Agreeable Comments on the Atonement's Extent

The following are some citations from Dr. B. H. Caroll in which he is discussing the extent of the atonement. I think they are worthy observations on this subject and I would like to present them here with some of my thoughts on Caroll's observations. (SEE HERE):

Carroll, in commenting upon the commentary of J. P. Boyce, wrote:

"What is the difference so far as Christ’s work is concerned? Does not the difference come in the Spirit’s work in connection with the application of the atonement and the ministry of reconciliation? Do election and foreordination become operative toward atonement or toward acceptance of the atonement? These questions are submitted for consideration in the realm of the study of systematic theology. The author does not dogmatize on them."

What I like about this comment is the fact that he says that he "does not dogmatize on them."

I think it is wrong for some Calvinists to think it is heresy to believe that the atonement was, in some sense at least, general or universal.

My own view aligns more with Boyce, whom Carroll thought was possibly the ablest theologian of his time. I believe that "election and foreordination" become operative towards BOTH atonement and acceptance of the atonement.

Carroll said:

"While he has only a very moderate respect for philosophy in any of its departments as taught in the schools, and prefers rather to accept every word of God without speculation, and believes it true and harmonious in all its parts, whether or not he is able to philosophically explain it, yet he submits merely for consideration along with other human philosophizing on the atonement the philosophy of Dr. Wm. C. Buck on this matter. It is found in his book, The Philosophy of Religion. On the question of general or limited atonement he takes this position, as I recall it: Jesus Christ through his death repurchased or bought back the whole lost human race, including the earth, man’s habitat. The whole of it and all its peoples passed thereby under his sovereignty. What debt they once owed to the law they now owe to him, the surety who paid the debt. From his mediatorial throne he offers to forgive this debt now due him to all who will accept him. But all alike reject him. The Father, through the Spirit, graciously inclines some to accept him. Thus those really saved are saved according to the election and foreordination of God, not operative in the atonement which was general, but in the Spirit’s application which was special. Those thus saved were originally promised by the Father to the Son. He dies for the whole world as the expression of the Father’s universal love. He died for the elect, his church, as his promised reward."

I cannot find anything wrong with Buck's view, except possibly in the way in which the atonement is general. I have often argued much the same way over the years. Further, Carroll seems willing to accept the view of Buck.

Carroll wrote:

"Let us do with this or any other philosophy what we will, but let us not hesitate to accept all that the Scriptures teach on this matter. When we read John 10:14-16; 11:26-29; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-29; Ephesians 5:25-32, let us not abate one jot of their clear teaching of Christ’s death for the elect and their certain salvation. And when we read John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2; Ezekiel 33: 11; Matthew 28:19; 1 Timothy 2:4, let us beware lest our theory, or philosophy, of the atonement constrain us to question God’s sincerity, and disobey his commands. There are many true things in and out of the Bible beyond our satisfactory explanation. Let faith apprehend even where the finite mind cannot comprehend."

I think these words of Carroll are quite agreeable.

The above citations as given on the web page link are from Carroll's “Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews” in, An Interpretation of the English Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 86-92.