Smith:

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. 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. Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 437. [Some reformatting; italics original; footnotes not included and underlining mine.]

2) [T]he truth of General Atonement says: The Atonement made by Christ is made for all mankind, is such in nature and design, that God can save all men, consistently with the demands of holiness, on condition of faith and repentance.

1. The distinction is to be made between Atonement and Redemption. Atonement is the provision.  Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 478. [Some reformatting and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Lamb:

And in the eleventh section it is affirmed, “That all the assurance that any man has is grounded mainly and principally upon the uniform, regular, constant tenor of his life and conversation in the ways of holiness.”

To this I answer, first, every true believer that is the child of God knows it, for “he that believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself.” [1 John 5:10.].

And secondly, this witness is not principally from the ways of holiness, but from the Spirit of God which bears witness to the soul of every true believer that he is the child of God; “Yea, and because they are sons, God has sent forth [the Spirit of]¹ his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father, and witnesses such heirs of God through Christ” [Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6-7.]; yea, the Office of the Spirit, which every faithful soul receives is that “they may know the things that are freely given them of God,” [1 Cor. 2:12.].

Thirdly, as Christians witness of his good estate with God does not arise from his holiness so much as holiness arises from the witness as from its proper cause; “for it is the grace of God that brings salvation unto all men,” [Tit. 2:11.], and so particularly, to each man’s heart and soul, that is in any way effectual to teach him to “deny ungodliness,” &c., and all the works that have never so great a show of piety and holiness in them as are dead, hypocrites, and merely carnal, and fleshly, that sprung not from the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us [Rom. 5:5.]: and so it is true, that “he that does righteousness is righteous,” [1 John 4:18, 19.], which none does but he that works from love and life, not for love and life, for righteous works do not make a righteous man, but a righteous man does make or work righteous works, for the tree is before the fruit, and as is the tree such is the fruit; and therefore as it is true, and the Scriptures quoted do prove that righteousness is the constant trade of a righteous man; so it is as true, that the assurance that believers have is not grounded mainly and principally upon the uniform and regular constant tenor of his life and conversation in the ways of holiness; neither do any of the Scriptures quoted it so; and therefore the alleging of them for this purpose is but a perverting and endeavoring to make them speak that which is not in them and the Doctrine not true, nor has it foundation to bear it up, but is uncomfortable.

Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from sin by Christs Death for the World, as the object of faith in opposition to the conditional set forth by Mr John Goodwin in his Book (hereby appearing falsly) entituled [Redemption Redeemed], (London: Printed by H.H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, and also by William Larnar in Fleet-street at the Sign of the Black Moor, 1656), 10-11. [Some spelling modernized; marginal citations cited inline; and underlining mine.]

[Note: the context of this work is Lamb’s polemic against the Arminian John Goodwin. In it, Lamb affirms both sovereign election and unlimited expiation against Goodwin’s denials of perseverance of the saints and support for “free will.”]

_________________________

¹Square bracketed insert mine.

Weeks:

SERMON V.

EPHESIANS 1. 11

Who works all things after the counsel of his own will

We proceed in the discussion of objections.

Objection 4. It is said, that if this doctrine is true, and God decrees and causes whatever takes place, then men Cannot possibly help ‘doing as they do, in all cases. And so, if they are finally damned, they are damned for doing, what they cannot, help. And when God requires them to do otherwise than they do, he requires an impossibility which is manifestly unjust and cruel.

Answer. It is granted that to punish men for doing what they cannot help, or to require of them an impossibility, would be manifestly unjust and cruel. But this God does not, do. He requires no more of men than, they are able to perform; and he punishes them only for doing those things which they could and ought to have abstained from doing. When we speak, in common language, of ability and inability, can and cannot, possible and impossible, we always have reference to men’s power and faculties of body or mind, and not at all to their inclinations. If a man has all the power. and faculties of body and mind which are necessary to do a thing, we say he is able to do it, whether he is willing or not. His  ability and his willingness are different things, perfectly distinct. A man may be able to perform a piece of work, which he has no heart to perform, and which he is totally unwilling to engage in. And again, a man may be perfectly wiling to do that which is not in his power, that which is entirely beyond his strength. One man may be able to march to the field of battle, but totally unwilling. And another may be perfectly willing to march to the field of blood, but through bodily infirmity may be unable. Ability and willingness must both unite in the same person, before he will perform any thing, but they are perfectly distinct, and our willingness constitutes no part of our ability. It is true that willingness is sometimes styled moral ability; but it is evidently in a figurative and improper sense. According to the usual and proper meaning of the term, men are able to do every thing which they have bodily and mental strength sufficient to do, whether they are willing to exert that strength, and do the thing or not. Now, although God cannot justly require of men more than they are able to do, that is, more than they have bodily and mental strength sufficient to do, if they were so disposed; yet he may, and does, justly require of them many things which they have no disposition to do, many things which they are totally unwilling to perform. And though men cannot be justly punished for not doing those things which they are unable to do, yet they may be justly punished for not doing those things which they are able, but are unwilling to do. Men are able to comply with the invitations of the gospel, that is, they have all the bodily and mental powers that are necessary to do it, and God may justly require them to do it, whether they are willing or not; and if they do not comply, he may justly punish them for their disobedience. And his making some willing and others unwilling, does not interfere with the ability of any. Those who are unwilling are just as able as those who are willing, and are as justly required to comply. To substantiate the objection, it must be made to appear, that God imposes some constraint upon men, so that they cannot do the things he requires, even though they are willing, and desirous of doing them. This is taken for granted in the objection. This is the real meaning of the phrase, doing what they cannot help. The meaning is, that they desire and endeavor to do otherwise, but have not the necessary bodily and mental strength. If they had, they should do, otherwise. They would, but cannot. But the fact is directly the reverse. They can, but will not. They have the necessary bodily and mental strength, but have no willingness. And this, God is not bound to give them. Should any say, that God cannot justly require of men any more than he gives them a willingness to do, as well as bodily and mental strength, this would abolish all law, and destroy the distinction between right and wrong. For if God cannot require of men any more than he makes them willing, as well as able, to do, then, since they always do what they have both strength and will to accomplish, he cannot justly require of them any more than they actually perform. And if they always do all that he requires, there is no such thing as sin in the world. It is right, therefore, for God to require of them all that they have powers and faculties sufficient to perform, all that they are able to do; and if they fail of complying through unwillingness, it is right that they should be punished. But men have all the powers and faculties necessary to comply with the invitations of the gospel, and all the commands of God, and want nothing but a willingness. They can comply, but will not. When, therefore, God punishes them for not complying, he punishes them, NOT for what they could not help, but solely for refusing to do what they could but would not.

Williams Weeks, Nine Sermons on the Decrees and Agency of God, 3^rd ed., (Newark, N.J.: Published by the Ecclesiastical Board of Trustees for the Propagation of the Gospel. John R. Weeks, Printer), 77-80. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Ware:

Objection 3

Unconditional election stands directly opposed to God’s own desire that all be saved. Out of his universal love for all, God has a universal desire for the salvation of all sinners. Ezekiel 18:23; 1 Timothy 2:4; and 2 Peter 3:9 all teach, in their own ways, that God does not desire the wicked to perish but rather that he wills that all be saved. Since this is taught in Scripture, it simply cannot be the case that God unconditionally wills that others certainly perish. Election, then, must be conditional upon the freewill choices of human beings who reject God’s loving desire that all be saved.

Reply. My reply must be far briefer than this objection deserves, but thankfully other fine and more extensive treatments are available.⁴⁰ The heart of the answer here is much like what we saw in the previous discussion. On the question of the will of God regarding salvation, the Bible represents God’s saving will in two ways, not one. Yes, Arminians are correct to point to passages teaching the will of God that all be saved. And many Calvinists, including myself, will grant that these texts teach the universal saving will of God, much as I also am fully convinced that the Bible teaches the universal love of God for all people. But the Bible’s teaching does not stop here. Rather, Scripture teaches also the specific and inviolable will of God that some surely and certainly be saved along with its teaching that God wills the salvation of all.⁴¹ The particular will of God surely and certainly to save some (i.e. the elect), stands alongside the universal saving will of God that all be saved. How can it be both ways? Consider just one pair of passages that illustrates these “two wills” of God, and then I’ll offer a few summary comments.

First Timothy 2:3-4 (HCSB) states, “This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (italics added), and 2 Timothy 2:24–26 (HCSB) says, “The Lord’s slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance to know the truth. Then they may come to their senses and escape the Devil’s trap, having been captured by him to do his will” (italics added). One feature common to both of these passages is that for people to be saved, they need to come to the knowledge of, or to know, “the truth.” Yet, while they share this in common, they differ insofar as in 1 Timothy 2:4 (HCSB) God “wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth,” but in 2 Timothy 2:25 (HCSB), God must “grant them repentance” for them “to know the truth” and be saved.

Read the rest of this entry »