Norman F. Douty (1899–1993) Describes a Dualistic View of the Atonement

Douty wrote:

Inasmuch as Christ is an infinite Person, the value of His performance was infinite, and, therefore, superabundantly sufficient to provide for the sinning inhabitants of any number of worlds. Accordingly, the value of His redemptive work is far more than enough to take care of the need of the non-elect as well as those of the elect. It is evident, however, that if there had been no elect persons to be saved, the Son of God would not have come, and so there would have been no overplus existent for the non-elect. The provision for the latter class was contingent on the provision for the former one.

We observe, therefore, that Christ’s redemptive work was primarily for the elect, and only secondarily for the rest of men. It was mainly for those chosen unto salvation, and only subordinately for the non-elect. It was designed to make salvation sure to the former class, but only possible to the latter. In both cases, repentance and faith are required, but only in the first are they divinely induced. Whosoever will may come, but only the elect will do so. Thus God’s intention in the death of Christ was not the same with reference to the two groups.

But though God’s design in Christ’s death was dual, we must not think that the death itself was; for Christ did not die in one sense for the elect, and in another for the non-elect. He died in precisely the same sense for both companies – bearing the judgment of God against human sin – yet the value of that fact is appropriated by the elect, but not by the rest of sinners.

So the sense in which Christ died for the elect and non-elect was single, but His object in doing so was double. He aimed by His death to bring the elect infallibly to glory, but He never aimed by it to bring the non-elect there. All He purposed to do for them was to make it possible for them to get there, provided they repent and believe.

Consequently, we have no quarrel with those who insist that the atonement "had special reference to the elect," as [Charles] Hodge says. He asks:

Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given Him by the Father, so that the other effects of His work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?

If by "incidental" he means "subordinate," we reply to both questions in the affirmative.

What we deny is that God sovereignly decreed that His vast redemptive provision should be inapplicable to the non-elect, because He knew that they would not avail themselves of its saving worth. Instead, He authorized His servants to offer salvation to all men. Their sad state is their own fault, not His. He proffers them eternal life, but they stubbornly refuse to come unto Christ for it (John 5:40). This is quite different from saying that Christ died only for the elect. We grant, yes, we contend, that His death had a special reference to the elect, but we strongly deny that it had an exclusive reference to them.

We concur with Hodge when he says that Christ "did all that was necessary so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required, for the salvation of all men," and adds that "all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, No man perishes for want of an atonement." This is conceding the crucial point.

Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 61–62. I reviewed the book on Amazon.

Bio:
Wiki