Theological Meditations: Various Theologians on the Association of Common Grace Blessings to the Death of Christ

I will continue to fill this out further and add more sources as time permits. The names provided are in chronological (or flourishing) order.

Outline

I. Some Definitions of Grace

II. Note on the Terminology

III. Note on the Ambiguous Use of “Universal Aspect”

IV. Note on the Broader Historical Context

V. Circa 16th Century

Martin Luther (1483–1546)
John Calvin (1509–1564)

VI. Circa 17th Century

John Davenant (1572–1641)
Samuel Ward (1571–1643)
William Ames (1576–1633)
John Ball (1585–1640)
Samuel Clarke (1599–1682)
Thomas Brooks (1608–1680)
Richard Baxter (1615–1691)
John Owen (1616–1683)
Thomas Manton (1620–1677)
James Durham (1622–1658)
Edward Polhill (1622–1694)
Francis Turretin (1623–1687)
Stephen Charnock (1628–1680)
Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633–1698)
Jacob Janeway (1636–1674)
Herman Witsius (1636–1708)
John Edwards (1637–1716)
John Alcock (fl. 1647)
Westminster Assembly Minutes (c.1647)
Thomas Beverley (d. 1702)

VII. Circa 18th Century

Johannes à Marck (Marckius; 1656–1731)
Thomas Ridgely (c.1667–1734)
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758)

VIII. Circa 19th Century

William Symington (1764–1831)
John Brown (of Broughton) (1784–1858)
Charles Hodge (1797–1878)
William Cunningham (1805–1861)
George Washington Bethune (1805–1862)
Robert Smith Candlish (1806–1873)
George Smeaton (1814–1889)
William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820–1894)
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898)
Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823–1886)
Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892)
Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836–1921)
Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

IX. Circa 20th Century

Geerhardus Johannes Vos (1862–1949)
Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)
Frederik Willem Grosheide (1881–1972)
Rienk Bouke Kuiper (1886–1966)
Herman Kuiper (1889–1963)
Roderick Alick Finlayson (1895–1989)
John Murray (1898–1975)
Loraine Boettner (1901–1990)
Samuel Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1915–2004)
Maurice Eugene Osterhaven (1915–2004)
Roger Robert Georges Nicole (1915–2010)
Edwin H. Palmer (1922–1980)
Jan van Genderen (1923–2004) and Willem Hendrik Velema (1929–2019)
Morton Howison Smith (1923–2017)
Bruce Alvin Demarest (1931–2021)
Robert Lewis Reymond (1932–2013)
James Montgomery Boice (1938–2000) and Philip Graham Ryken (1966–)
Robert Charles Sproul, Sr. (1939–2017)
John Fullerton MacArthur Jr. (1939–)
Vern Sheridan Poythress (1946–)
Wayne Arden Grudem (1948–)
Gregory Nichols (1948–)
Samuel E. Waldron (1951–)
Curt D. Daniel (1952–)
Joel Robert Beeke (1952–) and Paul Michael Smalley (1969–)
Mark W. Karlberg (c.1952–)
The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of America (2017)

I. Some Definitions of Grace

gratia communis: common grace; i.e., a nonsaving, universal grace according to which God in his goodness bestows his favor upon all creation in the general blessings of physical sustenance and moral influence for the good. Thus rain falls on the just and the unjust, and all persons have the law engraved on their hearts. Gratis communis is therefore contrasted by the Reformed with particular or special grace (gratia particularis sive specialis, q.v.)

Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 142.

gratia particularis sive specialis: particular or special grace; i.e., the grace of God that is given savingly only to the elect. The Reformed contrast this gratia particularis or gratia specialis with the gratia universalis (q.v.), or universal grace of the gospel promise, and with the gratia communis (q.v.), the common, nonsaving grace given to all. Lutheran orthodoxy argues against the concept on the ground of the efficacy of the Word and in the name of universal grace as a gratia seria, a serious grace or grace seriously offered to all, and therefore salvific. See gratia.

Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 143–44.

gratia universalis: universal grace; i.e., that grace of God in the universal call of the gospel according to which salvation is offered to all. Denied by a majority of the Reformed, including Calvin and Beza and various proponents of hypothetical universalism like John Davenant; affirmed by advocates of the Amyraldian form of hypothetical universalism, by Lutherans, and by Arminians. Sometimes the term gratia universalis is used to identify common grace (gratis communis, q.v.). See gratia; gratia particularis sive specialis; universalismus hypotheticus.

Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 145.

II. Note on the Terminology

The idea of “common grace” goes by other terminology as well, depending on the theologian’s preferences. Sometimes it is called “general grace,” or “restraining grace,” or even “universal grace” or “prevenient grace.” Some distinguish between an extra-ecclesial common grace and an intra-ecclesial special common grace that is distinguished from the “particular” or “more special grace” that the elect receive. Van Mastricht, for example, gets into some of these distinctions, as do others. Early Reformed theologians use “general grace” (e.g., Bullinger), but the label “common grace” is just as old, being in Calvin himself, but he does not have the technical scholastic divisions. The more technical distinctions and terminology were not used in Augustine’s day either, but the ideas are in his writings, along with Prosper of Aquitaine’s, and others who were “friends of grace” (Fulgentius, Florus of Lyon, et al), i.e., those who held to Augustinian predestination without any Pelagianizing tendencies. For a brief note on “universal grace,” see my comment on Davenant below.

III. Note on the Ambiguous Use of “Universal Aspect”

Some theologians and historians use the terms “universal aspect” for the idea of “common grace” being associated with the death of Christ. This may cause some confusion. Among Calvinists who differ over the extent of Christ’s satisfaction, they have different “universal aspects.” Just because a Calvinist maintains that some benefits of Christ’s death flow to the unregenerate and reprobates, it does not follow that they believe Christ suffered for the sins of any of the non-elect. It does not qualify them as a classic-moderate Calvinist or Hypothetical Universalist. Many of the men listed below are the stricter sort of Calvinists who maintain that Christ suffered for the sins of the elect alone, and yet they maintain there are common benefits that accrue to all men as a result of Christ’s mediation and rule over mankind. Both classic-moderate Calvinists (that maintain Christ substituted himself for the sins of all mankind) and the stricter sort (that maintain Christ substituted himself only for the sins of the elect) agree that there are “common grace” benefits that flow to all mankind as a fruit of Christ’s death. The difference between them is on the issue of the extent of the substitution, or imputation of sin to Christ, not over the “universal aspect” Christ’s death as related to “common grace.” Curt Daniel is an example of someone who still seems confused in this area, as one can see in his recent treatment on the history and theology dealing with the extent of Christ’s death (see his The History and Theology of Calvinism [Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2019], 492–508). He did not carefully distinguish between these types of Calvinists in that chapter. It tripped up Jeffrey D. Johnson as well in the first edition of his book He Died For Me: Limited Atonement and the Universal Gospel (Greenbriar, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017), and so he produced a second revised edition in 2018 after seeing the problem and conflation. John Piper is another noteworthy example of someone who has been confused on this topic.

This area continues to cause significant historical as well as conceptual errors. It must also be noted that not all of the stricter sort of Calvinists held to “common grace” being associated with Christ’s death, even though they all believe in common grace categorically. The point of the quotes below is to demonstrate that this kind of “universal aspect” is quite common and old among Reformed theologians, and arguably the mainstream view (but not the only orthodox one), at least since the 19th century. But there is diversity and nuance within the Reformed orthodox tradition on this relationship of common grace to Christ’s death. No responsible historian denies that diversity.

Here is a picture or chart that captures some of the distinctions:

CATEGORY	CLASSIC-MODERATE CALVINISTSand/or HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSALISTS	STRICTER or HIGH CALVINISTS
The Extent of Christ’s Substitution	All say that Christ substituted himself for the sins of the whole human race, which includes the non-elect. Unlimited Imputation	All say Christ substituted himself for the sins of the elect alone. Limited Imputation
Common Grace The Cross Direct or Indirect Particular or Special Grace	All affirm common grace. All say common grace blessings accrue to all mankind by means of Christ’s death. They only differ as to whether it is directly as a purchase or indirectly as a fruit. All agree that Christ intended to give only particular or special saving grace to the elect alone.	All affirm common grace. Some (arguably most) say common grace blessings accrue to all mankind by means of Christ’s death. Others reject this idea. They usually view it indirectly as a fruit, or something incidental, usually not as a direct purchase). All agree that Christ intended to give only particular or special saving grace to the elect alone.

IV. Note on the Broader Historical Context

Since “common grace” is simply God’s beneficent (or good-giving) love stemming from His free, merciful benevolence, it was a given in early Reformed teaching that Christ’s death was related to common grace. In fact, the giving of Christ to all mankind as an all-sufficient remedy for the sins of the whole world was the ultimate act of common grace, but not to the exclusion of the dimension of special grace. It was assumed that Christ’s death was related to the offers of grace that men receive in the gospel call, and that coming wrath was postponed in order to allow mankind a time to repent. Indeed, the original sense of the Lombardian Formula that the early Reformers affirmed taught a universal or ordained sufficiency in Christ’s death that rendered all mankind saveable. There was no need to elaborate on the relation of common grace to the death of Christ because it was obviously interrelated, or just presupposed. Christ substituting Himself for mankind was an act of God’s benevolent love for all, and so it was manifestly common beneficence or general grace.

It seems that after the stricter and historically novel view of Christ’s death as a satisfaction for the sins of the elect alone came to prominence among some of the Reformed, there became a need to explain how that view comports with many seemingly obvious universal ramifications coming from Christ’s death. As His death became less and less associated with the non-elect, on their view, and God’s redemptive and saving desire for all in relation to Christ’s death was denied, mere scraps of the older view concerning common benefits remained, but gradually they were detached from God’s saving volition in Christ’s satisfaction, and so became merely incidental in relation to the non-elect. But, since everyone knows that indiscriminate free offers must be somehow grounded in Christ’s death, the stricter Calvinists (e.g., Owen, Turretin, et al) have sought to base their affirmations of free offers and indiscriminate gospel invitations in a mere intrinsic sufficiency in Christ’s death, or the infinite internal value of his sacrificial work, without viewing His death as actually being a price paid for any who are non-elect (or extrinsically sufficient for all). Moreover, since Christ became incarnate to save the elect alone on their view, it accidentally follows that the non-elect temporally benefit from His mediation since they are in close proximity to the elect in this world.

As more extreme views arose in the 18th century and following, and hyper-Calvinists denied free offers and explicitly denied Christ’s substitution as sufficient for any who are non-elect, reactions against that imbalance drove Calvinistic theologians, even the higher sort, to expound more and more on God’s universal love and common grace as it relates to Christ’s death to the point that some high Calvinists begin to sound like moderate Calvinists (or they get accused as being such, e.g., R. B. Kuiper), when in fact they are not. Another factor for the rising interest in this subject among Calvinists has been the criticisms coming from non-Calvinists. They have always pushed Calvinists to explain how the free offer of the gospel and God’s love are related to Christ’s death since they obviously view it as universal and equally benevolent in both intent and scope. Consequently, due to these increasing debates, what we find in the modern era are more elaborate explanations of how common grace blessings accrue to all mankind from Christ’s death that were not explained before. Controversy, as usual, drove further theological exploration into the topic, along with attempts at systematic justification, and so there is much more written about it in the 19th and 20th centuries, and following.

V. Circa 16th Century:

1. Martin Luther (1483–1546):

14. Third, look at the gift itself. Without a doubt, it must be something excellent and inexpressibly great which such a rich Giver gives us [Read uns with E² 12:355 instead of und (WA 21:483.23)]. out of sincere, great love. What does He give? Not great kingdoms, not one or more worlds full of silver and gold, not heaven and earth with all that is in them, not the entire creation, but His Son, who is as great as He Himself is. This is an eternal, incomprehensible gift (just as the Giver and His love are also incomprehensible). It is the fountain and source of all grace, goodness, and kindness—yes, the possessions and property of the eternal goods and treasures of God. This is a love not with words but with deeds and in the highest degree, proven with the most precious benefit and work that God Himself has and can do.

Martin Luther, “Gospel for Pentecost Monday (John 3:16–21),” in Luther’s Works, ed. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, James L. Langebartels, and Christopher Boyd Brown (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2014), 77:368–69. Different translation: “He is the fountain and source of all grace, goodness and kindness; yes, the very essence of the eternal blessings and treasures of God.” Martin Luther, “Pentecost Monday (Second Sermon. John 3:16–21),” in Luther’s Church Postil: Gospels: Pentecost or Missionary Sermons, ed. and trans. John Nicholas Lenker, vol. III of The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther (Minneapolis, MN: Lutherans in All Lands Co., 1907), 354–55.

Note: When Luther said that Christ is the “fountain and source of all grace,” he meant, in the context, the gift of the Son in relation to the truths in John 3:16–21, or Christ as a mediator and substitute for the whole human race. He does not mean Christ’s person abstractly considered, but specifically in relation to the giving of him to us in his death.

2. John Calvin (1509–1564):

Note: See the entry on Herman Kuiper (1889–1963) below for a brief overview on Calvin’s writings on the matter.

VI. Circa 17th Century:

1. John Davenant (1572–1641):

But grace is bestowed on no creature except through the Mediation of Christ, who is the channel of grace.

John Davenant, Colossians (1831; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2005), 430.

Note: Davenant has some technical distinctions in this area that require qualifications, but here one can see grace is bestowed “through the Mediation of Christ,” which includes his death. Also, if by “grace” Davenant means “[all] grace,” as the context seems to clearly demand, then there is a kind of “universal grace” of Christ (at least one that pertains to all mankind) in Davenant’s theology, though that terminology was not preferred by him (as evidenced by his mild criticism of John Cameron’s use of it in association with his own universal redemption views), due to its Pelagian associations, and among the “remnants of the Pelagians” at Marseilles (or Massilians), who were later problematically called “semi-Pelagians,” and then finally due to its Arminian baggage. Nevertheless, there are some Reformed theologians (e.g., Jan van Genderen and Willem Hendrik Velema in their Concise Reformed Dogmatics, and Robert Letham in his Systematic Theology, et al, to name only a couple of modern sources) who use “universal grace” in senses that are agreeable to Reformed orthodox conceptions of general or common grace. See, for example, Richard Muller’s own definition above. Richard Baxter used if favorably.

2. Samuel Ward (1572–1643):

Peter Lake described Ward’s view thusly:

Indeed Ward went further; the entirely genuine spiritual gifts which the reprobate often enjoyed could be grounded on Christ’s sacrifice for the sins of the world and the general evangelical promise, which that involved, that all who believed would be saved. Indeed he went so far as to argue that Christ’s sacrifice had opened up the possibility of salvation for the reprobate. This possibility occupied a parallel position in Ward’s theology to that enjoyed by his assertion of the possibility that the elect might not persevere. It represented a potentiality which only the presence or absence of God’s grace could activate. Here Ward emphasized the distinction between the proposition that Christ died for all and the proposition that all would reach eternal life through Christ. The general will of God to save all men, embodied in Christ’s sacrifice was one thing; the particular efficacious application of that sacrifice to specific individuals was quite another. At this point, Ward invoked the distinction between the impetratio and the applicatio of Christ’s sacrifice. The resulting position combined with an emphasis on the sufficient grace offered to all men (in the word and sacraments) ensured that the reprobate were seen to have been justly condemned for their own infidelity and sin. It also avoided both quietism and desperation and underwrote an inclusive and generalized style of evangelism, to be propagated through the pulpit and the press.⁶⁵
_______________
65 This paragraph is based on a long Latin manuscript, detailing the exchanges between Ward and Bogerman on the subject of the atonement, in the Ward MSS., Sidney Sussex College.

Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–1635,” Past and Present 114.1 (1987): 57.

3. William Ames (1576–1633):

8. The application plainly had the same latitude as redemption itself, i.e., redemption applies to all those and only those for whom it was obtained by the intention of Christ and the Father. Yet because of them the same temporal benefits of Christ overflow also to others [Horum tamen inuitu, in alios etiam quædam Christi beneficia temporalia redundant].

William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (1968; repr. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983), 150 (Medulla theologica, 1.24.8).

4. John Ball (1585–1640):

The second of divines distinguish the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s death. In respect of the worth and greatness of the price he died for all men: because it was sufficient for the redemption of every man in the world, if they did repent and believe: and God might without impeachment of justice have offered salvation to every man in the world upon the condition if it had been his pleasure. In the efficiency, as every man, or any man has fruit by the death of Christ, so Christ died for him. But this is not of one kind: some fruit is common to every man: for as Christ Christ is Lord of all things in heaven and earth, even the earthly blessings which infidels enjoy, may be termed fruits of Christ’s death. Others proper to the members of the visible Church and common to them, as to be called by the word, enjoy the Ordinances of grace, live under the Covenant, partake of some graces that come from Christ, which through their fault be not saving: and in this sense Christ died for all under the Covenant. But other fruits of Christ’s death according to the will of God and intention of Christ as Mediator, be peculiar to the sheep of Christ, his brethren, them that be given unto them of the Father, as faith unfained, regeneration, pardon of sin, adoption, &c., and so they hold, Christ died efficiently for his people only in this sense, namely so as to bring them effectually to faith, grace and glory.

John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Published by Simeon Ash, Printed by G. Miller for Edward Brewster on Ludgate hill neer Fleet-Bridge at the signe of the Bible, 1645), 205–206.

Note: Mitchell and Struthers call attention to this passage in Ball in terms of its similarity to what a committe resolved at the Westminster Assembly. See the entry below and/or Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines […] (Edinburgh; London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), lx, 369.

5. Samuel Clarke (1599–1682):

Quest. Do reprobates receive any benefit by Christ’s death?

Answ. In some respects it had been better for them if there had not been a Christ, because when they willfully refuse him, it aggravates their sin and condemnation, John 3:19, and 15:22, yet several mercies do redound even to the reprobate by Christ’s death. As,

1. There is no man that lives under the means of grace, but he may hereby be encouraged to repent, and to believe for his salvation; whereas the apostate angels are left without hope.

2. The ministers of the gospel may hereupon promiscuously preach the Gospel to all, as within the sphere of Christ’s death; so the apostle writing to churches, wherein many were corrupt both for doctrine and manners, yet calls them a church, saints, believers, not excluding any from the benefit of Christ. So, therefore, may ministers do in their preaching; yet they must not propound Christ as a saviour to them in the first place, but must do as Paul when he preached to Felix, Acts 24:25, laying open the wrath of God to him for his sins, so that he trembled. So must they humble them by the law before they preach the gospel.

3. Reprobates have this advantage by Christ, that they enjoy all the mercies they have. For all being forfeited by Adam’s sin, by Christ (who is the heir of all things) they come lawfully to enjoy the mercies they have. For it is Christ that bears up the world. Indeed, they have not a sanctified use of what they enjoy; for to the impure all things are impure, Tit. 1:15, but otherwise they have a lawful right before God and man to what they enjoy, Psal. 115:8.

4. It is by Christ’s death that many wicked are partakers of the common gifts of God’s Spirit. It is the Spirit of Christ that gives several gifts to men, 1 Cor. 14, Christ is the vine, and so not only grapes, but even leaves come from his sap and juice.

5. Christ by his death is made Lord of the whole world, and has conquered all the inhabitants that are therein, so that they are Christ’s as a Lord, who has bought by his death, 2 Pet. 2:1, “The denied the Lord that bought them.” Wicked men are brought by him to be his vassals and servants, and he may dispose of them as he pleases for his churches good.

Samuel Clarke, Medulla Theologiæ: Or the Marrow of Divinity, Contained in Sundry Questions and Cases of Conscience, both Speculative, and Practical; the Greatest Part of them Collected out of the Works of Our Most Judicious, Experienced, and Orthodox English Divines, The Rest Supplied by the Authour (London: Printed by Thomas Ratcliff, for Thomas Underhill, of the Blue Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-Yard, 1659), 284.

6. Thomas Brooks (1608–1680):

…That you have nothing but what you have received, Christ being as well the fountain of common gifts as of saving grace.

Thomas Brooks, “Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, 6 vols. ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 1:125–26.

7. Richard Baxter (1615–1691):

95. By what hath been said, it appeareth how far Christ may be said to have died for all. Certainly (de re) all that Christ giveth to all, which is the fruits of his Death, he procured for all by his death: whatever we say of conditional Intentions, he certainly intended to give all that he giveth. But all these following particulars are given by Christ, either to all, or to more than the Elect.

1. The Human Nature, common to all, is advanced and brought nigh to God, in Christ’s Incarnation. 2. Christ’s Sacrifice for Sin, and his perfect Holiness, are so far Satisfactory and meritorious for all men, as that they render Christ a meet Object for that Faith in him which is commanded men, and no man shall be damned for want of the Satisfactoriness of Christ’s Sacrifice, or for want of a Savior to die for him, and fulfil all Righteousness, but only for the abusing or refusing of his Mercy. 3. Christ’s conquest of the Devil and the World, hath made man’s conquests of them the more easy or possible. And his Victory over Death and his Resurrection, hath procured a Resurrection to all the World. 4. All men are his Subjects by Obligation, as he is the Redeemer, and so are under his healing, saving kind of Government. 5. A clearer revelation of Life and Immortality, is made by him, even to those that perish. And they have far greater helps than else they would have had, to set their hearts on a better World. 6. Especially a Law of Grace is made by Christ for all the world; (In the last Edition to all that hear the Gospel, and in the first to all the rest.) By the Promise of which, as by an Act of Oblivion, or Instrument of Donation, God hath Enacted and Given a full Pardon of all Sin to all Mankind, with Reconciliation, Adoption, and Right to Christ and Heaven, on condition of their acceptance of it, as offered them. So that men are pardoned and justified by that Instrument or Gift, if they will believe, and will not unthankfully reject their Mercies. 7. Apostles and ordinary Ministers were appointed to preach this Gospel to all the World, and make the Offer of Christ and Life to all men without exception. 8. The execution of the violated Law of Innocency is forborn to all men, in the greatest part; Judgments kept off; and they kept out of Hell, while they have time and means to prepare for their Salvation. 9. Many and great Mercies which signify God’s goodness, and lead towards Repentance, are given to all the world; even mercies forfeited by sins against the Law of Innocency, and given by the Grace of our Redeemer. 10. It is made all men’s duty, to believe (the Revelation made to them) to repent, to accept more mercy, and to seek their own Salvation. And such duty is not the smallest mercy. 11. He hath recorded his Word and Grace in the holy Scriptures, which all are allowed to use for their good. He hath filled his Doctrine or Gospel with such powerful convincing Reasons and Persuasions, which have a tendency to convince men, and convert them. 12. He secondeth his Word by many such Providences (in his Works, his Mercies, his Afflictions,) as greatly tend to win mens Souls. 13. He hath left his excellent Example to the world, which greatly tendeth to mens Conviction and Salvation. 14. He hath appointed several Church-Ordinances, which are mercies to more than the Elect; as is the visible communion also which they have with the Upright, and their examples, prayers, &c. 15. To all these he addeth an obligation on all Christians, to do their best to convert and save all others. 16. And the Office of Magistrates under Christ, is appointed for these saving uses, to promote the Salvation of all the people. 17. Death itself is now turned into a medicinal means, by the prospect of it to convert and save men. 18. Usually God’s patience alloweth men time of Repentance, and taketh them not at the first denial, that they may consider and correct their former error. 19. Remedies are offered men fetched from Satan and Sin itself. The Tempter (by the malice of his temptations) oft detecteth his own fraud and men’s danger. A natural enmity against Devils, and all that is known to be of them, is put into all Mankind: and Sin hath a sting to the Flesh itself, and is made such a misery to Sinners even in this life, as may much tend to alienate and deter them from it. And the world itself is made such a palpable vanity, and smart vexation, as tendeth to drive men to look out for a better, and not to love it above God. 20. Lastly, To all these means, there are certain internal motions, and strivings of the Spirit of Christ, which he commonly vouchsafeth men in some degree, and which irritate Conscience to do its office; and which if men will but so far yield to as they can, have a tendency to their recovery. All these twenty sorts of means and mercies Christ giveth to all, or to more than the Elect.

Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), I.ii.51–52.

A.[rminian] “But his death effected something for them; viz. the new covenant and common grace, though it effect not their Salvation.”
B.[axter] Who denieth any of this? not the Synod of Dort.

Baxter, Catholick Theologie, II, 55.

§. 30. Seeing Life, Health, Food, Hope, and all that is truly good, were forfeited by Sin, and none of them can be due to us by the Law of Innocency, it followeth, that wherever they are given, it is upon other terms, which can be no other than those of the Law of Grace, as fruits of our Redeemer’s Mercy (antecedently or consequently.) And where the Fruits are apparent, we may know the Cause.

Richard Baxter, An End of Doctrinal Controversies Which have Lately Troubled the Churches by Reconciling Explication, without Much Disputing (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil, 1691), 98.

§. 6. It is not only to the Elect, but to all Mankind, that many Mercies procured by pardoning and reconciling Grace are actually given, which were forfeited (or not due) by reason of sin against the Law of Innocency.

§. 7. These Mercies given to all Mankind after sin, and contrary to desert, are not given by God’s Mercy alone, without respect to the Blood and Merits of Christ: But his Blood and Merits are the Cause of hem, as truly as of the greater Mercies of the Elect. And that they say, That God doth give all these Mercies without a Saviour’s Merits, as the Cause, prepare the way for Infidels to inferr [sic], That then he might have done so by the Mercies of the Elect.

§. 8. All these actual Mercies given to mankind, contrary to Merit, are a degree of Promulgation of the Law of Grace, telling all the World, That God doth not now rule and judge them merely by the Law of Innocency, but upon Terms of Mercy (as is aforesaid.)

Baxter, An End of Doctrinal Controversies, 155–56.

3. And as to the Event, we are agreed, viz. That some, and not all are saved by Christ’s Death and Merits; but that all have great Mercies, which are the fruits of these, though many willfully turn them to their Sin and Misery.

Baxter, An End of Doctrinal Controversies, 158.

Prop. XXVII. All those that have not heard of Christ, have yet much Mercy which they receive from him, and is the Fruit of his Death: According to the well or ill using whereof, it seems probable that God will judg[e] them.

Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ: Stated and Cleared by the late Learned Mr. Richard Baxter. Whereunto is added a short Account of Special Redemption, by the same Author (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising-Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 54.

Prop. LV. All that conditional Pardon with the means of Grace, and common Mercies which the Non-elect do actually receive in time, were purposed for them before time, and intended to them as Fruits of Christs Death; and so far even in regard of his Purpose de eventu applicationis, Christ may be said to Die for them, (besides the foresaid satisfaction:) For God being Rector per Leges deals with men on Law terms, and gives Mercies, and Executes Justice only according to his Laws. He would not so much as relax the Old Law for the pardon of any Sin, but by a new Law, which is Lex Remedians. But the old Law being broken, God can shew no mercy now according to its tenour: It must be therefore according to the Law of Grace and from it, that all men receive their Mercies; and consequently from the Blood of that Covenant, which is the ground thereof, and by which Apostates are said to have been sanctified, Heb. 10.

Baxter, Universal Redemption, 64.

I mean, all Men that hear of Christ, are bound to love him as Redeemer, and be thankful to him for making satisfaction for them, and those that never heard of him are bound to love Deum Miserecordem, God as merciful to them and to be thankful for those mercies which are the Fruits of Christ’s Death.

Baxter, Universal Redemption, 147.

And therefore as none can deny but the Non-Elect have common grace, as Conditional Pardon, Illumination, the Holy Ghost, &c. (else how do they turn grace into wantonness?) so none can well deny but they have it from the general Fountain of Redemption.

Baxter, Universal Redemption, 416.

The Preaching of the Gospel expressly, is a fruit of Christ’s Death: Some have this in great power, clearness and constancy; some but weakly, darkly, or seldom; and some not at all. Shall they that have been at one or two dark Sermons of Christ in all their Lives say, That either Christ Died not for them, or else was an imperfect Saviour? Some are endowed with the gift of Prophecy, Tongues, Miracles, as fruits of Christ’s Death; shall all that receive not these say, that Christ is an imperfect Saviour, because he gave them none of these fruits of his Death? Some are made Kings and Rulers, and some Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, &c. and all are fruits of Christs Death:…

Baxter, Universal Redemption, 426.

8. John Owen (1616–1683):

The fruits of Christ’s mediation have been distinguished by some into those that are more general and those which are more peculiar, which, in some sense, may be tolerable; but that the offices of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and himself in relation to them so considered, is a gross, unshapen fancy.

John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” in The Works of John Owen, 16 vols., ed. William H. Goold (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1850), 10:189.

On the other side, it is most certain,—First, That there are no spiritual distinguishing fruits of redemption ascribed to these false teachers [in 2 Pet. 2:1], but only common gifts of light and knowledge, which Christ hath purchased for many for whom he did not make his soul a ransom.

Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” Works, 10:362.

Note: Trueman wrote: “It is quite clear from the second quotation that Owen does allow that Christ’s atonement involves the provision of common grace, even if the details of how they relate to each other are omitted…” Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Paternoster Press, 1998; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021), 231. Elsewhere Owen wrote: “Now, the common grace of unregenerate persons, whereby they are distinguished from other men, whatever it be, it hath not this especial relation to the oblation and intercession of Christ. Common grace is not the procurement of especial intercession.” John Owen, “A Practical Exposition Upon Psalm CXXX: Verse Fourth,” in Works, 6:586.

9. Thomas Manton (1620–1677):

But you say, I could take comfort in these things if I knew that my sins were laid upon Christ; it is only the sins of the elect are laid upon Christ.

Ans. The text saith, ‘The iniquities of us all.’

Doct. That Christ is set forth in the gospel, as having all men’s sins laid upon him. The word carrieth it in such a general way, that none is excepted, and there are very many other places to confirm it, where Christ is said to reconcile the world: 2 Cor. 5:19, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself;’ and to ‘taste death for every man,’ Heb. 2:9; and to ‘die for all,’ It is good to mark that: 2 Cor. 5:14, ‘If one died for all.’ I shall come to the reasons why Christ is proposed so generally.

1. Because all men in some sort have benefit by him. So far Christ suffered his Father’s wrath that was due to all men’s sins, that in a large sense they have benefit by him. All the common mercies we enjoy we have by virtue of Christ’s death. You know how the threatening ran, ‘In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die,’ Gen. 2:17; nay, it is ‘surely die.’ And all mankind might have been lost; but yet you see the absolute accomplishment of the sentence, even to wicked men, is referred to the day of judgment. The worst, at least, enjoy a reprieve by Christ. In this sense it is said, 1 Tim. 4:10, ‘We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe.’ Such as is spoken of, Ps. 36:6, ‘O Lord, thou preservest man and beast;’ by a common salvation and preservation. And the word σωτῆρ, which is usually applied to Christ as Mediator, is used there to hint that it cometh by Christ; though it be a common mercy, it is from him. Thus it is said, Eph. 1:10, ‘That in the dispensation of the fulness of time he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.’ Some understand it of collecting the scattered parts of the world, and renewing the creature, which, had it not been for Christ, would have been lost. As an orator collects the heads of a discourse, that nothing be lost, and bringeth it into one sum. So the heathens, all their mercies come to them swimming in the blood of Christ; so the word, ordinances, covenant, and outward graces to the church. Thus he suffered for the sins of the whole world, that the whole should enjoy these common favours and blessings by him.

2. Because there is a sufficiency in the merits of Christ for all, so that if it had pleased God to give Christ to all mankind, his justice had been sufficiently satisfied. For there is no defect in the Redeemer, and therefore there are so many general expressions in scripture to set out the value of Christ’s sacrifice; so that if there were ten thousand times more sins committed than there are, here is enough to expiate them all, the person that suffered being so eminent, and the sufferings so great and infinite. Those that perish do not perish out of any defect or insufficiency in the merit of Christ, as if enough were not done to save them; but out of their own fault, because they did not believe it. Thus it is said, 1 Cor. 15:22, ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;’ that is, as there was a sufficiency in Adam, the first common person, to ruin all his posterity, so there was a sufficiency in Christ to save all that Adam ruined; for it must needs be understood so, for take it literally and it is against all common experience. Many know not Christ, many hate him and will not come unto him: ‘Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life;’ Rom. 5:18, ‘Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.’ The text proveth nothing but that there was as much sufficiency in Christ to justify, as there was in Adam to condemn. That we may not have too low and undervaluing thoughts of Christ’s sufferings, the scripture speaks thus generally: there is enough for me and thee, and all the world. It is a great injury done to Christ to lessen and extenuate him beneath Adam, as if he were not as able to recover as the other to ruin us.

3. Therefore it is expressed thus generally, that all conditions of men might be included. God would not have any enclosure of his mercy within the bounds of any nation, persons, and conditions of men, that he might take off all outward exceptions, and comprise every believer, of what condition and rank soever; and therefore he expresseth himself promiscuously to all of every state, every nation, every order. It is the nature of man to confine privileges to their own nation and order. We would be singular and shine alone, and have none share with us; envy, I say, grudgeth at the commonest mercies. We see in common things nothing is so welcome to us as that which we enjoy alone. The Romans would be the only civil nation, all else were barbarians. The Romish clergy would have all learning and knowledge confined within their function; and the Jews could not endure to hear of a general salvation for other nations. It was the harshest note that could be sounded in their ears, that Christ died for all. It is much urged by the apostle, because of the rage of the Jews, for the enlargement of the pale of God’s church. Therefore I conceive the apostle did inculcate, and so largely insist upon it, to meet with this perverseness of the Jews, as that which they would never hear of. In this sense it is said, Heb. 2:9, he ‘tasted death for every man;’ and so 1 John 2:2, ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world;’ that is, not only for us Jews, but for all the world, even of all places, orders, and ranks. God would not have the creatures envy it to any man, he proposeth it so generally to take away that Jewish indignation against the Gentiles. Therefore the apostles do so plentifully abound in these expressions.

4. That no man might accuse God as if he had not made sufficient provision for his soul. Men are apt to transfer their guilt; though they will not charge Christ with it in a way of faith, they will charge God with it in a way of censure; as Prov. 19:3, ‘The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against the Lord.’ It is their own folly and unbelief, and we are apt to impute it to God, as if he did not intend Christ to us. Now there would be more occasion offered, if the Lord should have pointed out by name those to whom he intended Christ. God keepeth it secret what he will do with men, that he may provoke them to endeavours after duty, leaving themselves to his good pleasure. No man can plead now, as an excuse for his negligence, that God left him out; it is we leave out ourselves; and therefore the proposal and offer of Christ is general. God hath expressed enough of his will to show man his duty, though not enough of his will to tell man his pleasure and secret intention. Now the will of God concerning any particular person is hidden. Men would fain excuse themselves of duty by prying into God’s secrets. God giveth a check to such curious impudence, by making the proposal and offer of Christ general, though his intentions to give Christ may be particular; yet we must not meddle with that. Foolish curiosity proceeds from an innate desire in the creature to charge God with all its miscarriages: Deut. 29:29, ‘Secret things belong unto the Lord, but those things which are revealed belong to us, and our children for ever.’ The proposal of Christ in the gospel, that is a revealed thing, and it belongeth to the creatures. God would have it carried so as rather typing out duty to them than revealing his own purposes; he would not give the creature such an occasion to murmur.

Thomas Manton, “A Practical Exposition upon the Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah: The Sixth Verse,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 3:328–30.

3. Salvation is either temporal or eternal.

[1.] Temporal salvation, when we are saved from the dangers incident to the present life. In this notion it is taken 1 Peter 3:20, ‘Wherein eight souls were saved by water;’ which can be meant of no other than temporal salvation, for cursed Ham was one of them; therefore it is meant of safety from the outward judgment. I cannot say but that sometimes we have temporal preservation by the death of Christ. All our common mercies are the fruit of his mediatorial satisfaction. The world would not have stood so long as it doth, nor the wicked enjoy so many forfeited mercies, but in consideration of the death of Christ. But the great salvation which the gospel holdeth forth unto us is eternal salvation, Heb. 5:9, that body and soul may be eternally safe in those blessed mansions which he hath prepared for us. Freedom from the evils of the present life is ascribed to Christ. We need not build a temple, as the heathens did, Deæ saluti, to the goddess of safety; when they were saved and delivered from dangers in their temples, they did offer sacrifices called salvation-offerings. No; ‘Salvation belongeth unto the Lord,’ Ps. 3:8. Christians are taught to direct their praises and thanksgivings to a better object: Ps. 68:19, 20, ‘Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with his benefits, even the God of our salvation. He that is our God is the God of salvation, and unto God the Lord belong the issues of death.’

Thomas Manton, “Sermons upon Ephesians 5: Sermon XXVIII,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 19:453.

Fourthly, Our cure must not be disturbed, to which many sorts of grace are necessary.

1. General and particular grace. There are some common benefits, as the offer of a new covenant to all sinners: Mark 16:16, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;’ John 3:16, ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish;’ 2 Cor. 5:19, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.’ This common grace must not be neglected. Then peculiar grace to the elect: John 6:37, ‘All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.’ Special grace is built on general, as the application to us upon the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and ransom, and the offer of the covenant.

Thomas Manton, “Sermons upon 2 Thessalonians 1: Sermon XII,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 20:310.

(2.) Consider God’s goodness in giving thee food, and clothing, and honour, and gladness of heart, and all this without thy desert. Say, Certainly all these benefits are but so many baits to catch my soul. I see the sun riseth every day with a fresh countenance, and shineth upon the fields of just and unjust; to what purpose, but to show that God is gracious without hire? This bodily sun is but an obscure type of the Sun of Righteousness, that is willing to display his beams and wings over a poor languishing soul. Common mercies are the tastes of God’s love while you are sinners, and the common fruits of Christ’s death, that you may be invited to come for more. Why hath he given me ‘the unrighteous mammon,’ but that I may look after ‘the true riches’? What a vile unthankful heart should I have, if I should be contented with mammon without Christ, and be like Judas, with the bag in my hand, and the devil in my heart! God’s children are wont to make these gifts a step to higher dispensations: they know God, like the good householder, bringeth forth the best at last; therefore they must have something above and beyond all these things. Common hearts are contented with common mercies; but they are still waiting when the master of the feast will bid them sit higher. I may have this and be damned; where are the arguments of his special love?

Thomas Manton, “A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Notes on the Epistle of Jude,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 5:62.

10. James Durham (1622–1658):

Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ’s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ’s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy and that Christ’s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at.

James Durham, Christ Crucified: The Marrow of the Gospel in 72 Sermons on Isaiah 53 (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 2001), 343–44. On the same pages (or p. 235 in the 1683 second edition), Durham said, “all men as they are partakers of any mercy, or common favours, may be said to have grace extended to them…”

Note: See Berkhof below, and his reference to James Walker (1821–1891). Berkhof seems to have been misled by Walker’s account of Durham on this point.

11. Edward Polhill (1622–1694):

Thus this price is redemptive from evil, but

2. This price is procurative of good. Infinity is a boundless ocean, and may run over in effects as far as it pleaseth; infinite power might have run over in making millions of worlds more, and infinite mercy might have run over in saving millions of sinners more. The price of redemption hath a kind of infinity in it; no wonder then if after remotion of evils, it run over by its transcendent excess of value in the procuration of good; such was the glorious redundance and super-effluence of its merit, that it paid divine justice to the last mite, and over and besides made a purchase of three worlds; I mean the lower world of nature, the middle world of grace, and the upper world of glory.

1. As to the world of nature, Christ procured two things.
1. The standing of it.
2. The deliverance of it.

1. The standing of it, and that in a threefold respect.

1. The standing of it in being. Sin filled it with so much spiritual stench and rottenness, that the power of the Holy One would not have endured to have been there supporting and bearing it up in being, if the death of Christ had not been ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας, a sweet-smelling savour, (Eph. 5:2), to perfume and sweeten it; the world was as it were new founded by the cross, or else sin, that abomination of desolation, would have dashed it down about the sinner’s ears; justice (if unsatisfied) would not have spared so much as the stage whereon sin was acted, but hurled it down into its first nullity. Christ upholdeth all things by the word of his power, (Heb. 1:3). Before sin’s entry they stood merely by the word of his power; but since, they stand not without the blood of his cross. Redemption is the great buttress of creation; as it rears up the little world after its fall, so it keeps up the great world from falling.

2. The standing of it in order. When the prophet describes God’s judgments, he speaks as if the whole chaos were come again; “Lo! the earth was without form and void,” (Jer. 4:23). All the orders and harmonies in nature were at first set by the wisdom of God, and afterwards cemented by the blood of God, or else sin would have unframed all. By Christ all things consist, (Col. 1:17), not only subsist in their beings, but consist in their orders.

3. The standing of it in its usefulness to us. Sin was the blast and forfeiture, but Christ is the purchaser and heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2), and in and through him all are as it were new-given to us. We became such wretches by sin, that the earth would not have bore our persons, if Christ had not bore our iniquities? the sun in the firmament would not have lighted the material world, if the sun of righteousness had not appeared in the spiritual; these lower heavens would not have spun out a day for us, if Christ had not purchased the upper ones of glory; the blood of creatures should never have been shed for the life of our bodies, if the blood of God had not been poured out for the life of our souls. Under the law, before harvest began the Passover was killed; at harvest a sheaf of the first fruits was brought to the priest to be offered to God; and after harvest there was the feast of tabernacles to bless God for the fruits of the earth, which by the Jews was kept with booths and hosannahs. Had not Christ our Passover been sacrificed for us, there would have been no harvest of creature-blessings at all; and now that there is one, the praise of every sheaf must be brought to Christ the high-priest of good things, and in and through him offered up to God; therefore, there is a spiritual feast of tabernacles under the gospel, (Zach. 14:16). Whilst we sit under the booths of the creature, we must sing hosannahs to the Son of God, who tabernacled in our flesh, and in it merited all comforts for us. Every bough of nature hangs upon his cross, every crumb of bread swims in his blood, every grape of blessing grows on his crown of thorns, and all the sweetness in nature streams out of his vinegar and gall. A right-born Christian is the best philosopher, for he sees the sun of righteousness in the luminaries of heaven, the waterings of Christ’s blood in the fruits of the earth, the word incarnate in creature-nourishment, and the riches of Christ in all the riches of nature. All are ours, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

2. Christ by this price procured the deliverance of it. God made the house of the world for man, and whilst there is sin in the inhabitant, the curse-mark is on the house: the heavens wax old, as if there were moths in them, the stars have their malignant aspects, the earth hath its thorns and thistles, and the whole creation groans and travels with an universal vanity; the sun groans out his light on the workers of darkness, the air groans with vollies of oaths and blasphemies, and the earth groans forth its corn and wine into the lap of the riotous; and as sin grows heavier, so the creature-groans wax louder every day. But at last in and through Christ, there shall be ἁποκατάσασἰς πάντων, a restitution of all things, (Acts 3:21), the balm of his blood will perfectly heal all the stabs and wounds in the body of nature; the groaning and travailing creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, (Rom. 8:21); there shall be “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness,” (2 Pet. 3:13), and all the steps and traces of the old curse shall be razed out of the world.

Thus Christ hath purchased the world of nature; but this (as appears by the purchaser’s own προστεθήσεται, (Matth. 6:33), is not the main bargain, but the casting in or overplus thereof; therefore,

2. Christ by this price purchased the world of grace. Grace may be considered two ways; either as it is in the map or charter of the gospel, or as it is in the subject or receptacle of the heart; and both ways it is Christ’s purchase.

1. Grace in the map or charter is the covenant of grace, comprised in the promises, called the covenant of promise, (Eph. 2:12). In this covenant there are promises reaching down as low as the world of nature, and promises reaching up as high as the world of glory, and betwixt these two run the promises which water the world of grace, and these are either promises of grace such as those, “I will give an heart to know me, (Jer. 24:7); “I will circumcise the heart to love me,” (Deut. 30:6). “I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts,” (Heb. 8:10); “I will give a new heart and a new spirit: I will take away the stony heart, and give a heart of flesh.” (Ezek. 36:26); or else I they are promises to grace, such as those, God will justify the believer, (Rom. 3:26), beautify the meek with salvation, (Psal. 149:4), dwell in a broken heart, (Isai. 57:15), comfort the mourners, fill the hungry, and be seen of the pure in heart, (Matth. 5:4, 6, 8). Now all these promises are the purchase of Christ, and the whole covenant made up of them is the New Testament in his blood, (1 Cor. 11:25). Without his satisfactory blood there would have been no room for promises, no, not for the least twinkling of a promise to the sons of men; for unsatisfied justice would have hurried all to hell. All the promises issue out to us in and through Christ, the rivers of life gushed out of the true rock, the gospel-wine ran forth from the true vine; if God meet us and commune with us in words of grace, we must thank the true propitiatory, or mercy-seat, for every syllable.

2. Grace in the proper seat or receptacle of it is Christ’s purchase; and this I shall make out,

1. In general. Christ purchased the Spirit of all grace. There is a double oblation of Christ: a personal oblation on the cross, and that is meritum spiritûs; and a doctrinal oblation in the gospel, and that is ministerium spiritûs; and so the “Holy Ghost is shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ,” (Tit. 3:6); “Christ ascended up on high that he might fill all things,” (Eph. 4:10). One would have thought that his descent should rather have done it; but he ascended up in the glory of his merits, he carried up all the purchase-money to his Father’s house, and from thence the Spirit came pouring down upon men; some droppings of it were before, but then it was richly poured out; it came down in cloven fiery tongues, and a rushing mighty wind, (Acts 2:2, 3); tongues to utter magnalia Dei, and above all, the master-piece of redemption, and cloven tongues to utter them to all nations, in their own language, and fiery tongues to enlighten and inflame the auditors’ hearts with the knowledge and love of Christ, and a mighty rushing wind to blow home that fire strongly and insuperably in a thorough conversion; and all this was shed forth from Christ. (Ver. 33.) Never any tongue truly preached Christ, but by a secret touch from him; never any holy fire kindled on the heart, but by a coal from his altar; never any gales of grace on the soul, but from the breathings of his Spirit; not one drop of his blood is spiritless, but full fraught and flowing with the spirit of life.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1844), 158–59.

12. Francis Turretin (1623–1687):

XI. (3) We do not inquire [Non Quaeritur] whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God’s word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionably flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. Rather the question is whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were (by the counsel of God and the will of Christ himself) intended for each and every one (as they hold); or for the elect only (as we assert).

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. G. M. Giger, ed. J. T. Dennison, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 2:459 [Loc. XIV, Q. 14, § 11].

Note: See also p. lx and the entry on John Ball above.

13. Stephen Charnock (1628–1680):

The power of God is more manifest in his patience to a multitude of sinners, than it could be in creating millions of worlds out of nothing; this was the δυνατὸν αὑτοῦ, a power over himself.

5. This patience being a branch of mercy, the exercise of it is founded in the death of Christ. Without the consideration of this, we can give no account why divine patience should extend itself to us, and not to the fallen angels. The threatening extends itself to us as well as to the fallen angels. The threatening must necessarily have sunk man, as well as those glorious creatures, had not Christ stepped in to our relief. Had not Christ interposed to satisfy the justice of God, man upon his sin had been actually bound over to punishment, as well as the fallen angels were upon theirs, and been fettered in chains as strong as those spirits feel [Testard. de Natur. et Grat. thes. 119]. The reason why man was not hurled into the same deplorable condition upon his sin, as they were, is Christ’s promise of taking our nature, and not theirs. Had God designed Christ’s taking their nature, the same patience had been exercised towards them, and the same offers would have been made to them, as are made to us. In regard of the fruits of his patience, Christ is said to buy the wickedest apostates from him: 2 Peter 2:1 ‘Denying the Lord that bought them;’ such were bought by him as ‘bring upon themselves just destruction, and whose damnation slumbers not,’ ver. 3; he purchased the continuance of their lives, and the stay of their execution, that offers of grace might be made to them. This patience must be either upon the account of the law or the gospel, for there are no other rules whereby God governs the world; a fruit of the law it was not, that spake nothing but curses after disobedience; not a letter of mercy was writ upon that, and therefore nothing of patience.

Death and wrath was denounced, no slowness to anger intimated. It must be therefore upon the account of the gospel, and a fruit of the covenant of grace, whereof Christ was mediator. Besides, this perfection being God’s ‘waiting that he might be gracious,’ Isa. 30:18, that which made way for God’s grace made way for his waiting to manifest it. God discovered not his grace but in Christ, and therefore discovered not his patience but in Christ; it is in him he met with the satisfaction of his justice, that he might have a ground for the manifestation of his patience. And the sacrifices of the law, wherein the life of a beast was accepted for the sin of a man, discovered the ground of his forbearance of them to be the expectation of the great sacrifice, whereby sin was to be completely expiated, Gen. 8:21. The publication of his patience to the end of the world is presently after the sweet savour he found in Noah sacrifice. The promised and designed coming of Christ was the cause of that patience God exercised before in the world; and his gathering the elect together is the reason of his patience since his death.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse upon God’s Patience (Nahum 1:3),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, 5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 2:509. See also W. G. T. Shedd’s reference to this below.

(2.) Man is to be considered as respited from the present suffering this sentence by the intervention of Christ; whereby he is put into another way of probation. So those common notions in our understandings, and common motions in our wills and affections, so far as they have anything of moral goodness, are a new gift to our natures by virtue of the mediation of Christ. In which sense he may be said to ‘taste death for every man,’ Heb. 2:9, and be ‘a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.’ By virtue of which promised death, some sparks of moral goodness are preserved in man. Thus his ‘life was the light of men;’ and he is ‘the light that lightens every man that comes into the world,’ which sets the candle of the Lord in the spirit of man a-burning and sparkling, John 1:9, and upholds all things by his mediatory as well as divine power, Heb. 1:3, which else would have sunk into the abyss. By virtue of this mediation, some power is given back to man, as a new donation, yet not so much as that he is able by it to regenerate himself; and whatsoever power man hath, is originally from this cause, and grows not up from the stock of nature, but from common grace.

Which common grace is either,

[1.] More general, to all men. Whereby those divine sparks in their understandings, and whatsoever is morally praiseworthy in them, is kept up by the grace of God, which was the cause that Christ tasted death for every man: Heb. 2:9, ‘That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man;’ whereby the apostle seems to intimate, that by this grace, and this death of Christ, any remainders of that honour and glory wherewith God crowned man at first are kept upon his head; as will appear, if you consider the eighth Psalm, whence the apostle cites the words which are the ground of his discourse of the death of Christ.

[2.] More particular common grace, to men under the preaching of the gospel. Which grace men ‘turn into wantonness’ or lasciviousness, Jude 4. Grace they had, or the gospel of grace, but the wantonness of their nature prevailed against the intimations of grace to them. Besides this common grace, there is a more special grace to the regenerate, the more peculiar fruit of Christ’s mediation and death for them. All this, and whatsoever else you can conceive that hath but a face of comeliness in man, is not the birth of fallen nature abstracted from this mediation. Therefore when the Gentiles are said to ‘do by nature the things contained in the law,’ it is not to be understood of nature merely as fallen, for that could do no such thing; but of nature in this new state of probation, by the interposition of Christ the mediator, whose powerful word upheld all things, and kept up those broken fragments of the two tables of law, though dark and obscure. And considering God’s design of setting forth the gospel to the world, there was a necessity of those relics, both in the understanding, and affections, and desire for happiness, to render men capable of receiving the gospel, and those inexcusable that would reject it. So that by this mediation of Christ, the state of mankind is different since the fall from that of the evil angels or devils. For man hath, first, a power of doing that which is in its own nature good; secondly, a power of doing good with a good intention; not indeed supremely for the glory of God, but for the good of his country, the good of his neighbours, the good of the world, which was necessary for the soldering together human societies, so that sometimes even in sins man hath good intentions. Whereas the devil doth always that which in its own nature is evil, and always sins with evil intentions [Dr Jackson, vol. ii. fol. p. 3091]. Without this mediation, every man had been as very a slave to sin as the devil; though he be naturally a slave to sin, yet not in that full measure the devil is, unless left in a judicial manner by God upon high provocations.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of the Efficient of Regeneration (John 1:13),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, 5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 3:210–211.

1. Let us not judge ourselves by a general love. As there is a general love of God to man, a general love of Christ to mankind in dying, and giving a conditional grant of salvation upon faith and repentance, and a particular love to the soul of a believer, so likewise in man there is a general assent, and a particular serious assent to the truth of God, and accordingly a general love upon the apprehensions of what Christ hath done in general. There is a common love to God, which may be so called, because the benefits enjoyed by men are owned as coming from that fountain; a love arising from the apprehensions which men commonly have of the goodness of God in himself, and a common love wrought in them to God, as to other things that are good. Again, men may have a false faith, and a false apprehension of pardon of sin, when indeed no such pardon is granted to them; so they may have proportionally a false love upon such an ungrounded belief.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of the Subjects of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:28, 29),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, 5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 4:464.

14. Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633–1698):

Heidegger (XIX, 91): “Although certain benefits do also redound to some, who are actually perishing, being called outwardly because of Christ’s death and the preaching of the Gospel consequent thereon, but tend rather to ἀναπολόγησις and increase in damnation than to their salvation, Heb. 6:4–5 (As touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fall away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance). 2 Pet. 2:20 (if after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse than the first) Christ none the less laid down his life as the price and sacrifice of satisfaction not for them but for the elect alone. For them alone he offered himself, them alone he redeemed by the price of his blood.”

Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 479.

15. Jacob Janeway (1636–1674):

Nor do we hesitate to admit, that all mankind, as well as those who live under the gospel’s light, have been benefitted by the Redeemer’s death. Blessings have flowed from this precious fountain of mercy to our sinful world, that would, if Christ had not died, have been withheld.

Jacob J. Janeway, “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement Illustrated and Defended (1840),” in A Series of Tracts on the Doctrines, Order, and Polity of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 10 vols. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842), 1:16.

16. Herman Witsius (1636–1708):

IV. 3. The suretiship and satisfaction of Christ, have also been an occasion of much good even to the reprobate. For it is owing to the death of Christ, that the gospel is preached to every creature, that gross idolatry is abolished in many parts of the world, that hellish impiety is much restrained by the discipline of the word of God, that they obtain at times many and excellent, though not saving, gifts of the Holy Spirit, that they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ [2 Pet. ii. 20]. And who can in short enumerate all those things, which they enjoy, not by accident only, beside the intention of God and of Christ, but by the determinate purpose of God? Not indeed a design and purpose of saving them according to the testament; but from a view to show his long-suffering towards the vessels of wrath, that is, those who are to perish, who dwell among those who are to be saved. For, with respect to the intention of God, nothing falls out by accident. Every thing happens according to his determinate counsel.

Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vols., trans. William Crookshank, D. D. (Edinburgh: Printed by Thomas Turnbull, 1803), 1:361–62. Also in The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, 2 vols., trans. William Crookshank, D. D. (London, 1822; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 1:256–57; Oeconomia Foederum Dei, 2.11.4.

17. John Edwards (1637–1716):

First then, It may thus far be truly said that Christ died for the whole Race of Mankind, in as much as they all reap some Advantage by his Death. His dying doth in some sort reach every individual Person. Even Reprobates are kept out of Hell for a time, and many Favours are bestowed upon them whilst they are here on Earth. They fare the better for the Elect, for whom Christ’s Death was design’d.

Secondly, There is no doubt that Christ died for all, if we respect the Virtue and Dignity of his Death. His precious Blood was the Price that was pay’d and it was sufficient to make Expiation for the Sins and Transgressions of all Men. His Death, as to its intrinsic Merit, and in itself consider’d, was of that infinite value, that it was able to satisfy for the Sins of the whole World, and many more if they had been created.

Thirdly, and Lastly, Tho’ (as it hath been said) all Persons receive some benefit by Christ’s Death, and he may be said to die for all Men in respect of the infinite Value of his meritorious Sacrifice, it having Virtue enough in it to save all Mankind, yet it must be asserted as a sure Truth, That he died for a certain number of Persons only, with an intention to redeem them, and save them, and make them everlastingly happy; and all others are excluded and debarr’d from these Benefits of Christ’s Death. His Undertakings were not designed to reach all Persons, he laid down his Life not to redeem and save all, but some select Persons only.

John Edwards, Veritas redux. Evangelical TRUTHS Restored: […] BEING THE First PART of the Theological TREATISES< which are to compose a Large BODY OF CHRISTIAN DIVINITY (London: Printed for Jonathan Robinson, John Lawrence, and John Wyat, 1707), 383–84.

18. John Alcock (fl. 1647; M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge):

Quest. Is not the remedy sufficient to redeeme all mankind that had fallen through Adams transgression?

Answ. It is sufficient doubtlesse, being a price of an infinite value, and all men are thereby set in a possibility of salvation, and as we said before all men enjoy good by Christ, yet notwithstanding, God did not purpose nor intend to give his Sonne to death, to redeeme all mankind, and so to save them for ever, but only for those whom he had elected and made choice of, to be vessells of mercy, in his wisdome from all eternity, the Lords workes and doings are unchangeable.

John Alcock, Plain Trvths of Divivinity [sic] […] (London: Printed for J. K. And are to be sold at the signe of the white horse in Pauls Church-yard, 1647), 58–59.

19. Westminster Assembly Minutes (c.1647):

The Assembly [in Sess. 844 on May 17th, 1647—Monday morning] proceeded in debate of the Catechism, and upon debate it was
Resolved upon the Q., These two questions and answers,
‘Q. Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ?
A. Although from Christ some common favours redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of his mediation but only such as are members of the church invisible.
‘Q. What common favours redound from Christ to all mankind? A. Besides much forbearance and many supplies for this life, which all mankind receive from Christ as Lord of all, they by him are made capable of having salvation tendered to them by the gospel, and are under such dispensations of providence and operations of the Spirit as lead to repentance,‘—
shall stand for debate in order to the Catechism.

Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines […] (Edinburgh; London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), 369.

20. Thomas Beverley (d. 1702):

The ends of God’s constituting this one man as a common head, even his Son our Lord Jesus Christ are:

1. That he might have in human nature an adoption of many sons to glory in this great Son of God and Son of Man, Heb. 2:10.

2. There is a redundancy of benefit, Common Grace, other advantages upon all parts of human nature in preserving so much of the remains of conformity to the Law of Righteousness in the world, which would only condemn as in hell, and not guide any thing good, but turn the world into a hell, were it not for Christ, in whom also much of patience, and bounty is vouchsafed to men in outward blessings, essaying their return to God by repentance [Rom. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9.] in hopes of his mercy, to which this patience, and bounty give so great encouragements.

This shows the admirable congruity to our case, to have our help laid upon so mighty, and near a mediator, as Emmanuel, God with us.

Thomas Beverley, A Brief View of the State of Mankind in the First Adam and in the Second Adam ([London : s.n., 1690]), 38–40.

VII. Circa 18th Century:

1. Johannes à Marck (Marckius; 1656–1731):

Ex Bonis ad Pereuntes redundantibus ex Oblatione Christi; quale est Euangelii praeconium, Idolotriae ablatio, Spiritus illuminatio, &c.

Johannis Marckii, Compendium theologiae Christianae didactico elencticum, 3rd ed. (Amstelaedami: Apud R. & G. Wetstenius, 1722), 407.

Note: Marckius seems to be echoing Turretin’s thoughts on the matter. See Turretin above, and also the entry on Herman Kuiper (1889–1963) below for a brief overview on Marckius’s writings on the matter.

2. Thomas Ridgely (c.1667–1734):

2. It is allowed, by those who deny the extent of Christ’s death to all men, as to what concerns their salvation, that it may truly be said, that there are, as the consequence of Christ’s death, some blessings redounding to the whole world, and more especially to those who sit under the sound of the gospel. It is owing to the death of Christ that the day of God’s patience is lengthened out; that the preaching of the gospel is continued to those who are favoured with it; and that this is attended, in many, with restraining grace, and some instances of external reformation, which, though they may not issue in salvation, have a tendency to prevent a multitude of sins, and a greater degree of condemnation which would otherwise ensue. These may be called the remote or secondary ends of Christ’s death. Though it was principally and immediately designed to redeem the elect, and to purchase all saving blessings for them, which shall be applied in his own time and way; yet others are, in consequence, made partakers of some blessings of common providence, so far as they are subservient to the salvation of those for whom he gave himself a ransom.

Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 519.

3. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):

3. There is good evidence, that there were blessings implied in the benedictions God pronounced on Noah and his posterity, which were granted on a new foundation: on the foot of a dispensation diverse from any grant, promise, or revelation, which God gave to Adam, antecedently to his fall; even on the foundation of the Covenant of Grace, established in Christ Jesus; a dispensation, the design of which is to deliver men from the curse, that came upon them by Adam’s sin, and to bring them to greater blessings than ever he had. These blessings were pronounced on Noah and his seed, on the same foundation, whereon afterwards the blessing was pronounced on Abraham and his seed, which included both spiritual and temporal benefits. Noah had his name prophetically given him by his father Lamech, because by him and his seed deliverance should be obtained from the curse, which came by Adam’s fall. (Gen. 5:29), “And he called his name Noah (i.e. rest), saying, this same shall comfort us concerning our work, and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.” Pursuant to the scope and intent of this prophecy (which indeed seems to respect the same thing with the prophecy in Gen. 3:15) are the blessings pronounced on Noah after the flood. There is this evidence of these blessings being conveyed through the channel of the Covenant of Grace, and by the redemption through Jesus Christ, that they were obtained by sacrifice; or were bestowed as the effect of God’s favor to mankind, which was in consequence of God’s smelling a sweet savor in the sacrifice which Noah offered. And ’tis very evident by the epistle to the Hebrews, that the ancient sacrifices never obtained the favor of God, but only by virtue of the relation they had to the sacrifice of Christ. That now Noah and his family had been so wonderfully saved from the wrath of God, which had destroyed the rest of the world, and that the world was as it were restored from a ruined state, this was a proper occasion to point to the great salvation to come by Christ: as it was a common thing, for God, on occasion of some great temporal salvation of his people, or restoration from a low and miserable state, to renew the intimations of the great spiritual restoration of the world by Christ’s redemption. God deals with the generality of mankind, in their present state, far differently, on occasion of the redemption by Jesus Christ, from what he otherwise would do: for, being capable subjects of saving mercy, they have a day of patience and grace, and innumerable temporal blessings bestowed on them; which, as the Apostle signifies (Acts 14:17), are testimonies of God’s reconcilableness to sinful men, to put ’em upon seeking after God.

Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, ed. John E. Smith and Clyde A. Holbrook, Corrected Edition., vol. 3 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1997), 414–15. Also in Jonathan Edwards, “The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1992), 1:227.

Note: In Jonathan Edwards, “the innumerable temporal blessings” come to “the generality of mankind” “on occasion of the redemption by Jesus Christ.” Notice also his citation of Acts 14:7 in relation to this, which involves rain, fruitful seasons, food, etc.

’Tis true Christ’s coming into the world to save sinners is an occasion of unbelievers and impenitent sinners having a reprieve given them from damnation. They are let alone for a while, judgment is not speedily exacted upon them, they have a day of patience allowed them wherein they have opportunity to accept of salvation. …

The coming of Christ into the world to die is the occasion that finally impenitent sinners have many outward good things bestowed upon them. If Christ had not come into the world to save sinners, we have no reason to think that God would have bestowed any outward mercies upon men, for then all mankind would have been under an unalterable sentence of everlasting destruction, would not have been capable subjects of salvation, but would have been as much cast off as the fallen angels. And no doubt all manner of gracious communication would have been cut off between heaven and earth. God’s giving of us so many outward fruits of his bounty is a testimony of his placableness and willingness to be reconciled to man and that he has not yet wholly cast mankind away.

But yet however Christ’s coming into the world to die be an occasion of wicked men’s and reprobates having so many outward good things yet they are no benefit to them, they do but set them for the slaughter, they serve Satan and their lusts with them and they will all be but as fuel to hell fire.

Christ’s coming into the world is an occasion of finally impenitent sinners having means of grace. …

Jonathan Edwards, “It Would Have Been Better for Some Persons If Christ Never Had Come into the World to Save Sinners (1 Pet 2:8),” in The Glory and Honor of God: Volume 2 of the Previously Unpublished Sermons of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Michael D. McMullen (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2004), 263–64.

VIII. Circa 19th Century:

1. William Symington (1764–1831):

V. By the atonement, a way is opened up for the honorable egress of divine mercy in the bestowment of salvation; sinners have ample encouragement to rely on this mercy; and foundation is laid for every pious emotion in the breasts of saints.

The exercise of mercy in consistency with the claims of justice, is the perplexing problem which only the doctrine of atonement solves. To the flow of the former the demands of the latter seem to present insuperable barriers. These demands must be satisfied, and, if satisfied in those on whom they primarily take hold, the way of mercy is necessarily shut up.

“Die man, or justice must, unless for him
Some other, able, or as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.”
It was the revelation of the all-momentous fact of Christ’s atoning death, that enabled the gifted poet to hint even at this method of extrication from the above dilemma. Nought else could supply a reconciling principle. No tears of penitence however copious, no prayers however fervent, no good works however sincere, could warrant “a just God” to “justify the ungodly.” The sufferings of Christ solve the difficulty; by these every obstruction to the consistent exercise of mercy is removed; the stream of the Lord’s blood has opened up a channel in which full, free, and abundant grace might flow unobstructedly and forever to the very chief of sinners. “God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing unto men their trespasses.” Not only is this the way by which God has seen meet to make an harmonious display of the perfections of his nature, but it may even, without presumption, be affirmed to be the only method by which he could do so. It is not, indeed, for us to limit the Mighty One, whose understanding is infinite. Yet, considering the constitution of things, and the peculiarity of the case, we may safely affirm, that the method which he has adopted is the best that could have been adopted; and, as it is impossible that a Being infinitely wise can do other than what is best, it follows that it was the only plan which even divine wisdom could employ. The necessity, be it observed, which is here supposed, is a moral necessity; and, in asserting that God could not save men otherwise than by the atonement of his Son, we no more impeach the perfection of his nature, than when we say that he cannot lie, cannot love sin, cannot contradict himself: we just affirm that he cannot but do what is best.

By the atonement every encouragement is held out to sinners to rely on the divine mercy in Christ for salvation. If the view which it exhibits of the rigors of justice and the inviolability of the law are fit to cause the sinner “meditate terror,” the view which it, at the same time, gives of the greatness of God’s mercy and of his willingness to save to the uttermost cannot but awaken hope. If God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, will he refuse such as come to him humbly soliciting pardon? The gift of his own Son is such a demonstration of his merciful design that no sinner need despair; and the merits of Jesus Christ, the intrinsic worth and sufficiency of his sacrifice, are sufficient to inspire the hope of forgiveness, even should our sins be in number as the sand of the sea, and in aggravation as crimson and scarlet. “It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, even the chief.” “He came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” No degree of guilt can exceed the worth, no depth of pollution surpass the cleansing virtue of the Saviour’s blood. To the timid, the conscience-stricken, the heavy-laden, the bowed down, he says, “Come unto me, and I will give you rest.” And even should “the whole head be sick and the whole heart faint, and from the sole of the foot even unto the crown of the head there be no soundness,” his call is still, “Come now and let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool.” Unbelief and despair are thus totally without excuse.

As the atonement is the hope of sinners, so is it also the source of every pious emotion in the breasts of saints. It is the very object of faith; “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” It is the spring of repentance; “they shall look on me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn.” The wisdom it displays, the amazing love it discloses, and the mighty power which it exhibits, are all fitted to fill the bosom with adoring wonder. Gratitude, the strongest gratitude, is awakened by a view of the magnitude of the blessings with which it is fraught, and the sacrifices which required to be made in order to secure them. Who that thinks of the Son of God, who, being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, yet made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;—who, that remembers that, though rich, for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich, but must feel impelled to “offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of his lips, giving thanks to his name?”—It is eminently fitted to warm the heart with love. We must love him who has so loved us as to give himself a ransom for our sins. Cold must be that heart, obtuse must be those affections, which are not kindled into an irrepressible glow by the atonement of Christ. The love of Christ must constrain all who rightly understand this subject, to love him in return. “Whom having not seen we love,” expresses the spontaneous feeling of every saint. No believer but will be willing to say, “Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.” This is indeed the test of personal Christianity. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.” “Love the Lord, all ye his saints.” How is it possible to come under the ardent rays of this burning love, and not feel induced to reflect its beams in kindred and reciprocal emotion! How is it possible for a gracious soul to treat love so dignified with neglect, love so free with ingratitude, love so productive with contempt, love so ardent with indifference, love so constant with even wavering affection!

Nor can anything be conceived better calculated to produce true humility, than the doctrine that man is utterly incapable of saving himself, and that such were his guilt, and corruption, and misery, that less could not suffice for his escape than the awful sufferings of the Son of God. Oh, who that duly considers this but must be deeply humbled and self-abased! What better fitted to stain the pride of human glory, and to fill with all lowliness of mind! The man who firmly believes and cordially embraces this truth, must see himself to be nothing, yea, and less than nothing. Self-righteousness, self-sufficiency, self-complacency, self-dependence can never be made to comport with Christ’s having given himself a ransom for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.

It is no way at variance with this, that the doctrine should be viewed as calculated to fill the soul with hope, and joy, and exulting triumph. No limits can be set to the rapturous gladness which it is its native tendency to inspire. In the lowest depth of his humiliation, the believing soul, looking forward to the blessings, and anticipating the triumphs the cross of Christ is destined to secure, rejoices in hope of the glory of Cod. Seeing in it every reason for the highest moral delight and complacency, and feeling that all besides is nothing in comparison, he takes up the passionate yet dignified avowal, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

William Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, 3rd ed. (New York: Robert Carter, 1847), 244–48.

VI. The atonement more or less affects all the divine dispensations toward our world.

Even the creation of the world, there is every reason to believe, was with the view of its being a theatre on which to exhibit the work of man’s redemption by the eternal Son. It is the workmanship of his hand. This is the purpose which it serves; and that it was framed with a view to its serving its purpose is surely no disputable assertion. Difficulties connected with that profound mystery, the origin of moral evil, may encumber this statement. But we are not bound to remove every difficulty from such a subject before being entitled to demand for it the assent of the mind. The apostle, in express terms, not only claims for Christ the honor of the world’s creation, but asserts the purpose of its creation to terminate in Him:—“All things were created by him, and for him.” He is the final as well as the efficient cause of this world’s creation. Our earth was selected as the chosen spot on which the mystery of redemption was to be displayed; and all the scenes of the mediatorial economy were here exhibited. The advent of the promised Messiah took place here; here was led his instructive life; here were wrought his wondrous miracles; here were spoken his still more wondrous addresses; here were borne his mysterious sufferings; here was accomplished his awful decease; and here were achieved his glorious victories over men and devils, over sin and death.

This is indeed the glory of our world. That it was the abode of Christ and the scene of redemption, throws over it a surpassing lustre, imparts to it a matchless honor. “It is the glory of the world that he who formed it dwelt in it; of the air, that he breathed it; of the sun, that it shone on him; of the ground, that it bore him; of the sea, that he walked on it; of the elements, that they nourished him; of the waters, that they refreshed him; of us men, that he lived and died among us, yea, that he lived and died for us” [M’Laurin]. Yes; and we may add, had it only been that it was stained with his blood, it was honored by him beyond all human conception.—It is through the atonement also, that the things of this world come to be properly enjoyed, as it lays a foundation for that covenant-right to their possession which is essential to all true enjoyment. The righteous enjoy the good things of the present life, because they know they are secured for them by the blood of Emmanuel, and are taught to use them as the provision of a temporary state, looking forward to a better and an enduring portion in the skies. And thus it is, that to them the rose of the garden appears to wear a deeper blush, and the lily of the field to reflect a purer tint, and the sun to shine with a richer splendor, and the morning star to sparkle with a brighter beam, because they are the handiworks, as they are the consecrated emblems, of him who died on Calvary.
———“One spirit—His,
Who wore the platted thorns with bleeding brows,
Rules universal nature. Not a flower
But shows some touch, in freckle, streak, or stain,
Of his unrivalled pencil.———
His presence who made all so fair, perceived,
Makes all still fairer.”

Cowper.
The dispensation of providence regards the atonement as its centre. Redemption is the grand central point of providence, and atonement is the central point of redemption. The whole apparatus of redemption owes its being and its efficacy to the death of Christ; and every movement of the complicated wheels of providence derives its impulse from redemption. Preceding events look forward, succeeding events point backward, and meet as in a common centre in the cross. The course of providence, for four thousand years before the advent of the Son of God, prepared the way for this stupendous event; and the train of occurrences since only serves to follow up the great design of his coming. “The Lord reigneth—the government is upon his shoulders.” “The world is. therefore, not a wandering star, abandoned in wrath, discarded from use, rushing to destruction, but is still held for a design, and turned to an account the most glorious. Its Maker has not denounced nor disowned his property. It may be a rebel, but he is still its sovereign: it may be a recusant, but he is still its Lord” [Hamilton’s Sermons].

The dispensation of mercy, in all its several stages, stands, of course, in intimate connection with the cross of Christ. Revelation, the record of these progressive dispensations, is everywhere sprinkled with the blood of atonement. History, type, prophecy, song, epistle, all breathe the sweet-smelling savor of this one theme; and their varied contents derive a character of unity from this pervading circumstance.

From Adam to Moses, the practice of sacrificing, we have seen, existed. Adam, Abel, Noah, Lot, Abraham, all presented their burnt-offerings, which, from the substance of which they consisted, and the language in which they were spoken of. appear to have been both designed and understood to prefigure the great Christian Expiation. Without this they have no meaning, no worth; but are a cruel mockery of man’s misery, and a deception of human hopes.

The Mosiac economy had innumerable rites and institutions, calculated to convey distinct ideas of propitiation and vicarious suffering. But, without the atonement of Christ, they were meaningless, useless, hurtful all. The whole system was nothing better than a pompous parade of gaudy ceremonies: a criminal waste of valuable property; a wanton infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient unoffending creatures. The atonement of Christ is what gives it all its significancy, utility, and consistency.

The peculiarity of the New Testament dispensation consists in a free, full, unhampered proclamation of mercy and salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to all men. It is an offer of eternal life and every spiritual blessing to them that believe. “Holding forth the words of eternal life.” “Come unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth, for I am God, and besides me there is no Saviour.” But on what ground do these universal proffers proceed? Whence derive they their consistency, and their power, but from the perfect all-sufficient atonement of the Son of God? “We preach Christ crucified.” “I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is the language held by its ministers; and, indeed, every individual benefit it bestows, they are accustomed to speak of in language which marks the same connection. Is it redemption? We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” Is it reconciliation? “God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” Is it peace? “We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Is it justification? “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The Gospel minister’s commission is sealed with the blood and stamped with the cross of Emmanuel; nor can he ever execute it, in consistency with the character and glory of God, unless he exhibit the sacrifice of Christ as the chief article of his message, the burden of his doctrine, the central orb of the Christian system which gives to every part its living energy, and binds the whole together in sweet and indissoluble union.

The divine forbearance towards our guilty race is greatly more extensive than either the efficacy of revelation of the dispensation of mercy. The history of the world is one continued illustration of this fact. The loud warnings which are uttered in the ears of mortal offenders, the apparent reluctance with which the sovereign Judge proceeds to execute his threatenings, and the manifest reservation even with which they are inflicted, bespeak the long-suffering and forbearance of God. “Judgment is his work—his strange work.” “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed.” “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim?” “Yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.” Now, how are we to account for this, in consistency with the character of God? On the principle of the atonement alone. Natural benevolence does not explain it, as this would have dictated the same course towards the angels who sinned, whereas the dispensation of forbearance is limited entirely to our race. Nor is it that He is waiting to see whether man will not clear himself of guilt, and return of his own accord to the path of duty. No. He knows that forbearance, in itself, can never secure salvation. Man may as soon annihilate himself or create a world, as emerge from guilt to innocence by his own merit, from corruption to holiness by his own power. It is with no such view, then, that the Almighty forbears to execute his just judgments on the workers of iniquity. The atonement of Christ explains the phenomenon, and gives consistency to this part of the divine procedure towards fallen man. The atoning death of Christ renders the salvation of men possible; and the execution of justice is suspended, that men may have time and opportunity to repent and be saved, for God is not willing that any should perish, but rather that they should turn unto him and live. But for the atonement, mankind had known as little of the divine forbearance as the fallen angels; the guilty pair had perished as soon as they had sinned; the instant of their disobedience and that of their death had been the same; at the eating of the forbidden fruit, not merely had “sky lowered and muttered thunder,” but the bolt had leapt from the heavens, and bursting on their heads, crushed them in their impotent rebellion.

Even the final judgment will exhibit a connection with the work of Christ. Not only is all judgment committed to the Son, as part of his mediatorial reward; but the equitable condemnation of the unbelieving and impenitent will derive its character and force from this source, while the sovereign acquittal of the righteous will rest upon the atonement as its proper foundation.

The eternal state, whether of bliss or of misery, will derive a character from this circumstance. In heaven, the relations of the redeemed to God and to the Lamb, shall take their rise from the atonement; all the communications of knowledge, and holiness, and felicity, shall flow through eternity in this channel; while every service they perform, shall find acceptance with God only on this ground. And in hell, it is not to be questioned, that the miseries of the damned shall be inconceivably aggravated by the contemptuous disregard they have shown to the way of escape provided for them by God in the death of his Son. The rejection of Christ gives a highly aggravated character to their sin; and the remembrance of this rejection will give weight and pungency to their misery. The blood of Christ, which extinguishes the fire of Tophet as regards such as believe, will have only the effect of making its flames burn more intensely as regards the finally impenitent. The thought of having despised Christ, and counted the blood of atonement a common thing, will haunt the wretched memories of the wicked forever and ever, inflicting on them, without cessation or diminished intensity, the horrific effects of its torturing power. “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin.” “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

Symington, On the Atonement, 248–54.

VII. In fine. The atonement of Jesus Christ will form a theme of interesting and improving contemplation to the whole universe of moral creatures throughout eternity.

The saving effects of this blessed fact are limited, it is true, to our race: not so its moral effects. These are wide as the universe. It is not the redeemed from among men only that sing praise to the Lamb; angels, beings of a higher order, more ethereal in their nature, and of more elevated endowments, strike their harps to the song, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain.” Angels desire to look into this mystery, and claim right to celebrate the praises of the Redeemer of men. And well they may. By the atonement of the Son of God, new and enlarged discoveries are made to them of the character of God. “Unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places are made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” Without this, they could never have known even what they do of the natural and moral perfections of the Deity: and of his gracious character they could not have had so much as an idea. But here they have a display of infinite sovereignty, in saving men at all, and not leaving them, like the rebels of their own class, to perish in their sins; and of infinite love and mercy, in choosing for salvation, of the two races of sinful creatures, that which occupied the lowest place. These are views for which they are entirely indebted to the scheme of atonement; for had none been saved, they could have had no knowledge of mercy; had both orders of fallen creatures been saved, they could not have had the same display of sovereignty; and had angels been preferred to men, they could not have known that the mercy of God was the greatest possible. Marvellous wisdom! which thus, by overlooking the order of angels, gave them a brighter manifestation than could otherwise have been given of the character of God! What a scheme this for intelligent creatures of the highest rank to revolve through eternity! As moral creatures, too, angels cannot but feel interested in the atonement, which establishes the inviolable rectitude of the divine government. As benevolent in their dispositions, they must also take delight in what confers such an amount of dignity, and holiness, and happiness, on so large a number of human beings. And we have only to reflect, that the redeemed from among men are, in virtue of their redemption, introduced to the companionship of angels, to see that these celestial beings have another most powerful reason for contemplating, with the deepest interest, the atonement of Jesus. The things in heaven and things in earth are thus brought together into one. Men and angels are, in consequence, to engage in the same exercises, partake of the same privileges, share in and reflect the same glory. And it admits not of doubt, that this companionship will prove a source of knowledge and of happiness to even the “elder sons of light.”

Thus extensive does the subject we have had under review appear to be in its influence. Men, some men only, are the subjects of Christ’s atonement; but its moral bearing embraces not merely the human race, but the whole moral family of God. As a source of instruction, social happiness, and moral delight, it reaches far beyond the bounds of our earth. It not only scatters blessings over the plains of this lower world, but calls forth the benedictions of angels, awakens the sympathies of the heavenly hosts, and animates celestial beings to jubilant songs of thanksgiving and praise. Who, then, dare represent it as unimportant? Who can estimate the consequences of treating it with neglect? Rather let us count it all our salvation and all our desire. “To them that believe he is precious.” “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?”

Symington, On the Atonement, 254–55.

2. John Brown (of Broughton) (1784–1858):

Nor is this all. We have reason to believe that Christ’s intercession as well as his death has a reference to mankind universally, and that in an important sense he prays for all, as well as has died for all. But for the mediation of Christ, it is difficult to see how fallen men could have enjoyed any blessings. The unmitigated execution of the curse was their desert; and but for the intervention of the mediatorial economy, how could they have escaped it? All that is not wrathful in the divine dispensations to fallen man, is directly or indirectly the result of Christ’s mediation and the parts of that mediation, while they must be distinguished, cannot be separated. Had Christ not died, could men, even those who are ultimately to perish, have had in this world the blessings of various kinds they possess? could the door of mercy have been opened to them? could a free and a full salvation have been presented to them for their acceptance? and do they possess any of these blessings without his willing it to be so, and without his expressing that will in his intercession? In the parable of the barren fig-tree, who is the vine-dresser who petitions the husbandman to spare the fruitless tree for three years more,—contemplating as a possible event, that, after all, it will continue hopelessly barren, and be cut down as cumbering the ground. The prophetic oracle is fulfilled, “He makes intercession for the transgressors” [Isa. liii. 12].

John Brown, An Exposition of Our Lord’s Intercessory Prayer (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1866), 102.

3. Charles Hodge (1797–1878):

It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:545.

4. William Cunningham (1805–1861):

Secondly, It is not denied by the advocates of particular redemption, or of a limited atonement, that mankind in general, even those who ultimately perish, do derive some advantages or benefits from Christ’s death; and no position they hold requires them to deny this. They believe that important benefits have accrued to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits those who are finally impenitent and unbelieving partake. What they deny is, that Christ intended to procure, or did procure, for all men those blessings which are the proper and peculiar fruits of His death, in its specific character as an atonement,—that He procured or purchased redemption—that is, pardon and reconciliation—for all men. Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other. All these benefits were, of course, foreseen by God, when He resolved to send His son into the world; they were contemplated or designed by Him, as what men should receive and enjoy. They are to be regarded and received as bestowed by Him, and as thus unfolding His glory, indicating His character, and actually accomplishing His purposes; and they are to be viewed as coming to men through the channel of Christ’s mediation,—of His sufferings and death.^*

The truth of this position has been considered as affording some warrant for saying, in a vague and indefinite sense, that Christ died for all men; and in this sense, and on this account, some Calvinists have scrupled about meeting the position that Christ died for all men with a direct negative, as if they might thus be understood as denying that there was any sense in which all men derived benefit, from Christ’s death. But this position does not at all correspond with the proper import of what Scripture means when it tells us that Christ died for men. This, as we prove against the Socinians, implies that He substituted Himself in their room and stead, that He put Himself in their legal position, that He made satisfaction to God’s justice for their sins, or that He purchased redemption for them; and this, we contend, does not hold true of any but those who are actually at length pardoned and saved. The advocates of universal atonement, then, have no right to charge us with teaching that none derive any benefit from Christ’s death except those who are pardoned and saved; we do not teach this, and we are not bound in consistency to teach it. We teach the opposite of this; and we are not deterred from doing so by the fear lest we should thereby afford to those who are opposed to us a medium for proving that, in the proper scriptural sense, He died for all men, or that the leading and peculiar benefits which His death procured for men,—the benefits of salvation,—were designed or intended for all mankind.
_______________
* Witsius, De Œcon. Fœd., Lib. ii., c. ix., sec. iv. Turretin., Loc. xiv., Qu. xiv., sec. xi.

William Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2 vols. (London: Banner of Truth, 1969), 2:332–34.

5. George Washington Bethune (1805–1862):

Thus Christ died for all mankind, because in him the blessings of salvation are not confined as were those of the Abrahamic dispensation, to one particular people. The Gospel is sent throughout all the world to be preached to every creature; and whosoever will, be he a Jew or Gentile, may take of the water of life freely. And again: The merit of our Lord’s sufferings, through the union of his human to his divine nature, is infinite; displaying the wrath of God against the sins of the whole world, and so justifying the offer of divine mercy to every sinner that believes on his name. As several of the later fathers, following Tertullian, phrase it: “His merits are sufficient for all; but efficient for the elect;” and Aquinas, whom the Papists call “the Angelical Doctor,” teaches: “The merit of Christ as concerns its sufficiency equally belongeth to all men; but as to its efficacy, … the effects and fruits of it are mercifully bestowed on some, and, by the just judgment of God, withheld from others.” Nor can this be otherwise, since it were preposterous to make Christ the substitute of those that refuse his representation. But it is, on the other hand, positively true that the benefits of Christ’s merit do actually, though not in a saving degree, extend to all men: because, for the sake of Christ, all temporal mercies come to all, and the world is kept by his intercession from becoming a hell of extreme torture and despair; and very precious blessings, though not the most precious, are bestowed on mankind through the restraining influence of Christianity and the light which it sheds on every mind wherever the healing beams of the Sun of Righteousness shine. It is enough for us to know that, if we believe in Christ with our whole heart, his merit will certainly save us; but, if we refuse the grace he offers, not all the mercy of God in Christ warrants the slightest hope of escape from everlasting death.

George W. Bethune, Expository Lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism, 2 vols. (New York: Sheldon & Company, Publishers, 1866), 1:359–61.

6. Robert Smith Candlish (1806–1873):

1. The present dispensation of long-suffering patience towards the world at large stands connected with the work of Christ, as its condition or cause. That dispensation of forbearance is subservient to the dispensation of grace, and preparatory to the dispensation of judgment. And, in either view, it is the fruit of Christ’s mediation.

Robert S. Candlish, The Atonement: Its Reality, Completeness, and Extent (London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1861), 211.

Note: This title is sometimes confused with A. A. Hodge’s book on The Atonement, as if Hodge’s description of Candlish’s view from the above source is what Candlish himself wrote. See, for example, R. B. Kuiper’s citation below.

I. In point of fact, the death of Christ, or his work of obedience and atonement, has procured for the world at large, and for every individual—the impenitent and unbelieving as well as the chosen, and called, and faithful—certain definite, tangible, and ascertainable benefits (if we may use such words to designate their reality and their specific character), among which, in particular, may be noted these two: first, A season of forbearance—a respite or suspension of judgment—a period of grace (Rom. iii. 25); and that, too, in subserviency, and with direct reference, to the plan of saving mercy (ibid., and Rom. ii. 4; and 2 Pet. iii. 15); and, secondly, A system of means and influences fitted to lead men to God, and sufficient to leave them without excuse (Acts xiv. 15–17, and xvii. 22–31; Rom. i. 18, and ii. 15.) This, since the promulgation of the gospel includes all the ordinances of God’s worship, with the accompanying common operations of the Spirit in them.

Nor does it affect this statement, as to the actual obligation under which mankind at large, including the finally lost, lie to Christ and his work, for benefits, in point of fact, real and valuable, that this season of long-suffering, and this system of means, are extended to them all indiscriminately, mainly and chiefly for the sake of the elect who are among them. For, in the first place, It does not appear that this can be established from scripture, to be the only reason which God has for such a mode of dealing with the world. It is true, indeed, that the elect are the salt of the earth, whose presence would procure a respite even for a Sodom; and when they are gathered in, and not a soul remains to be converted, the end will come. But this does not prove that God may not have other ends to serve, besides the salvation of his elect people—and ends more closely connected with the individuals themselves who are thus spared and subjected to salutary influences, though in vain—when He extends to them his goodness for a time. And, secondly, whether directly or indirectly–mediately or immediately—for their own sake’s or the elect’s—the fact, after all, is the same—and it is important and significant—that the forbearance granted to every sinner, and the favor shown in such a way as should lead him to repentance, must be ascribed to the interposition of Christ, and his sacrifice on the cross. May not this consideration, of itself, go far to explain not only the strong and touching appeals made generally to sinners, as forsaking their own mercies (Jonah ii. 8), but even such awful denunciations as that uttered by the Apostle Peter respecting apostates bringing in damnable heresies, that they deny the Lord that bought them? (Second Epistle ii. 1)—not to speak of a still more terrible sense in which even the reprobate may be truly said to be bought by Christ, inasmuch as, for his obedience unto death, he has received the right, and power, and commission to dispose of them, and deal with them, as it may seem meet, for the honor of his Father’s name, and the salvation of his people. (Ps. ii.; John xvii. 2.)

It may be observed, in passing, that there is a double sense in which we may speak of Christ’s purchase; first, Strictly and properly, when we regard Him as purchasing men; and secondly, More improperly, when we consider Him as purchasing benefits for men. This last view, as we have hinted, is rather figurative and metaphorical than real and literal; for the idea of his purchasing benefits from the Father for mankind, must ever be understood in consistency with the Father’s sovereignty, and his pre-existing love to the children of men. The Father is not induced or persuaded to bestow benefits on men by a price paid to Him; but being antecedently full of compassion to all, and having a purpose to save some, He appoints and ordains—He decrees and brings in—this death of his Son as a satisfaction to divine justice, and a propitiation for human guilt, that He may be justified in showing forbearance to and kindness to the world, as well as in ultimately and gloriously saving his own elect. In this view, as it would seem, it may be said, with equal fitness, and equal truth, that Christ purchased the benefits implied in the long-suffering of God for all, and that He purchased the blessings of actual salvation for his elect; inasmuch as, so far as appears from Scripture, his death is no less indispensable a condition of any being spared for a season, than it is of some being everlastingly saved.

In regard, again, to the other light in which Christ’s purchase may be viewed as a purchase, not of certain benefits for men, but of men themselves, there is room for an important distinction. In right of merit, his service, and his sacrifice, all are given into his hands, and all are his. All, therefore, may be said to be bought by him, inasmuch as, by his humiliation, obedience and death, He has obtained, as by purchase, a right over all—He has got all under his power. But it is for very different purposes and ends. The reprobate are his to be judged; the elect are his to be saved. As to the former, it is no ransom or redemption, fairly so called. He has won them—bought them, if you will—but it is that He may so dispose of them as to glorify the retributive righteousness of God in their condemnation; aggravated, as that condemnation must be, by their rejection of Himself. This is no propitiation, in any sense at all—no offering of Himself to bear their sins—no bringing in of a perfect righteousness on their account; but an office or function which He has obtained for Himself by the same work—or has had entrusted to Him for the sake of the same shedding of blood—by which He expiated the sins of his people, as their true and proper substitute, and merited their salvation, as their representative and head—an office or function, moreover, which He undertakes solely on his people’s behalf, and which He executes faithfully for their good, as well as for His Father’s glory.

II. In addition to this general benefit, in point of fact, resulting to mankind at large from the interposition of Christ, or rather, perhaps, as included in it, may be mentioned the manifestation which the death of Christ is fitted to give to all men, universally, and to every individual alike, of the divine character and the divine plan of salvation. In this view, Christ is the light which, coming into the world, lighteth every man. Lifted up upon the cross, Jesus reveals the Father, and the Father’s provision for reconciling the exercise of mercy towards the guilty with the maintenance of law and justice; and this service is rendered, not to the elect specially, but to men generally and universally.

III. Nor, lastly, is it to be omitted that the cross of Christ is the proof and measure of that infinite compassion which dwells in the bosom of God towards each and all of the lost race of Adam, and his infinite willingness, or rather longing and yearning desire, to receive each and all of them again into his favour. Even the cross itself would almost seem to be an inadequate expression—though a blessed confirmation of what is in his heart; of the feeling, so to speak, to which he gives utterance by an oath, when he swears: “As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth;” and of the deep, ineffable sincerity of his assurance, that he would rather—how much rather!— that the sinner should turn unto him and live.

Robert S. Candlish, The Cross of Christ; The Call of God; Saving Faith: An Inquiry into the Completeness and Extent of the Atonement, with Especial Reference to the Universal Offer of the Gospel, and the Universal Obligation to Believe, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1845), 4–9.

Note: Candlish continues with more of this in the following context, which should be read. Click the link above to read through page 17.

7. George Smeaton (1814–1889):

That many who are not believers derive great advantages from Christ’s atonement, is not denied. They enjoy an economy of forbearance, are freed from the pernicious errors and defilements of idolatry, and live among the people of God. But these blessings, manifold and various, do not warrant us to say that the Lord died for men in a double way, or with a double reference; that is, for some vicariously, and for others to give them only a temporary advantage. He died as a representative and surety; and whatever their representative Head did, they are regarded as having done, as this text proves. He not only died for them all, but THEY ALL DIED IN HIM.

George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement: As Taught by the Apostles; Or, the Sayings of the Apostles Exegetically Expounded. With Historical Appendix (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), 214.

8. William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820–1894):

This general manifestation of mercy and grace is in and by the works of creation and providence. It is also seen in one aspect of the work of redemption. Men who are not actually saved by divine mercy yet obtain some blessings from it. (a) The delay of punishment is one, namely, the pretermission (paresis)⁶⁹ of sin, in distinction from its remission (aphesis)⁷⁰ (Rom. 3:25). God’s forbearance and long-suffering with a sinner who abuses this by persistence in sin is a phase of mercy. This is “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” It is made possible by it. Without Christ’s work, there would have been instantaneous punishment and no long-suffering. This is also taught in 1 Pet. 3:20: “The long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” (b) The common influences of the Holy Spirit are another manifestation of mercy in its general form. (See supplement 3.5.11. [below])
__________
69 πάρεσις
70 ἄφεσις

William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 307.

3.5.11 (see p. 307). The relation of Christ’s satisfaction to the nonelect is thus stated by [Stephen] Charnock: “The power of God is more manifest in his patience toward a multitude of sinners than it would be in creating millions of worlds out of nothing; for this is the exertion of a power over himself. The exercise of this patience is founded in the death of Christ. Without the consideration of this we can give no reason why divine patience should extend itself to us and not to the fallen angels. The threatening extends itself to us as well as to the fallen angels and must necessarily have sunk man, as well as those glorious creatures, had not Christ stepped in to our relief. Had not Christ interposed to satisfy the justice of God, man upon his sinning had been actually bound over to punishment as well as the fallen angels were upon theirs and been fettered in chains as strong as those spirits feel. The reason why man was not hurled into the same deplorable condition as they were is Christ’s promise of taking our nature and not theirs. Had God designed Christ’s taking their nature the same patience had been exercised toward them and the same offers would have been made to them as are made to us. In regard to these fruits of this patience Christ is said to buy the wickedest apostates: ‘Denying the Lord that bought them’ (1 Pet. 2:1). Such were bought by him as ‘bring upon themselves just destruction, and whose damnation slumbers not’ (2:3); he purchased the continuance of their lives and the stay of their execution that offers of grace might be made to them. This patience must be either upon the account of the law or the gospel, for there are no other rules whereby God governs the world. A fruit of the law it was not that spoke nothing but curses after disobedience; not a letter of mercy was written upon that, and therefore nothing of patience; death and wrath were denounced; no slowness of anger intimated. It must be, therefore, upon the account of the gospel and a fruit of the covenant of grace whereof Christ was the mediator” (God’s Patience, 720 [ed. Bohn]).

William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 310.

9. Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898):

Now, what does it [i.e., “Christ’s design in His vicarious work”] actually effectuate? “We know only in part;” but so much is certain:
(a.) The purchase of the full and assured redemption of all the elect, or of all believers.
(b.) A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam’s race who does not die at his birth. (For these we believe it has purchased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substantial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are postponement of death and perdition, secular well-being, and the bounties of life.
(c.) A manifestation of God’s mercy to many of the non-elect, to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sincere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction; because it is only the recipient’s contumacy which disappoints it.
(d.) A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God’s righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.
(e.) A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God’s compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures.

R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, Second Edition. (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company, 1878), 528–29.

Well, then, the realized results of Christ’s sacrifice are not one, but many and various:
1. It makes a display of God’s general benevolence and pity towards all lost sinners, to the glory of his infinite grace. For, blessed be his name, he says, “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.”
2. Christ’s sacrifice has certainly purchased for the whole human race a merciful postponement of the doom incurred by our sins, including all the temporal blessings of our earthly life, all the gospel restraints upon human depravity, and the sincere offer of heaven to all. For, but for Christ, man’s doom would have followed instantly after his sin, as that of the fallen angels did.
3. Christ’s sacrifice, wilfully rejected by men, sets the stubbornness, wickedness and guilt of their nature in a much stronger light, to the glory of God’s final justice.
4. Christ’s sacrifice has purchased and provided for the effectual calling of the elect, with all the graces which insure their faith, repentance, justification, perseverance, and glorification. Now, since the sacrifice actually results in all these different consequences, they are all included in God’s design. This view satisfies all those texts quoted against us.

Robert L. Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1992), 62–63.

Dabney gives more clearly his belief regarding the design of the atonement in his manuscript notes prepared for his defense of the Committee’s Report before the Assembly.

“But while I have no idea that they intend to be satisfied with anything that I can say, I will repeat in another form, what my opinion is, so that no fair mind will be any longer misled to suspect me of ambiguity. I am asked whether I believe ‘Christ bore the guilt of the elect only.’ I reply, Christ designed by his sufferings to deliver the elect only from their guilt. In that sense he ‘bore’ the guilt of the elect only. But if they wish to make me say that Christ had no more to do with the guilt of the non-elect than of the fallen angels, I shall not say it. For Christ’s work has actually procured for them great temporary benefits, which their guilt would personally have made them worthy to enjoy—a suspension of just doom, social, material good, common operations of H(oly) G(host) and an offer of salv.(ation) from God, who is ‘serious.’ Had there been no mediatorial dispensation, the doom would doubtless have followed immediately on the guilt, as in the case of fallen angels. I must believe, therefore, that, (with Hodge) there is a relation which the sufferings of Christ had to all men.”⁵⁶
_______________
56. “Heads of Sug. In support of Rep. Committee of Conference on Union with United Synod,” MS, Union Seminary Library, Richmond, Virginia, pp. 23–24.

Morton H. Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology (1962; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987), 201.

10. Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823–1886):

5. Nor does the question relate to the design of Christ in dying as it stands related to all the benefits secured to mankind by his death. It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation, and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected. Indeed it is impossible for us to know what would have happened to Adam and Eve if that gracious system, the meritorious ground of which is the Atonement of Christ, had not been introduced. The instant damnation of the heads of the race, or the introduction of a scheme of redemption, appear to be the only possible alternatives. But the scheme of redemption is conditioned exclusively upon the expiatory work of Christ. Hence all that happens to the human race other than that which is incidental to the instant damnation of Adam and Eve is part of the consequences of Christ’s satisfaction as the second Adam. For aught we know the propagation of the race in all of its successive generations may be in consequence of that work. The entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is, as Candlish says, “a dispensation of forbearance” in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies for ever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, they must have been designed for them from the beginning [Cunningham’s History of Theology, vol. ii., p. 332; Witsius’ Econ. of the Covenants, B. II., chap, ix., § 4; Turretin L. 14, Q. 14, § 11]. We maintain the simple and apparently self-evident proposition that Christ, in dying, designed to effect by his death all in every particular which he has actually accomplished. If he be God, there can be no discrepancy between his design and his accomplishment. He must accomplish precisely that which he designed, and he must have designed to effect precisely that which in fact he does effect.

A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1867), 358–59.

Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood.

A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878), 416.

11. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892):

III. And now, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR ALL THIS LONGSUFFERING? Why is it that this cumber-ground tree has not been cut down? The answer is, because there is one who pleads for sinners. I have shown you, and some of you will think I have shown you with very great severity too, how reasonable it is that you should be cut down. I wish you felt it, for, if you felt how reasonable it was that God should send you to hell, then you would begin to tremble, and there would be some hope of you. I can assure you I have trembled for you, when I have thought how rational, how just, nay, it would seem to me, how necessary it was that some of you should be lost—it has made me tremble for you—and I would to God you would tremble for yourselves. But what has been the secret cause that you have been kept alive? The answer is, Jesus Christ has pleaded for you, the crucified Saviour has interfered for you. And you ask me “Why?” I answer, because Jesus Christ has an interest in you all. We do not believe in general redemption, but we believe in every word of this precious Bible, and there are many passages in the Scripture which seem to show that Christ’s death had an universal bearing upon the sons of men. We are told that he tasted death for every man. What does that mean? Does it mean that Jesus Christ died to save every man? I do not believe it does, for it seems to me that everything which Christ intended to accomplish by the act of his death he must accomplish, or else he will be disappointed, which is not supposable. Those whom Christ died to save I believe he will save effectually, through his substitutionary sacrifice. But did he in any other sense die for the rest of mankind? He did. Nothing can be much more plain in Scripture, it seems to me, than that all sinners are spared as the result of Jesus Christ’s death, and this is the sense in which men are said to trample on the blood of Jesus Christ. We read of some who denied the Lord that bought them. No one who is bought with blood for eternal salvation ever tramples on that blood; but Jesus Christ has shed his blood for the reprieve of men that they may be spared, and those who turn God’s sparing mercy into an occasion for fresh sin, do trample on the blood of Jesus Christ. You can hold that doctrine without holding universal redemption, or without at all contradicting that undoubted truth, that Jesus laid down his life for his sheep, and that where he suffered he suffered not in vain. Now, sinner, whether thou knowest it or not, thou art indebted to him that did hang upon the tree, for the breath that is now in thee. Thou hadst not been on praying ground and pleading terms with God this morning if it had not been for that dear suffering one. Our text represents the gardener as only asking to have it spared; but Jesus Christ did something more than ask; he pleaded, not with his mouth only, but with pierced hands, and pierced feet, and pierced side; and those prevailing pleas have moved the heart of God, and you are yet spared. May I speak to thee then? If thy life had been spared, when thou wast condemned to die, by my intervention—suppose such a case—would you despise me? If I had power at the Court, and when you were condemned to die, had gone in and pleaded for you, and you had been reprieved, year after year would you hate me? would you speak against me? would you rail at my character? would you find fault with my friends? I know you better: you would love me; you would be grateful for the sparing of your life. O sinner, I would you would treat the Lord Jesus as you would treat man. I would you would think of the Lord Jesus Christ as you would think of your fellow-man who had delivered you from death. You are not in hell, where you would have been if he had not come in and pleaded for you. I do beseech you, think of the misery of lost souls, and recollect that you would have been in such a woeful case yourself this morning, if he had not lifted up that hand once pierced for human sin. There, there, where the flames can no abatement know, where a drop of water is a boon too great to be received—there, where hope is excluded, and despair sits upon a throne of iron, binding captive souls in everlasting bands—where “For ever!” is written on the fire, and “For ever!” is printed on the chain, and “For ever! for ever! for ever!” rings out as the awful death-knell of everything like hope, and rest—there you would have been this morning, this morning, if sparing grace had not prevented. Where are your companions, your old companions? You sat in the pothouse with them; they are in hell, but you are not. When you were younger you sinned with them, and they are lost, but you are not. Why this difference made? Why are they cast away and you spared? I can only ascribe it to the gracious longsuffering of Jehovah. O, I pray you look at him who spared you, and weep and mourn for your sin. May the Spirit of God come down on you this morning and draw you to the foot of his dear cross, and as you see the blood which has spared your blood, and the death which has made you live until now, I do trust that the divine Spirit may make you fall down and say, “O Jesus, how can I offend thee? How can I stand out against thee? Accept me and save me for thy mercy’s sake.” For while I have thus spoken of the general interest which Christ has in you all, I have good hope that Christ has a special interest in some of you; I hope that he has specially redeemed you from among men, and bought you not with silver and gold, but with his own precious blood, having loved you with an everlasting love, I trust he intends with the bands of his kindness to draw you this morning.

C. H. Spurgeon, “Judgment Threatening but Mercy Sparing (No. 650),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1865), 11:526–28.

There is a wide, far-reaching sacrificial atonement which brings untold blessings to all mankind, but by that atonement a special divine object was aimed at, which will be carried out, and that object is the actual redemption of his own elect from the bondage of their sins, the price being the blood of Jesus Christ. Oh, brethren, may we have a share in this particular, efficient redemption, for this alone can bring us where they sing the new song.

C. H. Spurgeon, “Jesus, the Delight of Heaven (No. 1,225),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1875), 21:176.

The Saviour did, indeed, in a certain sense, die for all; all men receive many a mercy through his blood, but that he was the Substitute and Surety for all men, is so inconsistent, both with reason and Scripture, that we are obliged to reject the doctrine with abhorrence.

C. H. Spurgeon, “The Death of Christ for His People (No. 2,656),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1900), 46:7.

His great redemptive work has brought some good to all men, but it was more especially intended for the benefit of the household of faith; as Paul wrote to Timothy, “We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.”

C. H. Spurgeon, “‘Until He Find It (No. 2,821),’” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1903), 49:110.

Then Christ died for them, and for them only. But in a certain sense he died for all, that all might be his property.

Terence Peter Crosby, ed., C. H. Spurgeon’s Sermons Beyond Volume 63 (Leominster: Day One, 2009), 615.

Christ hath bought some good things for all men—the common mercies of life.

C. H. Spurgeon, “The Gospel of Christ,” in The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon’s Anecdotes and Stories, ed. Oliver Creyton (London: Houlston and Wright, 1866), 140.

We believe that, by his atoning sacrifice, Christ bought some good things for all men, and all good things for some men; and that, when he died, he had a definite purpose in dying, and that his purpose will certainly be effected.

C. H. Spurgeon, “Good Cheer for Many That Fear (No. 2,815),” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, 63 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1903), 49:39.

12. Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836–1921):

Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our common humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal blessing. Conscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives us justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the Atonement is “sufficient for all; effectual for many.” J. M. Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897—“It was Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island (1721–1803) who first declared that Christ had made atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calvinists affirmed.” We should say “as some Calvinists affirmed”; for, as we shall see, John Calvin himself declared that “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Alfred Tennyson once asked an old Methodist woman what was the news. “Why, Mr. Tennyson, there’s only one piece of news that I know,—that Christ died for all men.” And he said to her: “That is old news, and good news, and new news.”

If it be asked in what sense Christ is the Savior of all men, we reply:

(a) That the atonement of Christ secures for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, and a space for repentance, together with a continuance of the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression.

If strict justice had been executed, the race would have been cut off at the first sin. That man lives after sinning, is due wholly to the Cross. There is a pretermission, or “passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3:25), the justification of which is found only in the sacrifice of Calvary. This “passing over,” however, is limited in its duration: see Acts 17:30, 31—“The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained.”

One may get the benefit of the law of gravitation without understanding much about its nature, and patriarchs and heathen have doubtless been saved through Christ’s atonement, although they have never heard his name, but have only cast themselves as helpless sinners upon the mercy of God. That mercy of God was Christ, though they did not know it. Our modern pious Jews will experience a strange surprise when they find that not only forgiveness of sin but every other blessing of life has come to them through the crucified Jesus. Matt. 8:11—“many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.”

Dr. G. W. Northrup held that the work of Christ is universal in three respects: 1. It reconciled God to the whole race, apart from personal transgression; 2. It secured the bestowment upon all of common grace, and the means of common grace; 3. It rendered certain the bestowment of eternal life upon all who would so use common grace and the means of common grace as to make it morally possible for God as a wise and holy Governor to grant his special and renewing grace.

Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 772.

13. Herman Bavinck (1854–1921):

The Universal Significance of Particular Atonement

[407] Although vicarious atonement as the acquisition of salvation in its totality cannot therefore be expanded to include all persons individually, this is not to say that it has no significance for those who are lost. Between the church and the world there is, at this point, not just separation and contrast. It is not the case that Christ has acquired everything for the former and nothing for the latter. In rejecting universalism one may not forget that Christ’s merit has its limits even for the church and its value and meaning for the world. In the first place, it must be remembered, after all, that though Christ as such is indeed the Re-creator, he is not the Creator of all things. Just as the Son follows the Father, so re-creation presupposes creation, grace presupposes nature, and regeneration presupposes birth. Not included in Christ’s merits, strictly speaking, is the fact that the elect are born and live, that they receive food, shelter, clothing, and an assortment of natural benefits. One can say that God would no longer have allowed the world and humankind to exist had he not had another and higher purpose for it. Common grace is indeed subservient to special grace, and along with salvation God also grants the elect many other, natural, blessings (Matt. 6:33; Rom. 8:28, 32; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3). Still it is wrong, with the Herrnhuter and Pietists, to erase the boundaries between nature and grace, creation and redemption, and to put Christ in the Father’s place on the throne of the universe. Even election and the covenant of grace, presupposing as they do the objects of the one and the participants of the other, were not acquired by Christ but precede his merits. With his creation the Father lays the groundwork for the work of re-creation and leads toward it. With his work, on the other hand, the Son goes back deeply—as far as sin reaches—into the work of creation. Still the two works are distinct and must not be confused.¹⁴⁸

In the second place, Christ did not, for each of his own, acquire the same thing. There is diversity among believers before they come to the faith, difference in gender, age, class, rank, character, gifts, and so on, and also in the measure and degree of wickedness and corruption. And when they come to the faith, there is diversity in the grace given them. Grace is given to each according to the measure Christ has bestowed (Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 3:7; 4:7). The natural diversity among people, though cleansed by grace, is not erased. By the diversity of spiritual gifts, it is even increased, for the body of Christ consists of many members in order that it may be one organism, God’s own creation and masterpiece.

Third, though the church is not of the world it is nevertheless in it. It lives and moves squarely within that world and is connected with it in numerous different ways. Believers are brought in from the [whole] human race, and, conversely, there is much chaff among the wheat; there are branches on the vine that bear no fruit and must be eradicated. When Christ went to stand in the place of his own, therefore, he had to assume the flesh and blood that is common to all people. By his incarnation, he honored the whole human race; according to the flesh, he is the brother of all the members of the human family. And also his work has value for all, even for those who have not believed and will never believe in him. For though it is true that Christ did not, strictly speaking, acquire the natural life by his suffering and death, yet the human race was spared on account of the fact that Christ would come to save it. Christ is not the head of all human beings, not the prophet, priest, and king of everyone, for he is the head of the church and has been anointed king over Zion. Yet all human beings owe a great deal to Christ. The light shines in the darkness and illumines every person coming into the world. The world was made through him and remains so, though it did not recognize him. Also as the Christ, he gives to unbelievers many benefits: the call of the gospel, the warning to repent, historical faith, a virtuous life, a variety of gifts and powers, offices and ministries within the church, such as, for example, even the office of an apostle in the case of Judas. “Without Jesus Christ the world would not exist, for it would necessarily either be destroyed or be a hell” (Pascal [Pensées, 556]). Even hanging from the cross, he still prays for forgiveness for the appalling sin being committed by the Jews at that very moment.¹⁴⁹

Fourth, Christ’s work even extends to the world of irrational creatures. One cannot, with Origen, say that Christ suffered somewhat for them and merited something for them. But when Christ was made to be sin and bore the sin of the world, he also nullified sin with all its consequences. The liberation of the created world from the bondage of decay, the glorification of creation, the renewal of heaven and earth—all this is the fruit of the cross of Christ (Rom. 8:19ff.).¹⁵⁰

Fifth, also the angels in heaven derive profit and advantage from the work of Christ. There is not sufficient ground for the assertion that Christ won for them perseverance and glory, though many theologians, appealing to Job 4:18; 15:15; Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 5:21; Hebrews 12:22–23, taught as much.¹⁵¹ Angels, of course, do not need Christ for themselves as Reconciler and Savior; they are essentially different from humans, who alone are made in the image of God. If Christ would have had to acquire “grace” and “glory” for them, this would lead one to think that the Son of God would have had to assume a human nature or, better, an angelic nature even if humanity had not fallen.¹⁵² Still, simply to deny that Christ merited something for the angels does less than justice to Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20.¹⁵³ It is clearly stated, after all, that God reconciled all things (τα παντα), that is, not only people or angels, but all created things, the whole creation, the world, the universe, more fully described as “all things either on earth or in heaven,” that God reconciled that whole creation by Christ, not to itself, but to himself, bringing all things together and into unity in him. The doctrine of the restitution of all things is not supported in these texts. It is repudiated throughout Scripture and has only now and then found defenders in the Christian church. If this doctrine is ruled out, then these two texts can only be understood to mean that, according to Paul’s understanding, the demons and the wicked will someday be sent to hell and that the whole creation will be restored in the new heaven and the new earth with its inhabitants. Now this creation as a whole, conceived organically, was brought by sin into a position of hostility against God and internally torn apart and devastated. Implied here is not that the good angels, personally and individually, needed reconciliation, nor that Christ had to suffer and die for irrational creatures. Basic to these passages, however, is the premise that sin modified and disturbed the relation of all creatures to God and to one another.

And that, as we know, is indeed the case. Sin has made the human world into an object of God’s wrath and divided and destroyed it internally. The relation of the angels to God was changed, not only inasmuch as many of them became apostate but also because the good angels formed only a part of the entire number of spirits who had served God. Augustine¹⁵⁴ and others were of the opinion that this breach struck in the world of angels was healed by the elect of the human race, and that this constituted the meaning of Christ’s atonement for humankind. This view is not acceptable. Humans are generically distinct from angels, and there is no ground in Scripture for equating the number of the elect with that of the fallen angels. Still, it is true that the fall of so many angels must have profoundly disturbed the organism of the angelic world. As an army is totally thrown into disarray and rendered incapable of fighting when many officers and men leave the ranks and join the enemy, so also the world of angels as an army of God was shattered and made useless for the service of God. It lost its head, its organization. And now it gets this back in the person of the Son, and the Son not only according to his divine nature but also according to his human nature. For not merely the relation to God but also that to the human world was disturbed by sin. It is Christ, therefore, who as Lord of the angels and as head of the church puts both angels and humans in the right relation to God and so to each other. By his cross he restored the organism of creation, both in heaven and on earth, and these two also again in conjunction. The inanimate and irrational components of creation, in other words, heaven and earth itself, are not excluded from this process. This is already simply impossible inasmuch as the relation of the angels to heaven and that of humans to the earth, so far from being mechanical, is organic. With the fall of angels and humans, heaven and earth themselves sank to a level beneath their original state. The whole creation has been groaning and is experiencing the pains of childbirth. “The whole creation as it were collectively produces a colossal symphony of sighs” (Philippi). All the members of that creation groan and experience pain, collectively, in relation to one another (Rom. 8:22). Accordingly, as in the old covenant, the tabernacle and all its liturgical implements were sprinkled with blood (Exod. 24:3–8; Heb. 9:21), so Christ by his cross reconciled all things and acquired a new heaven and a new earth. The whole creation as one day it will stand perfect—without spot or wrinkle—in God’s presence is the work of Christ, the Lord of lords and the King of kings (Heb. 12:22–28).
_______________
148 G. Voetius, Select. disp., II, 271–73.
149 Ibid., II, 275, 276.
150 Ibid., II, 264, 265.
151 Augustine, Cons. ev., 35; and many with him, Cyril, Gregory, Bernard, Diez, Valentia, Suárez; J. Calvin, Commentary, on Eph. 1:10 and Col. 1:20; A. Polanus, Syn. theol., VI, 27; J. Zanchi, Op. theol., III, 159–64; G. Bucanus, Institutiones theologicae (Bern: Johannes & Isaias La Preux, 1605), VI, qu. 30; **Davenant, on Col. 1:20; A. Walaeus, Synopsis purioris theologiae (Leiden: Elzeviriana, 1652), XII, 33; idem, Opera omnia (Leiden: Ex officina Francisci Hackii, 1643), I, 195.
152 Cf. H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II, 460–63 (#265); further P. Lombard, Sent., II, dist. 5; III, dist. 13; T. Aquinas, Summa theol., I, qu. 62; III, qu. 8, art. 4; D. Petavius, “De incarn.,” Op. theol., XII, 10; M. Becanus, Summa theol. schol., I, 305; J. A. Quenstedt, Theologia, I, 476; J. Gerhard, Loci theol., XXXI, §42; F. Gomarus, on Col. 1:20; G. Voetius, Select. disp., II, 263; H. Alting, Theol. probl. nova, XII, 24; F. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, XIV, qu. 3; B. de Moor, Comm. theol., II, 353; C. Vitringa, Doctr. christ., III, 26; VI, 178ff.
153 A. Kuyper, De Engelen Gods (Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser, 1902–4), 164ff.
154 Augustine, Enchiridion, 61–62.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 3:470–73.

This universality of the preaching of the gospel has its advantages for the world in its entirety and for those who will never believe in Christ as their Savior. In His incarnation Christ honored the whole human race, and became a brother of all men according to the flesh. The light shines in the darkness and by His coming into the world enlightens every man. The world was made by Him, and the fact remains so, though it did not know Him (John 1:3–5). By the call to faith and repentance which Christ gives out to all who live under the gospel He gives many external blessings in home and society, in church and state, and those, too, enjoy these who do not in their own hearts hear that gospel. They lie within the domain of the Word, are protected from terrible sins, and, in distinction from the pagan nations, share in many external privileges. Moreover, we may not forget that Christ by His passion of corruption, the renewal of heaven and earth, the restitution and mutual reconciliation of all things, also of angels and of men. In Christ the organism of the human race, the world as the creation of God, is preserved and restored (Eph. 1:10 and Col. 1:20).

Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith [Magnalia Dei], trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 361.

IX. Circa 20th Century:

1. Geerhardus Johannes Vos (1862–1949):

60. If we speak of particular satisfaction, is it then our intention to deny that any benefit results from this satisfaction for the nonelect?

This, too, is not our intention. It is self-evident that the destiny of humanity, out of which God calls His elect, and the destiny of these elect themselves cannot immediately be separated from each other. One recalls our exposition of Romans 9:22–23 in our treatment of the doctrine of election [in volume one]. There, Paul infers the forbearance of God toward the vessels of wrath from His merciful purpose with the vessels of mercy. And insofar as this purpose concerning the vessels of mercy rested on, and was related to, the satisfaction of the Mediator, who could not satisfy until the fullness of time—to that extent this satisfaction became a cause of the patience of God in putting up with those who are lost. All that results from the delay of judgment, all external blessings that mankind enjoys, all that befalls them beyond curse and death, the common grace at work throughout, with all the fruits of external righteousness that it fosters—all of this is an indirect result of the satisfaction of the Mediator.

Still, it would be more or less wrong to say that Christ earned these things for the nonelect. The correct formulation would be that these benefits for others result as side effects from His merits for the elect. Earning presupposes a direct, personal connection that obviously is not present here. It is certainly true that all these side effects are intended side effects, for everything that Christ has purposed with His work has actually resulted from it. Its direct purpose, however, did not lie in the well-being of others but in the salvation of believers. All other things are attendant on that purpose, as they are given with it.

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 5 vols., ed. and trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 3:137–38.

It must be granted, however, that, altogether apart from the exegesis of these passages, some sort of reference of the atonement to every man may be affirmed; and inasmuch as this reference is a beneficial one, we are led to posit back of it a form of love equally comprehensive and effective, which will have to be coordinated with the three other forms of universal love previously distinguished. The Bible gives us no right to say that Christ in His atoning work acted as the legal substitute of every individual human being. But certainly neither does it require us to assert that for the non-elect the atonement is void of all benefit or significance. Every man is indebted for great privileges to the cross of Christ. The continued existence of the race in spite of sin, but for it, would have been impossible. The atonement by its universal sufficiency renders the gospel a message which can be preached to every human being, and the offer of the gospel illumines the entire earthly existence of every one to whom it comes by the hope that he may find himself through faith one of the actual heirs of redemption. It makes an immense difference whether our present life be spent in the consciousness of this hope or without it. This may be best realized by making clear to ourselves what a tremendous change the withdrawal of the offer of the gospel would produce in the entire outlook upon life, even for those who do not accept its terms. On the other hand, the love from which these universal benefits of the atonement flow should never be so defined as to obscure the fact that it falls short of the intention to bestow efficacious grace. We must also remember that as it embodies itself in the offer of the gospel it can be called universal in a qualified sense only, since its field is circumscribed by the actual spread of the gospel at any given time.

Geerhardus Vos, “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 13, no. 49 (January, 1902): 30.

2. Louis Berkhof (1873–1957):

1. THE EXACT POINT AT ISSUE. The question with which we are concerned at this point is not (a) whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men, since this is admitted by all; (b) whether the saving benefits are actually applied to every man, for the great majority of those who teach a universal atonement do not believe that all are actually saved; (c) whether the bona fide offer of salvation is made to all that hear the gospel, on the condition of repentance and faith, since the Reformed Churches do not call this in question; nor (d) whether any of the fruits of the death of Christ accrue to the benefit of the non-elect in virtue of their close association with the people of God, since this is explicitly taught by many Reformed scholars. On the other hand, the question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 393–394.

5. THE WIDER BEARING OF THE ATONEMENT. The question may be raised, whether the atonement wrought by Christ for the salvation of the elect, and of the elect only, has any wider bearing. The question is often discussed in Scottish theology, whether Christ did not die, in some other than a saving sense, also for the non-elect. It was discussed by several of the older theologians, such as Rutherford, Brown, Durham, and Dickson, but was answered by them in the negative. “They held, indeed,” says Walker, “the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death to save the world, or worlds; but that was altogether irrespective of Christ’s purpose, or Christ’s accomplishment. The phrase that Christ died sufficiently for all was not approved, because the ‘for’ seemed to imply some reality of actual substitution.”² Durham denied that any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, could be said to be the proper fruit of, or the purchase of, Christ’s death; but at the same time maintained that certain consequences of Christ’s death of an advantageous kind must reach wicked men, though it is doubtful whether these can be regarded as a blessing for them. This was also the position taken by Rutherford and [George] Gillespie. The Marrow-men of Scotland, while holding that Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, concluded from the universal offer of salvation that the work of Christ also had a wider bearing, and that, to use their own words, “God the Father, moved by nothing but His free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men of His Son Jesus Christ.” According to them all sinners are legatees under Christ’s testament, not indeed in the essence but in the administration of the covenant of grace, but the testament becomes effectual only in the case of the elect. Their position was condemned by the Church of Scotland. Several Reformed theologians hold that, though Christ suffered and died only for the purpose of saving the elect, many benefits of the cross of Christ do actually—and that also according to the plan of God—accrue to the benefit of those who do not accept Christ by faith. They believe that the blessings of common grace also result from the atoning work of Christ.¹

That the atoning work of Christ also had significance for the angelic world would seem to follow from Eph. 1:10, and Col. 1:20. Things on earth and things in heaven are summed up in Christ as a Head (anakephalaiosasthai), Eph. 1:10, and are reconciled to God through the blood of the cross, Col. 1:20. Kuyper holds that the angelic world, which lost its head when Satan fell away, is reorganized under Christ as Head. This would reconcile or bring together the angelic world and the world of humanity under a single Head. Naturally, Christ is not the Head of the angels in the organic sense in which He is the Head of the Church. Finally, the atoning work of Christ will also result in a new heaven and a new earth in which dwelleth righteousness, a fit dwellingplace for the new and glorified humanity, and in the glorious liberty in which the lower creation will also share, Rom. 8:19–22.
_______________
2 Scottish Theology and Theologians, p. 80.
1 Cf. Witsius, De Verbonden II, 9.4; Turretin, Loc. XIV, Q. 14, Sec. 11; Cunningham, Hist. Theol. II, p. 332; Hodge, The Atonement, 358 and elsewhere; Grosheide in the Evangelical Quarterly, April, 1940, p. 127. Cf. also Strong, Syst. Theol., p. 772.

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 398–99.

Note: See the note below James Durham above. Berkhof seems to have been misled by James Walker’s (1821–1891) historiography on this point in relation to Durham.

When we speak of common grace we have in mind either (a) those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or (b) those general blessings which God imparts to all men indiscriminately in whatever measure it seems good to Him. The Arminian believes that common grace enables man to perform a certain measure of spiritual good, and to turn to God with heartfelt repentance; and that it even incites man to accept Jesus Christ by faith, and will accomplish its end, unless man obstinately resists its operations. But this is an un-Scriptural view of the matter. Common grace does not enable the sinner to perform any spiritual good, nor to turn to God in faith and repentance. It is not sufficient to remove the total depravity of man, nor to lead him in the way of spiritual renewal. …

2. Common Grace and the Atoning Work of Christ. By His atoning work Christ merited the blessings of special grace. Did He also by His sacrificial death merit the more common blessings of divine grace which are bestowed on all men, and therefore also on the impenitent and reprobate? If He did not merit them, then what is the legal basis on which God can extend grace and show favor to men who have forfeited everything and have no share in the righteousness of Christ? Now it is possible that no such basis is needed in view of the fact (a) that common grace does not remove the guilt of sin and therefore does not carry pardon with it; and (b) that it does not lift the sentence of condemnation, but only postpones its execution. Perhaps the divine good pleasure to stay the manifestation of the wrath of God against sin offers a sufficient explanation for the blessings of common grace. It is not unlikely, however, that even these blessings must be connected in some way with the death of Christ. This does not necessarily mean that Christ merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate, but simply that important benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate share. These general blessings indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ were, of course, not only foreseen by God, but also designed by Him as blessings for all mankind.

Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 969), 224, 225–26.

3. Frederik Willem Grosheide (1881–1972):

First there is what we call common grace, gratia communis, that is to say grace which is common to the believers and the unbelievers. The dogma of common grace is a special Reformed one. It tries to give an explanation of the well-known fact that there are many good things done by unbelievers. But it is more than an explanation of a human question. It is the doctrine of the Scriptures. There we read not only that God gives His gifts to all men commonly but also that He uses even unbelievers in His service. God maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. v. 45). He calls Balaam and Caiaphas to prophesy.

In His common grace the Lord stops, checks the working of the sin in the world; He tempers the curse. If there was no common grace we would have on earth the same situation as before the deluge. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and it grieved Him at His heart (Gen. vi. 6). Even in the days before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ there will be some working of common grace. For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened (Matt. xxiv.21, 22). Through common grace life is possible on the earth. Men do not yet bite and devour one another (Gal. v. I 5), there is love, kindness in the world.

All this is of great interest for our world-view. Let me say it in this manner; there is no nature without grace. Everywhere there is a working of the grace of God. Therefore, we can honour the world as a creature of the Lord, we can search the great works of the almighty God and glorify as new men the Lord, who has given and gives all things.

All grace is obtained by Christ. Also common grace. If He had not given Himself into the death, if not unto Him was given all power in heaven and in earth (Matt. xxviii. I 8) there could be no common grace. That already brings us to the central significance of Christ for our world-view. But there is more. Only through Him can we as Christians come to just view of the world, that is, to a religious one.

F. W. Grosheide, “The Evangelical World-View from Reformed Standpoint,” The Evangelical Quarterly 12.2 (April 1940): 126–27.

4. Rienk Bouke Kuiper (1886–1966):

A significant question demanding further consideration than so far received is whether Christ merited the blessings of common grace for the non-elect by the Atonement. That God ever beholds His elect in Christ is perfectly clear. For Christ’s sake He blesses them with natural blessings as well as spiritual. Does God also for the sake of Christ bestow some good things on the non-elect? Calvin has not answered that question explicitly. William Cunningham has said: “Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other” (Historical Theology, II, 333). Robert S. Candlish observed that the entire history of the human race from the Apostasy to the Final Judgment is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. He has asserted: “These come to them through the mediation of Christ” (The Atonement, 358 f.). Also, L. Berkhof, while admitting that Reformed theologians generally have been hesitant to say that Christ's atoning blood merited the blessings of common grace for the reprobate, has concluded that undoubtedly significant benefits accrue from Christ’s death to the entire race of men (Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1938, 438).

R. B. Kuiper, “Common Grace,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4 vols., ed. Philip E. Hughes (Marshallton, Delaware: The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1972), 3:53.

What has been said is admittedly an incomplete statement of the doctrine of common grace, and the theme under discussion does not require a fuller statement. What the theme does demand is a consideration of the question whether or not the blessings of the common grace of God are a product of the atonement.

One can hardly escape the impression that a number of Reformed theologians have fought shy of that question. It has difficult aspects. However, Scripture teaches repeatedly that God shows mercy to the wicked because of the righteous. In answer to Abraham’s intercessory prayer God assured him that He would spare Sodom for the sake of but ten righteous men that might conceivably be found within it (Gen. 18:32); and a plain implication of Jesus’ words addressed to His disciples, “Ye are the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13), is that because of the presence of His people, acting as a preservative, God has not yet spewed this insipid and putrid world out of His mouth. This teaching of Scripture points plainly to some connection between the atonement and the common grace of God. In Calvin on Common Grace Herman Kuiper says guardedly that Calvin “does create the impression that he believed that the non-elect enjoy within the limits of this present life certain fruits of the mediatorial labors of Christ by which He acquired heaven and earth as the inheritance of God’s children.” He proceeds: “Calvin does not say this in just so many words but he does suggest the thought that Christ, into whose hands the Father has delivered all things, so dispenses temporal gifts that the ungodly receive the crumbs which fall from the table which he has prepared for those whose sins He bore on the cross.”¹⁰ Berkhof tells us: “Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, and impenitent, and the reprobate also share.”¹¹ In support of this observation he quotes William Cunningham to the effect that “many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other.”¹² He further cites Robert S. Candlish to the effect that “the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning.”¹³

The final sentence of the quotation from Candlish is particularly significant for the present discussion. The blessings of common grace, although resulting only indirectly from the atonement, were most surely designed by God to result from the atonement. The design of God in the atoning work of Christ pertained primarily and directly to the redemption of the elect, but indirectly and secondarily it also included the blessings of common grace. Berkhof’s statement that “all that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ”¹⁴ is not too sweeping. God planned it thus.
_______________
8. Common Grace, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1947.
9. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1954.
10. Calvin on Common Grace, Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, Goes, 1928, p. 214.
11. Systematic Theology, p. 438.
12. Historical Theology, Edinburgh, 1871, II. 333.
13. The Atonement, Edinburgh, 1861, pp. 358f.
14. Systematic Theology, p. 439.

R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?: A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 81–84.

5. Herman Kuiper (1889–1963):

D. Calvin on the Relation of Christ to Common Grace.

Our author [Calvin] does not make many declarations with regard to this subject and it must also be said that the comparatively few passages in which he dwells on this matter do not present us with such comprehensive and clear-cut statements that all doubt is dispelled as to Calvin’s position on the various questions which can be raised in connection with Christ’s relation to common grace.

In Calvin’s exposition of Daniel 2, 40–43 we meet with the remarkable statement that all the kingdoms of this world are founded on the power and beneficence of Christ. The context does not make it clear, however, whether Calvin in this connection thinks of Christ as the Mediator of Redemption, yes or no.

In connection with Psalm 68, 19 our author affirms that Christ holds the devils and all reprobate men bound by His secret power lest they should turn everything up-side-down. Here the context makes it clear that Calvin is speaking of the exalted Christ who guards the interests of His Church. So we must take it that Calvin here teaches that Christ as the Mediator of Redemption so bridles the devils and the wicked that they are unable to overturn everything and so put an end to the existence of the Church. In writing this statement Calvin may have had the idea in mind that Christ performs this work in part at least by curbing sin in the wicked by means of internal restraining grace, but he does not say this explicitly.

Under Ephesians 1, 22 we read that Christ was made the Head of the church on condition that He should have the administration of all things. This is not a mere honorary title since the full command and administration of all things are committed to Him. Here Christ is spoken of as the Mediator of Redemption since He is referred to as the Head of the Church. And here the inference lies at hand that to Christ as the Mediator of Redemption the dispensation of the gifts of common grace as well as all other matters are entrusted. It must be admitted, however, that Calvin himself does not state this in just so many words.

Commenting on the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 10 Calvin, after speaking of the grace conferred on the Israelites during their journey from Egypt to Canaan, grace which involved various material blessings as well as the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, goes on to say that Christ was called the Leader of the Israelitish people since God conferred no benefit on His people except through the hand of this Mediator. Here the reference is to Christ as the Mediator of Redemption and we are given to understand that all those who belonged to the ancient covenant people, many unbelievers included, received various blessings from Christ. Now it seems a matter of course that the covenant of grace itself and all those benefits which pertain to all covenant-members, such as the preaching of the Gospel for instance, depend upon the redeeming work of Christ. (Cf. Calvin on Acts 13, 16) It is self-evident that a general offer of salvation such as is involved in the Gospel would be altogether out of the question apart from the cross of Christ. But it strikes us that Calvin in explaining the first verses of 1 Corinthians 10 plainly teaches that various earthly blessings enjoyed by the whole Israelitish nation must be attributed to Christ, who functioned in their midst as the Mediator of Redemption. (1 Cor. 10, 1–5 and 9)

Now this is not the only passage in Calvin’s writings in which he affirms that Christ as Mediator of Redemption dispenses material and earthly benefits as well as spiritual blessings. Calvin teaches in a number of places that it is due to Christ and His redeeming work that the believers are made heirs of heaven and earth. It is Christ who restores to the believers that which they have lost through Adam. So, thanks to Christ as the Mediator of Redemption, the believers have a right to the various gifts of God’s beneficence, including material gifts such as bread and water. Calvin’s writings give us good reason for believing that he considered the material benefits which the believers receive benefits such as the non-elect likewise enjoy, to be fruits of the cross of Calvary. (III, 25, 9; Ps. 8, 6–10; Matth. 14, 20; John 6, 11; 1 Tim. 1, 3; Hebr. 2, 5–6)

Calvin even goes a step beyond this. He intimates that non-elect men participate in the material blessings which by good right belong to Christ and to all who are one with the Head of the Church through faith. The advantages of the present life abound to the wicked also although their possession of the same is not legitimate. Our author even says under 1 Timothy 4, 3 that unbelievers steal and rob. as it were, the property of another when they lay hold on various things for their use. Still, though Calvin maintains that the wicked, strictly speaking, can present no good claim to any earthly blessings, he does create the impression that he believed that the non-elect enjoy within the limits of this present life certain fruits of the mediatorial labors of Christ by which He acquired heaven and earth as the inheritance of God’s children. Calvin does not say this in just so many words but he does suggest the thought that Christ. into whose hands the Father has delivered all things, so dispenses temporal gifts that the ungodly receive the crumbs which fall from the table which He has prepared for those whose sins He bore on the cross. (III, 25, 9; John 6, 11; 1 Tim. 4, 3)

One might perhaps expect from Calvin’s emphasis on the relation of Christ’s redeeming work to the bestowal of material benefits that he would go so far as to teach that all the gifts of common grace depend on the cross of Christ, and that not a single benefit of any kind would have come to a single member of the human race, were it not that God had ordained in His eternal counsel that Christ was to acquire a redeemed people on the basis of His atoning death. However, we have not met with any deliverance in Calvin’s writings which clearly supports this view. On the contrary, we have come across certain commitments in which he seems to favor the idea that at least some of the gifts of common grace are to be attributed to Christ as the Mediator of Creation rather than as the Mediator of Redemption. On the first pages of his commentary on the Gospel according to John, Calvin argues that it was necessary that the restoration of mankind should be accomplished by the Son of God since by His power all things were created; since He breathes into all creatures life and energy so that they remain in their condition; and since in man himself He has given a remarkable display both of His power and grace, and even after the fall of Adam has not ceased to be liberal and beneficent towards his posterity. According to Calvin it is due to the life-giving power and grace of Christ that every living thing is kept from being reduced to nothing. And it is also due to the grace of Christ that the light of reason has been kindled in the minds of men. In this connection we fail to find any suggestion to the effect that the grace of Christ here mentioned depends upon Christ’s work as Mediator of Redemption. Here Calvin much rather seems to favor the thought that Christ’s redeeming work has for its substratum the work which Christ performed and still performs as the Eternal Word, through whom the world has been created and by whom the world is upheld from moment to moment.

Taking all in all we must say Calvin does not express himself as clearly as we might wish on the relation of Christ to common grace. This much is sure—he does definitely posit that there is a rather close connection between the work of Christ and the bestowal of various gifts which are common to the elect and non-elect. But he never treats this subject at any great length. The few references to this topic which we meet in his writings are made, as it were, in passing. Our author does not give us sufficient ground to speak of his views on this matter with great assurance.

Herman Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace (Goes, The Netherlands: OosterBaan & Le Cointre, 1928), 212–15.

Johannes à Marck [Marckius; 1656–1731], another very prominent theologian, published in 1686 a compendium which exerted great influence on many succeeding generations of Reformed thinkers. In treating of divine grace he first of all distinguishes between grace as a divine attribute and grace in the sense of the gifts of God’s gratuitous favor. With respect to grace in the latter sense he accepts among others the division of common and saving grace.² It is remarkable, however, that he usually speaks of a more common grace instead of simply saying common grace when he refers to the divine grace granted to the non-elect. So, for instance, he declares that temporary faith differs from saving faith not only as to its duration but also at [sic] to its origin, its origin being not truly saving grace, but a more common grace.³ It is also worthy of note that this writer considers the external preaching of the Gospel, which extends beyond the circle of the elect, a fruit of the more common grace of God,¹ and that he teaches that many of the blessings which redound to those who perish, such as the proclamation of the Gospel, the abolition of idolatry and the illumination of the Spirit, are blessings which proceed from the sacrifice of Christ²—an idea also found with Turretinus³ and Witsius.⁴
_______________
2) Johannes à Marck, Compendium Theologiae Christianae Didactico-Elencticum, IV, 42: Pariter ad Bonitatem Dei referimus ejus Gratiam. Misericordiam, & Patientiam. Intelligitur autem hic Gratia, non tam Gratis Data, per quam beneficia & dona ex favore Dei fluentia nontantur…… quam Gratis Dans, quae est Dei favor, quo creaturam ex se haud dignam prosequitur,…… & quae sola quoque juxta Christi Meritum dici potest Gratum Faciens, dum est talis nulla extra Deum in homini naturali…… Ac uti amplius probamus Divisiones Gratiae, in Internam & Externam, in Communem & Salutarem,…… quae potissimum ad Gratis Datam omnes referuntur;……
3) idem. XXII, 8: Agitur de hac (i.e. Fides Temporaria) Matth. XIII, 20, 21; Marc. VI, 17; Joh. V. 35; Hebr. VI. 4, 5, 6, etc. & differt illa a Fide Salvifica non equidem Nuda Duratione, uti contendunt omnes Perseverantiae Fidelium hostes, sed amplius; a Principio, quod est hic Gratia, non vere salutaris, & interna convertens Spiritus Sancti, sed Communior, & externum Verbi decus;……
1) idem. XVIII, 16: Mediatorem etiam Jesum dicimus…… Electorum…… ultra quos Praeconium Externum Euangelii extenditur, ut communior is Divinae gratiae fructus.
2) idem. XX, 24: Ex Bonis ad Pereuntes redundantibus ex Oblatione Christi; quale est Euangelii praeconium, Idololatriae ablatio, Spiritus illuminatio, &c.
3) F. Turretinus, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, XIV, 14, 11: Non Quaeritur, An occasione mortis Christi, multa bona reprobis quoque obtingant? Hoc enim morti Christi debetur, quod Evangelium praedicatur omni Creaturae, quod crassa idololatria Gentilium ex multis mundi partibus abolita sit, quod impietas profana hominum Verbi Divini fraeno non parum coëceatur, & quod nonnulii multa & excellentia, licet non salutaria Spiritus Sancti dona plerumque obtineant: quae omnia ex morte Christi fluere certum est, quandoquidam locus illis datus non fuisset in Ecclesia, nisi Christus mortuus fuisset.
4) H. Witsius, De Oeconomia Foederum Dei, II. 9. 4: Occasione sponsioris & satisfactionis Christi multa bona reprobis quoque obtingere. Hoc enim morti Christi debent, quod Euangelium praedicetur omni creaturae, quod crasa illa idololatria ex multis mundi partibus abolita sit, quod profana impietas verbi Divini paedogogia plurimum coërcatur, quod multa & excellentia quandoque, licet non salutaria. Spiritus Sancti dona obtineant quod per agnitionem Domini & Servatoris Jesu Christi pollutiones mundi effugerint. 2 Pet. II. 20. & quis omnia brevibus enumerat?

Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace, Appendix, ii–iii.

Note: Kuiper also briefly covers the views of Petrus van Mastricht, Wilhelmus à Brakel, Bernhardius de Moor, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, and V. Hepp, but he only notes that Marckius, Bavinck, Kuyper, and Hepp make some connection between common grace the redeeming work of Christ.

6. Roderick Alick Finlayson (1895–1989):

It must not be forgotten, however, that though the saving benefits of the death of Christ are restricted, its common benefits are not so, but flow to the world at large in the form of Common Grace. In this respect He is ‘the Savior of all men, but especially of them that believe’. [1 Tim. 4:10] All humanity is debtor to the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, for God’s forbearance and for manifold blessings in this life, and He is in a very real sense what the Scriptures declare Him to be, ‘the Savior of the World’. The doctrine of Particular Redemption lies side by side on the Scripture page with the doctrine of Common Grace, and both flow from the death of Jesus Christ, the one for time, and the other for time and eternity.

R. A. Finlayson, Reformed Theological Writings of R. A. Finlayson (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 1996), 252. Hat tip: Reformed Books Online.

7. John Murray (1898–1975):

In continuing the analysis of this doctrine, it is necessary to be clear what the question is not. The question is not whether many benefits short of justification and salvation accrue to men from the death of Christ. The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption. “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:8, 9). Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work. The real question is something very different.

John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), 61–62.

It is true that many benefits accrue from the redemptive work of Christ to the non-elect in this life. It is in virtue of what Christ did that there is a gospel of salvation and this gospel is proclaimed freely to all without distinction. Untold blessings are dispensed to the world for the simple reason that God has his people in the world and is fulfilling in it His redemptive purpose. Christ is head over all things and it is in the exercise of His mediatorial lordship that He dispenses these blessings. But His lordship is the reward of His atoning work. Hence all the favors which even the reprobate receive in this life are related in one way or another to the atonement and may be said to flow from it. If so, they were designed to flow from it, and this means that the atonement embraced in its design the bestowment of these benefits upon the reprobate. But this is not to say that the atonement, in its specific character as atonement, is designed for the reprobate. It is one thing to say that certain benefits accrue to the reprobate from the atonement; it is entirely different to say that the atonement itself is designed for the reprobate. And the fallacy of the latter supposition becomes apparent when we remember that it is of the nature of the atonement to secure benefits which the reprobate never enjoy. In a word, the atonement is bound up with its efficacy in respect of obedience, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. When the Scripture speaks of Christ as dying for men, it is His vicarious death on their behalf that is in view and all the content which belongs to the atonement defines the significance of the formula “died for.” Thus we may not say that He died for all men any more than that He made atonement for all men.

John Murray, The Atonement. Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. J. Marcellus Kik (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1962), 27–28.

Many benefits accrue to the non-elect from the redemptive work of Christ. There is more than one consideration to establish this proposition. Many blessings are dispensed to men indiscriminately because God is fulfilling His redemptive purpose in the world. Much in the way of order, equity, benevolence, and mercy is the fruit of the Gospel and the Gospel is God’s redemptive revelation centered in the gift of His Son. Believers are enjoined to “do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10) and compliance has beneficent results. But their identity as believers proceeds from redemption. Again, it is by virtue of what Christ has done that there is a Gospel of salvation proclaimed to all without distinction. Are we to say that the unrestricted overture of grace is not grace to those to whom it comes? Furthermore, we must remember that all the good dispensed to this world is dispensed within the mediatorial dominion of Christ. He is given all authority in heaven and in earth and He is head over all things. But he is given this dominion as the reward of his obedience unto death (cf. Phil. 2:8, 9), and his obedience unto death is but one way of characterizing what we mean by the atonement. Thus all the good showered on this world, dispensed by Christ in the exercise of his exalted lordship, is related to the death of Christ and accrues to man in one way or another from the death of Christ. If so, it was designed to accrue from the death of Christ. Since many of the blessings fall short of salvation and are enjoyed by many who never become the possessors of salvation, we must say that the design of Christ’s death is more inclusive than the blessings that belong specifically to the atonement. This is to say that even the non-elect are embraced in the design of the atonement in respect of those blessings falling short of salvation which they enjoy in this life. This is equivalent to saying that the atonement sustains this reference to the non-elect and it would not be improper to say that, in respect of what is entailed for the non-elect, Christ died for them.

We have in the Scripture itself an indication of this kind of reference and of the sanctifying effect it involves in some cases. In Hebrews 10:29 we read: ‘Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be accounted worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?’ The person in view we must regard as one who has abandoned his Christian profession and for whom ‘there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment’ (Heb. 10:26, 27). It is the person described in Hebrews 6:4, 5 in terms of the transforming effects experienced but who falls away and cannot be renewed unto repentance. In 2 Peter 2:20–22 the same person is described as having ‘escaped the defilements of the world’, as having ‘known the way of righteousness’, but as having turned back and returned as the dog to his vomit or the sow to wallowing in the mire. This is—terrible to contemplate!—the apostate. Our particular interest now is that he is represented as sanctified in the blood of Christ. Whatever may be the particular complexion of the sanctification in view, there can be no question but that it is derived from the blood of Christ and, if so, it was designed to accrue from the blood of Christ. The benefit was only temporary and greater guilt devolves upon the person from the fact that he participated in it and then came to count the blood by which it was conveyed an unholy thing. But, nevertheless, it was a benefit the blood of Christ procured, and procured for him. We must say that, to that extent Jesus shed his blood for his benefit. Other passages are probably in the same category. But this one suffices to show that there are benefits accruing from the death of Christ for those who finally perish. And in view of this we may say that in respect of these benefits Christ may be said to have died for those who are the beneficiaries. In any case it is incontrovertible that even those who perish are the partakers of numberless benefits that are the fruits of Christ’s death and that, therefore, Christ’s death sustains to them this beneficial reference, a beneficial reference, however, that does not extend beyond this life.

John Murray, “The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:63–64. See also pp. 68–69, where Murray addressed “The Difference in the Benefits.” Reprinted from The Torch and Trumpet (now The Outlook), Grand Rapids, March, May–June, and November, 1965.

Note: Morton Howison Smith (1923–2017), whom Joseph Pipa described as the “founding professor of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), founder of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS), first Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and one of the world’s foremost authorities on American Presbyterian history and theology, cited Murray approvingly. See Morton Smith, “Reformed Evangelism,” Reformed Perspectives Magazine 9.10 (2007). Erroll Hulse (1931–2017), a Reformed Baptist, also cited this material by John Murray approvingly in Erroll Hulse, “The Particular and Universal Aspects of Particular Redemption,” Reformation Today 47 (March–April, 1979): 28–32.

8. Loraine Boettner (1901–1990):

9. CERTAIN BENEFITS WHICH EXTEND TO MANKIND IN GENERAL

In conclusion let it be said that Calvinists do not deny that mankind in general receive some important benefits from Christ’s atonement. Calvinists admit that it arrests the penalty which would have been inflicted upon the whole race because of Adam’s sin; that it forms a basis for the preaching of the Gospel and thus introduces many uplifting moral influences into the world and restrains many evil influences. Paul could say to the heathen people of Lystra that God “left not Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness,” Acts 14:17. God makes His sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust [Matt 5:45]. Many temporal blessings are thus secured for all men, although these fall short of being sufficient to insure salvation.

[William] Cunningham has stated the belief of Calvinists very clearly in the following paragraph:—“It is not denied by the advocates of particular redemption, or of a limited atonement, that mankind in general, even those who ultimately perish, do derive some advantages or benefits from Christ’s death; and no position they hold requires them to deny this. They believe that important benefits have accrued to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits those who are finally impenitent and unbelieving partake. What they deny is, that Christ intended to procure, or did procure, for all men these blessings which are the proper and peculiar fruits of His death, in its specific character as an atonement, that He procured or purchased redemption that in, pardon and reconciliation for all men. Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other. All these benefits were of course foreseen by God, when He resolved to send His Son into the world; they were contemplated or designed by Him, as what men should receive and enjoy. They are to be regarded and received as bestowed by Him, and as thus unfolding His glory, indicating His character, and actually accomplishing His purposes; and they are to be viewed as coming to men through the channel of Christ’s mediation, of His suffering and death.”¹

There is, then, a certain sense in which Christ died for all men, and we do not reply to the Arminian tenet with an unqualified negative. But what we do maintain is that the death of Christ had special reference to the elect in that it was effectual for their salvation, and that the effects which are produced in others are only incidental to this one great purpose.
_______________
1. Historical Theology, II, p. 333.

Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936), 160–61.

General Benefits Received Through Common Grace

We do not deny, of course, that all mankind does receive many and important blessings because of the work of Christ. The penalty which would have been inflicted because of sin is temporarily postponed. Fallen man in this world remains on a much higher plane than that of the fallen angels who have been abandoned to evil and who are commonly referred to in Scripture as evil spirits or demons. As the Gospel is preached and the plan of redemption is progressively worked out, mankind at large shares many uplifting influences. The forces of evil are kept within bounds, and incomparably higher standards of moral, social and economic life are maintained. Paul could say to the heathen people of Lystra that God “left not Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness,” Acts 14:17. God makes His sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust [Matt 5:45]. These are the blessings of common grace. Though designed primarily for the elect, they are shared by all mankind; and since this world is not the place of final rewards and punishments, but the place of discipline and testing and development for the Lord’s people, these blessings are oftentimes enjoyed in greater abundance by the non-elect than by the elect. But in themselves they are not sufficient to bring a single soul to salvation. They are on an entirely different plane from the blessings of special grace, which are regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification. But in a secondary way the blessings of common grace are designed to serve God’s purpose in revealing His glory, manifesting His character, filling the world with beauty and happiness, and in general playing their necessary part in the development of His kingdom. There is, then, a sense in which Christ died for all men, and we do not reply to the Arminian tenet with an unqualified negative. But what we do maintain is that His death had special reference to the elect, that with the accompanying influences of the Holy Spirit which are secured by it, it is effectual for their salvation, and that the effects which are produced in others are only incidental to this one great purpose.

Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 325–26.

9. Samuel Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1915–2004):

There is, of course, a twofold love of God, that for the non-elect and that for the elect. While great benefits accrue to the non-elect from Christ’s atoning work, including the blessings of common grace and coming to high expression in the entreaties, the overtures, and the imperatives of gospel preaching, there is nevertheless a radical difference between the benefits of divine love as they pertain to the non-elect and the elect. The difference lies in the distinguishing love that ensures for the elect that they will be partakers of the atonement. It corresponds to the distinguishing nature of divine election.

S. Lewis Johnson, “Foreward,” in Gary Long, Definite Atonement (Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers, 1977), xi–xii.

It does not mean that there are not some benefits of the death of Christ that extend to all men. For example, the Lord Jesus by his death purchased common grace. There are certain benefits that all men enjoy by virtue of the coming of the Redeemer. In that sense, it could be said that Christ died for all. But that is not the sense that people mean when they say, “Christ died for all.” They mean, “He died to save all.”

S. Lewis Johnson, “Basic Biblical Doctrine: The Design of the Atonement,” Sermon. The student should also consult Johnson’s teaching on common grace, wherein he stated that, “this doctrine of common grace has more definitely to do with the operations of God’s Spirit in the realm of creation than in the realm of redemption. And so in many of our theologies, the doctrine of common grace is not considered when soteriology is studied, but there is a relationship, I think, between common grace and the redemptive process.”

10. Maurice Eugene Osterhaven (1915–2004):

Relation to Special Grace. The relation of common grace to special grace requires treatment inasmuch as there are those who claim for both essential similarity, with difference only in degree. Both, it is said, are a part of the saving intention of God; common grace enables a man to repent and believe if he only will, while special grace, working with the will, constrains him to do so. It appears, however, that common grace and special grace are not to be understood as essentially similar; rather, there is essential difference between them. The one merely restrains sin and promotes outward order and righteousness; the other renews the heart and sets man free from sin to know and to serve the living God. The one retards the destructive power of evil and gives men and society the semblance of moral respectability, goodness and beatitude; the other is profoundly spiritual in nature and is a resurrection from death to life. Common grace, God’s benevolence towards all mankind in spite of sin, does not bring a person to faith in Jesus Christ. As God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, he must sovereignly illumine human hearts if they are to have the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Such illumination is one aspect of what theology knows as special grace. In spite of their essential difference common grace and special grace are related to each other. Both flow from the bountiful loving kindness of God; both come to men through the only mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Moreover, there is a sense in which common grace is related to the saving work of Christ, for God’s gift of salvation is of such magnitude that its blessed effects reach far and wide into human society. This is another way of saying that the beneficent effects of special revelation are not limited to the elect. All in the community of men to whom the message is given benefit from it in some measure. An eminent Scottish divine has rightly said that “important benefits have accrued to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits those who are finally impenitent and unbelieving partake.” These benefits, he avers, come from Christ even to unbelieving men “collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other” (W. Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. II, pp. 331 f.; cf. L. Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 483; A. A. Hodge, The Atonement, p. 358). There is a general reference—to all men—as well as a particular reference—to the elect alone—in the scriptural teachings concerning the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

M. Eugene Osterhaven, “Basic Christian Doctrines: 26: Common Grace,” in Christianity Today 6.8 (January 19, 1962): 375. Also in M. Eugene Osterhaven, “Common Grace,” in Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Basic Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 175–76.

11. Roger Robert Georges Nicole (1915–2010):

Second, the issue is not whether there are benefits which flow from the death of Christ to people who are not saved—benefits, I say, short of salvation. On the contrary, the fact that Christ has come into this world has provided a certain outpouring of common grace. It has justified the long forbearance of God with mankind and therefore given perhaps a new impetus for this forbearance. There is a reprieve for mankind at large which is the result of the work of Jesus Christ. There is the possibility of calling people indiscriminately to the benefits of the gospel, to the joy of being sharers in the family of the Lord, and of having redemption and forgiveness of sins. Therefore, no one who holds to particular redemption desires in any way to say that what Jesus has done was exclusively for the elect. Rather, the work of Jesus Christ has universal significance and, indeed, a cosmic impact that goes beyond the interest merely of the human race. It concerns creation at large. These are truths which are freely confessed by those who hold to particular redemption.

Roger Nicole, “Particular Redemption,” in Our Savior God: Man, Christ, and the Atonement: Addresses Presented to the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology 1977–1979, ed. James M. Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 166–67. Also in Roger Nicole, Our Sovereign Savior: The Essence of the Reformed Faith (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2002), 58.

The Reformed as well as others admit, yea are eager to acknowledge, that there are certain blessings short of salvation, which are the fruits of the work of Christ, which may terminate upon any and all men, and which do in fact benefit substantially some who will never attain unto salvation. The point which is here in view, however, is whether salvation itself, involving all its integral elements, reconciliation, forgiveness, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc., has been actually secured and purchased by Christ for all men, or for the elect only.

Roger Nicole, “The Case for Definite Atonement,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 10.4 (1967): 198.

12. Edwin H. Palmer (1922–1980):

3. It is certainly possible when speaking to the unsaved to say in one sense that “Christ died for you.” Because of the death of Christ, many blessings flow to the reprobate: all the natural blessings of this world come through the mediatorial dominion of Christ. But all these blessings are nonsalvational: they do not terminate in the redemption of the person. Therefore, although technically speaking, it is proper to say to the unbeliever, “Christ died for you,” such a statement is more than likely to be very misleading and should only be used when it is properly understood. The average person, upon hearing that Christ died for him, would conclude first of all that Christ took away the guilt of his sins. This may not be the case, and so it is better not to state dogmatically what may be wrong.

Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 54, n. 3. Page 168 in the 2010 edition.

13. Jan van Genderen (1923–2004) and Willem Hendrik Velema (1929–2019):

We may not confuse the preserving and saving grace of God with each other. Yet there is a link between preservation (conservatio) and redemption (servatio). In the discussion of issues surrounding common grace we saw that the covenant with Noah is not independent of the covenant of grace of which Christ is the Mediator (§21.2). Therefore, objections must be raised against a synodical pronouncement of the Gereformeerde Gemeentem in Nederland en Noorde-Amerika (Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands and North America, 1945 [known in North America as The Netherlands Reformed Congregations of the United States and Canada]), which says that common grace is not fruit of the atonement earned by Christ, although the Father governs all things through Christ. Common grace must then serve “so that the reprobate as well as the elect are brought forth, preserved, and governed to the glorification of God’s righteousness and mercy according to his sovereign pleasure.”24 This has implications for both preservation and governance.
_______________
24. Cf. Hofman, Ledeboerianen en kruisggezinden (precursors of the Gereformeerde Gemeenten, literally followers of Ledeboer and followers of the cross as opposed to the state in religious matters).

J. van Gendern and W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, trans. Gerrit Bilkes and Ed M. van de Maas (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 304–305.

14. Morton Howison Smith (1923–2017):

Before leaving the subject of the love of God as the source of the atonement, we should observe the fact that in the Bible there are distinctions to be found regarding the love of God. First, there is the non-differentiating love of God that is the source of his goodness that comes to all men, both good and evil. It is seen in the sunshine and rain that comes to all in general. In that the coming of Christ brought benefits to all, and the atonement itself brings certain temporal benefits even to the non-elect, we see that this general loving-kindness of God is included in that love which is the source of the atonement.

Morton Smith, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019), 1:372

Fourth, it [i.e., the debate about the extent of the atonement] is not the question of whether there are benefits for all from the death of Christ.

The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed.…Since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work.

Smith, Systematic Theology, 1:?; quoting John Murray, Redemption, 72. See also the entry on John Murray above for more by Smith.

15. Bruce Alvin Demarest (1931–2021):

Some moderately Reformed authorities (perhaps following Calvin) claim that Christ’s saving provision includes many benefits, such as the common blessings of life, the restraint of evil, an objective provision sufficient for all, the removal of every obstacle on God’s side for the forgiveness of sins, and the future resurrection of the dead.⁶⁸ On the other hand, they seek to do justice to texts that indicate a special purpose for those persons given to Christ out of the world. Many cite 1 Tim 4:10 as indicating a twofold purpose in the cross, namely, general benefits for all people and saving benefits for elect believers. In a sermon entitled “General and Yet Particular,” Spurgeon maintained that Christ’s death fulfilled a twofold purpose: “there is a general influence for good flowing from the mediatorial sacrifice of Christ, and yet its special design and definite object is the giving of eternal life to as many as the Father gave him.”⁶⁹ Charles M. Horne wrote in a similar vein: “God’s salvation is one. As applied to non-Christians, it includes their preservation in this life and the enjoyment of certain blessings which come to man by common grace. As applied to believers, however, this salvation extends into eternity. This view would seem to be the best one, because it gives the power force to the word especially [1 Tim. 4:10].”⁷⁰ Donald G. Bloesch arrives at a similar conclusion. He writes, “even unbelievers are affected by Christ’s sacrifice which is universal in its scope and intention, and … even they will participate in the resurrection of the dead because of his sacrifice.… It must also be affirmed that even those who do not believe are benefited by the cross and resurrection of Christ, since the devil and his hosts were objectively overthrown and defeated irrespective of man’s response to the cross.”⁷¹
_______________
68 Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1977), p. 361, makes this point.
69 C. H. Spurgeon, “General and Yet Particular,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 63 vols. (Pasadena, Tex.: Pilgrim, reprint, 1969–80), 10:233. Cf. ibid., p. 230: “It has pleased God to put the whole race under the mediatorial sway of Jesus, in order that he might give eternal life to those who were chosen out of the world.”
70 Charles M. Horne, Salvation (Chicago: Moody, 1971), p. 46. Cf. Walter A. Elwell, “Atonement, Extent of the,” ETD, p. 99: “Paul had no trouble saying that God could be the Savior of all, in one sense, and of those who believe, in another sense.”
71 Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1978–79), 1:167.

Bruce A. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 163. The same material, with a very few modifications, is also in Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. in One (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 2:380–81.

16. Robert Lewis Reymond (1932–2013):

Reformed Christians also readily acknowledge that nonelect people can and do receive some benefits, short of salvation itself, as the fruits of Christ’s saving work. Not only does Christ’s atoning death, by virtue of its universal saving sufficiency, ground the legitimacy of preaching the gospel to every man, woman, and child without discrimination, as Warfield notes,⁴ but also, as Roger R. Nicole points out,
the fact that Christ has come into this world has provided a certain outpouring of common grace. It has justified the long forbearance of God with mankind and therefore given perhaps a new impetus for this forbearance. There is a reprieve for mankind at large which is the result of the work of Jesus Christ.⁵
_______________
4 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Mich.: Eerdmans, n.d.), 31.
5 Roger R. Nicole, “Particular Redemption,” in Our Savior God: Man, Christ, and the Atonement, ed. James M. Boice (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1980), 166–67. See also Francis Turretin, The Atonement of Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1978), 124–25, and R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1982), 82–84.

Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1998), 673.

17. James Montgomery Boice (1938–2000) and Philip Graham Ryken (1966–):

2. We agree that there are benefits of the death of Jesus Christ for all people, benefits short of salvation. Some of those benefits are of a temporal nature. Before the coming of Christ there was an outpouring of what theologians call common grace. God was patient with sin and delayed his judgment of it. Paul referred to this in his sermon on Mars Hill when he said that “in the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). That is true in the present as well. That is, while the gospel of grace is preached throughout the world, judgment is delayed. This is what Peter referred to when he observed that God “is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

There are also common benefits of the life and death of Christ for human society. Who can doubt that the demonstration of God’s love, mercy, and compassion at Calvary—particularly as this has worked itself out in the transformed values of Christian people, blessing their homes and giving them a new concern for others in all other areas of life—has blessed people wherever the gospel of grace has penetrated? The world would be a far less gentle place were it not for Christianity. Calvinists, as well as other Christians, confess that freely.

James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002), 115–16.

18. Robert Charles Sproul, Sr. (1939–2017):

There is a universal effect of the cross, in the sense that everybody benefits from the death of Christ, although not in the full sense of being saved by it.

R. C. Sproul, Mighty Christ (Fearn: Christian Focus, 1995), 132.

As an aside, let me say that while not everyone is saved by the cross, the work of Christ yields universal or near-universal concrete benefits. Through the death of Christ, the church was born, which led to the preaching of the gospel, and wherever the Gospel is preached there is an increase in virtue and righteousness in society. There is a spillage from the influence of the church, which brings benefits to all men. Also, people around the world have benefited from the church’s commitment to hospitals, orphanages, schools, and so on.

R. C. Sproul, The Truth of the Cross (Orlando, Florida: Reformation Trust, 2007), 144.

Note: As David Ponter said in his post, “While Sproul’s wording here is fairly artless, his comments manage to minimally reflect the traditional Reformed opinion on this topic.”

19. John Fullerton MacArthur Jr (1939–):

This [the dispute over the extent of the atonement] is also not a over whether any nonsaving benefits resulting from the atonement accrue to the nonelect. If God had not intended to save sinners through Christ’s atonement, it is likely that he would have immediately visited justice on sinful man as he did the fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4). Yet because God intended to save his people through Christ in the fullness of time, even those whom he will not ultimately save will have enjoyed the benefits of common grace, divine forbearance, and a temporary reprieve from divine judgment.

John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 544.

20. Vern Sheridan Poythress (1946–):

In Genesis 9 God goes on to bless Noah and his sons and gives a dominion mandate very like that given to Adam (Gen. 1:28–30). These promises apply to Noah and his descendants, and so they include all human beings now on earth. God promises blessings even to those who are not included in his special holy people. They are thus blessings of common grace.

The blessings and promises were given immediately after “the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma” of Noah’s burnt offerings (Gen. 8:21). These burnt offerings, like all the other sacrificial offerings by God’s people in the Old Testament, prefigure the self-offering of Christ (Heb. 10:1–14). God is pleased with Noah’s offerings, not as merely animal sacrifices but as prefigures of the work of Christ. We may conclude, then, that the work of Christ is the ultimate basis for God’s blessings to Noah. And if so, it is the ultimate basis for the blessings of common grace given to Noah’s descendants. Christ’s work accomplished the salvation of the elect, the ones chosen in Christ from the beginning. But it also gave a basis for lesser benefits, the benefits of common grace that come to unbelievers. As sinners against God, we all deserve to die immediately. But we still receive life and food and sunshine and other benefits [Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:17] … These are among the benefits of common grace.

Now we may apply these truths to the situation with respect to the knowledge possessed by unbelievers. Such knowledge is a benefit that they do not deserve in and of themselves. It comes as one of the benefits of Christ. Christ has not only obtained special saving wisdom for his chosen ones but has also obtained the blessing of “common grace” knowledge given here and there to unbelievers.

In particular, human knowledge concerning language derives from Christ’s work. And Christ’s work sustains human ability to sort through and distinguish good and bad ideas. This is so despite the fact that many of the beneficiaries do not know Christ, and might even be offended at the suggestion that he had anything to do with their having this knowledge.

Vern Sheridan Poythress, In the Beginning Was the Word: Language—A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 119–20.

21. Wayne Arden Grudem (1948–):

Common grace is different from saving grace in its results (it does not bring about salvation), in its recipients (it is given to believers and unbelievers alike), and in its source (it does not directly flow from Christ’s atoning work, since Christ’s death did not earn any measure of forgiveness for unbelievers, and therefore did not merit the blessings of common grace for them either). However, on this last point it should be said that common grace does flow indirectly from Christ’s redemptive work, because the fact that God did not judge the world at once when sin entered it was primarily or perhaps exclusively due to the fact that he planned eventually to save some sinners through the death of his Son.¹
_______________
1. It should be noted that I have put this chapter on common grace in part 5 of this book, “The Doctrine of the Application of Redemption,” not because common grace flows directly from Christ’s redemptive work (it does not) but because it has a role of preparing for and assisting in God’s work of the application of redemption to believers.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 803–804. Grudem said the same words in the 1994 first edition of this work. See pp. 657–58.

22. Gregory Nichols (1948–):

Let me qualify this [i.e., what he is arguing for by limiting the extent of Christ’s atonement]. I am not denying the relationship between the cross and common grace. The issue is not whether the atonement occasioned profound change in the history of the world. Surely it did. The issue is not whether the cross actually improved the earthly lives of both evil and good men. I gladly confess that it did. Nor is the issue whether material benefits typically abound in nations that come under the influence of the preaching of the cross. Certainly, that has happened repeatedly. God has blessed many nations with material prosperity in common grace through the influence of the gospel. Surely too, God decreed this blessing. He intended that the cross would occasion material blessings in common grace, both to the just and the unjust.

Greg Nichols, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Volume III: Doctrine of Christ (n.p.: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018), 700–701.

23. Samuel E. Waldron (1951–):

First, the question [about the extent of the atonement] is not, For whose benefit did Christ die? Let me stipulate several things with regard to this question. Many people who benefit from the death of Christ are not elect. Many benefits of common grace flow out of Chirst’s death. Many temporal benefits come to the non-elect as a result of Christ’s death. I admit, therefore, that many besides the elect benefit from Christ’s death.

Sam Waldron, “The Biblical Confirmation of Particular Redemption,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008), 139.

24. Curt D. Daniel (1952–):

Universal Benefits

There are various universal benefits beyond the guaranteed salvation of the elect. One is common grace. In one sense it flows freely from the divine nature, for “God is love.” But since mankind is fallen and deserves eternal wrath, there must have been something in the cross whereby God’s general love for all must be met with satisfaction. If there is no universal aspect, there could be no common grace to us. Of course, Hyper-Calvinists such as Herman Hoeksema turn this around and argue there is no universal aspect or common grace, but that is a minority opinion in the Reformed community.

As Spurgeon once put it: “Christ hath bought some good things for all men—the common mercies of life.”⁵⁵ Edward Polhill expressed it with typical Puritan eloquence: “Every bough of nature hangs upon the cross, every crumb of bread swims in his blood, every grape of blessing grows on his crown of thorns, and all the sweetness in nature streams out of his vinegar and gall.”⁵⁶ He went on to say that Christ took the curse of creation and will renovate creation based on His atonement. Some see typological significance in Christ’s wearing the crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29), for thorns represent the curse on creation (Genesis 3:18). Thus, His sacrifice had cosmic significance beyond humanity.

Next, all sinners deserve immediate judgment and instant wrath. Not only do all men receive many good things that they do not deserve (Luke 16:25; Acts 14:17), but they are not now receiving the wrath they do deserve. The very fact that they are not already in Hell is due in part to the death of Christ. Christ purchased a stay of execution for all men, as it were, but bought a guaranteed pardon for the elect alone. Lost sinners should thank God for every moment they are not in Hell, for anything short of Hell is a mercy bought by the blood of Christ. It had to be paid for, and Christ did just that. This is related to another universal non-saving benefit. Romans 14:9 says, “For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” Christ was rewarded for His humiliating death by the Father with the honor of being Lord of all men, saved and lost, elect and non-elect (Philippians 2:5–11). He is the “heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2).

Calvinists generally ground the universal free offer of the gospel in the infinite value and universal sufficiency of the atonement. Others who hold to the stricter limitation tended to deny this foundation or even reject the free offer altogether. But historic Calvinists contend that since a proclamation of the gospel is an invitation to a feast, there must be something on the banquet table that is infinitely sufficient for all to whom the invitation is extended (Matthew 22:2–14; Luke 14:16–24)—“Come, for all things are now ready.”
_______________
55 Charles H. Spurgeon, Anecdotes and Stories (London: Houlston and Wright, 1866), 140.
56 Polhill, The Works of Edward Polhill, 158.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Darlington, Co Durham: EP Books, 2019), 505–506.

25. Joel Robert Beeke (b. 1952) and Paul Michael Smalley (b. 1969)

Sixth, it is objected that particular redemption ignores God’s common grace (Matt. 5:44). Some, if not all, of these benefits come to the world by Christ’s redemption.

In reply, we recognize that Christ’s obedience unto death has brought many common, temporal benefits to the world.¹¹¹ It may well be that God preserves the universe and humanity from total destruction because of his election and redemption of the elect by Christ’s blood.¹¹² Furthermore, God patiently manifests his general goodness to all his creation. However, common grace is not the question before us. Murray said, “The question is: on whose behalf did Christ offer himself a sacrifice? On whose behalf did he propitiate the wrath of God? Whom did he reconcile to God in the body of his flesh through death? Whom did he redeem from the curse of the law, from the guilt and power of sin, from the enthralling power and bondage of Satan?”¹¹³ The answer, the Bible says, is the people whom the Father chose and gave to Christ, those individuals whom Christ actually saves.
_______________
111 [Greg] Nichols, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 3:700–701.
112 [Ann] Dutton, A Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, in Selected Spiritual Writings, 1:64.
113 [John] Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 62.

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Man and Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 1080–1081.

26. Mark W. Karlberg (c.1952–):

According to traditional covenant theology every person since the Fall is a covenant-breaker. Fallen humanity stands outside the covenant of God. The atonement of Christ, though limited in its saving benefits to the elect, makes possible the establishment of a special covenant community, which in the course of redemptive history includes both elect and some non-elect. The proper purpose of redemptive covenant is spiritual union and communion with Christ. Since Christ died for his own, the saving benefits of his death are efficacious to the elect alone. The atonement of Christ, accordingly, is particular and definite. That is to say, in terms of the saving efficacy of the cross the extent of the atonement is limited, not universal. However, a concomitant of this program of redemption is common grace, which provides temporal, not eternal, benefits for all humankind indiscriminately. The operation of common grace in the world extends from the Fall to the return of Christ. Common grace is neither “earlier grace” (à la [Cornelius] Van Til) nor “later grace” (à la [Gary] North). John Murray correctly defines common grace as “every favor of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God.”¹³
_______________
13 John Murray, “Common Grace,” WTJ 5 (1942) 4. (The original is all italicized.) This essay is also found in his Collected Writings, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977).

Mark W. Karlberg, “Covenant and Common Grace,” Westminster Theological Journal 50.2 (1988): 327. Also in Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 299.

27. The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (2017):

3. The Covenant of Works has not been revoked. All men remain under its requirement of perfect obedience and will have to give account according to it at the last judgment. In the Covenant of Grace Jesus Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the Covenant of Works for His people. By His death Christ secured the delay of the full penalty of death for sin (the second death, Rev. 20:14–15) for all men. They therefore may enjoy the creation and have some fruitful toil in it for God’s glory, even though they be rebellious against Him. This is usually called common grace. Heb. 12:14; 2 Cor. 5:10, 21; Col. 1:16–20; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gen. 4:20–24; Ps. 76:10.

4. We reject the concept that God extends grace to any man apart from the atoning work of Christ. Isa. 45:1–4 with Rom. 3:21–26; Acts 17:30–31.

The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America—Being Its Standards Subordinate to the Word of God (1989; repr., Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant Publications, 2017), A-28–A-29.

For more on this subject, see also Jelle Tuininga, “The Christological Basis of Common Grace” (Th.M. Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1966); and John Hoongkyu Baek, “The Atonement as the Judicial Basis of Common Grace” (Th.M. Thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2009).

Pages

TAGS / LABELS

March 22, 2023

Various Theologians on the Association of Common Grace Blessings to the Death of Christ

No comments:

Translate

NOTE

About Me

Total Pageviews

Links

Blog Archive

StatCounter