Chalmers:
The following lecture from Chalmers is certainly provocative. I suspect I may lose a few readers for posting this. In the hope of that not happening I offer these few remarks.
Firstly, Chalmers was one of the leaders of the emerging Free Church of Scotland in the 1840s, he is no one who should be rejected off-hand.
Secondly, regarding the doctrine of an “arithmetical view of the atonement” our modern responses to this must be measured. As far as I know, there are no academic discussions (theses, dissertations, etc) which document the rise and progress of this version of limited atonement. I can speculate that its original roots are in Owen, that it was perverted and morphed in the writings of Crisp and Gill. We do know that it was an issue as documented by Owen Thomas1 in Wales in the 18th century. We know that men in the 19th century such as W.J. Styles picked up and expanded upon this idea.2 It is present in Dagg, in his Manual of Theology. What we don’t know exactly is, against whom was Chalmers reacting. Who, of his opponents, of the “orthodox,” does he wish to denounce on this point? Nor do we know why or how some of the “orthodox” had come to adopt this position. If a reader can shed light on this, you are more than welcome. And so against this extremist view of limited atonement, the modern reader should read Chalmers with empathy. We can speculate that perhaps some of these “orthodox” proponents were anti-Marrow theologians, some of whom were rather extreme in their denunciations of the Marrow theology. I do not think, however, it is just a case that he misunderstood the orthodox on this point.
Thirdly, while I am sure reading Chalmers will generate some negative emotion from some readers, I would ask that historians and sensitive readers seek to get beyond emotional responses and look to penetrate the internal logic Chalmers is setting out. In the comments sections I am willing to attempt an explanation, even defend if I can, his assertions and conclusions. There are unstated assumptions within his thinking that are not made explicit in the following lecture. A discussion in the comments may be able to bring these out for consideration.
Fourthly, Chalmers’ citation of Douglas does show us one again that there was some push-back against the emphasis by some limited atonement advocates to cast the expiation along concrete pecuniary lines of thought. This does seem to be an interesting historical thread that is picked up time and time again, wherein a subtle conversion of a penal atonement into a pecuniary satisfaction was either adopted or rejected.
Fifthly, regarding my formatting: I have retained all the original spelling and basic formatting. I have not included any footnote references. I have indented Chalmer’s two extended quotations towards the end. Any typographical errors are probably mine, and corrections welcome.
Chalmers:
BOOK IV. CHAP. VI.
PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
THE PRAYER.
WE rejoice, God, in the fulness of that revelation which Thou hast given to the world. May all the wealth and all the wisdom of it be ours. Save us, while engaged in the study of it, from our own imaginations. Give us to sit, with the docility of children, to the lessons and the informations which are there laid before us; and make us to feel that, when God speaks, it is the part of man to listen, and to believe, and to obey. Through Thy word may we become wise to salvation through Thy word may we become perfect, and thoroughly furnished to all good works.
This seems the proper place for the introduction of a question, whereof it is greatly to be lamented that the necessity should have occurred for its ever being raised at all, as a topic of speculation. The question relates to the amount or value of the sufferings of Christ. It proceeds on an arithmetical view of the ransom which He paid for sin, and hinges on the consideration whether it was equivalent, looking at it in the character of a price, or a purchase-money whether it was equivalent to the salvation of all men, or only to the salvation of that limited number who pass under the denomination of the elect. I have ever felt this to be a distasteful contemplation, and my repugnance, I feel no doubt, has been greatly aggravated by my fears of the danger which might ensue to practical Christianity, from the injudicious applications that might be made of it, especially in the work of the pulpit, and when urging hearers to accept of the offered reconciliation of the gospel. It is always to be dreaded, and if possible shunned, when a transcendental question, relating to the transactions of the upper sanctuary, or to the part which God has in our salvation, should be so treated, or take such a direction as to cast obscuration over, or at all threaten to embarrass, the part which man has in it. There may not merely be an intruding into things unseen, when thus scrutinizing into the agreement or terms of the bargain, as it were, between the offended Lawgiver and the Mediator, who had undertaken to render satisfaction for the outrage inflicted on the authority of His government; but the argument might be so conducted as to mislead and perplex the heralds of salvation in the execution of their plainly bidden task–which is to go and “command all men everywhere to repent”–to “go and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Read the rest of this entry »