047. CHAPTER 21 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - THE ARMINIAN VIEW EXHIBITED AND PROVED BY SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER 21 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - THE ARMINIAN VIEW EXHIBITED AND PROVED BY SCRIPTURE.

HAVING, in the preceding chapters, presented the true attitude of Calvinists in regard to the main point at issue, and shown their essential agreement we proceed briefly to define the genuine Arminian ground with regard to the same leading question. Preparatory to this, however, we first present a brief account of that system of Christian doctrine denominated Arminianism.

“Arminianism, strictly speaking, is that system of religious doctrine which was taught by Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden. If, therefore, we would learn precisely what Arminianism is, we must have recourse to those writings in which that divine himself has stated and expounded his peculiar tenets. This, however, will by no means give us an accurate idea of that which, since his time, has been usually denominated Arminianism. On examination, it will be found that, in many important particulars, those who have called themselves Arminians, or have been accounted such by others, differ as widely from the nominal head and founder of their sect, as he himself did from Calvin and other doctors of Geneva.

“The tenets of the Arminians may be comprised in the following five articles, relating to predestination, universal redemption, the corruption of men, conversion, and perseverance, viz.:

“1. That God from all eternity determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end in their faith in Christ Jesus; and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist unto the end his divine succors; so that election was conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness.

“2. That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular; that, however, none but those who believe in him can be partakers of the divine benefits.

“3. That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will, since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing; and that therefore it is necessary, in order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ.

“4. That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that, nevertheless, this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse wills of impenitent sinners.

“5. That God gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his grace, the means of preserving themselves in this state; and though the first Arminians made some doubt with respect to the closing part of this article, their followers uniformly maintain that the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in their sins.” (Watson’s Biblical and Theological Dictionary.) From the foregoing account of the general principles of Arminianism, we conclude, in reference to the great question which we have proposed, that all genuine Arminians agree -

1. That, notwithstanding the atonement has been made, those to whom the gospel is addressed cannot be saved without faith in Christ.

2. That mankind, by the exercise of their own natural powers, are incapable of believing in Christ unto salvation, without the supernatural influence of divine grace through the Holy Spirit.

3. That the assisting grace of God is, through the atonement, so extended to every man as to enable him to partake of salvation.

Thus it may be seen, that while the Arminians discard the merit of works, or the ability to save themselves, yet they all agree in believing that the atonement of Christ so extends to all men as to make salvation possible for them. As we have now shown that all genuine Calvinists and Arminians are fairly at issue with regard to the extent of the atonement so as to make salvation possible to all men, and as the substance of the entire controversy between them is plainly involved in that single question, we are now prepared to appeal “to the law and to the testimony.” On a subject of so great importance, we can confidently rely on nothing short of “Thus saith the Lord.” And happy for the honest inquirer after truth, upon no subject is the holy volume more copious and explicit.

We trust that no unfairness has been exercised in the exhibit which we have made of the peculiar views of Calvinists and Arminians, and that we may now impartially examine the question.

We proceed, then, to the discussion of the following question. Does the atonement of Christ so extend to all mankind as to make salvation possible for them? Upon this question we endeavored to show that all genuine Calvinists assume the negative, and all genuine Arminians the affirmative. That the affirmative is the real doctrine of Scripture, we shall now endeavor to prove.

I. Our first argument on this subject is founded upon those passages of Scripture in which, in speaking of the death or the atonement of Christ, terms of universality are used, such as, “the world,” “the whole world,” “all men,” etc. This class of texts is so numerous, that we need only select a few of many.

John 1:29 : “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”John 3:16-17 : “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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” John 4:42 : “This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”John 6:51 : “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”2 Corinthians 5:14 : “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.”

Hebrews 2:9 : “That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”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.”1 Timothy 4:10 : “Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.” 2 Corinthians 5:19 : “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.”

1 Timothy 2:6 : “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

It has already been shown, in the discussion of the nature of the atonement, what is implied in Christ’s dying “for us,” or “for the world.” With Calvinists, at least, there can be no evasion on this point; for none have more successfully than they, when contending against the Socinians, demonstrated that the phrase “to die for,” as used in application to the death of Christ, means to die instead of, as a vicarious and expiatory sacrifice. This point, then, being settled, which Calvinists will cheerfully admit, we may ask, How is it possible for language more clearly and forcibly to teach that Christ died for all men, so as to make salvation possible for them, than it is taught in the passages adduced? He is said to have died “for all,” “for the world,” “for every man,” and, as if expressly to preclude all possibility for cavil, either in reference to the nature or the extent of his atonement, he is said to have given himself a “ransom for all,” to be “reconciling the world unto himself,” and to be the “propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” The reply of the Calvinists to this argument is, that the terms “all men,” “the world,” etc., are sometimes used in Scripture in a limited sense. In reference to this, we may observe that it cannot be admitted as a principle in criticism, that because a term is sometimes used in an unusual sense, and one different from the most obvious and general meaning, therefore it must so be understood in other places, even when there is nothing in the context to justify or require that unusual sense. Although we may admit that the terms “world” and “all men” may sometimes be used in a restricted sense, the conclusion which the Calvinists would draw from this admission is a non sequitur - it does not follow that the terms are to be restricted in the passages above quoted. So far from the context requiring this restriction, which would be necessary to the validity of the Calvinistic plea in question, we may confidently affirm that the entire connection and scope of the passages forbid the possibility of the terms being restricted. When our Saviour says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him,” etc., it is clear that the world for whom the Saviour was given cannot be restricted to the elect; for the restriction which immediately follows, and promises “eternal life,” not to the world, but to such of the world as should believe, is positive evidence that the world for whom the Saviour was given would not all be saved. When St. Paul says, “We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead,” he proves the universality of spiritual death, or, (as Macknight paraphrases the passage,) of “condemnation to death,” from the fact that Christ “died for all.” Now if Christ only died for the elect, the apostle’s argument could only prove that the elect were spiritually dead, or condemned to death, which would be a violent perversion of the sense of the passage. When the apostle calls Christ the “Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe,” believers are evidently specified, as only a part of the “all men” of whom Christ is said to be “the Saviour.” When St. John declares that Christ is “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” believers are first specified, as identified with the apostle, by the phrase, “our sins;” and hence, when it is added, “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” it is evident that the term should be taken in the widest sense as embracing all mankind. The Scriptures are their own best interpreter; and, where it can be done, one passage should be explained by another. If, therefore, it could be shown that the same writers have, in other places, used these general terms to designate the elect, or believers, as such, there would be more plausibility in the restricted construction of Calvinists; but this is so far from being the case, that the elect, or believers, as such, are constantly in the Scriptures contradistinguished from “the world.” The terms of universality, in the passages quoted, are never in Scripture applied to the elect, or believers, as such. When St. John says that Christ is “the propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” the sense in which he uses the term may be learned from that other expression of his, where he saith, “the whole world lieth in wickedness.” When St. Paul says that Christ “tasted death for every man,” he uses the phrase “every man” in as wide a sense as when he informs us that “every man” is to be raised from the dead “in his own order.” When the Saviour informs us that he came “not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved,” he refers to the same world of which he speaks when he says to his disciples, “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” We may therefore arrive at the conclusion, from those passages of Scripture in which, in speaking of the death of Christ, terms of universality are used that the atonement of Christ so extends to all mankind as to make salvation possible for them.

II. Our second argument is founded upon those passages which contrast the death of Christ with the fall of our first parents.

1 Corinthians 15:22 : “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” It is admitted that in this passage the resurrection of the body is the principal topic of discussion; nevertheless, there is here a clear inferential proof that Christ died for all men, so as to make salvation attainable by them. For if, by virtue of his death and resurrection, all men are to be redeemed from the grave, then it will follow that all men were represented by Christ in the covenant of redemption; and if so, he must have died as an expiation for their sins; and how he could do this without intending to make salvation attainable by them, will be difficult to reconcile with reason and Scripture.

Romans 5:15, etc.: “But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Here the “free gift” is represented as transcending, or going beyond, the “offense,” which it could not do if it were only designed to make salvation possible to a part of those who fell by the “offense.” Again: as “all men” are here represented as being brought into condemnation by “the offense of one,” even so the “free gift” is said to come upon all men unto (eiv, in order to) justification of life.” This implies a possibility of salvation; and, from this passage, it is just as plain that all may be saved through Christ, as that all are condemned in Adam.

III. Our third argument is founded upon those passages which teach that Christ died for such as do or may perish.

2 Peter 2:1 : “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 1 Corinthians 8:11 : “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.”

Romans 14:15 : “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” Other passages of this class might be adduced, but we think these are sufficient to show that some of those who have been bought by Christ, and for whom he died, do or may perish. Now, as they were bought by Christ, and as he died for them, according to what his already been shown, their salvation was once possible; and if the salvation of some who perish was possible, the reasonable inference is that the salvation of all mankind is made possible through the atonement of Christ.

IV. Our fourth argument is founded, upon those passages which authorize the preaching of the gospel to all men, and require all men to repent and believe.

Here we will first notice the grand commission of Christ to his apostles.

Matthew 28:19-20 : “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Mark 16:15-16 : “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Again: to show farther that it is made the duty of all men to repent and believe, we refer to the following passages:

- John 3:18; John 3:36 : “He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 20:31 : “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Acts 16:31 : “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 17:30 : “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.”

We quote the above passages merely as a sample of the general tenor of the gospel proclamation and requirement. That we may perceive the irresistible force of the proof from these texts that salvation is made attainable to all men, we observe - 1. The gospel means good news. It is a message of peace and salvation.

2. The commission to preach this gospel is given in terms of universality. The apostles are commanded to “go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” They are commanded to go and “teach all nations,” and to teach them “to observe all things whatsoever” has been commanded.

3. Repentance toward God, and faith in the gospel message and plan of salvation, are required of all to whom the gospel is preached.

Nothing can be plainer than these positions, from the passages adduced. “All men everywhere” are commanded “to repent.” The promise to him that believeth is, that he “shall be saved,” he “shall not be condemned,” and he “shall have life” through the name of Christ. Now, upon the supposition that salvation is made attainable to all mankind, the propriety and consistency of all this are apparent; but upon the supposition that salvation is made attainable only to the elect portion of mankind, (according to the tenets of Calvinism,) we must deny every principle above stated as being proved by the Scriptures, or inevitably involve ourselves in manifest inconsistency and absurdity. This may be clearly shown in the following manner:

(1) The gospel is good news; or, as it is plainly expressed in Scripture, it is “glad tidings of great joy to all people.” Now, if the gospel only proposes a possible salvation to the elect, it cannot be good news to those for whose salvation it contains no possible provision, If it be said that it provides at least temporal mercies, and the common “ineffectual” calls and influences of the Spirit, for all men, we reply, that the admission of this, according to the Calvinistic scheme, so far from rendering the condition of the non-elect more tolerable, or furnishing the least evidence that the gospel can be good news to them, only aggravates the misery of their condition, and furnishes an additional evidence that the gospel cannot be to them good news, or “glad tidings of great joy.”

If all the temporal blessings of life, as Calvinists do not deny, flow from the covenant of redemption, then it will follow that but for the atonement of Christ the blessing of personal existence itself never could have been enjoyed by any but the first sinning pair, and consequently none others could have been exposed to personal suffering; therefore, as it is clear that non-existence itself would be preferable to a state of inevitable, conscious and eternal misery, so it is also evident that life, with its attendant mercies, according to Calvinism, is not a blessing, but a curse, to the non-elect; and if they derive this through the gospel, or atonement of Christ, that gospel itself must be to them a curse.

Again: if, as Calvinism teaches, these temporal mercies, and the common call and influence of the Spirit, cannot possibly be effectual with any but the elect, and the abuse of these mercies, and the rejection of this “common call” of the gospel and the Spirit, will tend to greater condemnation and misery, then it follows that, as the non-elect cannot possibly avoid this abuse and neglect, the mercies of life, and the calls and influences of the gospel and the Spirit tend inevitably to the aggravation of their misery, and must be to them a real curse.

(2) The commission to preach this gospel is given in terms of universality.

Now if all men are required to believe, this is reasonable and consistent; but if this is the duty only of the elect, then the non-elect do right in refusing to believe, and, of course, cannot consistently be condemned for their unbelief; which conclusion is flatly contradictory to the Scriptures. But if it be said that the non-elect are required to believe, although they cannot possibly do so unless God see proper to give them the moral ability, which he has from eternity determined to withhold, then it will follow that God, who is said not to be a “hard master,” requires more of his creatures than they can possibly perform, and condemns and punishes them eternally for not doing absolute impossibilities; which is alike repugnant to reason, justice, and Scripture.

(3)Repentance and faith are required of all men.

If this be denied, the whole tenor of the gospel is flatly contradicted, and such as can be driven to so fearful a position we may justly apprehend are beyond the reach of reason or Scripture. But if it be admitted that all men are required to repent and believe, then we ask according to Calvinism, for what purpose is this requirement made? If the salvation of the non-elect is absolutely impossible, how could they be saved, even if we were to suppose them to believe? Could their faith effect that which God has decreed never shall be effected? Surely not. And how, we ask, can salvation be promised on the condition of faith, and damnation be threatened as the consequence of unbelief, if neither the one nor the other depends in the least upon the agency of man?

We are driven to the conclusion that, according to Calvinism, both salvation (the end) and faith (the means) are absolutely impossible to the non-elect; and that therefore we must either deny that the gospel commission addresses them, and makes it their duty to repent and believe, or admit that they are to be eternally punished, by a just and merciful Creator, for not attaining an impossible end by the use of impossible means. The latter alternative involves horrible absurdities; the former contradicts the Bible: for Calvinists there is no middle ground; and they may be left to choose their position for themselves.

V. Our fifth argument is founded upon those passages which show that salvation is offered to all, and that men’s failure to obtain salvation is attributable to their own fault.

Deuteronomy 30:19 : “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” Isaiah 55:7 : “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Ezekiel 33:11 : “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”

Proverbs 1:24-25 : “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof.” In the New Testament, we read the following: - John 5:40 : “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” John 3:19 : “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Matthew 23:37 : “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” 2 Peter 3:9 : “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Revelation 22:17 : “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” The passages of Scripture belonging to the present class are very numerous, but the above are so explicit that it is needless to multiply quotations. It only remains for us to inquire in what manner the effort is made by Calvinists to evade their force. As there are no texts of a like plain and explicit character to oppose to these, and show that Christ did not so die for all men as to authorize the offer of salvation to all, and to render the damnation of those that perish attributable to their own fault, the truth of this leading position is seldom denied by Calvinists of the present day. But the great difficulty is, to reconcile the principles of Calvinism with the doctrine here so clearly established. Their general course has been, to descant upon the nature of general and effectual calling, the distinction between natural and moral ability, the invincibility of divine grace, etc., and then, as if conscious that they had failed in their attempt to reconcile their principles with this Bible truth, they have begged the question, and taking it for granted that the tenets of Calvinism (the very thing in dispute) are true, they have launched forth in a strain of pathetic admonition concerning the imbecility of human reason and the impiety of “man’s replying against God” That such may clearly be seen to be the course taken by Calvinists on this subject, I will here present a quotation from one of their standard writers:

“Several distinctions have been proposed, in order to throw some light on this dark subject. The external call, it has been said, is extended to the elect and the reprobate in a different manner. It is addressed to the elect primarily and directly, the ministry of the gospel having been instituted for their sake, to gather them into the Church, insomuch that, if none of them remained to be saved, it would cease. It respects, the reprobate secondarily and indirectly, because they are mixed with the elect, who are known to God alone, and consequently it could not be addressed to them without the reprobate being included. This dispensation has been illustrated by rain, which, descending upon the earth, according to a general law, the final cause of which is the fructification of the soil, falls upon places where it is of no use, as rocks and sandy deserts. Again: it has been said that the end of the external call may be viewed in a twofold light, as it respects God, and as it respects the call; and these may be distinguished as the end of the worker and the end of the work. The end of the work, or of the external call, is the salvation of men, because it is the natural tendency of the preaching of the gospel to lead them to faith and repentance. But this is not the end of the worker, or God, who does not intend to save all who are called, but those alone to whom he has decreed to give effectual grace. I shall not be surprised to find that these distinctions have not lessened the difficulty in your apprehension. While they promise to give a solution of it, they are neither more nor less than a repetition of it in different words. I shall subjoin only another observation, which has been frequently made, that although God does not intend to save the reprobate, he is serious in calling them by the gospel; for he declares to them what would be agreeable to him, namely, that they should repent and believe, and he promises, most sincerely, eternal life to all who shall comply. The call of the gospel does not show what he has proposed to do, but what he wills men to do. From his promises, his threatenings and his invitations, it only appears that it would be agreeable to him that men should do their duty, because he necessarily approves of the obedience of his creatures, and that it is his design to save some of them; but the event demonstrates that he had no intention to save them all; and this should not seem strange, as he was under no obligation to do so. Mr. Burke, in his treatise concerning the sublime and beautiful, has observed, when speaking of the attempt of Sir Isaac Newton to account for gravitation by the supposition of a subtle elastic ether, that ‘when we go but one step beyond the immediately sensible qualities of things, we go out of our depth. All we do after is but a faint struggle that shows we are in an element which does not belong to us.’ We may pronounce, I think these attempts to reconcile the universal call of the gospel with the sincerity of God, to be a faint struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities of theology. They are far, indeed, from removing the difficulty. We believe, on the authority of Scripture, that God has decreed to give salvation to some, and to withhold it from others. We know, at the same time, that he offers salvation to all in the gospel; and to suppose that he is not sincere, would be to deny him to be God. It may be right to endeavor to reconcile these things, because knowledge is always desirable, and it is our duty to seek it as far as it can be attained. But if we find that beyond a certain limit we cannot go, let us be content to remain in ignorance. Let us reflect, however, that we are ignorant in the present case only of the connection between two truths, and not of the truths themselves, for these are clearly stated in the Scriptures. We ought therefore to believe both, although we cannot reconcile them. Perhaps the subject is too high for the human intellect in its present state. It may be that, however correct our notions of the divine purposes seem, there is some misapprehension, which gives rise to the difficulty. In the study of theology, we are admonished at every step to be humble, and feel the necessity of faith, or an implicit dependence upon the testimony of Him who alone perfectly knows himself, and will not deceive us.” (Dick’s Theology, Lecture 65.) In reference to the foregoing, we may observe that Dr. Dick fully admits the universality of the calls and invitations of the gospel, but contends, at the same time, that God “intends to save those alone to whom he has decreed to give effectual grace.” To reconcile this with the sincerity of God, after repeating several of the commonly used Calvinistic solutions, he intimates is beyond the powers of man, and the attempt should be placed among “the faint struggles to extricate ourselves from the profundities of theology.”

This, while it speaks well for the candor of the learned author, is a fair acknowledgment that human reason cannot reconcile the leading principle of Calvinism with the leading principle of the gospel. The leading principle of Calvinism, which distinguishes it from Arminianism, is, that salvation is not made possible to all men. The leading principle of the gospel is, that salvation is offered to all, and those who perish do so through their own fault. Now these two propositions, it is admitted, are irreconcilable by human reason. If so, when it shall be clearly proved from the Bible that the gospel does not make salvation possible to all men, then the attempt to reconcile them may be styled “a faint struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities of theology.” But as that proposition is the very point in dispute, which we contend never has been, and never can be, proved, this, we would say, is only “a faint struggle” by Calvinists “to extricate themselves,” not from “the profundities of theology,” but from the absurdities of Calvinism!

Either it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, or it is not. If we say it is not, we plainly contradict the Scriptures which we have quoted. If we say that it is, then it follows that it is possible for all men to believe, or it is the duty of some men to do what is absolutely impossible - which is absurd. But if we admit that it is possible for all men to believe, then it follows, either that those from whom God has decreed to withhold the moral ability to believe, may believe, or he has not so decreed in reference to any. To admit the former proposition, implies a contradiction; to admit the latter, destroys Calvinism.

Again, if we admit that all men may attain unto faith, then it follows that all men may attain unto salvation, or that some believers may perish. The latter is contradictory to Scripture; the former is contradictory to Calvinism.

Farther: as we have shown from the Scriptures that those who fail to obtain salvation do so through their own fault, and not through any fault of God, then it follows either that some may be saved without faith, or that all who lack saving faith do so through their own fault; but if all who lack saving faith do so through their own fault, then their not believing cannot result solely from the decree of God to withhold from them the moral ability to believe; otherwise they are made answerable, and even punishable, for the divine decrees. To suppose that men are answerable and punishable for the divine decrees, is either to suppose that the decrees are wrong, which is impious, or to suppose that men are to be eternally punished for what is right, which is alike unscriptural and absurd.

Calvinists sometimes, in order to evade the consequences resulting from their position, (that the reprobate are justly punishable for their unbelief, notwithstanding God has decreed to withhold from them that ability without which it is impossible for them to believe,) endeavor to elude the question, by asserting that the reprobate continue in unbelief willingly, and in rejecting the gospel act according to their own choice. But this, instead of removing the difficulty, only shifts it one step farther; for if, as the Calvinists say, they have no power to will, or to choose differently from what they do in this case, they can no more be punishable for their perverse will and wicked choice than if they were as destitute of all mental and moral powers as a stock or a stone. To pursue this argument farther is needless. It is impossible, by any evasion or philosophical distinction, to avoid the conclusion that, according to those passages of Scripture which we have adduced to show that men’s failure to obtain salvation is attributable to their own fault, the atonement of Christ has made salvation attainable to all mankind.

VI. Our next argument is founded upon those passages which teach the possibility of final apostasy from the faith, and warn Christians against it. As the subject of apostasy will be particularly considered in its proper place, our remarks here shall be brief, and principally designed to show the necessary connection between those two great Bible doctrines - the possibility of final apostasy, and the possibility of salvation to all. These two doctrines mutually strengthen and support each other, insomuch that, if we admit the one, we cannot deny the other, without manifest inconsistency. As the Calvinistic scheme denies any possibility of salvation to the reprobate, so it secures absolutely and infallibly the salvation of the elect.

If, then, it can be shown that any have finally apostatized, or are in danger of finally apostatizing, from a state of gracious acceptance, or even from a hopeful state, in reference to eternal salvation, to a hopeless one, it will follow that, as some who perish were in a state of possible salvation, even to those termed reprobates by the Calvinists, salvation is attainable; and if this be proved, the possibility of salvation to all men will not be denied. As the Scriptures present instances of some who have fallen from a hopeful to a hopeless state, so they are full of warnings to the righteous, which show that they are not secure against the possibility of a similar apostasy.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 : “Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” From this passage it is evident,

1. That these characters were once in a hopeful state; they “might” have been “saved;” consequently their state was superior to that of the Calvinistically reprobate.

2. They fell from that state to a state of hopeless abandonment; they were judicially given over, and divinely visited with “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned;” consequently they could not have belonged to the Calvinistically elect.

Hebrews 6:4-6 : “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, (‘and yet have fallen away’ - Macknight,) to renew them again unto repentance.”

We here enter into no discussion of the peculiar character of these apostates, farther than to observe,

1. That their apostasy was hopeless - it was “impossible to renew them again unto repentance;” this the Calvinists admit.

2. Their state had been hopeful. This is evident from the reason given for the subsequent hopelessness of their condition. If, as here stated, the hopelessness of their condition arose from the impossibility of “renewing them again unto repentance,” it necessarily follows that if they could have been thus “renewed,” their case would have been hopeful. And if so, then their case once was hopeful; for the hopelessness of their condition is made to appear, not from the “impossibility” of “renewing them” unto a genuine repentance, which (according to Calvinism) they had never experienced, but the same repentance which they once had. This is evident from the import of the word “AGAIN” - “It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.” Therefore it follows that their former repentance was genuine; and these apostates had evidently passed from a hopeful to a hopeless condition. As the condition of the Calvinistically reprobate is never hopeful, they could not have belonged to that class; and as the condition of the Calvinistically elect is never hopeless, so neither could they have belonged to that class. It thus appears that the above passage cannot be interpreted on Calvinistic principles; nor in any way, with consistency, without admitting the possibility of salvation to all men.

Again, that the Scriptures are full of cautions to the righteous, and warnings against apostasy, is admitted by Calvinists. From this it may be conclusively argued,

1. That, upon the supposition that the righteous are in no danger of final apostasy, there can be no propriety in warning them against it.

2. If the righteous are in danger of final apostasy, then it follows, either that the reprobate, according to Calvinism, may obtain pardon here, or that the elect may perish everlastingly: either of which is destructive to the Calvinistic tenets, and demonstrative that the cautions and warnings given to the righteous in the Scriptures, can only be consistently interpreted upon the supposition that salvation is attainable by all men. The sum of what has been said is briefly this: The Scriptures prove the proposition with which we set out - 1. By those texts in which, in speaking of the death or atonement of Christ, terms of universality are used.

2. By those which contrast the death of Christ with the fall of our first parents.

3. By those which teach that Christ died for such as do, or may, perish.

4. By those which authorize the preaching of the gospel to all men, and require all men to repent and believe.

5. By those which show that salvation is offered to all, and that men’s failure to obtain it is attributable to their own fault.

6. By those which teach the possibility of final apostasy from the faith, and warn Christians against it.

According to the plain and unsophisticated meaning of all these classes of Scripture texts, we think it has been made to appear that the atonement of Christ so extends to all men as to make their salvation attainable. In this discussion, we have appealed directly to the Scriptures, and although we have only adduced a small number of the passages which directly bear upon the question, yet we deem farther quotations on this head unnecessary.

It remains yet to consider those passages from which Calvinists deduce inferential proofs of their peculiar views of predestination, election, etc., and the bearing of those subjects upon the great question before us, as well as to examine the prominent reasons by which the view herein presented has been defended or assailed. But these points we defer for another chapter.