Augustine:

Classic Secondary Sources:

1) William Bridge (1600–1670):

And whereas he was charged by the Pelagians with denying that Christ suffered for the Redemption of all men, he plainly gave his sense therein thus. As for the greatness and sufficiency of the price, the blood of Christ is the Redemption of the whole world; but they that die without Faith and Regeneration, are aliens from Redemption. All men (saith he) are rightly said to be redeemed in respect of one nature of all, and the one cause of all, which the Lord did truly take upon him, and yet all are not delivered from captivity. The propriety of Redemption without doubt belongs unto them out of whom the Prince of this world is cast, who are not vessels of Satan, but the members of Christ. And herein Prosper doth totidem verbis concur with him. This ergo was the sense of the Orthodox (for by Augustin’s judgment you may measure the rest) in those times.

William Bridge, “To the Reader” in, John Brinsley, Gospel-Marrow, the Great God Giving Himself for the Sons of Men (London: Printed by S. Griffin for Richard Tomlines, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Sun and Bible near Pye-Corner, 1659), vii–viii. [No pagination; pages numbered manually from the beginning] [Credit to Tony for the find.]

2) Richard Baxter (1615-1691):

“As for Augustine and some Protestants, they oft deny that Christ redeemeth any but the Faithful, because the word Redemption is ambiguous, and sometimes taken for the price or ransome paid, and often for the very liberation of the captive Sinner. And whenever Austin denieth common Redemption, he taketh Redemption in this last sense, for actual deliverance. But he asserteth it in the first sense, that Christ died for all. Yea, he thought his death is actually applied to the true Justification and Sanctification of some Reprobates that fall away and perish, though the Elect only are so redeemed as to be saved. Read yourself in Augustine, Prosper and Fulgentius, and you will see this with your own eyes.”

Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), 2:57-58. [Credit to Tony for the find.]

Primary Sources:

None of the elect can perish:

1) “None of the Elect and Predestinate can Perish.” Of such says the apostle, “We know that to those that love God He works together all things for good, to them who are called according to His purpose; because those whom He before foreknew, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Of these no one perishes, because all are elected. Augustine, “Anti-Pelagian Writings,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 5:477.

Sins of believers (sample):

1) 18. How is it, by the way, that you use the words temple, altar, sacrifice, for the purpose of commending your own practices? If such things can be spoken of as properly belonging to true religion, they must constitute the true worship of the true God. And if there is such a thing as true sacrifice to the true God, which is implied in the expression divine honors, there must be some one true sacrifice of which the rest are imitations. On the one hand, we have the spurious imitations in the case of false and lying gods, that is, of devils, who proudly demand divine honors from their deluded votaries, as is or was the case in the temples and idols of the Gentiles. On the other hand, we have the prophetic intimations of one most true sacrifice to be offered for the sins of all believers, as in the sacrifices enjoined by God on our fathers; along with which there was also the symbolical anointing typical of Christ, as the name Christ itself means anointed. The animal sacrifices, therefore, presumptuously claimed by devils, were an imitation of the true sacrifice which is due only to the one true God, and which Christ alone offered on His altar. Thus the apostle says: “The sacrifices which the Gentiles offer, they offer to devils, and not to God.” He does not find fault with sacrifices, but with offering to devils. The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. The Manichæans understand neither the sinfulness of the Gentile sacrifices, nor the importance of the Hebrew sacrifices, nor the use of the ordinance of the Christian sacrifice. Their own errors are the offering they present to the devil who has deceived them. And thus they depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy. Augustine, ‘The Writings Against the Manichæans and Against the Donatists,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 4:26-261.

Lamb of God (sample):

1) They, then, who see their own mind, in whatever way that is possible, and in it that Trinity of which I have treated as I could in many ways, and yet do not believe or understand it to be an image of God, see indeed a glass, but do not so far see through the glass Him who is now to be seen through the glass, that they do not even know the glass itself which they see to be a glass, i.e. an image. And if they knew this, perhaps they would feel that He too whose glass this is, should by it be sought, and somehow provisionally be seen, an unfeigned faith purging their hearts, that He who is now seen through a glass may be able to be seen face to face. And if they despise this faith that purifies the heart, what do they accomplish by understanding the most subtle disputes concerning the nature of the human mind, unless that they be condemned also by the witness of their own understanding? And they would certainly not so fail in understanding, and hardly arrive at anything certain, were they not involved in penal darkness, and burdened with the corruptible body that presses down the soul. And for what demerit save that of sin is this evil inflicted on them? Wherefore, being warned by the magnitude of so great an evil, they ought to follow the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. Augustine, On the Holy :Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 3:223.

2) 37. But regard the troops of virgins, holy boys and girls: this kind hath been trained up in Thy Church: there for Thee it hath been budding from its mother’s breasts; for Thy Name it hath loosed its tongue to speak, Thy Name, as through the milk of its infancy, it hath had poured in and hath sucked, no one of this number can say, “I, who before was a blasphemer, and persecutor, and injurious, but I obtained mercy, in that I did in being ignorant, in unbelief.” Yea more, that, which Thou commands not, but only did set forth, for such as would, to seize, saying, “Whoso can receive, let him receive;” they have seized, they have vowed, and, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, not for that Thou threatens, but for that Thou exhorts, they have made themselves eunuchs. To these cry out, let these hear Thee, in that Thou art “meek and lowly of heart.” Let these, by how much they are great, by so much humble themselves in all things, that they may find grace before Thee. They are just: but they are not, are they, such as Thou, justifying the ungodly? They are chaste: but them in sins their mothers nurtured in their wombs. They are holy, but Thou art also Holy of Holies. They are virgins, but they are not also born of virgins. They are wholly chaste both in spirit and in flesh: but they are not the Word made flesh. And yet let them learn, not from those unto whom Thou forgives sins, but from Thee Thyself, The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world, in that Thou art “meek and lowly of heart.” Augustine, On the Holy :Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 3:430.

Read the rest of this entry »

Burkitt:

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you. Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Our Lord concludes this chapter with a pathetical lamentation over Jerusalem. His ingemination or doubling of the word, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” shows the vehemency of Christ’s affection towards them, and the sincerity of his desires for their salvation. Observe, 1. The great kindness and compassion of Christ to the Jews in general, and Jerusalem in particular, set forth by a lively metaphor and similitude; that of an hen gathering her chickens under her wings. As the hen doth tenderly cherish, and carefully hide and cover her young from the eye of the destroyer; so would Christ have shrouded and sheltered his people from all those birds of prey, and particularly from the Roman eagle, by which they were at last devoured. Again, as the hen continues her call to her young ones from morning to night, and holds out her wings for shelter to them all the day long; so did Christ wait for this people’s repentance and conversion for more than forty years after they had killed his prophets, and murdered himself, before they met with a final overthrow. Observe, 2. The amazing obstinacy and willfulness of this people, in rejecting this grace and favor, this kindness and condescension of the Lord Jesus Christ: “I would have gathered you, but ye would not.” Observe, 3. The fatal issue of this obstinacy. “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” “Is left;” that is, certainly and suddenly will be so. The present tense put for the paulo post futurum, it denotes both the certainty and nearness of this people’s ruin. Learn, 1. That the ruin and destruction of sinners is wholly chargeable upon themselves; that is, on their own willfulness and obstinacy: “I would have gathered you, says Christ, but ye would not.” Learn, 2. How deplorably and inexcusably they will perish, who perish by their own willfulness under the gospel. 3. That there is no desire like unto God’s desire of a people’s repentance; no longing like unto God’s longing for a people’s salvation “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee!” “When shall it once be!” Christ did very seriously desire the conversion of the Jews, who continued still in their impenitency and unbelief. And consequently they whom he so seriously desired to convert, might have been converted, but they would not be so: “I would have gathered you, but ye would not.”

William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:119-120. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Burkitt:

1) 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Here our holy Lord discovers the sad and deplorable condition of such professors, who, pretending relation to Christ, do yet bring forth no fruit unto him; he calls there withered branches, fit only for the fire. Learn hence, That such as have had a long standing in God’s vineyard, and contented themselves with a withered profession, are in great danger of having God’s blasting added to their barrenness. All their parts, and gifts, and common graces, will wither, and their fair blossoms of profession will drop off, and at the great day the angels will gather these fruitless branches together, and cast them into hell fire. William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:539-540; John 15:6. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

2) Here the apostle advises the Corinthians, instead of inquiring after the proof of Christ in him, to examine whether they were in Christ themselves; intimating to us, that such are usually most backward to examine the state of their own souls, who are forward to inquire into the spiritual state and condition of others. “You seek a proof of Christ in me, says the apostle: O, rather prove and examine yourselves.” Where note, 1. A duty expressed: “Examine yourselves; prove yourselves.” The word is a metaphor taken from goldsmiths, who with great exactness try their gold; the truth of it by the touchstone, the weight of it by the scale, and the purity of it by the fire. And the repetition of the command, “Examine yourselves; prove yourselves;” implies the great backwardness that is in men’s natures to perform this duty, the great necessity of the duty, and the great diligence and frequency to be used in performing of the duty. Learn hence, that self-examination is an excellent, a necessary, and important duty, belonging to every one in the church, and requires great diligence and faithfulness in the performing of it. ‘Tis necessary in regard of our comforts, and also in regard of our graces; for there are counterfeit graces, as well as real; and common graces, as well as saving; and ’tis a duty that requires diligence and frequency, because the work is difficult, because the heart is backward, because we are deceived, and willing to be deceived; because many have miscarried without it, and many perished by a negligent performance of it: “Therefore examine yourselves; prove yourselves.”

William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:295; 2 Cor. 13:5. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Prefacing Remarks

The reader should keep a few things in mind while reading this short essay.

Firstly, the following is a layman’s analysis of the logic involved in establishing a case for limited atonement from the verses John 10:15 and John 10:26. The intent is to lay out the case in a non-technical manner for lay-readers. It is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of the issues involved.

Secondly, it may be said that there are two types of arguments which use John 10:15 to prove limited atonement. The first is what I would call a strong form of the argument. This strong form of the argument insists that John 10:15 along with 10:26 establish a hard dichotomy between those for whom Christ did and did not die. That is, in no proper sense did Christ die for the non-elect. By “proper sense” I mean either in terms of penal relationship (“For whose sins was Christ punished?”), or divine intentionality to save (either by secret or revealed will). The issue stated this way avoids the distracting claims by some advocates of limited atonement that Christ died for all insofar as he secured common grace benefits for all.

Thirdly, the weaker form of the argument would intimate that John 10:15 suggests a distinction, not so much a dichotomy, namely, that Christ died for some distinctively, as opposed to others. Here the stress would be that John 10:15 shows us that it can be said that Christ died in a distinctive sense for the elect, in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. Stated another way, Christ died for the elect in a distinctive sense, as opposed to the sense in which he (may have?) died for the non-elect. I would still maintain that even this is not sustained by a sound reading of John 10:15.

For the purposes of this essay, it is the strong form of the argument which is under review. The weaker from is dealt with only in the comments section. It is there I will also follow-up on some added rejoinders from another location on the web. Readers need to keep in mind that I do not deny that Christ died for the elect in a sense in which he did not die for the non-elect. If we speak of the intentionality of Christ, I can say, in the sense that Christ died for the sheep, he did not die for the non-sheep.

Part 1: The Critique

This argument for limited atonement works like this in a syllogism:

major premise:

Christ lays down his life for the Sheep (John 10:15)

minor premise:

The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep (John 10:26)

Conclusion:

Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.

Stated without the prefix comments:

Christ lays down his life for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees

The problem is that its formally invalid.

Lets use an analogy which follows the same form, yet clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the form of the argument.

John loves his children.
Sally is not a child of John.
Therefore, John does not love Sally.

This is an invalid argument. Sally could be John’s wife and mother to his children, and so another person whom John truly and rightly loves.

You can swap out any terms, and the result will be same.

What’s happened, is that the negative inference has been smuggled in, something like this.
The simple positive:

John loves his children

is converted into a simple negative

John loves only his children.

Then the syllogism is followed out:

John loves only his children.
Sally is not a child of John
Therefore, John does not love Sally.

That is now is a valid form of an argument.

And if we bring this back to John 10:15, the syllogism now looks like this with the smuggled in negation:

Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees

Either consciously or unconsciously, many readers have converted “Christ lays down his life for the Sheep” as being identical or as entailing, “Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep.” However, this is is an invalid negative inference.

The problem is, the conversion of the simple positive to a universal negative. This is the negative inference fallacy that Dabney references:

In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach but partial force to some of the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turrettin, e.g. that Christ says, He died “for His sheep,” for “His Church,” for “His friends,” is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object.
Dabney, Lectures, p., 521.

There have been a few attempts by limited atonement advocates to claim that the negative inference fallacy does not apply in this case. These attempts are quite astounding. Imagine a Romanist saying that the proposition, “Justified by faith alone” does not apply here, such that we can make a converse positive inference, that we can be justified by faith and works. We cannot be arbitrary when it comes to enforcing the universal and standard rules of logical inference.

And it should be straightforward that one should never seek to establish a positive argument based on invalid inferences. Such attempts will always and everywhere be invalid. Even repeating the invalid inference ad infinitum will never make it valid.

What is more, with that aside, Scripture declares emphatically,

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

No matter how tempting it is, no matter how important it is to one’s system, it is wrong to insert a negation into a verse where it was was originally present. This problematic is further exacerbated if after smuggling in the extra-textual negation, one then tries to sustain the case for limited atonement. This then becomes grounds for a circular argument.

Lastly, one should also keep in mind that readers of John’s Gospel should not jump to the hasty conclusion that because of what Jesus says in John 10, that the Pharisees are goats (in other words, reprobate). Rather, one cannot preclude the possibility that they are rebellious and wayward sheep:

Isaiah 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Here Isaiah speaks to the apostate house of Israel, as much as he does to the faithful, who have been, themselves wayward sheep. If this is correct, then the contrast would be between obedient sheep versus disobedient sheep (the Pharisees), but not between the elect and the non-elect.

Part 2: The Affirmation

Whats actually going on in John 10 is more like this:

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
John 10:12 “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
John 10:13 “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:16: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

The point is not about the extent of Christ’s death at all, but the faithfulness, the loyalty of Christ to the sheep. The pharisees are the hirelings who abandon the sheep. Jesus is saying to them something like this, “I am not like you, who run away, rather I will lay my life down for the sheep, defending them to the end….” And by implication, we, the sheep, can truly know that Christ will effectually save us.

Thus, the real emphasis and attention should be on this verse:

John 10:16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

In this verse alone we have election, Christ’s intent, and the effectual call.

When we put together v15 and v16, we see in the mind of Christ a special intention to gather and faithfully lay his life down for his sheep so that they may be saved to the uttermost. He came to earth, not as a hireling coming to a field, but to gather those given to him. This is the direction we should move in, not in pressing the limited extent of the expiation.

When rightly understood, then, the verse speaks to a special intent of the satisfaction, not to the extent of the satisfaction.