[Note: The following is part of a speech R.L. Dabney gave on the issue of union with the United Synod. The speech related to a committee declaration upon various subjects, one of which was the question of the atonement. An accusation was made that the committee’s declaration was opposed to the Westminster Confession. In this speech, Dabney responds to certain objections. The conclusion of the speech can be found in Dabney’s Works, 2:298-311. The relevant portion of Dabney’s speech where he speaks to the atonement question can be found in the Dabney file. What interests us here is Dabney’s comment regarding the Heidelberg Catechism, wherein he recognizes its explicit commitment to universal sin-bearing and his brief interpretation thereof, which actually images the very explication of this Q&A by Ursinus.]

Dabney:

On the other hand, the Southern Presbyterian says this is not enough; nor that they shall say Christ’s sufferings were vicarious, or that they were substitutionary, or that they were a satisfaction for guilt, because they may say all these in a loose sense. No; he will not be entirely pleased unless they say in express words, without the “as,” that Christ “bore the penalty” of guilt. Well, we thought that this was lifting the standard pretty high, when we remembered that good old Dr. Alexander was accustomed to say, that he who admitted the atonement to be vicarious, was substantially sound on that point. But we looked a few lines downward, and perceived that our report, in the article on justification, also used those very words, and said expressly, without the “as,” that Christ “bore the penalty” of guilt. Thus, our paper has been so happy as to satisfy both these most lynx-eyed sentinels of orthodoxy exactly, even in demands which are, in appearance, contradictory. The difference between themselves they must settle.

Once more, I am led to believe that our effort to make a brief statement of the substance of this doctrine is rather happy, by noting a remarkable conformity between its structure and the Canons of the great Synod of Dort, on the atonement, and the article in which the National French Synod at Alençon caused Amyraut and Testard to recant their rash speculations, and the Heidelberg Catechism, and indeed the standards of the Reformers generally. The Heidelberg Catechism, the symbol of the German Reformed Church, which our own Assembly embraced as the very pink of orthodoxy, uses language which goes farther than our report. So that, while we have stated the doctrine in accordance with the belief of the purest Reformed churches, we have been even more guarded than some of them. Thus, Ques. 37 : “What dost thou believe when thou sayest, ‘He suffered ?’” (in the creed). Ans. “That he bore in his body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the universal human race, during the whole period of his life which he passed in the earth, but especially in its end; so that by his passion, as the sole propitiatory sacrifice, he might deliver our body and soul from eternal damnation, and purchase for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.”

R.L. Dabney, ‘Speech on the Fusion of the United Synod,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, 2:309-310.

Murray:

1) Introduction

It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men. The Committee elected by the Twelfth General Assembly in its report to the Thirteenth General Assembly said, “God not only delights in the penitent but is also moved by the riches of his goodness and mercy to desire the repentance and salvation of the impenitent and reprobate” (Minutes, p. 67). It should have been apparent that the aforesaid Committee, in predicating such “desire” of God, was not dealing with the decretive will of God; it was dealing with the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction and that surely respects, not the decretive or secret will of God, but the revealed will. There is no ground for the supposition that the expression was intended to refer to God’s decretive will.

It must be admitted that if the expression were intended to apply to the decretive will of God then there would be, at least, implicit contradiction. For to say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate and also that God wills the damnation of the reprobate and apply the former to the same thing as the latter, namely, the decretive will, would be contradiction; it would amount to averring of the same thing, viewed from the same aspect, God wills and God does not will. The question then is: what is implicit in, or lies back of; the full and free offer of the gospel to all without distinction? The word “desire” has come to be used in the debate, not because it is necessarily the most accurate or felicitous word but because it serves to set forth quite sharply a certain implication of the full and free offer of the gospel to all. This implication is that in the free offer there is expressed not simply the bare preceptive will of God but the disposition of lovingkindness on the part of God pointing to the salvation to be gained through compliance with the overtures of gospel grace. In other words, the gospel is not simply an offer or invitation but also implies that God delights that those to whom the offer comes would enjoy what is offered in all its fullness. And the word “desire” has been used in order to express the thought epitomized in Ezekiel 33:11, which is to the effect that God has pleasure that the wicked turn from his evil way and live. It might as well have been said, “It pleases God that the wicked repent and be saved.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Marlorate:

1) Which turn the grace of our God unto wantonness] Now he declares manifestly, what manner of mischief that is, that they should beware & take heed of: namely this: that these false Apostle & deceivers, abused the grace of God unto all wantonness & licentiousness, thinking, that because their sins were forgiven, they might do what they list [wished]. They sinned therefore without all shame, and willingly fell back again into the slavery and bondage of sin, from whence Christ had redeemed them by the shedding of his blood. C [Calvin.] The grace of God verily appeared to a far other end, then to get[?] men to leave to sin, as Paul plainly witnesses, saying: “The grace of God hath appeared healthful to all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godly in this present evil wild,” [P. to Tit. 2. vers. 11]. Let us know therefore, that there is nothing more hurtful & pernicious than these kind of men, which of the grace of Christ, do take an occasion to live wantonly and licentiously. And because we teach, that we are saved by the free mercy of God, the Papists lay this to our charge as a great fault. But what does it prevail with words to confute their shamelessness, sith [since] everywhere & in all places we call earnestly upon repentance, the fear of God, & newness of life. They themselves do not only corrupt & mar the whole world by their evil examples & wicked life, but also take quite out of the world by their pestilent and wicked doctrine, true holiness and the pure worshiping of God. M [Martin. Luther.] Indeed they call themselves Christians, and brag much of the gospel, but they live such a kind of life, as they do whatever pleases them, sinning most wickedly and abominably in drunkenness, in lechery, and all abomination. Their Bishops and Prelates do vaunt and say, we have taken upon us, not a worldly, but a spiritual state and condition of life: under which name & false pretense, they have gotten great treasures, pleasures, and dignities: [Calvin] although we may rather think them to be like the Libertines of our time, of whom Jude speaks, as it shall more clearly appear in the discourse hereof. It follows.

And God which is the only Lord.] Certain old translation have, “Christ which is the only God & Lord.” In the epistle of S. Peter mention is made only of Christ, and there he is called Lord. For thus he writes, “even denying the Lord which has bough them,” [2. Peter. Vers. 1.]. A [Augustine. Marlorate.] If any man think it better to read it differently or by itself, then the sense will be, “Chiefly they deny God,” L. [Pelicane.] whom once they have professed, which is the only Lord of al things, both in heaven and earth. It follows.

And deny our Lord Jesus Christ.] C. [Calvin.] He understands Christ to be denied, when such as have been redeemed by his blood, have given themselves again to be bondslaves to Satan, making as much as in them lies, the incomparable and inestimable benefit & price of our redemption, to be frustrate & of none effect. Therefore let us remember that Christ died and rose again for us, to the end that he might make us a peculiar people to himself, & that he might be Lord of our life, and death. A. [Aug. Mar.] Again, Christ is denied, when we derogate from him, that which is his own: After which manner the Monks, and such like deny Christ. M [Mar. Lut.] For when they preach that the way to eternal happiness & felicity, is to fast, to gad & wander on pilgrimage, to build Churches, and Monasteries: to vow chastity, obedience, poverty, and such like: they plainly deceive the simple and ignorant by their works, but of Christ they make no mention at all: which is as much, as if they should say, it is very needful and necessary for thee to deserve heaven by thy own works, Christ profited thee nothing, his works cannot help thee: and so they deny the Lord, who has bought us with his blood.

Augustine Marlorate, A Catholic and ecclesiastical exposition uppon the epistle of S. Iude. The Apostle: Collected and Gathered out of the workes of the best writers by Augustine Marlorat, that most notable and excellent Divine, (At London by Gerard Dewes, and Henry Marshe, 1584), fols 9-11. [Some spelling modernized.]

[comments below]

AA Hodge (sample):

1) 4th. Nor as to its actual application. Arminians agree with Calvinists that of adults only those who believe are saved, while Calvinists agree with Arminians that all dying in infancy are redeemed an saved. 5th. Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it.  AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 416.

2) The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually does effect lo the result. lst  Incidentally to remove the legal impediments out of the way of all men, and render the salvation of every hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that each one has a right to appropriate it at will, to impetrate temporal blessings for all, an f the means of grace for all to whom they are providentially supplied. AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 417.

3) 19. What was the doctrine of the “Marrow Men” in Scotland?

The “Marrow of Modern Divinity” was published in England, 1646, and republished in Scotland by James Hog of Carnock, 1726. The ” Marrow Men ” were Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, and their followers in the Secession Church. They were perfectly orthodox with respect to the reference of the atonement to the elect Their peculiarity was that they emphasized the general reference of the atonement to all men They said Christ did not die for all, but he dead for all, i.e, available. “God made a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all men.” They distinguished between “giving love,” which was universal and his “electing love,” which was special (“Marrow of Mod. Divinity “). Dr. John Brown said before the Synod of the United Secession Church, 1845, ” In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men” (Hist. of Atonement controversy in Secess. Church, by Rev. And Robertson). AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 417-418.

Read the rest of this entry »