John Macpherson (1847–1902) on the Extent of the Atonement

§ 62. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

LITERATURE.—Hodge, Systematic Theology, ii. 544–562. Cunningham, Historical Theology,³ Edin. 1870, ii. 323–370. Owen, Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647), in Works, Edin. 1852, x. 157–428. Jenkyn, On the Extent of the Atonement in its Relation to God and the Universe, London, 1837. Candlish, The Atonement: Its Efficacy and Extent, Edin. 1867. Wardlaw, Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Christ, 2nd ed., Glasgow, 1844. Strong, Systematic Theology p 363 (1894), p. 421 f. Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, Königsberg, 1863, vol. ii. pp. 282–291. Macleod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, London, 1869, pp. 54–68.

A considerable amount of confusion and misunderstanding has resulted from failing to distinguish the questions of the extent of the atonement and the extent of its application. In many particular passages, and also in its general tenor, the New Testament represents the work of Christ as of universal importance and as having significance for the whole creation. No other interpretation can be put upon such passages as these: 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11. Thus in several passages the death of Christ is said to be for salvation to all who believe (Rom. 3:22; John 17:20). It is the application by the Holy Spirit of the benefits of this death that is determined by God’s electing love in Christ. The atonement, which in consequence of its universal unlimited sufficiency affords a basis for the unrestricted offer of salvation, is in its application limited to those who under the Spirit’s guidance believe in Christ (John 17:9, 24; Eph. 1:4, 7, etc.). “Just as much sun and rain would be needed if only one farmer on earth were to be benefited, Christ would not need to suffer more if all were to be saved. The sufferings were not the payment of a pecuniary debt. Having endured the penalty of the sinner, justice permits the sinner’s discharge, but does not require it except as the fulfilment of a promise to his substitute, and then only upon the appointed condition of repentance and faith. The atonement is unlimited, and the whole human race might be saved by it; the application of the atonement is limited, as only those who repent and believe are actually saved by it.”¹ It is argued, on the other hand, that unbelief being itself a sin, Christ must have died for the unbelief of the unbeliever if He really died for all men, and that consequently all men should be saved. And Owen in particular has elaborately and ingeniously set forth the difficulties in which those who accept the doctrine of the substitutionary and satisfactory character of the atonement become involved when they say that Christ died for all men. The doctrine of a limited atonement, especially as set forth by Owen and Edwards, has been carefully examined and replied to by Dr. Macleod Campbell, who, concluding that the doctrine of a limited atonement is the true logical result of their doctrine of the nature of the atonement, rejects this view of the atonement altogether. The offensive conclusion, which seems so contradictory to such a Scripture saying as that of Heb. 2:9, according to which Christ tasted death for every man, results largely from the quantitative estimation of what Christ endured, and the tendency to give undue attention to the purely physical aspect of His sufferings. The scriptural way of looking at the death of Christ is so little quantitative that it can only regard that death as for the benefit of man, without opening up the question as to what individuals of the race might personally share in that benefit.

The scholastic divines were accustomed quite unduly to disintegrate the effects of Christ’s death so as to make the satisfaction rendered by Him correspond to the number of the elect, and to that number only. Some of them, indeed, are careful to point out that the sufficiency of Christ’s merits may be admitted, while their efficiency is denied. Even these, however, hesitate to say that Christ died sufficiently for all, and efficiently only for the elect. Turretine, along with several others whose high Calvinism is unimpeachable, affirms that this hypothetical sufficiency is potential, so that Christ’s death could avail for the reprobates, if God should will it to be so applied. “Satisfactio Christi posset dici sufficiens pro omnibus, si Deo ita visum fuisset.” But Wendelin¹ finds heresy even in the statement: “Christum etiam pro reprobis esse mortuum, non quidem ut liberarentur, sed ut possent liberari.” The general statement of the doctrine commonly accepted by the Reformed theologians is thus clearly expressed by Wendelin (I. xvii. 5, 4), “Christus non pro omnibus et singulis hominibus, sed pro solis clectis divinæ justitiæ satisfecit.” It seems peculiarly unfortunate that the question of election should in this way be introduced here. In the divine decree itself, the appointment of Christ as Saviour comes in the order of thought before the election as His of those who are to believe in Him (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4). God has elected us in Christ and for Christ’s sake. The question, therefore, as to what Christ renders as satisfaction to God ought to be considered altogether apart from any distinctions among men as elect or non-elect, believers or unbelievers. His appointment is on behalf of man, He is sent into the world, He comes to save the lost. All this refers to the impetration or purchase of pardon apart from this application of that redemption to the individual by the grace of the Spirit, and the appropriation of it on the part of the individual by faith. It is interesting to notice the care which was taken by the members of the Westminster Assembly to avoid putting into the Confession any rigid statement of a doctrine of limited atonement. The great majority in the Assembly were undoubtedly in favour of the theory of a limited atonement in the strictest sense, but they certainly do not make this theory a part of the confessional statement. In the chapter on God’s Eternal Decree, where it is stated that God ordains the means whereby glory is secured to those elected to glory, they sum up their position thus: “Neither are any others redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” Here, I think, it is quite evident that the redemption spoken of is the impetration as distinguished from the application. If by “redeemed by Christ” we understood, “in the possession and enjoyment of the salvation purchased by Him,” we should have to regard all the subsequent clauses as explanatory or as giving the contents of the first. Indeed, these clauses are useless unless they can be regarded as co-ordinated as members in an ascending series, culminating in the application of all in salvation. The first stage, therefore, is described as redemption by Christ, that obtaining on His part by purchase which lays a foundation for all that follows. But what the Confession says is that the redemption which results in salvation is for the elect only. Dr. Cunningham says this would be stating a mere truism, but it is just such a truism as needs to be stated, which also holy Scripture condescends to state repeatedly and expressly.

The root-error which underlies all these attempts at subtle distinctions, and which occasions such laborious endeavours to guard against possible contradictions, is the failure to distinguish between expiation and reconciliation as different effects of Christ’s death.¹ The older divines very commonly confounded these two, and insisted that if Christ died for all, then all were reconciled, that the end of the impetration could be no other than the application. But, on the contrary, it ought to be observed that the cancelling of the guilt by expiation is a purely objective act, in which Christ, on behalf of sinful mankind, bears in His own Person the punishment due to sin. In regard to this objective element in the death of Christ, Scripture speaks of Christ as dying for all (1 Cor. 8:11; Heb. 10:29). Quite distinct from this is the reconciliation wrought between God and the individual sinner believing in Christ, and obtaining for reconciliation the benefit of His death. We have in this case no mere objective act as in expiation, but a subjective operation in the appropriation by faith of the benefit which the expiation had purchased. Modern theology, as represented by the most reverent and conscientious students of holy Scripture, shows itself averse to the introduction of the doctrine of election as a controlling principle in the system of Christian truth. The place occupied by that doctrine in Scripture proves that it was never intended to be so used. Hence prominence must be given to Christ’s incarnation as involving His interest in and His relation to the whole race of mankind. It seems indeed a very strange perversion to give prominence to those elected in Christ rather than to Christ in whom they are elected. And further, notwithstanding the elaborate arguments and party pleading of those who favour the narrower view, it seems impossible to advance any intelligible argument or to present any satisfactory ground for the universal offer of salvation, except on the assumption that in Christ’s death there has been made an expiation for sin satisfying to God, so that whosoever believeth finds that the work done by Him in whom he believes—the death which He endured—is for him before God a valid objective satisfaction, and that Christ died for all, so that all who believe might be saved.
_______________
1 Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 422.
1 Wendelin, Christiana Theologia, Amsterdam, 1750, p. 367. It was generally admitted, by Reformed and Lutherans alike, that the satisfaction of Christ was sufficient for the sins of all men objectively, abstractly, ideally, per se, quoad substantiam; but subjectively, according to the will and intention of God and Christ, only for the elect.
1 See Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, ii. 287 f.

John Macpherson, Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898), 362–67.

John Calvin (1509–1564) on Isaiah 45:22

22. Look unto me. Hitherto he addressed the Jews alone, as if to them alone salvation belonged, but now he extends his discourse farther. He invites the whole world to the hope of salvation, and at the same time brings a charge of ingratitude against all the nations, who, being devoted to their errors, purposely avoided, as it were, the light of life; for what could be more base than to reject deliberately their own salvation? He therefore commands all “to look to him,” and to the precept adds a promise, which gives it greater weight, and confirms it more than if he had made use of a bare command.

And ye shall be saved. Thus we have a striking proof of the calling of the Gentiles; because the Lord, after having broken down “the partition-wall” (Eph 2:14) which separated the Jews from the Gentiles, invites all without exception to come to him. Besides, we are here reminded also what is the true method of obtaining salvation; that is, when we “look to God,” and turn to him with our whole heart. Now, we must “look to him” with the eye of faith, so as to embrace the salvation which is exhibited to all through Christ; for “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish” (John 3:16).

For I am God. When he exhorts all the ends of the earth, he at the same time shews that all men have hitherto wandered, and have not “looked to” the true God; for where infidelity exists, there cannot be a distinct looking towards God, so as to distinguish him from empty masks. In a word, he declares that the ruin of all has been occasioned by their being driven about by their wicked inventions, and thus revolting from the true God, from the knowledge of whom certain and eternal salvation flows. The Lord therefore stretches out his hand, in order to rescue all and point out the method of obtaining salvation.

This makes it evident that it was not at random that the doctrine of the Gospel was preached to all nations, but by the decree of God, by whom it had been long ago ordained. Yet, as I remarked a little before, he accuses the Gentiles of stupidity, in allowing their senses to be turned and whirled about in all directions, wherever their fancy led them. Though by nature they could not approach to God, and though they even sucked in with their milk the superstitions by which they were blinded, yet God might have justly reproached them with wicked contempt of his grace; for ignorance always implies hypocrisy, when men choose rather to be deceived by empty flatteries than to go straight to God.

John Calvin, “Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” trans. William Pringle, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 8:424–26.

Bio:
Wiki

Similarly, on the same verse, the Geneva Bible Notes say:

He calleth the idolaters to repentance, willing them to look unto him with the eye of faith.

Geneva Bible: Notes (Geneva: Rowland Hall, 1560), 299.

Edward Dorr Griffin (1770–1837) on Believer and Unbeliever Confounded with Elect and Non-Elect

CHAPTER XI

BELIEVER AND UNBELIEVER CONFOUNDED WITH ELECT AND NON-ELECT, AND WITH MAN AS A CAPABLE AGENT
WHEN we say that the atonement was for Simon Magus, we mean that it was a provision for him as a capable agent. But when our brethren deny that it was for him, they constantly allude to the secret purpose of God about its application. And from fastening their eye thus on the secret purpose, which respected passive receivers of regenerating influence, they have in a great measure lost sight of man as a capable agent, and reasoned about him as though he had nothing to do with exercising faith, but only with receiving it. Hence they tell us, if the atonement was made to benefit believers, and not unbelievers, it was not made for Simon Magus, for he was never to believe. Here again comes out the fault of the whole system. It was not a provision for him as a capable agent, because it was not to benefit one of his character; entirely burying his agency, and making the character as passively received and as essential to the man as complexion and sex. Had it been for white men and not for black men, or for men and not for women, you might have said of that Ethiopian that it was not for him, or of this female that it was not for her. Or if it had been publicly and avowedly offered for the receivers of faith, and not for the benefit of believers, then you might have said that it was not for Simon Magus, for he was never to receive faith. But, if it was publicly offered for the use of all indiscriminately who as agents would believe, and Simon was not a dead mass of matter, but endowed with natural ability to believe, then it was a complete provision for him as a capable agent. And then unbelief was not essential to him, like mind itself, but was a character which he had assumed on his own responsibility. The man will be charged with an atonement which was never made to benefit the unbeliever. But our brethren first sink the man in the unbeliever, and then make the unbeliever the mere non-recipient of faith.

And when they have thus annihilated human agency, and set men before them as mere passive receivers or non-receivers of faith, then they proceed with perfect consistency and say: if the atonement was made to benefit believers and not unbelievers, it was not made for the non-elect, for they will never believe. Here they get unbelievers and non-elect confounded. Now believer and unbeliever denote agents of certain characters, but elect and non-elect are terms of passive import, like chosen and rejected, and denote men passively appointed to receive, or not to receive, regenerating influence. But in arriving at this point they make no new mistake. When they have set men before them, not as those who are to exercise faith, but as those who are to receive it, and make them entirely passive in their faith and unbelief, it is no matter whether they exclude them as unbelievers, or as men passively appointed to be non-recipients of faith. Had the atonement not been for black men or for women, you might have said that it was not for those who were foreordained to that complexion or sex; that is, you might have affirmed the same thing of them as appointed to such a distinction, that you would assert of them as actually possessing it, because in the appointment and the possession they are equally passive. So if men were as passive in their unbelief as they are in their non-election, you might affirm the same thing of them as non-elect that you do of them as unbelievers. But now to confound these terms, is to bury up their agency in rejecting the gospel, and utterly to change the principles of the divine administration. Because men are denied the benefits of the atonement as unbelievers, you exclude them as non-elect. But to debar them as non-elect is to cut them off without their own fault; to shut them out as unbelievers is to make their own sinful rejection of the gospel the ground of their exclusion. In short, this confounding of unbelievers and non-elect completely overlooks the agency of men, and brings into use such a language as would befit them if they were mere machines.

And yet this very practice gives to our brethren almost all the texts which even have the semblance of supporting their cause, and it appears also in a number of their terms and popular arguments. Thus because Christ laid “down his life for his friends,” they infer that he died only for the elect. “If a man pay a ransom price to redeem his own friends from captivity, however great the price, or however many others may be in captivity, yet when it is inquired, for whom was the price paid? the answer is, for his friends whom he designed to redeem.” But if the atonement of Christ was to benefit all who would be his friends, it was a provision for all as capable agents, for no natural inability, and nothing but a blamable temper, prevents any from being his friends. In the same manner whatever is said of the church (“the general assembly” of heirs, the people who “in the dispensation of the fulness of times” are gathered “together in one—in Christ,” the body with its living members compacted together and drawing present life from the Head, the bride already married to Christ by a voluntary covenant), they apply unqualifiedly to the elect. Eph. 1:10, 22, 23; 4:16; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 21:9. But though in one or two places the body of believers, under the name of the church, are spoken of with special reference to their antecedent election, and to their redemption from sin by the larger ransom, yet the unregenerate elect are never comprehended under the name of church. Thus, too, whatever is said of the sheep (the flock, by whose footsteps believers are exhorted to go forth, who are under the sensible care of the good Shepherd, and are led by him into “green pastures” and “beside the still waters,” who know him, and hear his voice, and follow him, and will stand on his right hand to receive a gracious reward), they apply to the elect as such, merely because once, by way of anticipation, Christ calls the unregenerate elect his sheep. Ps. 22; Cant. 1:7, 8. Matt. 25:33; John 10:14, 16, 27.^* And they reason about the sheep and goats as though these terms denoted the elect and non-elect, when in fact, with the single exception already noticed, they uniformly stand for the good and bad.^* In the same way they make the seed of the serpent to mean the non-elect, and argue that the seed of the woman would not die for the seed of the serpent; as though the elect themselves were not the seed of the serpent while continuing to possess the spirit of the serpent. In the same way they make the people of God to be synonymous with elect. “For whom Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, for the same does he intercede (for his priestly office is not performed for any by halves): but he intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own people: therefore he died for none but his own people.” “He intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own people!” But who are his own people? Not the elect as such, not the unconverted elect, but believers. “In the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living God.” “I will call them my people which were not my people, and her beloved which was not beloved.” Hos. 1:10; Rom. 9:25, 26. If by this exclusive intercession you mean that Christ pleads for the pardon and acceptance of none but believers, we agree; but what is this to the purpose? We never thought that he died to procure the pardon and acceptance of any but believers. I suppose that the intercession of Christ is the silent plea or influence of his expiation and merit (for it is not limited to pardon), John 17; and that of course it is just so far offered for all as his expiation and merit affect all. He intercedes, then, that millions who are never saved may have a day of probation, and the offer of life, and the common and convicting influences of the Spirit. He intercedes that all indiscriminately may be saved who will believe, offering thus his effectual intercession to all, and making it to all a complete provision for moral agents. “He is able—to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Heb. 7:25. He intercedes that the elect may have the gift of faith: and when as agents they believe, he employs for them that full intercession which he offers to others. After the same manner, when the sacred writers say that Christ atoned for them, our brethren will always have it that they speak of themselves as elect, and not as moral agents and believers. But this is assumed without a particle of proof. In this way it is that they find an atonement which accomplishes reconciliation. They hear the apostles say that they and other believers had been saved from wrath by the blood of Christ, meaning that as believers they had been pardoned on the ground of the atonement; and they at once conclude that all this is said of them as elect, and that of course the atonement reconciles all for whom it was offered.

In this way it is that they discover in the Scriptures so many appearances of a limited atonement. Take away those texts which speak of believers, and they will be surprised to find how few remain which glance at any special reference to the elect. The whole of this number which I have been able to discover, after examining the collection made by the Synod of Dort, were presented in a former chapter; and they express either the power of the larger ransom, or the reference of Christ to the elect as his reward. Not one of them touches the question now in debate. I have been struck with the fact that in an ingenious treatise lately written to prove a limited atonement, when the author came to produce his direct texts, in the form of a distinct argument, he quoted but these two: “I lay down my life for the sheep,” and, “The church—which he hath purchased with his own blood;” two texts, of which (if they are not limited to believers) the former expresses the special reference of Christ to the elect as his reward, and the latter the power of the larger ransom. For the rest the author chiefly relies on election, foreknowledge, the secret purpose of God, and the limitation of the larger ransom; neither of which is denied, or has any thing to do with the present question.
_______________
* In this chapter [John 10] Christ sets before him the sheep as a flock already gathered and under his care; and in what he says about laying down his life for them, he alludes to the fidelity of a shepherd in exposing his life to defend his flock, actually assembled around him, from beasts of prey. “The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is a hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and fleeth, and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth because he is a hireling and careth not for the sheep. I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.—My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” He had begun the discourse by saying, “He [that pastor in the church] that entereth in by the door [Christ is the door, ver. 7, 9], is the shepherd of the sheep [of the church, or body of believers]. To him the porter openeth, and the sheep [believers] hear his voice; and he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out [from other sheep who are false professors]. And when he putteth forth his own sheep he goeth before them [in a way of holy example and instruction], and the sheep follow him [in a life of holiness]; for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers.—All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them.” In all this he meant nothing by sheep but members of the visible church, and except one allusion to false professors, true believers. He then changes the figure, and from the door through which the under shepherds enter, he becomes the Shepherd himself: but still the primary meaning of sheep is believers. When he calls the elect Gentiles his sheep, it is plainly by anticipation [i.e., proleptically]; but when he speaks of laying down his life for his sheep, he means for the gathered and existing flock, such a flock as a hireling Jewish pastor would abandon to the wolves. This was accomplished when it was said, “Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd.” But who at that time were the flock? the unregenerate elect, or believers? It is added, “Smite the Shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.” This, we are expressly told, was fulfilled when the twelve disciples forsook him and fled. Zech. 13:7; Matt. 26:31. In another place, by the sheep which he came to save he plainly means believers, viewed with reference to their lost condition as sinners [i.e., believers as sinners]. “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones.—For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” Matt. 18:10–14. On another occasion he gave a similar representation to justify himself in associating with publicans and sinners, who, with Matthew at their head, flocked to catch the word of life from his lips. Luke 15. with ch. 5:27–32. But notwithstanding all this evidence that by the sheep for which he laid down his life he meant believers, I have admitted that in the assertion he glanced at the previous election of those believers, and at the special reference which he had to them as his reward.

* Unless John 10:26 is an exception

Edward D. Griffin, “An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement,” in The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises (Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1859), 310–315.

For more in response to those using John 10 as proof for limited atonement, see here (click).  

Bio:
Wiki

An Analysis of Gustav Friedrich Wiggers’s (1777–1860) View of Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

In the near future, this post will analyze Wiggers’s view of Augustine on the extent of redemption. He argued that Augustine held to “limited atonement.” For now I need to post this incomplete material in order to just have a working link for a footnote in someone else’s book that will soon be published. I will complete this post later.

Outline:

1. A Brief Biographical Sketch
2. His Claims About Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

    2.1. De Cor et Gr. 11 (De correptione et gratia)
           2.1.1 Wiggers’s Claim
           2.1.2. The Primary Sources
           2.1.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15
           2.2.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.2.2. The Primary Source
           2.2.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel
           2.3.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.3.2. The Primary and Secondary Sources
           2.3.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1
           2.4.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.4.2. The Primary Sources
           2.4.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.5. De Trin. IV, 13
           2.5.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.5.2. The Primary Sources
           2.5.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.6. De Cor. et Gr. 15 (De correptione et gratia)
           2.6.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.6.2. The Primary Sources
           2.6.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.7 An Analysis of Other Miscellaneous Claims

3. Conclusion

1. A Brief Biographical Sketch

Gustav Adam Friedrich Wiggers (AD 1777–1860) was a German Protestant theologian and university professor at the University of Rostock. In 1821, his main work, Attempt at a pragmatic representation of Augustinism and Pelagianism according to historical development („Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus nach der geschichtlichen Entwicklung“ In zwei Theilen. Hamburg 1833), was published. It covers the period from the beginning of the Pelagian disputes to the third ecumenical synod and was translated into English in 1840 by Ralph Emerson, professor of church history at the theological seminary in Andover in Massachusetts.

2. His Claims About Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

To read the following material in English, see Gustav Friedrich Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, trans. Ralph Emerson (Andover; New York: Gould, Newman, & Saxton, 1840), 254–55. Or see here (click).

Wiggers claimed that Augustine held a strict view of Christ’s redemption. He observed that “Augustine’s doctrine of redemption … stands in close connection with his theory of predestination.” There is truth to that, of course, but the limitation is in the application of redemption (or redemption applied), not in the extent of its accomplishment (or redemption accomplished). Failure to make this distinction leads Wiggers astray. This is why he conflated these two categories and asserted that, according to Augustine, “Christ’s redemption could extend only to those whom God had destined to salvation. For the rest, his death even, as well as his whole incarnation, had no object. Christ therefore died and rose again only for the elect.”

Wiggers did not bother to address how many texts in Augustine go against his theory, or any of those Augustinians who argued otherwise (e.g., John Davenant and Richard Baxter), but only gave six instances where he thinks Augustine’s limited view is “peculiarly clear,” indeed, “clear as the sun.” We shall examine these citations in order.

2.1. De Cor et Gr. 11 (De correptione et gratia):

First, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace.

2.1.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote,

According to Augustine, therefore, redemption was not universal. God sent his Son into the world, not to redeem the whole sinful race of man, but only the elect. “By this mediator, God showed, that those whom he redeemed by his blood, he makes, from being evil, to be eternally good.” De Cor. et Gr. 11.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.1.2. The Primary Sources:  

One Latin version says this:

Neque enim metuendum erat, ne isto ineffabili modo in unitatem personae a Verbo Deo natura humana suscepta, per liberum voluntatis peccaret arbitrium, cum ipsa susceptio talis esset, ut natura hominis a Deo ita suscepta, nullum in se motum malae voluntatis admitteret. Per hunc Mediatorem Deus ostendit eos, quos ejus sanguine redemit, facere se ex malis deinceps in aeternum bonos, quem sic suscepit, ut nunquam esset malus, nec ex malo factus semper esset bonus.

The Wallis translation has this:

That nativity, absolutely gratuitous, conjoined, in the unity of the person, man to God, flesh to the Word! Good works followed that nativity; good works did not merit it. For it was in no wise to be feared that the human nature taken up by God the Word in that ineffable manner into a unity of person, would sin by free choice of will, since that taking up itself was such that the nature of man so taken up by God would admit into itself no movement of an evil will. Through this Mediator God makes known that He makes those whom He redeemed by His blood from evil, everlastingly good; and Him He in such wise assumed that He never would be evil, and, not being made out of evil, would always be good.⁴
_______________
4 Some editions have, instead of “and not being made,” etc., “lest being made of evil he should not always be good.”

Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 484 (c. 30 [XI).

The more recent Teske translation has this:

This birth which was, of course, gratuitous united man to God, the flesh to the Word, in the unity of the person. Good works followed upon this birth; good works did not merit it. For there was no reason to fear that the human nature assumed in this ineffable way into the unity of the person by God the Word would sin by free choice of the will. This assumption, after all, was such that the nature of the man assumed by God in that way would admit in itself no impulse of an evil will. Through this mediator God has shown that he transforms those whom he redeemed by his blood from evil persons into persons who will thereafter be good for eternity, for he assumed this mediator in such a way that he never was evil and that he never became good after being evil.

Saint Augustine, “Rebuke and Grace,” in Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 26 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 75; De correptione et gratia, 11.30.

2.1.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15:

Second, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Adulterous Marriages.

2.2.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

Wiggers wrote:

The following passage is peculiarly clear, and is taken from the first book “on adulterous marriages,” C. 15, a work written about the year 419, and not directed against the Pelagians. “Every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, is a man; though not every one that is a man, has been redeemed by the blood of Christ.”

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.2.2. The Primary Source:

Chapter 15
(16) However, it cannot be said of those actions which are included here, and which are not expedient, although lawful, that this action is good, but that one is better in the same way that it has been written that ‘He who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her does better’ [1 Cor. 7:38]. For, in this second instance, both courses are lawful, although, at times, the one may be expedient, at times, the other. Doubtlessly, those who cannot remain chaste should marry. This is expedient because it is lawful. For those, however, who have vowed to remain continent, it is neither lawful nor expedient to marry. As a matter of fact, one may lawfully separate from an unbeliever, but it is not expedient. However, if the spouse consents to cohabitate, it is both lawful and expedient to remain with him, because if it were not lawful, it could not be expedient. Therefore, an action can be lawful and not expedient, but what is unlawful cannot be expedient, because not everything that is lawful is also expedient, but everything that is unlawful is inexpedient. For, it is certain that everyone who has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ belongs to the human race; nevertheless, it is likewise true that not every human person has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. It is just as true that everything that is not lawful is also inexpedient; but, not everything that is inexpedient is likewise unlawful. Certainly, then, there are lawful acts which are inexpedient, just as we have learned from the testimony of the Apostle.

Augustine of Hippo, “Adulterous Marriages,” in Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Charles T. Huegelmeyer, vol. 27 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 81; B. 1, c. 15.

2.2.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel:

Third, Wiggers cited Augustine’s 48th Homilies on the Gospel of John.

2.3.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

Wiggers wrote:

Hence the words in John 10:26, ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, according to Hom. 48. on John's gospel, mean as much as this, Ye believe not, because ye are not bought for eternal life by my blood.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254–55.

Others have also appealed to this passage to maintain that Augustine taught a stricter view of Christ’s redemption, such as Gottschalk, Ratramnus, Remigius, and recently Raymond A. (Randy) Blacketer.

2.3.2. The Primary and Secondary Sources:

Latin Text:

Quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos.

From Augustinus.it and the Catholic Library.

4. This, as a great matter, the Jews enquired of Christ; in order that if He should say, I am Christ, then, upon the conception which alone they entertained of the Seed of David, they might accuse Him of arrogating to Himself kingly power. What He told them in reply is more than that: they wished to make matter of accusation out of the Son of David: He told them that He was the Son of God. And how? Hear (v. 25, 26). Jesus answered them, I tell you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in My Father’s Name, they bear witness of Me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep. Ye have already learned above which are the sheep. Be ye sheep. Sheep are such in believing, sheep in following the Shepherd, sheep in not despising the Redeemer, sheep in entering in by the door, sheep in going out and finding pasture, sheep in enjoying eternal life. How then said He to these, Ye are not of My sheep? Because He saw them predestinated to everlasting destruction, not purchased (comparatos; See Note A, at the end of the volume) by the price of His blood unto eternal life.

S. Augustine, “Homily XLVIII (John 10:22–42), in Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, and His First Epistle: Hom. 1–124, S. John 1–21 and Hom. 1–10, 1 S. John, vol. 1 & 2 of A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West: Translated by Members of the English Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848–1849), 639; Hom. 48.4; italics original.

4. The Jews asked this of Christ for an important reason, so that if he said, “I am the Christ,” they would, according to the little that they knew about the seed of David, accuse him of claiming royal power for himself. His answer to them went further. They wanted to make a false charge about the son of David; he said that he was the Son of God. And how? Listen: Jesus answered them, I tell you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness to me, but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. (Jn 10:25–26) You already learned earlier on who the sheep are (See Homily 45, 9–15). Be sheep! The sheep are such by believing, the sheep are such by following the shepherd, the sheep are such by not disdaining the Redeemer, the sheep are such by going in through the gate, the sheep are such by going out and finding pasture, the sheep are such by enjoying eternal life. Why, then, did he say to them, You are not of my sheep (Jn 10:26)? Because he saw that they were predestined to eternal destruction,¹⁷ not bought for eternal life at the price of his blood.
_______________
17 At this point in Augustine’s career, “predestination” means God’s foreknowledge (and not God’s predestining anyone to damnation), as it also does in section 6. See Homilies 42, 16; 45, 12–13; 48, 6.

Saint Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 41–124, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald and Boniface Ramsey, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 13 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2020), 99–100.

4. The Jews were seeking this from Christ as an important matter, so that if he were to say, I am the Christ, as far as they understood [him] to be only of the seed of David, they would falsely accuse him of claiming royal power for himself. What he answered them is more; they wanted to accuse him as the son of David. He answered that he was the Son of God. And how? Listen. “Jesus answered them, ‘I speak to you and you do not believe. The works which I do in my Father’s name, these give testimony concerning me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.’ ” You have already earlier learned who the sheep are (Cf. Tractate 45:9–13). Be sheep! By believing they are sheep, by following the Shepherd they are sheep, by not despising the Redeemer they are sheep, by going in through the gate they are sheep, by going out and finding pasture they are sheep, by enjoying eternal life they are sheep. How then did he say to these, “You are not of my sheep”? Because he saw that they were predestined for eternal destruction, not purchased at the price of his blood for eternal life.¹²
_______________
12 That God foreknows that some are condemned poses a theological problem in view of the orthodox teaching that Christ died for all and by his death and resurrection redeemed all. As in all matters touching predestination, Augustine’s view is complex, difficult, and somewhat obscure. It would appear that he holds that God does will the salvation of all men and in a general sense he does so by providing all with the power and the means for salvation. But he also, for his own reasons, gives men the freedom to choose or refuse salvation and then he foreknows that some will choose salvation and some damnation. He could intervene, but wills not to do so; were he to intervene freedom of will would be meaningless. Since he foreknows that some will refuse redemption and does not intervene, then in an absolute sense he wills the damnation of some. Why he chooses this kind of world over the many possible dispositions of creation is a mystery. See Browne, 29.1238–46, and E. Portalie, A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine, 215–23. But the situation is probably more complex than this, as all men’s acts are the results of freely given, unmerited graces. Why are some not given graces to enable their perseverance? Augustine, then, would seem to take a rather rigid view of predestination: that God, for his own reasons, in fact wills the damnation of some. This tractate seems to support such a view. See J. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 366–69, for a good, brief account of the latter position.

Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John 28–54, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 88 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 230; In Evangelium Iohannis tractatus, 48.4.

4. The Jews made this inquiry of Christ, chiefly in order that, should He say, I am Christ, they might, in accordance with the only sense they attached to such a name, that He was of the seed of David, calumniate Him with aiming at the kingly power. There is more than this in His answer to them: they wished to calumniate Him with claiming to be the Son of David. He replied that He was the Son of God. And how? Listen: “Jesus answered them, I tell you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me: but ye believe not; because ye are not of my sheep.” Ye have already learned above (in Lecture XLV.) who the sheep are: be ye sheep. They are sheep through believing, sheep in following the Shepherd, sheep in not despising their Redeemer, sheep in entering by the door, sheep in going out and finding pasture, sheep in the enjoyment of eternal life. What did He mean, then, in saying to them, “Ye are not of my sheep”? That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.

Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 266–267; Tractate 48.4.

I asked several Latinists online what they thought was the best out of the four following English translations:

1. “Because He saw them predestinated to everlasting destruction, not purchased by the price of His blood unto eternal life.”
2. “Because he saw that they were predestined to eternal destruction, not bought for eternal life at the price of his blood.”
3. “Because he saw that they were predestined for eternal destruction, not purchased at the price of his blood for eternal life.”
4. “That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.”

Antigone Journal (@AntigoneJournal) said: “Translation 2. The ellipse of esse is by the bye [sic] for Augustine, and this rendering is most faithful to the text.”

Cathedralulus (@Cathedralulus) said: “Translations 1 and 3. 2 if you think the construction as ellipses where esse is missing.”

Michael J. Lynch (@reformedtexan) said: “Translations 1 or 3.”

LatinPerDiem (@LatinPerDiem) did not make a choice,  but asked, “Also, why “bought” for comparari?”

Aquinas is an interesting secondary source:

Augustinus. Hoc autem dixit, quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos: oves enim sunt credendo, pastorem sequendo.

From Aquinas.cc.

AUG He saw that they were persons predestinated to eternal death, and not those for whom He had bought eternal life, at the price of His blood. The sheep believe, and follow the Shepherd.

Augustine. (Tract. xlviii. c. 4.) He saw that they were persons predestinated to eternal death, and not those for whom He had bought eternal life, at the price of His blood. The sheep believe, and follow the Shepherd.

Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. John, ed. John Henry Newman (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845), 359.

2.3.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1:

Wiggers referenced Epistle 169 by Augustine written to Bishop Evodius (c. AD 415).

2.4.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

“No one perishes of those for whom Christ died.” Ep. 169, c. I.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.4.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin Texts:

4. Nam si propter eos solos Christus mortuus est, qui certa intellegentia possunt ista discernere, pene frustra in Ecclesia laboramus. Si autem, quod veritas habet, infirmi populi credentium ad medicum currunt, sanandi per Christum, et hunc crucifixum, ut ubi abundavit peccatum, superabundet gratia; miris fit modis per altitudinem divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, et per inscrutabilia iudicia eius, ut et nonnulli a corporibus incorporea discernentes, cum sibi ex hoc magni videntur, et irrident stultitiam praedicationis, qua salvi fiunt credentes, ab unica via longe exerrent, quae ad vitam aeternam sola perducit: et multi in cruce Christi gloriantes, et ab eadem via non recedentes, etiamsi ista quae subtilissime disseruntur, ignorant, quia non perit unus pusillus mortuus est (Matt 18:14), ad eamdem perveniant aeternitatem, veritatem, caritatem, id est ad stabilem, certam, plenamque felicitatem, ubi manentibus, videntibus, amantibus sunt cuncta perspicua.

From Augustinus.it.

et multi in cruce Christi gloriantes, et ab eadem via non recedentes, etiamsi ista quae subtilissime disseruntur, ignorant, quia non perit unus ex illis pro quibus mortuus est, ad eamdem perveniant aeternitatem, veritatem, charitatem, id est ad stabilem, certam, plenamque felicitatem, ubi manentibus, videntibus, amantibus sunt cuncta perspicua.

Epistola CLXIX, Cap. 1, §4, PL 33:744 (2).

It is important to note that the above PL edition notes a manuscript discrepancy. It says:

1. Mss. duo v., non perit unus ex pusillis. Prope accedit Sulpitian. Cod., qui habet: Non perit unus pusillus, pro quibus, etc.

One AI translation puts it this way:

1. Two manuscripts, not one of the little ones perishes. Closely follows the Sulpitian. Cod., which has: Not one of the little ones perishes, for whom, etc.

Another AI translation has this:

1. Ms. two versions: None of the little ones perishes. The Sulpitian Codex approaches this, which has: None of the little ones perishes, instead of which, etc.

English Translations:

4. For if Christ died only on account of those who can distinguish these things with certain intelligence, we labor in the Church to almost no purpose. But if, as the truth has it, the weak people among the faithful run to the physician to be healed by Christ, and by him crucified, so that where sin has abounded (See Rom 5:20) grace might abound even more, it comes about in marvelous ways through the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God and through his inscrutable judgments (Rom 11:33) that some who can distinguish incorporeal things from bodies think that for this reason they are important people and mock the foolishness of preaching by which believers are saved, while they themselves wander far from the one path that alone leads to eternal life. But many who boast in the cross of Christ and do not depart from the same path, even those who do not know those things that are discussed with great subtlety, because not a single infant perishes for whom he has died,⁵ come to the same eternity, truth, and love, that is, to solid, certain, and complete happiness, where everything is clear for those who remain, see, and love.
_______________
5 Though the manuscripts and the contexts favor this reading, the passage seems open to the interpretation given by Jansenius that Christ did not die for all infants.

Saint Augustine, Letters (Epistulae) 156–210, trans. Roland Teske, ed. Boniface Ramsey, vol. II/3 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2004), 108; italics original.

4. For if Christ died for those only who with clear intelligence can discern these things, our labour in the Church is almost spent in vain. But if, as is the fact, crowds of common people, possessing no great strength of intellect, run to the Physician in the exercise of faith, with the result of being healed by Christ and Him crucified, that “where sin has abounded, grace may much more abound” (Rom. 5:20), it comes in wondrous ways to pass, through the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God and His unsearchable judgments, that, on the one hand, some who do discern between the material and: the spiritual in their own nature, while pluming themselves on this attainment, and despising that foolishness of preaching by which those who believe are saved, wander far from the only path which leads to eternal life; and, on the other hand, because not one perishes for whom Christ died (John 17:12),3 many glorying in the cross of Christ, and not withdrawing from that same path, attain, notwithstanding their ignorance of those things which some with most profound subtlety investigate, unto that eternity, truth, and love,—that is, unto that enduring, clear, and full felicity,—in which to those who abide, and see, and love, all things are plain.

Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 540.

For, if Christ died for those only who are able to discern these truths with sure understanding, our labor in the Church is almost worthless. But if, as truth holds, the believers among the peoples run to their Physician in their sickness to be healed by Christ, and Him crucified, so that ‘where sin abounded grace might more abound’ (Cf. Rom. 5:20), it happens in marvellous ways, ‘through the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God,’ and by ‘his unsearchable judgments’ (Cf. Rom. 11:33) that some, because they can distinguish incorporeal from corporeal things, seem great to themselves, mock at the foolishness of the preaching through which they believed and were saved, and wander far from the one way which alone leads to eternal life. On the other hand, many who glory in the cross of Christ and do not withdraw from that same way, though ignorant of those points which are so subtlely debated, because not one little one perishes for whom He died (Matt. 18:14; John 17:12), attain to that same eternity, truth, charity, that is, to a fixed, sure, and complete happiness where all things are clear to those who remain faithful, who see, and who love.

Augustine of Hippo, Letters (165–203), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 30 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 53–54.

2.4.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

Referencing? NKJ Matthew 18:14 "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

This text is referenced in the footnote of the Augustinus.it version above.

Or this? NKJ John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

2.5. De Trin. IV, 13:

Wiggers next referenced Augustine’s work On the Trinity.

2.5.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

Nay, according to his theory, Augustine would have no mediator between God and the whole human race, but only a mediator between God and the elect. “Christ redeemed the sinners who were to be justified (justificandos peccatores).” De Trin. IV. 13.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 255.

2.5.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin text:

Quocirca etiam ipso Domino se credebat diabolus superiorem, in quantum illi Dominus in passionibus cessit; quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in Psalmo legitur: Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis 119, ut ab iniquo velut aequo iure adversus nos agente, ipse occisus innocens eum iure aequissimo superaret, atque ita captivitatem propter peccatum factam captivaret, nosque liberaret a captivitate propter peccatum iusta, suo iusto sanguine iniuste fuso mortis chirographum delens 120 et iustificandos redimens peccatores.

From Augustinus.it.

Quocirca etiam ipso Domino se credebat diabolus superiorem, in quantum illi Dominus in passionibus cessit; quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in Psalmo legitur, Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis (Psal. VIII, 6): ut ab iniquo velut aequo jure adversum nos agente, ipse occisus innocens eum jure aequissimo superaret, atque ita captivitatem propter peccatum factam captivaret (Ephes. IV, 8), nosque liberaret a captivitate propter peccatum justa, suo justo sanguine injuste fuso mortis chirographum delens, et justificandos redimens peccatores.

From the Catholic Library.

English Translations:

Wherefore also the devil thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the Psalm, “For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels:” (Ps. 8:5) so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin (Eph. 4:8), and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out.

Augustine of Hippo, “On the Trinity,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, vol. 3 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 78; 4.13.17.

And on this account the devil believed himself to be superior even to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord yielded to him in His sufferings, for what is written in the Psalm is to be also understood of Him: ‘Thou hast made him a little less than the angels’ (Ps. 8:6); thus He Himself, the innocent One, would be put to death by the sinful one, acting against us by a just right, in order that He might overcome him by a more just right, and so might take captive the captivity that was brought about by sin (Eph. 4:8), and liberate us from the captivity that was just on account of sin, by cancelling the handwriting of death and redeeming us who, though sinners, were to be justified through His just blood, that was unjustly poured out.

Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Stephen McKenna, vol. 45 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 153.

For this reason the devil thought himself superior even to the Lord, seeing that the Lord gave way to him in his sufferings, because it is of him that the psalm text is to be understood, You have made him a little less than the angels (Ps 8:6). Yet in being slain in his innocence by the wicked one, who was acting against us as it were with just rights, he won the case against him with the justest of all rights, and thus led captive the captivity (Eph 4:8; Ps 68:19) that was instituted for sin, and delivered us from the captivity we justly endured for sin, and by his just blood unjustly shed cancelled the I.O.U. (Col 2:14) of death, and justified and redeemed sinners.

Saint Augustine, The Trinity (De Trinitate), ed. John E. Rotelle, Second Edition., vol. I/5 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2017), 203.

2.5.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.6. De Cor. et Gr. 15 (De correptione et gratia):

Lastly, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace.

2.6.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

Against Augustine’s limitation view of redemption, just presented, which is clear as the sun from the passages adduced, some doubtful expressions of his, and therefore proving nothing, may indeed be adduced; and especially one passage, which seems, at first view, to declare a directly contrary doctrine, viz., the universality of the work of redemption. This passage is found in De Cor. et Gr. 15. He there says, “Who has more loved the weak, than he who became weak for all and was crucified for all?” It would now be very remarkable for Augustine to have presented so contradictory a view, in this little book in which, as appears from so many passages already quoted, he so definitely and emphatically maintained the limitation. But the connection fully shows, that Augustine would by no means here maintain the universality of redemption. He is here calling to admonition and reproof, because we cannot know who is predestinated, and adduces as a reason for the call, the example of Christ. He had become man and endured the death of the cross for all, viz., those whom the Father would free from the misery of sin. To understand the passage as referring to the efficacy of the redeeming death as sufficient for all men, if they were to have been redeemed, would not accord with the spirit of Augustine. To him, as well as to his whole age, the speculation respecting the power of Christ’s atoning death, was foreign.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 255.

2.6.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin texts:

Et quis magis dilexit infirmos, quam ille qui pro omnibus est factus infirmus, et pro omnibus ex ipsa infirmitate crucifixus?

From Augustinus.it.

Et quis magis dilexit infirmos, quam ille qui pro omnibus est factus infirmus, et pro omnibus ex ipsa infirmitate crucifixus?

From the Catholic Library.

English Translations:

49. Hence, insofar as it is up to us who are not able to distinguish the predestined from those not predestined and who, for this reason, ought to will that all be saved, we must use a severe rebuke for all as medicine in order that they do not perish or cause others to perish. But it is up to God to make the rebuke beneficial for those whom he has himself foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29). For, if at times we do not give a rebuke out of fear that someone might perish because of the rebuke, why do we not also give a rebuke out of fear that someone might perish for lack of a rebuke?

We, after all, do not have a heart more filled with love than the blessed apostle who says, Rebuke the restless; comfort the fearful; support the weak; show patience toward all; see that no one returns evil for evil (1 Thes 5:14–15). Here we should understand that one returns evil for evil, especially if one does not rebuke a person who needs to be rebuked, but neglects this under a blameworthy pretext. The apostle also says, Rebuke sinners in front of all in order that the rest may have fear (1 Tm 5:20). This should be understood with regard to those sins which are not hidden so that the apostle is not thought to have spoken contrary to the mind of the Lord. For he said, If your brother sins against you, rebuke him privately (Mt 18:15). He himself, nonetheless, carries the severity of a rebuke to such a point that he says, If he does not listen even to the Church, let him be for you like a Gentile or a publican (Mt 18:17). And who loved the weak more than he who became weak for all and was crucified for all because of this weakness (See 2 Cor 13:4)? Since this is so, grace does not prevent a rebuke, nor does a rebuke exclude grace. And for this reason we ought to command righteousness in such a way that we ask from God in faith-filled prayer for the grace by which what we command may be done. And we ought to do both of these without neglecting to give a just rebuke. But let all these actions be done with love because love does not commit sin and covers a multitude of sins (1 Pt 4:8).

Saint Augustine, “Rebuke and Grace,” in Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 26 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 90–91; De correptione et gratia, 16.49; italics original.

CHAPTER 49.—CONCLUSION

Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very account to will all men to be saved. Severe rebuke should be medicinally applied to all by us that they perish not themselves, or that they may not be the means of destroying others. It belongs to God, however, to make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. For, if at any time we abstain from rebuking, for fear lest by rebuke a man should perish, why do we not also rebuke, for fear lest a man should rather perish by our withholding it? For we have no greater bowels of love than the blessed apostle who says, “Rebuke those that are unruly; comfort the feeble-minded; support the weak; be patient towards all men. See that none render to any man evil for evil” (1 Thess. 5:14). Where it is to be understood that evil is then rather rendered for evil when one who ought to be rebuked is not rebuked, but by a wicked dissimulation is neglected. He says, moreover, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20); which must be received concerning those sins which are not concealed, lest he be thought to have spoken in opposition to the word of the Lord. For He says, “If thy brother shall sin against thee, rebuke him between thee and him” (Matt. 18:15). Notwithstanding, He Himself carries out the severity of rebuke to the extent of saying, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). And who has more loved the weak than He who became weak for us all, and of that very weakness was crucified for us all? And since these things are so, grace neither restrains rebuke, nor does rebuke restrain grace; and on this account righteousness is so to be prescribed that we may ask in faithful prayer, that, by God’s grace, what is prescribed may be done; and both of these things are in such wise to be done that righteous rebuke may not be neglected. But let all these things be done with love, since love both does not sin, and does cover the multitude of sins.

Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 491.

2.6.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.7 An Analysis of Other Miscellaneous Claims:

Response coming soon.

3. Conclusion

Response coming soon.

James Petigru Boyce’s (1827–1888) Sermon on “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners (Luke 15:2);” With Thomas Nettles’s Comments and Endorsement of It

Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners
Text: “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:2).

This man was Jesus. The meaning of His name is Jehovah Savior. The angel Gabriel commanded His mother so to call Him because He should save His people from their sins.

His name was, therefore, an index of His character and work. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. He came to call, not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. In His more especial work He was declared by His forerunner to be the Lamb of God which taketh away (or beareth away) the sin of the world. It was by His sacrifice for sin that He made atonement for our sins and met all the demands of the law for our condemnation. It is in the furtherance of this work that as our High Priest He is ever interceding for us with God, praying for us as sinners that God will pardon our sins and remove afar from us our transgressions. It is into our sinful hearts that He sends His Holy Spirit, to change them, to convict of sin, to lead us as sinners to look unto Him for salvation, to teach us that there is nothing in us, but everything in Christ, to enable us to cast away all confidence in our own works or merit as fitness, to rely alone upon Christ’s work and His promises, and to trust our whole salvation, beginning and middle and end, entirely into His hands.

Christ deals with us as sinners utterly lost and already condemned and becomes to us a complete Savior in every respect. He is the Jehovah Savior of His sinful people.

But there is a wide step between this position, itself so gracious, and merciful, and that in which our text presents him.

We have not here the mere Savior of sinners but their companion. He is not here exhibited only as dying for man but living with him. The picture presented is not that of the Lamb bearing away the sin of the world, but of the Holy One of God holding fellowship with the worst classes of mankind.

Even our text as translated does not present to us the whole truth. The pious [Horatius] Bonar says with reference to its teaching,

The word “receiveth” is in the original singularly expressive. It means waiteth, watcheth, looks out for, lies in wait. It occurs fourteen times in the New Testament, and in all other places it is translated in some such way: as in Mark 15:43—“who waited for the kingdom of God”; Luke 2:25—“waiting for the consolation of Israel”; Luke 2:3—“looked for redemption in Jerusalem”; Luke 12:30—‘men that wait for their Lord”; Acts 23:21—“looking for a promise from thee”; Titus 2:13—“looking for that blessed hope”; Jude 21—“looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Our text, then, if it presents Christ in His true aspect shows Him to us, as waiting for sinners, looking out for them, longing for them, having that expectation of their coming of which hope is a decided element. And then when these hopes have been fulfilled and they have come to Him, or been found of Him, He is said to take them into intimate fellowship and friendship. “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

But is this statement of the text correct? It is not Christ that says it. It is not one of his disciples. It is not even the language of the ordinary multitude which surrounded him.

It is an accusation against Him made by the Pharisees. We know that their statements cannot be relied upon.

They hated Jesus and were always on the look out for something wherewith to accuse him. The gospel records evince that they were constant spies upon Him and sought continually to mislead the people about Him. They saw Him cast out devils and said, “He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.” When a man with a withered hand was present they asked Him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that‘they might accuse him.” Luke 6:7 says they “watched him … that they might find an accusation against him.” When He said to the sick of the palsy, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” they began to reason, saying, “Who is this which speaketh blasphemies?” When He went on the sabbath day to eat bread in the house of one of the chief Pharisees, they watched Him to see if he would heal the man with the dropsy. When He opened the eyes of the man blind from his birth, some of them said, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.” Thus did they hate and slander Him, and their accusation in the text might have been the result of this hatred.

The whole information we have from the Gospels teaches us to beware how we receive as true the accusations of the Pharisees. And our text is one of these accusations. The Pharisees and scribes murmured and said, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

The charge which they made against Jesus was an extraordinary one. His alleged conduct seems greatly to have astonished them. We live at too great a distance of time and under too different circumstances to judge of it. But it was such action as must greatly have perplexed the pious people among the Jews. Here was a religious teacher, one who was declared to be the Messiah, one whose personal purity and sinlessness were asserted by Himself and by His disciples, and whom does He make His companions? The men of authority and position in the nation? The men who were of special purity of life? The Pharisees who were especially the national purists? The scribes who were so intimately associated with the Scriptures of God? No, none of these—not even the men of ordinary purity and morality. But men who were especially recognized as sinners, who were so known as such as to be marked as a special class. And, then, not only these, but even the publicans, the oppressive tax-gatherers, who had sold themselves to the Roman nation and who were enriching themselves by their extortions upon the Jews. These were they whom Jesus is said to have sought after, waited for, expected and longed for as guests, and chosen to sit with Him at table.

Hence the Pharisees immediately seize upon it as a ground of accusation. They show their malice and mischief-making spirit by immediate murmurs. “See what he is doing, this teacher of morals, this Messiah of the Jews, this pretended pure and Holy One. Men are known by the company they keep. See his companions, his chosen ones, whom he delights to honor, whom he eats and drinks with—see him—Why, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

Is their charge correct?

We look to the record, and we see that the charge is true in all its fullness. At the feast of Matthew, himself a publican, though called as one of the twelve, we are told that “many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.” When Christ entered Jericho, He offered Himself as a guest to Zaccheus, the chief of the publicans. Indeed, the very occasion of the murmuring of the Pharisees in our text was that all the publicans and sinners draw near unto Christ to hear him, and doubtless the very manner of His reception of them justifies the peculiar word of the accusation which charged Christ as expectantly awaiting them.

At the feast of Matthew, Christ Himself acknowledged that the accusation made at that feast was true and assigned the reason for His conduct. But on that occasion He seems simply to have admitted these sinners as companions. His answer was that He had come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance. It was, therefore, natural that He should consort with those He came to save. The more wicked they were, the more they needed His salvation. The more steeped in sin, the more call was there for His influence to draw them from it. The more guilty they were, the more did they need encouragement to come to Him. The announcement of the nature of His work was, therefore, an assignment of sufficient reason for His stooping to the very depths of human sin to lift out of its toils and from their own defilement the men who were most deeply stained and most inextricably entangled.

In the light of Christ’s life and work as we now see it, we can comprehend the fullness of His mercy and the appropriateness of His action.

He who brings bread to the hungry will seek first those who are ready to perish. Though all may need his help, yet must these first be relieved who otherwise may die before their turn may come.

Such, therefore, was Christ’s true and justifying answer to the charge at Matthew’s feast that He was consorting with sinners. But, as we have seen, the accusation in our text is stronger. It is not merely companionship where men had come in as these did and sat down at the feast with Him and His disciples. It is more than this that is here implied. It is that Christ was waiting, watching, looking out for, hoping to receive, and expecting with earnest desire that these sinners should come to Him.

And Christ makes to this charge a most remarkable answer, one which shows that we may give to this word “receiveth” all the fullness of meaning which may at any time be ascribed to it.

His answer is contained in three of the most remarkable parables to be found in all His sayings. In them He shows that this is His true attitude, nay, that the word of the accusation does not go far enough. It does not express the full truth. There is must more than any could have imagined from His conduct.

Thus replying, too, He shows us unmistakably that the disposition toward sinners He then sets forth is not that of a transient occasion but the pervading and ruling spirit of His life. Nay, that thus is set forth the grand truth in His spiritual kingdom of the deep yearning which He feels that every sinner, a single sinner though but one, any sinner the more vile he be the more is it true, should find in Him salvation and restoration to the failed relationship of God.

The first parable by which He teaches this is that of the shepherd of an hundred sheep leaving the ninety and nine safe within the fold while he goes forth into the wilderness to seek the one that is lost. How strongly and yet how sweetly does the familiar illustration come home to the hearts of all. The anxiety of the shepherd, the danger of the sheep, his going forth with longing heart into the pathless wilderness to seek the sheep, straying per-haps in indifference, in ignorance of danger, perhaps in joy of forbidden pastures, and the speed which the shepherd makes lest the darkness should overtake him and his search be vain or the cold of the night benumb the straying lamb until it perish or the wolf come and devour it when there is no protector by, and when he finds, how tenderly does he deal with it, not chiding nor chastising, not roughly driving it before him nor even leading it back again over the rough roads, but laying it upon his shoulders, bearing for it all the pain and toil of the return and gladly bearing it because of the joy which he feels that he has recovered his sheep. As we recall the emotions natural to the shepherd, we can imagine that joy with which he makes his voice to ring, over hill and dale, calling out to his friends and neighbors, “I have found my sheep, I have found my sheep! Rejoice with me! I have found my sheep!”

Is it true that Jesus thus yearns over every lost sinner and thus longs to find him and to bring him back into his fold? He tells us so. It is thus that He answers the accusation of the Pharisees that He was an expectant looker-out for sinners, eagerly desires to receive and entertain them. Yes, and He adds that as He thus brings each one by persistence and faith into His kingdom, He shouts out His triumph throughout the realms of heaven, and the angelic hosts rejoice at the salvation of a single man.

There are ninety and nine that safely lay
In the shelter of the fold,
But one had wandered far away
In the desert so lone and cold
Away in the mountains wild and bare,
Away from the Shepherd’s tender care.

Shepherd! hast thou not here thy ninety and nine?
Are they not enough for thee?
But the Shepherd replied “This one of mine
has wandered away from me;
The way may be wild and rough and steep;
I go to the desert to find my sheep.

But none of the ransomed ever knew
How deep were the waters crossed;
Nor how dark was the night the Lord passed thro’
Ere he found the sheep that was lost.
Away in the desert he heard its cry
So feeble and helpless and ready to die.

Shepherd; whence are those blood drops all the way
Up the mountains rugged track
They were shed for the one who had gone astray.

Ere the shepherd could bring him back.
Lord, why are thy hands so rent and torn
For him they were pierced with many a thorn.

And afar up the mountain thunder riven
And along the rocky steep
There arose the glad song of joy to heaven
Rejoice, I have found my sheep.
And the angels echoed around the throne
Rejoice, for the Lord brings back His own.

This first parable in which He thus replies mingles the idea of compassion for the sheep with that of the loss of something which is owned. Our Lord, therefore, proceeds one step further in the next by the exclusion of the possible suffering of that which was lost. He thus sets before us the fact that His yearning is not simply compassion, but earnest desire to regain a lost possession. It is the parable of the woman who has lost one out of ten pieces of silver. The lost piece cannot suffer. It cannot be destroyed. It will remain as valuable in itself as ever. If found by another, it will be as useful as ever. But it is a lost piece of property. And the woman begins for it a diligent search. Can we not see her as she looks in one possible place and then another? “Where can I have put it?” she exclaims. “Could I have mislaid it, or have I dropped it?” And as she thinks of this possibility, she lights a candle and sweeps the house and seeks diligently until she finds it.

Is this descriptive of Christ? He says it is. He says it to the Pharisees, who have despised Him for His intercourse with sinners: And, thus, He declares to them these sinners are mine. Each one of them is mine. You say that I am waiting for them. I am doing more than this. Your word waiting does not express the idea. I have lost my property, which I would regain for my happiness and joy, and I am searching for it.

How blessed the language, how deeply should it impress every heart: Christ is searching after sinners. He has lighted His candle. He is sweeping the floor. He is determined to find that poor sinner if possible. Who is it that He thus seeks? It is every sinner. It is any sinner. It is the sinner that is most utterly lost. It is the sinner who cannot even move to come unto Him, but upon whom He will throw the light of His candle, and by the reflection of His light from the lost one will recover His, own, and replace him in His treasury.

Here again, the joy He asserts as His in such finding. Imagine the woman’s exultation after her long and diligent search. She calls to all her friends. “I have found it, I have found it!” And so Christ also has His joy as He sees of the travail of His soul and the angels who strengthened Him in Gethsemane proclaim to the heavenly host the new cause of rejoicing—“Another soul of man is saved. Another penitent is found!”

Ah, but our hearts respond “there is no sin there, no sin in the coin, none even in the sheep even if willfully it had strayed.” Doubtless the Pharisees were ready to say the same thing with a sneer. Why talk of such loss and finding in connection with such sinners?

But Christ stopped the sneer of the Pharisees by His third and last parable, that inimitable one of the Prodigal Son. Here there was sin. It was a willful son, one not content with his father’s house and love, one anxious to shake off dependence upon that father’s authority, one bent upon the free use of all he might call his own, going forth—and that not to a wise but a foolish and sinful use of his opportunities, spending his whole substance in riotous living, brought to a sense of his sinful rebellious and wasted life only by his condition of starvation and servitude, and thus returning. And to such as one how does the father, who here stands for Jesus, appear? As one stern and unbending and unforgiving? turning away in wrath from his spendthrift son and looking with disgust upon his tattered rags? Nay, it is the father who has never forgotten the absent one, who has ever yearned over him, who now sees him while yet afar off, and recognizes him even in his beggary and rags, and who waits not for words of penitence, but filled with compassion runs and falls upon his neck and kisses him, owns him as his son, clothes him with the best robe, putting the ring upon his finger and shoes upon his feet, and kills the fatted calf in honor of his return.

No question here of sinfulness, nor of abundant provocation to anger. But still less question of earnest love and vehement desire to get back the lost one. The parable appeals to every child, and especially to every parent. Can there be such love, such forgiveness, such indestructible compassion. Our hearts say, “yes, yes.” They yearn for our own children. We would do all this for them. No joy could exceed the joy which would fill a father’s heart at this the safe return of one long mourned as lost.

Christ says, as are your hearts so is mine. It is on this account and with these feelings that I seek after sinners. Each of them is as dear to me as such a son to you. As you feel more tenderly even to the undeserving when lost, than to the dutiful who have never strayed, so do I feel towards my poor lost ones. The more they have strayed, the more do I yearn. The greater the sinner, the more anxious my heart. My love has never failed. I have never forgotten one. And I stand as did the father of the prodigal looking out even into the far distance that I may see the penitent return.

Such then is Christ’s answer to the charge of the Pharisees. He uses all three of these parables to explain it. No one of them is sufficient. They must be continued together to teach the whole truth. His enemies said, “He receiveth sinners,” He waits for them, watches for them, is expecting them, takes delight in their coming. This was their reproach.

Christ says to them, You have but a part of the truth. I do not only wait, I go and seek the lost, I am filled with anxiety to find my sheep. I search for my treasure as with lighted candle and sweeping broom. My heart yearns for the wanderer, I look eagerly for him, my spirit within cries out in weariness at his delay. I am ready to welcome him with unequalled honors. It is not pleasure only that I take in the society of these sinners. My soul cries out with joy. I cannot contain my feelings. To all my servants around as each returns I impart my rapture, and the heavens ring with joyful exclamation as a single sinner comes back to God.

Do you believe Jesus, my hearers? Has He spoken here the truth concerning Himself? Is it, can it be, true that Jesus thus yearns over each one here? That He thus earnestly desires the salvation of each soul?

Too long have you lingered in the ways of sin and folly. Too long have you stood and trembled and doubted what might be His feelings toward you.

Hearken today to the message of His yearning love by which he would win you.

It tells you of sinners waited for, longed for with deep desire.

It tells you of the yearnings of your Jehovah Savior who cannot afford to lose you. It tells you of His earnest seeking, by which He would take you wounded and sore and unable to return and bear you back upon His shoulders to the fold.

Can you resist these pleadings? Can you reject such love? Can you disappoint such earnest longings and desires?

Will you not welcome to your heart your blessed Lord, your glorious Savior, who thus seeks you that He may regain His wandering sheep, His lost treasure, His prodigal child, that He may once more number you among His own.

Suffer this day the word of exhortation. Would that I could utter such words as would make you hesitate no longer.

Where shall I find them? Isaiah 55:1, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”

James P. Boyce, “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners (Luke 15:2),” in James Petigru Boyce: Selected Writings, ed. Timothy George (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1989), 77–84.

Like [Richard] Fuller, Boyce saw these truths of grace as finding their coherence in the person and work of Christ. Boyce’s great sermon on “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners” has a Christ-centered focus that should be the goal of every gospel preacher to emulate. Christ waits on sinners. Christ seeks sinners, and Christ rejoices in the coming of sinners and invites them with all earnestness to come to Him. He “shouts out his triumph throughout the realms of heaven, and the angelic hosts rejoice at the salvation of a single man” (James P. Boyce, Selected Writings [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1989], 81).

Tom J. Nettles, “A Historical View of the Doctrinal Importance of Calvinism among Baptists,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville, B&H, 2008), 63–64.

Preaching and effectual calling operate in a similar manner. Boyce did not profess to be able to explain these two bits of data with absolute coherence, but he did believe that the principle established earlier, the progressive and self-sustaining character of divine revelation, rendered both biblical realities consistent, similar to prayer and providence. If the Bible calls on us to believe and act in response to both, then we must. God’s sincerity, even in the bare outward call, cannot be questioned precisely because of the biblical portrait of his character. Additionally, however, an absolute determinism to save on the one hand does not contradict the earnestness of the invitation on the other. If those invited are left to do just as they please, none can question the sincerity of the call. An accusation of insincerity would never have crossed one’s mind if efficient grace had not been introduced to guarantee the salvation of some. Had only an external proclamation existed with no special grace, but all alike were left to the consequences of their own corrupted affections and will, the charge of insincerity could not have arisen, for the urgency of the message itself and its call for repentance and trust with the promise of salvation have all the marks of utter truth and, thus, sincerity. Beyond that, God assures sinners of his sincerity by the nature of his pleading with them as in Ezekiel 33:11: “Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” In his preaching, therefore, Boyce urged on his hearers the transparent sincerity of God in seeking sinners, all sinners, through the message of the gospel. In a sermon entitled “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners,” based on Luke 15:2, Boyce discussed the accusation brought against Jesus, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” Since Jesus came to seek the lost, he quite naturally would seek opportunities to “consort with those He came to save.” But the accusation had greater intensity; they “accused him of waiting, watching, looking out for, hoping to receive.” Boyce replied that the accusation does not go far enough, for Jesus manifested a “deep yearning which He feels that every sinner, a single sinner though but one, any sinner the more vile he be the more it is true, should find in Him salvation and restoration to the failed relationship of God.” He emphasized this in increasing intensity by showing how Jesus presented himself in three parables. In the parable of the lost sheep we find that “Jesus thus yearns over every lost sinner and thus longs to find and to bring him back into his fold.” Jesus was an “expectant looker-out for sinners” and eagerly desired to “receive and entertain them.” And as Jesus brings a sinner home, he shouts out His triumph throughout the realms of heaven, and the angelic hosts rejoice at the salvation of a single man.” In parable two, Jesus showed his “earnest desire to regain a lost possession.” Jesus is the woman with ten pieces of silver and he says, “I have lost my property, which I would regain for my happiness and joy, and I am searching for it.” Boyce affirmed that Jesus seeks those that the Father gave him before the foundation of the world and will not fail to find them. That truth Boyce indicated implicitly in preaching this series of parables, but explicitly he affirmed that “it is every sinner. It is any sinner. It is the sinner that is most utterly lost. It is the sinner who cannot even move to come unto Him but upon whom He will throw the light of His candle, and by the reflection of His light from the lost one will recover His own, and replace him in His treasury.” The third parable involved not a sheep or a coin, but an infinitely ungrateful and rebellious son, a true “example of genuine sinfulness” as well as a “real provocation to anger.” This gave even greater offense to Jesus’ accusers as he pictured the justly offended father yearning for the return of the son, and acting in the most outrageously undignified and incalculably gratuitous manner in receiving him back. “The most they have strayed, the more do I yearn,” Boyce pictured the Father as saying. “The greater the sinner, the more anxious my heart. My love has never failed. I have never forgotten one. And I stand as did the father of the prodigal looking out even into the far distance that I may see the penitent return.” The close Boyce handled masterfully, showing that God is the initiator and consummator of the salvation event, but at the same time pressing the divine earnestness in going after all sinners. Boyce believed that in these parables Christ taught “I do not only wait, I go and seek the lost, I am filled with anxiety to find my sheep. I search for my treasure as with lighted candle and sweeping broom. My heart yearns for the wanderer, I look eagerly for him, my spirit within cries out in weariness at his delay, I am ready to welcome him with unequalled honors.” And at the return of such, Boyce pictured Jesus as affirming, “It is not pleasure only that I take in the society of these sinners. My soul cries out with joy. I cannot contain my feelings. To all my servants around as each returns I impart my rapture, and the heavens ring with joyful exclamation as a single sinner comes back to God.” To make sure that none could miss his universal intent in setting forth Christ as the willing savior of sinners, Boyce continued, “Do you believe Jesus, my hearers? Has he spoken here the truth concerning Himself? Is it, can it be, true that Jesus thus yearns over each one here? That He thus earnestly desires the salvation of each soul?” He sought to inject the call indelibly into the conscience—“Hearken today to the message of His yearning love by which he would win you. It tells of sinners waited for, longed for with deep desire .… Can you resist these pleadings? Can you reject such love? Can you disappoint such earnest longings and desires?”

Thomas J. Nettles, James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 427–30. On pages 464–65, Nettles, however, did criticize Boyce’s position on the nature and extent of the atonement as inconsistent. His criticisms were earlier stated in By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 304. See p. 342 in the 2006 in the 20th Anniversary Revised and Expanded edition. Nettles also argued for a limited sufficiency view on pp. 305–16 [2006 edition, pp. 343–53].