The Objections Brought Against the Reformed View of the Design of the Atonement Stated, and the Answer to Them Indicated
We have DOW come in conclusion to consider the principal arguments which the advocates of a general and indefinite Atonement rely upon as refuting our doctrine and as establishing their own. By far the most considerable of these arguments are those founded (1) on the admitted fact of the indiscriminate offer of the gospel to all men. (2.) On those passages of Scripture which say in general terms that Christ “bore the sins of the world,” and “suffered for all.” (3.) And on those passages which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom Christ died.
1. It is claimed that if Christ did not die for the purpose of providing salvation for all men indifferently, then the indiscriminate offer of salvation made in the gospel to all men is an empty form, offering the non-elect an atonemt-it, when, as far as he is concerned, no atonement has been made. There is unquestionably a difficulty in this neighborhood, but it will require some discrimination to determine exactly the point upon which the difficulty presses. There are three distinct respects in which a personal and definite Atonement appears to be inconsistent with the indiscriminate offer of salvation, which are sometimes distinctly stated, but are generally jumbled together in a confused charge of inconsistency. These are, (a) that if the Atonement was designed only for the elect, it is not consistent with truth that God should offer salvation to all men. (6.) That in such a case there is no solid warrant for the ministerial offer of salvation to all men. (c.) That in such a case there is no solid warrant for any man, who is not privately and infallibly assured of his own election, to rest his trust upon that Atonement, which, although offered to all, was intended only for the benefit of the elect.
As to the warrant for the ministerial offer of salvation to all, it must be found alone in the great commission with which every minister is sent out by the authority of the Master himself. No matter what may be the nature or the design of the Atonement, no servant has any right to go back of his commission, and insist upon understanding his Master’s secret purposes or aims. No matter what else is true or not true, the command to ago into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” is the entire and all-sufficient warrant for the ministerial offer. Even if the Atonement can be demonstrated to be universal, our right to offer it to all men cannot rest upon that demonstration, but, as said before, upon the plain terms of that commission which we already have.
As to the warrant of personal faith upon the part of men who can know nothing as to their election, the case is precisely similar. The warrant rests sufficiently and exclusively in the indiscriminate invitations, commands and promises of the gospel. If we were all assured of the absolute universality of redemption, or if we could read plainly every name recorded in the Lamb’s book of life, the case would be no plainer and no more certain than it now is. The absolutely righteous, the infinitely wise and powerful God solemnly declares th at “whosoever will may take of the water of life freely,” and that “whosoever comes he will in no wise cast out.” Any other warrant than this is inconsistent with the nature of faith. To demand any other warrant is sheer rationalism and rebellion.
With respect to the warrant for God’s acting as he does in the case, we might surely content ourselves with referring to the infinite perfections and absolute sovereignty of God upon the one hand, and to the entire ignorance of man upon the other. But in order that we may locate the difficulty, which every one vaguely feels, at the precise point to which it belongs, observe that the definite and personal design of the Atonement, and the unconditional and personal election of some men to eternal life, are identically one and the same in their bearing upon the indiscriminate offers of the gospel. Viewing the matter from the Arminian stand-point, we challenge our opponents to show why the sovereign election of some men, and the sovereign leaving of others to the natural consequences of their own sins, are any more inconsistent with the good faith of God in the indiscriminate offers of salvation to all than is that divine infallible foreknowledge which the Arminians admit. If God certainly foreknows that to the vast mass of those to whom the offer of salvation is brought it will be only a savour of death unto death, awfully aggravating their doom, how is it consistent with his supposed desire and labour to save all men alike that he should thus knowingly aggravate the condemnation of the majority of those he professes to desire to save.
Besides this, the declaration of purpose which God makes in the universal offers of the gospel is all literally true, election or no election. It is every man’s duty and interest to repent and believe whether he will or not. It is God’s purpose to receive and save all that believe on his Son, elect or not. It is every word true. Neither does the salvation of the elect make the case of the non-elect any worse. Nor is the indiscriminate offer of salvation to all, including the non-elect, a wanton or improper mockery of their case, because (a) the offer is real and sincere; (6) the only reason they do not benefit by it is their own wilful rejection of it; (c) it is, therefore, an admirable test of their character, displaying the inveteracy of their sin, and justifying the righteous judgments of God (Ps. li. 4; John iii. 19); (d) it is an essential and admirably efficient part of God’s plan to gather his elect into the fold.
Viewing the matter from the stand-point of the Cdlvinistic Universalists, we challenge our opponents to show us wherein there is any more inconsistency with the good faith of the indiscriminate offer of an interest in the redemption of Christ upon our view that it was designed only for the elect, than there is upon their view that God foreknew and intended that the conditions upon which it is offered to all men should be impossible. Remember that the question between them and us respects the single point as to the design of the Atonement. We believe as fully as they do (a) that the Atonement is sufficient for all, (6) exactly adapted to each; and hence, (fl) that all legal obstacles are removed out of the way of God’s saving whomsoever he pleases; and (d) that it is sincerely offered to all to whom the gospel is preached; and hence, (e) in a purely objective sense, salvation is available to all if they believe. What, then, is the objection if God, having prepared a feast for his friends, should — there being enough and to spare — if it pleased him, invite his foes to come, whether they will or not God can save whomsoever he pleases now; but since his mind changes not, he pleases to save now precisely those whom he designed to save when he sacrificed his Son.
An indiscriminate offer of an interest in the Atonement has been made for two thousand years since Christ died. But remember that the same indiscriminate offer was made for four thousand years before he died. The offer then was that if men would believe upon a Christ to be sacrificed hereafter they should be saved. Now, is it sense or nonsense to believe that at the end of those four thousand years Christ died for the purpose of saving those who had already rejected him, and who had consequently gone to their own place? Would it not have met the precise case of all who lived on earth before his advent if he had promised them that at the end of time he would die to save all those who had previously believed? Would there have been any propriety in his promising to die also for those who had previously rejected his kind offers and been lost? As far as the design of the Atonement, the purpose to be attained by his death, is concerned, what conceivable difference does it make whether the sacrifice of Christ be offered at the beginning, the middle or the end of human history? If he had died at the end, he certainly could not die for those who had previously rejected his offers and perished
OBJECTIONS AMWEREr. 423
therefor. And since he did die in the middle, why may not the gospel be offered on the same terms to all men, as well after as before his death? The only difficulty lies in the fact that finite creatures are utterly unable to comprehend the sovereign will and the unchangeable all-knowledge of God, which absolutely shuts out all contingency in relation to the hopes, the fears, the doubts, the responsibilities, the struggles of human beings. Events are contingent in themselves. But there is no contingency in relation to the divine purpose. One event is conditioned upon another, but there are no conditions in the divine decree. God’s purpose, his design of redemption, like every other divine purpose, is time less. What has been and what will be, who have believed and who will believe, are all the same to him. To him the believers and the elect are identical. His design in the Atonement may with absolute indifference be stated either as a design to save the elect, or as a design to save all who had believed or who would believe on his Son.*
2. It is claimed that that large class of Scripture passages in which in general terms it is said that Christ “suffered for all/7 and gave his life for the “world/7 expressly teach that the design of the Atonement was general and impersonal. These passages are such as the following: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave 1 imself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6. “And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and
*See “Hypothesis of a Postponed Atonement,” in Candlish on Atonement, Part II., chapters viii. and ix.
He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John ii. 1, 2. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4. “That he might taste death for every man.” It is confessed on all sides that these phrases “all” and “world” do not of themselves necessarily settle the question. When it is said that “a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed” (Luke ii. 1), no man understands that the term “all the world” is to be taken absolutely. It is evident that the only way in which this controversy can be settled is to take up the phrases severally in which these general terms are used, and subject them, in connection with their context, to a thorough critical examination, in order to determine the intent of the inspired writer in each passage taken as a whole; then to do the same thing with each of those passages in which it is asserted, as shown above, that Christ died for the elect; and then, by an impartial comparison of the two classes of passages thus examined, to determine which class is to be taken absolutely, and which is to yield to the other. For a work of this kind I have neither tie space nor the taste, nor is it proper, since — as Prof. Moses Stuart says in a passage to be quoted below — such is the state of the question as to the usage of the words “all” and “world” in such passages that it cannot be decided by any appeal to grammar or lexicons, and belongs rather to the field of the theologian than of the commentator. Believing that I have settled the question on the former ground, in the discussion just closed above, I will now content myself with referring thf* reader to the triumphant proof afforded by Candlish in the third chapter of the first part of his admirable work on the Atonement, that these passages, when rightly interpreted, do not in the least contradict our doctrine of a definite Atonement, and with making the following remarks.
(1.) I would recall a remark made above, that every man familiar with the usage common to all human languages with respect to general terms, will acknowledge that particular and definite expressions must limit the interpretation of the general ones, rather than the reverse. It is plainly far easier to assign plausible reasons why, if Christ died particularly for his elect, they being as yet scattered among all nations and generations, and undistinguishable by us from the mass of fallen humanity to whom the gospel is indiscriminately offered, he should be said in certain connections to have died for the world or for all, than it can be to assign any plausible reason why, if he died to make the salvation of all possible, he should nevertheless be said in any connection to have died for the purpose of certainly saving his elect.
(2.) Moses Stuart — who, as a theologian, believed in a general and indefinite Atonement — was too well informed as an exegete, and too candid as a man, to build his faith on the class of scriptural passages to which I am referring. In his comments on Heb. ii. 9, he says: “‘Trrsp navrbz means, all men without distinction, that is, both Jew ind Gentile. The same view is often given of the death of Christ. See John iii. 14-17; iv 42; xii. 32; 1 John ii. 2; iv. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4; Titus ii. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 7. Compare Rom. iii. 29, 30; x. 11-13. In all these and the like cases the words all and all men evidently mean Jew and Gentile. They are opposed to the Jewish idea that the Messiah was connected appropriately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the blessings of the kingdom were appropriately, if not exclusively, theirs. The sacred writers mean to declare by such expressions that Christ died really and truly as well and as much for the Gentiles as for the Jews; that there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges of any one who may belong to his kingdom; and that all men without exception have equal and free access to it. But the considerate interpreter, who understands the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, in expressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of every individual of the human race. Nor do they, when strictly scanned by the wits loquendi of the New Testament, decide directly against the views of those who advocate what is called a particular redemption. The question in all these phrases evidently respects the offer of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through a Redeemer; not the actual application of promises; the fulfilment is connected only with repentance and faith. But whether such an offer can be made with sincerity to those who are reprobates (and whom the Saviour knows are and will be such), consistently with the grounds which the advocates for particular redemption maintain, is a question for the theologian rather than the commentator to discuss.”
(3.) Their own canon of interpretation goes too far for evangelical Arminians and Calvinistic advocates of a general Atonement. It is certain that tl e principle of interpretation which make the Scriptures teach universal atonement infallibly brings out in company with it absolutely universal salvation. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” 1 Cor. xv. 22; Col. i. 20; 2 Cor. v. 14; John xii. 32; Eph. i. 10; Rom. v. 18, &c. The Arminians say all believers. But the instant they do so they abandon their high ground that the language of Scripture in such cases is to be taken absolutely and literally.
(4.) Remember what we have over and over again affirmed, (a) Christ did literally and absolutely die for all men, in the sense of scouring for all a lengthened respite and many temporal benefits, moral as well as physical; (b) his Atonement was sufficient for all; (c) exactly adapted to the needs of each; (d) it is offered indiscriminately to all; hence, as far as God’s preceptive will is concerned, the Atonement is universal. It is to be preached to all, and to be accepted by all. It is for all as far as determining the duty of all and laying obligations upon all. And practically it makes salvation objectively available to all upon the condition of faith. God’s decretive will or design in making the Atonement is a very different matter.
3. It is claimed by our opponents that those passages which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom Christ died are inconsistent with our doctrine that the design of his death was to secure the salvation of his elect. The passages in question are such as — “There shall be false teachers among you, who shall bring in damnable heresies, even ienying the Lord that bought them.”
2 Pet. ii. 1. “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” Rom. xiv. 15. “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” 1 Cor. viii. 11. These passages are just like those constant warnings which are addressed in Scripture to the elect, which are designed as means to carry out and secure that perseverance in grace which is the end of election, and therefore are in no sense inconsistent with its certainty. “If those passages are consistent with the certainty of the salvation of all the elect, then this passage is consistent with the certainty of the salvation of those for whom Christ specifically died. It was absolutely certain that no one of Paul’s companions in shipwreck was, on that occasion, to lose his life, because the salvation of the whole company had been predicted and promised; and yet the apostle said that if the sailors were allowed to take away their boats, those left on board could not be saved. This appeal secured the accomplishment of the promise. So God’s telling the elect that if they apostatize they shall perish prevents their apostasy. And in like manner the Bible teaching that those for whom Christ died shall perish if they violate their conscience prevents their transgressing or brings them to repentance. God’s purposes embrace the means as well as the end. If the means fail, the end will fail. He secures the end by securing the means. It is just as certain that those for whom Christ died shall be saved as that the elect shall be saved. Yet in both cases the event is spoken of as conditional. There is not only a possibility, but an absolute certainty, that they will perish if they fall away. But this is precisely what God has promised to prevent.”* Falling away (a) is the natural tendency of the human heart, and (6) the natural result of those sins from which the Scriptures warn us. God has left his blood-bought elect for the present mixed indistinguishably to human eye with the mass of humanity. To all men the presumption is that Christ died for himself and for each other man until final reprobation proves the reverse. Therefore we are all under obligation to carry ourselves, and to regard and treat all other men as those for whom Christ died until the contrary is proved. And God prevents the natural tendency of his elect to apostatize, in part at least, by means of the passages in question, warning them truly of the natural and certain effect of sin. Children ought to know that God’s sovereign and eternal decrees carry the means as well as the end. If the non-elect believes, he will be none the less saved because of his non-election. If the elect does not believe and persevere to the end, he will none the more be saved because of his election.
* Hodge’s Commentary, 1 Cor. viii. 11.