Archive for November 20th, 2014

Dabney

1) But while I have no idea that they intend to be satisfied with anything that I can say, I will repeat in another form, what my opinion is, so that no fair mind will be any longer misled to suspect me of ambiguity. I am asked whether I believe that “Christ bore the guilt of his elect only.” I reply, Christ designed by his sufferings to deliver the elect only from their guilt. In that sense he “bore” the guilt of the elect only. But if they wish to make me say that Christ had no more to do with the guilt of the non-elect than of the fallen angels, I shall not say it. For Christ’s work has actually procured for them great temporary benefits, which their guilt would personally have made them unworthy to enjoya suspension of just doom, social, material good, common operations of H(oly) G(host) and an offer of salv.(ation) from God, who is “serious.” Had there been no mediatorial dispensation, the doom would doubtless have followed immediately on the guilt, as in the case of fallen angels. I must believe, therefore, that, (with Hodge) there is a relation which the sufferings of Christ had to all men."56 Cited by, Morton Howison Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology (Amsterdam: Campen, `962), 201. [Some minor reformatting; footnote content and value original; italics original; parenthetical inserts Morton Smith’s; and underlining mine.] [Credit to Michael Lynch for this find.]

2) There is no safer clue for the student through this perplexed subject, than, to take this proposition; which, to every Calvinist, is nearly as indisputable as a truism; Christ’s design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate, and all that it effectuates, in its subsequent proclamation. This is but saying that Christ’s purpose is unchangeable and omnipotent. Now, what does it actually effectuate? “We know only in part,” but so much is certain.

Read the rest of this entry »