Griffin:

1) A considerable part of the dispute has arisen from a failure thus to distinguish between the figurative and literal meaning of texts. But there are two other points of difference of still greater influence, one respecting the nature, the other the objects of the atonement.

One respects the nature. We mean by Atonement nothing more than that which is the ground of release from the curse, and we separate it entirely from the merit of Christ, or his claim to a reward. Our brethren comprehend under the name, not only what we understand by expiation, but merit also with all its claim. And if they could see the propriety of limiting the term as do, of them would deny our conclusions. In their mouth the word is always co-extensive with ransom, (lutron), the price of redemption, (lutrosis;) and the question which they raise is about particular redemption, on which really there is no dispute; we believe as fully as they do that redemption, in the higher and more perfect sense, was accomplished only for the elect. It is to be noticed that ransom, and words of that nature, are used in two senses in the New Testament: for, for the blood of Christ, laid down for a moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on his part will accept the offer. This I call the lower ransom, and it is exactly what we mean by the atonement. Secondly, for expiation and merit united. A ransom has two influences; it supports the claim of the redeemer, and it is that out of respect to which the holder of the captives lets them go. According to this, the ransom of Christ includes his merit, which claimed the release of the captives as his reward, and his atonement, out of respect to which, as the honor of the law was concerned, the Father consented to their discharge. This I call the higher ransom, and its absolute and unfailing influence depends on the claim of merit to its stipulated recompense. This was not offered for all; for none of us will say that Christ so purchased the whole race by the merit of his obedience, that he could claim them all as his promised reward.

The second point respects the objects of the atonement. We consider the satisfaction as made exclusively for moral agents; our brethren speak of it as if it was made for mere passive subjects of regenerating influence, and in their reasonings they overlook moral agents. In which character men were really contemplated in the provision, is indeed the question on which the controversy chiefly hinges. If it was made for moral agents, it might be made for those who were never to be regenerated; if made for passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, it was made only for those who are ultimately new-born. If made for the passive, it must be absolute; and if absolute, the event shows that it was not made for all: if made for moral agents, it must be conditional; and if conditional, it could not be limited to a part.

These three points comprehend the whole ground of the dispute. If the parties can discriminate with the same eyes between figurative and literal language, and especially if they can agree to separate atonement from merit, and can be of one mind respecting the character in which men were contemplated in the provision; there will no longer be any difference even in words, and thus this unhappy divir3ion will be healed. Edward D. Griffin, An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement (New York: Published by Stephen Dodge, 1819), 10-11.  [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

2) The great mistake on this subject has arisen from confounding the different influences which meet in the death of Christ. That death, including the consent of the Sufferer, is to be viewed in two lights; as an atoning sacrifice, and as the highest act of obedience. Am I yet the merit of that obedience, as constituting a claim to a reward, is confounded by the writers on the other side with the atonement. And then they raise the question, whether the death, of Christ obtained the gift of faith for the elect and thus accomplished actual reconciliation. We fully acknowledge that it did; and thus the dispute ends. But when we say this we do not make the same acknowledgment respecting the atonement. The merit of Christ’s obedience “unto death” certainly obtained the gift of faith, and in union with his expiation, accomplished reconciliation for the elect; but merit made no part of the atonement.

Dr. Owen, and other writers on that side, constantly bring up the question about the death and ransom of Christ,’and whether redemption was universal.’ We certainly have no dispute with them on this point. Says Dr. Owen, “Redemption, which in the Scripture is lutrosis sometimes, but most frequently apolutrosis, is the delivery of anyone from captivity and misery by the intervention, (lutron[?].) of a price or ransom. That this ransom or price of our deliverance was the blood of Christ, is evident. He calls it lutron, Mat. 20. 28. and antilutron, 1 Tim. 2. 6. that is, the price of such redemption.”¹

I have no objection to all this, except a small inaccuracy in the last sentence. Nothing is said in the texts referred to about the blood of Christ. I admit however that redemption, in the larger sense, is our deliverance from the bondage both of sin and death; that it was accomplished by the larger ransom; and that this ransom is sometimes called the blood of Christ. But lutron when used for the larger ransom, expresses more than kophar did when standing for atonement.² It occurs no where but in the above quoted text, and in the parallel one in Mark. “The Son of man came–to give his life a ransom for many.” Antiluton occurs no where but in the passage above referred to. “Who gave himself a ransom for all.” But the kindred words are of more frequent occurrence. Lutrosis appears thrice. “He has visited and made redemption for his people.” “All them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.³ Antilutrosis occurs ten times. It is used to denote redemption from Jewish persecution, from the pains of martyrdom, from the grave, and from all evil at the last day.⁴ The otber passages are as follows. “Justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.” “Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” ” In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” ” By means of death for the redemption of–transgressions.”⁵ The corresponding verb carries the idea to a redemption from the power of sin, which kophar never expressed. “Who gave himself for us that he might redeem, (ransom, lutrosetai), us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works.” “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed, (ransomed, elutrothete), with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot; who–was mangiest in these last times for you who by him do believe in God.⁶ The same idea is brought out where the lutron or ransom is not expressed. “Who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world.” “Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that be might present it to himself a glorious Church, riot having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” “For their sakes I sanctify myself, [devote myself to die,] that they also might be sanctified through the truth.”⁷ Thus by his obedience “unto death” he obtained a right and claim to deliver the elect from the bondage of sin by sanctifying grace. Hence it is said to Christians, “Ye are bought with a price;” (times egorasthete). And their song in heaven is, “Thou wast slain and hast redeemed, (bought, egorasas,) us to God with thy blood.” “And no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand which were redeemed, (hoi egorasmevoi), from the earth.–These Were redeemed, (egorasthesan), from among men.”⁸ Another word is used in the same sense. “The Church of God which he hath purchased, (oeriespoisate); with his own blood.” “Ye are a chosen generation–a people for a purchase;” (laos eis oeripoiesin) meaning, says Parkhurst, “a people acquired or purchased to himself in a peculiar manner.”⁹ When therefore you contemplate the death of Christ as a whole, including both expiation and the merit of obedience, it did reconcile the elect to God. “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and, (having made peace through the blood of his cross), by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your oftnd by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight….

We can now understand what is meant by the larger ransom. By giving himself, devoting himself, to die, and actively laying down his blood; Christ obtained as firm a claim to the redemption of his elect from the bondage of sin, (and so from that of death through his expiation), as a man could have to the release of captives, who had paid by contract a mighty ransom for their redemption; while the blood laid down, was that out of respect to which, as the honour of the law was concerned, the Father consented to their release. These two parts were sufficient to constitute a complete lutron. A ransom has two influences; it supports the claim of. the redeemer, and it is that out of respect to which the holder of the captives lets them go. Let the ransom of Christ possess this double influence, and it comprehends in its matter all that was active and passive in his voluntary death, and in its power, not only the whole efficiency of the atonement, but his entire claim to that reward which consisted in the release of the captives from both parts of their bondage, or his perfect right to sanctify and lead them forth from punishment. The part of the ransom which supported his claim, was the giving or sanctifying of himself, as it is expressed four times in the above quotations; but the part which the Father respected as the ground of the release, was the blood and life laid down. Thus he actively “gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity,” but “redeemed us from the curse of the law [by] being made, [passively,] a curse for us.”¹⁰

The lower ransom was the blood of Christ laid down for a moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on his part would accept the offer. “I exhort–that supplications–be made for all men;–for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth: for there is one God, and one Mediator between Ged and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom, (antilutron), for all.”¹¹ “Even denying the Lord that bought, (agorosanta), them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”¹² The latter word is the same that expresses the purchase of believers in the following passages: “Ye are bought with a price.” “Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God with thy blood.” “The hundred and forty and four thousand which were redeemed from the earth.” The higher ransom then is that which effect, deliverance from sin and death; the lower ransom is the means of deliverance, dependant for its effect on the conduct of men. The higher ransom comprehends both expiation and merit; the lower ransom is nothing but the atonement. In this lower sense redemption was as general as the means, and might be accepted or refused.¹³ Edward D. Griffin, An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement (New York: Published by Stephen Dodge, 1819), 95-101.  [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

[Note: For Griffin, Atonement is general, redemption, however, consists of two aspects. Lower redemption corresponds to atonement. Higher redemption, corresponds, restrictively, to deliverance effected. Thus, for Griffin, in a primary sense, atonement is unlimited, while redemption is limited.]

__________________________

¹Salus Electorum. p. 174. Falkirk Ed.

²kophar when meaning a ransom, is translated lutron by the LXX. (Exod 21.3n. and 311. 12. Num. 35. 31, 32. Provo 6. 35. and 13. 8.) But this Greek word, like the corresponding English term, expresses a price which may either be absolute or conditional. There is nothing in it to limit it to the absolute sense: and we shall see that this and other words of a similar nature are used in a lower and conditional sense in the New-Testament.

³Luke 1. 68. and 2. 31. Heb. 9. 12.

⁴Luke 11. 28. Rom. 8. 23. Eph.1. 14. and 4. 30. Heb 11. 35

⁵Rom. 3, 24. 1 Cor. 1.:10. Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. Heb.9. 15.

⁶Tit. 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1. I8-21.

⁷John 17. 19. Gal. 1. 4. Eph. 5. 25-27.

⁸1 Cor. 6. !W. and 7.113. Rev. 5. 9. and 14, 3. 4

⁹Acts 110. 211. 1 Pet. II. 9.

¹⁰Gal. S. 13. Tit. S. 14.

¹¹1 Tim. 2. 1-6.

¹²2 Pet. 2. 1.

¹³Heb. 11. 35.