043. CHAPTER 19 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - VARIOUS THEORIES EXHIBITED.

CHAPTER 19 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - VARIOUS THEORIES EXHIBITED. A CONSIDERATION of the extent of the atonement, or an examination of the question, For whom are the benefits of the death of Christ designed? opens to our view one of the most interesting and important subjects connected with Christian theology. From a very early period, upon this subject, the Church has been much divided in sentiment; and from the days of Calvin and Arminius to the present time, the great contending parties, in reference to the subject now before us, have been designated as Calvinists and Arminians.

Without, in this place, entering into consideration of the origin and history of the controversy here referred to, suffice it to say that the two great and learned men above named so systematized and arranged the peculiar views for which they contended, in reference to the extent of the atonement, and so impressed them with the indelible marks of their comprehensive and gigantic minds, that posterity, by common consent, have hitherto connected, and perhaps will still continue to connect, the names of Calvin and Arminius with the peculiar systems of doctrine for which they respectively contended. When we reflect on the great number, extensive erudition, and eminent piety, of the divines who have been enrolled on either side in this controversy, we are at once admonished of the propriety of caution and calmness in the investigation of this subject, and of respectful forbearance of feeling toward those with whom we differ in judgment. Yet, at the same time, as this is a subject upon which the Bible is by no means silent, and one which must be decided by that book alone, and as it is made the duty of all to “search the Scriptures” for themselves, we may venture, in the fear of God, impartially to examine for ourselves, and to bring the points at issue to the test of reason and Scripture. To enter minutely into the consideration of all the shades of difference in the sentiments, and technicalities of the arguments, which have been presented, by such as have been denominated Calvinists or Arminians, would be an interminable task. Upon no subject in divinity has controversy been more voluminous, and it has seldom been more virulent, than too frequently it has been, in the discussion under consideration.

Before we enter particularly into the merits of the main question between Calvinists and Arminians, it may be proper briefly to advert to some of the views entertained by some who have properly belonged to neither of the two great divisions of Christians above named. With regard to Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, etc., it may here be observed, that as they deny the proper divinity of Christ, without which he would be incapable of making an atonement, so they deny the native depravity of man, without which the atonement would not be necessary; and, in perfect consistency with these principles, they also deny the reality of the atonement itself, and consequently there is no place in their system for the application of its benefits.

There is, however, another scheme that we will here briefly notice, which, while it admits the native depravity of man, and the reality of the atonement through Christ, yet, so far as the application of the benefits of the atonement is concerned, it is essentially different both from Calvinism and Arminianism. We refer to a certain class of Universalists, who have so construed the extent of the atonement as thereby to secure absolute and unconditional salvation to all mankind. As the general system of Universalism will be a subject of special consideration in another place, a very brief reply to the particular feature of that system above named is all that we here deem necessary. The scheme itself is evidently based upon an erroneous view of the whole matter. So to understand the atonement as thereby necessarily to secure the absolute and unconditional salvation of all mankind, would represent the work of redemption as a commercial transaction between the Father and the Son, by which the Son made a fair purchase of the human family, by paying down on the cross of Calvary an adequate price for the unconditional redemption of the whole world; and that, consequently, justice can never have any claim upon any to punish them hereafter. It is true, as hereafter may be more fully seen, that many Calvinists take the same view of the atonement, only that they limit it to the elect portion of the human family, and, so far as they are concerned, secure, by the death of Christ, their absolute and unconditional salvation, while the rest of mankind are “passed by,” and left to perish in their sins, without the possibility of escape. But the whole scheme, whether adopted by Universalists or Calvinists, we conceive to be based upon a false and unscriptural assumption. The Scriptures nowhere represent the atonement in the light of a commercial transaction, but everywhere it is presented as a governmental arrangement. Were we to admit the premises, and take the view here presented of the nature of the atonement, then it would inevitably follow that all for whom the atonement was made would necessarily be saved; and the only controversy between Calvinists and Universalists would be, to determine whether the atonement was made for all, or only for a part; as both parties would be compelled to admit that all for whom Christ died to atone would most assuredly be saved. That this commercial or credit-and-debtor view of the subject is erroneous and unscriptural, will be obvious when we reflect that it tends directly to banish from the scheme of redemption the whole system of grace. If the Saviour has purchased, by the payment of an equivalent, the salvation absolute of all for whom he died, then it follows that the Father is under obligations, in strict justice, to save them; consequently their salvation, so far as God the Father is concerned, cannot be of mercy or grace, but of debt; and the entire display of the divine benevolence, in the eternal salvation of sinners, is reduced to a fiction. The truth is, the atonement, of itself, brings the Almighty under no obligations to extend salvation to the world. It is true, that without the atonement none could be saved; but that alone does not secure inevitably and necessarily the salvation of any. Salvation is emphatically of grace. The atonement removes the difficulties which stood in the way of man’s salvation. These difficulties were, a broken law, and the unsatisfied claims of divine justice. While these barriers were in the way, God could not, however much he might have been disposed, consistently with his nature, extend mercy to man. The removal of these impediments - the magnifying of the broken law, and the satisfying of the demands of justice - was the great work of the atonement. But the great difficulties which, without the atonement, rendered it impossible for God to extend mercy to man, being by the atonement removed, it does not necessarily follow that God is under obligations to extend mercy to man: it only follows that he may, if he please. And thus it appears that salvation is all of the free, unmerited grace of God. The atonement, considered in the abstract, leaves the Almighty free either to extend or withhold pardoning mercy; whereas, without the atonement, he was not free to extend mercy, but was bound to withhold it. All the obligations which God is under, even now, to save the sinner, flow not necessarily from the atonement, as a matter of debt, but from the gracious promise of God, which he has been pleased to make, through his mere mercy and benevolence. Hence we perceive that the idea that God is under obligations to save all men, unconditionally, on account of the atonement of Christ, is so far from being correct, that he is, on that account, under no necessary obligations to save any. And if the Almighty be free to extend or withhold mercy, according to his good pleasure, it necessarily follows that he has a right to fix the conditions of salvation as he may please. And as he has promised salvation to those who repent and believe, and threatened destruction to those who refuse, it is clear that there is no hope for such as reject the conditions of salvation as presented in the gospel, but they must perish everlastingly; and as we have clearly shown, the Universalist delusion must perish with them.

We will proceed to the consideration of the extent of the atonement, in which is involved the great matter of controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. We shall not attempt to amplify the subject, so as particularly to examine every thing which able divines have presented, either as illustration or argument, on either side. It shall be our main object to arrange and condense, so as to bring the essential point of inquiry to as narrow a compass as possible.

Notwithstanding Calvinists have differed with each other considerably in their manner of presenting this subject, yet we think this difference has generally consisted either in words, or in points not materially affecting the main question. There is one great point upon which every Calvinistic author of note, so far as we have been able to ascertain, has differed from all genuine Arminians. In that great and leading point is concentrated the substance of the whole controversy, and upon its settlement depends the adjustment of all questions of any real importance connected with the subject. The point referred to is embraced in the following question: Does the atonement of Christ so extend to all men as to make salvation possible for them? By all genuine Calvinists this question is answered in the negative; but by all genuine Arminians, it is answered in the affirmative.

I. Before we proceed directly to the discussion of the question here presented, we will notice several different views of the subject, taken by learned and eminent Calvinists, and show that they all perfectly harmonize when they come to the question above presented. The following will be found to contain the substance of the principal Calvinistic theories upon this subject, viz.:

1.That the atonement of Christ is specially limited, in its nature, design, and benefits, to the elect portion of mankind, so that Christ died for them alone; that he represented them alone in the covenant of redemption, and that “neither are any other redeemed by Christ.” And that consequently none but the elect have any possible chance of salvation. The foregoing is, no doubt, the strict Calvinistic view, as contained in the writings of Calvin himself, and set forth in the “Westminster Confession of Faith,” which is at once the standard of the Church of Scotland and of the English and American Presbyterians. Yet it must be admitted that even the abettors of this system acknowledge that all men, by virtue of the atonement of Christ, are favored with temporal mercies, and what they term a “common call” of the gospel, which, however, they contend, cannot possibly lead to, nor are they designed to result in, their eternal salvation.

2. A second scheme is, that the atonement of Christ possessed sufficient value in its nature to satisfy fully for all the sins of the whole world; but that it was not designed, nor can it possibly be extended in its application, so as to make salvation possible to any but the elect.

It will be readily perceived that this scheme is not essentially variant from the first. Indeed, it has been advocated by a goodly number of the most eminent divines of the strictly Calvinistic Churches. The only point in which it might seem to differ from the first is, that it allows a sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to avail for the salvation of all; but that sufficiency in nature is completely neutralized by the declaration that, according to the intent and purpose of God, the application cannot possibly be made to any but the elect. This system is what has sometimes been termed general redemption, with a particular application. But to call this a scheme of general redemption is a palpable abuse of language; for if, according to the design and decree of God, it is absolutely impossible for any but the elect to obtain the benefits of the atonement, redemption, so far as the rest of mankind are concerned, is only in name, and amounts to a perfect nullity; so that there is no real difference between this and the first system.

3. A third system is, that the atonement was not only sufficient, but was also designed for the salvation of all mankind; and that the gospel should therefore be preached with sincerity alike to all; but that none but the elect can ever possibly be saved by it, because none others will believe and obey it; and that this is certain, because none can possibly believe unless God, by the invincible influence of his Spirit, give them faith, and this he has decreed from all eternity to withhold from all but the elect. The substance of this system is this: - Christ has purchased a conditional salvation for all men. Faith is this condition; but, according to the decree and arrangement of God, this faith cannot possibly be obtained by any but the elect. The above is substantially the scheme advocated by the pious Baxter, which he adopted from Camero, and introduced with the avowed purpose of steering a medium course between rigid Calvinism and Arminianism. It is, likewise, little different from the views advocated by Dr. Samuel Hopkins, and many other divines, of the last and the present century, both in Europe and America.

Calvinists of this class appear, to persons not well versed in the technicalities of their system, to exhibit the gospel call with as much unreserved fullness and freeness to all mankind as Arminians possibly can do. They offer salvation to all, urge all to repent and believe, and assure all that they have a sufficiency of grace to enable them to repent and believe, and that if they are not saved they will be condemned for their unbelief, and it will be their own fault. When their discourses are richly interlarded with such expressions as the above, it is not surprising that many should be unable to distinguish their doctrine from genuine Arminianism; but although they, no doubt, think they can, consistently with their creed, express themselves as they do, and should therefore be exonerated from any intention to mislead, yet it is most evident that, when we allow their own explanation to be placed upon their language, so far from harmonizing in sentiment with genuine Arminians, they differ in nothing essentially from rigid Calvinists of the Old School. That we may understand correctly what they mean when they use such language as we have above quoted, it will be necessary for us to attend strictly to their own interpretation of the terms.

(1) Then, when they offer salvation indiscriminately to all, they sometimes tell us that they are justified in doing so, because the elect, who only have the power, in the proper sense, and who only are really intended to embrace it, are so mixed up among the general mass of all nations to whom the gospel is sent, that none but God can determine who they are; therefore the gospel call is general, and should be indiscriminately presented, that all for whose salvation it was really designed may embrace it, and that others may have the opportunity of willfully rejecting it, which they will most certainly do, because God has determined to withhold from them that faith without which the gospel cannot be properly received.

(2) When they urge all to repent and believe, they endeavor to justify themselves by alleging, that although man has lost the power to obey, God has not lost the right to command; that it is still the duty of all men to repent and believe the gospel; that salvation is sincerely offered to all upon these conditions; and that, if they do not comply with the conditions, God is not to blame, for he is under obligations to confer saving faith upon none.

(3) When they say that all have a sufficiency of grace to enable them to repent and believe, and consequently to be saved, we must look narrowly at their own interpretation of the term sufficiency. When they use this word, and kindred terms, such as power, ability, etc., they do not attach to them their full import, according to their usual acceptation in language, but by resorting to the subtleties of philological distinction, and applying to these terms several different meanings, they fix upon a certain sense in which they think they can be used in reference to the salvation of all men. This sense, although it may be different from the generally received import of the terms, we may reasonably suppose is always present with their minds when they use the terms as above specified. By the phrase “sufficient grace,” as used by these divines, in reference to such as are not of the elect portion of mankind, we are not to understand invincible effectual grace, such as they affirm is given to the elect, but merely “sufficient ineffectual grace,” as Baxter himself termed it. What he understood thereby, is sufficiently evident from his own words, as follows: “I say it again, confidently, all men that perish, (who have the use of reason,) do perish directly for rejecting sufficient recovering grace. By grace, I mean mercy contrary to merit. By recovering, I mean such as tendeth in its own nature toward their recovery, and leadeth, or helpeth them thereto. By sufficient, I mean, not sufficient directly to save them, (for such none of the elect have till they are saved;) nor yet sufficient to give them faith, or cause them savingly to believe. But it is sufficient to bring them nearer Christ than they are, though not to put them into immediate possession of Christ by union with him, as faith would do.” (Universal Redemption, p. 434.)

These words of Baxter may be considered a just comment on the language of all Calvinists, when they speak of a sufficiency of grace being given to all men. They mean a sufficiency to do them some good, “to bring them nearer Christ,” and even a sufficiency to save them, if they would believe; but this they cannot do, because God withholds saving faith from them. It is difficult to understand the term “sufficient grace,” as used above, to signify any thing different from insufficient grace. So far as the question of salvation is concerned, which is the only point of any importance herein involved, the term sufficient is entirely explained away, so as to be made a perfect nullity. And thus this system is left, notwithstanding it professes to give a sufficiency of grace to all mankind, in no essential point different from rigid Calvinism.

(4) Again: when Calvinists present the offer of salvation to all, and declare that God willeth not the damnation of any, in order to reconcile these terms, which seem to imply a real provision and possibility for the salvation of all, with the true principles of their creed, they resort to a distinction between what they term the revealed and secret will of God. It is, say they, according to the revealed will of God that all men should repent and believe, and consequently be saved; but it is according to the secret will of God that none shall receive the grace to enable them to repent and believe, but the elect; and consequently that salvation is, in the proper sense, possible to none others. As a farther illustration, and as an evidence that we have not here misinterpreted the true sentiments of Calvinists, we present the following quotation from a late Calvinistic author of great learning and eminence:

“The Calvinists say that these counsels and commands, which are intended by God to produce their full effect only with regard to the elect, are addressed indifferently to all for this reason: because it was not revealed to the writers of the New Testament, nor is it now revealed to the ministers of the gospel, who the elect are. The Lord knoweth them that are his; but he hath not given this knowledge to any of the children of men. We are not warranted to infer from the former sins of any person that he shall not, at some future period, be conducted by the grace of God to repentance; and therefore we are not warranted to infer that the counsels and exhortations of the divine word, which are some of the instruments of the grace of God, shall finally prove vain with regard to any individual. But although it is in this way impossible for a discrimination to be made in the manner of publishing the gospel, and although many may receive the calls and commands of the gospel who are not in the end to be saved, the Calvinists do not admit that even with regard to them these calls and commands are wholly without effect. For they say that the publication of the gospel is attended with real benefit even to those who are not elected. It points out to them their duty; it restrains them from flagrant transgressions, which would be productive of much present inconvenience, and would aggravate their future condemnation; it has contributed to the diffusion and enlargement of moral and religious knowledge, to the refinement of manners, and to the general welfare of society. And it exhibits such a view of the condition of man, and of the grace from which the remedy proceeds, as magnifies both the righteousness and the compassion of the Supreme Ruler, and leaves without excuse those who continue in sin.

“The Calvinists say farther, that although these general uses of the publication of the gospel come very far short of that saving benefit which is confined to the elect, there is no want of meaning or of sincerity in the expostulations of Scripture, or in its reproaches and pathetic expressions of regret with regard to those who do not obey the counsels and commands that are addressed to all. For these counsels and commands declare what is the duty of all, what they feel they ought to perform, what is essential to their present and their future happiness, and what no physical necessity prevents them from doing. There is, indeed, a moral inability - a defect - in their will. But the very object of counsels and commands is to remove this defect; and if such a defect rendered it improper for the Supreme Ruler to issue commands, every sin would carry with it its own excuse, and the creatures of God might always plead that they were absolved from the obligation of his law, because they were indisposed to obey it. It is admitted by the Calvinists that the moral inability in those who are not elected is of such a kind as will infallibly prevent their obeying the commands of God; and it is a part of their system that the Being who issues these commands has resolved to withhold from such persons the grace which alone is sufficient to remove that inability. In accounting for these commands, therefore, they are obliged to have recourse to a distinction between the secret and the revealed will of God. They understand by his revealed will that which is preceptive, which declares the duty of his creatures, containing commands agreeable to the sentiments of their minds and the constitution of their nature, and delivering promises which shall certainly be fulfilled to all who obey the commands. They understand by his secret will, his own purpose in distributing his favors and arranging the condition of his creatures - a purpose which is founded upon the wisest reasons, and is infallibly carried into execution by his sovereign power, but which, not being made known to his creatures, cannot possibly be the rule of their conduct.” (Hill’s Lectures.)

There is, perhaps, only a shade of difference between the theory of Baxter and Hopkins, as above delineated, which has been held by a large portion of the Calvinistic Churches since their day, and the more modern phase of the subject called “New Divinity,” and advocated generally by New School Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists of New England. We must, however, reserve the examination of this subject for our next chapter.