Notice: register_sidebar_widget is deprecated since version 2.8.0! Use wp_register_sidebar_widget() instead. in /home/q85ho9gucyka/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3931
Calvin and Calvinism » 2010 » January » 21

Archive for January 21st, 2010

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.]