Skip to content

Amyraut affirms the classic Lombardian distinctions

September 5, 2007

Andrew Robertson citing John Quick:

1) “They declared, that Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually; and that, consequently, his intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy; which is to say, that Christ’s will was, that the sacrifice of his cross should be of all infinite price and value, and most abundantly sufficient to expiate sins of the whole world; yet, nevertheless, the efficacy of his death appertains only unto the elect; so that those who are called by the preaching of the gospel to participate by faith in the effects and fruits of his death, being invited seriously, and God vouchsafing them all external means needful for their coming to him, and showing them in good earnest, and with the greatest sincerity by his word, what would be well pleasing to him; if they should not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but perish in their obstinacy and unbelief, this cometh not from any defect of’ virtue or sufficiency in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, nor yet for want of summons or serious invitations unto faith or repentance, but only from their own fault. And as for those who do receive the doctrine of the gospel with the obedience of faith, they are, according to the irrevocable promise of God, made partakers of’ the effectual virtue and fruit of Christ Jesus’ death ; for this was the most free council and gracious purpose both of God the Father in giving his Son for the salvation of mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ in suffering the pains of death, that the efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the elect, and to them only, to give them justifying faith, and by it to bring them infallibly unto salvation, and thus effectually to redeem all those, and none other, who were from all eternity, from among all people, nations, and tongues, chosen unto salvation.” [Footnote: Quick’s Synodicon, Vol. ii. p. 354.]

Source: Andrew Robertson, History of the Atonement Controversy in connexion with Secession Church, (Edinburgh, Oliphant, 1846), 323-325.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: