Archive for November 24th, 2010
1) Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our common humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal blessing. Conscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives us justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the Atonement is “sufficient for all ; effectual for many.” J. M. Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897—”It was Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island (1721-1803) who first declared that Christ had made atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calvinists affirmed.”We should say “as some Calvinists affirmed”; for, as we shall see, John Calvin himself declared that “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Alfred Tennyson once asked an old Methodist woman what was the news. “Why, Mr. Tennyson, there ‘s only one piece of news that I know,— that Christ died for all men.” And he said to her: “That is old news, and good news, and new news.” Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium (Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907), 772. [Some reformatting and underlining mine.]
2) Richards, Theology, 302-307, shows that Calvin, while in his early work, the Institutes, he avoided definite statements of his position with regard to the extent of the atonement, yet in his latter works, the Commentaries, he acceded to the theory of universal atonement. Supralapsarianism is therefore hyper-Calvinistic, rather than Calvinistic. Sublapsarianisin was adopted by the Synod of Dort ( 1618, 1619 ). By Supralapsarian is meant that form of doctrine which holds the decree of individual salvation as preceding the decree to permit the fall; Sublapsarian designates that form of doctrine which holds that the decree of individual salvation is subsequent to the decree to permit the fall.
The progress in Calvin’s thought may be seen by comparing some of his earlier with his later utterances. Institutes, 2:23:5—” I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed.” But even then in the Institutes, 3:23:8, he affirms that “the perdition of the wicked depends upon the divine predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it are found in themselves. Man falls by the appointment of divine providence, but he falls by his own fault.” God’s blinding, hardening, turning the sinner he describes as the consequence of the divine desertion, not the divine causation. The relation of God to the origin of sin is not efficient, but permissive. In later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on 1 John 2:2—”he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world”—as follows: “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction [Rom. 5:18], his blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race [Mark 14:24]; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope” [John 3:16]. Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium (Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907), 777-778. [Some reformatting; square bracketed inserts mine; italics mine; and underlining mine.]