Quantcast
Channel: Christian Apologetics & Intelligence Ministry » Monergism
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 23

Francis Turretin – The Extent of the Atonement

0
0

The controversy concerning the extent or universality of the atonement has been; and still is; greatly agitated; which imposes upon us a necessity of handling it; that nothing may be wanting to a clear elucidation of this all-important article of the Christian system.

Among the ancients; the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians contended that Christ died for all men: hence Prosper; in his letter to Augustine; concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy; says; “Those who embrace the Pelagian heresy profess to believe that Christ died for all men universally; and that none are excluded from the atonement and redemption which the blood of Christ has effected.” And among those errors which they attribute to Augustine; they find this: “The Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world.” Faustus; (Book i; De Libero Arbitrio); says; “They wander far from the path of piety; who assert that Christ did not die for all.” Hincmar; in his letter to Pope Nicholas; (Flodoardus; book iii; chap. 14); recounts it as one of the errors of Gotteschalcus; that he preached that Christ did not shed his blood; precious to God the Father; for the redemption and salvation of all men; but for those only who will be saved; or for the elect. To the same purpose are the anathemas of the pretended Council of Arles; recorded in a letter to Lucidus; written by Faustus; the standard-bearer of the Semi-Pelagians: a Council which Sirmundus does not deny to have been Semi-Pelagian. Augustine; in his age; opposed himself to these heretical innovations: so did his disciples; Prosper and Fulgentius; and other preachers of the grace of Christ; who; travelling in their footsteps; boldly defended the truth. The same was afterwards asserted by Remigius; bishop of Leyden. (Liber de tribus epistolis; et Concilio Valentino III. anno 855 habito.)

The controversy was afterwards renewed among the Roman Catholics; some of whom taught; like the Semi-Pelagians; the doctrine of universal atonement: while others; embracing the views of Augustine and his genuine disciples; restricted the atonement to the elect. This controversy was principally between the Jesuits and Jansenists. The Jesuits; a genuine branch of the Semi-Pelagian sectaries; warmly contend for a universal atonement. The Jansenists with great firmness contended that the atonement was restricted to the elect. In this they followed Jansenius; the founder of their order; who has examined this subject very largely; and with great solidity of argument. (In suo Augustine; et in Apologia Jansenii; et in Catechismo de Gratia.)

The controversy passed from the Romanists to the Protestants. The Lutherans follow the Jesuits; and contend for a universal satisfaction. (Eckard. Fascicul. controv. c. 15. De PrÃ…”desti. q. 6. Brochmanus de gratia Dei. c. 2; q. 17; 18; 19; et al.) The Arminians; however; called Remonstrants from the remonstrance which they presented to the Synod of Dort; are its great champions. They have indirectly recalled Romanism; and have drawn most of their errors from Molinus; Lessius; Suarezius; and other Jesuits. From such polluted fountains they have obtained their error concerning universal atonement; which is placed second among those that were rejected and condemned by the Synod of Dort; as may be seen in the second chapter of their “Rejection of Errors concerning the Death of Christ.”

Continue Reading


facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 23

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images