Kenneth A. Macrae on Arminianism and the atonement

[Reformed Covenanter]

If Christ has suffered as a Substitute for every man and thus has rendered for all a complete satisfaction to Divine justice, how comes it about that all are not saved? Surely if He died for all He died with the intention of saving all, else why die for those whom He did not design to save. If this then were His intention, how comes it that His intention was not realised? It is difficult to see how one is to escape the conclusion upon this theory that Christ must have failed somewhere—which for the Divine One is unthinkable.

Further, if He rendered a complete satisfaction to Divine justice on behalf of all, how can some be punished for sin over again? Those who are not saved must suffer the punishment of their sins, for that is what being lost means; but how can they justly be punished if their Substitute has already borne their punishment? This theory, therefore, directly reflects upon the integrity of the justice of God. Again, if Christ offered up Himself as a ransom for all, i.e., everyone, why did He not see to it that He would secure all? ...

For more, see Kenneth A. Macrae on Arminianism and the atonement.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I have not read the Diary, but I am wondering if anyone has access to his pamphlet, The Resurgence of Arminianism?

You found a copy

 

[ReformedBrit]

Further, if He rendered a complete satisfaction to Divine justice on behalf of all, how can some be punished for sin over again? Those who are not saved must suffer the punishment of their sins, for that is what being lost means; but how can they justly be punished if their Substitute has already borne their punishment? This theory, therefore, directly reflects upon the integrity of the justice of God. Again, if Christ offered up Himself as a ransom for all, i.e., everyone, why did He not see to it that He would secure all? ...

For more, see Kenneth A. Macrae on Arminianism and the atonement.

I remember my wife saying that this argument (which was being present by Joel Beeke at the time in something we were listening to) convinced her of the truth of a particular redemption.

It is a very strong argument - great quote. Thanks for sharing, Daniel.

 

[User20004000]

The Arminian should be driven to consistency and be willing say that all sins are paid for except for the sin of unbelief. But what about the person who never heard the gospel? Isn’t his unbelief different than one who heard the gospel yet positively rejected the Savior?

Whereas with respect to one who never heard the gospel, although he’d also have unbelief, that stripe of unbelief would be more precisely classified as invincible non-belief, which is not sin. Therefore, when taken to the logical conclusion, Arminians should be willing to say that there are two types of people in hell. Those who are punished for the single sin of rejecting the Savior and those who are punished for no fault of their own.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You found a copy

Someone from PB shared it with me. I will PM it to you in due course.

 

[JimmyH]

Having not heard of the Reverend Macrae I was curious, and google yielded this article from Banner of Truth Trust ;
https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2014/fifty-years-remembering-rev-kenneth-macrae/

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Someone from PB shared it with me. I will PM it to you in due course.

Thank you Daniel. It opened good in good format. In places, his argument reminds me of one of Spurgeon's sermons on the atonement.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Having not heard of the Reverend Macrae I was curious,

Jimmy, I have said in other places, get a copy of the Diary of Kenneth MacRae. (Banner of Truth). Unfortunately it is out of print, but there are a ot of copies online at second hand bookshops in a number of countries.

I can say personally, there was much in the diary to spiritually nourish my own soul.