Outside the Camp
So let us go forth to Him outside the camp bearing His reproach. (Heb. 13:13 LITV)
Vol. 14, No. 3
From the editor ...
After fourteen years of pub-
lishing Outside the Camp in hard-
copy format, we have decided to
become entirely web-based after
this issue. Over the years, there
have been fewer and fewer
subscribers, even in places like
remote African villages, who do
not have access to the world
wide web. If you are reading
this newsletter and do not have
access to our web site, please
write and let us know if you
would like us to periodically
send you printouts of articles.
Speaking of the web, on June
26, 2010, at 9:56 pm, I signed up
with sermonaudio.com and up-
loaded the audio and manu-
script of just one sermon, which
was the most recent sermon I
had preached (June 20, 2010).
On June 27, 2010, at 1:40 am,
Steven Lee, the founder of ser-
monaudio.com, sent me an e-
mail that included the follow-
ing: “After some consideration,
we are asking if you could kind-
ly seek a different provider for
broadcasting your church’s ser-
mons. We do not believe it
would be a suitable fit for a site
like our’s [sic].” And, just like
that, I was kicked off and was
not allowed to have any pres-
ence on that site. This site
hosts sermons/speeches from a
wide spectrum of “conserva-
tive” preachers/speakers, but
apparently, the spectrum was
not wide enough for my sermon
on the Stone of Stumbling and
the Rock of Offense from Ro-
mans 9:32b-33. You can find the
entire Romans series in manu-
script and audio format, includ-
ing the aforementioned sermon,
on our web site.
This entire issue is dedicated
to the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame.
September 2010
HETERODOXY
HALL OF SHAME
Calvinists: Do you admire your “Reformed Tradition”? Check out
the following quotes from the nineteenth century to see what your
tradition is really all about.
CHARLES HODGE (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology - Volume II: Anthropology
“God entered into covenant with Adam. This statement does not
rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures. It is, however,
a concise and correct mode of asserting a plain Scriptural fact,
namely, that God made to Adam a promise suspended on a
condition, and attached to disobedience a certain penalty. This is
what in Scriptural language is meant by a covenant, and this is all
that is meant by the term as here used. ... The Scriptures know
nothing of any other than two methods of attaining eternal life: the
one that which demands perfect obedience, and the other that which
demands faith. If the latter is called a covenant, the former is
declared to be of the same nature. ... God did then enter into a
covenant with Adam. That covenant is sometimes called a covenant
of life, because life was promised as the reward of obedience.
Sometimes it is called the covenant of works, because works were
the condition on which that promise was suspended, and because it
is thus distinguished from the new covenant which promises life on
condition of faith.” (pp. 117-118)
“First, salvation is offered to all men on the condition of faith in
Christ. Our Lord commanded his disciples to go into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature. The gospel, however, is the
offer of salvation upon the conditions of the covenant of grace. In
this sense, the covenant of grace is formed with all mankind. ... For
it is undoubtedly true that God offers to all and every man eternal
life on condition of faith in Jesus Christ. .... It is one of those facts
that salvation is offered to all men on the condition of faith in
Christ. And therefore to that extent, or, in a sense which accounts
for that fact, the covenant of grace is made with all men. The great
sin of those who hear the gospel is that they refuse to accept of that
covenant, and therefore place themselves without its pale.” (pp.
363-364)
“This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to
absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a
true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin
under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He
blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as
Page 2
a sheep before its shearers, is
held up to us as an example.
Temptation implies the possibil-
ity of sin. If from the constitu-
tion of his person it was impossi-
ble for Christ to sin, then his
temptation was unreal and with-
out effect, and He cannot sympa-
thize with his people.” (p. 457).
“It is obvious that if there be
no election of some to everlas-
ting life, the atonement can have
no special reference to the elect.
It must have equal reference to
all mankind. But it does not
follow from the assertion of its
having a special reference to the
elect that it had no reference to
the non-elect. Augustinians read-
ily admit that the death of Christ
had a relation to man, to the
whole human family, which it
had not to the fallen angels. It is
the ground on which salvation is
offered to every creature under
heaven who hears the gospel; but
it gives no authority for a like
offer to apostate angels. It more-
over secures to the whole race at
large, and to all classes of men,
innumerable blessings, both
providential and religious. It
was, of course, designed to pro-
duce these effects; and, there-
fore, He died to secure them. In
view of the effects which the
death of Christ produces in the
relation of all mankind to God,
it has in all ages been customary
with Augustinians to say that
Christ died ‘sufficienter pro
omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro
electis;’ sufficiently for all,
efficaciously only for the elect.
There is a sense, therefore, in
which He died for all, and there
is a sense in which He died for
the elect alone.” (pp. 545-546)
“Admitting the satisfaction of
Christ to be in itself of infinite
value, how can it avail for the
non-elect if it was not designed
for them? It does not avail for
the fallen angels, because it was
not intended for them; how then
can it avail for the non-elect, if
not designed for them? How can
a ransom, whatever its intrinsic
value, benefit those for whom it
was not paid? In this form the
objection is far more specious. It
is, however, fallacious. It over-
looks the peculiar nature of the
Outside the Camp
case. It ignores the fact that all
mankind were placed under the
same constitution or covenant.
What was demanded for the
salvation of one was demanded
for the salvation of all. Every
man is required to satisfy the
demands of the law. No man is
required to do either more or
less. If those demands are
satisfied by a representative or
substitute, his work is equally
available for all. The secret
purpose of God in providing such
a substitute for man, has nothing
to do with the nature of his
work, or with its appropriate-
ness. The righteousness of Christ
being of infinite value or merit,
and being in its nature precisely
what all men need, may be of-
fered to all men. It is thus offered
to the elect and to the non-elect;
and it is offered to both classes
conditionally. That condition is
a cordial acceptance of it as the
only ground of justification. If
any of the elect (being adults) fail
thus to accept of it, they perish.
If any of the non-elect should
believe, they would be saved.
What more does any Anti-Aug-
ustinian scheme provide? The
advocates of such schemes say,
that the design of the work of
Christ was to render the salva-
tion of all men possible. All they
can mean by this is, that if any
man (elect or non-elect) be-
lieves, he shall, on the ground of
what Christ has done, be certain-
ly saved. But Augustinians say
the same thing. It teaches that
God in effecting the salvation of
his own people, did whatever
was necessary for the salvation
of all men, and therefore to all
the offer may be, and in fact is
made in the gospel. ... Christ,
therefore, did not die equally for
all men. He laid down his life for
his sheep; He gave Himself for
his Church. But in perfect consis-
tency with this, He did all that
was necessary, so far as a satis-
faction to justice is concerned,
all that is required for the salva-
tion of all men. So that all
Augustinians can join with the
Synod of Dort in saying, ‘No
man perishes for want of an
atonement.’
“There is still another ground
September 2010
on which it is urged that Aug-
ustinians cannot consistently
preach the gospel to every crea-
ture. Augustinians teach, it is
urged, that the work of Christ is
a satisfaction to divine justice.
From this it follows that justice
cannot condemn those for whose
sins it has been satisfied. It can-
not demand that satisfaction
twice, first from the substitute
and then from the sinner him-
self. This would be manifestly
unjust, far worse than demand-
ing no punishment at all. From
this it is inferred that the satis-
faction or righteousness of
Christ, if the ground on which a
sinner may be forgiven, is the
ground on which he must be
forgiven. It is not the ground on
which he may be forgiven, unless
it is the ground on which he
must be forgiven. If the atone-
ment be limited in design it must
be limited in its nature, and if
limited in its nature it must be
limited in its offer. This objec-
tion again arises from confoun-
ding a pecuniary and a judicial
satisfaction between which Aug-
ustinians are so careful to dis-
criminate. This distinction has
already been presented on a pre-
vious page (470). There is no
grace in accepting a pecuniary
satisfaction. It cannot be refused.
It ipso facto liberates. The mo-
ment the debt is paid the debtor
is free; and that without any
condition. Nothing of this is true
in the case of judicial satisfac-
tion. If a substitute be provided
and accepted it is a matter of
grace. His satisfaction does not
ipso facto liberate. It may accrue
to the benefit of those for whom
it is made at once or at a remote
period; completely or gradually;
on conditions or unconditional-
ly; or it may never benefit them
at all unless the condition on
which its application is suspen-
ded be performed. These facts are
universally admitted by those
who hold that the work of Christ
was a true and perfect satisfac-
tion to divine justice. The appli-
cation of its benefits is deter-
mined by the covenant between
the Father and the Son. Those
for whom it was specially ren-
dered are not justified from eter-
September 2010
nity; they are not born in a jus-
tified state; they are by nature,
or birth, the children of wrath
even as others. To be the child-
ren of wrath is to be justly ex-
posed to divine wrath. They
remain in this state of exposure
until they believe, and should
they die (unless in infancy) be-
fore they believe they would
inevitably perish notwithstand-
ing the satisfaction made for
their sins. It is the stipulations of
the covenant which forbid such a
result. Such being the nature of
the judicial satisfaction rendered
by Christ to the law, under
which all men are placed, it may
be sincerely offered to all men
with the assurance that if they
believe it shall accrue to their
salvation. His work being spec-
ially designed for the salvation of
his own people, renders, through
the conditions of the covenant,
that event certain; but this is per-
fectly consistent with its being
made the ground of the general
offer of the gospel. Lutherans
and Reformed agree entirely, as
before stated, in their views of
the nature of the satisfaction of
Christ, and consequently, so far
as that point is concerned, there
is the same foundation for the
general offer of the gospel ac-
cording to either scheme. What
the Reformed or Augustinians
hold about election does not af-
fect the nature of the atonement.
That remains the same whether
designed for the elect or for all
mankind. It does not derive its
nature from the secret purpose of
God as to its application.
“Admitting, however, that the
Augustinian doctrine that Christ
died specially for his own people
does account for the general offer
of the gospel, how can it be
reconciled with those passages
which, in one form or another,
teach that He died for all men? In
answer to this question, it may
be remarked in the first place
that Augustinians do not deny
that Christ died for all men.
What they deny is that He died
equally, and with the same
design, for all men. He died for
all, that He might arrest the im-
mediate execution of the penalty
of the law upon the whole of our
Outside the Camp
apostate race; that He might
secure for men the innumerable
blessings attending their state on
earth, which, in one important
sense, is a state of probation; and
that He might lay the foundation
for the offer of pardon and recon-
ciliation with God, on condition
of faith and repentance. ... This
is what is meant when it is said,
or implied in Scripture, that
Christ gave Himself as a propiti-
ation, not for our sins only, but
for the sins of the whole world.
He was a propitiation effectually
for the sins of his people, and
sufficiently for the sins of the
whole world. Augustinians have
no need to wrest the Scriptures.
They are under no necessity of
departing from their fundamen-
tal principle that it is the duty of
the theologian to subordinate his
theories to the Bible, and teach
not what seems to him to be true
or reasonable, but simply what
the Bible teaches.” (pp. 555-559).
“The plan of salvation is de-
signed for men. It is adapted to
the condition of all. It makes
abundant provision for the salva-
tion of all. The promise of accep-
tance on the condition of faith is
made to all. And the motives and
reasons which should constrain
obedience are brought to bear on
every mind to which the call is
sent. According to the Augustini-
an scheme, the non-elect have all
the advantages and opportunities
of securing their salvation, that,
according to any other scheme,
are granted to mankind indis-
criminately. Augustinianism
teaches that a plan of salvation
adapted to all men and adequate
for the salvation of all, is freely
offered to the acceptance of all,
although in the secret purpose of
God, he intended that it should
have precisely the effect which in
experience it is found to have. He
designed in its adoption to save
his own people, but consistently
offers its benefits to all who are
willing to receive them. More
than this no anti-Augustinian
can demand.” (p. 644)
“In the first place, the Scrip-
tures speak of God’s reasoning
with men; of his teaching them
and that inwardly by his Spirit;
of his guiding or leading them;
Page 3
and of his convincing, reproving,
and persuading them. These
modes of representation would
seem to indicate ‘a moral sua-
sion;’ an operation in accor-
dance with the ordinary laws of
mind, consisting in the presenta-
tion of truth and urging of mo-
tives. In the second place, so far
as appears, this common influ-
ence of the Spirit is never exer-
cised except through the truth. In
the third place, the moral and
religious effects ascribed to it
never rise above, so to speak, the
natural operations of the mind.
The knowledge, the faith, the
conviction, the remorse, the
sorrow, and the joy, which the
Spirit is said to produce by these
common operations, are all nat-
ural affections or exercises; such
as one man may measurably
awaken in the minds of other
men. In the fourth place, these
common influences of the Spirit
are capable of being effectually
resisted. ... These effects the
grace common to all who hear
the gospel tends to produce.
These effects it does in fact pro-
duce in a multitude of cases, and
would produce in all were it not
resisted and quenched. But it is
not sufficient to raise the spiritu-
ally dead; to change the heart,
and to produce regeneration; and
it is not made to produce these
effects by the cooperation of the
human will.” (pp. 674, 677)
A.A. HODGE (1823-1886)
Outlines of Theology
“State first negatively, and then
positively, the true doctrine as to the
design of the Father and the Son in
providing satisfaction.
“I. Negatively—1st. There is no
debate among Christians as to
the sufficiency of that satisfaction
to accomplish the salvation of all
men, however vast the number.
This is absolutely limitless. 2d.
Nor as to its applicability to the
case of any and every possible
human sinner who will ever
exist. The relation of all to the
demands of the law are identical.
What would save one would save
another. 3d. Nor to the bona fide
Page 4
character of the offer which God
has made to ‘whomsoever wills’
in the gospel. It is applicable to
every one, it will infallibly be
applied to every believer. 4th.
Nor as to its actual application.
Arminians agree with Calvinists
that of adults only those who be-
lieve are saved, while Calvinists
agree with Arminians that all
dying in infancy are redeemed
and saved. 5th. Nor is there any
debate as to the universal refer-
ence of some of the benefits pur-
chased by Christ. Calvinists be-
lieve that the entire dispensation
of forbearance under which the
human family rest since the fall,
including for the unjust as well
as the just temporal mercies and
means of grace, is part of the
purchase of Christ’s blood. They
admit also that Christ did in such
a sense die for all men, that he
thereby removed all legal ob-
stacles from the salvation of any
and every man, and that his
satisfaction may be applied to
one man as well as to another if
God so wills it.” (p. 416).
“The design of Christ in dying
was to effect what he actually
does effect in the result. 1st.
Incidentally to remove the legal
impediments out of the way of
all men, and render the salvation
of every hearer of the gospel
objectively possible, so that each
one has a right to appropriate it
at will, to impetrate temporal
blessings for all, and the means
of grace for all to whom they are
providentially supplied. ... After
the manner of the Augustinian
Schoolmen Calvin, on 1 John ii.
2, says, ‘Christ died sufficiently
for all, but efficiently only for
the elect.’—So Archbishop Us-
sher, Numbers 22 and 23 of Let-
ters published by his Chaplain,
Richard Parr, D.D.” (p. 417)
“A bona fide offer of the gos-
pel, therefore, is to be made to
all men—1st. Because the satis-
faction rendered to the law is
sufficient for all men. 2d. Be-
cause it is exactly adapted to the
redemption of all. 3d. Because
God designs that whosoever
exercises faith in Christ shall be
saved by him. Thus the atone-
ment makes the salvation of
every man to whom it is offered
Outside the Camp
objectively possible. The design
of Christ’s death being to secure
the salvation of his own people,
incidentally to the accomplish-
ment of that end, it comprehends
the offer of that salvation freely
and honestly to all men on the
condition of their faith. No man
is lost for the want of an atone-
ment, or because there is any
other barrier in the way of his
salvation than his own most free
and wicked will.
“23. How can the condemnation of
men for the rejection of Christ be
reconciled with the doctrine that
Christ died for the elect only?
“A salvation all-sufficient and
exactly adapted to his necessities
is honestly offered to every man
to whom the gospel comes; and
in every case it is his, if he be-
lieves; and in no case does any
thing prevent his believing other
than his own evil disposition.
Evidently he is in no way con-
cerned with the design of God in
providing that salvation beyond
the assurance that God intends
to give it to him if he believes. If
a man is responsible for a bad
heart, and the exercises thereof,
he must be above all worthy of
condemnation for rejecting such
a Saviour.” (p. 420)
“And although Christ did not
die with the design of saving all,
yet he did suffer the penalty of
that law under which all were
placed, and he does offer the
righteousness thus wrought out
to all.” (p. 421).
The Atonement
“It is God’s purpose to receive
and save all that believe on his
Son, elect or not. ... We believe
as fully as they [Arminians -ed.]
do (a) that the Atonement is suf-
ficient for all. ... If the non-elect
believes, he will none the less be
saved because of his non-elec-
tion. If the elect does not believe
and persevere to the end, he will
none the more be saved because
of his election.” (pp. 421,429).
Evangelical Theology
“Here, as everywhere else,
there is essential truth on both
September 2010
sides of every controversy, and
the real truth is the whole truth,
its entire catholic body. Armini-
anism in the abstract as an his-
torical scheme is a heresy, hold-
ing half the truth. Calvinism is
an historical scheme which in its
best representatives comprehends
the whole truth with consider-
able completeness. But the case is
essentially different when we
come to consider the great co-
existing bodies of Christian peo-
ple calling themselves respec-
tively Calvinists and Arminians.
Each of these parties holds all
essential truth, and therefore
they hold actually very much the
same truth. The Arminians think
and speak very much like Calvin-
ists when they come to talk with
God in either the confession of
sin or the supplication for grace.
They both alike in that attitude
recognize the sovereignty of God
and the guilt and helplessness of
men. Indeed, how could it be
otherwise? What room is there
for anything other than essential
Calvinism on one’s knees? On
the other hand, the Calvinist
thinks and speaks like the better
class of Arminians when he ad-
dresses the consciences of men,
and pleads with them, as free,
responsible agents, to repent and
believe in Christ. The difference
between the best of either class is
one of emphasis rather than of
essential principle. Each is the
complement of the other. Each is
necessary to restrain, correct,
and supply the one-sided strain
of the other. They together give
origin to the blended strain from
which issues the perfect music
which utters the perfect truth.”
(pp. 136-137)
“All who are baptized into the
name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
recognizing the Trinity of Per-
sons in the Godhead, the incar-
nation of the Son and his priestly
sacrifice, whether they be
Greeks, or Arminians, or Ro-
manists, or Lutherans, or Cal-
vinists, or the simple souls who
do not know what to call them-
selves, are our brethren. Bap-
tism is our common countersign.
It is the common rallying stan-
dard at the head of our sever-
September 2010
al columns. It is our common
battle-flag, which we carry for-
ward across the enemy’s line and
nail aloft in the heights crowned
with victory. We will be con-
fined in our love and allegiance
by no party lines. We follow and
serve one common Lord. Hence
there can be only ‘one Lord, one
faith, one baptism,’ and hence
only one indivisible, inalienable
‘sacramental host of God’s
elect.’” (p. 338).
W.G.T. SHEDD (1820-1894)
Dogmatic Theology
“The decree of preterition or
omission is a branch of the per-
missive decree. As God decided
to permit man to use his self-
determining power and originate
sin, so he decided to permit some
men to continue to use their self-
determining power and persevere
in sin.” (p. 336)
“Every sinner is stronger than
common grace, but not stronger
than regenerating grace.” (p.
337)
“God desires that the nonelect
would turn of himself by the
spontaneous action of his own
will under the operation of com-
mon grace. ... But God, instead
of hindering the sinner, is help-
ing him with that degree of grace
which is called common. The
reason why the entreaty thus ac-
companied with common grace is
unsuccessful is the resistance of
the sinner.” (p. 347)
“The universal offer of the gos-
pel is consistent with the divine
purpose of predestination be-
cause (1) Christ’s atonement is a
sufficient satisfaction for the sins
of all men and (2) God sincerely
desires that every man to whom
the atonement is offered would
trust in it. His sincerity is ev-
inced by the fact that, in addition
to his offer, he encourages and
assists man to believe by the aids
of his providence – such as the
written and spoken word, paren-
tal teaching and example, favor-
ing social influences, etc. – and
by the operation of the common
grace of the Holy Spirit. The fact
that God does not in the case of
the nonelect bestow special grace
Outside the Camp
to overcome the resisting self-
will that renders the gifts of
providence and common grace
ineffectual does not prove that he
is insincere in his desire that man
would believe under the influ-
ence of common grace any more
than a benevolent man declines
to double the amount of his gift,
after the gift already offered has
been spurned, proves that he did
not sincerely desire that the per-
son would take the sum first of-
fered.” (p. 349)
“Theologians have confined
their attention mainly to the
sanctification of Christ’s human
nature, saying little about its
justification. But a complete
Christology must include the lat-
ter as well as the former. Any
nature that requires sanctifica-
tion requires justification, be-
cause sin is guilt as well as pollu-
tion. The Logos could not unite
with a human nature taken from
the Virgin Mary and transmit-
ted from Adam unless it had
previously been delivered from
both the condemnation and the
corruption of sin. The idea of re-
demption also includes both just-
ification and sanctification; and
it is conceded that that portion of
human nature which the Logos
assumed into union with himself
was redeemed. His own human-
ity was the ‘first fruits’ of his
redemptive work: ‘Christ the
first fruits, afterward they that
are Christ’s’ (1 Cor. 15:23). Con-
sequently, the doctrine is not ful-
ly constructed unless this side of
it is presented.
“So far, then, as the guilt of
Adam’s sin rested upon that
unindividualized portion of the
common fallen nature of Adam
assumed by the Logos, it was ex-
piated by the one sacrifice on
Calvary. The human nature of
Christ was prepared for the per-
sonal union with the Logos by
being justified as well as sancti-
fied: ‘God was manifested in the
flesh, was justified (edikaiothe) by
(en) the Spirit’ (1 Tim. 3:16).
Here, ‘flesh’ denotes the entire
humanity, psychical and phys-
ical, and it was ‘justified.’ The
justification in this instance, like
that of the Old Testament believ-
ers, was proleptic, in view of the
Page 5
future atoning death of Christ.”
(pp. 475-476)
“It may be asked: If atonement
naturally and necessarily cancels
guilt, why does not the vicarious
atonement of Christ save all men
indiscriminately, as the Univer-
salist contends? The substituted
suffering of Christ being infinite
is equal in value to the personal
suffering of all mankind; why
then are not all men upon the
same footing and in the class of
the saved, by virtue of it? The
answer is, Because it is a natural
impossibility. Vicarious atone-
ment without faith in it is pow-
erless to save. It is not the mak-
ing of this atonement, but the
trusting in it, that saves the sin-
ner. ‘By faith are ye saved. He
that believeth shall be saved,’
Ephesians 2:8; Mark 16:16. The
making of this atonement merely
satisfies the legal claims, and
this is all that it does. If it were
made, but never imputed and
appropriated, it would result in
no salvation. A substituted satis-
faction of justice without an act
of trust in it, would be useless to
sinners. It is as naturally impos-
sible that Christ’s death should
save from punishment one who
does not confide in it, as that a
loaf of bread should save from
starvation a man who does not
eat it. The assertion that because
the atonement of Christ is suffi-
cient for all men, therefore no
men are lost, is as absurd as the
assertion that because the grain
produced in the year 1880 was
sufficient to support the life of all
men on the globe, therefore no
men died of starvation during
that year. The mere fact that
Jesus Christ made satisfaction
for human sin, alone and of
itself, will save no soul. Christ
conceivably, might have died
precisely as he did, and his
death have been just as valuable
for expiatory purposes as it is,
but if his death had not been fol-
lowed with the work of the Holy
Ghost and the act of faith on the
part of individual men, he would
have died in vain. Unless his
objective work is subjectively ap-
propriated, it is useless, so far as
personal salvation is concerned.
Christ’s suffering is sufficient to
Page 6
cancel the guilt of all men, and in
its own nature completely satis-
fies the broken law. But all men
do not make it their own atone-
ment by faith in it; by pleading
the merit of it in prayer, and
mentioning it as the reason and
ground of their pardon. They do
not regard and use it as their
own possession, and blessing. It
is nothing for them but a histor-
ical fact. In this state of things,
the atonement of Christ is pow-
erless to save. It remains in the
possession of Christ who made
it, and has not been transferred
to the individual. In the scripture
phrase, it has not been imputed.
There may be a sum of money in
the hands of a rich man that is
sufficient in amount to pay the
debts of a million of debtors; but
unless they individually take
money from his hands into their
own, they cannot pay their debts
with it. There must be a personal
act of each debtor, in order that
this sum of money on deposit
may actually extinguish individu-
al indebtedness. Should one of
the debtors, when payment is de-
manded of him, merely say that
there is an abundance of money
on deposit, but take no steps
himself to get it and pay it to his
creditor, he would be told that an
undrawn deposit is not a pay-
ment of a debt.” (p. 726).
“Another error underlying the
varieties of universalism is the
assumption that because an
atonement sufficient for all men
has been made, all men are enti-
tled to the benefits of it. This
would be true if all men had
made this atonement. But inas-
much as they had nothing to do
with the making of it, they have
not the slightest right or title to
it. No sinner has a claim upon
the expiatory oblation of Jesus
Christ. It belongs entirely to the
maker, and he may do what he
will with his own. He may im-
pute it to any man whom he
pleases or not impute it to any
man whom he pleases (Rom.
9:18). Even the act of faith does
not by its intrinsic merit entitle
the believer to the benefits of
Christ’s satisfaction. This would
make salvation a debt which the
Redeemer owes because of an act
Outside the Camp
of the believer. It is only because
Christ has promised and thereby
bound himself to bestow the ben-
efits of redemption upon every-
one that believes that salvation is
certain to faith.
“It is objected that it is unjust
to exact personal penalty from
any individuals of the human
race if a vicarious penalty equal
in value to that due from the
whole race has been paid to jus-
tice. The injustice alleged in this
objection may mean injustice
toward the individual unbeliever
who is personally punished; or it
may mean injustice in regard to
what the divine law is entitled to
on account of man’s sin. An ex-
amination will show that there is
no injustice done in either re-
spect. When an individual unbe-
liever is personally punished for
his own sins, he receives what he
deserves; and there is no injus-
tice in this. The fact that a vi-
carious atonement has been
made that is sufficient to expiate
his sins does not stop justice
from punishing him personally
for them, unless it can be shown
that he is the author of the vicar-
ious atonement. If this were so,
then indeed he might complain
of the personal satisfaction that
is required of him. In this case,
one and the same party would
make two satisfactions for one
and the same sin: one vicarious
and one personal. When there-
fore an individual unbeliever suf-
fers for his own sin, he ‘receives
the due reward of his deeds’
(Luke 23:24). And since he did
not make the vicarious atone-
ment ‘for the sins of the whole
world’ and therefore has no
more right or title to it or any of
its benefits than an inhabitant of
Saturn, he cannot claim exemp-
tion from personal penalty on the
ground of it.”
“Since redemption implies the
application of Christ’s atone-
ment, universal or unlimited
redemption cannot logically be
affirmed by any who hold that
faith is wholly the gift of God,
and that saving grace is bestowed
solely by election. The use of the
term ‘redemption,’ consequently,
is attended with less ambiguity
than that of ‘atonement,’ and it
September 2010
is the term most commonly em-
ployed in controversial theology.
Atonement is unlimited, and re-
demption is limited. This state-
ment includes all the Scripture
texts: those which assert that
Christ died for all men, and
those which assert that he died
for his people. He who asserts
unlimited atonement, and limit-
ed redemption, cannot well be
misconceived. He is understood
to hold that the sacrifice of
Christ is unlimited in its value,
sufficiency, and publication, but
limited in its effectual applica-
tion.” (p. 743).
“The atonement is sufficient in
value to expiate the sin of all
men indiscriminately; and this
fact should be stated because it is
a fact. There are no claims of
justice not yet satisfied; there is
no sin of man for which an infi-
nite atonement has not been pro-
vided: ‘All things are now
ready.’ Therefore the call to
‘come’ is universal. It is plain,
that the offer of the atonement
should be regulated by its intrin-
sic nature and sufficiency, not by
the obstacles that prevent its effi-
cacy. The extent to which a med-
icine is offered is not limited by
the number of persons favorably
disposed to buy it and use it. Its
adaptation to disease is the sole
consideration in selling it, and
consequently it is offered to
everybody.
“God opposes no obstacle to
the efficacy of the atonement in
the nonelect. (a) He exerts no
direct efficiency to prevent the
nonelect from trusting the atone-
ment. The decree of reprobation
is permissive. God leaves the
nonelect to do as he likes. (b)
There is no compulsion from the
external circumstances in which
the providence of God has placed
the nonelect. On the contrary,
the outward circumstances, es-
pecially in Christendom, favor
instead of hindering trust in
Christ’s atonement. And so, in a
less degree, do the outward cir-
cumstances in heathendom: ‘The
goodness, forbearance, and long-
suffering of God [tend to] lead to
repentance’ (Rom. 2:4; Acts 4:
17; 17:26-30). (c) The special
grace which God bestows upon
September 2010
the elect does not prevent the
nonelect from believing; neither
does it render faith any more dif-
ficult for him. The nonelect re-
ceives common grace, and com-
mon grace would incline the
human will if it were not
defeated by the human will. If
the sinner should make no hos-
tile opposition, common grace
would be equivalent to saving
grace.” (pp. 750-751).
“The expiation of sin is dis-
tinguishable from the pardon of
it. The former, conceivably,
might take place and the latter
not. When Christ died on Cal-
vary, the whole mass, so to
speak, of human sin was expiated
merely by that death; The claims
of law and justice for the sins of
the whole world were satisfied
by the ‘offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all’ (Heb.
10:10); but the sins of every in-
dividual man were not forgiven
and ‘blotted out’ by this transac-
tion. Still another transaction
was requisite in order to this,
namely, the work of the Holy
Spirit in the heart of the sinner
working faith in this expiatory
offering and the declarative act
of God saying ‘your sin is forgiv-
en you.’ The Son of God, after
he had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, ‘sat down on the
right hand of God’ (10:12); but if
the redeeming work of the
Trinity had stopped at this point,
not a soul of mankind would
have been pardoned and jus-
tified, yet the expiatory value of
the ‘one sacrifice’ would have
been just the same.” (p. 758).
Calvinism: Pure and Mixed
“But what is the use of show-
ing every man his need of Christ,
if Christ’s sacrifice is not suffici-
ent for every man? What reason
is there for convincing every man
of the pollution of his nature,
and humbling him for it, unless
God is for every man ‘most lov-
ing, gracious, merciful, long-suf-
fering, forgiving iniquity, trans-
gression and sin?’ The doctrine
taught in this section, that all
men are to be convinced of sin,
like the doctrine that all men are
to repent and to pray, supposes
that God sustains a common
Outside the Camp
benevolent and merciful relation
to them all.” (p. 26)
“In the third place, the Scrip-
tures and the Confession teach
that the Divine Spirit exerts his
regenerating grace, to some ex-
tent, within adult heathendom,
making use of conscience, or ‘the
law written on the heart’, as the
means of convicting of sin prep-
aratory to imparting the new
divine life; and that in the last
day a part of God’s elect ‘shall
come from the east and from the
west, and from the north and
from the south, and shall sit
down in the kingdom of God’
(Luke 13:29). These are all re-
generated in this life. And since
regeneration in the instance of
the adult immediately produces
faith and repentance, a regener-
ate heathen is both a believer and
a penitent. He feels sorrow for
sin, and the need of mercy. This
felt need of mercy and desire for
it is potentially and virtually
faith in the Redeemer. For al-
though the Redeemer has not
been presented to him historical-
ly and personally as the object of
faith, yet the Divine Spirit by the
new birth has wrought in him
the sincere and longing disposi-
tion to believe in him. With the
penitent and believing man in the
Gospel, he says, ‘Who is he,
Lord, that I might believe on
him?’ (John 9:36). Such a man is
‘regenerated and saved by Christ
through the Spirit’, and belongs
to that class of ‘elect persons
who are incapable of being out-
wardly called by the ministry of
the word’ (Conf. x. 3).” (pp. 128-
129)
R.L. DABNEY (1820-1898)
Systematic Theology
“Nor would we attach any
force to the argument, that if
Christ made penal satisfaction
for the sins of all, justice would
forbid any to be punished. To
urge this argument surrenders
virtually the very ground on
which the first Socinian objec-
tion was refuted, and is incom-
patible with the facts that God
chastises justified believers, and
holds elect unbelievers subject to
Page 7
wrath till they believe. Christ’s
satisfaction is not a pecuniary
equivalent, but only such a one
as enables the Father, consistent-
ly with His attributes, to pardon,
if in His mercy He sees fit. The
whole avails of the satisfaction
to a given man is suspended on
his belief. There would be no in-
justice to the man, if he remain-
ing an unbeliever, his guilt were
punished twice over, first in his
Saviour, and then in Him” (p.
521).
“But the difficulties which be-
set the subject are great, and un-
less you differ from me, you will
feel that the manner in which
they are dealt with by some Cal-
vinistic writers, is unsatisfac-
tory. The objections are of two
classes. From the universal offer
of atonement through Christ,
and from Scripture. The fact that
God makes this offer literally
universal, cannot be doubted,
nor must we venture to insinuate
that He is not sincere therein.
(Matt. xxviii:19; Mark xvi:16,
17). The usual answer given by
Calvinists of the rigid school to
this objection is that God may
sincerely offer this salvation to
every creature, because, although
not designed for all, it is in its
nature sufficient for, and adapted
to all. They say that since
Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite
value, and as adequate for cover-
ing all the sins of every sinner in
the universe, as of one; and since
Christ bears the common nature
of all sinners, and God’s re-
vealed, and not His secret, decre-
tive, will is the proper rule of
man’s conduct, this satisfaction
may be candidly offered to all.
Arminians rejoin, that this im-
plies an adoption of their con-
ception of the nature of the
atonement, as a general satisfac-
tion for human guilt as a mass
and whole; that the punishment
of gospel hardened sinners for
unbelief (which we admit will
occur), would be unjust on our
scheme, since by it they would be
punished for not believing what
would not be true, if they had
believed it; and that since, on our
scheme the believing of a non-
elect sinner is not naturally, but
only morally impossible, it is a
Page 8
supposable case for argument’s
sake, and this case supposed,
God could not be sincere, unless
such a sinner should be saved in
Christ, supposing He came. The
honest mind will feel these
objections to be attended with
real difficulty. Thus, in defining
the nature of Christ’s vicarious
work, Calvinists assert a proper
substitution and imputation of
individuals’ sins. On the strict
view, the sins of the non-elect
were never imputed to Christ.
The fact, then, that an infinite
satisfaction was made for impu-
ted guilt does not seem to be a
sufficient ground for offering
the benefits thereof to those
whose sins were never impu-
ted.” (p. 523)
“But there are others of these
passages, to which I think, the
candid mind will admit, this
sort of explanation is inapplica-
ble. In John iii:16, make ‘the
world’ which Christ loved, to
mean ‘the elect world,’ and we
reach the absurdity that some of
the elect may not believe, and
perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we
make the all for whom Christ
died, mean only the all who live
unto Him – i.e., the elect – it
would seem to be implied that
of those elect for whom Christ
died, only a part will live to
Christ. In 1 John 2:2, it is at
least doubtful whether the ex-
press phrase, ‘whole world,’
can be restrained to the world of
elect as including other than
Jews. For it is indisputable, that
the Apostle extends the propiti-
ation of Christ beyond those
whom he speaks of as ‘we,’ in
verse first. The interpretation
described obviously proceeds on
the assumption that these are
only Jewish believers. Can this
be substantiated? Is this catholic
epistle addressed only to Jews?
This is more than doubtful. It
would seem then, that the
Apostle’s scope is to console
and encourage sinning believers
with the thought that since
Christ made expiation for every
man, there is no danger that He
will not be found a propitiation
for them who, having already
believed, now sincerely turn to
him from recent sins” (p. 525).
“This seems, then, to be the
candid conclusion: that there is
no passage in the Bible which
Outside the Camp
asserts an intention to apply re-
demption to any others than the
elect, on the part of God and
Christ, but that there are pas-
sages which imply that Christ
died for all sinners in some
sense, as Dr. Ch. Hodge has so
expressly admitted. Certainly
the expiation made by Christ is
so related to all, irrespective of
election, that God can sincerely
invite all to enjoy its benefits,
that every soul in the world who
desires salvation is warranted to
appropriate it, and that even a
Judas, had he come in earnest,
would not have been cast out.
“But the arguments which we
adduced on the affirmative side
of the question demonstrate that
Christ’s redeeming work was
limited in intention to the elect.
The Arminian dogma that He
did the same redeeming work in
every respect for all is prepos-
terous and unscriptural. But at
the same time, if the Calvinistic
scheme be strained as high as
some are inclined, a certain
amount of justice will be found
against them in the Arminian
objections. Therefore, In mediis
tutissime ibis. The well known
Calvinistic formula, that ‘Christ
died sufficiently for all, effica-
ciously for the Elect,’ must be
taken in a sense consistent with
all the passages of Scripture
which are cited above. ... Re-
demption is limited, i.e., to true
believers, and is particular. Ex-
piation is not limited.
“There is no safer clue for the
student through this perplexed
subject, than to take this propo-
sition; which, to every Calvin-
ist, is nearly is indisputable as a
truism; Christ’s design in His
vicarious work was to effectuate
exactly what it does effectuate,
and all that it effectuates, in its
subsequent proclamation. This
is but saying that Christ’s pur-
pose is unchangeable and om-
nipotent. Now, what does it ac-
tually effectuate? ‘We know on-
ly in part;’ but so much is cer-
tain:
“(a) The purchase of the full
and assured redemption of all
the elect, or of all believers.
“(b) A reprieve of doom for
every sinner of Adam’s race
who does not die at birth. (For
these we believe it has pur-
chased heaven). And this re-
September 2010
prieve gains for all, many sub-
stantial, though temporal bene-
fits, such as unbelievers, of all
men, will be the last to account
no benefits. Among these are
postponement of death and per-
dition, secular well-being, and
the bounties of life.
“(c) A manifestation of God’s
mercy to many of the non-elect,
to all those, namely, who live
under the Gospel, in sincere
offers of a salvation on terms of
faith. And a sincere offer is a
real and not a delusive benefac-
tion; because it is only the recip-
ient’s contumacy which disap-
points it.
“(d) A justly enhanced con-
demnation of those who reject
the Gospel, and thereby a clear-
er display of God’s righteous-
ness and reasonableness in con-
demning, to all the worlds.
“(e) A disclosure of the infi-
nite tenderness and glory of
God’s compassion, with purity,
truth and justice, to all rational
creatures.” (pp. 527-529)
Outside the Camp
is a ministry of
Sovereign Redeemer Assembly
P.O. Box 995
West Rutland, VT 05777
USA
web site:
www.outsidethecamp.org
editor: Marc D. Carpenter
e-mail:
otc@outsidethecamp.org
All materials are always
free for the asking.
To God ALONE
be the glory.