Lets revisit James Fraser of Brae, and his thoughts on the extent of the atonement; and how he thought about its universal nature. Keep in mind that Fraser was still a Calvinist, and did believe that there are elect and reprobate people; but he did not believe that Universal atonement necessarily has to lead to universal salvation for all (Contra his counterparts from Westminster). The following quote is quite lengthy, we will be hearing from T. F. Torrance and Fraser; I will close it up with a little reflection–and then we can go at it in the comment section 😉 :
. . . Fraser realized that the extent of the atoning death of Christ had to be thought out in light of the interrelation between the incarnation and the atonement, and so of the saving assumption by Christ of our Adamic humanity which was comprehensive in its nature and range. As the one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus embraced all mankind, and therefore what Fraser called all ‘ mankind sinners’. As the first Adam brought death by sin upon all flesh, so Christ came as the second Adam in order by means of death to lay a foundation of reconciliation and life for all. He did not take on himself the nature of man as elected, but the actual human nature of mankind as the object of his atoning death and satisfaction, which applies to all and every member of the human race. Hence it may be said ‘ all men are fundamentally justified in him and by him.’ ‘ Christ obeyed, and died in the room of all, as the head and representative of fallen man.’ Fraser understood this incarnational assumption of our humanity in accordance with St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 8. 2f about Christ condemning sin in the flesh, i.e. all sin in all flesh, and in 2 Corinthians 18. 5f [sic] about Christ being made sin for us, that through his death and blood we might be reconciled to God, and be made the righteousness of God in him. Christ came into the world, then, as mediator not to condemn it but to save it.
Woven into this understanding of redemption through Christ as mediator and Fraser’s understanding of the all sufficiency of the death of Christ, was the place he gave to the reformed doctrine of the active and passive obedience of Christ, his obedient life and vicarious suffering. As with earlier reformed theologians of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah about the suffering servant played a basic role in Fraser’s thinking about the mediatorial life and activity of Jesus, prompting him to take into account ‘ the whole course of Christ’s obedience from his incarnation’ through which he united himself to sinners in an effectually saving way in order that all men might believe. Fraser admitted, however, as we have already noted, that the atoning death of Christ for sinners was ‘ not necessarily effectual’ for all, for there was no physical or necessary connection between them, although there may be one of faith. It is significant that Fraser would not divorce the all sufficiency of Christ’s death from the all sufficiency of his incarnate person and obedient life. This is very evident in the arguments he developed for ‘ a sufficient universal satisfaction for reprobates’.
Quite clearly, then, Fraser held that Christ died for all people, the unbelieving as well as the believing, the damned as well as the saved, the reprobate as well as the elected. How, then, did he think that the death of Christ, not least his atoning satisfaction for sin, bears upon those who reject Christ and bring damnation upon themselves? This was one of the basic issues where James Fraser sided with the teaching of John Calvin, rather than with that of those ‘ Protestant Divines’ who, he complained, had not followed the old road. The particular point we must take into account here is that according to St. Paul the knowledge of Christ is to some people a ‘savour of life unto life’, but to others it can be a ‘savour of death unto death’. In that light it may be said that while the preaching of the gospel of Christ crucified for all mankind is meant for their salvation, it can also have the unintended effect of blinding and damning people—it becomes a ‘ savour of death unto death’. That is how Fraser regarded what happened to the reprobates in becoming ‘ the vessels of wrath’.
The Word of the Lord goeth not in vain, but shall certainly accomplish that whereunto it is sent. Isa.I.5. The Messengers thereof being a sweet savour unto God, in them that perish, and in them that are saved, 2 Cor. ii.15. So the blood of Christ is a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour to the Lord both in them that perish, and in them that are saved.
While the Arminians used this as an argument for universal redemption, Fraser, like Calvin, interpreted it as indicating how the death of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel has a ‘ twofold efficacy’ in which it can act in one way upon the elect and in a different way upon the reprobate. That is to say, it is the Gospel with that acts in that way. Those who reject the blood of Christ thereby become objects of ‘ Gospel and Wrath and Vengeance’ and bring destruction and damnation upon themselves. It is the very condemnation of sin in the atoning satisfaction made by Christ for all mankind, elect and reprobate alike, that becomes the condemnation of the reprobate who turn away from it, and thereby render themselves inexcusable. ‘ Reprobates by the death of Christ are made more inexcusable … If the death of Christ affords clear ground for all to believe, then I think the death of Christ makes all unbelievers inexcusable.’ Fraser spoke of this judgment of the unbelieving and the reprobate as ‘ Gospel wrath’ or wrath of a gospel kind.
God’s intention, end and purpose he designed, was indeed to save the elect amongst them, but not to save the rest, but that they contemning and rejecting the offer salvation might be made fit objects to shew his just gospel-vengeance and wrath upon them, tho’ it be true that God intended the work should have such an end.
According to Fraser this ‘ Gospel-Wrath’ is a worse punishment than ‘ Law-Wrath’.
This was rather harsher than what Fraser said elsewhere, where he was closer to Calvin. Thus in speaking of Christ as ‘ crucified and crucified for our sins’, he wrote ‘ Nothing can be expected from this Saviour but good will: It’s by accident Christ condemns, but his primary end is to give life to the world.’ Again:
I grant indeed Christ doth condemn many, but then consider that such as he condemns it is for flighting of his grace offered in the Gospel; his first office is to preach glad tidings, to hold out the golden scepter that the world might believe and be saved, but then the world misbelieves Christ (for a great part of them did) Christ secondarily condemns and per accidens.If by unbelief they neglect this great salvation, the death of Christ will be so far from saving of them that it shall be their greatest ditty. (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell,” 198–201)
Still here 😉 ? Notice how Fraser makes the distinction between creation and election. This allows him to speak about a universal atonement, and at the same time talk about election and reprobation as theological realities. In other words, the incarnation vis-à-vis the atonement becomes the touchstone framework for his articulation of his brand of covenant theology. So on one hand he can say that Christ genuinely died for all humanity, and on the other hand hold that this universal atonement encapsulates both the elect and reprobate. One having a positive response to the Gospel, and one having a negative response to the Gospel.
Something that I like about Fraser, and his approach, is that he provides an alternative, more evangelically motivated Calvinism; contra his rationalist counterparts from Westminster. In other words, whereas Westminster Calvinists frame the whole atonement discussion with logico/causal language so that if Jesus dies, whomever he dies for “will be saved”—i.e. because if he doesn’t save who he dies for then he shed some of his blood in vain, and his sovereignty is called into question. Fraser’s approach reorientates the atonement from the causal rationalist language toward a more Christ centered evangelical framing; he accomplishes this by focusing on the supremacy of Christ over both life and death. For Fraser Jesus is the centrifugal force who alone (along with the Father and Holy Spirit) determines salvific reality for all people. Fraser does not seem to feel forced, as the rationalist Westminster Calvinists does, to explain why some respond positively and some negatively; he just recognizes that this is the reality. And this reality all orbits around Jesus Christ, and his ultimate determination shaped by his triune life.
There is a lot more that needs to be said, but I would say this piece has gone on long enough. If you have made it this far, then I’m sure this quote has prompted many questions; so I’ll see you in the comment meta.
kc said:
Bobby doesn’t this only explain how Fraser, as a Determinist, was able to hold to a double predestination in lieu of Universalism in the face of universal atonement? For me this would be swallowing a camel and then straining at a knat! 😉 It seems he still presupposes a foreordained election of specific individuals apart from Christ. Does he address his Determinism elsewhere?
Bobby Grow said:
Casey,
I have a couple of questions for you first:
1.) How do you get that anything that Fraser says is framed apart from Christ?
2.) What is your aversion to determinism?
We are all determinists in one sense. The question is who does the determining, me or God? If it’s me, with the help of the Holy Spirit, then I am a semi-pelagian; I think it is more scriptural to think that Christ determines—remembering his character, that he is all wise, loving, merciful, gracious, and just. This avoids a philosophical fatalistic determinism, which seems to be what you are reducing all determinism to (correct me if I’m wrong).
I am happy to say that God is determined in Christ who will be saved and who won’t, and at the same time recognize the paradoxical reality that men are free to choose or reject Christ based upon his gracious determination.
There is nothing about Fraser, even in what I’ve quoted, that can be construed as “apart from Christ”. I think we should recognize that when we approach systems of theology those systems represent a continuum—and it behooves us to be fair and recognize nuance and distinction within a particular system or continuum. Just because Fraser believes in double predestination, does not mean, out of hand, that he holds to a deterministic fatalistic determinism; in fact just the opposite—and I think his christocentrism avoids this by emphasizing the Trinitarian life, and self determining freedom there in. In other words, the only way we end up with a fatalistic determinism relative to election and reprobation, is if Yahweh is a fatalistic deterministic God—and we know that he is not! In fact, Fraser is arguing against an abstract deterministic theological construct articulated by those at Westminster.
glenscriv said:
I really likes these bits:
‘Reprobates by the death of Christ are made more inexcusable … If the death of Christ affords clear ground for all to believe, then I think the death of Christ makes all unbelievers inexcusable.’ Fraser spoke of this judgment of the unbelieving and the reprobate as ‘ Gospel wrath’ or wrath of a gospel kind.
‘Nothing can be expected from this Saviour but good will: It’s by accident Christ condemns, but his primary end is to give life to the world.’
Brilliant! This is what I find most suspect about limited atonement – it gives unbelievers the best excuse in the world. They can look Jesus in the eye and say ‘you never wanted me saved, never loved me, never died for me – that’s why I’m not saved.’ It makes unbelief excusable and makes Jesus duplicitous. It has Jesus weeping over Jerusalem: “How often I have appeared to want to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks but deep down I wasn’t really willing.” But no, Christ’s atonement comprehends even those who resist it – and for that reason such resistance is inexcusable. And it provokes Gospel-wrath.
“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (2 Thes 2:10)
Stimulating stuff Bobby, thanks very much.
Bobby Grow said:
Yes I think Fraser has some insightful points, thanks Glen.
kc said:
Bobby, to answer your first question I refer to this quote:
“God’s intention, end and purpose he designed, was indeed to save the elect amongst them, but not to save the rest, but that they contemning and rejecting the offer salvation might be made fit objects to shew his just gospel-vengeance and wrath upon them, tho’ it be true that God intended the work should have such an end.”
If the elect can be found among the damned then they are elect apart from Christ. I will go further and say that if any can be reprobate before hearing the Gospel then it is not gospel to them by any means.
As to your second question my aversions to Determinism are numerous but inconsequential where truth is concerned. I will say I find the implication that God is schizophrenic most objectionable but my rejection of Determinism is not due to my aversions. I am equally averse to the requirement for a blood sacrifice but unlike Determinism, it is scriptural.
I personally do not accept any paradox as reality but I will gladly admit there are things I don’t know. In this case I admit I don’t know why anyone would reject the Truth aside from the reasons for those examples given in the scriptures and, of these, none are attributed to God’s choosing.
I think that when we approach a system of theology we should destroy it with the scripture if we can. 😉
I would ask you now as well, what it is that makes you happy to say that God is determined in Christ who will be saved and who won’t?
Bobby Grow said:
Casey,
The point of “Gospel Wrath” is that all are oriented to Christ, one way or the other. At minimum Fraser is saying that Jesus really did die for all humanity; this is contra Limited atonement viewpoints—which Fraser clearly does not advocate.
As far as me being happy, maybe that was too cavalier, let me say that I reluctantly recognize that Jesus ultimately determines who will be saved and who will not. We can argue about the mechanics of that all day, but let’s not. I’ve come to this conclusion because I do not see any other alternative, theologically, which keeps Christ at the center of salvific reality. If man has the inherent capacity by nature to choose or reject Christ, then Pelagianism is true; and Scripture just won’t let me go there.
kc said:
I would agree that the capacity to choose Christ is by no means inherent in men. That would logically negate the Grace of God and the Divine Revelation by which we are saved. I only contend that, once revealed, the capacity to believe is inherent in all men and that it is incumbent on men to believe; failure to do so cannot be scripturally attributed to God’s choosing. Though I cannot consider that our faith is imputed I have no doubt at all that the object and origin of our faith is completely divine.
Brother I know my approach makes me overly critical but, like Glen, there is much here that I can appreciate. I also appreciate your time and effort in this very much and I am most grateful to be able to benefit from your insight and intellect once again. 😉
Don Hicks said:
In the Word, we have Universal Promises of Universal Knowledge and of Universal Salvation because of the Universal Mission of the Universal Savior.
UNIVERSAL PROMISES
1. UNIVERSAL PROMISE OF KNOWLEDGE
Joh 1:6-9
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony,
to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light,
but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
2. UNIVERSAL PROMISE OF A SAVIOR
Joh 4:42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.
3. UNIVERSAL PROMISE OF HIS SAVING WORK (NOT AN OFFER ONLY)
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.”
4. UNIVERSAL PROMISE OF TENACITY TO SAVE LOST
(SO MUCH FOR FREE WILL TO RESIST)
Luk 15:4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it?
UNTIL HE FINDS IT!!!
I THANK GOD THAT THE HOUND OF HEAVEN WILL NOT LEAVE ME OR ANY OF HIS CREATED BEINGS ALONE UNTIL WE ARE ALL SAFE IN THE FOLD FOR WHICH HE CREATED US!!!
NOW THAT IS TRULY GOOD NEWS WORTHY OF PROCLAMATION!!!
glenscriv said:
It seems like we’ve sliped down the five points from L to I. This is always the case – the resistability or otherwise of grace has always been the crux of the matter.
Again I think Matt 23 is important to hold onto – it is Jerusalem’s unwillingness not Christ’s that leaves them ungathered. Luke 7:30 – the Pharisees reject God’s purpose for them. Acts 7 – they always resist the Holy Spirit. Ezek 18 – God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked… Why will you die O Israel??….
Once you’ve said that all humanity has been once and for all oriented to the Father through the incarnate Son (either positively or negatively) I think you’ve answered the pelagian charge, It has all been divinely determined at that fundamental level. I don’t think you need to go on and then say that the unbelief of the reprobate has been willed by Jesus in order to secure God’s sovereignty. As Casey says such a will for reprobation is not (I/we believe) revealed in the Scriptures, nor is it revealed in the Person and work of the incarnate Son which is the point of these posts. I think we really do want to hold onto the incomprehensibility of sin – let’s not sneak it into ‘God’s secret will’ since Jesus (the Saviour) completely lays bare the divine will – a will for salvation.
nathan said:
hey bobby, just saying hi
imagiscape said:
Did I understand this correctly?:
Are you saying “universal atonement” = God gave the opportunity for reconciliation to all? I would call that a universal offering. I thought atonement equals reconciliation. Are you saying there can be reconciliation without salvation?
Please respond to those questions first, and then this:
Did Christ fail? An argument for universal salvation is that if some aren’t saved, then Christ failed. (Otherwise “he shed some of his blood in vain, and his sovereignty is called into question”.) Are you saying that there is no need to resort to belief in universal salvation, because Christ came to offer a gift, not to reconcile all Creation with God?
Thank you,
Jonathon
Bobby Grow said:
Image,
apparently you didn’t read the whole of this post, since it directly deals with the anecdotal rationalism your questions apparently spring from. Certainly if one is operating within the scholastic logico/causal framework that you are apparently are; then your conflicted dilemma (as illustrated by your questions)makes total sense.
Instead of thinking of election as framed by the absolutum dectretum,as you are; my suggestion is that you approach this issue via the ontological shape that the incarnation is presupposed by—thus allowing all the scriptural tensions to have their evangelical and trinitarian shape.
If you think my response is to vague, then re-read or maybe read my whole post again, and then ask your questions again clearly engaging the body and points of this post.
peace