# Shedd Comment



## Flynn (Jan 31, 2006)

The greater includes the less. If God´s mercy is great enough to move him to make a vicarious atonement for man´s sin, it is certainly great enough to move him to secure the consequences of such an act. If God´s compassion is great enough to induce him to lay man´s punishment upon his own Son, it is surely great enough to induce him not to lay it upon the believer. If God so loves the world as to atone vicariously for its sin, he certainly so loves it as to remit
its sin.

vol 2, p393, dogmatic theology.

What do folk think about this? Putting aside the fact that you may or may not agree with him, what do you think he is saying? What are the inferences we can make regarding his assumptions here?

David


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 31, 2006)

David,

I'd agree with Shedd.
He is interpreting "the world" as the elect.
The logic follows through for John 3:16 - "God SO LOVES the world, that He GAVE His only begotten Son."

The word "œworld" cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion. But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God "œso loves" is already limited. 

The Westminster Assembly also has some contentions concerning the idea of the word "œworld" due to the theological positions of the Amyraldians in their meetings (such as Davenant). Rutherford, Seaman, and Gillespie contended for the word "œworld" as meaning "œthe elect" and presented the idea to the Assembly and the Assembly accepted their proposition concerning God loving the "œworld" as God loving the "œelect". This was noted in detail in their Minutes. The consensus of the Assembly was to abandon the Amyraldian notion that God loves all men generally and moved forward with the meaning of John 3:16 as particular for the elect only. 

What does it mean to "œgive" the Son? It is nothing less than the entirety of the oblation of Christ in his incarnation, work, death, resurrection and intercession. In speaking of the giving, it points to the design and intention of God.

The "œgiving" of Christ is of intense theological importance. Even the Greek construction given to these words shows us the rarity and exclamational intent of the writer. The words "œThat He gave" is the usual classical construction of the grammar with "œhoste" and the indicative (first aorist active) entail a practical result; that God did do such a thing as give His Son, truly. The only other example of this in the New Testament is in Gal. 2:13 where Paul is shocked that even Barnabas was "œcarried away" with the hypocrisy of the Jews which seemed unthinkable. Why did God do all this giving? John Owen states, "œThe whole Scripture constantly assigneth this sole end of that effect of divine goodness and wisdom; yea, asserts it as the only foundation of the Gospel, John 3:16."

The objection is often stated as such, "œGod´s love is infinite, and it cannot be limited to only a few." God´s saving love is not indiscriminate as His providence is. Samuel Rutherford answers well for us if the former is true; "œThis should conclude, that there be an infinite number of men and angels to whom God´s salvation is betrothed in affection; but His love is infinite in its act, not in its object; the way of carrying on His love is infinite."

Calvinists sometimes refuse this for an interpretation which views this as a general saving love. However, those suffering in hell, or who will suffer in hell, are not the recipients of the cross of Christ and the benefits of the redeeming love of God towards the elect, but would be considered part of the whole world.

God´s love in John 3:16 is the highest form of love, as the Greek shows us, and that love cannot be towards the whole world indiscriminately with a lesser love to the elect. Nor can this love be both for the whole world and the elect, for then we would wonder why the whole world is not saved. 
 
Thus, Jesus is teaching Nicodemas, a Jewish ruler, that his narrow interpretation of God´s love is incorrect. The saving love of God in Christ does not simply fall upon the Jew, but all kinds of men, the Gentiles included. Jesus is not saying that God´s love is a general saving love for all men indiscriminately, but it reaches to all nations indiscriminately under the new covenant. However, even though Calvinists rest on this interpretation, they must at the very least agree with me that the elect of Christ are those which this saving love shall be ultimately applied. This does not destroy the message of John 3:16, but rather enforces it.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 31, 2006)

> God´s love in John 3:16 is the highest form of love, as the Greek shows us, and that love cannot be towards the whole world indiscriminately with a lesser love to the elect. Nor can this love be both for the whole world and the elect, for then we would wonder why the whole world is not saved.



Thanks Dr. Matt. That really clinches it.


----------



## Flynn (Jan 31, 2006)

*Shedd*

G'day Matthew

Matthew McMahon said:

I'd agree with Shedd.
He is interpreting "the world" as the elect.
The logic follows through for John 3:16 - "God SO LOVES the world, that He GAVE His only begotten Son."

David says: Actually he doesnt. For him, world is all mankind as opposed to the Jews. Now I doubt he meant that literally, for there were Jews whom God loved. And in another context, he unrestricts the world of 1 Jn 2:2.

You say:

The word "œworld" cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion. But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God "œso loves" is already limited. 

I say:

Actually I am not interested in that. My interest is in how folk understand Shedd and that on his terms. Does that make sense?

The rest ive deleted cos its not germane to the discussion. My interest is not in how others think the kosmos of John should be contrued, but what was happening in Shedd's theology.

Given that Shedd does not restrict Johannine kosmos of 3:16 to the elect, my question is still something like how then did Shedd understand the nature of the expiation?

If this helps, are two quotations from Shedd:

In the third place, an atonement, either personal or icarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ´s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ´s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ´s atonement is a very different thing. Christ´s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite "œpropitiation for the sins of the whole world," 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact...


This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. "œChrist was once offered to bear the sins of many," Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated "œthe sins of the whole world," and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. 

It dont have the page numbers for these two on hand. Vol 2, dogmatic theology.

Thanks
David

[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Flynn]

[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 1, 2006)

> Thus, Jesus is teaching Nicodemas, a Jewish ruler, that his narrow interpretation of God´s love is incorrect. The saving love of God in Christ does not simply fall upon the Jew, but all kinds of men, the Gentiles included. Jesus is not saying that God´s love is a general saving love for all men indiscriminately, but it reaches to all nations indiscriminately under the new covenant. However, even though Calvinists rest on this interpretation, they must at the very least agree with me that the elect of Christ are those which this saving love shall be ultimately applied. This does not destroy the message of John 3:16, but rather enforces it.



Solid exegetical points for a verse that has been abused more than most, especially by universalists who claim that Jesus´ blood fails to accomplish the salvation for all it was shed. Certainly Arminians fall into this category along with Arminians who ape Calvinism.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 1, 2006)

I found the quotation I was looking for last night. 

Here is is what I mean about Shedd.

VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable
from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take 
place and the latter not. Wlien Christ died on Calvary, the
whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated rnerely
by that death ; but the whole mass was not pardoned rnerely
by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of
the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10 : 10) ; but the sins
of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted
out" by this transaction. Still another transaction was I
requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy
Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this esyiatory
offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy
sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand
of God " (Heb. 10 : 12) ; but if the redeeming work of the
Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind
would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory
value of the " one sacrifice ".would have been just the same.

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol 3, p., 418

Now, from these extracts we can see that he takes such verses as Jn 3:16, 1 Jn 2:2, Heb 9:28 as unlimited. So, what interests me is in what do you folk think was operating in the background theological structures of his thinking? 

Whats going on with Shedd? Any takers?

Take care,
David


----------



## Flynn (Feb 2, 2006)

G'day again,

I found this one yesterday. From Shedd:

It is objected that it is unjust to exact personal penalty from any individuals of the human race, if a vicarious penalty equal in value to that due from the whole race has been paid to justice. The injustice alleged in this objection may mean injustice toward the individual unbeliever who is personally punished; or it may mean injustice in regard to what the Divine law is entitled to, on account of manÂ’s sin. An examination will show that there is no injustice done in either respect. (a) When an individual unbeliever is personally punished for his own sins, he receives what he deserves; and there is no injustice in this. The fact that a vicarious atonement has been made that is sufficient to expiate his sins, does not estop justice from punishing him personally for them, unless it can be shown that he is the author of the vicarious atonement. If this were so, then indeed he might complain of the personal satisfaction that is required of him. In this case, one and the same party would make two satisfactions for one and the same sin one vicarious, and one personal. When therefore an individual unbeliever suffers for his own sin, he receives the due reward of his deeds, Luke 23:24. And since he did not make the *vicarious atonement* "for the sins of the whole world," and therefore has no more right or title to it, or any of its benefits, than an inhabitant of Saturn, he cannot claim exemption from personal penalty on the ground of it. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol 2, p 443.

Now Shedd's comments here clearly demonstrate that he considered that Christ made a vicarious atonement for the sins of the whole world. This lines up with this other statements very well.

So I have to wonder, what was happening in Shedds theology that enabled him to make these sort of statements?

Take care,
David


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 2, 2006)

Shedd seems (to me) to be teaching a variation of the sufficient-efficent distinction. Christ's death was sufficient to pay for an infinite sin debt. Christ's death is efficient only for the elect, only for those who believe. He seems to suggest that passages such as John3:16 and 1John2:2, which speak of Christ dying for the sin of the _world,_ are in fact teaching that human sin considered in the aggregate was totally expiated in Christ's death. As if every sin and effect of the Fall were set to rights in respect of the relationship of it to divine justice. And the wrath of God against the world _as the world_ is turned away, propitiated. However, what is true about the whole is not necessarily predicable of each of the parts. So, for this man or that man, his election or his persistent rejection of the benefits of the atonement affects its application in each case.

Shedd seems to be trying to give texts like the above as much weight as they can bear. He's trying to understand them, and that within a Calvinistic framework. Shedd's quotes themselves clearly do not advocate universalism. As to what else they reveal about his thinking, that seems speculative to me.

But I will speculate two things. 1) You can probably find Shedd advocating someplace that in preaching the gospel, a preacher may say "Jesus died for your sins," speaking to a crowd of unbelievers, as an inducement to emrace Christ freely offered to them in the gospel. And I'm not saying that others can't or wouldn't, although they might not use Shedd's understanding of John3:16 as the basis. 2) I suspect Shedd is a postmil, who expects to see the greater part of humanity redeemed.

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Flynn (Feb 2, 2006)

To fill out some more of Shedd's ideas,

Shedd:

The word has an active signification. It denotes the act of extending. The "extent" of the atonement, in this sense, means its personal application to individuals by the Holy Spirit. The extent is now the intent. The question, What is the extent of the atonement? now means: To whom is the atonement effectually extended? The inquiry now is not, What is the value of the atonement? but, To whom does God purpose to apply its benefits? vol 2, p., 464.


Since redemption implies the application of Christ"s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God, and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term "redemption," consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of "atonement," and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application. vol 2, p470

In this work, Shedd explicitly defines vicarious as substitution.
So for Shedd, Christ stood in as vicar (substitution) for the sins of the whole world, of all mankind. Thus, he says Christ made a vicarious expiation for all sin, all mankind, wherein all sin is expiated. In this sense, the expiation is unlimited, the death itself expiated all sin, cancelled the laws condemnation against all men. His idea of universal sufficiency is sustained and grounded in these underlying ideas. He does not hold to some hypothetical universal sufficiency, as per Witsius, Owen et al. 

Further: The extent of the expiation is now about the limited intention to apply this unlimited expiation to the elect. This application of the expiation is what he calls redemption. So, it seems clear then that from Shedd, one can hold to an unlimited expiation, and still hold to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Nor did Shedd think that the famous double-joepardy/payment arguments made by the limited expiation exponents carries any weight. Christ substituted for all sin, and yet not all are necessarily pardoned: for there needs to be a further supplementary transaction, the work of the Spirit. 

So what should the thoughtful here make of all this?

Thanks
David


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2006)

> Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> I'd agree with Shedd.
> He is interpreting "the world" as the elect.
> ...



Which is, as Shedd sayus throughout his section on the atonment in his dogmatics, is for the elect. 

The world as seen as indiscriminately national is not loved. Sheed follows as Bruce says the efficient/sufficient distinction. Thus, as it pertains to John 3, the world for Shedd can only be the elect from all ages.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 3, 2006)

Matthew says:

Which is, as Shedd sayus throughout his section on the atonment in his dogmatics, is for the elect. 

The world as seen as indiscriminately national is not loved. Sheed follows as Bruce says the efficient/sufficient distinction. Thus, as it pertains to John 3, the world for Shedd can only be the elect from all ages. end

But he expressly says the world of 3:16 refers to all mankind as distinct from the Jews. And, after citing other verses, he says these verses teach us that redemption is intended for all races, ages, etc. He never limits it to the elect alone.

And in the above citations its clear that two things are evident, he held that the expiation was vicariously made for all the sins of the world, the expiation expiated all mankind's sin, cancelled the claims of the law against all mankind. He cites Heb 9:28 (typo excepted), where he is assuming a universal reading. He directly alludes to 1 Jn 2:2 in reference to the unlimited expiation. He contrasts a limited redemption with an unlimited expiation. As the former is limited, the latte is not. As the former pertains only to the elect, the latter does not. If he secretly meant, redemption is limited, as expiation is limited too, then he is now saying nonsense. He expressly says that the limitation is in the intent to apply the expiation, which application he calls redemption.


When in the discourse he speaks of "us" as having our sins expiated, for us whom Christ vicariously interposed himself, he means as a sinners, as human transgressors. What applies to the whole applies to us. He is operating along the older formula, Christ suffered for all suffiicently, but he suffered for the elect efficiently. What Shedd is doing is establishing the first part AND the second part. But he cant be read as if he denied the first half of the older formular.

The only way one could assert that he didnt hold to unlimited expiation is to simply deny these many explicit statements.

So, to conclude, how is that Shedd can say that Christ vicariously substituted for all mankind and their sin, sch that all their sins are expiated, and yet not all are saved? How is that Owen, Turretin, et al, could never have said that. What is operating in his theology that enables him to say this? For this is surely a different form of Calvinism than popularly expressed.

Take care,
David
Ps, Hey Fred, G'day, come say hello sometime.


----------



## Flynn (Apr 17, 2006)

*Shedd again: 2 new quotations*

For interest's sake:

I friend of mine found these from Shedd. These statements are very revealing.

1) The human conscience is the mirror and index of the divine attribute of justice. The two are correlated. What therefore God's justice demands, man's conscience demands. 'Nothing,' says Matthew Henry, 'can pacify an offended conscience but that which satisfied an offended God.' The peace which the believer in Christ's atonement enjoys, and which is promised by the Redeemer to the believer, is the subjective experience in man that corresponds to the objective reconciliation in God. The pacification of the human conscience is the consequence of the satisfaction of divine justice. God's justice is completely satisfied for the sin of man by the death of Christ. This is an accomplished fact: 'Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitation for the sins of the whole world.' (1 John 2:2). The instant any individual man of this world of manking believes that divine justice is thus satisfied, his conscience is at rest. The belief is not needed in order to establish the fact. Whether a sinner believes Christ died for sin or not will make no difference with the fact, though it will make a vast difference with him: 'If we believe not, yet he abides faithful: he cannot deny himself' (2 Tim. 2:13). Unbelief cannot destroy a fact. Should not a soul henceforth believe on the Son of God, it would nevertheless be a fact that he died an atoning death on Calvary and that this deat is an ample oblation for the sin of the world. But it must be remembered that the kind of belief by which a man obtains a personal benefit from the fact of Christ's death is experimental, not historical or hearsay. And a sinful man may have no skeptical doubt that the death of Christ on Mount Calvary has completely expiated human guilt and may even construct a strong argument in proof of the fact and still have all the miserable experience of an unforgiven sinner, may still have remorse and the fear of death and the damnation of hell. Whenever there is an experimental belief of the actual and accomplished fact of Christ's atonement, there is a subjective pacification of the conscience corresponding to the objective reconciliation of divine justice. But this subjective effect of Christ's death is neither the primary nor the whole effect of it. It presupposes the objective satisfaction or propitation. In this instance, as in all others, the object is prior to the subject and determines its consciousness." Shedd Dogmatic Theology, (1vol ed., pp., 708-9); 3vol ed: vol, 2, pp., 409-11. 


2) The Christian gospel--the universal offer of pardon through the self- sacrifice of one of the divine persons--should silence every objection to the doctrine of endless punishment. For as the case now stands, there is no necessity, so far as the action of God is concerned, that a single human being should ever be the subject of future punishment... 

For the Scriptures everywhere describe God as naturally and spontaneously merciful and declare that all the legal obstacles to the excercise of this great attribute have been removed by the death of the Son of God 'for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2). In the very center of the holy revelations of Sinai, Jehovah proclaimed it to be his inherent and intrinsic disposition to be 'merciful and gracious, long-suffering, forgiving iniquity and transgression' (Exod. 34:6-7). Nehemiah, after the exile, repeats the doctrine of the Pentateuch: 'You are a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, and of great kindness' (Neh. 9:17). The psalmist declares that 'the Lord is ready to forgive and plenteous in mercy unto all that call upon him' (Ps. 86:5); 'the Lord takes pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy' (147:11). From the twilight of the land of Uz, Elihu, feeling after the promised Redeemer if haply he might find him (Job 33:23), declares that 'God looks upon men, and if any say, I have sinned and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; he will deliver his soul from going down to the pit, and his life shall see the light' (33:27-28). The Bible throughout teaches that the Supreme Being is sensitive to penitence and is moved with compassion and paternal yearning whenever he perceives any sincere spiritual grief. He notices and welcomes the slightest indication of repentance: 'The eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy' (Ps. 33:18); 'whoso confesses and forsakes his sins shall have mercy' (Prov. 28:13). The heavenly Father sees the prodigal when he is 'yet a great way off.' He never 'breaks the bruised reed' nor 'quenches the smoking flax.' If there be in any human creature the brokena nd contrite heart, divine pity speaks the word of forgiveness and absolution. The humble confession of unworthiness operates almost magically upon the eternal. Incarnate mercy said to the heathen 'woman of Canaan' who asked for only the dogs' crumbs, 'O woman, great is your faith; be it unto you even as you will' (Matt. 15:28). The omnipotent is overcome whenever he sees lowly penitential sorrow. As 'the foolishness of God is wiser than man,' so the self-despairing helplessness of man is stronger than God. When Jacob says to the infinite one, 'I am not worhty of the least of all your mercies,' yet wrestled with him 'until the breaking of the day,' he becomes Israel and 'as a prince has power with God' (Gen. 32:10, 24, 28). When Jehovah hears Ephraim 'bemoaning himself,' and saying, 'Turn me, and I shall be turned,' he answers, 'Ephraim is my dear son. I will surely have mercy upon him' (Jer. 31:18, 20). 

Now the only obstruction, and it is a fatal one, to the exercise of this natural and spontaneous mercy of God is the sinner's hardness of heart." Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1vol ed, pp., 930-931; 3vol ed, vol, 2, pp., 749-51. 

Now recall these comments were made in the light of this powerful statement from Shedd elswhere in his DT: 


3) This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated the sins of the whole world, and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. vol2, pp437, 438.


----------



## JM (Jan 17, 2007)

> Shedd seems (to me) to be teaching a variation of the sufficient-efficent distinction.



What's the difference between the variation of sufficient-efficent distinction and what Amyraut taught?

Just trying to sort it out.

~JM~


----------

