Archive for January 22nd, 2010
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.