The doctrine of definite atonement (more commonly. although less accurately. designated as limited atonement) may be defined as that view of the atonement in which the redemptive purpose is co-extensive with the effectuation of redemption. According to it, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Mediator of the New Covenant and the substitute of all the elect, bore on the cross of Calvary the punishment due to all their sins, and secured for them all the blessings of salvation. This He did not do in the same sense for the non-elect.

Among the advantages of this view may be reckoned. first, that it exhibits the harmony of purpose of the three Persons of the Trinity: the Father’s electing purpose, the Son’s redeeming purpose, and the Spirit’s applying purpose; secondly. that it manifests in it’s truest light the principle of substitution, for all the sins that have been vicariously borne, and none but these, will be in fact remitted; thirdly, that it refrains from representing Christ as failing to achieve what He purposed to accomplish.

Perhaps the most serious objection raised against it is that it tends to restrict the scope of Christ’s love, allegedly beyond what is warrantable in Scripture. Without examining here the merits of this objection, we may note, however, that upholders of definite atonement have generally acknowledged that the intrinsic value of the sacrifice of Christ is infinite, therefore sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, yea, of thousand worlds; and furthermore that it is suitable and proper to extend the invitation of the Gospel to all men and any man indiscriminately.

Now the Heidelberg Catechism does not raise explicitly the question “For whom did Christ Die?” It is conceivable that if some theologians of our day had prepared this text, they would not have missed this opportunity to give legislative force to their views in this areal! The Catechism, however, intended in the first place for beginners and children, remains largely on the plane of the practical, and its orientation with respect to the scope of the atonement must be gathered inferentially. Our presentation will be in two parts: we shall examine first data which seem to favor definite atonement, and then data which seem to militate against it.

I. Data Apparently Favoring Definite Atonement

Here are some examples of language in the Catechism which may be urged under this heading. (The text is quoted according to the translation found in T. Torrance, The School of Faith, New York; Harper, 1959. Italics ours.)

“My faithful Saviour, Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins.” Q. 1.

“Our only High Priest, who by the sacrifice of His body has redeemed us, and continually makes intercession for us with the Father.” Q. 31.

“With His precious blood. He bas redeemed and purchased us, body and soul … to be His own.” Q. 34. “He took the curse which lay upon me.” Q. 39. “Christ, my Lord, by His unspeakable anguish, pains and tenors which He suffered also in His soul on the cross and before, has redeemed me from the anguish and torment of Hell.” Q. 44.

“By His resurrection He has overcome death that He might make us partakers of the righteousness which He has obtained for us by His death.” Q. 45.

“The judge from Heaven, who bas already offered Himself to the judgment of God for me and has taken away front me all curse.” Q. 52.

“The one sacrifice of Christ offered for us on the cross.” Q. 67.

“Christ’s blood, which He shed for us in His sacrifice on the cross.” Q. 70.

“His body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and His blood was shed for me…this is true of all believers.” Q. 75.

“…all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our own as if we had ourselves suffered and made satisfaction in our own persons.” Q. 79.

The whole Catechism is probably one of the most intensely personal ones in existence. The Pronouns “I”, “me”, “myself”, “we”, “us”, “ourselves”, and the adjectives “my” and “our” are found in it no less than 348 times (in only 129 questions and answers!).

If we ask who are those thus denoted by the pronouns “I” or “we”, we discover that they are described as believers (60, 83, 84); set free from the severe judgment of God (38); those to whom forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and blessedness are given ( 21, 70, 76, 80); washed from the uncleanness of their soul (69, 72, 73); partakers of Christ’s righteousness (45, 56, 59, 60); having received Christ for complete redemption and righteousness (18); raised to new life (45); members of Christ (32, 51, 55, 70, 76); ingrafted into Christ through true faith (64); incorporated into Christ (20, 80); having Christ as advocate (49); acknowledging Cod as their Cod and Father (26); having Christ’s Spirit (49,53); in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit (76); those with whom the Spirit shall abide forever (53); living members of the chosen community (54, 74); maintained in the redemption obtained for them (31); fed and nourished to everlasting life (75,79); assured that no creature shall separate them from God’s love (28); pledged of blessed resurrection (45, 49, 57); assured of everlasting life (1, 66); to be taken into heavenly joy and glory (52); nevermore to come into condemnation (56); but to possess complete blessedness (58); belonging to God’s covenant (74); His chosen ones (52).

If anyone can give a better descliption of the elect, we should be happy to hear of it!

Furthermore, the nature of the saving transaction performed by Christ is not merely denoted by the word redemption (14, 18, 31, etc.), but is further described as taking the curse (39), bearing the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin (14, 37), making full payment to God’s righteousness (12, 16), making reparation for sins (40), a sacrifice offered for us (67), recovering and restoring to righteousness and life (17), and setting free from judgment (38, 52). These do denote more than a potential provision of salvation: they imply effectuation. It is difficult to see how these expressions cumulatively could apply to all mankind.

Although “we” is sometimes used in statements which are true not only of believers but of the race as a whole (e.g. 5–12), it appears nowhere necessary so to construe them. There are instances where a sharp discrimination is made between believers and unbelievers (74, 84). We note also two expressions: “We and all men” (124) implies that “we” relates to a part only of mankind; and “believers, all and every one” (55, 84), which shows that the authors of the Catechism were acquainted with this linguistic way of indicating distributive totality and could therefore have used it if they desired in relation to the work of Christ. This, however, they did not do.

While it is true that there is no statement which explicitly denies the reference of Christ’s work to the non-elect, it remains that the Catechism provides us positively with one of the most elaborate ascriptions to the elect of this work and what it entails.

                 

II. Data Seemingly Militating Against Definite Atonement

Under this heading, there seems to be in the Catechism a solitary piece of evidence, to wit, Question 37, Lord’s Day 15, which reads: (Italics ours)

“What do you understand by the word suffered?”

A. –“That all the time of His life on earth, but especially at the end of it, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole historical race, in order that by His passion, as the one atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.”

That this piece of evidence is solitary is strongly attested by the fact that this is the only part of the Catechism quoted by Dallaeus, who in his Apologia Pro Synodis (Amsterdam: Ravensteyn, 1655, p. 970), lists all the authorities he can muster in favor of universal grace. If further evidence were available in the Heidelberg Catechism, it is incredible that a man as resourceful and eager as he was would have failed to avail himself of it.

The following remarks may be presented at this point:

(1) The individual value of the expression underlined is sharply reduced by the context, for the end of the question very pointedly emphasizes the special references to the elect “in order that by His pasSion, as the one atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us God’s grace, righteousness and eternal life.” The people for whom the sacrifice is offered are those who obtain righteousness and eternal life.

(2) The Scripture passages advanced in the original edition to support the phrase under scrutiny are Isaiah 53 and I Peter 2 (no verse reference was given in the earliest editions), in both of which the pronouns “we” and “us” again point to those who “are healed” and “who live unto righteousness.”

(3) Early commentators suggest interpretations of the Catechism which are in keeping with definite atonement. This is true notably of Bastingius, Knibbe, Ridder, Roell, van Hoeke, and van der Kemp.1

G. Voetius, in his crystal clear Catechisatie, advances two possible explanations of the phrase under scrutiny. The second one—in the author’s judgment the less plausible one—is that “the whole human race” here means “people of all sorts, conditions and nations out of the whole human race”. (ed. Kuyper, Rotterdam, Huge, 1891. I, 440.) His first suggestion is that the words “against the sin of the whole human race” refer to the range of the wrath of God, not to the range of the substitutionary sin bearing of Christ.

D’Outrein, another ancient commentator, puts it this way:

“Does this mean that he has suffered as mediator for all men, down to the last one (hoofd voor hoofd)? No, but that the wrath of God kindled against the whole human race was bome by Him for an the elect out of the whole human race. I John 2;2.” (Het Gouden Kleinoot van de Leere der Waarheid. Amsterdam: Byl, 1770, p. 221).

Abraham Kuyper, in his E Voto Dordraceno, so far from feeling embarrassment, calls this “a very felicitous expression” (zeer gelukkig gekozen), because the sins of the elect are really not different in kind from the sins of the whole world (1, 397).

(4) Those who, to the author’s knowledge, have taken a cue from this statement to justify a universal extent and intent of redemption are representatives of rather seriously deviant tendencies within the Reformed family. One might name in this connection the early Arminians, W . Nevin, J. L. Doedes, J. J. Van Oostenee, and others.2

(5) Certainly the most important interpreters would be the authors themselves. Surely if anyone on earth should know the meaning of the text, it is those who have written it.

It has not been possible in the preparation of this paper to peruse the full scope of the works of Olevianus and Ursinus. An examination has been made, however, of areas where it was thought that their views on this topic might be elucidated.

Before specific quotations are adduced, it may be proper to advert to the strong covenantal character of the theology of these two men. Within this scheme Christ is seen pre-eminently as the mediator of the covenant; His work is naturally that of the federal head for the members of the covenant, and His atonement is primarily the substitutionary satisfaction for the elect.

A further noteworthy feature is to be gathered from the recent researches of Walter Hollweg in his book Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte lmd Lehre des Heidelberger Katechismus (Neulcirchen, 1961). In this important work, Hollweg contends with considerable force that the two confessions of Beza are one of the influential sources of the Heidelberg Catechism. While this does not imply that the authors have followed Beza in all his positions, it is noteworthy, however, that they did extensively use the work of this man whose emphatic advocacy of strictly Reformed doctrines is simply beyond question. The fact that Beza visited Heidelberg prior to the appearance of the Catechism and was in correspondence with the authors is also to be noted in this respect.

A. OLEVIANUS

Before we quote some specific passages from his works, it may be helpful to note that as a former student of Calvin, Olevianus might well be expected to express and endorse specific Reformed doctrines, even more so than his colleague Ursinus, the student of Melanchthon. It is further to be noted that J. Dallaeus, who has ransacked the whole range of Christian literature to find historic support for Amyraldianism, fails completely to quote Olevianus: a rather clear sign that the man did not endorse a universal redemptive intention in the atonement. Specifically this is what Olevianus writes.

“God out of the whole of fallen mankind chose those whom He had eternally decreed to receive in Christ as His children. For their sake He sent His Son into the world, so that for the sake of their blessedness He took flesh… ( Wezen des Genadeverbonds Doesborgh: Brill, 1862. II/iv p. 208).

“The obedience of Christ…is from the beginning of the world to the end of the ages the price of atonement for the sins of all the believers of the whole world.” (Ibid., II/ vi, p.211).

“…to atone for the sins of the believers of all ages.” (Ibid., II/viii, p. 215).

B. URSINUS

It might be thought at the start that if any of the authors had leanings toward a doctrine of indefinite atonement it would be Z. Ursinus, the student of Melanchthon whose synergistic tendencies are well known. Dallaeus does adduce certain quotations from him, supporting, as he believes, universal grace. (Op cit., pp. 1118, 1119). These are, however, not at all convincing, for a number of them merely indicate that the appropriation by faith of the atonement is necessary and that failure to obtain salvation is grounded in unbelief. These are propositions, however, to which the staunchest upholders of definite atonement will readily subscribe. The quotations, therefore, are not relevant to the issue in question. This, incidentally, might well be said about a large portion of all the quotations from all sources recorded by Dallaeus.

A case in point is the reference made by Dallaeus to Ursinus’ discussion of Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard. Here the husbandman provides some external helps but Ursinus calls attention to the fact that the ultimate feature to make the vine good rests with God. This proves precisely the opposite of what Dallaeus needs since the point of the statement is to the effect that the key to the only truly saving provision remains entirely with God. The following statement from Ursinus’ Catechesis Minor is worthy of note.

“…the unique and sufficient sacrifice, by which He redeemed me and all believers from eternal death, and secured for us remission of sins, reconciliation with God, [the gift] of the Holy Spirit, righteousness and everlasting life.” Q. 26.

In connection with Question 40 of the Heidelberg Catechism, there is in Ursinus’ commentary on the Catechism a lengthy discussion relating to the question “Did Christ die for all men?” In this presentation a clear distinction is made between the sufficiency of the ransom and the actual effectuation of redemption. In this relationship it is emphasized that with respect to the intention of Christ in offering Himself to death a similar distinction applies and that Christ intended to offer a sacrifice sufficient for the sins of all mankind but which would actually secure redemption for the elect only. It must be noted, however, that this discussion is, strictly speaking, not from the pen of Ursinus himself. Rather, his student and successor at Heidelberg, David Paraeus, is the author of this particular text in which he attempts to make a presentation of his master’s view. This is rather clearly indicated in a note at the beginning of this section of the commentary. This note is to be found in the Latin edition of it and in the Dutch, but has very unfortunately been omitted from the English translation. It is very likely indeed that Paraeus understood rightly the teaching of Ursinus. Meanwhile, we can scarcely fail to note that this is a secondary source.