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
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?
Thank you, Dr. Clark. I think I get it. Christ's sacrifice was perfect. It would not be possible that it could be any more perfect. Therefore, it was of sufficient intrinsic value to atone for the sins of every man. But just because it was of sufficient intrinsic value, it was never intended by God to atone for the sins of every man but only for the sins of the elect.
I wholeheartedly agree.
But that sure doesn't sound like what the Heidleberg says!
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.
This question, albeit taken in isolation, says Christ suffered the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. (Which Ursininius explains is every man) To say, "What Ursinius meant was it was sufficient for all but applied only to the elect," seems to be an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Perhaps there was typo!
Ken et al: I honestly do not see much wrong with the HC. a, b, & C, qualify the answer with using 'our' and 'us'. SO I have no disagreement here. Even "all mankind" should be looked at as when scripture uses "all" in reference to all believers, etc etc.
That being said, where I see a serious problem is the quote you provided from his lectures.
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.
This is what is causing me the issue. Christ did not satisfy for all, if He did, then all would be saved. To say that even the suffiency of the satisfaction appeased God's wrat against all men head for head does not seem to line up with scripture. Does this saying lead one to conclude that the whole totality of God's wrath has been satisfied upon His death, yet for some odd reason, men are still sent to hell. Where does wrath once again come from if it was satisfied? It seems to pit the trinity against one another. The Father demands punishment, a substitution is provided, Christ dies and appeases the father's wrath agains all men head for head, but only efficiently for the elect, (as if His death is inefficient for the reprobate), yet the Holy Spirit only applies this satisfaction to those elect in Christ? What wrath is once again kindled against those it is not applied to by the Spirit if it was totally satisfied?
William Cunningham shines lite on this for me:
A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood.
Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.8
Did Christ die an actual real substitute for, and did He bear the punishment due to all men or some? Scripture says some, the elect, or else all would be saved.Even stating that His death was sufficient for all, or that His atonement was sufficient for all, does carry a universal aspect to it that is not needed nor founded. And this is where Ursinius appears to be laying his head. Again, not the HC, but the full quote provided by Ken.
Another issue that noone else has commented on that seems incorrect also is the second part.
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.
Isnt anyone else bothered at all about the implication we ourselves apply this benefit?
In all seriousness, what would Ursinius have to say for all to be concerned? I am not attempting to say he was heretical, or not profitable in areas of his writing, but this one instance brings forth an area that he should, not could, he should have been much more clear if he was trying to say something else than what he wrote.
Guido provided this which is much better:
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.
Is there an online version of the 2 Catechisms?