Archive for July 16th, 2008
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.