study of redemptive truth is very important, having to do, as it does, with the eternal destiny of the soul of man; because of its importance, both to the glory of God, and to the hope of man, it has long been the object of the malignant endeavors of Satan, with the result that it is often glossed over with carnal and erroneous ideas. In no division of redemptive truth is this truer than in regard to the atonement. The atonement of Christ has long been a subject of intense interest in Christian ranks, and this is as it should be, for dealing as it does with the redemptive work of Christ, the eternal destiny of the soul rests upon a correct understanding of it. This is a complex subject and one upon which it is easy to be confused by human theories and human reasoning, or to omit one of the major aspects of it. It has been well said that:

The atonement is a great subject with many sides. It may be approached from many angles. It is easy to be one-sided and fragmentary in dealing with the New Testament material. Care should be taken to include all the vital aspects of the subject. —E. Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion In Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 311. Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1932.

Perhaps one thing that has led to more erroneous theories of the atonement than any thing else, is a defective view of sin; for the atonement cannot be rightly understood apart from a right view of sin. Insofar as any person has a low estimate of sin, his view of the atonement of Christ will be correspondingly low and defective. If man had never sinned, there would have been no need for an atonement of any kind; on the other hand, if man’s fall did him no more damage than to skin his knee or cause him a hang-nail, spiritually speaking, then of course, the atonement necessary to repair this damage would naturally not be of any great consequence. Dr. J. M. Pendleton says:

Had there been no sin, there would have been no atonement. Had there been no atonement, we should know far less of every divine attribute than we know now, and, consequently, much less of the divine character. Thus it appears that the existence of sin, the abominable thing that God hates, has been so overruled as to give the universe sublimer and more comprehensive views of the perfections of God. This is the wonder of wonders. —Christian Doctrines, p. 237. American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1878.

Viewed from the human standpoint, sin is the greatest calamity that could befall mankind, and so this present chapter will move upon the assumption of the following things:

(1) That the whole human race was actually and truly in Adam seminally, and was represented by him federally, when he was placed in the garden of Eden.

(2) That Adam did willfully, knowingly and rebelliously take of the forbidden fruit in the garden, and that his act was not inconsequential, but was outright rebellion against God’s clearly revealed will, and was, in effects man’s declaration of independence from God.

(3) That this act was fraught with the most fearful consequences in that it brought a state of apostasy upon the whole human races so that from that time forth, every son of Adam would be born into the world with an aversion toward God and a will bent toward sin.

(4) That this condition, being wrought into the very natural constitution of man, cannot be modified nor remedied by any internal will, wisdom or work of man himself.

(5) That this state of depravity is total reaching to all faculties of man bringing them all under the domination of sin so that "there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10,12). By total depravity it is not meant that any person is as bad as he can be, but only that there is nothing good in him by nature.

(6) That therefore man’s will, intellect and emotions are all in a state of sinful bondage from which they cannot be freed, nor made to operate in a spiritual manner except by the exercise of Divine grace.

(7) That therefore the only possible remedy for this fearful state of man lies in a Divinely thought, Divinely wrought and Divinely bought plan for the removal of man’s sinfulness and his recreation in holiness. This Divine plan we know by the name of atonement.

There are many facets and aspects of the atonement; some of the terms used are synonymous with the word "atonement" while others are expressive of a distinct side of the redemptive work of Christ. For examples considered as to the results Godward, there may be used the words "appeasing," "expiation," "propitiation," "reconciliation," or "satisfaction." Considered from the human side of the results, there may be the words "salvation" or "forgiveness." Considered from the legal side there may be the words "justification" or "pardon." Considered as a commercial transaction, the words "ransom" or "redemption" may be used. It will be impractical to go into a study of each of these words, but we trust that in the course of this study, all these will be seen to fit into their proper place.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" (Rom. 5:10,11).

This is the only place in the New Testament where the English word atonement is to be found, and even here the Greek word so translated is the noun form of the verb which is rendered "reconciled" twice in verse 10, so that perhaps the better rendering here would have been "reconciliation." In the Old Testament, the English word atonement appears over seventy times, and is the translation of the Hebrew word kaphar. This same Hebrew word is also rendered "reconcile" "reconciliation" "be merciful" "purge" "pacify" "appease" and "pardon" which gives us a general idea of what is meant by the word. Its first appearance in the Bible is in Genesis 6:14, where it is translated "shalt pitch it within and without," which shows the meaning of the word to be "to cover over."

By the use of the word premised in the title of this section, we intend to lay down the basic meaning of the atonement, or to define it for proper under standing comes only with proper definition of the terns used. We note therefore—

Our English word atonement is a compound word formed of the words "at-onement," or the state of being at one, in unity, or at peace with some one. It is suggestive of a former state of enmity between two people, but which enmity has been removed so that they are now reconciled. In theological writings this word is used with a great deal more latitude than this,, but for our purposes in this study, it will be sufficient to use the term in the Biblical sense of reconciliation. T.P. Simmons says of the Greek word rendered "reconciliation" (katallage):

According to the use of the Greek, the word "atonement" may be used of either the provision of the objective basis of salvation, in which we have a potential atonement, or of the actual accomplishment of salvation, in which we have an actual atonement in the application of the benefits of Christ’s death and the offering of His blood in the heavenly temple. —Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, p. 241. Associated Publishers, Daytona Beach, Florida, 1969.

However, we must not misunderstand by "potential atonement" that the word is ever used in the Bible in such a way as to contradict its own intrinsic meaning, for an atonement which does not atone is no atonement, and a reconciliation that does not reconcile is no reconciliation, and a covering that does not cover is no covering. We do not believe that this word is ever used in the Bible in an abstract way, but that it always refers to the actual application of the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work, but we will consider this more at length when we come to consider the extent of the atonement.

The doctrine of the atonement has its roots in the Old Testament where it is set forth typically so often, and while we plan to devote a whole section to the atonement as prefigured in the Levitical sacrifices, it will be well to note in passing how the word is there used.

As already mentioned the Hebrew word kaphar first appears in Genesis 6:l4 where it is used in a purely physical sense, and has the meaning of "to cover over." The next appearance of this word is in Genesis 32:20: "And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me." This further shows the meaning of this word that it has to do with the appeasement or reconciliation of one who has been offended. The appearances of this word are quite numerous in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, but we cite Exodus 30:16 to further reveal the meaning of the word: "And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls."

While we recognize that this had to do with a typical atonement, yet it must also be recognized that the purpose of the type pointed to the purpose of the true atonement, and so this is significant here. Its purpose was "to make an atonement" for the soul, and so if it did not fulfill this purpose, it was no atonement. Thus it is said of the true atonement of Christ in Hebrews 2:17: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

The text with which we began this section reveals much more about what the atonement is and what it does. Note the following things from this passage: (1) It relates to some who had formerly been enemies, but who are now reconciled. (2) The reconciliation is accomplished "by the death of his Son," and not by anything that man could do, for it was accomplished while they were yet enemies to God. (3) The result of this reconciliation is that those who are reconciled to God shall be saved by the life of Christ; i.e., they shall have His righteous life imputed to them. (4.) Not only is this reconciliation accomplished by the death of Christ, but it is also received through Christ, so that man is not active anywhere in the atonement, but it is wholly the work of God. This is borne out in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." The only place man is active in this matter is in service after he is saved. From these passages, it is clear that the atonement is God’s redemptive work in behalf of sinful man. J. M. Pendleton therefore defines the atonement as follows:

It is evident that an atonement is that which repairs an injury, gives satisfaction, makes amends. With this view of the import of the term let us consider the atonement of Christ. What is it? It is the expiation of sin by the satisfaction rendered to the law and justice of God through the obedience and death of Christ. —Christian Doctrines, p. 223. American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1878.

E. G. Robinson gives a somewhat more comprehensive definition of the atonement when he says:

The word atonement has been used with great latitude of meaning; to denote what the schoolmen meant by satisfaction and what the Scriptures mean by propitiation and reconciliation; a two-sided word, representing, in respect to God, the expiation of guilt, and, in respect to man, his atonement with God. This last named is its meaning in the single instance in which it occurs in our common English version of the New Testament; (Rom. 5:11). The term, therefore, when employed in designation of Christ’s priestly office, must manifestly, be understood to includes like his priesthood, all that he accomplished for us in his life as well as all that he procured for us by his death. The atonement of Christ was his whole subjective work on earth, securing in those that believe in him their subjective renewal, and so their final salvation. —Christian Theology, p. 255. Press of E. R. Andrews, Rochester, N. Y., 1894.

The text that we used at the beginning of this section connects the atonement with the death of Christ; yea, reconciliation is shown to be the outgrowth of Christ’s death, and this is true with most of the references to Christ’s death, for apart from the redemptive purposes of God, the death of Christ was a tragic and pointless thing. Not only so, but the Scripture declares that this was the only way that God could consistently redeem mankind: "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" (Gal. 3:21). But inasmuch as God has seen fit to give His own Son to die for us, we must assume that this is not only the best and wisest plan for man’s redemption, but that this is also the plan best suited to bring glory to God.

Sin is antagonistic to the nature of God. So, you see, the atonement that is to remove hindrance between God and man must be something that will minister to the Divine Nature, and that will satisfy the divine holiness and make it possible, without violating His own nature, for God to forgive the sinner. —T. T. Shields, The Doctrines of Grace, p. 98. Publisher and date not given.

The meaning of the atonement cannot be rightly perceived unless we see it as an evidence of God’s surpassing love to us, as it is written: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). The atonement is not based upon anything seen or foreseen in man, but solely upon God’s purposes and His love for His unworthy creatures. The atonement means that God’s heart of love was so full that He paid the supreme price that He might reconcile unto Himself those who were unlovely, unworthy and even undesireous of His love. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Who can fathom the love of God? "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). But if this be the rule by which a supreme human love is measured, how much is it a measure of supreme love that Christ, the very jewel of heaven, died for His bitterest enemies?

By this is meant the different redemptive acts that enter in to, and comprise the atonement. We know, of course, that the gospel has as its bases three facts: (1) Jesus’ sinless life by which He constantly honored God and His Law, and manifested thereby that the Law had no claims upon Him to require His death for sin. (2) His death on the cross notwithstanding His sinless life, by which He suffered the penalty of sin in the place of the guilty sinner. (3) His resurrection unto life again after three days and three nights in the tomb, after which He ascended back to Heaven there to make an offering of His own blood upon the true altar in heaven, and to present His own spotless righteousness to God in lieu of the sinner’s unrighteousness. However, though these are a part of the atonement they are not the elements that we refer to primarily, but are included in these elements

It is well to state at this point that these elements are often spoken of as the "satisfaction of Christ," which is a term of similar import to the word "atonement," but is perhaps not quite so restrictive in meaning as it is. It might be a better word to use for this study were it not for the fact that so many people misunderstand the meaning of the word, and think that it means rather the self-complacency of Christ.

The first element of the atonement which we would consider is the propitiation, of which we read: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). In both these instances the Greek word is hilasmos. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Rom. 3:25). "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly" (Heb. 9:5). In these two texts the word "propitiation" and "mercyseat" are both the renderings of the Greek word hilasterion, a word of similar import to hilasmos above.

The last text is significant in this matter because it shows that the mercyseat in the Tabernacle and Temple had the typical significance of foreshadowing Christ’s redemptive work in one phase of it. But as there was more to the tabernacle than just the mercyseat, so there is more to Christ’s redemptive work than just the propitiation. If we compare these four texts, we get a better understanding of what is meant, by this word. Note: (1) That these all had to do with sin. (2) That the propitiation is God’s provision for sin. (3) That this is provided because of God’s love for us. (4) That this was to be a propitiation only through faith in his blood, so that it has no application to any but believers. We will have more to say about the phrase "and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), under the third division of this study. (5) That this propitiation is God’s declaration of Christ’s righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. (6) The propitiation is not an act of debt to many but is come only in the forbearance of God. Alvah Hovey observes of the word "propitiate:"

In Classic writers, Josephus included, this verb signifies, to appease or make propitious, whether by sacrifice, or gift, or song; and the object of it is almost always a god...From the connection in which these words are employed, it is plain that God was conceived of as rendered propitious by the death of Christ; or that the exercise of his grace towards the guilty was secured by that death. —Manual of Systematic Theology, pp. 211-212. American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1880.

In the Tabernacle the mercyseat did not procure forgiveness for any one; for there was required the annual application of the blood by the high priest before forgiveness was pronounced. So too in the antitypical atonement, it is not enough that Christ died a vicarious death for sinners, but there must be the individual application of the benefits of the crucifixion to the elect before they are reconciled to God. Hence, it appears that the word "propitiation" has to do with Christ’s sacrificial death so far as the general result of it is concerned—the appeasement of God for man’s sins.

But another element in the atonement or satisfaction of Christ is the "reconciliation," which is a translation of the Greek word katallagē. It appears only four times in the New Testament, viz., Rom. 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18,19. The verb form is katallassō, which appears only in Romans 5:10 (twice); 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19,20. This word suggests the result of Christ’s redeeming work as it relates to both God and man; they are "reconciled." Some have denied that God needed to be "reconciled," and that this reconciliation has to do only with man. A. W. Pink has well said of this:

But though the Scripture speaks of reconciliation, not of God to man, but of man to God, and that through the blood of the cross alone (Col. 1:20); yet it holds forth, in the plainest, strongest language, a real and effective "sacrifice," "atonement," and "propitiation," offered to God by the Lord Jesus; all which terms express or imply an actual satisfaction rendered to God for sins and such a satisfaction, as that without it there could be no pardon. It is especially needful to bear this in mind, because the Socinians and other heretics who deny or explain away the atonement, insist much on this point, that the Scripture does not speak of a reconciled God. Therefore, though we do not believe that the atonement produced a change in the mind of God, so as to turn Him from hatred to love, for He loved the elect with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3), or that it was a price paid to procure His favor, still, there was a sacrifice offered, a propitiation made, whereby, and whereby alone, sin was pardoned, blotted out, and forever put away. —The Doctrine of Reconciliation, pp. 3-4. Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971.

The very meaning of the word "reconciliation" makes it obvious that the atonement is not some abstract thing that may or may not be accepted, but that it is the actual application of the saving work of Christ to the soul, for how can any person be reconciled to God without, at the same time, being saved; on the other hand, it is just as absurd to think of a person being saved without being reconciled to God. It is true that the Word says that we were reconciled to God when we were yet enemies (Rom. 5:10), but it also tells us that Christ has also slain all the enmity while on the cross (Eph. 2:16). This is why the atonement of Christ is limited, and cannot be understood otherwise, but this is the subject of our next division.

"Redemption" is another of the elements of the atonement; the word "redeem" has much the same significance as the word "deliver," but is more specific because it sets forth the precise mode of deliverance. The more common Hebrew words for "redeem" are goel, geullah, and padah (and their derivatives); the Greek words used are agorazō, exagorazō, lutroō, apolutrōsis (and their derivatives).

The basic idea of all these words is "to purchase," "to buy back from the slave market," "to redeem by paying a price," "to free by paying a ransom." The more common Greek noun is apolutrōsis, which appears ten times in the New Testament, of which the following are instances: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7). "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:15). The word "redemption" contains three key ideas as to what takes place in a person who is redeemed. (1) Redemption is a ransom. This is the root meaning of some of the words translated "redeem" (1 Tim. 2:6). (2) Redemption is a rescue (Titus 2:14; Gal. 1:4). In the latter passage, the word rendered "deliver" is elsewhere translated "rescue." (3) Redemption is a release. This idea is inherent in the root meaning of the Greek words lutron, lutroō, lutrōsis. This element of the atonement speaks of the result of it as it respects sin. John Gill says of redemption:

Now all these views of redemption plainly point out to us the following things with respect to the redemption of the Lords people. 1. That they are previous to their redemption, and which that supposes, in a state of captivity and bondage; they are sinners in Adam, and by actual transgressions; and so come into the hands of vindictive justice, offended by sin; and which will not clear the guilty without satisfaction given to it; which is by paying a price: redemption by Christ is nothing more or less than buying his people out of the hands of justice, in which they are held for sin; and that is with the price of his blood; which is therefore paid into the hands of justice for them; hence they are said to be redeemed, or bought unto God by his blood, (Rev. 5:9). 2. That redemption by Christ is a deliverance from all this. It is a redemption from sin; from all iniquities whatever original and actual (Ps. 130:8. Titus 2:14). from avenging justice, on account of sin; from the guilt of sin. 3. That redemption by Christ is such a deliverance, as that it is setting persons quite free and at entire liberty; such who are dead to sin by Christ are freed from it, from the damning power of it, and from its dominion and tyranny; and though, not as yet, from the being of it; yet, ere long, they will be. —Body of Divinity, Book VI, ch. I, pp. 456, 457. Turner Lassetter, Atlanta, 1950,

The correct view of the extent of the atonement is necessarily determined by whether we have a correct view of the meaning of the atonement, for if one believes that the atonement is a sacrifice that has been made for every member of Adam’s fallen race, then on the very meaning of the word reconciliation, he must believe that all will ultimately be saved, or else he will be hard put to escape from the arguments of the universalists.

Let us not be misunderstood at this point; we certainly believe that an adequate sacrifice has been offered by Christ to pay for the redemption of every sinner that has or ever shall repent and trust in Christ. Nor do we believe that any sinner shall ever desire to be saved, but be unable because sufficient blood was not shed for his redemption. But with most sound Baptists of the past, we believe that the atonement was particular; that is, that the blood of Christ was shed with particular individuals in mind who would be the recipients of the redemptive work of Christ. David Benedict, the old Baptist historian, the reliability of whose history has never been questioned by most Baptists, writing in 1813 says:

The doctrine of the Atonement has been differently understood. The old churches pretty uniformly held that it was particular; that is, that Christ died for the elect only, and that in his stupendous suffering, no respect was had to, nor any provisions made for, any others of Adam’s ruined race. This was called the strict Calvinistick (sic) or Gillite plan. Yet there have been some all along, who found this meat too strong for their appetite and digestion. These brethren, notwithstanding, they disclaimed all merit in the creature, and held that salvation was by grace alone, were generally denominated Arminians as it was thought there could be no medium between the systems of John of Geneva, and James of Amsterdam. —General History of The Baptist Denomination, Vol. 2, p. 456. Manning and Loring, Boston, 1813.

He goes on to show that a considerable defection to the modified Calvinism of Andrew Fuller took place about the beginning of the nineteenth century. However, even this modified Calvinism of Andrew Fuller as set forth in his Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation is much too strong on the atonement for most modern Baptists, and would be slandered as Hypercalvinism by many. So far have modern Baptists fallen from the old landmarks.

Our Lord Himself said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). And again, "As thou halt given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou has given him" (John 17:2). And there are many other passages which also show that there was a covenant of grace made in which a definite number were given to Christ to be redeemed, all of which He will in time call, justify and glorify, and none of which will be finally lost. These two texts clearly set forth what the old theologians called irresistible grace—for all who are given to Christ "shall come to him" —and particular redemption—for Christ gives life only to those whom the Father has given to Him in the covenant of redemption.

It is at this point, however, that we run headlong into the strongest prejudice, and this writer confesses that he was once foremost in prejudice on this point until God in His grace revealed the truth to him. Many people say, of the extent of the atonement: "Well, I believe in ‘Whosoever will," to which we say a hearty "Amen," yet this does not touch the main question here, for the Scripture represents the natural man as being unable to will that which is good for the following reasons: (1) He is in bondage to Satan (2 Tim. 2:25-26), from which only God in His grace can rescue him. (2) He is totally depraved, and cannot do any good (Rom. 3:9-12). (3) Spiritual things are foolish to him, and so he rejects them in toto until grace changes his attitude (1 Cor. 2:14). (4) He cannot be subject to the law of God, nor can he please God while his fleshly nature controls him (Rom. 8:7-8). Not only so, but (5) The Scripture declares that even the most religious people on earth by nature "Do not will to come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40-literal rendering), and so man has no desire to be saved.

But it will be objected that the atonement is for all the world, and so must mean every human being. We readily grant that the Scripture speaks of "reconciling the world," but to hold that the word "world" means "every human creature" in every case is to betray ignorance or prejudicial blindness. This writer once heard another preacher, in attempting to overthrow the doctrine of the limited atonement, say "The word ‘world’ means world," which statement means as near nothing as it can, for one never defines the meaning of a word with the same word. This reconciliation of the world is accomplished by "not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19), so that whatever this world is, it is one that is accepted in God’s sight, for no sins are charged against it. Can this "world" be any other than the "world" of God’s elect?

The word "world" (Grk. kosmos) is used in at least thirteen different significations in the New Testament, and therefore the context must determine in each case what the word refers to. See Appendix II: "Studies On The Word ‘World’". All of these things make it folly of the worst kind to hold that the word "world" where it relates to the atonement, must refer to all mankind; and this becomes even more so when we consider that "atonement" means reconciliation, yet only a Universalist will claim that all mankind will eventually be reconciled to God. Even if there were no other facts to consider but the meaning of "atonement" (which is not the case) yet that alone would restrict the atonement to the saved alone, for how can one be reconciled to God and not be saved; or how can one be saved and not be reconciled to God?

If we go back to the Old Testament, where the doctrine of the atonement has its roots, we find this same truth, for there we never find an atonement that does not actually atone. Frequently, we find the statement "And the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." See Lev. 4:20,26,31,35; 5:10,13,18; 6:7, etc. Indeed, there does not seem to be a single instance where an atonement is made but that there is forgiveness, so that Scripture facts compel us to believe that when atonement is made, it is also applied, and forgiveness ensures, and if there is no forgiveness, then obviously there has been no atonement for that individual. Alexander Carson well says:

But there are many who plead for the atonement of Christ, who, in effect, deny it, as well as its open opposers. They suppose that it is a conditional atonement, of efficacy only to those who comply with certain terms. It is evident, however, that a conditional atonement is no atonement in the proper sense of the word; for an atonement must expiate the sins atoned for, just as a payment cancels a debt. Where, then, there has been an actual atonement made, the sins atoned for never can be punished again, more than a debt once paid can be charged a second time. It would be unjust in God to charge the debt to the account of man that was fully paid by: man’s surety. It may be alleged that one man may pay another man’s debts upon certain conditions; and that if those conditions are not fulfilled, the debt will be still chargeable upon the debtor. But it is evident that, in such a case, the surety either does not actually pay the debt till the conditions are fulfilled, or if he has conditionally paid it, he is refunded before it is chargeable upon the debtor. In every such case, the debt is not really paid. But Jesus has paid the debt. He has already made atonement; and if they for whom he died are not absolved, the debt is charged a second time. He can never be refunded. —The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 94-95. Edward H. Fletcher, New York, 1853.

Those who argue for a general atonement, doubtless do so thinking that they are contending for a greater hope and assurance of salvation for all men, but if the atonement is general enough to include any who are not finally saved, then it is a false atonement, for it does not really atone for them. We prefer to believe that Christ died to redeem every one of those whom the Father has given Him in the covenant of redemption, and that, as a consequence of this, everyone of them will certainly be brought to repentance and trust and be saved. We cannot see the sense of Christ’s shedding any unnecessary blood nor of suffering unnecessarily. In a great many instances, men reject the doctrine of the limited atonement because they do not understand what it is; in a lesser number of cases, men reject it because they are unwilling to concede that God has the sovereign right to do with His creatures as He will, and to save whomsoever He will.

Looked at from the standpoint of its being a propitiation, the atonement must be limited to believers, for if God is propitiated for all men without exception, then, there can be no reason for their going to hell, for His wrath is appeased toward them, which is the meaning of the word "propitiation." See also Chapter Thirteen, Point II, on the extent of salvation. The same thing is true if it is viewed from the aspect of it being reconciliation. If there is any sin yet charged against any man, he has not experienced the atonement, which takes away all sin, and he is yet lost and on his way to hell. If an atonement has been made for him personally, then God is propitiated and he is reconciled to God, or at least shall be at some time in the course of life. There is no alternative to these two facts; to be consistent, one must choose one or the other of the alternatives.