Basic HTML Version
381
c. A third class of passages which seem to militate against the idea of a limited atonement
consists of those which are said to imply the possibility that those for whom Christ died fail to
obtain salvation. Rom. 14:15 and the parallel passage in I Cor. 8:11 may be mentioned first of
all. Some commentators are of the opinion that these passages do not refer to eternal
destruction, but it is more likely that they do. The apostle simply wants to bring the
uncharitable conduct of some of the stronger brethren in the Church into strong relief. They
were likely to offend the weaker brethren, to cause them to stumble, to override their
conscience, and thus to enter upon the downward path, the natural result of which, if
continued, would be destruction. While Christ paid the price of His life to save such persons,
they by their conduct tended to destroy them. That this destruction will not actually follow, is
evident from Rom. 14:4; by the grace of God they will be upheld. We have here then, as Dr.
Shedd expresses it, “a supposition, for the sake of argument, of something that does not and
cannot happen,” just as in I Cor. 13:1-3; Gal. 1:8. Another, somewhat similar, passage is found
in II Pet. 2:1, with which Heb. 10:29 may also be classed. The most plausible explanation of
these passages is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch
annotations, namely, “that these false teachers are described according to their own profession
and the judgment of charity. They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so
accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion.”[The Doctrine of
the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles, p. 447.]
d. Finally, there is an objection derived from the bona fide offer of salvation. We believe that
God “unfeignedly,” that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the
gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance. Now the
Arminians maintain that such an offer of salvation cannot be made by those who believe that
Christ died only for the elect. This objection was already raised at the time of the Synod of Dort,
but its validity was not granted. The following remarks may be made in reply: (a) The offer of
salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret
counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is
simply the promise of salvation to all those who accept Christ by faith. (2) This offer, in so far as
it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion. Moreover, it is contingent on a
faith and repentance such as can only be wrought in the heart of man by the operation of the
Holy Spirit. (3) The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ
made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each
one. It consists in (a) an exposition of the atoning work of Christ as in itself sufficient for the
redemption of all men; (b) a description of the real nature of the repentance and faith that are
required in coming to Christ; and (c) a declaration that each one who comes to Christ with true
repentance and faith will obtain the blessings of salvation. (4) It is not the duty of the preacher
to harmonize the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His