Archive for April 8th, 2011
Cox:
As to the EXTENT of the atonement, we believe that it was for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Those in general who hold that theological system which is called generically Calvinistic, and who hold it perhaps with equal decision and sincerity in common, though palpably not with equal correctness in degree, are divided here, some holding the fullness of the atonement for all men; others, the limitation of its nature, as atonement, to all the finally saved. The issue is joined–and while human imperfection continues in the church, controversy will not cease to be the consequence. Any thing almost is better than stagnation and a dead calm; just as a living dog is better than a dead lion. Besides, if brethren would–as they could and as they ought–debate honestly and in a manly way, without acerbity or impeaching motives, or personalities of unkindness, why should it be deprecated or avoided? Such are the prejudice, the ignorance, the selfishness, and the indolence of poor human nature, and the miserable and guilty remains of these even in the faithful, that controversy often becomes necessary as the alternative of what is infinitely worse–dereliction of duty, truth, and hope! we therefore contend for the fullness of the atonement, and with full conviction of what the truth is, as well as with liberal and kind feelings, but no .servility or cowardice, towards those who differ from us. Indifference will not do, nor temporizing, nor ambiguity, nor tameness. Christ expects everyone of his ministers to do his duty-and there is no alternative, no succedaneum, no evasion, to be endured. As free, and not using our liberty for A CLOAK OF MALICIOUSNESS, but as the servants of God, let us vindicate the truth, and look to its Great Author for our reward!
The government of God is properly two-fold–moral and providential; the one of duties, the other of events; the one referring to law, to right, to goodness, the other to the economics of the whole; and both ordered with sovereign wisdom and eternal prosperity and glory. In proportion as the partialities of the mind are found to incline more to events than to duties, more to destiny than to accountability, more to our passive than to our active relations, the providential department of God fills the field of vision; and because the event is, that the elect, and they only, are saved, therefore we are apt to think and to favor the theory that the others were in no sense the objects of mediatorial mercy. It suits our wisdom then, to think the atonement as perfectly limited in its nature as it is in its application–and we say Christ died for the elect alone. On the contrary, those who make room in their minds for the moral in the providential government of God, and see things as they are, find no difficulty, but the glorious reverse, in accrediting the fullness of the atonement.
Reasoning from facts to theories, and not from theories to facts, we ask, what are the revealed facts in the case? Is salvation in fact offered to the elect alone? or to a part, and not to all? to them that are saved only, or to them also that perish? Is there any offer, not on the basis of atonement? Is there any salvation to offer, save that of Christ? Is it not offered to every hearer of the gospel? Is it not commanded to be sped in all the world and to every creature? Are not the neglecters and the rejecters of the gospel, guilty of rejecting or neglecting the great salvation of Christ? Is not this their chief sin, and the allied or antecedent cause of all others? Are they not mainly punished for this crime? Is it not here by way of eminence incomparably the greatest of their offences against God, and so THE condemnation? And if so, then–how much transcendental ingenuity must it require to reconcile these plain facts, with the theory that limits atonement, and all saving provisions in Christ, to the elect alone! Does God offer what has no existence? Or has he another gospel which is not ANOTHER for the non-elect?