29 September, 2016

Canons of Dordt, II:3—“… abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world”


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