II.
(Continued from page 378).
In the former article on this subject it was pointed out that the doctrine of the Reformed theologians was that Christ died for the purpose of actually saving those whom He does actually save: or, to put it in the words of the Confession: “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved but the elect only” (chap. iii. sec. vi). This is what is meant by a limited or definite atonement. We now come to discuss those doctrines which in a greater or lesser degree advanced a different doctrine or depart from the Reformed doctrine at certain points. Among these are: (1) Arminianism; (2) Amyraldianism; (3) Baxterianism; (4) Double Reference; and (5) Cosmic Universalism.
1. Arminianism.
The Arminian doctrine of the Atonement asserts that Christ died for all and every man alike—for Judas as for Peter as it has been sententious put. And in support of their position the Arminians appeal to certain passages in Scripture which they allege have a definitely universalistic application. At this stage of the discussion it is not our intention to deal with these texts; they will be reserved until later. According to the teaching of thorough-going Arminianism as to the design of the atonement it simply brought all men into a salvable state but did not actually procure reconciliation for any and as Dr. Smeaton puts in “under the guise of enlarging Christ’s merits, it tended only to undermine and diminish them.” Arminianism did not scruple to maintain that the ransom might have been paid by Christ and yet not applied to any because of unbelief. “A gulf was thus drawn,” says Dr. Smeaton, “between the procuring of redemption and the application of it, as if these were not of equal extent and breadth. The application was thus suspended on man’s free will, and humanity was thrown back on its own resources, or in such aid as all equally receive, to apply the redemption for themselves” (Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 537). The Arminians also held that the end of Christ’s death was to acquire a new right, on the ground of which God might make a new covenant with men. This is thorough-going Neonomianism as Dr. Cunningham has pointed out which was the same, in substance though not in form, around which the famous Neonomian Controversy was waged in England in the 17th century and which had its echoes in Scotland in the Marrow Controversy as will be seen later on. The Arminians further denied that the Atonement carried with it the ground of its application. As the sinner’s salvation is left so largely to his own free will it follows that thousands for whom Christ died, according to the Arminian view, may never be saved. In point of fact Arminians admit that many are lost i.e., many of those for whom, according to their doctrine, Christ died. (1) If this be so then their doctrine of a universal atonement is, what Dr. Warfield rightly described, inoperative universalism. Dr. Smeaton, also, points out this defect in the Arminian scheme. “Though in intrinsic worth it [Christ’s satisfaction] could save the whole world,” he says, “and a thousand worlds more, if there had been such worlds of human beings to be saved, yet the redemption work does not extend, in point of fact, beyond the circle of those who approve of it as a fit and proper method of salvation; or, in other words, who, by a faith which is the gift of God, are led to accept it as the ground of reconciliation with God. It is simply co-extensive, as to saving effects, with the number of true believers.” (Our Lord’s Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 371). (2) Further, if some are lost for whom Christ died then His atoning work has failed for them or the Holy Spirit has failed in applying the benefits of His redemption. In either case their doctrine does dishonour to Christ and the Holy Spirit and if not blasphemy it is perilously near it.
In opposition to the universalism of Arminianism it remains to be pointed out that there are scriptural statements which cannot by any fair process of interpretation be reconciled with the Arminian doctrine. And in this connection, perhaps, there are no works attaining such excellency in this department than Prof. Smeaton’s Our Lord’s Doctrine of the Atonement and The Apostle’s Doctrine of the Atonement. These works are simply invaluable. It is true that they deal with the doctrine of the Atonement in a wider sense than the subject now under discussion* but the masterly way in which the various utterances of our Lord and the statements by the Apostles are dealt with leave nothing to be desired. Dr. Smeaton adopts the exegetical method and deals with the texts in the Gospels and Epistles bearing on the subject. Modern writers on the Atonement either are ignorant of the existence of these works or are opposed to their teaching for one will search in vain for any reference to them in recent works even by Scottish theologians.
* The design of the Atonement is treated in Chap. vi. of Our Lord’s Doctrine of the Atonement and a historical account of the doctrine of the Atonement will be found in an appendix in The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement.
In John x. 15, our Lord speaks of those for whom He was to lay down His life as His sheep—”I lay down my life for the sheep.” They are His sheep, a people given to Him by the Father who hear His voice and follow Him; it is for these He laid down His life. Again, in Matt. i. 21 those for whom He is to offer atonement are called His people—”Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.” Those for whom He laid down His life are called His friends—”Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down His life for His friends. Ye are myfriends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John xv. 13, 14). Take again the oft quoted and oft misunderstood text, John iii. 16—”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” It may be said that a more inappropriate text could not be quoted for the purpose in view yet Dr. R. L. Dabney says: “There is, perhaps, no Scripture which gives so thorough and comprehensive an explanation of the design and results of Christ’s sacrifice as John iii. 16-19″ (Systematic and Polemic Theology, ii. 535). The atonement made is definitely limited to those who believe in His name. The Scriptures teach that the design of Christ’s death is to actually save and not simply to make salvation possible—”For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost” (Matt. xviii. 10); “For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His death” (Roms. v. 10); “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (II. Cor. v. 21)); “Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father” (Gal. i. 4); “In whom we have redemption through His blood” (Ephes. i. 7).
There are some passages in Scripture which speak of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died and Arminians are not slow to make use of these against the Calvinistic and Scriptural position. But such passages are hypothetical and as Dr. A. A. Hodge says: “They truly indicate the nature and tendency of the action against which they warn us, and are the means which God uses under the administration of His Spirit to fulfil His purposes. . . . In the case of Paul’s shipwreck, it was certain that none should perish, and yet all would perish except they abode in the ship (Acts xxvii. 24-31.)—”Outlines of Theology,” p. 421.