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

§ 62. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

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

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

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

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

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