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
(Canons of Dordt, II:3).
COMMON
GRACE ARGUMENT:
This
article of the Canons, especially the
words “abundantly sufficient,” has been claimed to be the necessary “judicial
basis” or warrant for the so-called “general well-meant offer of grace and
salvation on the part of God to all men.” “Christ’s death,” so we are told, is
“abundantly and infinitely sufficient to atone for all men; therefore, Christ’s
death, and the benefits that accrue from it, are universally available for all
men”
(I)
Prof.
Herman C. Hanko
(a)
[Source: The History
of the Free Offer, chapter 3: The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of
Dordt]
[In Canons II, 3,] the
fathers speak of the atoning sacrifice of Christ as “the only and most perfect
sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; (which) is of infinite worth and value,
abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” It has been
sometimes maintained that here is one place where the fathers definitely speak
of a general atonement in the sense of sufficiency. And, while this is
certainly true, the following points must be remembered.
1) This article was included in the Canons because it was intended to serve as an
answer to the Arminian charge that the Reformed in their doctrine of a limited
atonement or particular redemption did injustice to the sacrifice of Christ and
spoke disparagingly of its value. This accusation the fathers repudiate and in
fact turn the tables on the Arminians and insist that not they, but the
Arminians speak disparagingly of the atonement because the Arminians have a
doctrine of the atonement which teaches that Christ’s sacrifice, made for
everyone, does not even actually save since many go lost.
2) That the fathers did not intend to teach that actual atonement was
made for all men is clear from their statement: “… it was the will of God, that Christ
by the blood of the cross … should effectually redeem … all those, and those only, who were from eternity
chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father …" (II, 8). (Italics ours.)
3) As is plain from II, 3, the fathers looked at this “sufficiency”
from the viewpoint of the One Who offered this sacrifice—the eternal Son of
God: “This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these
considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man
and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God …”
4) It is evident therefore, that the intent of the article is merely to state that, taken
purely by itself, without any reference to those for whom Christ died, Christ’s
atonement, because He was the eternal Son of God, was of infinite value in
God’s sight. It was sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world because
it was God’s Son that died; and God’s
Son cannot make a sacrifice which
qualitatively speaking is a partial sacrifice.
5) But that this “universal sufficiency” was intended by the fathers to
form the basis for a general offer of the gospel is totally foreign to their
thinking.
(b)
[Source: Common Grace
Considered (2019 edition), pp. 304-305]
Historically, the reason for
inserting this article in the Canons
was the wicked charge of the Arminians that the Reformed, with their doctrine
of particular redemption, did serious injustice to the atonement by limiting
its power or efficacy to only a relatively small number of people. The Reformed
denied that charge and insisted, rather, that the suffering and death of Christ
is “of infinite worth and value.”
The meaning of the fathers is
clear. First of all, one must not measure the value and worth of Christ’s
suffering and death in terms of kilograms, meters or litres. Christ’s suffering
is not something of ‘quantitative’ importance. If (and I speak as a fool
speaks) there had been one more elect than there actually is, Christ would not
have had to suffer a bit more than He did. Christ’s suffering is not a matter
of “so much” for this sin, “so much” for that sin, “so much” for this sinner,
“so much” for that sinner. To speak of the atonement in such a fashion is to
mock it.
Secondly, the value and worth
of the atonement is to be found in the
person who submitted to it. The article emphatically states that “the death
of the Son of God is the only and
most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin,” and it is, therefore, “of
infinite worth and value.”
The next article develops that
idea further:
This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these
considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man
and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal
and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications
were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and because it was attended
with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin (Canons 2.4, in The Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches
[2005], 163).
The Canons do not say that the atonement of Christ was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world “because God wanted to offer salvation to all”; or “because salvation is then available to all”; or even “because the great Synod of Dordt wanted to open the door a crack for the Amyraldian position that God is gracious to all.” Nothing could have been farther from the minds of the fathers at Dordt. Their sole purpose is to extol the dignity and greatness of Christ, who, as both truly God and man, paid the price for our sins.
--------------------------------------------------------
(II)
Dr.
Raymond A. Blacketer
[Source: “The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of
the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation,” Calvin Theological Journal, vol.
35, no. 1 (April, 2000), emphasis added.]
The sufficiency of the atonement only
refers to the value or merit of Christ’s death, and thus it is theoretical in
nature. Had God decreed to save all sinners, the death of Christ would have
been more than sufficient to atone for their sins. … [The argument usually
presented] is that because Christ’s death could have covered the sins of all,
therefore salvation can actually be offered to all, including the reprobate.
The coherence of this argument is quite questionable: How can that which is not actually acquired or intended for the
reprobate be offered to them with the desire that they accept it? In other
words, how can Christ be offered to the reprobate, when in fact he has not been
offered for them?
This argument based on the sufficiency
of Christ’s death, moreover, dates back to the sixteenth century, but it was
not the Reformed who employed it. John Calvin rightly calls it “a great
absurdity” that “has no weight for me.” The question, he says, “is not what the
power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those
are to whom he gives himself to be enjoyed.” The answer to this question is not
all humanity in general, but only those whom God designs to be a partaker in
Christ.26 Calvin accepts the distinction between the sufficiency and
efficacy of Christ’s death,27 but he does not believe that this
distinction can be employed to teach that God desires or intends salvation, or
makes salvation available, for all persons indiscriminately.
--------------------------------------------------------
(III)
Rev. Christopher J. Connors
The sincerity of a well-meant
offer to the reprobate not only relies upon the atonement of Christ, but
more particularly upon the extent
of that atonement. A Divine warrant for the well-meant
offer of Christ to all, therefore, requires that [a person] prove from
Scripture that the extent and nature of Christ’s atonement answers exactly to
the extent and nature of his well-meant
offer. That is, the redemption purchased by Christ, in all its efficacy, must be shown to extend at least
to every sinner who hears the well-meant
offer. It will not do [simply] to appeal to the infinite sufficiency of
Christ’s atonement; the question has to do with the efficiency and intention of God in the atonement. The
redemption provided in the substitutionary atonement of Christ is, after all,
what [some] would have us believe God is sincerely offering all who hear the gospel. Full and free redemption purchased by Christ for all who hear the gospel is, therefore, the only basis that will
support [such a] well-meant offer.”
--------------------------------------------------------
(IV)
Homer
C. Hoeksema (1923-1989)
[Source: The Voice of Our Fathers: An Exposition of
the Canons of Dordrecht (RFPA, 1980 [first edition]), pp. 341-342,
343-344.]
A study of the opinions of the
various delegations [that attended the Synod of Dordt] is also very revealing
as to the meaning of the statement under discussion. It means that the
sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ when
considered by itself, that is, apart from God’s elective decree and apart
from the intent and purpose of Christ’s death and apart from the fact that
Christ actually represented in His death only the elect, would have been sufficient to expiate the sins of the entire human
race, yea of several more worlds. There is nothing defective in that death
itself, nothing lacking in the value of the sacrifice, which would compel its
atoning efficiency to be limited to the elect alone. The latter limitation is
not due to a limited value of Christ’s death: for His death was in itself
abundantly sufficient, infinite in value. But the limitation to the elect alone
is a sovereign limitation by God’s elective will, the will with which Christ
was in perfect harmony when He gave Himself to the death of the cross. Such is
the idea of this statement …
… In evaluating the statement
of Article 3 concerning the sufficiency of Christ’s death, we may remark, in
the first place, that it is actually a bit of speculation, and, in a way, a bit
of philosophizing about the value of Christ’s death. It would appear to be an
attempt to say something about that infinite value from a quantitative point of view. In the second place, however well meant
the statement may be in the context of the battle against the Arminians and
their calumnies, the thought is not a scriptural presentation, even though it
does not militate against the Scriptures, and may therefore stand. In the third
place, also in the light of the Canons
themselves the infinite value and abundant expiatory worth of the death of
Christ may be viewed more correctly from the point of view of the fact, first
of all, that it was an atonement for sin against the infinite majesty of God (cf. Article 1), and, above all, the fact
that it was the “only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite
essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit,” who atoned (cf. Article 4).
Further, a sense of the infinite wrath and curse of God due to us for sin. This
approach to the subject of the worth of Christ’s sacrifice may be termed qualitative. It is this approach which
has the emphasis in the Canons, as
well as in our other Reformed confessions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(V)
More to
come! (DV)
QUESTION BOX:
Q. “Doesn’t the Canons’ mention of ‘sufficiency’
imply that Christ died in some sense for all men? (hypothetical universalism)”
Dordt
speaks of the sufficiency of the death of Christ for the expiation of the sins
of the world in II. 3: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most
perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value,
abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Schaff, Creeds,
II. 3). By no means does Dordt mean by sufficiency that the death of Christ was
in fact atonement for the sins of the whole world. Dordt does not derive
sufficiency from Christ’s having died for the sins of all humans. Rather, the
Reformed creed finds sufficiency in the nature of Jesus Christ as the Son of
God. It is because of who Christ is who died that His death is of infinite
worth and value. Article 4 states this explicitly: “This death derives its
infinite value and dignity from these considerations; because the person who
submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the
only-begotten Son of God … and because it was attended with a sense of the
wrath and curse of God due to us for sin” (Schaff, Creeds, II. 4). [If ‘sufficiency’
meant a death of Christ for all men in some sense], the Canons would read:
“This death derives its infinite value and dignity from the fact that Jesus did
actually atone for all humans.” There is not so much as a hint in Canons
II. 3, 4 of the sufficiency’s deriving from, or meaning, that Christ died for
all in any respect whatever.
That
Christ died for the elect, and for the elect alone, is … confessed in Canons,
II, 8. For the Canons of Dordt, official,
authoritative creed of the Reformed faith, sufficiency is the inherent worth of
the death of Christ as the death of the eternal Son of God in human flesh. Its
worth is infinite, so that if God had willed, the death of Christ could have
expiated all the sins of the whole world of all humans, and all the sins of a
thousand similar worlds besides. Efficiency is the actual atoning, satisfying,
and redeeming nature and effect of the death of Christ in the place of, and on
behalf of, those, and those only, for whom Christ died as the substitute
according to the will of God. Capable of atoning for all humans, had God willed
it, as to its inherent worth and value, Christ’s death effectively atoned for
the elect only, according to the will of God. Sufficiency is hypothetical.
Efficiency is the reality of the cross.
That Christ
died (efficiently) for the elect, for the elect only, in any sense whatever is
spelled out in Canons, II. 8:
This was the sovereign counsel and most gracious
will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of
the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for
bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them
infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the
blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually
redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those
only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the
Father … (Schaff, Creeds, II. 8).
Canons, II. 8 is the death-knell upon
hypothetical universalism, at least for all who confess the Reformed faith, and
that in several respects. First, the Canons ascribes “efficiency” to the
death of Christ: “saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son,”
whereas hypothetical universalism denies that the cross as cross inherently has
efficacy. For hypothetical universalism the death of Christ was a death for
many who are not saved by it. The cross was inefficacious …
Second,
for the Canons the cross itself, as the death of Christ, did
something, accomplished something: it “confirmed the new covenant” and “effectually”
redeemed the elect. The certain effect of the cross is that it fully and
finally saves all for whom Christ died: “should at last bring them free from
every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence forever.”
The effect of the effectual death of Christ is the efficacious application of
the atoning, satisfying, and redeeming cross to every one for whom Christ died.
According to … hypothetical universalism, the cross of Christ lacks the
efficacy to save those for whom Christ died …
Third,
the cross confessed by the Canons of Dordt purchased faith for those
humans for whom Christ died. It is of fundamental importance to hypothetical
universalism that the death of Christ did not earn and purchase faith for those
for whom Christ died … For the cross to have purchased faith would limit the
death to some only—the elect. In addition, the truth that the cross purchased
faith for some would nullify … hypothetical universalism’s teaching that faith
is the condition that humans must fulfill in order to make the cross
efficacious on their behalf. If faith was earned for some, it cannot be a
condition that sinners must fulfill to apply the cross to themselves for their
salvation …
But the
Canons confess that Christ purchased faith for those for whom He died,
that is, for the elect: “… faith, which together with all the other saving gifts
of the Holy Spirit, he [Christ] purchased for them by his death …” (Canons,
II. 8, in Schaff, Creeds).
Whatever
can be said of [hypothetical universalism], it shatters on the second head of
the Canons of Dordt, as do all other forms of the heresy of universal
atonement. Whatever credentials hypothetical universalism may have of antiquity
and popularity, it is not creedally Reformed, but heretical, according to the
official judgment of the Reformed churches and their confession.
(David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 77-79)
No comments:
Post a Comment