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, 2nd 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, 2nd 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, 2nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 31. [Underlining mine.]