Smith:

3. Of the Restitution of all Things. Some who deny everlasting punishment, rest their denial on the assertion that the Scriptures teach the restitution of all things, and the final reconciliation of all moral beings to God. The previous argument refutes this. It only remains to consider some of the passages quoted in favor of this particular view. The position to be taken here is, that all these passages can be interpreted in harmony with the doctrine that there are some who will be forever punished, while, on the other hand, the pas sages which teach final condemnation cannot be interpreted in harmony with the position that there is to be such a restitution of all things. Some of the passages taken alone and without their connections might teach restitution; but we have to interpret the Scripture harmoniously….

1 Tim. ii. 4. Here we must understand, not the will of efficient purpose, but of benevolent desire, as shown in provision, plan, and arrangements.

Heb. ii. 9. Universality of provision¹ is asserted.

Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 618 and 619. [Footnote values original; Underlining mine.]

_______________________

¹If all for whom Christ died are to be saved, then this passage would teach universal salvation. It does teach a general atonement.

Smith:

3. The secret and revealed will of God. This relates to what God keeps in his own counsel, and to what He has communicated: Deut. xxix. 29; Eom xi. 33. The same distinction is signified in somewhat barbarous Latin by the two phrases, voluntas signi; and voluntas placiti; This distinction used to be much insisted on in the discussion of the divine decrees: 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9. It was said to be the revealed will of God that all should be saved, the secret will or actual de termination in the matter, that some should be. A better point of view for this is found in the distinction between what God desires, in itself considered, and what He determines to bring to pass on the whole. In itself considered, He desires the happiness of every creature, but on the whole, He may not determine to bring this to pass.

Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 31-32. [Underlining mine.]

Smith:

2.  The permissive and efficient will of God. This is the distinction made all through the history of Calvinistic theology down to the time of the Hopkinsian school in New England. God permits the morally evil and effects the good. In respect to sin, He for wise reasons simply determines not to prevent it, all things considered. The efficient will of God has respect to what God directly produces through his own agency. The importance of this distinction is, that we cannot logically or rationally or morally conceive that God would directly produce by his positive efficiency what He forbids. Accordingly we must employ some milder term than efficiency with respect to the relation of God to moral evil, and the term selected is permission. This may not be the best, but it is well to retain it until we get a better.

Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 31. [Underlining mine.]

Griffin:

What bearing these sentiments have on the limitation of the atonement, will still more distinctly appear by the following quotations. “That there is as truly a federal relation between Christ and the members of his mystical body, the Church, [the elect antecedent to their faith,] as there was between Adam and his natural descendants, the Scriptures abundantly manifest: and it is this federal relation which laid the foundation for the imputation of their sins to Christ.–But according to the sentiments opposed,–no such relation ever existed; there was no real imputation of sin to Christ, nor any proper punishment inflicted on him for it: consequently the penal sanction of the law, with reference to those who, are saved, has never been endured. For were these important facts admitted, it is easy to perceive that redemption must of necessity be limited; because no one could righteously perish for whose sins plenary satisfaction had been made to divine justice.” “They insist that what Christ paid for our redemption was not the same with what is in the obligation, and that therefore his dolorous sufferings were not a proper payment of our debt; and consequently a proper and full satisfaction for our sins could not arise from his death to the law and justice of God. For were this satisfaction conceded, they see at once that the delinquents for whom it was made must inevitably be saved.”¹

This whole system goes upon the principle that the atonement was a legal transaction, partaking of a commercial nature, as if money had been paid for the redemption of so many captives and no more, or for the discharge of the debt of so many imprisoned bankrupts and no more; in which Wise, as all can see, the ransomed captives or exonerated debtors would have a legal claim to a discharge. To make out a parallel case in a transaction where no money was paid, it is necessary to establish a personal identity, (for I can call it by no other name,) between the Representative and the represented, which they denominate a legal oneness, (the justice of which depended on his previous consent,) and to make him legally guilty by imputation, and legally and justly adjudged to punishment in the room of those whom he represented, and, to make him suffer a literal and legal punishment, the same in kind and degree that the law had threatened to that particular number. In this way law and justice were literally satisfied and could demand no more; and those whose debt was thus discharged can claim of law and justice a release, and cannot legally or justly be punished again, but have a righteousness legally their own by imputation, and which legally and justly entitles them to justification; and yet not a legal claim to justification in their own persons, but in their Surety; they virtually possessing two persons, one demanding of the law condemnation, the other demanding of the law justification: and all this not depending on their faith; for one of the blessings to which, (though unconscious of it,) they have this legal claim, is the gift of faith. The result is, that Christ was a Surety, Sponsor, or Representative for none but those who will be saved, and could not justly suffer, for any, whose sins were not thus finally taken from them and laid upon him.

Read the rest of this entry »