A. A. Hodge (1823–1886) on the Intent and Extent of Christ’s Death

(2d) The subjects of this redemption are those persons whom God has from all eternity elected of his sovereign good pleasure, out of the mass of fallen humanity, to everlasting life. This number is never said to be small, either absolutely or relatively. The promise to Abraham was that “his seed” (believers) should be multiplied “as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore.” The strictest Calvinists believe that the number of the elect includes all who die in infancy, and that in the end it will embrace the vast majority of the human race.

This does not mean that Christ did not really die for all men, so that whosoever will believe on him shall have everlasting life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). He has suffered the penalty the law denounced on all human sinners, and so removed the legal obstacles to the salvation of every one who accepts Christ as his Saviour. Nevertheless, faith itself is the gift of God, and if any man truly believes, he knows that it was only because he was moved thereto by the Holy Ghost. Those whom God thus effectually moves are those whom he has, out of special love, elected to salvation and to all the means thereof from all eternity (John 6:37, 39; 10:26; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–6). This also follows from the revealed fact that God’s eternal decree determines whatsoever comes to pass. (See above, Ques. 7.) This works no injustice to those not elected. They will be only treated as they deserve. They have willfully sinned. Many of them have willfully rejected a freely and lovingly offered Christ (Rom. 9:19–23).

Archibald Alexander Hodge, J. Aspinwall Hodge, The System of Theology Contained in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Opened and Explained. (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1888), 38–39.

Notice that in the following quote, Hodge approvingly quotes from 4 Hypothetical Universalists.

§ 2. Proof of the Augustinian Doctrine

5th. State the proof of this doctrine from the nature of the Covenant of Redemption.
6th. Also from the doctrine of Election.
7th. And from the express Declarations of Scripture.
8th. And from the special Love of God.
9th. And from the believer’s union with Christ.
10th. Show how the Church doctrine embraces all the facts of the case.
11th. State and show unfounded the criticism that the Augustinian view as to the design of the Atonement is founded upon a commercial view as to its nature.
12th. Answer the objection that if the Atonement is limited in design, it must be restricted in offer.
13th. How can the Augustinian doctrine be reconciled with those passages of Scripture which in various ways assert that Christ died for all men?
14th. The same as to those passages which speak of those perishing for whom Christ died.

As to this question “for whom did Christ die?” the difference between consistent Calvinists can be nothing more than one of emphasis at the most. Christ died in order to save His Elect seed. He also died in order to make it consistent with justice (in every sense of that word), to save any man (elect or non-elect) or all men without exception on the condition of faith. The one party insists that this state of purpose should be expressed by general Atonement. The other party insists that the specific intention to save the elect was the determining purpose, and therefore that the definite intention rather than the general one should be emphasized. But under this difference of language, there exists among Calvinists no real difference of doctrine.

Mr. [Edmund] Calamy, who in the Westminster Assembly argued for the broader view of the design of Christ’s Atonement, as far as that view was represented there at all, said “I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense; but that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all—absolute for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe—that all men should salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami.”*

The Synod of Dort said, “This” (that any perish) “is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.”†

Archbishop [James] Ussher, in his “Judgment on the Intent and Extent of Christ’s Satisfaction on the Cross,” and in his “Answer to some Objections,” Works vol. 12, pp. 555, 571, says, “For that Christ died for all men, that he impetrated reconciliation and remission of sins for each man, I hold to be untrue, being well assured that our Saviour hath obtained at the hands of His Father reconciliation and forgiveness of sins, not for the reprobate, but for the elect only, and not for them neither, before they be truly regenerated and implanted into Himself.”

“And, therefore, we may safely conclude out of these premises, that ‘the Lamb of God offering Himself for the sins of the whole world,’ intended by giving sufficient satisfaction, to make the nature of man, which He assumed, a fit subject for mercy and to prepare a medicine for sins of the whole world, which should be denied to none that intended to take the benefit of it; howsoever He intended not by applying this all-sufficient remedy unto every person in particular to make it effectual unto the salvation of all, or to procure thereby actual pardon for the sins of the whole world. So in one respect He may be said to have died for all, and in another respect not to have died for all; yet so as in respect of His mercy He may be counted a kind of universal cause of restoring of our nature, as Adam was of the depraving of it, for as far as I can discern he rightly hits the nail on the head that determineth the point in this manner.”

Richard Baxter, “Catholic Theology,” Part III., p. 67. “When we speak of Christ’s death as a sacrifice for the sins of all the world, we mean no more but that esse cognito et volito, the undertaking was so far for all as that all should have the conditional promise or gift of life, by the merits of it.”

p. 69. “He whose sufferings were primarily satisfaction for sin, were secondarily meritorious of the means to bring men to the intended end; that is by the word and spirit, by which Christ causeth sinners to believe; so that faith is a fruit of the death of Christ in a remote or secondary sense.”

Also in “the End of Controversy,” p. 160, Baxter says, “Christ died for all, but not for all alike or equally, that is, He intended good to all, but not an equal good with equal intention.” See also his Methodus Christianæ, Pars. III., Cap. I., p. 57–61.

“System of Christian Theology,” Dr. H. B. Smith, pp. 478–481. The doctrine of a General Atonement “does not suppose different and inconsistent purposes in God. One purpose is, to make the salvation of all possible; another is, to save some.” “The Scripture says Christ died to save His people. It also says, Christ died for the whole world. Christ’s special design does not exclude a more general design. To say, Christ came to save, redeem, deliver, sanctify His people, is most certainly true, but is, in this argument, a petitio principi; it assumes that Christ in His work had only one design. The doctrine of General Atonement (‘as held by Calvinists’) does not assert that the purpose of God on Christ’s death had equal respect to the elect and the non-elect, in the sense that God intended to apply it equally.”
_______________
* “Minutes of the Proceedings of the West. Assem. of Divines,” edited by Prof. Alex. F. Mitchell, D.D., 1874, p. 152.
† “Canons of Synod of Dort,” Second Head of Doctrine, §§ 5 and 6.

A. A. Hodge, Questions on the Text of the Systematic Theology of Dr. Charles Hodge (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885), 103–5; italics original. Credit to Michael Lynch for this find.

Bio:

Wiki

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley on the Objection Against the Gospel Call

2. The Objection against the Gospel Call

Just as some people have so emphasized the general gospel call as to severely downplay God’s sovereign election, others have so emphasized election as to minimize the gospel call. The various forms of this error are often called hyper-Calvinism. However, we must acknowledge that this label has difficulties. Often it is wrongly applied to legitimate forms of historic Reformed doctrine, such as unconditional election or eternal reprobation. The term is also misleading because, as Iain Murray writes, “Too often it has been supposed that the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is simply a question of degree.”⁵⁸ The problem is not too high a view of divine sovereignty but the denial of other biblical doctrines.

Some advocates of sovereign grace deny that the gospel call is an offer of Christ. The most relevant meaning of the verb offer in this case is “to present for acceptance or rejection.”⁵⁹ John Gill wrote, “The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes”; however, he also said, “That there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny; nay, I deny that they are made to any; no, not to God’s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit.”⁶⁰ Yet we note that Gill could preach as follows: “Come to the Lord as humble penitents … let sensible sinners come to the person, blood and righteousness of Christ for justification and salvation.”⁶¹ Gill also encouraged preachers “fervently” and “boldly” to “set forth the lost and miserable estate and condition of men by nature, the danger they are in, the necessity of regeneration and repentance, and of a better righteousness than their own, and of faith in Christ; which things are blessed for the turning of men from darkness to light.”⁶² He commended preaching that is “very moving … striking … spiritual, savory, and evangelical having a tendency to awaken the minds of sinners to a sense of sin and danger, and to relieve and comfort the distressed.”⁶³ However, it does appear that Gill held to a mild form of hyper-Calvinism that discouraged churches from freely calling and commanding lost sinners to come to Christ, believe in him, receive him, and be saved.⁶⁴

The language of the free offer expresses biblical truth. Faith is receiving of Christ (John 1:11–12; Col. 2:6), but it is difficult to understand how Christ could be received if he were not offered to people in the gospel. Grace is a gift that must be received for salvation (John 1:16; Rom. 5:17). Christ offers the Spirit to the thirsty, and sinners receive the Spirit by faith in Christ (John 7:37–39; Gal. 3:1–2). The Spirit in his operations upon the believer is a “gift” that repentant sinners “receive.”⁶⁵

The free offer is affirmed in Reformed confessional statements. Calvin’s Catechism of 1537 (Art. 12) says, “Just as the merciful Father offers us the Son through the word of the Gospel, so we embrace him through faith and acknowledge him as given to us. It is true that the word of the Gospel calls all to participate in Christ, but a number, blinded and hardened by unbelief, despise such a unique grace. Hence, only believers enjoy Christ; they receive him as sent to them; they do not reject him when he is given, but follow him when he calls them.”⁶⁶ The Genevan Confession (Art. 11) states, “We believe the promises of the gospel and receive Jesus Christ as He is offered to us by the Father and described to us by the Word of God.”⁶⁷ The Canons of Dort (Head 3/4, Art. 9) say, “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.”⁶⁸

The Westminster Standards affirm the same. The Shorter Catechism (Q. 31) says that Christ is “freely offered to us in the gospel.”⁶⁹ The Larger Catechism (Q. 68) speaks of how God justly leaves in unbelief the wicked for “their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them.”⁷⁰ The Westminster Confession of Faith (7.3) says, “The Lord was pleased to make … the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved.”⁷¹

The free offer of the gospel expresses God’s sincere desire for sinners to repent and be saved. Another relevant meaning of the word offer is “to declare one’s readiness or willingness.”⁷² The Word reveals the goodness of God to all people. God “is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” because of his “merciful” character (Luke 6:35–36; cf. Matt. 5:44–48).⁷³ When the gospel comes to people, he expresses his good desires for them in saying, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” (Deut. 5:29).

In Ezekiel 18:23, we read, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” The words “have I any pleasure at all” render a grammatical construction that repeats the same Hebrew root for emphasis. Calvin said, “God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety.… And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ.”⁷⁴ This is a revelation of the heart of God. Johannes Polyander said, “The impelling cause [of the gospel call], whereby God is moved internally by himself, is God’s grace, his good pleasure and favorably-inclined will to offer, in Christ, his salvation to wretched sinners.”⁷⁵

Does this teaching overthrow the Reformed doctrine of election? Herman Hoeksema said that to teach a “general love of God and desire to save sinners” is “Arminianism and Pelagianism.”⁷⁶ There is some tension in the Bible at this point, but no surrender of the doctrines of sovereign grace. In one sense, God desires all men to repent. In another sense, he desires to punish the wicked, and he sometimes gives them up to a hard and unrepentant heart. When Eli corrected his wicked sons, the Scriptures say that they did not listen and repent “because the Lord would slay them” (1 Sam. 2:25). Literally the verse says the Lord “was pleased to cause them to die,” using the same verb translated as “please” (khapets) as is used in Ezekiel 18:23.

Therefore, one text says that God is not pleased that sinners do not repent and so die; another text says that some sinners did not repent because God was pleased that they should die. How can we understand both of these texts together?

The answer lies in the manifold and complex display of God’s goodness to fallen sinners. God’s gracious character shows itself in his goodness and compassion to all his creation (Ps. 145:8–9). Therefore, he calls all who hear the gospel to repent and live, and desires that they do so. As John Murray said, “The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all. Such grace is necessarily a manifestation of love or lovingkindness in the heart of God.”⁷⁷ However, God is also the sovereign and righteous King (vv. 13, 17). He is free to work as he sees fit (115:3) and always works consistently with his righteousness (33:4–5). The same goodness by which he delights in mercy (Mic. 7:18) is that by which he delights in justice (Jer. 9:24). In his sovereign freedom, he has chosen to be good to all people in temporal blessings, to graciously call many people to eternal joy, and to actually save only some (Matt. 22:14). He is patient and good to many in this life whom he has destined for destruction for their sins (Rom. 2:4–5; 9:22). This is the doctrine of reprobation.⁷⁸

Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) misunderstood this to indicate two wills in God,⁷⁹ but Calvin spoke more wisely when he said that “his will is one and simple; but since our minds do not penetrate the abyss of secret election, in accommodation to the capacity of our weakness, the will of God is exhibited to us in two ways.”⁸⁰ Francis Turretin explained, “Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree.… It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man.”⁸¹ Therefore, we do not preach a two-faced God or a God of duplicity, but one God whose wisdom and will are infinitely beyond our understanding (Rom. 11:33–34), knowable only in part and then by his revelation alone.⁸² God’s purpose is not to confuse us but to assure us that he gladly receives every repentant sinner (Luke 15) and to call us to praise him for our salvation, for it is entirely of his gracious will (Eph. 1:3–6).

The combination of human responsibility, divine sovereignty, and the free offer of the gospel appears most beautifully in Jesus Christ, the perfect Image of God. The Lord Jesus Christ said of the Jews in Jerusalem who would soon kill him, “How often would I have gathered [you] together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Matt. 23:37). Both occurrences of “would” translate the same Greek verb (thelō), which means to desire, to will, or to decide.⁸³ Christ was willing, but they were not willing.

Again, Christ said to a group of Jews, “These things I say, that ye might be saved” (John 5:34). The grammatical syntax (hina plus a subjunctive verb) indicates purpose. Hence, the Son of God made known his desire and the intention behind the message he communicated: that those who heard him would come to him by faith and have eternal life (v. 24)—though they were not willing to do so (v. 40). Christ’s words clarify matters for everyone who hears the gospel. Jesus wants them to be saved by faith in him; if they are unsaved, it is because of their unwillingness to come to him.⁸⁴

Similarly, in Matthew 11 we hear that Christ condemned the cities of Galilee for their rejection of the gospel and called everyone who was burdened to come to him and find rest (Matt. 11:20–24, 28–30). Yet sandwiched between these declarations of human responsibility and the free offer, we read that God has hidden the truth from some people according to his good pleasure, and that no one can know the Father except those to whom Christ chooses to reveal him (vv. 25–27). The Lord Jesus shows us that man’s responsibility for his sins, God’s sovereignty in saving whom he chooses, and the free offer of the gospel belong together.

The Canons of Dort (Head 1, Art. 5) say, “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God.”⁸⁵ Calvin said,

If we see and acknowledge, therefore, the principle on which the doctrine of the Gospel offers salvation to all, the whole sacred matter is settled at once. That the Gospel is, in its nature, able to save all I by no means deny. But the great question lies here: Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men? It is quite manifest that all men, without difference or distinction, are outwardly called or invited to repentance and faith. It is equally evident that the same Mediator is set forth before all, as He who alone can reconcile them to the Father.… The mercy of God is offered equally to those who believe and to those who believe not, so that those who are not divinely taught within are only rendered inexcusable, not saved.⁸⁶

_______________
58 Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon and Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995), 40.
59 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “offer.”
60 John Gill, The Doctrine of Predestination Stated, and Set in Scriptural Light: In Opposition to Mr. Wesley’s Predestination Calmly Considered, in Sermons and Tracts (1815; repr. Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1981), 3:117–18.
61 John Gill, The Watchman’s Answer to the Question, What of the Night?, in Sermons and Tracts, 1:59; cf. John Gill, The Glory of God’s Grace Displayed, In Its Abounding over the Aboundings of Sin (London: Aaron Ward, 1724), 38.
62 Gill, Body of Divinity, 931–32.
63 John Gill, Funeral sermon for Samuel Wilson (1750), cited in S. H. Cone, “Biographical Sketch of the Author,” in Samuel Wilson, A Scripture Manual or a Plain Representation of the Ordinance of Baptism, in The Baptist Library: A Republication of Standard Baptist Works, ed. Charles G. Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill, 3 vols. (Prattsville, NY: Robert H. Hill, 1843), 1:29–30.
64 Gill said that the gospel obligates men to historical faith—that is, to assent that the historical events reported in the gospel are true—but does not obligate them to saving faith in Christ. John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (1855; repr., Paris, AK: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1992), 31–32. Therefore, it is not man’s immediate duty to trust in Christ upon hearing the gospel. “Though I think the judgment should still be surrounded with cautions and caveats, there may be compelling evidence that Gill held to the distinctive hyper-Calvinist tenet.” Tom J. Nettles, “John Gill and the Evangelical Awakening,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 153n60. “Gill was shaped by the rationalism of his day.… Gill’s theology did hamper passionate evangelism and outreach.” Michael A. G. Haykin, “Remembering Baptist Heroes: The Example of John Gill,” in Ministry by His Grace and for His Glory: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Nettles, ed. Thomas K. Ascol and Nathan A. Finn (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2011), 29.
65 Acts 2:38; 8:19–20; 10:45, 47; 11:17.
66 Reformed Confessions, 1:365–66.
67 Reformed Confessions, 1:397–98.
68 The Three Forms of Unity, 143. On the meaning of offero in the Canons of Dort and other Reformed orthodox writings, see R. Scott Clark, “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries, Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple, ed. David VanDrunen (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 169–73.
69 Reformed Confessions, 4:357. See also Q. 86 on “faith in Jesus Christ” (4:365).
70 Reformed Confessions, 4:312.
71 Reformed Confessions, 4:242–43.
72 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “offer.”
73 See chap. 2.
74 Calvin, Commentaries, on Ezek. 18:23.
75 Polyander, Walaeus, Thysius, and Rivetus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, 30.12 (2:213).
76 Hoeksema, A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth, 32.
77 Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:132. This article (pp. 113–32) was a committee report authored by Murray for the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It is available at http://www.opc.org/GA/free_offer.html.
78 On God’s good delight in repentance and retribution, see RST, 1:845–46. On reprobation, see RST, 1:989–97.
79 On Amyraldianism, see RST, 1:1024, 1026.
80 Calvin, Commentaries, on Matt. 23:37. On Calvin and Amyraut’s misinterpretation of him, see Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 107–25.
81 Turretin, Institutes, 15.2.15 (2:507). On God’s preceptive will and decretive will, see RST, 1:764–67.
82 On the importance of recognizing the vast difference between God’s theology (archetypal) and our theology (ectypal) as image bearers, particularly our theology as pilgrims on earth who have not arrived, see Clark, “Well-Meant Offer,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, ed. VanDrunen, 149–68, 174–79.
83 TDNT, 3:44–46.
84 Willard, A Compleat Body of Divinity, 438. On John 5:34, see Samuel E. Waldron, The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel (Greenbrier, AR: Free Grace Press, 2019), 19–34.
85 The Three Forms of Unity, 121.
86 John Calvin, On Eternal Predestination, in Reformed Confessions, 1:751, emphasis original.

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Spirit and Salvation, vol. 3 of Reformed Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 299–305; italics original.