Dr. Owen, also, who at an earlier period of his life espoused the notion that the Redeemer suffered the exact quantum of punishment which the elect must have endured,–an opinion. which necessarily implies that his atonement was not in itself sufficient for the salvation of all,–in more advanced age warmly recommended Polhill’s Treatises on the Divine Will,” the arguments of which,” he says, “are suited to the genius of the age past, wherein accuracy and strictness of reason bear sway.” And yet this treatise ‘argues in the following manner; “If Christ did in no way die for all men, which way shall the truth of these general promises be made out? ‘Whosoever will, may take of the water of life.’ What, though Christ never bought it for him? ‘Whosoever believes shall be Saved.’ What, though there was no lutron, no price paid for him? Surely the gospel knows no water of life, but that which Christ purchased, nor any way of salvation but by a lutron, or price paid. If Christ no way died for all men, how can these promises stand true? All men, if they believe, shall be saved;–saved, but how? Shall they be saved by a lutron, or price of redemption? There was none at all paid for them t the immense value of Christ’s death doth not make it a price as to them for whom he died not; or shall they be saved without a lutron, or price? God’s unsatisfied justice cannot suffer it, his minatory law cannot bear it, neither doth the gospel know. any such way of salvation; take it either way, the truth of those promises cannot be vindicated, unless we say that Christ died for all men.” I do not wish to be understood as expressing approbation of the whole of this language. The writer seems to have entertained obscure conceptions in reference to the nature of the atonement,–the manner in which the death of Christ secured the pardon of sin. I merely quote it as involving the opinion that his sacrifice is in itself sufficient for the whole family of man; which is all for which I think it necessary to contend.

George Payne, Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement, Justification, and Regeneration (London: James Dinnis, 62, Paternoster Row, 1838), 220-221.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 18th, 2011 at 1:21 pm and is filed under The Distinction Between Equivalency and Identity. 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.