Silversides:

Matthew 23:37:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Cf. Luke 13:34).

In this verse, Jerusalem evidently refers to the people of that city. It may have the leaders (denounced in the previous verses) especially in mind, but they were not solely responsible for the death of the prophets, or even of Christ himself; nor did the judgment fall only on them, as many ordinary people perished in the fall of Jerusalem.

The gathering can only be the reception of sinners by Christ, as the God-man Redeemer, the reception promised in Matthew 11 :28, ‘Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ John Murray tells us:

What needs to be appreciated is that the embrace of which Jesus here speaks is that which he exercises in that unique office and prerogative that belong to him as the God-man Messiah and Savior. In view of the transcendent, divine function which he says he wished to perform, it would be illegitimate for us to say that here we have simply an example of his human desire or will.⁴⁴

The gathering envisaged is to Christ as one person in two distinct natures; it is that gathering which issues in forgiveness of sins, peace with God and rest unto men’s souls.

Next, the term thy children needs careful interpretation. Opponents of the free offer have striven to make the children refer to the elect of God who were actually gathered by Christ through efficacious grace. For example, Angus Stewart writes:

However, “how often” simply tells us that the religious leaders (‘Jerusalem”) opposed Christ’s gathering His elect (‘Jerusalem’s children”) many times… Yet Christ the king gathers all Jerusalem’s children by His irresistible grace.⁴⁵

This view is untenable for several reasons:

Read the rest of this entry »

Dwight:

3^rdly. It is farther objected, that, if Christ expiated the sins of mankind, God is obliged by justice to bestow on them salvation.

This objection is derived from misapprehensions concerning the nature of the atonement. The Scriptures in speaking on this subject very frequently, as well as very naturally, speak in figurative language. Particularly, they exhibit us as bought with a price; as purchased; as redeemed; that is, literally understood, as bought from a state of bondage and condemnation by the blood of Christ; as ransomed by the lutron, or price of redemption. This language, derived from that fact in human affairs, which, among the customary actions of men, approaches nearest in resemblance to the atonement of Christ, seems unwarily to have been considered as describing literally this atonement. But this mode of considering it is plainly erroneous. We are not, in the literal sense, bought or purchased at all. Nor has Christ, in the literal sense, paid any price to purchase mankind from slavery and death.

The error into which the objector has fallen, has, I acknowledge, been countenanced by many Christians who have held the doctrine of the atonement. These have supposed the satisfaction for sin made by the Redeemer, essentially to resemble the satisfaction made for a debtor by paying the debt which he owed. In this case it is evident, that if the creditor accept the payment from a third person, he is bound in justice to release the debtor. As the two cases have been supposed to be similar, it has been concluded, that since Christ has made such a satisfaction for sinners, God is in justice also bound to release them.

This, however, is an unfounded and unscriptural view of the subject. There is no substantial resemblance between the payment of a debt for an insolvent debtor, and the satisfaction rendered to distributive justice for a criminal. The debtor owes money, and this is all he owes. If then all the money which he owes is paid and accepted, justice is completely satisfied, and the creditor can demand nothing more. To demand more, either from the debtor or from any other person, would be plainly unjust. When therefore the debt is paid by a third person, the debtor is discharged by justice merely. But when a criminal has failed of doing his duty, as a subject to lawful government, and violated laws which he was bound to obey, he has committed a fault for which he has merited punishment. In this case, justice, not in the commutative but the distributive sense, the only sense in which it can be concerned with this subject, demands, not the future obedience, nor an equivalent for the omitted obedience, but merely the punishment of the offender. The only reparation for the wrong which he has done required by strict justice, is this punishment; a reparation necessarily and always required. There are cases however in which an atonement, such as was described in the first of these discourses, may be accepted; an atonement, by which the honor and efficacy of the government may be preserved, and yet the offender pardoned. In such a case, however, the personal character of the offender is unaltered. Before the atonement was made, he was a criminal: after the atonement is made, he is not less a criminal. As a criminal, he before merited punishment: as a criminal, he no less merits it now. The turpitude of his character remains the same; and while it remains he cannot fail to deserve exactly the same punishment. After the atonement is made, it cannot be truly said therefore, any more than before, that he does not deserve punishment. But if the atonement be accepted, it may be truly said, that, consistently with the honor of the government and the public good, he may be pardoned. This act of grace is all that he can hope for ; and this he cannot claim on account of anything in himself, or anything to which he is entitled, but only may hope from the mere grace or free gift of the ruler. Before the atonement was made, the ruler, however benevolently inclined, could not pardon him consistently with his own character, the honor of his government, or the public good. After it is made, he can pardon him in consistency with them all; and if the offender discover a penitent and becoming disposition, undoubtedly will if he be a benevolent ruler. From these observations it is manifest that the atonement of Christ in no sense makes it necessary that God should accept the sinner, on the ground of justice; but only renders his forgiveness not inconsistent with the divine character. Before the atonement, he could not have been forgiven; after the atonement, this impossibility ceases. The sinner can now be forgiven, notwithstanding the turpitude of his character and the greatness of his offences. But forgiveness is an act of grace only; and to the same grace must the penitent be indebted for all the future blessings connected with forgiveness.

Timothy Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended (London: Reprinted for William Baynes and Son, 1823), 2:407-408. (Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.)

Cox:

26. It is rather surprising to see certain limitarians¹ sometimes arrogate to themselves, at least by implication, the honor of exclusive Calvinism, as well as exclusive orthodoxy. They are certainly in an error there, if what Calvin believed and taught may be viewed as the criterion of what Calvinism is. In his institutes of the Christian religion, written (when about 35 years of age) in his theological youth, although they were less express on the point than his subsequent writings, I recollect no sentence which determines any thing in favor of restrictive views of the nature of atonement. In his commentary, which was his maturer work and the rich mine whence many modern writers have taken their second-hand wisdom, and which has never (so far as I know) been rendered into English and published, his sentiments are full, frequent, conclusive, in favor of a full atonement. It may be well to transcribe a few of these. I could easily give more.

1 John, 2: 3, where Christ is said to be “the propitiation–for the sins of the whole world.” Calvin says indeed that “he would not stoop to answer the ravings of those who hence declare all the reprobate and even the devil himself to be the ultimate subjects of salvation. A portion so monstrous deserves no refutation. But others, who have no such purpose, affirm that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men; but efficiently for the elect alone. And this solution of the matter is commonly received in the schools. I question however its relevancy to the present passage, while I confess its absolute truth.” Hence (1) Calvin believed the fulness of the atonement, and made it a part of his Christian confession. (2) Just as obviously is it no modern speculation; since it had obtained in the schools of protestant orthodoxy, even commonly, three hundred years ago. I subjoin his own words. Sed hic movetur quaestio, quomodo mundi totius peccata expientur. Omitto phreneticorum deliria, qui hoc praetextu reprobes omnes, adeoque Satanam ipsum in salutem admittunt: tale portentum refutatione indignum est. qui hane absurditatem volebant effugere, dixerunt; Sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse Christum: Bed pro eleetis tantum efficaeiter Vulgo haec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud dictum fateor; nego tamen praesenti loco quadrare.

2 Pet. 2:1. “Even denying the Lord that bought them.” He says “those therefore who, despising restraint, have abandoned themselves to all licentiousness, are deservedly said to deny Christ by whom they were redeemed. Moreover, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain safe and entire in our hands, let us fix it in our minds that we have been redeemed by Christ to this very end–that he may be at once the Lord of our life and our death: and so let us propose to ourselves this end, that to him we may live, and to him we may die.” His words are–Qui igitur excusso freno in omnem licentiam se projiciunt, non immerito dicuntur Christum abnegare a quo redempti sunt. Proinde ut salva et Integra evangelii doctrina apud nos maneat, hoc animis nostria infixum sit, tedemptos esse nos a Christo ut vitae simul et mortis nostrae sit Dominus: itaque nobis hunc finem esse propositum ut illi vivamus ac moriaraur.

Rom. 5: 18. “Therefore, as by one offence [sentence came] upon all men unto condemnation, so by the righteousness of one [sentence came] upon all men unto justification of life.” Stuart’s translation. Calvin says, ” The apostle here makes it the common grace of all, because to all it is exhibited, though to all it is not realized in eventual fact. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and to all without discrimination is he offered by the benignity of God, yet all men do not apprehend him.” His words are–Communem omnium gratiam facit,’ quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa: nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi atque omnibus indifierenter Dei benignitate offertur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt.

Matt. 26 : 28. “For this is my blood of the new testament, [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” He says, “Under the word many Jesus Christ designates not a part of the world only but the total human race. Therefore, when we approach ‘the table of the Lord, not only should this general thought occur to our mind, that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but each for himself ought to consider that his own sins have been expiated.” I give his words. Sub multorum nomine non partem mundi tantum designat sed totum humanum genus. Ergo dum ad suam mensam accedimus, non solum haec generalis cogitatio in mentem veniat, iredemptum Christi sanguine esse mundum; sed pro se quisque reputet peccata sua expiata esse.

Samuel H. Cox, Quakerism Not Christianity: Or, Reasons for Renouncing The Doctrine of Friends (New York: Printed by D. Fanshaw, 1833), 665-666. [Italics original; some reformatting; footnote value and content mine; and underlining mine.]

Cox:

In modern technology (which I approve) they only are said to be redeemed who are actually accepted in Christ: for all, atonement is made; to all, is it offered; the Spirit striving through the truth as extensively, as the sufficiency and applicability of the atonement are extensive. Still, to accept the offer and correspond with the offerer, is, in the very nature of things, the only way to be saved. Are all men saved? Yes–if all repent and believe the gospel! Do they this? He that believes men are saved in sin, or that all men renounce it, must have very strong faith! We however do not believe that the atonement was INDEFINITE in the sense of the Remonstrants of Holland or any other Arminians. God had a design in making it, which no event should frustrate. Christ eternally designed the salvation of the elect; and for these, in this sense exclusively, he gave his precious life. But this makes not the atonement less full, or alters its nature at all. When THE ELECT are all brought to piety and heavens by supposition, the OTHERS–whoever they are–have just as good an opportunity every way to realize the same blessedness, as all the world have on the theory that denies election. Election is one thing, atonement another. Election is all gain and no loss–and the reverse precisely is true of the error that denies election. See John, 6: 36-40, 44, 65. 10: 11, 15, 26-30. 17 : 2. Eph. 5: 25-27. Rev. 17: 8. Matt. 25: 34. Rom. 9: 29.

Samuel H. Cox, Quakerism Not Christianity: Or, Reasons for Renouncing The Doctrine of Friends (New York: Printed by D. Fanshaw, 1833), 666-667.