Brown:

The premise is, “God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all.” The expression “spared not,” is plainly borrowed from Gen. xxii. 12, where it is used to express Abraham’s readiness to offer up Isaac in sacrifice at the command of God. The purport of the apostle’s argument restricts the words “us all,” to all justified by believing. This is not one of the passages in which the general reference of the atonement is stated. Us all, plainly refers to those predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified. The whole discussion refers to them only. God spared not His Son–His own Son–a person one in nature with Himself, and infinitely dear to Him. He spared Him not; He did not withhold Him; He did not refuse to allow Him to undertake our apparently hopeless cause. There is here what grammarians call a negative phrase with a positive meaning. He spared Him not, is equivalent to, He freely gave Him. Some have supposed that the phrase refers not only to the free gift of the Son to be the Savior, by the Father as the God of all grace, but also to the Father’s not dealing, as righteous judge, more gently with Him in the character of the victim for human guilt, than if He had not been His own Son. As it has been expressed, “He not only did not spare Him from being a sufferer, but He did not spare Him when He suffered.” This is a truth, but it may be questioned whether the phrase means so much. It is implied, however, in the second clause, “He delivered Him up for us all.” He devoted Him to be a sacrifice for the sins of men: “God so loved the world, that He gave His Son to be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.” He was “delivered for our offences”–devoted as a sacrifice in our room, for the salvation of all the justified ones.

The conclusion from this premise is, “God will freely with Him give us all things;” that is, God will, in connection with Him, give us, without desert on our part, freely–in the exercise of abundant grace on His part, all things that are necessary for our happiness.

John Brown, Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1857, 256-257. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified to run consecutively; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Confession of the
Evangelical Church
in Germany:

XIX. Of the office of Christ we believe that He is our Saviour who reconciles us to God through His death, and He makes such a reconciliation known to us, and allows this to be known; also, that He claims His faithful ones for His own and preserves and protects them unto eternity. For it is written: “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15) “Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them: and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19). “I give eternal life to My sheep, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand” ( John 10:28).

11. Of the Power of Christ’s Death

XXV. Of the power of Christ’s death, we believe that although Christ’s death is the atonement for the sins of the whole world, as is read in John, such reconciliation profits no one except those alone who believe on Him. For it is written: That whoever believes in Him shall not be lost, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). "Whoever does not believe, he will be condemned" (Mark 16:16)."The wrath of God abides on him" ( John 3:36). Namely, that which by nature abides in all men; as the verse says, "We are all by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3).

“Confession of the Evangelical Church in Germany (1614)” in, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed., James T. Dennison, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 3: 63.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dodsworth:

I would here have you especially notice the distinction between natural and moral inability, which clearly reconciles human responsibility with divine sovereignty. There are some who, feeling a difficulty here, bring this objection; It is, say they, in fact the same whether you make the limit in redemption or election, since; after all, it is only the elect that can be saved. We reply; It is not the same. There is all the difference between a natural and a moral inability; and moral inability is sin. If there were any for whom Christ did not die, it could not be, imputed to them as personally blame-worthy that they are not saved; for the hindrance would not be in themselves alone, but in God. The justice of God would form an impassable barrier to their entrance into life. On the other hand, granting that redemption is general, the work of Christ threw down that barrier, and now the only hindrance is in themselves. It is in their dislike to, enter. It is true that this dislike can only. be overcome by divine grace; but that does not render it less their own fault that they retain it. We will make this more plain by an illustration.

Suppose a man chained to the walls of a dungeon; you throw open the prison doors, and without removing his fetters, you tell him he is at liberty! Alas! you do but mock him; he may see the light, and long for liberty, but his fetters still bind him to his prison; and if the poor man die a captive, it does not prove his unwillingness to be free. But suppose you not only throw open the prison-doors, but also break his fetters, and tell him he is free; but the man still loiters amongst his prison companions, and takes such delight in their company and their avocations as to disregard the blessings of light and liberty; then it will be admitted it is his own fault that he does not enjoy liberty, and he could not more show himself unworthy of the privileges of a free man. Now this is what Christ has done for the world.

He has not only thrown open the doors of invitation, but he has broken the fetters; that is, he has removed every external hindrance; and the only impediment in the sinner’s way to liberty, is his love of spiritual slavery. It is true this love of slavery can only be overcome by divine power, and this is the work of the Holy Ghost in the elect; but this does not make it less blame-worthy in the sinner to retain it. This brings us to our third point.

William Dodsworth, General Redemption and Limited Salvation (London: James Nisbet, 1831), 59-62.

Dodsworth:

1. The commission of Christ to his minsters is to preach the Gospel to every creature. The Gospel is glad tidings, THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION. It will be admitted, that the preaching of this Gospel brings salvation within the reach of everyone that hears it; so far at least within his reach that it is his own fault if he is not saved by it. It will be admitted that sin cannot be forgiven without a ransom. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Now let us take an individual case. Suppose: we go to an ignorant and sinful man, and after speaking to him of the work of Jesus Christ, and expounding to him the great doctrines of our faith, His incarnation, His death, His resurrection; we say to him:

This is good news for you. God has said, whosoever believes this shall be saved; if you believe, therefore, you shall be saved.

Do we not here tell him a fact? and suppose we were able to traverse the world and speak the same thing to every individual, we should to each one speak of a fact. In addressing each one we should have asserted a true thing when we said. “If you believe you shall be saved, if not you will be condemned for your unbelief.” But if there were say for whom. Christ did not die–for whom the ransom was not paid, what have we been asserting? We have been telling all that they might be saved. Shall they then be saved by a ransom, by a redemption price? On the supposition stated, for some there was no price laid down; no redemption was wrought. Might they then be saved without a ransom? That were to make void the whole Gospel. The deniers then of the doctrine of general redemption are driven to this dilemma: They make the preaching of the Gospel to assert that as a fact which is not so, which is to make God a liar; or they make void the Gospel by preaching to sinners the possibility of a salvation without a redemption.

It will not be any reply to this to say, that the redemption of Christ, though, not for all, is sufficient for all, and that therefore we are authorized to preach it to all. This would prove too much–for surely then the Gospel must be preached to the fallen spirits themselves. Who can doubt the sufficiency of the blood of God?¹ Who can doubt that there was that satisfaction in the sacrifice of Christ which would have rendered it just in God, had he so pleased it, to extend mercy to every fallen creature? Besides, the intrinsic value of a ransom price is altogether distinct from the end for which that ransom price is given. If there are any for whom Christ was no ransom, then, however, great the intrinsic value of his death, or however great the intrinsic worth of his merits, to those individuals it is as though it had never been; and if we say that they may be saved, we do in fact say that there is salvation without redemption; and if we say that they may not be saved, we deny the promise of God, WHICH PROMISE MUST BE TRUE ANTECEDENTLY TO THE FA1TH OR UNBELIEF OF MEN–true because it is the promise of God, and antecedently true because otherwise it could not be the object of faith.

William Dodsworth, General Redemption and Limited Salvation (London: James Nisbet, 1831), 23-27. [Some minor reformatting; italics; footnote value modernized and footnote original; emphasis original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »