The Unorthodox C. S. Lewis

“C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) is loved with an equal fervor by conservative evangelicals, emergents, Roman Catholics, Mormons, even atheists, a fact that speaks volumes to those who have ears to hear” (David Cloud, “C. S. Lewis’s Denial of the Blood Atonement”).

I have no desire to trash C. S. Lewis. He said a lot of good things, and is eminently quotable. He excelled as a writer. On the other hand, there are so many starry-eyed love-struck devotees among American evangelicals when it comes to Lewis, I also believe it is imminent that we orthodox “Biblicists” fire a warning shot across the bow. The fundamental theology of Lewis lacked orthodoxy, and folks should be told that.

“…the whole point of that book [The Pilgrim’s Regress by C. S. Lewis, rlv] is to say that by clear thinking, you can think yourself from a rationalist or atheistical position into the Christian position. And he actually, at one time, founded in Oxford what he called the Socratic Club, which used to meet on Monday nights, in which he used to try to show people how to reason themselves into Christianity. ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.’ You cannot do it merely by a process of intellectual reasoning” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “A Change of Heart,” a sermon on Romans 10:9-10). Martyn Lloyd-Jones also said:

“C. S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement.” (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963; as requoted in “Mere Atonement,” Ariel James Vanderhorst, Touchstone Magazine, March 2009)

David Cloud further points out that C. S. Lewis not only “denied Christ’s substitutionary atonement,” but also “held a sacramental view of salvation…did not hold to the infallible inspiration of Scripture,” and called the six-day creation “a Hebrew folk tale.” In The Problem of Pain, Lewis wrote, “If by saying that man rose from brutality you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection.” I cannot see how such a statement can be recycled into orthodox biblicism.

If you read Lewis, read with both eyes open.

In Remembrance of our Lord

 ...in some hymns.

1. ’Twas on that dark, that doleful night

When powers of earth and hell arose

Against the Son of God's delight

And friends betrayed him to his foes.

2. Before the mournful scene began,

He took the bread and blessed and brake.

What love through all his actions ran!

What wondrous words of grace he spake!

3. “This Is my body, broke for sin;

Receive and eat the living food”;

Then took the cup and blessed the wine:

“Tis the new covenant in my blood.”

4. “Do this,” he said, “till time shall end,

In memory of your dying Friend.

Meet at my table and record

The love of your departed Lord.”

5. Jesus, thy feast we celebrate;

We show thy death, we sing thy name,

Till thou return and we shall eat

The marriage supper of the Lamb. (Isaac Watts)

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down!

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown? (Isaac Watts)

See the cross, the cross of Jesus,

Crimson with his own life’s blood;

Thus he died, lest we should perish,

Wondrous love! Thou Son of God. (Silas G. Odell)

Thou Man of grief, remember me,

Thou never canst thyself forget.

Thy last expiring agony,

Thy fainting pangs and bloody sweat. (Charles Wesley)

Alas, and did my Savior bleed

And did my Sovereign die?

Would He devote that sacred head

For such a worm as I?

Was it for sins that I had done

He groaned upon the tree?

Amazing pity, grace unknown

And love beyond degree. (Isaac Watts)

As on the Cross the Saviour hung 

And wept, and bled, and died, 

He poured salvation on a wretch 

That languished at his side. (Samuel Stennett)

Agonizing in the garden,

Lo! your Master prostrate lies;

On the bloody tree behold him,

Hear him cry before he dies;

“It is finished!”

Sinners will this not suffice? (Joseph Hart)

There he bled and died, an off’ring

For the world of sinners lost;

Oh, what pangs his visage marring!

Sinner, this thy soul has cost. (Daniel S. Warner)

He the true David, Israel’s King,

Blessed and loved of God,

To save us rebels dead in sin,

Paid his own dearest blood. (Isaac Watts)

I’m not ashamed to own my Lord

Or to defend his cause;

Maintain the honor of his word,

The glory of his cross. (Isaac Watts)

Must Jesus bear the cross alone,

And all the world go free?

No, there’s a cross for everyone,

And there’s a cross for me. (Thomas Shepherd)

Jesus is unique

Jesus is unique – existing as the only one or as the sole example; one of a kind; unlike anything else; having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable.

In his birth.
Jesus is pre-existent eternal God, creator of heaven and earth. He was born of a virgin, made flesh and dwelt among us. There is none other birth like it! John 1:1-3; John 1:14; Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:30-35; Matthew 1:18-23; Galatians 4:4.

In his life.
Jesus was sent from the Father to seek and save that which was lost. He came not to serve, not to be served. Unlike every other life, his was holy, sinless, and undefiled. There is none other life like it! John 8:18; Mark 10:45; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26.

In his death.
Jesus had complete power or control over his death. Unlike every other death, he could retain the spirit from death, or dismiss the spirit at the moment he was finished. Further, his death was vicarious, that is, he died not for himself, for he had no sin, but he died for others. He died for sin, for sinners, to save. There is none other death like it! Ecclesiastes 8:8; Romans 6:23; John 19:30; Romans 5:8; 1 Peter 3:18.

In his resurrection.
Jesus had not only control his own death, but owned victory over death itself. He did not just rise from the dead, but is the resurrection and the life. In death and life, he is Lord of the dead and the living, and ever lives to make intercession. There is none other resurrection like it! Revelation 1:18; John 11:25; Romans 14:9; Mark 16:6; Hebrews 7:25.

The truth of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ finds expression in his eternal Godhead, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his sacrificial death, and his glorious resurrection. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

A Dying Savior

Anne Steele wrote the following long meter hymn, “A Dying Savior,” which was found in her Poems on Subjects Chiefly Devotional, 1760. It is often set to the tune Zephyr by William B. Bradbury (written 1844).

1. Stretch’d on the cross, the Savior dies;
Hark! his expiring groans arise!
See, from his hands, his feet, his side,
Runs down the sacred crimson tide!

2. But life attends the deathful sound,
And flows from ev’ry bleeding wound:
The vital stream, how free it flows,
To save and cleanse his rebel foes!

3. To suffer in the traitor’s place,
To die for man, surprising grace!
Yet pass rebellious angels by—
O why for man, dear Saviour, why?

4. And didst thou bleed? for sinners bleed?
And could the sun behold the deed?
No, he withdrew his sick’ning ray,
And darkness veil’d the mourning day.

5. Can I survey this scene of woe,
Where mingling grief and wonder flow,
And yet my heart unmov’d remain,
Insensible to love or pain?

6. Come, dearest Lord, thy pow’r impart,
To warm this cold, this stupid heart,
Till all its pow’rs and passions move,
In melting grief and ardent love.

Jesus Paid It All

Jesus Paid It All[i] is one of the “standard” songs I grew up singing in church. It exalts all salvation in the death of Jesus Christ. According to John Julian (Dictionary of Hymnology, Appendix, Part II, 1907) this hymn was “written on the fly-leaf of the New Lute of Zion, in the choir of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Baltimore, in the spring of 1865.” Elvina Mable Reynolds Hall is the author of this hymn.[ii] She first married Richard Hall, and was a widow at the time she wrote the hymn. He died in 1859. She later married Thomas Myers, a Methodist minister, 1885. The hymn was published in Ira D. Sankey’s Sacred Songs and Solos in 1878 (No. 855), and the five stanzas below are from that source.[iii]

John T. Grape wrote the tune, All to Christ. He was a member, steward, and choir director of the Monument Street Methodist Church in Baltimore. He was also choir director at the Hartford Avenue Methodist Church later.

1. I hear the Savior say,
“Thy strength indeed is small,
Child of weakness, watch and pray,
Find in Me thine all in all.”

Refrain:
Jesus paid it all—

All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain;
He washed it white as snow.

2. Lord, now indeed I find
Thy power and Thine alone,
Can change the leper’s spots
And melt the heart of stone.

3. For nothing good have I
Whereby Thy grace to claim—

I’ll wash my garments white
In the blood of Calvary’s Lamb.

4. When from my dying bed

My ransomed soul shall rise,

Then “Jesus paid it all!”

Shall rend the vaulted skies.

5. And when, before the throne,
I stand in Him complete,
“Jesus died my soul to save,”
My lips shall still repeat.

---

[i] The song is also known as I Hear the Saviour Say and Christ All and in All.

[ii] IndependentBaptist.com tells this Story Behind The Hymn.

[iii] But perhaps earlier in other sources. The first occasion may have been in Sabbath Carols: A New Collection of Music and Hymns by Theodore E. Perkins in 1868, where it was called Fullness in Christ.

Scriptural View of the Atonement: a Review, of Sorts

Cyrus White, A Scriptural View of the Atonement, Milledgeville, GA: Office of the Statesman & Patriot, 1830. Page references are to the copy I own, a reprint from 2010 by the Georgia Free Will Baptist Historical Society (24 pages; original book was 19 pages). This is a reprint of an original book held at Tarver Library, Mercer University, Macon, Georgia. “Due diligence was maintained to reproduce Rev. White’s original work intact including his writing style. Only the size of the lettering was enlarged for ease of reading. A copy of his original work is on file in the Georgia Free Will Baptist Historical Archives.”

Cyrus White was undoubtedly a well-known, popular and effective minister among the Baptists of Georgia. He was, with Jesse Mercer, one of the ministers involved in organizing the General Association in Georgia in 1822 (now the Georgia Baptist Convention). He served as an evangelist of this association. In 1830 Cyrus White made quite a splash among Georgia Baptists when he published his booklet, A Scriptural View of the Atonement. His “scriptural view” was different from the “scriptural view” of the majority of Georgia Baptists. In the “Introduction” (dated December 8, 1829) White gives 3 reasons for issuing this pamphlet: his view had been misrepresented; some orderly church members has been “excluded from their Churches” for believing in a full atonement (as opposed to a limited atonement); and he believed limited atonement was an error with serious consequences – particularly telling sinners no provision was made for them rather than commanding them to “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel.”

The theme of this book on the view of the atonement is 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. White divides his presentation into two parts: the nature of the atonement and the extent of the atonement. The nature of the atonement – a sacrifice necessary in order for God to pardon, to satisfy God’s justice and render God propitious; and the atonement made not in view of debt, but in view of law, in which Jesus’s death is “considered a full satisfaction of it” -- is a brief presentation to provide the foundation for the bulk of the booklet, which is about the extent of the atonement.

White argues positively and negatively to prove his view of the extent of the atonement. If I mistake not, his preferred terminology for his belief is “full atonement.” In the negative, he argues against what he calls the limited scheme, sometimes investigating the sense of verses when the word “elect” is substituted for the word “world” (e.g. John 3:16, p. 7). In the positive, White presents “a few plain texts of Scripture [that] ought to be thought sufficient” (p. 6) – such as John 3:16-17; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; John 1:29; 2 Peter 3:9; Hebrews 2:9; and 1 Corinthians 5:14-15.

White’s position is that “JESUS has made full satisfaction to law and justice” (p. 9). He believes that full atonement is implied in the invitations of the Gospel (p. 18). The unjust are subject to Christ in the bodily resurrection and judgment, indicating they are accountable to him (p. 20). “The fullness of the atonement no more depends upon those who receive an application of it, than the fullness of a river depends upon the number of those who drink of its waters. The belief or unbelief of the world effects not the atonement; it is like a river or sea, full, whether they believe it or not” (p. 20). White concludes his booklet with a plea to sinners “to fly to the outstretched arms of a bleeding SAVIOUR” (p. 24). Cyrus White writes with a plain and distinct style, depending on exposition of Scripture as opposed to explaining and defending a systematized theology. Whether or not readers agree with him, they should be able to understand his belief system. It flatly denies a limited “scheme” of the atonement and promotes an unlimited “scheme” (one which I more commonly refer to as “general provision”). It is much easier to follow than Jesse Mercer’s more complicated reply.

Mercer responds to White

Jesse Mercer responded to Cyrus White with a series of letters published under the title Ten Letters Addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White, in Reference to his Scriptural View of the Atonement (Washington, GA: News Office, 1830). His “apology” is dated June 15, 1830 (The first letter is dated May 7, 1830).[i] Mercer says White had “gone to general provision and free-will ability.” Part of Mercer’s reason for writing the response was that some were implicating him as being in agreement with Cyrus White. “...at the Ocmulgee Association last fall, [Mercer] was requested to deliver a discourse on the atonement; but he declined...this course was construed, rather into evidence of defection, and soon it was reported, through that section, that he had apostitised from the faith of his denomination, and was, at least, in connection with Cyrus White and B. H. Willson (who were accused of propagating arminian sentiments) and of even being their abettor...’You know brother Mercer, that Willson frequently asserted in the association that he had not departed from the faith—but believed as you did. If this be the truth, then the inference is fair, when we say, you believe as Willson does: and we are well assured here than Willson believes as White does; and White’s faith we have in print.’...On reading Mr. White’s views of the atonement, and finding them far different than he had anticipated, and from what he conceived to be correct; [Mercer] thought it proper to write the following letters, not only to shew that his was not in sentiments with Mr. W. as had been suggested, but also [to show Andrew Fuller had been misrepresented, rlv].”[ii]

In The Baptist Memorial and Monthly Chronicle, Volume 1  (R. Babcock, Jr. and J. O. Choules, Editors, New York, NY: John R. Bigelow, March 1842 pp. 77-78) those who followed the atonement viewpoint of Cyrus White were dubbed White-ites, “composed of the followers of Rev. Cyrus White, who was once a preacher of some reputation amongst the Baptists of Georgia. He embraced Arminian sentiments...” The author goes on to say, though, “Both parties evidently ran into extremes...The one party, anxious to expose the heresy of the other, would put a construction upon the word which the speaker never designed they should have. The other, too proud to disclaim the uncourteous imputations, would evade them...So it happened with Cyrus White. Had he never been opposed with violence, it is not probable that he ever would have become a schismatic.”[iii]

It has been common, from Mercer to those who follow, to cite Cyrus White as an Arminian.[iv] No doubt the term Arminian is often used as a loose “catch-all” phrase. But according to theological understanding, Cyrus White was no Arminian. While he embraced the “full” or general atonement, which differs from a strict 5-point Calvinism, there is no evidence brought forth of which I am aware that White embraced other Arminian points, such as conditional election or the possibility of falling from grace.[v] In his atonement booklet, White writes, “If I have understood Election, it means the sovereign right of God to choose whom he will...And such is the enormity of the human heart, it will not submit to GOD’s government and grace. All men do most freely, most willingly reject the gospel, and forever will, until the enmity of their heart is slain, and their stubborn wills subdued by sovereign grace. This application of the grace of God is made by him to whom he will; his people are made willing in the day of his power, and this is Election...None will be saved but those to whom an application of the atonement is made.” (p. 22).

In contrast to Mercer and others who follow his view of White’s theology, Peter Lumpkins pointed out to me that there is a similarity of the view to White to the New Divinity views on the atonement of Jonathan Edwards and Timothy Dwight. Jonathan Maxcy, a Baptist minister, “took over the presidency of [the University of South Carolina] in 1804, for the next two decades, he made a powerful impact all over the south with his New Divinity views on the atonement, a general atonement based upon the governmental theory rather than strictly penal substitution and the Owenic pecuniary emphasis upon the traditional ‘commercial transaction’ taught by Gill and explicitly inherited by the Mercers and subsequently most GBA Baptists at the time.”

---

[i] Since they are letters, I wonder out loud whether Jesse Mercer may have sent these to Cyrus White before they were printed. These were also printed in The Christian Index, August 28, 1830: “We have received a pamphlet of near 50 pages containing ten letters addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White, by the Rev. Jesse Mercer, of Georgia, on the Atonement” (W. T. Brantly, The Columbian Star and Christian Index, 1830). Brantly wrote, “…if brother White chooses to reply…we shall feel bound to print his reply.” I am not aware that White ever replied via the Index.

[ii] Ten Letters, pp. i-ii; Unless I missed it, Andrew Fuller is never mentioned in White’s pamphlet, a transcription of which may be accessed HERE.

[iii] “Origins of Free Will Baptists in Georgia” in The Journal of Baptist Studies (Volume 6, June, 2014), if accurate, indicates a slow movement of the White-ites toward becoming Free Will Baptists. For White himself, it appears his main difference from the larger body of Georgia Baptists was that he held and preached a general provision in which the blessings of salvation are freely offered to all by the gospel.

[iv] By both those who wish to oppose him as an Arminian, and those who wish to embrace him as an Arminian. (Mercer, p. i, mentions Arminian in reference to White’s view.)

[v] Chattahoochee United Baptist Association’s doctrinal abstract, Article 8 states, “8. We believe that Saints will persevere in Grace to the end of their lives.” (Minutes of the Chattahoochee United Baptist Association, 1848, p. 4) thanks for Peter Lumpkins for this information.

Two Books on the Atonement

I recently purchased two books on the Atonement – Atonement in the Apocalypse: an Exposé of the Defeat of Evil by Robert W. Canoy and The Extent of the Atonement: a Historical and Critical Review by David Lewis Allen. Though written on the same broad topic, they are very unalike.

Robert W. Canoy, the author of Atonement in the Apocalypse, is Dean and Professor of Christian Theology at the School of Divinity of Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, North Carolina. 

David L. Allen, the author of The Extent of the Atonement, “serves as the Dean of the School of Theology, Professor of Preaching, Director of the Center for Expository Preaching, and holds the George W. Truett Chair of Pastoral Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.”

The Extent of the Atonement

The Extent of the Atonement: a Historical and Critical Review by David Lewis Allen is a very large book of 848 pages that I will probably never sit down and read through, but rather use as a reference work. But it will be a good reference. Brian Abasciano says, “Allen’s tome is now the book to own on the extent of the atonement and the place to turn for support of unlimited atonement and refutation of limited atonement” and Nathan Finn adds that it “is the most extensive treatment of this topic that has been written—certainly by a Baptist.”

David L. Allen, the author of The Extent of the Atonement, “serves as the Dean of the School of Theology, Professor of Preaching, Director of the Center for Expository Preaching, and holds the George W. Truett Chair of Pastoral Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.”

In this book David Allen makes a case for an atonement that is universal in its extent. He further asserts that universal atonement has been the majority view of Christians throughout all church history. Following the introduction, Allen’s book is divided in three parts: “The Extent of the Atonement in Church History,” from early church to the modern era; “The Extent of the Atonement in the Baptist Tradition,” from the English General and Particular Baptists to Baptists in America and Southern Baptists in particular;[i] “The Extent of the Atonement: a Critical Review,” which is about 110 pages of detailed review of the book From Heaven He Came and Sought Her. I really appreciate the chronological arrangement of historical sections. Since I don’t own From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, the last third provides the least interest to me. Allen concludes with “Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters.”

I originally resisted the idea of purchasing the book, considering the topic and cost – but relented when I understood this would be a good historical reference work. Allen sets out with a focus and difficult task, realizing “space prohibits the citations of quotations in full context” he nevertheless “attempted to give enough context where possible to minimize mischaracterization and to maximize objectivity.” He focuses on primary source material which “must be consulted whenever possible...We must objectively listen to historical theology, and the only to do this is to read carefully the primary sources and those who have engaged the primary sources...I will be referencing numerous quotations as evidence of a particular author’s view on the extent of the atonement...I have attempted, where possible, to use quotations only from primary sources.” (p. xvi ) His focus on primary source material yields odd results at times. With Richard Furman he states that Furman changed his view from limited atonement to unlimited atonement with no quotations, merely footnoting a reference to Winds of Doctrines by Wiley W. Richards. On Jesse Mercer, rather than citing Mercer giving his own view of the atonement, he quotes Mercer talking about the views of others regarding the atonement. Nevertheless, over the whole range of the book, there are lots of quotes from primary sources.

While David Allen is scholarly and thorough, he is not without bias, stating, “My ultimate goal in this work is simple: to demonstrate historically, and then biblically and theologically, why universal atonement is a more excellent way...” At times this view may cause him to see some Christians as closer to his viewpoint, while researchers with opposite bias may see them as closer to their viewpoint. Such is life. This also explains his focus on the unlimited sufficiency of the atonement over the limited efficacy of the atonement (that is, some hold both these points in tension and Allen categorizes them on “his side”). In my opinion, this produces a strange conglomeration of a category that embraces everything from 4-point Calvinism to Universal Salvation and all points in between. This nevertheless fits within the overall purpose of Allen’s tome.

With Jeff Johnson I can agree that “regardless of whether we agree or disagree with Allen’s critical conclusions, I believe we will all agree that he has written a valuable book.”

---

[i] Allen is a Southern Baptist, which explains his focus on the atonement theology in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Atonement in the Apocalypse

Atonement in the Apocalypse: an Exposé of the Defeat of Evil by Robert W. Canoy is a reasonably short and focused work, which narrows the topic of the atonement to its relation to the book of Revelation. It does not deal with the atonement in ways that many typical books on the atonement will – e.g., limited atonement, general atonement, etc.. It only delves lightly into the eschatology of Revelation, in places in might be pertinent to the main topic.

Robert W. Canoy, the author of Atonement in the Apocalypse, is Dean and Professor of Christian Theology at the School of Divinity of Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, North Carolina.

I was excited when I saw an advertisement for Atonement in the Apocalypse in my inbox. I am interested in this subject, and am not aware of another book that focuses so particularly on it. Canoy's and the book's connections to Smyth & Helwys and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship put a slight damper on the excitement. I knew it would come out of the moderate to liberal field. Because of its particular focus I nevertheless wanted to read it and purchased it. I wasn’t aware of another book like it.[i] This is a topic I wish to explore further and appreciate Canoy’s contribution.

In the beginning Canoy writes on the subject of the atonement and how that fits within the genre of Revelation (Apocalyptic, Prophesy, Epistle). In chapters 2 and 3 he deals with atonement language and metaphors used in Revelation (such as Temple, altar, Lamb, etc.). Chapter 5 might be called the heart of the book, the defeat of the Great Red Dragon as the exposé of evil. In the final chapter Canoy offers theological conclusions with implications for Christian living.

view of atonement?

Danny West says Atonement in the Apocalypse is “written with clarity for both scholars and laypersons in mind.” I believe that is a fair assessment. For example, Canoy’s placement of the Greek text in sentences following the English translation can be read by those who can do so, or simply ignored by those who cannot.[ii] Mitchell Reddish writes, “Canoy’s work in the result of informed exegesis, critical dialogue with other scholars, and theological reflection on the significance of John’s understanding of the redemptive work of God.” To my taste there was far too much interaction with/quoting of other scholars, which to me became tiresome after a point.

My overall assessment is “somewhat disappointing.” The uniqueness of the topic gets the book a recommendation I might not otherwise give. Canoy’s atonement view gets the reader a warning. Be aware. I guess I was naïve and not expecting the so-called “Christus Victor” view of the atonement to be promoted in the book.[iii] This aspect left me confused in the beginning until I realized what he was saying. Be careful. I actually have no problem with “Christus Victor” other than when it is used to deny and substitute for penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement.

Finally, I was disappointed that this book coming out of the academic field included no index. This is a deficiency that should be corrected in future printings.

---

[i] There are many things of which I am not aware, so there may be other books, even many, of this genre. Searching around the World Wide Web yields evidence that Loren L. Johns’s chapter on “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Book of Revelation” in The Work of Jesus Christ in Anabaptist Perspective: Essays in Honor of J. Denny Weaver (edited by Alain Epp Weaver and Gerald J. Mast, Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 2008) and Weaver’s own The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) deal with this topic.

[ii] The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition, Michael W. Holmes, editor, Lexham Press, 2011-13

[iii] For more information, see Christus Victor: The Salvation of God and the Cross of Christ and The Problem with Christus Victor.

Unlimited Atonement

• “The doctrine that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons.” – Ron Rhodes
• “The doctrine states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.” – Wikipedia
• “Jesus’ intent was to die for the sins of all humanity.” – ​Trevin Wax

Regarding the Christian doctrine of the atonement, I have commonly used the terms general, limited and universal. I have recently noticed that there seems to be a growing trend of using the terminology “unlimited atonement” (or it may be me just now raising my head from the sand, catching up with progress and noticing what is going on). Above are listed three definitions of “unlimited atonement,” which seem to be in substantial agreement. The common thread is that Christ’s redemptive death was for the benefit of all people. On the one hand I understand the definition. On the other hand a category that embraces everything from 4-point Calvinism to Universal Salvation seems both strange and not particularly useful to me. Despite technical difficulties about “limited atonement” there is little more than a dime’s worth of difference between the 4-point and 5-point Calvinists – while there is a million dollars’ worth of difference between the 4-point Calvinist and the Universal Salvationist. While the 4-point Calvinist and the Traditionalist/Extensivist both sit together under the “unlimited atonement” umbrella, there is more than a little difference in their positions – so much so that many on both sides will not fellowship with one another.

Some seem to celebrate the “unlimited” and “limited” differences of 4-point and 5-point Calvinists, which I find curious. One motivation, if I detect not wrongly, is to support the idea that “unlimited atonement” was and is the position of the majority of Christians. Jesse Mercer said there is only a “mere shade” of difference “unlimited” and “limited” atonement, and that difference “is only speculative.” In practical terms what difference does it make to say that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons when all of those persons will not be called and quickened to salvation, and in fact God never intended to save them (the position of 4-point Calvinism)? Much of this discussion from all sides is useless theological speculation. Trevin Wax put it this way, “The debates regarding the extent of the atonement place a foreign paradigm on the biblical text and thus inevitably bring forth answers that are skewed by our presupposed theological framework.”

Jesse Mercer and Limited Atonement

I recently noticed a blog poster refer to The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review by David L. Allen. He pointed out that in it Allen said that Jesse Mercer (1760-1841) “himself shifted from his original commitment to limited atonement to the unlimited position.” (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016). He references Memoir of Elder Jesse Mercer by C. D. Mallary (pp. 290, 297-303). It appears important to “Traditional Southern Baptists” to show that their Baptist heroes moved away from Calvinism and toward “Traditionalism”. I nevertheless believe that Dr. Allen is in error. We shouldn’t shade Baptist history for polemic purposes.

Jesse Mercer’s Ten Letters Addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White demonstrate well his allegiance to the doctrines of predestination, unconditional election, and the limited atonement. In a letter of Mercer which David Allen quotes other parts, Jesse Mercer wrote, “But for the sake of those who may not have given themselves the trouble to read heretofore; or who may not have noticed it, I repeat that I have undergone no fundamental change in faith from my forefathers. I believe now, and always preach in perfect accordance with the faith adopted by the Georgia Association, and from her (so far as I am informed) the other associations in the state.” (Memoirs, pp. 200-201) “The faith adopted by the Georgia Association” includes “4th. We believe in the everlasting love of God to his people, and the eternal election of a definite number of the human race, to grace and glory; And that there was a covenant of grace or redemption made between the Father and the Son, before the world began, in which their salvation is secure, and that they in particular are redeemed.” (History of the Georgia Baptist Association, Jesse Mercer, Washington, GA: 1838, p. 30) According to Mallary, the above mentioned letter in which Jesse Mercer claims to have not changed his views was published in the Christian Index in 1836. If so, considering Mercer died in 1841, any changes to his view of the atonement must have occurred in the last five years of his life.

The reference on page 290 Allen gives as proof that Mercer had changed his views must be excluded. It is the only place (as far as I can tell) that uses the phrase “limited atonement” in the Memoirs. It may seem to the casual reader to argue against limited atonement, but Dr. Allen misunderstands the broader context. This is from Mercer’s letter answering Cyrus White, and his objecting to White’s definition and explanation of limited atonement. These letters were written (I think) in 1829 and published in 1830, and then Mercer clearly stood in favor of the limited atonement. For example, “If the doctrine of eternal, person, and unconditional election be a truth, that of a special design of the death of Christ must necessarily follow…The above passages must be allowed to speak only of a part of mankind. This part of mankind must be styled the chosen of God, given of the Father &c. either because of their actually being believers, or because it was foreseen that they would believe, or as we suppose, because God eternally proposed in himself that they should believe and be saved. It cannot be on account of the first; seeing they were chosen before the foundation of the world, and given to Christ prior to their believing in him. It cannot be on account of the second; because, then, what he had done for us must have been according to some good in us, and not according to his own purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began. It would also be contrary to all those scriptures recited above, which represent our being chosen and given of the Father, as the cause of faith and holiness…The above are some of the reasons which induce me to think there was a certain, absolute, and, consequently, limited design to the death in the death of Christ, securing the salvation of all those, and only those, who are finally saved.” (Letters, pp. 15-16.)

The reference in Memoirs on pages 297-303 is from a discourse titled “The Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord,” published in the Southern Baptist Preacher in 1839. This may meet the criteria for a time frame for a change of thinking by Mercer on the subject of the atonement. It does seem to move toward Fuller and away from Gill – although in the discourse Mercer says there is only a “mere shade” of difference between Fuller and Gill and that difference “is only speculative” (p. 294). Since Dr. Allen did not check the context of the other quote from Memoirs, I am afraid he also did not check this context. The context of the entire discourse needs to be inspected to make an accurate judgment.

David Allen’s book looks interesting, but the history must be viewed with some degree of skepticism when it is subjected to and presented for polemic purposes.

Like a dog at the heels of its master

Man may put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter; darkness for light, and light for darkness; but this follows him as a dog at the heels of its master, a sense that virtue should be rewarded, and that sin must be punished. -- Charles H. Spurgeon, from his sermon Expitiation

Crucifixion Hymn by Samuel Stennett

Crucifixion Hymn by Samuel Stennett

The Attraction of the Cross. John 12:32. Common Meter.

1 Yonder amazing sight!—I see
Th’ incarnate Son of God
Expiring on th’ accursed tree,
And weltering in his blood!*

2 Behold a purple torrent run
Down from his hands and head!
The crimson tide puts out the sun—

His groans awake the dead!

3 The trembling earth, the darkened sky,
Proclaim the truth aloud’
And, with th’ amazed centurion, cry,
“This is the Son of God!”

4 So great, so vast a sacrifice
May well my hope revive;
If God’s own Son thus bleeds and dies,
The sinner sure may live.

5 Oh, that these cords of love divine
Might draw me, Lord, to thee!
Thou hast my heart—it shall be thine—

Thine shall it ever be!

* [Note: some versions have, “In agony and blood]

Sound doctrine

Under "What are the principles for Which We are Contending" William Carey Crane stated:

"1. Sound doctrine. The pure dialect of the gospel is an element of all real truth. It is not for phrases we contend. But it is for the truth of scriptural phrases. Baptists in England are divided into general and particular. Here there is no such distinction, except in isolated cases. We are generally agreed to meet and labor upon a common platform, whatever may be our interpretations as to the nature and extent of the atonement; all agreeing in the capability and sufficiency of the atonement, "to cleanse from all sin." The pivot of our faith is sovereign grace, manifested through the mediation and intercession of Jesus Christ. Whatever views of truth do not derogate from this pivot, nor deny the trinity and a future state of rewards and punishments, are allowed, though not always encouraged or sustained."

"History and Principles of Baptists, An Introductory Sermon," delivered before the Columbus Baptist Association, Miss., at its Session, Sept. 13th, 1845 by Rev. W. CAREY CRANE, of Columbus, Miss. Published in accordance with a resolution of said Association,The Baptist Preacher, Vol. V., No. 8, August 1846, p. 161

The Fortune of Texas Baptists: Arguing the Atonement

Some Texas Baptists today adamantly argue the atonement, whether it was particular/limited or general/unlimited. At the close of the 19^th century, though, Texas Baptists had an argument that challenged the orthodoxy of the atonement itself.

George M. Fortune was pastor of the First Baptist Church of Paris, Texas, from 1891 until 1896. After resigning as pastor, he continued to preach there as a supply until the summer of 1897. After that he left and moved to Indian Territory (not yet a state).

George M. Fortune was (probably) born in Virginia.[1] He may have been the son of Zachariah Fortune and Sarah Churning/Chewning (d. 1883) who married in 1831 in Nelson County, Virginia, and later moved to Meigs County, Ohio. They had a son named George who is about the right age, but it cannot with present facts be established who are the parents of our George M. Fortune.[2] If these are his parents, his movements can be traced as follows.

In 1850 the family was in Virginia and by 1860 had moved to Ohio. In 1870, George and his wife Esther (nee Brown, perhaps) were living by themselves, without any children, in Darwin, Clark County, Illinois. His occupation is listed as “minister, gospel”. Around 1879 he was the pastor of the Methodist Church of Havana, Illinois.[3] He and Esther were living at Waverley, Morgan County, Illinois in 1880, with four children of their own and a stepdaughter. A state census shows that in 1885 George and Esther were in Douglas, Butler County, Kansas. By 1886 he was married to Anna and they had a son named Dean born in December of that year.[4] By 1891 George Fortune was in Paris, Texas, having passed through Arkansas for a time before arriving there.[5] After leaving Texas, the Fortunes lived at McAlester in Indian Territory – where his occupation is listed as lawyer rather than minister.[6] They lived in McAlester until at least 1907,[7] and are then found in Clifton, Wilson County, Kansas in 1910 and 1920.[8] In 1910 he was a farmer who owned or worked on a poultry farm. In 1920 he is once again listed in the census as a minister. George M. Fortune died December 7, 1929. He, his wife Annie and their son Dean are buried at the Buffalo Cemetery in Wilson County, Kansas.

In late 1891 the First Baptist Church of Paris, Texas,[9] being without a pastor, invited George M. Fortune – recently from Arkansas – to preach for them. Afterward they called him as their pastor. According to one member of the church, “He was a man of fine address, of a literary turn, and seemed to be scholarly in his attainments, and withal a fine pulpit orator.”[10] Soon Fortune preached views not heard in the average Baptist pulpit, “that Christ’s death on the cross was not effectual for salvation, there was no personal Satan, original sin did not exist, there was no eternal punishment, and that the Scriptures were not fully inspired by God.”[11]  In 1894 Fortune published two sermons on the atonement. According to Fuller, Fortune “boldly and pointedly repudiated the doctrine of the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ, denying that Christ died for, and instead of sinners, becoming the sinners’ substitute; rejecting also the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ; maintaining that we are not saved by Christ’s death, but by his life.” Both of the state Baptist papers quickly condemned Fortune’s sermons and his position.

In 1895 the Baptist General Convention of Texas adopted a resolution declaring, among other things: “Resolved, that no one shall be recognized a member of this body who holds and teaches...that Christ is not the believer’s substitute, penalty and righteousness, a doctrine held by ‘Fortunism’.”[12] The First Baptist Church of Paris was denied seats at the Convention. In spite of the strangeness of Fortune’s views, a majority of the church followed him, causing them to break ties with the regular Baptists of Texas. The offended minority of the church investigated his background. They which found he had been a Methodist preacher in Illinois, a Baptist preacher in Arkansas, as well as a lawyer and temperance lecturer in Kansas. There seemed to be a possibility that he had a living wife from a first marriage. The minority of the church called a special meeting in Paris, which met on February 11, 1896.

In 1896 a Baptist council meeting in Paris found Fortune guilty of heresy, declaring they “after careful consideration do unhesitatingly declare said George M. Fortune, on the following points, anti-scriptural.” The council alleged he was in denial of nine biblical points of doctrine and teaching three aberrations of Baptist church polity – and also recognized the minority as the true First Baptist Church of Paris. The majority of the church kept G. M. Fortune on as pastor until 1896. He continued to supply the pulpit for them until he left for Oklahoma (then still a territory) in 1897.[13]

It is not clear the extent of the influence that George M. Fortune beyond the area of Paris, Texas. Though the Baptists across the state were much astir about the situation, the fallout appears to have been limited. Fortune did move in circles throughout the state, though, For example, the Galveston Daily News in August 1893 reports that Fortune was assisting Baptist pastor J. C. Wingo in a protracted meeting in Bryan, Texas.[14] He published at least two pamphlets on the subject in the mid-to-late 1890s, Atonement: a Sermon and The Atonement: Retrospective and Constructive. It is also unclear what happened to the majority of the Baptist Church in Paris that adhered to the positions or person of G. M. Fortune.[15] At the time Fuller wrote his history in 1900, he claimed they “have become so demoralized in faith and doctrine by Fortune’s heresy that they are not able to do anything for Christ…As a body they are repudiated by Baptists everywhere, and seem to be making no effort to keep up an organization…”[16] Perhaps the fortunes of Fortunism died with those who followed him.

The quick overall response to pastor Fortune’s unbaptistic positions and the strong opposition from within his home church probably kept the controversy contained and the repercussions restricted. Churches should not be hasty to hear and call those whom they do not know, but should promptly respond to advanced error in the pulpit.

Sources

A History of Texas Baptists: Comprising a Detailed Account of their Activities, Their Progress and Their Achievements, J. M. Carroll, Author, J. B. Cranfill, Editor, Dallas, TX: Baptist Standard Publishing Co., 1923

A Texas Baptist History Sourcebook: a Companion to McBeth’s Texas Baptists, Joseph E. Early Jr., Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 2004

Decatur Daily Republican (Decatur, Illinois), Thursday, July 29, 1897

“Fort v. First Baptist Church” in The Southwestern Reporter, Volume 55, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., pp. 402-410

History of Texas Baptists, B. F. Fuller, Louisville, KY: Baptist Book Concern, 1900

Honey Grove Signal (Honey Grove, Texas), Vol. 5, No. 33, Friday, February 14, 1896, p. 1

The Baptist Standard (Waco, Texas), July 30, 1896

The Galveston Daily News (Galveston, Texas), Vol. 52, No. 157, Sunday, August 27, 1893

The History of Menard and Mason Counties, Illinois, Chicago, IL: O. L. Baskin and Co., 1879

The New York Times, Sunday September 13, 1896

U. S. Federal Censuses, 1850-1920

Footnotes

---

[1] Most censuses give his birth location as Virginia, but West Virginia and Georgia are also given.

[2] The 1900 Federal Census gives his birth in December 1848 (in Georgia), but his tombstone gives December 1845.

[3] The History of Menard and Mason Counties, Illinois, Chicago, IL: O. L. Baskin and Co., 1879, p. 52.5

[4] It is not clear whether they separated or Esther died.

[5] History of Texas Baptists, B. F. Fuller, Louisville, KY: Baptist Book Concern, 1900, pp. 398-408; Fuller was a member of First Baptist, Paris, Texas.

[6] 1900 U. S. Federal Census, South McAlester, Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory.

[7] U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 on Ancestry.com. McAlester, Oklahoma, City Directory, 1907.

[8] U. S. Federal Census for Wilson County, Kansas in 1910 and 1920.

[9] This body was organized in 1854 upon the New Hampshire Confession as a United Baptist Church.

[10] History of Texas Baptists, Fuller, pp. 398-399.

[11] A Texas Baptist History Sourcebook, Early, p. 54.

[12] This resolution also condemned “Martinism”.

[13] The Decatur (Illinois) Daily Republican reported in July of that year that Fortune said, “For myself I shall not again accept the pastorate of any orthodox church. These organizations are so constructed as to place the control of their affairs into the hands of the least admirable part of the congregation...I, therefore, must seek a place where I may feel the force of present duty and leave the future in the hands of God.” (Decatur Daily Republican, Thursday, July 29, 1897, p. 3).

[14] The Galveston Daily News. (Galveston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 157, Ed. 1 Sunday, August 27, 1893, p. 9.

[15] One leader of the “Fortune Faction” was Dr. Joseph Marston Fort. In The Baptist Standard (July 30, 1896) J. B. Cranfill wrote, “It would not have been possible for him [Fortune, rlv] to have accomplished the harm he has done in Paris but for the help and co-operation of Dr. J. M. Fort, who not only shares Dr. Fortune’s infidel views, but is a man who has no scruples whatever in adopting any means, fair or foul, in accomplishing his nefarious purposes.” In September a warrant was issued for the arrest of Cranfill on charges of libel, but the outcome is unknown. See “A Preacher to be Arrested: Charge with Libeling a Leading Citizen of North Texas,” The New York Times, Sunday September 13, 1896, p. 6.

[16] As a resident of Paris and a member of the church faction that opposed Fortune, B. F. Fuller’s opinion is certainly biased. Evidence – such as the struggle to control the church building – suggests the “Fortunites” surely had not given up only three years after Fortune left. But Fuller’s assessment does seem to summarize the end result.