to say that it is cumulative and ea q/a assumes the foregoing.
rsc
And in 29 and 30 and 31:
Remember too that the Catechism (any catechism) is to be read left to right, not right to left. That is to say that it is cumulative and ea q/a assumes the foregoing.
rsc
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Does that explain why the HC is a lot more devotional in nature than the Westminster Standards?
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
"all mankind" does not mean every man woman and child past, present, & future.
If it said 'every man' I would have a bone to pick. Mankind is far from every man.
Furthermore, there is a distinction made between "all mankind" and the object of the application which is "our" and "us."
I don't see how it would be teaching unlimited atonement.
If it said 'every man' I would have a bone to pick. Mankind is far from every man.
Furthermore, there is a distinction made between "all mankind" and the object of the application which is "our" and "us."
I don't see how it would be teaching unlimited atonement.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps Daniel. I have heard it explained as being "pastoral'' in nature. Whatever that means!!
Here is the full quote from Ursinius:
I understand that from other places Ursinius is apparently a 5 pointer, but what he says here sounds an awful lot like "potentially for all; effective for the elect", does it not? No doubt I am missing some nuance.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
To be honest, this could be one of the worst explinations I have read regarding the atonement from a particular redemption truth. This goes beyond Amyrauldism into some synergistic arminianism. If you told me Wesley said this or Arminius himself, I would not doubt it. (making a mental note not to use Ursinius to ague the "L")
Now granted many will come to his defense and try to clarify this with other areas of his writings, but I have no problem calling it like I see it. This is terrible!!!!! SO you are not missing anything Ken. There should be absolutely zero ambiguity on such an important revelation of the Word regarding the atonement. To say this in one place, discredits the persons whole testimony.
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ken and "Amazing Grace":
First of all, historic documents must be read in their historic context. You cannot expect Ursinus to answer a 17th c. question in the middle of the 16th c. A little sensitivity is needed.
Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.
Third, Ursinus is making the point that while Christ's death has objective value, it also needs to be applied to individual sinners. Notice the last line of the sentence you quoted; now go read Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1. Again, this is traditional language in speaking of the objectivity/subjectivity of salvation.
Fourth, to "Amazing Grace": you need to show a little grace. If Dr. Ursinus is so "terrible," so "beyond Amyraldianism," etc, etc., why did the Synod of Dort not modify the Heidelberg Catechism in any way whatsoever? Have we all been touting the Synod of Dort for 500 years, only to be closet Arminians? I think not.
Fifth, you need to read two things by W. Robert Godfrey:
—“Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” Westminster Theological Journal 37:2 (Winter 1974): 133–71.
—Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dordt 1618-1619 (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).
First of all, historic documents must be read in their historic context. You cannot expect Ursinus to answer a 17th c. question in the middle of the 16th c. A little sensitivity is needed.
Second, Ursinus used the accepted distinction of Peter Lombard, that the death of Christ was both sufficient for all and efficient for some. This is a basic "common place" of the medieval parlance the reformers inherited and accepted. I might add, this distinction was used by the Synod of Dort in its Second Head of Doctrine.
Third, Ursinus is making the point that while Christ's death has objective value, it also needs to be applied to individual sinners. Notice the last line of the sentence you quoted; now go read Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1. Again, this is traditional language in speaking of the objectivity/subjectivity of salvation.
Fourth, to "Amazing Grace": you need to show a little grace. If Dr. Ursinus is so "terrible," so "beyond Amyraldianism," etc, etc., why did the Synod of Dort not modify the Heidelberg Catechism in any way whatsoever? Have we all been touting the Synod of Dort for 500 years, only to be closet Arminians? I think not.
Fifth, you need to read two things by W. Robert Godfrey:
—“Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618.” Westminster Theological Journal 37:2 (Winter 1974): 133–71.
—Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dordt 1618-1619 (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Danny, the atonement did not change from Paul for 1600 years. Historic documents must be read in light of scripture. What he said in this specific quote Ken showed is not scriptural. It wasnt as if a light went on in the 17th century that changed the explination of definite atonement.
If you mean article 3, Dort does not go as far as Ursinius did here. In fact in the rejections 1.3.5.6 clarify article 3 perfectly. Ursinius should have used the distinction of scripture instead of Lombard. Again, I do not deny the intrinsic value of His death. As I clearly stated above, He would not have had to bleed or suffer anymore to expiate one more sin. Yet the intrinsic value cannot ever be spoken of absent of the decreed intent. This is where ursinius failed.
Yet this application is not self approbated by man. When Ursinius states:the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, he most certainly implies a cooperation on our part. AS if faith flows from our own will. Perhaps he did not believe what he said here, and used the wrong words, but again, error on wording in this doctrine is never excusable.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
Amazing Grace,
Need we add that the Catechism is not, nor was it intended to be, an exhaustive credal document. It is after all a teaching tool for children, and it is correct insofar as it goes.
Is it any different than Peter saying Christ propiated for the sins of the whole world? Obviously, Peter is no low Calvinist or Arminian. The only point is that, if God had deigned to save all men, he would have needed no more than the death of Christ to do it. Period.
Need we add that the Catechism is not, nor was it intended to be, an exhaustive credal document. It is after all a teaching tool for children, and it is correct insofar as it goes.
Is it any different than Peter saying Christ propiated for the sins of the whole world? Obviously, Peter is no low Calvinist or Arminian. The only point is that, if God had deigned to save all men, he would have needed no more than the death of Christ to do it. Period.
Once again, I am a 5 pointer but the 'all' that Ursinius is talking about is clearly 'every man' for he is answering the objections of the universalist:
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
Danny's right. I don't get what all the fuss is about. Dort used exactly the same language as Ursinus:
"This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." CoD 2.3
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Then let's compare.
Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.
COD: Art 3 2nd head
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
I do not believe they are the same at all. Ken's full quote of Obj 4 in Urisinius' lecture demonstrates the difference clearly..
Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction.
Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin ; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us.
KenPierce
Puritan Board Freshman
Amazing Grace,
It seems to me you are unduly worried about the orthodoxy of Ursinus, when maybe it would be a more pressing concern for you to worry about the orthodoxy of Wes Granberg-Michaelson and Robert H. and Robert A. Schuller?
From an RCA refugee who grew up in W. Mi.
It seems to me you are unduly worried about the orthodoxy of Ursinus, when maybe it would be a more pressing concern for you to worry about the orthodoxy of Wes Granberg-Michaelson and Robert H. and Robert A. Schuller?
From an RCA refugee who grew up in W. Mi.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
Just saying it doesn't make it so. Look again:
Ursinus: "Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof..."
Canons: "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
Both speak of sufficiency for all, but efficiency only for some (see Canons 2.8). The key word to note is "sufficiency." I'm still scratching my head as to what your problem could be.
Furthermore, as Danny alluded above, the Synod of Dort 1618-19 revised the Belgic Confession to strengthen it against the Arminians. However, they did no such thing with the Catechism. That point reinforces what some of us have been saying: this problem is only apparent, not real.
I guess my problem is I have never been able to gleen any real meaning out of the phrase, "sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis." I know it is an acceptably reformed phrase but I don't see how it teaches anything different than UA. Perhaps I am slow on the uptake.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
It goes to potential and effect.
The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
rsc
The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
rsc
How is that different than what the 4-pointer teaches? Christ atoned for the sins of all but that atonement is only applied to those who believe. Is the 'divine intent' the only thing that separates 4 from 5 pointers? And how is 'divine intent' reflected in Ursinius the Heidleberg Answer?
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
The difference is huge.
The entire Reformed doctrine of limited atonement rests on the divine intent. We've never limited the potential or theoretical power of the atonement. It could have, had God so willed, propitiated the divine wrath for all who ever lived. It did not and it did not only because God willed and intended that the atonement propitiate for the elect.
That's the point. We've never restricted the power inherent in the atonement -- that's a caricature of our theology.
We've only restricted the intent because Scripture requires us to do.
That's not Amyraldianism because it, as I understand them, teaches that the atonement was universal in intent and that particularity occurs only when one actually believes.
Here's a more comprehensive survey of the doctrine of limited atonement.
rsc
The entire Reformed doctrine of limited atonement rests on the divine intent. We've never limited the potential or theoretical power of the atonement. It could have, had God so willed, propitiated the divine wrath for all who ever lived. It did not and it did not only because God willed and intended that the atonement propitiate for the elect.
That's the point. We've never restricted the power inherent in the atonement -- that's a caricature of our theology.
We've only restricted the intent because Scripture requires us to do.
That's not Amyraldianism because it, as I understand them, teaches that the atonement was universal in intent and that particularity occurs only when one actually believes.
Here's a more comprehensive survey of the doctrine of limited atonement.
rsc
From the Canons, Head 2:
Article 3 - The Infinite Value of the Death of Christ
This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.Article 4 - Why His Death Has Infinite Value
This death is of such great value and worth because the person who submitted to it is not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for these qualifications were necessary for our Saviour. Further, this death is of such great value and worth because it was accompanied by a sense of the wrath and curse of God which we by our sins had deserved.JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
If I remember rightly this part of Ursinus' work was not written by Ursinus but Paraeus, who made some additions after Ursinus' death.
The fact of the matter is that there were a variety of interpretations of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula. It is fallacious to think there was one view on the extent of the atonement in the 16th and 17th century. For example, in the 17th century there are the British doubler enders (Ussher, Davenant, John Preston et. al.), who are slightly different but have similarities to the Salmurians (Cameron, Amyraut, etc.).
It must be recognised that these double enders were not condemned by Dort or the WCF. As Richard Muller has recently argued Cameron formulated a position that fit in with the Canons of Dort.
The confession which does condemn the double-intention position (of Davenant and Amyraut) is the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) which was never accepted as an official reformed confession.
Whether we like it or not Amyraldianism is within the reformed tradition. There is latitude here.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Brother Marty, then would you agree that the full quote provided by Ken has a Davenant / Amyrald slant to it? Do you see any difference? I honestly do not.
- Status