Griffin:

THERE are certain figurative expressions in common use in the Church, partly derived from the Scriptures and partly of human invention, which are calculated to present to the imagination in a summary and striking manner, without the process of reasoning, the general influence of Christ’s mediation. This advantage gives them, (at least a part of them,) a claim to be retained in our prayers and popular discourses. But the difficulty is that they have been introduced into logical discussions with a literal meaning, and as premises from which literal conclusions are drawn. This has been one of the most prolific sources of mistake.

The expressions are such as these; that Christ purchased the Church, that he, paid their debt, that he is one with them, that their sins were imputed to him, that he bore the curse of the law in their stead, that he satisfied divine justice for them, that his righteousness is imputed to them, and .that they are considered righteous.

It is said in Scripture, “Ye are bought with a price;” and hence, as if ransom was used but in a single sense, it is inferred, “As is the ransom must be the release.–Were redemption universal, salvation would and must be of equal extent.”¹ And as if the whole was a commercial transaction, it is alleged that just enough was paid in a way of atonement to redeem a certain number, and that this number can claim a release of justice itself. ” If Christ fully paid the price of redemption for all and each, then all and each ought to be saved, and none ought to perish.”²

Because Christ answered the purpose of our punishment, men have chosen to say that he paid our debt: and from that expression, manifestly figurative and of human invention, they have gone on to infer, as though the whole transaction was of a pecuniary nature, that he became the Bondsman of a certain number, and brought himself under obligations to law and justice to discharge their debt, and actually paid it in kind; and that they, as exonerated debtors, have a claim on justice to a release.

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), 113-114.  [Italics original; footnote values modernized; and underlining mine.]

[Note: Even though Griffin does not reference the phrase “double payment” or  a cognate form of this expression, the  idea is entailed and its rebuttal is remains the same.]

__________________________

¹See a popular little book entitled Gethsemane, published first in London, and republished in Philadelphia, with high recommendations, In 1817, (containing extracts from many writers.) p. 21.

²The delegates from Zealand in the Synod of Dort. Acts of Synod, Part III. p. 156.

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dagg:

The adaptedness of Christ’s death to serve as a ground for universal gospel invitations, constitutes it in the view of some persons a universal redemption. But no one can with propriety be said to be redeemed, who does not obtain deliverance, and who never will obtain it. Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract. In Rom. v.11, the only place in the New Testament where the word atonement occurs, the Greek word for which it stands, is the same that is rendered reconciling–reconciliation, in other places.¹ The reconciliation is not between God and sin in the abstract, for such a reconciliation is impossible. It is a reconciliation of persons; and such a reconciliation as secures eternal salvation. “If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”² In Paul’s view, all those for whom Christ’s death made reconciliation or atonement, will certainly be saved; and therefore atonement cannot be universal, unless salvation be universal. It is possible to use the word atonement in such a sense, as to render the question respecting the extent of the atonement one of mere definition: but it is best to use the words of Scripture in the Scripture sense.

J.L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order, (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 326. [Footnote values original; underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) This work was first published in 1858. 2) While Dagg finally rejects this distinction as being valid, what is important here is that he acknowledges it as being a position tabled by some advocates of particular redemption. 3) Dagg is probably not alluding to William G.T. Shedd (given that Shedd’s Dogmatics were not yet published at this time), but to some earlier proponent of the distinction.]

[Credit to Tony for the find.

____________________________

¹Rom. xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

²Rom. v. 10.

Skinner:

Calvin’s comment on this text: “Communem omnium gratiam facit quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur, re ipsa: Nam etsi passus est Christus pro pcccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate, offertur, non tamen omncs apprehendent.” He makes this the common grace of all, because it is set before all, not that all are in fact put in possession of it. For though Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and he is by the mercy of God offered alike to all, yet all do not embrace him.” Calvin expresses the same views on this subject in his comments on Mat. xxvi. P. 1 Cor. viii. 11, 12. 1 John ii. 2. 2 Pet. ii. 1. and Jude 4.

Thomas H. Skinner, “Human Depravity, or Man a Fallen Being,” in Discourses Delivered in Murray Street Church (New York: Henry C Sleight, Clinton-Hall, 1830), 104.   [Note: Skinner’s footnote citation of Calvin is with reference to Skinner’s discussion of Romans 5:18.]