Opening remarks:

The following file contains a list–not exhaustive–of various statements from Thomas Chalmers on the extent, even the nature, of the expiation of Christ. A few points should be noted before reading and before the reader makes a judgement on this matter.

1) For a corroborating source, see the posts here wherein it is argued that Chalmers was an Amyraldian (see here).¹ Calling Chalmers an Amyraldian is itself an unhelpful descriptor as there is no evidence that Chalmers assented to the classic Amyraldian distinctives². But be that as it may, this blog does posit certain assertions regarding Chalmers.My one concern regarding some of the quotations and references from Chalmers at this site is that I do think even Owen could have expressed the same wording and sentiments, and so perhaps they are not as conclusive in identifying Chalmer’s position on the extent of the atonement.

2) Regarding Chalmer’s use of unlimited redemption language, I am not sure the following citations conclusive, as there are possible ways to interpret these which do no entail unlimited redemption. They are published here for consideration.

3) Regarding Chalmer’s expiation language, here I think the case is far more conclusive. Chalmers expresses himself at this point in two basic ways. Firstly he will use the more traditional and technical phrase “sins of the world” which he will connect with “expiation,” “propitiation,” even “atonement.” Yet he will also use a simpler construction such as ‘atonement for the world,’ or ‘the world’s atonement.’I have combined both these expression clusters under the same header as it clearly is using the latter as short-hand for the former. I should add, that these short-hand forms do indicate that Chalmers was not seeking to simply express the broadness of Scripture, i.e., its own terms. What is interesting in such assertions, is that this reduces Chalmers’ expression of nominalism, where terms like world and mankind have in name only the appearance of universalism. While this may be true for some of the earlier Puritans, there is no evidence that I can see that Chalmers is engaging in this sort of nomimalist “code.” Indeed, it is clear in some of the following that Chalmers wants to be very clear that universal terms denote an inclusion of all the particulars of the species to which they reference.

4) If a reader finds documentation from Chalmers where he expresses a clear limitation in the nature of the expiation and the related extent of its ‘sin-bearing’ (i.e.., whose sins did Christ bear, or for whose sins was he punished), I will reconsider my understanding of Chalmers and take him off the list of classic and moderate Calvinists.

5) As the reader engages the following quotations from Chalmers, it will be more than apparent that he, first and foremost, sought to ground his theology in the revelation of God to mankind, both general and special. Chalmers is not interested in starting from the speculative decretal perspective.

6) The quotation blocks are long in order to avoid accusations that I have taken him out of context. What is more, some of the following quotations are long simply because of the length of Chalmers’ run-on sentences. In one instance, however, I decided to truncate one  sentence.I have still yet to nail down some items of interest, which when found will be added. Further, the bibliographical sources are self-evident. Most of the original spelling has been retained, though some words have been modernized. I have endeavored to verify all my bibliographic citations. All underlining is mine, italics is Chalmers. Corrections regarding typos are welcome.

Read the rest of this entry »

Swinnock:

Hast thou never beheld a condemned prisoner dissolved into tears, upon the unexpected and unmerited receipt of a pardon, who all the time before was as hard as a flint? The hammer of the law may break the icy heart of man with terrors and horror, and yet it may remain ice still, unchanged; but when the fire of love kindly thaws its ice, it is changed and dissolved into water it is no longer ice, but of another nature. Where the sun is most predominant, there are the sweetest spices, the richest mines, and the costliest jewels. Do thou therefore meditate much on the love of God and Christ to thy unworthy soul: think what love is it that still spares thee, notwithstanding all thy God-daring and soul damning provocations, and that when others, probably better than thyself, are every day and night sent to that place, where God hath large interest for his long patience. What love is it, not only to forbear thee, but also to do thee good! Thou his enemy art hungry, he feeds thee; thou art thirsty, he gives thee drink. If a man find his enemy, will he let him go? 1 Sam. xxiv. 19. But lo, God finds thee every moment. As all thy sins are within the reach of his eye, so thou thyself art continually within the reach of his arm ; he can as easily turn thee into hell, as tell thee of hell: and yet he lets thee go, and more than that, does thee good. Thou spends every hour upon the stock of mercy. God is at great charge and much cost in continuing meat and drink, and health and strength, and time which thou dost ravel out, and wanton away unprofitably.

What love was that in the Father which sent his own Son to die, that thou might live! Well might the beloved disciple say, God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life, John iii. 16. In this the bowels of divine love are naked, as in an anatomy : in other things the love of God is as the beams of the sun scattered, which are warm and comfortable; but in this it is as the beams of the sun united in a burning glass, hot, fiery, burning love. God so loved the world, so dearly, so entirely, so incomparably, so infinitely: it is a sic without a sicut, as one observes a pattern which can never be paralleled. In this God commended his love towards us, in that when we were sinners Christ died for us, Rom. v. 8. When God sent his Son into the world, he did, as it were, say to him, My dear Son, thou Son of my chief love and choicest delight, go to the wicked, unworthy world, commend me to them, and tell them, that in thee I have sent them such a love-token, such an unquestionable testimony of my favor and good-will towards them, that hereafter they shall never have the least color of reason to suspect my love, or to say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Mal. i. 2.

What love was that in the Son of God, which moved him to be come the Son of man, that thou might become the son of God! What love was that which made him so willingly undergo the scorns, and flouts, and derisions of wretched men, the rage, and malice, and assaults of ravenous devils, the wrath and fury of a righteous God; such pangs and tortures in his body as no mouth can express, such sorrows and horror in his soul as no mind can conceive; and all that thou might escape such misery, and obtain everlasting mercy! Greater love than this hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friend, John xv. 13. The passion of Christ was the greatest evidence of his affection. The laying down of life did abundantly proclaim his love. His love before was like wine in a cask, hardly seen; but oh how did it sparkle and cast its color in the glass of his sufferings! This diamond, before hid in the shell, doth shine radiantly in the ring of his death. If his tears did so much speak his love to Lazarus, that the Jews who saw him weeping, cried out, Lo, how he loved him! surely his heart-blood doth far more demonstrate his love to his members. They that beheld him bleeding in the garden, had far more reason to say, Look, lo how he loved his!

Read the rest of this entry »

Swinnock:

12. He is thus patient towards men, who did not wait at all on angels. The angels were more noble creatures, and able to hare done him more and better service than man; yet, when they sinned, he did not wait a moment for their repentance; but he stretches out his hand all the day long to man. He that would not wait upon disloyal courtiers, waits upon rebellious beggars. Consider the causes of it.

The moving cause is his own gracious nature. Men forbear punishing malefactors, sometimes because they are related to them, sometimes from hope of advantage by them, sometimes because they are afraid of them; but God forbears none upon any such grounds. His goodness is the only string that ties his hand from striking ; ‘Yea, many years did thou forbear them, for thou art a gracious and a merciful God,’ Neh. ix. 30, 31.

The final cause is manifold.

1. That he might exalt his great name. It is light straw that upon the least spark takes fire. The discretion of a man defers his anger, and it is his glory to pass by infirmities; mean and low spirits are most peevish and passionate; sickly and weak persons are observed to be the most impatient. God makes his power known, when he endures with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. He intends the advancement of his praise in the lengthening of his patience: ‘For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger; for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off,’ Isa, xlviii, 9.

2. That sinners might amend, He is patient, that men might not perish, ‘The Lord is not slack, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.’ He defers their execution, that they might sue out their pardon. The Lord waits, not that he might be blessed in himself, but that he may be gracious to sinners.

3, That impenitent sinners might be left without excuse. I sinners that are turned out of the womb into hell, will justify God, surely those upon whom he waited twenty, or thirty, or forty, or fifty years for their conversion, will condemn themselves. If all forbearing mercy may well be silent. Oh, how little will they have to say for themselves upon whom grace waited so many years, knocking hard at the door of their hearts for acceptance, and they refused to open to it, or bid it come in. How justly will they suffer long in the other world, to whom God was so long-suffering to no purpose in this world, Rom. iv. 2.

Read the rest of this entry »

Preliminary comment: Calvin on Lamentations 3:33 is very interesting. At the end of his comment, he says this verse really and properly applies only to the faithful. Yet even with that, he speaks to the theology and application of this verse, in principle, to all men in general.

Calvin:

This is another confirmation of the same truth, that God takes no delight in the evils or miseries of men. It is indeed a strong mode of speaking which the Prophet adopts, but very suitable. God, we know, puts on, as it were, our form or manner, for he cannot be comprehended in his inconceivable glory by human minds. Hence it is that he transfers to himself what properly can only apply to men. God surely never acts unwillingly nor feignedly: how then is that suitable which Jeremiah declares, that God does not afflict from his heart? But God, as already said, does here assume the character of man; for though he afflicts us with sorrow as he pleases, yet true it is that he delights not in the miseries of men; for if a father desires to benefit his own children, and deals kindly with them, what ought we to think of our heavenly Father? “Ye,” says Christ, “who are evil, know how to do good to your children,” (Matthew 7:11;) what then are we to expect from the very fountain of goodness? As, then, parents are not willingly angry with their children, nor handle them roughly, there is no doubt but that God never punishes men except when he is constrained. There is, as I have said, an impropriety in the expression, but it is enough to know, that God derives no pleasure from the miseries of men, as profane men say, who utter such blasphemies as these, that we are like balls with which God plays, and that we are exposed to many evils, because God wishes to have as it were, a pleasant and delectable spectacle in looking on the innumerable afflictions, and at length on the death of men. That such thoughts, then, might not tempt us to unbelief, the Prophet here puts a check on us, and declares that God does not afflict from his heart, that is, willingly, as though he delighted in the evils of men, as a judge, who, when he ascends his throne and condemns the guilty to death, does not do this from his heart, because he wishes all to be innocent, and thus to have a reason for acquitting them; but. yet he willingly condemns the guilty, because this is his duty. So also God, when he adopts severity towards men, he indeed does so willingly, because he is the judge of the world; but he does not do so from the heart, because he wishes all to be innocent for far away from him is all fierceness and cruelty; and as he regards men with paternal love, so also he would have them to be saved, were they not as it were by force to drive him to rigor. And this feeling he also expresses in Isaiah, “Ah! I will take consolation from mine adversaries.” (Isaiah 1:24.) He calls them adversaries who so often provoked him by their obstinacy; yet he was led unwillingly to punish their sins, and hence he employed a particle expressive of grief, and exclaimed Ah! as a father who wishes his son to be innocent, and yet is compelled to be severe with him. But however true this doctrine may be, taken generally, there is yet no doubt but that the Prophet here addresses only the faithful; and doubtless this privilege peculiarly belongs to God’s children, as it has been shown before. Calvin, Lamentations 3:33.

[Note: I am posting these as separate posts from Calvin. Eventually I will combine all of these sorts of statements into one file. Also, c.f., Calvin’s similar expressions regarding God’s general and fatherly love with his explication of Ezekiel 18:1-4, under ‘God’s love to mankind and men” entry #2.]