Richards:

We draw the same conclusion from 2 Peter ii. 1, where the Apostle speaks of some who privily bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. You have already heard the opinion of Calvin upon this text. And though our brethren of another school have often nibbled at it, and applied to it the various arts of criticism, still it stands as firm as the pillar of Hercules against the sentiment that Christ died for his people only.

If wicked men deny the Lord that bought them, doubtless they were bought, and bought by the price of that blood which alone is an adequate ransom for the soul.

But we are told that the Lord that bought them was not Jesus Christ, and of course, that they were not bought with his blood. Who, then, was this Lord, and how did he buy these wicked men? Why, the Lord is God the Father, the Sovereign Ruler of the world, and he bought these men as Jehovah bought the Israelites, when he delivered them from the bondage of Egypt. But when was this interpretation first introduced? Can it be found in any of the ancient scholiasts or glossaries? Its modern date shows its origin; that it has been resorted to, not from its obvious agreement with the words, but from the necessity of the case. It has been seen that the old interpretation would be fatal to a certain theory; the words of the Apostle, therefore, must speak something else than what the Church from the beginning has supposed them to speak.

But let us hear the defense of this novel interpretation. The word in the original, translated Lord, is despotes, and not Kurios, the more common appellation of Jesus Christ. This word, it is said, signifies Supreme Ruler, and is thus applied to God in several places in the New Testament. True; but is it not also applied to Christ, and even to men who sustain the relation of master to others as their servants? Whom does the Apostle mean by despotes in 2 Tim. ii. 21, where he says, “If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the master’s use?” Whom does Jude mean by despotes in a passage strikingly parallel with that under consideration, where he speaks of “certain men crept in unawares, who were of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ” as it should be rendered. The best lexicographers tell us that this word has the force of dominus among the Latins, and may be applied to God as the Supreme Ruler, to Jesus Christ as the great Head of his Church, or to any head or master of a family. Nothing is therefore more futile than the attempt to escape the obvious construction of this passage by a criticism upon the word despotes, which in this very place, Schleusner tells us, is applied to Jesus Christ. But if God, the Supreme Ruler of the world, is here designated by despotes, I should like to know a little more definitely how he has bought these wicked men, who privily bring in damnable heresies? Will you say he delivered them from the bondage of corruption? This neither the text nor the context declares. But if it were so, what was the price which he paid for their deliverance? When he bought the Israelites, he paid a price for them, and a heavy price it was; he gave Egypt for them–Ethiopia and Sheba for a ransom. Was there anything to correspond with this, when he bought the false prophets and false teachers spoken of in this text? According to our judgment, there was never a harder shift to blunt the edge of plain and pointed Scripture testimony. But we need not wonder, because as long as this text stands in the Bible, unperverted, it is entirely fatal to that scheme which contends that Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for the elect only.

Let me draw your attention to a single remark more. This important passage has always been considered as parallel with that in Jude, already mentioned. There is a striking resemblance in all the important points of character attributed to these wicked men by the two sacred writers, and an equally striking analogy in their doom. But what did they do, besides turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and leading a life of brutal sensuality? What did they do which in a peculiar manner irrevocably sealed them to perdition? Why, they denied the despotes, and by despotes Jude manifestly intends the Lord Jesus Christ.

James Richards, Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology (New York: Published by M.W. Dodd, 1846), 325-327. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

[comments below]

Redemption and Atonement,

Not the Same

–*–

(From the Theological Magazine.)

BETWEEN atonement and redemption, divines, as yet, so far as I have been acquainted, have made no distinction. They have always considered those terms as conveying one and the same idea. It is thought to be evident, however, that redemption and atonement are, by no means, convertible terms. This evidence arises out of the holy scriptures. Atonement is for sin; redemption is from sin. The word redemption however, in the third chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, and in some other places, signifies the same as atonement. But, in those places it is used by a figure, the effect for the cause. Redemption, in its proper sense, and as the word is used in the holy scriptures, doth not mean, the precious things by which captives are delivered from bondage, but it is deliverance itself. Sinners do not obtain redemption through redemption, but through the precious blood of Christ: his blood is not redemption itself; it is the price of redemption. And it is through this precious blood, that believers have redemption, even the forgiveness of their sins; through this blood they obtain deliverance from eternal death; through this blood also, they obtain the salvation of their souls, even eternal life.

Redemption is deliverance from evil. And the Greek word Apolutrusis which signifies redemption, is used by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, for deliverance. “And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance.”¹ Redemption, in the holy scriptures sometimes means deliverance from natural, and sometimes from moral evil, and sometimes it implies exemption from both kinds of evil. In the book of Job it is said, “in famine he shall redeem thee from death: and in war from the power of the sword.” The apostle Peter speaks of redemption from sin;² the apostle Paul means the same by redemption as the forgiveness of sin:³ and it is also spoken of as implying eternal life.⁴ These great blessings simply in atonement are not implied. This, however, will more abundantly appear from the following considerations:

1. “Christ died, not for a select number of men only, but for mankind universally, and without exception or limitation. The sacred writers are singularly emphatical in expressing this truth. They speak not only of Christ’s dying for us–for our sins–for sinners–for the ungodly–for the unjust; but affirm, in yet more extensive terms, that he died for the world—for the whole world; that Christ gave himself a ransom for all; yea, that he tasted death for every man.”

The Greek word for ransom, is, Antilutron which signifies the price of redemption. The price of redemption, therefore, is given for all men; that is, atonement is made for the sins of the whole world. But, that redemption itself is not equally extensive with the price of redemption, will appear evident by attending to the holy scriptures. A few passages cited from St. John’s Revelation only, will be sufficient for the present purpose, lie, speaking of the saints, saith, “And they sung a new song, saying: Thou art worthy to take the book and open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Welch:

REV. DR. JAMES RICHARDS AND HIS

THEOLOGY.–II.

IN a previous article (PRES. REV., April, 1884) we presented some salient points in the life and character of Dr. James Richards. We, also, traced his Theology in part, as we proposed, along three lines of thought: (I) In reference to God. (2) In reference to Man. (3) In reference to the God-man.

Of these, we considered only the first and second. Under the former came, first in order, Dr. R.’s presentation of primal truth–the truth concerning God,–God as the absolute Being, the personal Jehovah, holy, just, and good, Author of all things-who was before all things and by whom all things consist. This, in the view of Dr. Richards, is the supreme reality, the fundamental truth on which all other truth reposes.

Next in order, came the consideration of the fundamental doctrine, the Plan or Purpose or Decree of God.

In the view of Dr. R., this is a doctrine fundamental not only to all theological doctrines, but preliminary to all finite existence (S. C., 7). It is but a truism to assert, that it depended upon the good pleasure of him who was before all things, that anything should exist or begin to be. Yet, from the theistic stand-point this simple truism involves the demonstrative proof of this fundamental doctrine,–The Divine Plan or Purpose or Decree; it involves also the proof that this doctrine is so comprehensive as to include all things. In the explicit language of Dr. Richards,–” The Divine Decrees are necessarily universal, reaching alike to all beings and events, and through all time. In the order of nature, they precede whatsoever comes to pass through the agency of God, whether that agency be exerted either immediately or remotely.” Dr. R. carefully discriminates the Divine agency in moral government as more immediate or remote–efficacious or permissive–direct or indirect; that promotes and rewards holiness-but permits and punishes sin. (See Conf., Chapts. VI., I, and III., I). This statement does not assert or allow that there are conditions outside the plan or purpose or decree of God; yet it does allow of conditions within the Divine plan or purpose. {Conf. IV., 2). In the Divine plan, the infinite Reason pursuing the rational order makes one thing antecedent or conditional to another. Indeed. it could not otherwise be a plan or purpose, for this implies the choice of a final cause or end, and the choice of means adapted to secure that end.

The transition is easy to the doctrine concerning the Works of God. The Works of God,” says Dr. R., “are, of course, the execution or development of the Divine Decrees” (Conf., IV. and V.). This statement suggests the order of the divine decrees as included in the plan and purpose of God; the manner in which this order is developed or disclosed (that is, in the Works of God); and the way in which we may study this order. This order, when actualized in the Works of God, is, of course, the historic order.

Read the rest of this entry »

Smith:

On the distinction between Atonement and Redemption:

1) The Priestly Office of Christ is that office in both natures whereby He makes an atonement. In the same priestly office and in virtue of his atoning work his Intercession is maintained. Intercession belongs to Christ as priest: it includes his constant application of his sacrifice; or, generally, all his agency in redeeming mankind, in his glorified state.¹ Of the two parts of Christ s work as Priest Atonement and Intercession we speak here only of The Atonement.

I. Usage of the word, and of certain terms which cluster about it.

1. Of the terms Redemption and Atonement. Redemption implies the complete deliverance from the penalty, power, and all the consequences of sin: Atonement is used in the sense of the sacrificial work, whereby the redemption from the condemning power of the law was insured.

2. Of the terms Reconciliation and Atonement. Reconciliation sets forth what is to be done: Atonement, in its current theological sense, likewise involves the idea of the way, the mode, in which the reconciliation is effected that is, by a sacrifice for sin.² Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 437. [Some reformatting; italics original; footnote values changed; and underlining mine.]

Sins of the world:

1)

COMPARISON OF THE INCARNATION WITH SOME OTHER FACTS AS GIVING

THE CENTRAL IDEAS OF THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM.

I.–Comparison of Divine Sovereignty and The Incarnation as central principles.

Calvinistic theology has had unconsciously for the most part two germinant principles: Sovereignty and The Covenants; the former the older, the latter more narrow, but with some advantages. In the Confessions we often see an unconscious union of the two. Sovereignty tends to run into supralapsarianism and the assertion of the exclusive divine efficiency: Will is made to be all; the ethical is obscured. The objections to it are: (i.) It is too abstract; (b.) It is liable to perversion, to the construction that God is all Will; (c.) If it is taken concretely, i. e., if the Sovereignty is understood to stand for Plan, it comes to much the same with our principle: Incarnation in order to Redemption is God’s Plan.

Read the rest of this entry »