tion of men; and those who wish to discriminate among God’s operations in this matter and to assign only to some of them a particularistic while they assign to others a universalistic reference. The latter view is, of course, an attempt to mediate between the par- ticularistic and the universalistic conceptions, pre- serving particularism in the processes as well as in the issue of salvation sufficiently to hang salvation upon the grace of God alone and to give to him all the glory of the actual salvation; while yet yielding to universal- ism so much of the process of salvation as its adherents think can be made at all consistent with this funda- mental particularism.
The special one of the saving operations which is yielded by them to universalism is the redemption of the sinner by Christ. This is supposed to have in the plan of God, not indeed an absolute, but a hypotheti- cal, reference to all men. All men are redeemed by Christ—that is, if they believe in him. Their believ- ing in him is, however, dependent on the working of faith in their hearts by God, the Holy Spirit, in his saving operations designed to give effect to the re- demption of Christ. The scheme is therefore known not merely by the name of its author, as Amyraldian- ism, but also, more descriptively, as Hypothetical Re- demptionism, or, more commonly, as Hypothetical Universalism. It transfers the question which divides the particularist and the universalist with respect to the plan of salvation as a whole, to the more specific question of the reference of the redeeming work of
[ 25 ]
THE PLAN OF SALVATION
Christ: And the precise point at issue comes there- fore to be whether the redemptive work of Christ actually saves those for whom it is wrought, or only opens a possibility of salvation to them. The hypo- thetical universalists, holding that its reference is to all men indifferently and that not all men are saved, can- not ascribe to it a specifically saving operation and are therefore accustomed to speak of it as rendering salvation possible to all, as opening the way of salva- tion to men, as removing all the obstacles to the salvation of men, or in some other similar way. On the other hand, the consistent particularist is able to look upon the redemption wrought by Christ as actually redemptive, and insists that it is in itself a saving act which actually saves, securing the salvation of those for whom it is wrought.
The debate comes thus to turn upon the nature of the redemptive work of Christ; and the particularists are able to make it very clear that whatever is added to it extensively is taken from it intensively. In other words, the issue remains here the same as in the debate with the general universalism of the Lutheran and the Arminian, namely, whether the saving operations of God actually save; though this issue is here concen- trated upon a single one of these saving operations. If the saving operations of God actually save, then all those upon whom he savingly operates are saved, and particularism is given in the very nature of the case; unless we are prepared to go the whole way with universalism and declare that all men are saved. It
[26 ]
THE DIFFERING CONCEPTIONS
is thus in the interests of the fundamental super- naturalistic postulate by which all organized Chris- tianity separates itself from mere naturalism, that all the power exerted in saving the soul is from God— and of the great evangelical ascription, of Soli Deo gloria, as well—that the particularist contends that the reference of the redemption of Christ cannot be extended beyond the body of those who are actually saved, but must be held to be only one of the opera- tions by which God saves those whom he saves, and not they themselves. Not only, then, they contend, must we give a place to particularism in the processes as well as in the issue of salvation, but a place must be vindicated for it in all the processes of salvation alike. It is God the Lord who saves; and in all the operations by which he works salvation alike, he operates for and upon, not all men indifferently, but some men only, those namely whom he saves. Thus only can we preserve to him his glory and ascribe to him and to him only the whole work of salvation.
5. The differences which have been enumerated exhaust the possibilities of differences of large moment within the limits of the plan of salvation. Men must be either Naturalists or Supernaturalists; Super- naturalists either Sacerdotalists or Evangelicals; Evangelicals either Universalistic or Particularistic; Particularists must be particularistic with respect to only some or with respect to all of God’s saving opera- tions. But the consistent particularists themselves find it still possible to differ among themselves, not
[27]
THE PLAN OF SALVO