I add only the following quotations from the excellent Scott:-

It seems to be the decided opinion of his Lordship, (Bishop of Lincoln,) that the evangelical clergy, especially such of them as believe the doctrine of personal election, hold what is called particular redemption, whereas very few of them adopt it. The author of these remarks, (himself), urged by local circumstances rather than by choice, above twenty-four years since, avowed his dissent from the doctrine of particular redemption, as held by many professed Calvinists, especially among the Dissenters.

It is to be regretted that Mr. Scott used the term redemption here. He evidently regarded it as identical with atonement. This is not the case, however. Redemption is the effect of atonement. It is the actual deliverance of its subject from condemnation, sin, and misery, on the ground of the atonement-or the price of redemption paid by the Son of God. Redemption, therefore, must be particular; or, we must admit the unscriptural doctrine of universal salvation. This is, however, only a mistake as to phraseology, That Mr. Scott understood redemption in the sense of atonement, is manifest from the following passage:–

The infinite value and sufficiency of the atonement made by the death of Him who was God and Man in one mysterious person; the way in which the Scripture calls on sinners, without distinction, to believe in Christ; and every circumstance respecting Redemption, shows it to be a general benefit, from which none will be excluded, except through unbelief (Reply, &c., pp. 447,448.)

George Payne, Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement, Justification, and Regeneration (London: James Dinnis, 62, Paternoster Row, 1838), 222.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 16th, 2011 at 6:46 am and is filed under The Distinction Between Atonement and Redemption. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.