William Cunningham, who was born in 1805 and died in 1861, was one of the most famous of the Scotch Presbyterian theologians. He and Charles Hodge each regarded the other as the greatest reformed theologian of that time. His master work, Historical Theology, first issued in 1862, was recently reprinted after being out of print for 90 years.1
In view of the discussions that have recently arisen in our churches regarding ‘limited atonement’ it may be of some value to take notice of the extensive treatment Principal Cunningham gave to this subject. In it he felt it necessary to give special attention to “the peculiar views in regard to the atonement, of those divines who profess to hold Calvinistic doctrines upon other points, but in this concur with, or approximate to, the views of the Arminians.”
THE PROBLEM CLEARLY STATED
He observed that “There are new, and for more than two centuries…there have always been, theologians, and some of them men of well-merited eminence, who have held the Calvinistic doctrines of the entire depravity of human nature, and of God’s unconditional election of some men from eternity to everlasting life, but who have also maintained the universality of the atonement,—the doctrine that Christ died for all men, and not for those only who are ultimately saved. As some men have agreed with Arminians in holding the universality of the atonement who were Calvinists in all other respects, and as a considerable appearance of Scripture evidence can be produced for the doctrine that Christ died for all men, it has been generally supposed that the doctrine of particular redemption, as it is often called, or of a limited atonement, forms the weak point of the Calvinistic system,—that which can with most plausibility be assailed, and can with most difficulty be defended. Now, this impression has some foundation. There is none of the Arminian doctrines, in favor of which so much appearance of Scripture evidence can be adduced, as that of the universality of the atonement.2
THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
“The question as to the extent of the atonement, is commonly and popularly represented as amounting in substance to this: Whether Christ died for all men, or only for the elect,—for those who ultimately believe and are saved? But this state of the question does not bring out the true nature of the point in dispute with sufficient fulness, accuracy and precision. And, accordingly, we find that neither in the canons of the Synod of Dort, nor in our Confession of Faith…is there any formal or explicit deliverance given upon the question as stated in this way, and in these terms. Arminians, and other defenders of a universal atonement, are generally partial to this mode of stating it, because it seems most readily and obviously to give their doctrine the sanction and protection of certain scriptural statements,—which look like a direct assertion, but are not,—that Christ died for all men; and because there are some ambiguities about the meaning of the expressions, of which they usually avail themselves.”
Yet, Cunningham adds, “I have no doubt that the controversy about the extent of the atonement is substantially decided in our Confession, though no formal deliverance is given upon the precise question, whether Christ died for all men, or only for the elect…”3 and he goes on to show how the wording of the Westminster Confession justifies this conclusion. A little footnote in this analysis of the relevant statements of the Westminster Confession informs us that “the followers of Cameron (an early advocate of universal atonement) maintained that the Synod of Dort did not condemn their views, because it did not make any statement precisely similar to this of our Confession.”4
Cunningham takes up the old statement of the schoolmen “that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect.” “Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion,—and Calvin himself among the rest,—admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of his death, as an atonement or propitiation…” “Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ-viewed objectively, apart from his purpose or design—was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect…” says Cunningham, but they object to saying “that, when he died, he intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from his death.
Calvinists, he goes on to say, “believe that important benefits have accrued to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits those who are finally impenitent and unbelieving partake. What they deny is, that Christ intended to procure…for all men those blessings which are the proper and peculiar fruits of his death, limits specific character as an atonement,—that he procured or purchased redemption—that is, pardon and reconciliation—for all men.”
“The truth of this position that some benefits have accrued to all from Christ’s death has been considered as affording some warrant for saying, in a vague and indefinite sense, that Christ died for all men. In this sense, and on this account, some Calvinists have scrupled about meeting the position that Christ died for all men with a direct negative, as if they might thus be understood as denying that there was any sense in which all men derived benefit, and in which God intended that they should derive benefit, from Christ’s death. But this position does not at all correspond with the proper import of what Scripture means when it tells us that Christ died for all men. This…implies that he…purchased redemption for them; and this, we contend, does not hold true of any but those who are actually at length pardoned and saved.”5
“There is no very material difference between the state of the question with respect to the extent of the atonement…according as its universality is maintained by Arminians, or by those who hold Calvinistic doctrines upon other points. The leading distinction is, that the Calvinistic universalists are obliged to practise more caution in their declarations upon some points. and to deal somewhat more in vague and ambiguous generalities than the Arminians, in order to avoid as much as possible the appearance of contradiction or renouncing, by what they say upon this subject, their professed Calvinism upon other topics.”
The question, he goes on to say, really regards “the purpose, design, or intention of God in inflicting sufferings and death upon his Son, and of Christ in voluntarily submitting to them. Universal atonement thus indicates and proves the existence, on the part of God and Christ, of a purpose, design or intention, in some sense or other, to save all men. And for the Calvinistic universalists to assert the existence of such a purpose, design, or intention,—in combination and in consistency with the doctrine that God has from eternity elected some men to everlasting life, and determined to save them,—requires the introduction of a good deal of confusion and ambiguity into their mode of stating and arguing the case.”6 In their efforts to maintain such a position, Cunningham points out, some Calvinistic universalists attributed to Christ’s death “a general reference which it has to all men, and a special reference which it has to the elect.” “This,” he says, “is manifestly a very vague and ambiguous distinction, which may mean almost anything or nothing, and is, therefore, very well adapted to a transition state of things, when men are passing from comparative orthodoxy on this subject into deeper and more important error.”7
THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
Turning to the biblical evidence for limited atonement as compared with that cited to favor universal atonement, Cunningham observes that, “No scriptural statements are, or even appear to be inconsistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement, which merely assert or imply that Christ’s sufferings were sufficient, in point of intrinsic worth and value, for the redemption of the whole human race; or that all men do, in fact, derive some benefits or advantages from Christ’s death, and that God intended that they should enjoy these.” “Neither is it inconsistent with our doctrine, that God’s sending, or giving, his Son should be represented as resulting from, and indicating, love to the world or to mankind in general…” “God may be truly said to have loved the world, or the human race, or the family of man, as distinguished from…the fallen angels; and as a result of thiS love, to have sent his Son, although he had no purpose of, and made no provision for, saving them all. On the other hand, it should be remembered, that Christ’s dying for all men necessarily implies that God loved all men individually, and loved them so as to have, in some sense, desired and intended to save them; and that everything which proves that God did not desire and intend to save all men, equally proves that Christ did not die for them all…”8
‘There is one great and manifest advantage which the doctrine of a limited atonement possesses over the opposite doctrine. viewed with reference to the comparative facility with which the language of Scripture can be interpreted, so as to accord with it; and this is, that it is much more easy to understand and explain how, in accordance with the ordinary sentiments and practice of men, general or indefinite language may have been employed, when strict and proper universality was not meant, than to explain why limited or definite language should ever have been employed, if there was really no limitation in the object or destination of the atonement. The fair principle of interpretation is, to make the definite and limited statements the standard for explaining the general and indefinite ones, and not the reverse; especially as Scripture furnishes many examples in which all the unlimited expressions that are applied to the death of Christ, viewed in relation to its objects,—the world, the whole world, all, every, etc.,—are used, when no proper and absolute, but merely a relative or comparative, universality was intended.
“In addition, however, to this general consideration, which is evident:1y of great weight and importance, the defenders of a limited atonement assert, and undertake to prove, not only that there are scriptural statements which cannot. by any fair process of interpretation, be reconciled with the doctrine of universal atonement, but also, that in all the passages in which Christ is spoken of as dying for the world, or for all, there is something in the passage or context which affords sufficient evidence that the all is not to be understood literally and absolutely as applicable to each and every individual of the human race, but with some restriction or limitation, according to the nature and relations of the subject treated of, or the particular object for which the statement was made.” “…I have always regarded the ease and certainty with which, in most cases, this limitation can be pointed out and proved, and the fair and reasonable evidence that can be adduced of it, in all cases as affording a very strong general corroboration of the truth of our doctrine.”
“The case is very different with the attempt of our opponents to harmonize with their views the passages on which our doctrine is more immediately founded, The more carefully they are examined, the more clearly will they be seen to carry ineradicably the idea of a limitation in the purpose or destination of the atonement, and of a firmly established and indissoluble connection between Christ’s dying for men, and these men actually enjoying, in consequence, all spiritual blessings, and attaining ultimately to eternal salvation, And then, on the other hand, the attempts of our opponents to explain them so as to make them consistent with the doctrine of universal atonement, are wholly unsuccessful.”9
THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT AND THE GOSPEL OFFER
Cunningham next turns to the bearing of the general scheme of Scripture doctrine upon the matter of the extent of the atonement.
He observes, “By far the most important and plausible of the scriptural arguments in support of it (universal atonement), and the only one we mean to notice, is the alleged necessity of a universal atonement, or of Christ’s having died for all men, as the only consistent ground or basis on which the offers and invitations of the gospel can be addressed indiscriminately to all men.”
Regarding this argument he first states that he and almost all other Calvinists fully admit that the Word of God teaches “the propriety and obligation of addressing to men, indiscriminately, without distinction or exception, the offers and invitations of Gospel mercy…”
In connection with this argument he next raises two questions: “First, is an unlimited atonement necessary in order to warrant ministers of the gospel, or any who may be seeking to lead others to the saving knowledge of the truth, to offer to men, without exception, pardon and acceptance and to invite them to come to Christ? And, secondly, Is an unlimited atonement necessary in order to warrant God in addressing and in authorizing and requiring us to address, such universal offers and invitations to our fellow-men?”
Regarding the first he points out…that our conduct in preaching the gospel, and in addressing our fellow-men with a view to their salvation should not be regulated by any inferences of our own about the nature, extent, and sufficiency of the provision actually made for saving them, but solely by the directions and instructions which God has given us…unless, indeed we venture to act upon the principle of refusing to obey God’s commands, until we fully understand all the grounds and reasons for them,” “God’s revealed will is the only rule…and though this revelation does not warrant us in telling them that Christ died for all and each of the human race,—a mode of preaching the gospel never adopted by our Lord and his apostles,—yet it does authorize and enable us to lay before men…facts and arguments, which…should warrant and persuade all to whom they are addressed, to lay hold on the hope set before them …”
To try to answer the second question by saying that universal atonement is necessary in order to warrant God addressing offers and invitations to men indiscriminately. Cunningham points out, is nothing but “unwarranted presumption.” Again he observes that “Though the advocates of a universal atonement arc accustomed to boast much of the support which, they allege, their doctrine derives from the scriptural statements about God’s loving the world,—Christ’s dying for all; yet many of them are pretty well aware that they really have but little that is formidable to advance, except the alleged inconsistency of the doctrine of the limited atonement with the unlimited or indiscriminate offers of pardon and acceptance…” The distinction between the ground and warrant of men’s act, and of God’s act, in this matter, not only suggests materials for answering the arguments of opponents, but also tends to remove…misconception…upon this point by the defenders of the truth.”10
After alluding in some detail to the views of those who had in one way or another tried to combine a belief in universal atonement with the doctrine of election, Cunningham makes this interesting comment, “I think it useful to point out such illustrations of the important truth, that almost all errors in theology,—some of them occasionally eagerly embraced as novelties or great discoveries when they happen to be revived,—were discussed and settled by the great theologians of the seventeenth century.”11
A CONCLUDING EVALUATION
Another of his concluding comments in the discussion is particularly striking: The history of theology affords abundant evidence of the tendency of the doctrine of universal atonement to distort and pervert men’s views of the scheme of divine truth, though, of course, this tendency has been realized in very different degrees, There have been some theologians in whose minds the doctrine seemed to lie, without developing itself, to any very perceptible extent, in the production of other error, With these persons, the doctrine, that Christ died for all men, seems to have been little or nothing more than just the particular form or phraseology in which they embodied the important truth of the warrant and obligation to preach the gospel to every creature, —to invite and require men, without distinction or exception to come to Christ, and to embrace him, that they might receive pardon, acceptance, and eternal life, In such cases, the error really amounts to little more than a certain inaccuracy of language, accompanied with some indistinctness or confusion of thought. Still it should not be forgotten that all error is dangerous, and that this is a point where, as experience shows, error is peculiarly apt to creep in, in subtle and insidious disguises, and to extend its ravages more widely over the field of Christian truth, than even the men who cherish it may, for a time, be themselves aware of.”
Cunningham traces the movements of thought in and from Calvinistic universalism, to changing views of the nature and effects of Christ’s death, to denial of total depravity. “Calvinistic universalists can, of course, go no further than universal grace in the sense of God’s universal love to men, and design to save them, and universal redemption, or Christ dying for all men.” The Arminians follow out these views somewhat more “consistently, by taking in also…a universal call to men…accompanied, in every instance, with grace sufficient to enable them to accept this call. In like manner, it is nothing more than a consistent and natural following out of the universal grace and universal redemption, to deny the doctrine of election, and thus to overturn the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners; and it is not to be wondered at, that some have gone further still, and asserted…universal salvation…the only doctrine that really removes any of the difficulties…though, of course,…at the expense of overturning the whole authority of revelation. Men have stopped at all of these various stages, and none are to be charged with holding anything which they disclaim; but experience, and the nature of the case, make it plain enough, that the maintenance of universal grace and universal atonement has a tendency to lead men in the direction we have indicated; and this consideration should impress upon us the necessity of taking care lest we should incautiously admit views which may, indeed, seem plausible and innocent, but which may eventually involve us in dangerous error.”12
Anyone who is interested in the current discussions in our churches regarding the limited atonement would be well advised to read Cunningham’s amazingly relevant 50-page discussion to which such brief excerpts as these can hardly do justice. A real advantage in consulting this century-old historical analysis over limiting our study to contemporary writings is that it may help us to evaluate current discussions somewhat more objectively apart from merely present or partisan considerations.
We need to be concerned about presenting the gospel to our own age and we need to seek theological progress in ow understanding and presentation of it. But we can hardly expect to make real progress unless we become more familiar than we often are with the way the Lord has led his church through centuries of past theological conflicts. In this field also the old adage applies that “those who refuse to learn their lessons from history are condemned to repeat them.”
1. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (2 vols., London, 1960, Banner of Truth Trust. Available in Canada from Reformation Book Service, 85 Chaplin Cr., Toronto 7, Canada. Price $5.10, in hard covers, a real bargain!). All references are to Vol. II, pp. 323–367; hence only page numbers are indicated.
2. 323, 324.
3. 326.
4. 329.
5. 332, 333.
6. 334.
7. 335.
8. 338, 339.
9. 340–342.
10. 344–347.
11. 364.
12. 367–369.