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 » 2012 » August

Archive for August, 2012

Alexander:

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ATONEMENT.

2. Principal Theories of the Sacrifice of Christ.

In the sketch I have given of the history of opinion on the subject of the atonement, I have endeavored to indicate the different views which have been advanced on this head, and their position relatively to each other. The two great antagonist theories are, on the one hand, that which regards the work of Christ as being designed to effect reconciliation between God and man by the offering of a legal satisfaction for man’s transgression; and, on the other, that which resolves the effect of Christ’s work into its moral power in moving man to seek reconciliation with God. Of these, various modifications have been advanced by different writers and accepted by theological schools of greater or less importance.

To examine all these in detail would require more time than we have at our disposal, and therefore I shall content myself with stating the leading opinions on both sides, and offering such remarks as may serve to indicate the worth of each. After noticing some of the more recent speculations which have been advanced on the subject in this country and America, I shall endeavour to lay down those principles which seem to me to be essential to our reaching a just view on this subject, and which seem to conduct to the view I am prepared to advocate.

Beginning with those who look upon the atonement of Christ in the light of a legal satisfaction or judicial expiation, I remark that all agree in thinking that the work of Christ derives its worth from the union of the divine and the human natures in His person, and all admit that worth to be not only supreme, but infinite. There is a difference, however, between certain schools or classes of them as to the nature of the compensation rendered to the divine government and law on our behalf by Christ, His special purpose and intention in offering it, and the consequent extent to which His work was designed to be sufficient. Of these varying shades of opinion we notice the following:–

(1.) That of the Hyper-Calvinists,–a name which has been given, not because those to whom it is attached are regarded as having gone beyond Calvin in their doctrine, but because they carry the views of Calvin on this head to their utmost extent, and hold them with unbending rigidity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Byfield,

Thirdly, this point serves for consolation, and that many ways. First, against this fear of our own weakness, “It is not our Father’s will that one of the little ones should perish” [Mat. 18:14]; “None is able to take them out of his hand” [John 10:29]. Secondly, against our doubts about prayer, “Whatsoever you ask the Father in Christ’s name shall be given you” John 16:23]. Thirdly, against all the troubles of this world, if he has been a Father of Mercy, to forgive your sins, and give you grace, he will be a Father of Glory, to crown you in a better world in the inheritance of his Sons [Ephes. 1:17].

Who has made us fit.] Doct. We are neither naturally happy, nor universally so, not naturally, for we are made fit, not born so, not universally, for he has made [us] fit, not all men. Christ died for his sheep only [John 10], for his Church only [Ephes. 1], not for the World [John 17]. And therefore when the Scripture says, Christ died for all men, we must understand it, first, in respect of the sufficiency of his death, not in respect of the efficiency of it. Secondly, in respect of the common oblation of the benefits of his death externally in the Gospel unto all. Thirdly, as his death extends to all the Elect: for all, that is, for the Elect. Fourthly, for all, that is, for all that are saved, so that none that are justified and saved, are so, but by the virtue of his death. Fifthly, for all, that is for all indefinitely, for all sorts of men, not for every man of every sort. Lastly, he died for all, that is not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also.

Nicolas Byfield, An Exposition Vpon the Epistle to the Colossians (Printed by E.G. For Nathaniel Bvtter, and are to be sould at his Shop at the signe of the pide-bull in Pauls Church-yard, neare to S. Austins Gate, 1617), 99.

1
Aug

William Barlee on General Love

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in Uncategorized

Barlee:

Secondly. As the former author of God’s love to mankind, upholds in his title, an odious suggestion against the adversaries to his book, as if they maintained, God, not at all to be a lover of all mankind in the sense spoken of Matt. 5:45, Act. 14:16-17, and 17:27-28, 1 Tim. 4:10, because they do not maintain him to be a lover of all alike, so the saving graces, flowing from election. . . .

William Barlee, A Necessary Vindication of the Doctrine of Predestination (London: Printed for George Sawbridge, at the Bible on Ludgate-Hill, 1658), 2. [Some reformatting; marginal Latin not included; and underlining mine.]