[comments below]

Redemption and Atonement,

Not the Same

–*–

(From the Theological Magazine.)

BETWEEN atonement and redemption, divines, as yet, so far as I have been acquainted, have made no distinction. They have always considered those terms as conveying one and the same idea. It is thought to be evident, however, that redemption and atonement are, by no means, convertible terms. This evidence arises out of the holy scriptures. Atonement is for sin; redemption is from sin. The word redemption however, in the third chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, and in some other places, signifies the same as atonement. But, in those places it is used by a figure, the effect for the cause. Redemption, in its proper sense, and as the word is used in the holy scriptures, doth not mean, the precious things by which captives are delivered from bondage, but it is deliverance itself. Sinners do not obtain redemption through redemption, but through the precious blood of Christ: his blood is not redemption itself; it is the price of redemption. And it is through this precious blood, that believers have redemption, even the forgiveness of their sins; through this blood they obtain deliverance from eternal death; through this blood also, they obtain the salvation of their souls, even eternal life.

Redemption is deliverance from evil. And the Greek word Apolutrusis which signifies redemption, is used by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, for deliverance. “And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance.”¹ Redemption, in the holy scriptures sometimes means deliverance from natural, and sometimes from moral evil, and sometimes it implies exemption from both kinds of evil. In the book of Job it is said, “in famine he shall redeem thee from death: and in war from the power of the sword.” The apostle Peter speaks of redemption from sin;² the apostle Paul means the same by redemption as the forgiveness of sin:³ and it is also spoken of as implying eternal life.⁴ These great blessings simply in atonement are not implied. This, however, will more abundantly appear from the following considerations:

1. “Christ died, not for a select number of men only, but for mankind universally, and without exception or limitation. The sacred writers are singularly emphatical in expressing this truth. They speak not only of Christ’s dying for us–for our sins–for sinners–for the ungodly–for the unjust; but affirm, in yet more extensive terms, that he died for the world—for the whole world; that Christ gave himself a ransom for all; yea, that he tasted death for every man.”

The Greek word for ransom, is, Antilutron which signifies the price of redemption. The price of redemption, therefore, is given for all men; that is, atonement is made for the sins of the whole world. But, that redemption itself is not equally extensive with the price of redemption, will appear evident by attending to the holy scriptures. A few passages cited from St. John’s Revelation only, will be sufficient for the present purpose, lie, speaking of the saints, saith, “And they sung a new song, saying: Thou art worthy to take the book and open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Welch:

REV. DR. JAMES RICHARDS AND HIS

THEOLOGY.–II.

IN a previous article (PRES. REV., April, 1884) we presented some salient points in the life and character of Dr. James Richards. We, also, traced his Theology in part, as we proposed, along three lines of thought: (I) In reference to God. (2) In reference to Man. (3) In reference to the God-man.

Of these, we considered only the first and second. Under the former came, first in order, Dr. R.’s presentation of primal truth–the truth concerning God,–God as the absolute Being, the personal Jehovah, holy, just, and good, Author of all things-who was before all things and by whom all things consist. This, in the view of Dr. Richards, is the supreme reality, the fundamental truth on which all other truth reposes.

Next in order, came the consideration of the fundamental doctrine, the Plan or Purpose or Decree of God.

In the view of Dr. R., this is a doctrine fundamental not only to all theological doctrines, but preliminary to all finite existence (S. C., 7). It is but a truism to assert, that it depended upon the good pleasure of him who was before all things, that anything should exist or begin to be. Yet, from the theistic stand-point this simple truism involves the demonstrative proof of this fundamental doctrine,–The Divine Plan or Purpose or Decree; it involves also the proof that this doctrine is so comprehensive as to include all things. In the explicit language of Dr. Richards,–” The Divine Decrees are necessarily universal, reaching alike to all beings and events, and through all time. In the order of nature, they precede whatsoever comes to pass through the agency of God, whether that agency be exerted either immediately or remotely.” Dr. R. carefully discriminates the Divine agency in moral government as more immediate or remote–efficacious or permissive–direct or indirect; that promotes and rewards holiness-but permits and punishes sin. (See Conf., Chapts. VI., I, and III., I). This statement does not assert or allow that there are conditions outside the plan or purpose or decree of God; yet it does allow of conditions within the Divine plan or purpose. {Conf. IV., 2). In the Divine plan, the infinite Reason pursuing the rational order makes one thing antecedent or conditional to another. Indeed. it could not otherwise be a plan or purpose, for this implies the choice of a final cause or end, and the choice of means adapted to secure that end.

The transition is easy to the doctrine concerning the Works of God. The Works of God,” says Dr. R., “are, of course, the execution or development of the Divine Decrees” (Conf., IV. and V.). This statement suggests the order of the divine decrees as included in the plan and purpose of God; the manner in which this order is developed or disclosed (that is, in the Works of God); and the way in which we may study this order. This order, when actualized in the Works of God, is, of course, the historic order.

Read the rest of this entry »

Smith:

On the distinction between Atonement and Redemption:

1) The Priestly Office of Christ is that office in both natures whereby He makes an atonement. In the same priestly office and in virtue of his atoning work his Intercession is maintained. Intercession belongs to Christ as priest: it includes his constant application of his sacrifice; or, generally, all his agency in redeeming mankind, in his glorified state.¹ Of the two parts of Christ s work as Priest Atonement and Intercession we speak here only of The Atonement.

I. Usage of the word, and of certain terms which cluster about it.

1. Of the terms Redemption and Atonement. Redemption implies the complete deliverance from the penalty, power, and all the consequences of sin: Atonement is used in the sense of the sacrificial work, whereby the redemption from the condemning power of the law was insured.

2. Of the terms Reconciliation and Atonement. Reconciliation sets forth what is to be done: Atonement, in its current theological sense, likewise involves the idea of the way, the mode, in which the reconciliation is effected that is, by a sacrifice for sin.² Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 437. [Some reformatting; italics original; footnote values changed; and underlining mine.]

Sins of the world:

1)

COMPARISON OF THE INCARNATION WITH SOME OTHER FACTS AS GIVING

THE CENTRAL IDEAS OF THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM.

I.–Comparison of Divine Sovereignty and The Incarnation as central principles.

Calvinistic theology has had unconsciously for the most part two germinant principles: Sovereignty and The Covenants; the former the older, the latter more narrow, but with some advantages. In the Confessions we often see an unconscious union of the two. Sovereignty tends to run into supralapsarianism and the assertion of the exclusive divine efficiency: Will is made to be all; the ethical is obscured. The objections to it are: (i.) It is too abstract; (b.) It is liable to perversion, to the construction that God is all Will; (c.) If it is taken concretely, i. e., if the Sovereignty is understood to stand for Plan, it comes to much the same with our principle: Incarnation in order to Redemption is God’s Plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

Aquinas:

According to a Gloss the book of life is the same as the predestination of the saints. They are the same reality but the ideas are different. It should be noted that in olden times it was a custom to write in a register the names of those appointed to some duty or dignity, as soldiers and senators, who were enrolled in the palace. Now all the predestined saints are chosen by God for something great, namely, eternal life; and this appointment is called predestination. The record of this appointment is called the book of life: and this record is in the divine memory, because inasmuch as He appoints, He predestines; inasmuch as He knows it unchangeably, it is called foreknowledge. Therefore, this foreknowledge about the predestined is called the book of life.

But is anyone ever erased from this book? I answer that some are enrolled absolutely, and others in a qualified sense. For some are absolutely predestined by God to obtain eternal life, and they are enrolled indelibly. Others are predestined to have eternal life not in itself, but in its cause, inasmuch as they are ordained to justice for the present; and such persons are said to be erased from the book of life when they fall away from justice in this life.

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians and the Letter to the Philippians, (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1966), 112-113.