Particular Redemption - Part 4 of 7
In post 2, it was stated that baptists have been identified in past centuries by their position on particular redemption. Particular Baptists and General Baptists were the designation. This post will explore more of the historical influence of particular atonement among Baptists.
One example of the historical development and influence of the doctrine of limited atonement is found in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 chapter eight, “Of Christ the Mediator”:
“It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man;…savior of the church,…unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified…and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption: on the third day he arose from the dead with the same body in which he suffered… hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.”[1]
This understanding of limited atonement; actual, vicarious, substitutionary atonement on behalf of God’s elect was well understood and documented among Baptists from this confession in 1689 all the way to the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. W.B. Johnson was the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention [1845-1850]. In a sermon he preached in 1822 before the Charlotte Association, Johnson argued that “Interest…in the benefits of the atonement are imparted according to the righteous and sovereign will of God, and indeed Christ died actually to redeem and introduce to glory…all who are His people.”[2]
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Baptist whose ministry lasted from the mid to late 19th century, preached on the subject of limited atonement and made the following statements,
“Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, ‘It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,’ they say, ‘to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.’ I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves…. Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!”[3]
From these examples and many others not cited, the historical development and influence among Baptists is far reaching and well established. The Baptist Catechism, prominent Baptist confessions including the 2nd London Baptist Confession and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention founders all embraced what is referred to as the Doctrines of Grace which include the doctrine of limited atonement.
[1] The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Chapter 8 “Of Christ the Mediator”
[2] Nettles, Thomas J. By His Grace and For His Glory. Cor Meum Tibi, Lake Charles, LA. p. 163
[3] http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm (September 2006)
One example of the historical development and influence of the doctrine of limited atonement is found in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 chapter eight, “Of Christ the Mediator”:
“It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man;…savior of the church,…unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified…and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption: on the third day he arose from the dead with the same body in which he suffered… hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.”[1]
This understanding of limited atonement; actual, vicarious, substitutionary atonement on behalf of God’s elect was well understood and documented among Baptists from this confession in 1689 all the way to the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. W.B. Johnson was the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention [1845-1850]. In a sermon he preached in 1822 before the Charlotte Association, Johnson argued that “Interest…in the benefits of the atonement are imparted according to the righteous and sovereign will of God, and indeed Christ died actually to redeem and introduce to glory…all who are His people.”[2]
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Baptist whose ministry lasted from the mid to late 19th century, preached on the subject of limited atonement and made the following statements,
“Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, ‘It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,’ they say, ‘to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.’ I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves…. Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!”[3]
From these examples and many others not cited, the historical development and influence among Baptists is far reaching and well established. The Baptist Catechism, prominent Baptist confessions including the 2nd London Baptist Confession and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention founders all embraced what is referred to as the Doctrines of Grace which include the doctrine of limited atonement.
[1] The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Chapter 8 “Of Christ the Mediator”
[2] Nettles, Thomas J. By His Grace and For His Glory. Cor Meum Tibi, Lake Charles, LA. p. 163
[3] http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm (September 2006)
posted by Christopher Redman at 11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home