Notice: register_sidebar_widget is deprecated since version 2.8.0! Use wp_register_sidebar_widget() instead. in /home/q85ho9gucyka/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3931
Calvin and Calvinism

Burge:

CHAPTER V.

FULL ATONEMENT, AND SALVATION WHOLLY BY GRACE, CONSISTENT

WITH EACH OTHER.

The Scriptures plainly teach, that though Christ has made a full and complete atonement for sin, yet the salvation of sinners is entirely of grace. “By grace ye are saved.” Eph. 2 : 5. Many, however, have found it difficult to treat the subject as though these doctrines were reconcilable, the one with the other. But this difficulty has probably arisen from mistaken views of the nature of the atonement which Christ has made. Understanding the atonement to be, literally, a purchase, or the payment of a debt, some have inferred from it, that, since Christ is represented as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, all men must be saved; others, that, inasmuch as it is evident that all will not be saved, the atonement could not be made for all; and others, again, that, if sinners are saved on account of the atonement, their pardon and salvation cannot be of grace.

These conclusions are much more consistent with the premises, from which they are respectively drawn, than either the premises or conclusions are with the truth. For, if the atonement did consist in the payment of a debt literally, it seems very obvious that there could not be any grace exercised in the acquittal of sinners, and that atonement and actual salvation, must be co-extensive. If Christ has really paid the debt of sinners, they, of course, must be free. Justice must be satisfied, and can make no further demand. On this ground it must, indeed, follow, that if Christ died for all, then all will be saved; and that if all are not saved, then he could not have died for all. And it equally follows, that none can be saved by grace. Their debt being paid, it cannot be forgiven.

Since, therefore, the Scriptures represent the pardon and salvation of sinners as being wholly of grace, we may be certain that the atonement cannot be the payment of a debt, nor, strictly, of the nature of a purchase. This, too, it is apprehended, has already been made evident, in what has been shown concerning the necessity and nature of atonement. But since many, at the present day, have adopted this scheme of the atonement, and have deduced sentiments from it which are of the most dangerous tendency, it may not be improper to examine, a little more directly, the reasoning by which they endeavor to make their scheme consistent with the exercise of grace, in the actual bestowment of pardon and salvation.

The Scriptures are so very explicit and particular, respecting the terms of pardon and justification, that few believers in divine revelation can be found, who do not appear anxious to have it understood that, in some way or other, they hold the doctrines of grace. It has been said by some, that though atonement be the payment of a debt, yet the pardon of a sinner may be called an act of grace, because it is founded in other acts, which certainly are acts of grace. God’s giving his Son to make atonement, and his actually making it, are acts of grace. And since the pardon of sinners has its foundation on these gracious acts, it may be called an act of grace itself. But this is, certainly, strange reasoning. To say that pardon is an act of grace, only because it is grounded on other acts which are gracious, is nothing less than to say, that it is an act of grace, though it is not an act of grace.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hovey:

1) Yet it will be seen at a glance that if the actual redemption of the elect is not discussed under “The Work of the Holy Spirit,” this topic may be treated very briefly; since nearly all that may properly be said upon it has either been anticipated in speaking of the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, or will be embraced necessarily in a discussion of the subjects comprehended in “the doctrine of redemption,”–the word “redemptionbeing used to signify the application of the atonement to those who are saved. Alvah Hovey, A Manual of Christian Systematic and Christian Ethics (Boston: [Henry A. Young] 1877), 241. [Underlining mine.]

2) But the fact which is fairly implied in the words of Peter seems to be directly affirmed by the Apostle John: “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.”1 Here the sins of believers are contrasted with those of the world; and the propitiatory death of Christ is said to have respect, not to the former only, but also to the latter. Moreover, as the word propitiation refers to the sacrificial death of Christ, it is distinguishable from redemption, since it does not imply an actual deliverance from wrath. For when the Jewish high priest, on the great day of Atonement, made reconciliation for all the people, a way was opened for them to come before God with acceptance; but if they refused to do this and despised his service, his indignation still burned against them. The same is true of Christ. He was set forth as a propitiation, to exhibit the righteousness of God, in order that God might be just while justifying the believer in Jesus. And even if the word “Advocate” has reference to believers only, the word “propitiation” may well have a wider reference; for the apostle’s thought may be thus expressed:

My little children, I write these things to you, that ye may not sin. But I do not forget what I have just said, that no one of us has avoided every sin. Yet the Christian, who has fallen into sin, need not despair of pardon; for though, as transgressors, we cannot come ourselves before a holy God, we have an advocate with him, even Jesus Christ who is righteous, and who evermore intercedes for us. And this he can do with far greater effect than the Jewish high priest, who entered the holy of holies with another’s blood, for he comes with his own blood, an ample basis for his plea in our behalf, since it was offered by him as a suitable expiation for our sins, and indeed not for ours only, but for the sins of all mankind, our own included.

This view of the apostle’s thought is favored by the word “whole,” prefixed to “world,”–the “whole world,” meaning all mankind, without exception. Alvah Hovey, God With Us: Or, The Person and Work of Christ (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1872), 174-175. [Some reformatting; footnote value and content original; and underlining mine.]

_______________________

11 John ii. 2.

4
Mar

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) on John 17:9

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in John 17:9

Hovey:

9. I pray for them. The pronoun I is emphatic. The verb translated pray, would be adequately represented by the English term ask, and the preposition translated for, signifies, properly, in respect to. The sense, then, is: “I myself present a request in respect to my disciples, who have thus believed my words, and recognized my mission from thee.” I pray not for the world. By the world, is meant the unbelieving part of mankind. And the clause brings into bold relief the special object of the Saviour in the petition here offered. It shows the concentration of his thoughts upon the welfare of his disciples. His request is not general, but specific; offered for a particular class of persons, and supported by reasons drawn from their relations to his Father and himself. But it cannot safely be inferred from this, that he never prayed for the world at large, or for persons who would finally perish in their sins. That he could not pray for them in the same terms as for his own, is natural; that the blessings which he would ask for his enemies, must be different, in some respects, from those which he would ask for his friends, is certain; but this passage does not warrant the assertion that he forbore on all occasions to pray for mankind as ruined in sin and needing salvation. But for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. The fact that they in are Christ’s is itself a reason why he should pray for them, and why his Father should listen to his request. The fact that they had been given him by the Father, adds force to that reason. And the fact that they are still the Father’s, though given to Christ, completes the appeal. This appeal could not have been made, in this form, for the ungodly world.

Alvah Hovey, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), 340. [Underlining mine.]

Credit to Emerson for the find.

3
Mar

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) on the Death of Christ

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in For Whom did Christ Die?

Hovey:

1) Still another question must be briefly considered in this connection: For whom did Christ make his life a propitiatory offering? F or all mankind, or for all the elect ? Or did he suffer, with different ends in view, for the elect, and for all men?1 Turning to the Word of God for light, we learn that Christ died,–

I. To effect the salvation of all the elect. His suffering was to be specially rewarded by their eternal purity, love, blessedness, and homage (John x. 11, 15, 26-28; xi. 52; Eph. v. 25; John xvii. 19; Rom. viii. 32 ; John vi. 39, 40; xvii. 2; Eph. I. 4; I Tim. iv. 10).

Hence (I) God purposed from the first to save certain persons of our race. (2) These persons were given to Christ, in a special sense, to be his flock; and (3) he had their actual salvation particularly in view when he laid down his life.

II. To remove every objective hindrance to the salvation of mankind in general. In other words, to provide for their pardon on condition of faith (I John ii. 2; I Tim. ii. 1-6; Heb. ii. 9; 2 Cor. v. 15, 19, 20; 2 Pet. ii. I; John iii. 16, 17).

Notes. I John ii. 2 (cf. iv. 14; 1 Tim. iv. 10; and John I. 29; vi. 51): hilasmos, propitiation, refers to Christ as himself the atoning sacrifice for sin. The phrase, “for the whole world,” is equivalent to “for the sins of the whole world”; and the expression, "whole world," must here signify all mankind; (1) because kosmos used of men, naturally includes all, unless its meaning is in some way restricted; (2) because, hemeteron and kosmos re here contrasted,–the one referring to Christians, and the other to all men; (3) because the adjective holou is manifestly emphatic.

Heb. ii. 9: pantos must here signify everyone of our race, or every believer of our race. The former is the natural meaning, and should therefore be preferred. 2 Peter ii. I (cf. Luke vii. 30; xix. 44 ; Acts xiii. 46; 2 Cor. ii. 15). For the meaning of agorazo with a personal object, see 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23 ; Rev. v. 9 ; xiv. 3, 4. The participle with its object is prefixed to despoten, in order to emphasize their guilt; and it shows that Christ purchased by his blood some who will deny him and perish. And, if he purchased some of this class, he did all, according to the obvious sense of the other passages cited by us.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ridgley

It is allowed, by those who deny the extent of Christ’s death to all men, as to what concerns their salvation, that it may truly be said, that there are some blessings redounding to the whole world, and more especially to those who sit under the sound of the gospel, as the consequence of Christ’s death; inasmuch as it is owing hereunto, that the day of God’s patience is lengthened out, and the preaching of the gospel continued to those who are favoured with it; and that this is attended, in many, with restraining grace, and some instances of external reformation, which (though it may not issue in their salvation) has a tendency to prevent a multitude of sins, and a greater degree condemnation, that would otherwise ensue. These may be called the remote, or secondary ends of Christ’s death, which was principally and immediately designed to redeem the elect, and to purchase all saving blessings for them which shall be applied in his own time and way: Nevertheless others, as a consequence hereof, are made partakers of some blessings of common providence, so far as they are subservient to the salvation of those, for whom he gave himself a ransom.

Thomas Ridgely, A Body of Divinity, (Philadelphia: William Woodward, 1815), 2:303-8.