Pendleton:

1)

IV. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

This topic, if considered in all its amplitude, would embrace the atonement in its relations to the universe. That it sustains such relations is entirely credible, but we are specially concerned with its relation to God and men. In this view the subject is one of deep personal interest to all the human race. As to the sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of the world, there can be no doubt and there need be no controversy. If as has been shown, the value of the atonement arises chiefly from the dignity of Christ’s person, and if his dignity results by a sublime necessity from his divinity, it is a grand impertinence to attempt to limit its sufficiency. So far as the claims of law and justice are concerned, the atonement has obviated every difficulty in the way of any sinner’s salvation. In supplying a basis for the exercise of mercy in one instance it supplies a basis for the exercise of mercy in innumerable instances. It places the world, to use the language of Robert Hall, “in a salvable state.” It makes salvation an attainable object. That is, all men, in consequence of the atonement, occupy a position where saving influences can reach them. There is no natural impossibility in the way of their salvation. If it be asked why all men are not saved, I reply, The answer is not to be sought in the atonement, but in the culpable unwillingness of sinners to be saved. Here the question is to be left, and here it ought always to have been left.

The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the world’s salvation, is the only basis on which can consistently rest the universal invitations of the gospel. On this point I cannot express my views so well as Andrew Fuller has done in the following language: “It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might he made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to he reconciled to God from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved, the non-elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Woods:

LECTURE LXXXI.

IS THE ATONEMENT GENERAL, OR PARTICULAR?

11. Was the atonement general, or particular; universal, or limited? In other words; was the atonement provided for all men, or only for a part ? Did Christ die for the whole world, or only for the elect?

This question, as generally stated and discussed, has the attribute of remarkable indefiniteness and ambiguity; and hence it is adapted to create a warm and fruitless controversy–a controversy which may very easily be continued, as long as men can be found who take pleasure in strife. But the controversy may, I think, be quickly brought to a conclusion, if men will cherish a real desire to be agreed, and will take pains to understand one another, and especially if they will be content to make the Scriptures their guide.

In the discussion of this subject, we should do all we can to exclude logomachy, to prevent a needless expense of time, and to bring ourselves in the shortest way to the most satisfactory result. In order to this, let us see how many things we can lay out of the question, and so reduce the discussion to the most simple and intelligible form, and to the narrowest compass. In pursuance of this plan, let me say that the point at issue is not, whether the atonement was so provided for all men, that all will actually be saved. As the controversy, so long agitated among evangelical Christians respecting the extent of the atonement, does not relate to the question of universal salvation, this point is to be wholly excluded from the discussion. Those who are enlisted in this controversy, are united in the belief, that salvation will not be actually experienced by all men. So that the question whether Christ died for all men is to be understood as entirely distinct from the question whether he will actually save all.

Again. The point at issue is not, whether God actually intended or determined to save all men. Those who manage this controversy are united in the belief, that it is the purpose or determination of God to save only a part of the human race. The parties then agree that Christ did not die for all men in such a sense, that they will all actually obtain forgiveness through his blood; and they agree too that he did not die for all men with a purpose or determination actually to save all.

There are other points also, which we shall find it easy to dispose of satisfactorily, if we take pains to avoid obscurity in our thoughts and in our language, and to place the subject in a clear and distinct light.

One of these points is whether Christ died for his chosen people absolutely or unconditionally?

It is difficult to give a direct answer to this question, merely because it is difficult to know exactly what is meant by it. If the meaning is, whether Christ by his death so purchased or procured salvation for his chosen people, that nothing else is necessary and nothing ever to be admitted, as a meritorious cause or ground of their forgiveness; the answer is easy. Christ’s death is a perfect cause or ground of our forgiveness. So far as merit is concerned, our righteousness, our good works are not needed, nay, they are expressly excluded from having any influence. Those

Read the rest of this entry »

Woods:

4. Did Christ pay the debt of sinners? In the Scriptures, and in common discourse, the punishment which sinners deserve is figuratively represented as a debt. “Forgive us our debts;” that is, remit the punishment of our offences. The figure is intelligible and striking. As those who are in debt are held to pay a sum of money to their creditor; so sinners are held to suffer the penalty of the law which they have violated. As the creditor can demand payment of his debtors; so the Lawgiver and Judge can require sinners to suffer merited punishment. Accordingly, when they suffer that punishment, they are represented as paying their debt to God, or to divine justice. But the punishment of penitent sinners is remitted. That is, the same figure of speech being retained, their debt is forgiven. And it is forgiven through the vicarious sufferings of Christ. He paid what God accepted, in lieu of the debt which they owed. From a regard to what he paid, God forgives their debt. Thus he virtually paid their debt. He did that which was accepted in the place of it, that which answered the same purposes, and which secured their forgiveness.

But in regard to this kind of language, which is so frequent in the Scriptures and in religious discourse, we must remember that the language is more or less figurative; and then we must determine the sense of the figure, and the extent of the analogy implied, by the nature of the subject, and by all the instructions which the Scriptures give concerning it. Proceeding in this manner, as we do in all other instances of figurative language, we shall easily avoid the difficulties and mistakes which have been occasioned by carrying the analogy implied in the metaphor to an unwarrantable length. Many of the circumstances which belong to a literal debt or an obligation to pay money, do not belong to a sinner’s obligation to suffer punishment. This obligation is of a moral nature; it arises from the moral conduct of him who is to suffer; it pertains to a moral law and administration, and is directed to moral ends. Who can suppose that a debt of this kind, that is, an obligation to suffer punishment for the violation of a moral law, is attended throughout with the same circumstances with a pecuniary debt? When a man’s pecuniary debt is paid, or when that is done which his creditor accepts in lieu of it, he is no longer liable to be called upon for payment, and it would be unjust and oppressive in his creditor to require payment. But this is not true in regard to the atonement, which does, in a certain sense, pay the debt of sinners. Their ill desert is neither taken away nor diminished. Nor would it be any injustice to them, if God should inflict punishment. This all believers acknowledge and feel. The atonement gives them no personal claim to salvation. They cannot demand it as what is due to them on the ground of justice. They cannot say, they should be treated unjustly, or as they do not deserve, if they should not be saved. The atonement was never designed to put sinners in this condition, and to make salvation a matter of debt to them. God provided the propitiation–that he might be just while he justifies believers; not that he might be obliged in justice to save them, but that he might graciously save them, might save them contrary to their personal desert, and yet do it consistently with the honor of his justice. The death of Christ prepared the way for believing sinners to be pardoned and saved by grace. It was never intended to prepare the way for any to be saved without faith, nor even for believers to be saved in any other way than by the abounding of divine grace.

Thus while I maintain the propriety of freely using the Scripture phraseology which represents our exposure to punishment as a debt, and the propriety also of speaking of Christ as paying or discharging this debt by suffering in our stead, and thus procuring our forgiveness; I maintain that both these representations are metaphorical, and are to be understood with such qualifications as the nature of the subject requires, and that the neglect of these necessary qualifications would lead us, as it has led others, into very pernicious errors.

Leonard Woods, “Lectures,” in The Works of Leonard Woods, (Boston: John P. Jewett & Company, 1851), 2: 474-476.  [Italics original and underlining mine.]

Woods:

6. Was the death of Christ a full equivalent for the punishment of sinners? and was it a legal substitute?

The exact meaning of equivalent is, equal in value or worth, of equal avail, or of equal influence. The question then is, whether the death of Christ is in a moral view of equal avail, or equal in value, with the punishment of sinners. To this we have already attended. Christ’s death answered the ends of punishment, so that the honor of the Lawgiver, the authority of the law and the welfare of the moral world are as well secured, as they could have been by the merited punishment of transgressors. And this is the same as to say, the death of Christ is, in a moral view, of equal value with their punishment, or is an equivalent for it. And it is a full equivalent, because it fully answers the ends of punishment, answers them as perfectly as they could have been answered by the infliction of punishment according to the threat of the law. It might be shown, that the death of Christ is more than an equivalent for the punishment of sinners, as it doubtless answers the ends of a just punishment in a higher degree than could have been answered by the punishment itself, besides accomplishing other objects of everlasting importance, which the punishment of sinners could never have accomplished; so that, in the final result, the vicarious death of Christ will be the cause of vast gain to the universe.

But is the death of Christ a legal substitute, and a legal equivalent? The answer to this must vary according to the sense we affix to the word legal. If by a legal substitute or equivalent, be meant that which is provided by law, or that which is exactly conformed to the letter of the law; then the death of Christ is not legal. For the law itself provides for nothing in case of transgression, but the punishment of transgressors. Its precepts and its sanctions, taken literally, relate only to those who are the proper subjects of law. But if by a legal substitute is meant a substitute which supports the principles and answers the ends of law; then the death of Christ is a legal substitute, and a legal equivalent. In its efficacy to accomplish the great purposes of a moral government, it is fully equal, not to say superior, to the direct execution of the penalty of the law.

Leonard Woods, “Lectures,” in The Works of Leonard Woods, (Boston: John P. Jewett & Company, 1851), 478-479.  [Italics original and underlining mine.]