Spurgeon on the Arminian concept of atonement

“The Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the most High.”  C. H. Spurgeon, Sermons On Sovereignty, p. 82.

If Christ’s work on the cross did nothing for anyone that it did not do for everyone, then either all are saved or his atonement saves no one.  The Arminian answer is that the atonement (in itself) saves no one.  It makes all savable on a condition left for man to fullfil.  In otherwords, God has done his part, now man must do his — by choosing Christ of his own free will. To which, Spurgeon has another comment or two:

“I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacioius for anybody, except the will of men be added to it.” (Sermons, Vol. 4, p. 70)

“We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.” (Sermon 181, New York Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135)

A. A. Hodge on Amyraldism and dual reference atonement

A. A. Hodge (1823-1886), principal at Princeton Seminary in the good old days, objects to the Amyraldian view of the atonement and lumps it with other “novelties” such as the double (or dual) reference atonement which should be discarded by consistent Calvinists.

“Their own system [Amyraldism] was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe — a condition foreknown to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number . . . This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance . . . It represents God as willing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of confessed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal grace, the conditional will of God, universal redemption, etc. The language of Amyraldus, the ‘Marrow Men,’ Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth.  All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has . . . been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement.  If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties,’ they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’.” (The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, pp. 374-375)

The double or dual reference atonement

I introduced John Kennedy of Dingwall in the previous post.  Here is an excerpt from his Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869,  pp. 100 – 116, wherein he argues against the dual reference view of the atonement.

---

There are some who, Calvinists in their vows and Arminians in their tendencies, teach the doctrine of a double reference of the atonement; representing the atonement as offered in one sense for the elect, and in another sense for all.  These maintain that there was a special atonement securing a certainty of salvation to some, and universal atonement securing a possibility of salvation to all.

Subscribers of the Confession of Faith, who advocate the double reference of the atonement, profess to believe that Christ died in a sense for the elect, in which He died for none besides – that He died because He was their surety – that their sins alone were imputed to Him – that it is His relation to the elect which accounts for His death – that for them alone redemption was purchased – and that to none besides shall redemption be applied. How can they then consistently hold that Christ died for all?  There are two ways in which a reconciliation of the two references may be attempted:

[1] It may be said that the call of the gospel must involve the salvability of those to whom it is addressed. This is traced to the death of Christ as an atonement of infinite value; and on that ground and to that effect it may be insisted that Christ died for all. But how can this consist with this other doctrine, which they profess to believe – that no one is salvable without atonement. No atonement can make my salvation possible if it did not satisfy divine justice for my sins. How can the possibility of my salvation be before the mind of God, unless He sees my sins atoned for in the death of Christ? How could they be atoned for unless they were imputed to Him ? And how could they be imputed to Him unless He was my surety? Thus, and thus alone, could He make possible the salvation of any. If it be objected, that unless the salvation of all who are called is possible there is no hope for them, it is enough to reply, that just as surely as salvation is not possible without atonement, neither is it so without faith ; and that instead of tracing the possibility of a universal salvation to a universal reference of the atonement, the wise and the right thing would be, to insist on the ability of Christ to save all who come to Him; on the certainty of salvation through faith ; and on the impossibility of salvation without it. But this universal reference, of which so much is made, is after all no reference of the atonement. There is no atonement that does not imply satisfaction to divine justice. There was no satisfaction of justice that did not avail to the purchase of redemption. Is there a universal reference of such an atonement to all?  If not, of what atonement?  And if of another, how can it avail to make salvation possible?  To say that the atonement, being of infinite value, is sufficient for all, is beside the mark, for the question is as to the divine intention. To say, that, if the atonement was of infinite value, it was intended to be so, is to rhapsodize considerably: for, surely, the value of the atonement does not flow from the intention of God the Father, but from the dignity of God the Son, who offered it. 

John Kennedy of Dingwall

John Kennedy (1819-1884) of Dingwall, was a Scottish preacher and theologian. He was also a staunch defender of the Reformed Faith who was, as his friend Charles Spurgeon described him, true as steel and firm as a rock.

He was educated in the parish school of Killearnan, and in 1836 went to Aberdeen University. He graduated M.A. at King’s College in 1840, and in the same year entered the theological hall of the established church in Scotland. Kennedy was licensed by the established church in September 1843, but joined the free church and was inducted into a free church newly formed at Dingwall, Rosshire, February 1844. He was pastor of Dingwall Free Church from 1844 until his death in 1884 at the age of 65.

Kennedy was a stalwart opponent of the drift in Scottish Presbyterianism away from the Westminster Confession.  I found two significant works of Kennedy available online:  The first is Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel Part 1, with links to parts 2 thru 5.  This was published in 1874 in the wake of, and in response to, an evangelistic campaign by Dwight L. Moody.  The features of modern American revivalism brought to Scotland by Moody, and in Kennedy’s mind offensive to the biblical gospel, are traceable to the evangelistic practice of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875).

The second work I would mention is Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869.  Within the broader context implied by the title, this treatise includes an impressive effort to resist erosion of the doctrine of the particular design in Christ’s atoning work.  Specifically, Kennedy takes on what he terms the “double reference” view of the atonement, which he sees as thoroughly defective.  This view may be traced to John Davenant (1576-1641), found in James Ussher (1581-1656), and continuing today in what might be called Low or Moderate Calvinism.  Some see it as middle ground between the French Hypothetical Universalism of Moise Amyraut (1596-1644) and the High Calvinist limited atonement views of John Owen and Francis Turretin.  Kennedy sees it as incompatible with the WCF and unbiblical at its core.  An excerpt is found in the subsequent post HERE.

Other information on Kennedy and his writings may be found HERE.

Arminianism and the Atonement

The following is from a series by John Murray entitled “The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes” in The Presbyterian Guardian, 1935-36:

Atonement is to be defined in terms of sacrifice, reconciliation, redemption, satisfaction to divine justice, discharge of debt, and thus defined it is for those whom God hath predestinated to life, namely, the elect. They are saved because Christ by his redemptive work secured their salvation. The finally lost are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that which secures it, namely, the redemption wrought by Christ. It is just here that the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be most plainly stated. Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? Arminians profess the former and deny the latter; our Standards in accordance, as we believe, with Holy Scripture teach the latter. 

Definite atonement and the universal call of the gospel

It is often claimed that the universal well-meant offer of the gospel is incompatible with a definite atonement.  Since the “call of the gospel” is biblically presented as (1) a sincere offer on the part of God and (2) to be universally and indiscriminately presented to all who can be reached, many argue that this inherently contradicts the Calvinist concept of a limited or definite atonement. 

Roger Nicole notes that detractors of a definite atonement (along this line of thinking) include “a great company of thinkers from varying backgrounds, some Eastern Orthodox, some Roman Catholics, many Lutherans, many Arminians and some hypothetical Universalists [Amyraldians] in the Reformed churches. With one voice these people say that since God’s gospel call is universal, provision made by Christ must be universal as well. It is therefore incumbent upon those who hold to the doctrine of definite atonement to consider this matter with care.”

The following is extracted from the discussion by Roger Nicole in Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement, JETS 38/3 (September 1995) 403-412, also reprinted as a chapter in the recent Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole, (2002).
———————-

John L. Dagg on Particular Redemption

Since he is not widely recognized, I will first introduce you to Dagg and then follow with his discussion of Particular Redemption. 

John Leadley Dagg (1794–1884) was one of the most respected men in American Baptist life and remains one of the most profound thinkers produced by his denomination.  As a pastor, educator and theologian, Dagg was a convinced Calvinist best known for his work in Georgia between 1844 and 1870. From 1844 to 1856 he was on the faculty of Mercer University as professor of theology and later president of the college.

His greatest contribution to Baptist life came after his retirement in 1856. He prepared A Manual of Theology (1857), the first systematic theology by a Baptist in America, A Treatise on Church Order (1858), The Elements of Moral Science (1859), and The Evidences of Christianity (1869). His reputation as a theologian and ethicist rests on these four works. The first two are still in print. 

The following article on Particuar Redemption is taken from his Manual of Theology (Book 7, chapter 4, section 2).  Of particular note is his argument against universal redemption and the idea that the universal call of the gospel implies a universal provision in the atonement.

John L. Dagg on Particular Redemption

The Scriptures teach that the Son of God, in coming into the world and laying down his life, had the salvation of a peculiar people in view: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). “The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church” (Eph. 5:25-27). The Scriptures also teach that the expectation of the Redeemer will be fully realized, and that not one of all whom the Father gave him will fail to be saved: “He shall see his seed. He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied” (Isa. 53:10, 11). “All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:37, 39). “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am” (John 17:24).

And finally, when all shall be congregated, he will say, “Behold, I, and the children which God has given me” (Heb. 2:13). In presenting to the Father all who had been given to him, in the covenant of grace, to be redeemed out of every kindred, tongue, nation, and people, the Saviour will have the full reward of his obedience unto death.

The Atonement and the Guilt of Adam’s Sin

Has the atonement removed the guilt of Adam’s sin for all men? 

In order to explain how those who die in infancy are saved, some have suggested that “the atonement of Christ nullified the effects of Adam’s sin.”  This is to say that, by the blood of Christ, the guilt of Adam’s sin is removed at birth for all men.  It is one thing to argue that all who die in infancy are saved by God’s grace based on Christ’s atonement, but it is another to assert that Christ’s atonement has removed the consequences of Adam’s sin for all men.  The latter is the point of issue for this little discussion.

If it is true that the effects of Adam’s sin have been nullified by the atonement, then men are born pardoned as far as their connection with Adam’s sin; and if pardoned, they are justified from that guilt (since Scripture indicates that all those pardoned are also justified).  What we have then is justification of all men at birth from the guilt of original sin.  This view has been historically associated with Arminian theology, often as part of its doctrine of universal atonement.  I mention this only because Dr. John Girardeau has addressed this particular view to some extent in one of his prominent works.^1  A brief summary of his major points follows, which I believe are important for consideration.

Spurgeon on Limited Atonement

I love reading the old words of Charles Spurgeon:

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question — Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They say, “No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died so that any man may be saved if” — and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say then, we will just go back to the old statement — Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why you… We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. (Sermon 181, New York Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135)

I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacioius for anybody, except the will of men be added to it. (Sermons, Vol. 4, p. 70)

Four Point Calvinism

Amyraldism, also known as hypothetical redemption, hypothetical universalism or sometimes four-point Calvinism, refers to a modified form of Calvinism which rejects one of the Five points of Calvinism, namely the doctrine of limited atonement in favor of an unlimited atonement similar to that of the Arminians.

Roger Nicole defines Amyraldism in this manner:

“Amyraut held that God, moved by compassion for the plight of fallen mankind, designed to save all men and sent His Son Jesus Christ as a substitutionary offering for the sins of all men and of every man — this is Amyraut’s universalism. This sacrifice is not effectual unto salvation, however, unless God’s offer of grace is accepted by man in repentance and faith, which acceptance is the fruit of God’s special grace, conferred on those only whom He has chosen — this is the hypothetical aspect of Amyraut’s view.” (Moyse Amyraut [1596-1664] and the Controversy on Universal Grace, First Phase [1634-1637], Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1966, 3-4).

Simply stated, Amyraldism holds that God has provided Christ’s atonement for all alike on the condition of faith, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elects those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism since it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the atonement. However, detractors like B. B. Warfield have termed it “an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism.”

While Amyraldism is sometimes called four point Calvinism due to its rejection of the doctrine of a limited atonement, the latter term is often a self-proclaimed epithet for many who are even less consistent Calvinists than Amyraut. For instance, many so-called “four point Calvinists” (particularly the dispensational variety) not only reject the doctrine of limited atonement but also deny that regeneration must logically precede faith (a tenet of Calvinism and Reformed theology which Amyraut upheld).

Sufficient for all? Part 2

What errors are there in the “sufficiency for all” view?

One error of this view is found in its lack of precise distinction between atonement and the effectual call. By maintaining that Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect, there is a tendency to define the extent of the atonement in terms of personal application by the Holy Spirit.

An example can be found in the work of W. G. T. Shedd, an eminent Calvinist theologian of the nineteenth century who adopts the “sufficient for all” view.  In Shedd’s discussion of the extent of the atonement he differentiates between passive and active meanings. Passively, he claims, “the extent of the atonement is unlimited.” Actively, which he says denotes the act of extending, it is limited. Shedd goes on:

“The extent of the atonement in this sense [active] means its personal application to individuals by the Holy Spirit. The extent is now the intent. The question, What is the extent of the atonement? now means: To whom is the atonement effectually extended?” (5). 

Sufficient for all? Part 1

Among those who generally accept the doctrine of a definite or limited atonement, it is often heard by way of explanation that “the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” In fact this terminology may be found in some of the most respected Reformed theologians such as Hodge, Shedd, Buswell and others. While no Calvinist would deny the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death for the redemption of all men had God so designed and intended it, I find the use of such phraseology dubious.

Maintaining the infinite intrinsic value of Christ’s death is not the same as saying “He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect.”  The latter seems to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention to die in the place of all men, and to benefit all by the proper effects of His death as an atonement or propitiation. This inference is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement. My purpose here is to show that this phraseology is ultimately meaningless and fails to adequately perceive the nature of the atonement. In the final analysis, it does not distinguish a definite atonement from a general or universal atonement (1).

Definite Redemption (or Limited Atonement)

The following is an article by J. I. Packer summarizing the doctrine of Limited Atonement – one of the “five points of Calvinism” and the one that seems to be the biggest stumbling block to the minds of men, even among some who would otherwise like to consider themselves Calvinists.

Definite Redemption: Jesus Christ Died for God’s Elect

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me–just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep.  John 10:14-15

Definite redemption, sometimes called “particular redemption,” “effective atonement,” and “limited atonement,” is an historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice or the genuineness of God’s “whoever will” invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God’s elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.

Are all already forgiven? Part 2

Read Part 1 for the context

Things to consider regarding the question: Are all already forgiven? as some claim:

To be forgiven is to be delivered from the wrath to come. All forgiveness is bestowed through Jesus Christ. It is He who “delivers from the wrath to come,” 1 Thess. 1:10. In Him we have redemption through His blood and forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7).

In order for us to be delivered from the penalty of our sins, it was necessary that Christ should bear it for us. Hence, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). Therefore, in Scripture, the forgiveness of sins always stands connected with redemption by the blood of Christ: “To the one who loved us and released us from our sins by His blood,” Rev. 1:5.

Therefore, in opposition to the idea that all are already forgiven, I offer the following:

Are all already forgiven? Part 1

I have heard it proclaimed from the pulpit that God has forgiven all men.  It was suggested at the time that while God may not have purposed to save all men, He did purpose to forgive all men through Jesus Christ.  Thus, based on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, God has indeed forgiven all men.

This could be the logical basis for proclaiming that all men are then saved (which would at least be consistent); however, most do not go that far.  In fact, in order to avoid universal salvation, those who hold this view usually say that “what men do with Christ is the thing that determines men’s destinies.”  Since all are forgiven, sin is out of the picture and does not condemn any man.  The only issue is whether or not a person accepts Christ and accepts the fact that he is already forgiven.

Does this sound familiar?  Is this the gospel you are hearing?

This position (in my estimation) reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and extent of the atonement, and a view of forgiveness that fails to stand the test of Scripture.

Ponder the idea, and I will jot down some “opposing arguments” in Part 2.