The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sufficient atonement

1. Owen never affirmed that Christ's atonement was for "all", but to the contrary, it was ONLY for the elect.

2. We have already discussed the "love of God for all" concept, which I made clear I reject as you have stated it. Whether Calvin held to that view or not is inconsequential to me. He was in error on a few things.

3. I am more than familiar with what Ursinus wrote on Q&A #37 in the Heidelberg and again I say without apology, he was woefully in error on this point. If Christ "made satisfaction for all" then all MUST be saved. The atonement which Christ rendered was a judicial/forensic act that satisfied all that the law demanded. IF it was rendered for "all" then "all" must receive the just judgment of God; not guilty by proxy. Owen's statement and more so his entire "Death of Death in the Death of Christ" stands firm and has never been disproven to this day. Edwards was also in total agreement with what Owen wrote as well as myriad others.

4. Let me iterate... the inherent value of Christ's atonement is infinite. But it was not rendered for "all", for it was decreed by virtue of the "Covenant of Redemption" between the Father and Son that He would die in behalf of those whom the Father predestined to salvation and them only. Any and all of the benefits merited by Christ were vicarious and substitutionary for a specific/definite number of people and them only.

5. Again, Ursinus erred when he states, "[F]or the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made–but [condemnation] arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ." All the non-elect are destined for condemnation BY NATURE due to the punishment put upon them as progeny of Adam, aka: Original Sin. The unbelief they own is the fruit of their depravity and not the immediate cause of their condemnation. For as Owen rightly states, unbelief is a sin and if Christ died for ALL sin, then why would unbelief be a cause for their damnation?

6. I detect a bit of sophistry from you when you wrote, "I would simply like to promote greater understanding among the reformed who conceptually agree with the same doctrines but use some different vocabulary." It is most surely NOT some different vocabulary on this matter but an essential understanding of Christ's atoning work, in fact the entire manifestation of God's love and justice upon mankind which was foreordained in eternity.

But I most definitely do think this view is heretical; contrary to the Scriptural teaching on the subject and most of the Reformed Confessions.

Lastly, I am very familiar with Ursinus and Charles Hodge. And I stand against both on this issue where they err. Hodge also took the position that the word "hate" as found in Rom 9:13 meant "to love less", which is indefensible. He also held that Arminians/semi-Pelagians who profess to be Christians are to be received as "brothers in Christ", which is another odious heresy that is growing in popularity in our day... And would I not be correct in assuming that you might also hold to that position?

To iterate once again... I am NOT a 'hyper-Calvinist' by any stretching of the definition. I don't even hold to Supralapsarianism. I stand in good company with my forefathers of the faith and make no apology for my views which I have been given the able ability to defend for several decades. It is upon the "old paths" I have been placed and shall by God's grace continue until the end.