Andrew Broaddus on Limited Atonement by Peter Lumpkins

According to Baptist Calvinist, J.B. Jeter, Andrew Broaddus (1770-1848) remained a Baptist legend in 19^th century Virginia. His rhetorical skills and keen intellect made him a theological "genius" of sorts.¹ Jeter's description of Broaddus surely places him in the position of being one of the most influential Baptists during the first half of the 19^th century. For instance, of Broaddus' role in the Campbellite controversy, Jeter wrote:

Of all the opponents which Mr. Campbell encountered in the early stage of his Reformation, Elder Broaddus was decidedly the most formidable. Dr. Brantly, then editor of the Christian Index, Philadelphia, entered warmly to the contest, but he maintained merely a skirmish. A.W. Clopton, of Virginia, devoted more time and energy to the controversy; but he was wanting in the qualifications of a polemic... Elder Semple took part in the discussion, but was entirely out of his sphere... But in Andrew Broaddus, Mr. Campbell met "a foeman worthy of his steel." We hesitate not to express the opinion, that on all important points, he gained in the discussion a most decided advantage over the Reformer; and in this opinion, we presume, none will fail to concur, except those who have been initiated into the mysteries and glories of the Reformation. In discrimination, biblical knowledge, the power of compressing his thoughts, clearness of style, logical force, courtesy and self-possession, Mr. Broaddus has had few superiors in the present age.²

With this in mind, we think it remarkable that Calvinist historians so often overlook eminent Baptists like Broaddus. One reasonable explanation may be that Broaddus was not a Calvinist. At least he was not the kind of Calvinist so often represented by New Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention. One passage from a sermon entitled "The Atonement" will suffice. In it, Broaddus said:

Another item, of which I wish here to take a very brief notice, as, in my view, erroneous, respects the nature of the "atonement." The error, as I consider it, lies in conceiving of this matter and in representing it, too much in accordance with the idea of a pecuniary transaction-of a penalty paid, or a debt discharged with a sum of money. It is true, indeed, that the figurative manner in which the atonement is sometimes represented in the scriptures, has reference to such a transaction, and that there is, of course, some striking analogy which justifies the reference-"ye are bought with a price"--"ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, &c., but with the precious blood of Christ." At the same time, however, the impropriety of detailing all possible analogies ought not to be lost sight of; and no greater injury, perhaps, has been done to the subject of the atonement than has arisen from treating it in this manner—The true idea, as to the object or result of the propitiatory-sacrifice of Christ, is expressed by the apostle, Rom.iii.26, "That God might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." A broad basis is thus laid for the operation of redeeming mercy, as God may see proper to exercise it. He is not laid under any obligation to all, or any number of individuals, to exonerate them from the penalty which attaches to guilt; and hence the application of the atonement, or the actual redemption of any sinner, is still an act of free favor on the part of God. And accordingly, so we find the apostle teaches. Rom.iii. 24. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

These remarks on the nature of the atonement, lead to the question as to its extent. And here I take occasion to say, that a consistent and scriptural view of this subject appears to lead to the conclusion, that the atonement is general in its nature and extent. As opening a way for the salvation of sinners, considered as sinners, it is general in its nature; and as being of sufficient value for the salvation of the world, it is general in its extent. At the same time, it maybe proper to remark, that redemption considered as the result and application of the atonement, is limited, of course, to those who actually become the subjects of grace; in other words, to those who become believers in Jesus.³

Not only did Broaddus flat out reject the Owenic sense of a "pecuniary transaction" when Jesus paid for our sin on the cross--a view advocated by Tom Nettles, Al Mohler, and most Founders Calvinists among others--he also advocated what many Baptist Calvinists today dub an Arminian understanding of the atonement.⁴  While many contemporary Baptist Calvinists would have Southern Baptists believe we had some sort of monolithic theological communion prior to the 20^th century, history has a way of correcting the record.  

¹Sermons and Other Writings of the Rev. Andrew Broaddus with A Memoir of His Life by J.B. Jeter, D.D. 1852, p.45

²Ibid, pp.28-29

³Ibid, pp. 108-109, italics original

⁴for a devastating critique of Limited Atonement and especially the "pecuniary transaction" theory of John Owens, see Dr. David Allen's chapter in Whosoever Will: a Biblical-Theological Critique of Five Point Calvinism, pp. 61-108

Comments

[Wayne]

not looking for a fight - promise. Please forgive me. I'm not playing dumb, I'm probably just a little ignorant when I ask this question: Are you saying penal substitutionary atonement is an exclusively Calvinistic doctrine?

[peter lumpkins]

Nope. I'm saying it's historical fiction to suggest what Founders Calvinists like Mohler and Ascol routinely suggest that somehow Baptists of the south were virtually all Calvinists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wayne]

ok. I missed that. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how anyone could know if they were all virtually Calvinists or not. It seems futile to try and prove or disprove.

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Peter:

You said that Broaddus did "flat out reject the Owenic sense of a "pecuniary transaction"."

But, I do not see where Broaddus did this for he said:

"The error, as I consider it, lies in conceiving of this matter and in representing it, too much in accordance with the idea of a pecuniary transaction-of a penalty paid, or a debt discharged with a sum of money. It is true, indeed, that the figurative manner in which the atonement is sometimes represented in the scriptures..."

He was opposed to seeing "too much" of the pecuniary aspect emphasized. He even admits that the peuniary aspect was taught in Scripture.

Fuller's brand of Calvinism grew much in the early 19th century.

Because He Lives,

Stephen Garrett

[peter lumpkins]

Stephen,

Thanks for the interaction. You're correct: Broaddus doesn't seem to reject all allusions to a pecuniary transaction--payments for sin in place of the sinner--"ye are bought with a price", etc. He did, however, flat out reject the Owenic sense of a pecuniary transaction. He could not have specifically held to general atonement in both its nature and extent while at the same time holding on to John Owen's account of pecuniary transaction.

And, I agree with you concerning Fuller's influence, an influence that changed the face of Calvinism in the old south.

Thanks again, Stephen.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott]

Many New Calvinists (myself included) would actually agree with what Broaddus seems to be have said. Some use the coined phrase "Unlimited Limited Atonement" to refer to the fact that Jesus died for all people and yet it's only effectively applied to those who believe by grace through faith. Some Five Point purists may not agree, but both of these truths are found in Scripture.

[peterlumpkins]

Scott,

Yes, that's Driscoll's term in his book on doctrine but does not equal Broaddus'. Broaddus took a view which was called in LA circles as an "Arminian" view. His view was very similar if not identical to non-Calvinist SBCers today. And, so far as I am concerned, the "unlimited limited" language is clever but only muddies the water.

Thanks, Scott.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig]

Driscoll wrote a book on doctrine? Self publication is a wonderful thing.