Hill seemed to have no idea of the biblical teaching about the election of one for the many found
both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and of the idea
that the redemptive purpose of God for all nations of the earth was
narrowed down to Israel, to a remnant, and then in the most intensive way to Jesus in the midst of Israel, and was fulfilled in and through him in a universal way for all mankind. Thus in respect of the people of Israel the universalising purpose of God will lead to the point when ‘all Israel shall be saved’. Instead,
Hill limited the universal sufficiency and extent of Christ’s atoning
redemption by a notion of specific ‘destination’, governed by God’s
eternal degree, of only certain individuals for ultimate salvation.
Regarded from the end result, therefore, the penal satisfaction offered
by Christ in his sacrificial death was held to be actually and finally
effectual only for particular people. Thus even for George
Hill, this evangelical moderate who sought to restore, in some measure
at least, the place of the love and mercy of God to its primary place in
redemption, the atonement was essentially and rigidly limited in its
nature and extent. The question had to asked, therefore, as indeed it
was by Thomas Chalmers, what kind of God does this imply? That
was the great question with which the General Assembly was faced in
1830, with McLeod Campbell’s revolt against the idea of God that lay
behind the doctrine of predestination and limited atonement in what
George Hill regularly referred to as ‘the Calvinistic System’ that
prevailed in the Kirk.
– Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” 262-63
All of this dovetails nicely with Scott’s recent post on election.
*PS. This is a repost from way back in October 2009. This kind of 'Christ-conditioned' supralapsarianism is given masterful explication in Myk Habets' chapter on the same topic in our forthcoming book (due out, Lord willing, this May).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.