Dabney:

1) But it is objected that the report suggests error concerning the application and extent of the atonement. On this subject there are two aspects which Calvinists have always distinguished. One regards the nature of the atonement; the other its design; and we all hold that, in its intrinsic nature, the atonement is infinite. This is the consequence of the infinite dignity of the Mediatorial Person. Its value is, intrinsically, as sufficient for the sins of all men as of one. Its limitation to the elect is not to be sought, then, in it nature, but in its design; and this design, as to its actual application to them, is nothing else than the decree. It is not something else, different and separate, but the decree itself. Now the section of our report under remark, in its first sentences, speaks of the nature of the atonement, and in its last of its application. In its first sentences it uses general terms, “man’s guilt,” “our sins,” etc., for it is speaking only of the nature of Christ’s atoning work, which has no limits.’ And in speaking thus, I claim that the report does but imitate the Scriptures–”God so loved the world,” etc.; “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world,” etc.–and the Confession itself. Why, then, should it be charged with error for using the same sort of language which the Bible itself does in this connection? But when the report proceeds to speak of the application of redemption, it declares, as I assert, in exact accordance with the spirit of our standards, that God applies it to all the elect, and to no others; and that this application is itself through the purchase of Jesus Christ. We do not invent a statement to establish a supralapsarian order of sequence between the purpose to save the elect and to send Christ to die; but neither does the Confession. It merely declares that redemption is applied through this work of Christ precisely to those to whom it was God’s eternal purpose to apply it; and that is, his elect. The report speaks the same thing.

Moreover, the committee used the word redemption, as they believe, in strict accordance with Calvinistic usage, in a sense distinct from the word atonement. Redemption means, not only a provision of a vicarious penalty to satisfy for guilt, but in addition all the gracious gifts, of active obedience to be imputed, of effectual calling, of sanctification, and of glorification, which make up a completed salvation. All this is designed, purchased, and bestowed for the elect in and through Christ. And in this view they may quote, among many Calvinistic authorities, this of old Willison, Catechism, Ques.: “How doth Christ redeem his people from their bondage?” Ans. “Partly by price, or purchase; partly by power, or conquest.”

In a word, the committee intended to express summarily that sound, but not ultra, view of the atonement held by Calvinists, and expressed in the ancient formula, “Christ died sufficiently for the race, efficaciously for the elect.”  R.L. Dabney, ‘Speech on the Fusion of the United Synod,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, 2:307-308. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

2) But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16, make “the world” which Christ loved, to mean “the elect world,” and we reach the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him—i. e., the elect it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ. In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, “whole world,” can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as “we,” in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins. Dabney, Lectures, 525.  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

3) But we cannot admit that Christ died as fully and in the same sense for Judas as he did for Saul of Tarsus. Here we are bound to assert that, while the expiation is infinite, redemption is particular. The irrefragable grounds on which we prove that the redemption is particular are these: From the doctrines of unconditional election, and the covenant of grace. (The argument is one, for the covenant of grace is but one aspect of election.) The Scriptures tell us that those who are to be saved in Christ are a number definitely elected and given to him from eternity to be redeemed by his mediation. How can anything be plainer from this than that there was a purpose in God’s expiation, as to them, other than that it was as to the rest of mankind? (See the Scriptures regarding the immutability of God’s purposes—Isa. 46:10; 2 Tim. 2:19.) The Five Points of Calvinism (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1895), p 63.  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

4) Now Christ is a true substitute. His sufferings were penal and vicarious, and made a true satisfaction for all those who actually embrace them by faith. But the conception charged on us seems to be, as though Christ’s expiation were a web of the garment of righteousness to be cut into definite pieces and distributed out, so much to each person of the elect, whence, of course, it must have a definite aggregate length, and had God seen fit to add any to the number of elect, He must have had an additional extent of web woven. This is all incorrect. Satisfaction was Christ’s indivisible act, and inseparable vicarious merit, infinite in moral value, the whole in its unity and completeness, imputed to every believing elect man, without numerical division, subtraction or exhaustion. Had there been but one elect man, his vicarious satisfaction had been just what it is in its essential nature. Had God elected all sinners, there would have been no necessity to make Christ’s atoning sufferings essentially different. Remember, the limitation is precisely in the decree, and no where else. It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term “atonement,” has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for satisfaction for guilt, sometimes for the reconciliation ensuing thereon; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. The one is cause, the other effect. The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of katallage, reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. Katallage is personal. Exhilasmos is impersonal. Katallage is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood. Exhilasmos is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, has no more relation to one man’s sins than another. As it is applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, “limited atonement,” “particular atonement,” have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited. Dabney, Lectures, 528.  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.] [For more on Dabney on the expiation and death of Christ, go here, and here for Name Index page.]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 at 10:12 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. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 comments so far

 1 

First, I wonder how any Calvinist could argue against the substance of what is presented here. Granted, there may be arguments over specific points, but the basic drift is pure genius.

Second, I see clearly from this extract that Owen’s argument is simply too simple. Owen makes no room for the complexities of divine motives (not that they are so complex, though, because Dabney is only positing two senses, universal and particular), and while Owen’s trilemma argument makes perfectly good sense with regard to redemption, it misses the point of atonement entirely. It ignores atonement while appearing to address it.

What is most interesting is the way Dabney’s view preserves the limited effect of Christ’s saving work and at the same time removes the perceived need to “prove” this limitedness through a twisting of the universal passages that forces unnecessary limits upon them. If one accepts, on Biblical grounds, an infinite atonement with a particular redemption, one need only determine which aspect a passage is referring to. This leaves Arminians without an argument, because they may well enough prove unlimited atonement but they can’t possibly prove universal redemption without twisting Scripture – and then, after all their exegetical welding and patching, they would have to face the charge of universalism (here, Owen’s trilemma would ironically be the perfect counter argument). Dabney also eliminates the idea of “4-point” Calvinism. That term forgets the fact that we are replacing the “L” (limited atonement) with a more precise “P” (particular redemption), thus maintaining the 5 points and actually improving them by holding them up to Biblical scrutiny.

Third, I see now that my own previous statements have missed the mark by implying the ATONEMENT is both limited and unlimited. That would seem to be a mistake in terminology. According to Dabney (and at this point I’m inclined to agree with him) it is not the ATONEMENT that is limited, but the SAVING EFFECT OF CHRIST”S WORK ON THE CROSS (i.e. redemption). And this is not limited in its potential efficacy, nor in its effectiveness for the elect, but it is particular in its ultimate design and application. This approach leaves all the power in the cross and all the wisdom in God’s decree. Limited atonement seems to create a false dichotomy between the two, while particular redemption upholds both. It holds the powerful cross and the wise decree together in a nice, explicable paradox (sorry, I can’t resist using that word – it fits so nicely here).

I have to say again, I am flabbergasted that any honest, Bible-loving Calvinist would find fault with this approach. It poses no threat to Reformed theology. Rather, it is a thoroughly defensible and Biblically faithful position within Reformed theology. It’s far more defensible and logical than the simple but exegetically flawed Owenic conception of limited atonement.

David, thanks for posting, this has turned on all sorts of light bulbs!

Grace & peace,
Derek

February 24th, 2010 at 7:15 am
CalvinandCalvinism
 2 

Hey there Derek,

You say: First, I wonder how any Calvinist could argue against the substance of what is presented here. Granted, there may be arguments over specific points, but the basic drift is pure genius.

David: I think that the strict limited expiation advocate would have to deny Dabney to the hilt here. They are committed to two key, albeit false, ideas: 1) Christ can no way suffer punishment for a man, and yet that man suffer in his own person for his own sin. 2) They are committed to an expiation which denies any element of conditionality and contingency. Often we hear the refrain, “an atonement that does not atone, is no atonement at all,” or something like it. Gary Long used that rhetoric long and hard.

Derek: Second, I see clearly from this extract that Owen’s argument is simply too simple. Owen makes no room for the complexities of divine motives (not that they are so complex, though, because Dabney is only positing two senses, universal and particular), and while Owen’s trilemma argument makes perfectly good sense with regard to redemption, it misses the point of atonement entirely. It ignores atonement while appearing to address it.

David: I would say yes and no. For sure, Owen was reductionist in his doctrine of God’s volitions. He clearly over-played the simple dichotomy of decree and precept. God as only one volition, his decree, and in no sense can God be said to have any “velleities.” On the other hand, I don’t agree with the strong dichotomy between atonement and redemption. I think Shedd and Dabney are forcing that. There is a sense where Redemption is universal, in the universal sufficient ransom. By this ransom, Christ takes possession, purchases the right to, so to speak, all men. And hence in 1 Peter 2:1, it truly is the case that men deny Jesus who “bought” them. Dabney, for his part, must interpret that verse to mean nothing more than “a judgement of charity and presumption”view. The classic Reformation idea was that both the expiation and redemption have universal and particular aspects, in terms of intention and application.

Derek: What is most interesting is the way Dabney’s view preserves the limited effect of Christ’s saving work and at the same time removes the perceived need to “prove” this limitedness through a twisting of the universal passages that forces unnecessary limits upon them.

David: Yes, exactly. Dabney’s view, which was the last ebb of a trajectory began somewhere in the late 18th century, allowed him to be more true to both Scripture and Confession (as he interpreted both).

Derek: If one accepts, on Biblical grounds, an infinite atonement with a particular redemption, one need only determine which aspect a passage is referring to. This leaves Arminians without an argument, because they may well enough prove unlimited atonement but they can’t possibly prove universal redemption without twisting Scripture –

David: Totally agree. Dabney, Shedd, and this particular trajectory, in this manner sought to obtain justice to both the particularity and the universality of Christ’s death. It’s a neat and for the most part, discrete option. It resolves the tension very well, as far as it goes. However, I think it breaks down in the denial of any universalist import to the redemption of Christ. I think Griffin comes closes to solving this, while still laying the burden of meaning, for redemption, upon application-unto-reconciliation.

Derek: and then, after all their exegetical welding and patching, they would have to face the charge of universalism (here, Owen’s trilemma would ironically be the perfect counter argument).

David: Here I would disagree. I can see no place for the trilemma. The problem with the trilemma is that it refers the proper predications which speak to the unbreakable relationship which lies between the believer as she is vitally united to Christ, and then transfers that to the elective relationship between Christ and the elect (qua elect). Like this, recall that the trilemma supposes that if Christ suffers for a man, that man cannot be punished in his own person. It needs this to deny the first premise of the trilemma “Christ died for all the sins of all men.” The double-payment fallacy is invoked to deny this premise, thereby leading the reader to the conclusion, “Christ died for all the sins of some men.”

However, if we unpack the double-payment dilemma, it is only true in the case of believers, qua believers. The gospel declares, ‘God covenants with men that if any man trusts in Christ, thereby meeting the condition of faith, God in no wise cast out and condemn that man.’ The double-payment dilemma only works when stated correctly, “if a man believes and trusts in the substitution of Christ, that man cannot be punished again in is own person for his sin, for this could only mean that the suffering of Christ was not a complete and perfect satisfaction, (etc etc). God promises that ‘any man who meets his gospel conditions, ie believes can never fail to be saved,’ which holds good else God’s own justice is violated: a man who has supplied all the conditions God demands of him, and yet still fails to obtain God’s promise salvation.

Derrek: Dabney also eliminates the idea of “4-point” Calvinism. That term forgets the fact that we are replacing the “L” (limited atonement) with a more precise “P” (particular redemption), thus maintaining the 5 points and actually improving them by holding them up to Biblical scrutiny.

David: Yes. The distinction was his way of resolving and clarifying the problem. To be clear tho, even on the terms of the Reformation view of expiation and redemption, even under Amyraut’s schema, the label of 4-point Calvinist is just dishonest.

Derek: Third, I see now that my own previous statements have missed the mark by implying the ATONEMENT is both limited and unlimited. That would seem to be a mistake in terminology. According to Dabney (and at this point I’m inclined to agree with him) it is not the ATONEMENT that is limited, but the SAVING EFFECT OF CHRIST”S WORK ON THE CROSS (i.e. redemption).

David: I would say yes and no. The expiation, in its nature, is unlimited. It cannot be limited. It is a satisfaction for human sin, for sin itself. Therefore it can have no limitation. However, in the divine intention obtains multiple ends. For the elect, it is the exact and proper means by which pardon is effectually bestowed. For the non-elect, it is the means by which other ends are obtained. In the strict expiation model, the limitation is in the expiation itself, specifically in the imputation of sins, in that only so many sins of so many people (ie the elect only) were imputed to Christ. In this model, the expiation can in no way be sufficient, even adaptable to others not elected.

Derek: And this is not limited in its potential efficacy, nor in its effectiveness for the elect, but it is particular in its ultimate design and application.

David: “Ultimate design” is the key, as design speaks to intentionality.

Derek: This approach leaves all the power in the cross and all the wisdom in God’s decree. Limited atonement seems to create a false dichotomy between the two, while particular redemption upholds both. It holds the powerful cross and the wise decree together in a nice, explicable paradox (sorry, I can’t resist using that word – it fits so nicely here).

David: I would say more simply that at its roots, limited expiation and sin-bearing entails nothing short of irrationalism.

Derek: I have to say again, I am flabbergasted that any honest, Bible-loving Calvinist would find fault with this approach. It poses no threat to Reformed theology. Rather, it is a thoroughly defensible and Biblically faithful position within Reformed theology. It’s far more defensible and logical than the simple but exegetically flawed Owenic conception of limited atonement.

David: Agreed. It is a vastly superior way of seeing the death of Christ, in all its complexity. The only thing I would add is the needed Griffin qualifier: 2 Peter 2:1 and 1 Tim 2:6 are both problematics for the hard atonement-redemption distinction case. As long as we exegete those verses soundly, then what Dabney says in the above post holds good, and is perfectly doable as a way of expressing the positive theology.

Derek: David, thanks for posting, this has turned on all sorts of light bulbs!

David: No worries. I would close by adding, Dabney and Shedd were 99% there.

February 24th, 2010 at 9:06 am
CalvinandCalvinism
 3 

I just just add quickly… in the Reformation view of redemption, it is, like expiation, divided into two aspects, the universal and the particular (as noted). The pertains to the application of salvation and deliverance. However, particular redemption is, itself, divided into redemption accomplished upon conversion, and eschatological redemption of the body at the return of Christ.

David

February 24th, 2010 at 10:47 am
 4 

David,

The atonement is so deep there is always more to discover. I wasn’t aware that Griffin had developed the distinction even further, so I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for all of the clarifications.

Blessings,
Derek

February 24th, 2010 at 11:15 am
CalvinandCalvinism
 5 

Hey Derek,

Sure. It is complex stuff. The lessons learned from Dabney are still profound: a correct grasp of both the biblical doctrine of expiation and redemption. We really need to move away from the idea of sin-bits being imputed to Christ, and so forth.

I totally admit that the hard distinction between atonement and redemption is very attractive. It fits as intuitively natural. Also, it takes away the old bad idea that redemption was a payment of something to someone; as if the blood of Christ functioned as a literal currency, which itself was an outgrowth of Medieval merit theology.

A lot of things considered, it has a lot going for it. All one has to do is factor on the two verses and I think it hits the nail on the head.

One last thing, AA Hodge points out in his commentary on the Confession, that atonement and redemption were used interchangeably in the 17thC. He is right on that. I can see what Dabney was trying to do, define redemption as he sees it, then import that meaning into the confessional language, so that the result that there is not even a hint of confessional conflict with unlimited expiation.

In terms of the context of the confession, and its use of redemption language, it was probably the case that the intent was to speak to effectual redemption, while also AA Hodge’s point is generally correct that in the wider Reformed theological literature of the day, atonement and redemption were often used interchangeably.

Thanks for commenting,
David

February 24th, 2010 at 11:48 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment