Hardy:

Dual Aspect of the death of Christ:

1) In regard of Christ, the certain continuance of all the true members of the church depends upon the energy of his death, and the efficacy of his intercession.

[l.] Though the design of Christ’s death was in some respect general, namely, to purchase a possibility of salvation for all upon the conditions of faith and repentance, yet I doubt not to assert, that besides this there was a particular design of his death, which was to purchase a certainty of salvation by faith and repentance for some, to wit, the elect, this being the most rational way of reconciling those scriptures which do enlarge Christ’s death to the whole world, with those that restrain it to his church. Indeed, if there be not some who shall be actually saved by Christ’s death, his death will be in vain. If there be not some for whom Christ hath purchased more than a possibility of salvation upon condition, it is possible none should be actually saved by it, especially if (as those who deny this peculiar intention affirm) the performing of the condition depends so on the liberty of our will, that notwithstanding the influence of grace a man may choose or refuse to do it; for then it is as possible that every man may not believe as that he may, and consequently it is possible no man may be saved by Christ’s death, and so Christ’s death in vain, as to that which was its primary end, and consequently his intention frustrated. It remaineth, then, that as Christ intended his death to be sufficient for all, so that it might be efficient to some, in order to which it was necessary that for those persons he should purchase grace, yea, not only grace, but perseverance in grace till they come to glory. Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 312 . [underlining mine.]

Christ sustained and equivalent satisfaction:

1) This punishment thus inflicted on Christ, is a plenary satisfaction to God’s justice. It is true, this word satisfaction is not formally expressed in Scripture, yet there are equivalent phrases. Such, among others, is that phrase so often used of redeeming; and as if the Holy Ghost would prevent that Socinian exposition of (redimere pro aliquo modo liberare) redeeming, as if it were only in a large sense no more than delivering, it is St Paul’s express phrase, ‘Ye are bought with a price,’ 1 Cor. vi. 20; and that this price may appear to be of full value, it is opposed to,
and advanced above, corrupt gold and silver by the apostle Peter, 1 Peter i, 18, 19. Nor is it any infringement to the merit of this price and worth of this satisfaction, that the suffering of Christ was not every way the same that we should have undergone, since it is all one whether the debt be paid in the same coin or no, so it be to the full value. Christ sufffered the punishment of our sins, as Calovius well observeth, [Vide Calov. Sociniania. Prot.], though not secundum identitatem omnimodam, yet per aquivalentiam, the same in every respect, yet equivalent to it. Indeed, what satisfaction could justice demand more than infinite; and the sufiering of an infinite person could not be less. Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 114. [Footnotes cited inline, italics original, underlining mine.]

Sins of the world:

1) Finally, when secure sinners hear of the infinite merit of Christ’s blood, how satisfactory it is for the sins of the whole world, and therefore much more of a particular person, they are willing to persuade themselves of an interest in that blood, and thereby of reconciliation and fellowship with God, not considering what our apostle saith in the very next verse, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin; but it is only those who walk in the light. Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 61.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the most common arguments for what is popularly called limited atonement is the argument that it is either the case that Christ died to merely make men savable, or to effectually save some (as opposed to all). However, we know that it is true that Christ so died as to effectually save his elect, and as it turns out, only these ones are finally saved. Thus the first proposition has to be false.

But before we get too far into this, I need to be clear on something important. By “limited atonement” I mean by that, the idea that Christ sustained a penal relationship only with the elect, he bore the condemnation due only to their sins, etc. The issue is not the effectual intent of the expiation, but its intrinsic nature and extent. With that aside…

The standard form of the argument goes like this:

Its either A or B.
Not A.
Therefore B.

This form of syllogism can be a sound line of argument, if and only if, there are only two alternatives, ie, if there is no tertius quid.

Stated in conversational English, the argument works like this. Either Christ died for all merely and only to make it possible for God to save all, or he died with an effectual intention to save some only. The argument assumes that both cannot be true. First the proponent of this dilemma will cite Scripture which speaks to Christ intentionally and effectually saving some. This then establishes B. Next, the proponent will claim that A cannot be true.

Now this line of argument might work against some wings of Evangelical Christianity who may say that Christ died for all exactly equally, and in no way for any with a discriminating effectual intentionality.

However, in terms of responding to the classic and moderate Calvinist position, this “dilemma” is just a false dilemma. For us, it is simply a false either/or fallacy.

For the classic and moderate Calvinist, it is not a case of either/or but of both-and. The only thing we do need to do is remove from the first proposition the idea of “merely” or “only,” that, it is either that “Christ only died to make men savable.” With that qualification, I think Nathaneal Hardy’s following comments well explode the false dilemma fallacy:

In regard of Christ, the certain continuance of all the true members of the church depends upon the energy of his death, and the efficacy of his intercession.

[l.] Though the design of Christ’s death was in some respect general, namely, to purchase a possibility of salvation for all upon the conditions of faith and repentance, yet I doubt not to assert, that besides this there was a particular design of his death, which was to purchase a certainty of salvation by faith and repentance for some, to wit, the elect, this being the most rational way of reconciling those scriptures which do enlarge Christ’s death to the whole world, with those that restrain it to his church. Indeed, if there be not some who shall be actually saved by Christ’s death, his death will be in vain. If there be not some for whom Christ hath purchased more than a possibility of salvation upon condition, it is possible none should be actually saved by it, especially if (as those who deny this peculiar intention affirm) the performing of the condition depends so on the liberty of our will, that notwithstanding the influence of grace a man may choose or refuse to do it; for then it is as possible that every man may not believe as that he may, and consequently it is possible no man may be saved by Christ’s death, and so Christ’s death in vain, as to that which was its primary end, and consequently his intention frustrated. It remaineth, then, that as Christ intended his death to be sufficient for all, so that it might be efficient to some, in order to which it was necessary that for those persons he should purchase grace, yea, not only grace, but perseverance in grace till they come to glory.

Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 312.

Sometimes I see responses to the classic and moderate position which just remind me of the Bahnsen-Stein debate. Recall in this debate, Stein approached the debate with arguments that Bahnsen both himself would have repudiated and would have considered outmoded. It is as if Stein was not “up to date” in his counter-apologetic. The lesson was, he did not truly know his opponent, or his opponent’s position. Likewise, when folk table this argument against the classic-moderate position, it’s as if they are using outmoded and irrelevant arguments against an opponent, whose position they seem clueless about.

David

1) Use 2.

And it may secondly teach us that long to seed this saving power of the Gospel in our hearts, to importune the Lord by prayer for this gifts, true faith, whereby we give admittance to it into our hearts.

Obser.

Now as the actual power of the Gospel is appropriated to believers and they only feel it, so also it is extended to all believers without respect of persons, according to the promise, Isa 55.1, Joh. 3:16, Joh. 1:12. So that they all feel it: howbeit, that we err not, let us know that believers are are not all of one sort; some are such in possession only [Joh. 6:64, 66.], some that rove in generalities; assenting to the truth of the Evangelical history, by a general grace; some that by a special work of the God’s Spirit appropriate the general promise to themselves in particular [Gal. 2:20.], and of these must this place be understood, and this universality to be accommodate them all, however distinct amongst themselves by different degrees and measures of faith.  Wiliam Sclater, A Key to the Key of Scripture, or An Exposition with Notes upon the Epistle to the Romanes. 2nd ed. (London: Printed by T.C. for Nicolas Fussell and Humphrey Mosley, and are to be sold at the Ball in Paus Church yard, near the Great North Doore, 1629), 70-71.   [Some spelling modernized, marginal references included, verses cited inline; underlining mine.]

2) Hated of God] God’s hatred is of two sorts, eternal before time including these two acts: first, a purpose not to show kindness: secondly, a designing to evil, Rom. 9:11. Temporal in time; and is nothing but the dislike, and detestation of men in respect of their sins. Evidenced by these signs: first, the denial of saving grace and means thereof.

Or secondly, not blessing means unto them: Isa. 6. Thirdly, deprival even of common graces, permitting to the power of Satan, and serving of a man’s own corrupt heart. Fourthly inflicting of temporal plagues, as curses, and beginnings of eternal woe after to be inflicted.  Wiliam Sclater, A Key to the Key of Scripture, or An Exposition with Notes upon the Epistle to the Romanes. 2nd ed. (London: Printed by T.C. for Nicolas Fussell and Humphrey Mosley, and are to be sold at the Ball in Paus Church yard, near the Great North Doore, 1629), 140.   [Some spelling modernized, marginal references included, verses cited inline; underlining mine.]

3) But see we first the object of this knowledge, what is it that the Gentiles are said to know? The law of God. It may be here questioned how this accords with Psal. 137:9. Where it is made the Jews prerogative to have the statutes of God; and of the heathen said, that they have not knowledge of God’s law. Ans. The law of God according to the a double manner of revealing, is two-fold, written, unwritten the law of God written the Gentiles had not; but yet they knew some generals of those things contained in the two Tables; God writing it in their hearts, Rom. 2, and revealing to them so much thereof as might be deprive them to excuse, Rom. 1:19.

This imperfect rule of life vouchsafed unto the Gentiles, is commonly called the law of nature. Not for that it is born with us, or is propagated from Adam; who not only weakened, but even utterly lost the image of God, one chief part whereof consisted in knowledge, Col. 2, but because this knowledge is vouchsafed unto all by a general influence of God’s grace, which is indeed as common as nature: and therefore called the law of nature. Wiliam Sclater, A Key to the Key of Scripture, or An Exposition with Notes upon the Epistle to the Romanes. 2nd ed. (London: Printed by T.C. for Nicolas Fussell and Humphrey Mosley, and are to be sold at the Ball in Paus Church yard, near the Great North Doore, 1629), 151 [Some spelling modernized, marginal references included, verses cited inline; underlining mine.]

[Note: Even in these brief statements, we see the two basic elements of doctrine of common grace: restraint of sin and civic good.]

[to be continued]

Hardy:

The more to enforce this upon us, take notice,

1. Who it is, the Son, and that in a double notion.

(1.) Being the Son, he ‘thinketh it no robbery to be equal with God,’ Philip, iii. 5, inasmuch as, according to the Athanasian creed, he is God of God, light of light, very God of very God. Being the Son, he is heir of all things. Lord of heaven and earth; and shall we in any kind, or for any cause, deny him? This is that which St Jude brings in as an aggravation of the sin of these very antichrists, whom he calls ‘certain men crept in unawares, they denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,’ Jude 4; where, though some take the words disjunctively, applying the first clause to the Father, and the second to the Son, yet since there is no article in the Greek between theon and kurion, God and Lord, to divide them; yea, the word despotes, in that parallel place of St Peter, is evidently used of Christ, and withal the heresies of those times more directly struck at Christ than at God the Father; it is not improbable that St Jude intended here only to set forth Christ in his natures and prerogatives, whom he calls ‘the only Lord God’ (as elsewhere the Father is styled ‘the only true God’), not in exclusion of the other persons, but of all false deities. And now, when we set before us the divinity, majesty, sovereignty, and authority of Christ, the only Lord God, how must the sin of denying him appear beyond measure sinful!

(2.) This glorious and eternal Son of God was pleased to undertake and accomplish the work of our redemption, and it would be no other than a monstrous ingratitude to deny him. Upon this account, St Peter, speaking of these very antichrists under the name of false teachers, 2 Pet. ii. 2, aggravates their denial of Christ, in that it was of ‘the Lord that bought them.’ There cannot be a more execrable villainy, than for a slave to disown his lord that hath ransomed him. Who would not cry shame on that son who should deny his own father? And may I not say of the Son of God, in Moses his language, to every one of us, Deut. xxxii. 6, ‘Is not he thy Father that hath bought thee?’ ‘What is there thou canst be in danger of by acknowledging him, which he did not actually undergo to redeem thee? Is it loss of estate? he was poor; of credit? he was reviled; of liberty? he was bound; of life? he was crucified; and shall any of these dishearten us from honoring, or induce us to deny him? When therefore any temptations shall assault us (as once they did Peter) to deny him, let us remember what he is in himself, and what he hath done for us; let us consider his greatness, and be afraid; his goodness, and be ashamed; for fear, or shame, or any cause whatsoever to deny him.

2. That I may drive the nail to the head, let us often set before our eyes that dismal communication so often denounced in the Gospel by the Son of God himself against those who shall deny him. Mat. x. 33, ‘Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven;’ and again inculcated by St Paul, 2 Tim. ii. 13, ‘If we deny him, he will deny us:’ a threat than which none more just, and yet withal none more terrible. Just it is, in that it is the retaliation of like for like. What more rational than that despisers should be despised, forsakers should be forsaken, and deniers should be denied? And how terrible it is will soon appear, if you consider that the Son of God will then deny us, when he shall appear in his glory, that he will deny us not only before men, but angels, nay, his Father; that if he pronounce upon us an know you not (which is to deny us), we are the cursed of the Father; he will not acknowledge them for his adopted children, who durst not here own his begotten Son, and whom his Son will not then own for brethren; yea, which consummates the misery of such apostates, they must ‘have their portion with hypocrites,’ having denied Christ; and being denied by him, they must depart from him into that fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels, there being no reason that they should be near to Christ hereafter, who follow him afar off, nay, run away from him here.

Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 344.   [Some spelling modernized; underlining mine.] [Note: Of further interest here is that Hardy’s thinking here predates the Granville Sharp rule by about one century.]