Alexander:

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ATONEMENT.

2. Principal Theories of the Sacrifice of Christ.

In the sketch I have given of the history of opinion on the subject of the atonement, I have endeavored to indicate the different views which have been advanced on this head, and their position relatively to each other. The two great antagonist theories are, on the one hand, that which regards the work of Christ as being designed to effect reconciliation between God and man by the offering of a legal satisfaction for man’s transgression; and, on the other, that which resolves the effect of Christ’s work into its moral power in moving man to seek reconciliation with God. Of these, various modifications have been advanced by different writers and accepted by theological schools of greater or less importance.

To examine all these in detail would require more time than we have at our disposal, and therefore I shall content myself with stating the leading opinions on both sides, and offering such remarks as may serve to indicate the worth of each. After noticing some of the more recent speculations which have been advanced on the subject in this country and America, I shall endeavour to lay down those principles which seem to me to be essential to our reaching a just view on this subject, and which seem to conduct to the view I am prepared to advocate.

Beginning with those who look upon the atonement of Christ in the light of a legal satisfaction or judicial expiation, I remark that all agree in thinking that the work of Christ derives its worth from the union of the divine and the human natures in His person, and all admit that worth to be not only supreme, but infinite. There is a difference, however, between certain schools or classes of them as to the nature of the compensation rendered to the divine government and law on our behalf by Christ, His special purpose and intention in offering it, and the consequent extent to which His work was designed to be sufficient. Of these varying shades of opinion we notice the following:–

(1.) That of the Hyper-Calvinists,–a name which has been given, not because those to whom it is attached are regarded as having gone beyond Calvin in their doctrine, but because they carry the views of Calvin on this head to their utmost extent, and hold them with unbending rigidity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Byfield,

Thirdly, this point serves for consolation, and that many ways. First, against this fear of our own weakness, “It is not our Father’s will that one of the little ones should perish” [Mat. 18:14]; “None is able to take them out of his hand” [John 10:29]. Secondly, against our doubts about prayer, “Whatsoever you ask the Father in Christ’s name shall be given you” John 16:23]. Thirdly, against all the troubles of this world, if he has been a Father of Mercy, to forgive your sins, and give you grace, he will be a Father of Glory, to crown you in a better world in the inheritance of his Sons [Ephes. 1:17].

Who has made us fit.] Doct. We are neither naturally happy, nor universally so, not naturally, for we are made fit, not born so, not universally, for he has made [us] fit, not all men. Christ died for his sheep only [John 10], for his Church only [Ephes. 1], not for the World [John 17]. And therefore when the Scripture says, Christ died for all men, we must understand it, first, in respect of the sufficiency of his death, not in respect of the efficiency of it. Secondly, in respect of the common oblation of the benefits of his death externally in the Gospel unto all. Thirdly, as his death extends to all the Elect: for all, that is, for the Elect. Fourthly, for all, that is, for all that are saved, so that none that are justified and saved, are so, but by the virtue of his death. Fifthly, for all, that is for all indefinitely, for all sorts of men, not for every man of every sort. Lastly, he died for all, that is not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also.

Nicolas Byfield, An Exposition Vpon the Epistle to the Colossians (Printed by E.G. For Nathaniel Bvtter, and are to be sould at his Shop at the signe of the pide-bull in Pauls Church-yard, neare to S. Austins Gate, 1617), 99.

Barlee:

Secondly. As the former author of God’s love to mankind, upholds in his title, an odious suggestion against the adversaries to his book, as if they maintained, God, not at all to be a lover of all mankind in the sense spoken of Matt. 5:45, Act. 14:16-17, and 17:27-28, 1 Tim. 4:10, because they do not maintain him to be a lover of all alike, so the saving graces, flowing from election. . . .

William Barlee, A Necessary Vindication of the Doctrine of Predestination (London: Printed for George Sawbridge, at the Bible on Ludgate-Hill, 1658), 2. [Some reformatting; marginal Latin not included; and underlining mine.]

Barlee:

Dr Twisse, Synod of Dort and Arles, p. 10, 11.

God did decree to damn no man, but for his sin, is the unanimous consent of all of our divines, &c., And accordingly, Tilenus¹ himself, when he was on our side, took exception against Arminius, his stating the decree of predestinaton and reprobation, according to our opinion, to proceed, citra omnem considerationem restspistentiæ & fidei en illis, aut impenitentiæ & infidelitatis in hisce, ie., “without all consideration of repentance and faith in those, or of impentitence and infidelity in these.” And tis that Rev. Dr. further proves, p 11, out of Piscator, and out of the Contra-Remonstrants, in the conference at the Hague, &c. So opposing his adversary, p. 38, he had these words.

Secondly, he aggravates it by the circumstance of the least consideration of sin, which we are said to deny to have place in reprobation; whereas Divine consideration has no degrees at all, whereby it may be capable of greater or less (a fair answer to what Mr. T[homas] P[ierce] has, p.6). Sin has degrees in man, but Divine consideration has no degrees at all.

To come near to the point and to discover their juggling, in stating our tenor most calumniously. Consider, I pray do any of our divines maintain that God ordain to damn any man but for sin? (And by positive reprobation in my p. 121, I meant nothing, or could mean nothing but damnation.) It is apparent, they do not, all acknowledging that like as God does damn no man for sin, so does he ordain to damn no man but for sin. A little after, to add one thing more, not for their sin which they sinned in Adam only, but for those very actual sins and transgressions which they are guilty of. And if anything can be spoken yet more plainly in the same book, p. 40 41, having spoken of election, eh speaks thus about the decree to reprobation. The like distinction is considerable on the part of reprobation, which also is the will of God in a certain kind. I say, we must distinguish in this decree, the act of God’s decreeing, and the thing decreed by him. And these things are of a different nature, and so different, that what alone is the cause of the act, that alone is the one thing decreed by it, but not so of the other. As for example, the things denied by reprobation are,

1. The denial of grace.

2. The denial of glory, together, with the inflicting of damnation. As touching the first of these, look what is the cause of reprobation, as touching the act of God reprobating, that and that alone is the cause of the denial of grace, viz., that faith and repentance, to wit, the mere pleasure of God. But as touching the denial of glory, and inflicting of damnation. God does not proceed according to the mere pleasure of his will, but according to a Law, which is this, “Whosoever believes shall not be damned.” And albeit, God made that law according to he mere pleasure of his will, yet no wise man will say, that God denies glory, and inflicts damnation on men, according to the mere pleasure of his will. The case being clear, that God denies the one, and inflicts the other merely for their sins who are these dealt withal. William Barlee, A Necessary Vindication of the Doctrine of Predestination (London: Printed for George Sawbridge, at the Bible on Ludgate-Hill, 1658), 78-79. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

____________________

¹“Daniel Tilenus (also Tilenius) (1563–1633) was a German-French Protestant theologian. Initially a Calvinist, he became a prominent and influential Arminian teaching at the Academy of Sedan. He was an open critic of the Synod of Dort of 1618-9.”