Griffin:

1) A considerable part of the dispute has arisen from a failure thus to distinguish between the figurative and literal meaning of texts. But there are two other points of difference of still greater influence, one respecting the nature, the other the objects of the atonement.

One respects the nature. We mean by Atonement nothing more than that which is the ground of release from the curse, and we separate it entirely from the merit of Christ, or his claim to a reward. Our brethren comprehend under the name, not only what we understand by expiation, but merit also with all its claim. And if they could see the propriety of limiting the term as do, of them would deny our conclusions. In their mouth the word is always co-extensive with ransom, (lutron), the price of redemption, (lutrosis;) and the question which they raise is about particular redemption, on which really there is no dispute; we believe as fully as they do that redemption, in the higher and more perfect sense, was accomplished only for the elect. It is to be noticed that ransom, and words of that nature, are used in two senses in the New Testament: for, for the blood of Christ, laid down for a moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on his part will accept the offer. This I call the lower ransom, and it is exactly what we mean by the atonement. Secondly, for expiation and merit united. A ransom has two influences; it supports the claim of the redeemer, and it is that out of respect to which the holder of the captives lets them go. According to this, the ransom of Christ includes his merit, which claimed the release of the captives as his reward, and his atonement, out of respect to which, as the honor of the law was concerned, the Father consented to their discharge. This I call the higher ransom, and its absolute and unfailing influence depends on the claim of merit to its stipulated recompense. This was not offered for all; for none of us will say that Christ so purchased the whole race by the merit of his obedience, that he could claim them all as his promised reward.

The second point respects the objects of the atonement. We consider the satisfaction as made exclusively for moral agents; our brethren speak of it as if it was made for mere passive subjects of regenerating influence, and in their reasonings they overlook moral agents. In which character men were really contemplated in the provision, is indeed the question on which the controversy chiefly hinges. If it was made for moral agents, it might be made for those who were never to be regenerated; if made for passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, it was made only for those who are ultimately new-born. If made for the passive, it must be absolute; and if absolute, the event shows that it was not made for all: if made for moral agents, it must be conditional; and if conditional, it could not be limited to a part.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dagg:

The adaptedness of Christ’s death to serve as a ground for universal gospel invitations, constitutes it in the view of some persons a universal redemption. But no one can with propriety be said to be redeemed, who does not obtain deliverance, and who never will obtain it. Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract. In Rom. v.11, the only place in the New Testament where the word atonement occurs, the Greek word for which it stands, is the same that is rendered reconciling–reconciliation, in other places.¹ The reconciliation is not between God and sin in the abstract, for such a reconciliation is impossible. It is a reconciliation of persons; and such a reconciliation as secures eternal salvation. “If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”² In Paul’s view, all those for whom Christ’s death made reconciliation or atonement, will certainly be saved; and therefore atonement cannot be universal, unless salvation be universal. It is possible to use the word atonement in such a sense, as to render the question respecting the extent of the atonement one of mere definition: but it is best to use the words of Scripture in the Scripture sense.

J.L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order, (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 326. [Footnote values original; underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) This work was first published in 1858. 2) While Dagg finally rejects this distinction as being valid, what is important here is that he acknowledges it as being a position tabled by some advocates of particular redemption. 3) Dagg is probably not alluding to William G.T. Shedd (given that Shedd’s Dogmatics were not yet published at this time), but to some earlier proponent of the distinction.]

[Credit to Tony for the find.

____________________________

¹Rom. xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

²Rom. v. 10.

Skinner:

Calvin’s comment on this text: “Communem omnium gratiam facit quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur, re ipsa: Nam etsi passus est Christus pro pcccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate, offertur, non tamen omncs apprehendent.” He makes this the common grace of all, because it is set before all, not that all are in fact put in possession of it. For though Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and he is by the mercy of God offered alike to all, yet all do not embrace him.” Calvin expresses the same views on this subject in his comments on Mat. xxvi. P. 1 Cor. viii. 11, 12. 1 John ii. 2. 2 Pet. ii. 1. and Jude 4.

Thomas H. Skinner, “Human Depravity, or Man a Fallen Being,” in Discourses Delivered in Murray Street Church (New York: Henry C Sleight, Clinton-Hall, 1830), 104.   [Note: Skinner’s footnote citation of Calvin is with reference to Skinner’s discussion of Romans 5:18.]

Richards:

LECTURE XIII.

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

WHETHER Christ died for all men, or for a part only? is a question which has been much agitated, since the Reformation, though, according to Milner, the Church, from the earliest ages, rested in the opinion that Christ died for all. He does not except even Augustine, whom Prosper, his admirer and follower, and a strict Predestinarian, represents as maintaining that Christ gave himself a ransom for all;¹ so far, at least, as to make provision for their salvation, by removing an impediment which would otherwise have proved fatal. The early Christians seemed to go upon the principle, that as salvation was indiscriminately tendered to all, it must have been provided for all, and thus made physically possible to all, where the Gospel comes; otherwise, the Deity would be represented as tendering that to his creatures which was in no sense within their reach, and which they could not possibly attain, whatever might be their dispositions. Among those who leaned strongly to what are called the doctrines of grace, the maxim was adopted, “That Christ’s death was sufficient for all, and efficient for the elect” By which they seem to have intended, that while Christ’s death opened the door for the salvation of all, so far as an expiatory sacrifice was concerned, it was designed, and by the sovereign grace of God, made effectual, to the salvation of the elect. Their belief was, that Christ died intentionally to save those who were given to him in the covenant of redemption; but it does not appear that they supposed his death, considered merely as an expiatory offering, had any virtue in it, in relation to the elect, which it had not in relation to the rest of mankind. With respect to the ultimate design of this sacrifice, or the application which God would make of it, they doubtless supposed there was a difference; but in the sacrifice itself, or in its immediate end, the demonstration of God’s righteousness, they could see no difference. In this view, it was precisely the same thing, as it stood related to the elect and to the non-elect. The sacrificial service was one and the same, appointed by the same authority, and for the same immediate purpose, and performed by the same glorious Personage, at the very same time. It wanted nothing to constitute it a true and perfect sacrifice for sin, as it stood related to the whole world; it was but this true and perfect sacrifice, as it stood related to the elect. Any other view would have overturned its sufficiency for all mankind for it was not the sufficiency of Christ to be a sacrifice, but his sufficiency as a sacrifice for the whole world, that they maintained. And in perfect accordance with this, they held that this most perfect sacrifice was efficient for the elect. But how was it efficient? Not by its having in it anything in regard to the elect which it had not in regard to others; for, intrinsically considered, it was the same to both, a true and perfect sacrifice for sin; but it was the purpose of God, in appointing it, that it should issue in the salvation of his chosen. This was the use he intended to make of it; nay, it was a part of the covenant of redemption, that if the Mediator performed the sacrificial service required, he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. There was, therefore, an infallible connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of his people; and, of course, his death was efficient in procuring their salvation, it being the great medium through which the saving mercy of God flowed, and connected both by the purpose and promise of God with the bestowment of that mercy.

But even all this does not suppose that the death of Christ, considered simply as a sacrifice for sin, had anything in it peculiar to the elect, or that in and of itself it did anything for them which it did not do for the rest of mankind. The intention of God, as to its application, or the use he designed to make of it, is a thing perfectly distinct from the sacrifice itself, and so considered, as we believe, by the Church antecedent to the Reformation. In no other way, can we see, how their language is either intelligible or consistent.

Whether the Reformers, as they are called, were exactly of one mind on this subject, is not quite so certain. But that Luther, Melancthon, Osiander, Brentius, Œcolampadius, Zwinglius and Bucer, held the doctrine of a general atonement, there is no reason to doubt. We might infer it from their Confession at Marpurge, signed A . D. 1529, as the expressions they employ on this subject are of a comprehensive character, and best agree with this sentiment. From their subsequent writings, however, it is manifest that these men, and the German Reformers generally, embraced the doctrine of a universal propitiation. Thus, also, it was with their immediate successors, as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies. This Confession is entitled, “A Full Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies professed in the dominions of the most illustrious and noble Prince Frederick V., Prince Elector Palatine.” It was translated by John Rolte, and published in London, A. D. 1614.

Read the rest of this entry »