Disagreeing With Fuller

By Timothy Guess

Andrew Fuller was a Baptist minister in England in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Not only were his theological teachings the cause of controversy among Baptists of that day, but also some of the trappings of Fullerism are still prevalent in various Christian circles in our day. We wish to expose these errors and in their stead, proclaim truth. Our motive is not to demonize good men who love and serve the same Lord Jesus that we do, but rather to speak truth in love. The truth is precious and if we follow in the footsteps of the apostles, we must walk in their doctrine and contend for truth. We desire for God to receive glory from this endeavor.

The basic issue at stake with Fullerism is the atoning work of Jesus Christ. For Christ to be properly glorified, His redemptive work must be properly taught and understood. Fuller was not an Arminian. He strongly believed in the doctrine of election, advocating that God chose a certain and particular people to salvation. We do not take issue with his view on election, but Fuller’s view of the atonement is the cause for concern. Fuller believed that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the entire human race, but was applied efficaciously only to the elect. Fuller, in his own words declares, “There is such a fullness in the satisfaction of Christ, as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in Him.”[1] Fuller contended that Christ died for sin, in general. Thus, His death is applied to those who believe on Him.

These lines will contain just brief glances at this important subject. As whole books have been written on the subject, we will obviously not exhaust the issue, but hope to give some valuable mind-stirring observations.

First, Fuller’s claim that the atonement was sufficient for the whole world but applied only to the elect is a Scriptural inconsistency. The Bible clearly teaches what we call the doctrine of Particular Redemption. That is, Christ’s death was intended and applied to the elect of God only. In language that appears to be modern-day trappings of Fullerism, a Baptist pastor, John Piper[2], states that Christ died for all men, but not all men in the same way.[3] This line of teaching muddies the waters of the clear truth of Particular Redemption. It sounds good and well-meaning to boast of the fullness of the atonement (as in Fuller’s above quote) as being so powerful as to be able to save the whole world. What is wrong with this reasoning?

This idea of the atonement hints at a dis-unified Godhead. Scripture proclaims that God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal in nature, essence, and purpose. They are always “on the same page.” Never does the Father desire or intend to do something, only to be opposed by the Son and Spirit. Nor does the Spirit have an urge for some task only to be vetoed by the Father. We will not fully comprehend the completeness and beauty of the Trinity’s unity until we reach heaven. Fullerism, however, does not show us such unity in God. It speaks of the Father choosing and electing a certain particular people. The Spirit is seen to give life to a certain and particular people. The Son, however, does not die just for these certain and particular people. Rather, He dies for the elect, but His death is still sufficient for the whole world. Therefore, he must have died for them too. Or, as Piper says, He died for all men, but not all men the same way. What confusion! The Father is quite sure who He elects, and with equal certainty the Holy Ghost knows the objects of His work. But with Christ, Fullerism does not speak of His death with such certainty. William Rushton, a nineteenth century Baptist, wrote a masterful book called Particular Redemption, in which he opposed the errors of Fuller. On this inconsistency of Fuller he states, “The decree of God the Father he allows is absolute; the operation of the Spirit is absolute; yet, with marvelous inconsistency, he represents the atonement of Christ as conditional sufficient for the whole race of Adam.”[4]

Scripture plainly declares that He gave His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He gave His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28), and He bore the sins of many (Hebrews 10:28). Piper’s aforementioned error actually astounds me. One can understand the errors of the believer in General Atonement (the teaching that Christ died for all the human race). After all, there are many verses that speak of Christ’s death as being for “all, the whole world,” etc. Sound Scriptural interpretation shows that these verses do not teach General Atonement but rather Particular Redemption. This is not the place for a discussion of these verses. But, for one to say that Christ died for all men, but in different ways, is puzzling. Where in Scripture are we taught that Christ’s death is for some men in one way and others in a different way? Would these hypothetical words of Christ be consistent with Scripture: “Person A, I shed my blood for you in this way, but Person B, my blood was shed for you in an altogether different way”? Did the Father choose all men, but not all in the same way? Does the Spirit operate on all men, but not all in the same way? Of course, the answer to these two questions is a resounding, “No.” It is also true of the other member of the Trinity that His work likewise was not for all, in any way. It was a definite, particular work for certain individuals.

John 17 is a glorious Biblical passage, expounding a prayer of Christ while here on earth to the Father in heaven. Its setting is just after the Last Supper and just before the Crucifixion. The impending death of Christ was ever on the mind of our Savior at this juncture. In this chapter, Jesus does not show any confusion about who He is to die for. He does not give any uncertainty of the intended beneficiaries of His death. Instead, He prays to the Father for those whom the Father gave Him in election. “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them” (Jn 17:9, 10). Quite clear, is it not? All those who are the Father’s are the Son’s. Christ knows exactly for whom He is about to shed His blood, and it is the exact people whom the Father chose before the foundation of the world. Jesus prays more specific requests in this chapter for their protection, joy, sanctification and comfort. He applies the prayer not only to the apostles immediately, but to all the elect (v.20). At the close of the prayer, Jesus prays again for this specific group: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (Jn. 17:24).

There is no confusion within the Trinity about the salvation of men. Father, Son, and Spirit are all agreed and unified in this matter. In fact, they settled it before the world began in the covenant of grace. The Sovereign of heaven and earth has determined to save a particular people, and them only.

Another important issue is the efficacy of the atonement. Simply stated, the redeeming work of Christ actually accomplished something. It did not merely place men in a savable state, but fully accomplished redemption. The redemption is part of an agreement between the Father and Son. The great debt incurred by the sins of the elect was paid by the Son to the Father. The Father accepted this payment and as a result, justified the elect. To show by Scripture the efficacy of Christ’s death we list these verses:

Hebrews 9:12 “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Hebrews 10:14 “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Hebrews 1:3 “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

To take the position that Christ’s death was for all, but for all differently, begs a question. For the non-elect, what does the death of Christ actually do? We must answer it does nothing. It does nothing? Is this what we are to think of the Son of God pouring out His life? He gave His all, His everything for all men, but for some of them it will not have any effect. Some speak of “God being gracious to all men in Christ.” It is said, like Fuller, salvation is offered to all, and those who believe will have redemption applied to them. But I must ask, what kind of grace is this? Scripture speaks of grace always being effective, accomplishing something. God’s grace is powerful and always achieves that object for which it was intended. God’s grace brings triumph, victory. But this language of an atonement sufficient for the whole world, but only efficient to the elect, of Christ’s death being for all, but not all in the same way, and God being gracious to every man in Christ, speaks of a “grace” that, by itself, accomplishes nothing. This kind of grace is not amazing. It is foreign to the Word of God.

For Sin In General

Another point which demands our attention is given in these quotes of Fuller:

“I consider the atonement as a divine, extraordinary expedient, for the exercise of mercy consistently with justice; and that therein such satisfaction is made for sin, as to afford ground for sinners to believe and be saved.”[5]

“I consider that if one sinner only had been saved consistently with justice; it required to be by the same all-perfect obedience unto death; and this being yielded, is itself equally adapted to save a world as an individual, provided a world believed in it.”[6]

The above quotes show Fuller believed the atonement to be for sin in the abstract, or, for sin in general. This death took care of “sin” and if folks, elect or non-elect, would simply believe in Christ, this death would be appropriated unto them for their salvation. Fuller did not have a Scriptural understanding of the design of the atonement.

From the Old Testament we are taught that the redemptive work of Christ was for the sins of God’s people, not for a general concept of sin. One of the ceremonies of Old Testament Israel illustrates beautifully the work of Christ. It must be remembered that these ceremonies represented and pictured the work of Christ. These ceremonies and sacrifices pointed to a substitutionary atonement. The Day of Atonement, recorded in Leviticus 16, required the high priest to place his hands on the head of a goat and confess all the sins of the children of Israel. Verse 22 says, “And the goat shall bear their iniquities unto a land not inhabited…” What a beautiful scene. Israel had sinned, of course. But their sins were transferred to someone else, who would bear them instead of Israel. Notice that the high priest was not to confess the sin (in general) of Israel, but their sins. Furthermore, the sins of the Hittites, Egyptians, Philistines, or any other nation were not transferred to the goat, but only the sins of Israel.

Christ, of course, is the fulfillment of this type. He is the One who bore the sins of His people. He died in the place of the elect. And Christ did not bear the sins of everyone, nor sin in the abstract for everyone, but He only bore the sins of spiritual Israel, the elect of God.

Note these verses which show further Christ bearing sins on the cross rather than sin in general:

Isaiah 53:5 “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities…”

Isaiah 53:6 “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Isaiah 53:11, 12 “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Galatians 1:4 “Who gave Himself for our sins…”

Matthew 26:28 “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

I Peter 2:24 “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree…”

Friends, this true understanding of the atonement thrills my soul! I believe, according to Scripture, that Jesus died for my sins. All my lies, selfishness, pride, evil thoughts, words, motives, and actions were put away by the blood of Christ. It should bring us to great humility before the cross, for there Christ bore our individual sins and paid the price for each one of them. How many sins have I committed? What a silly question. Millions, billions, trillions, I can’t even count the dreadful number. And Christ not only bore my sins, but all the sins of all the millions found in the family of God. What a sacrifice indeed! May we ascribe praise to our precious Savior in song and life.

In his book, William Rushton pointed out the consequences of Fuller’s understanding of the atonement as being for sin in general. If Christ only died for sin in general, then His death actually secured the salvation of no one. It merely opened up the possibility of salvation to the whole world, if the whole world believed, according to Fuller. Some have spoken of the death of Christ as the basis of a free offer of salvation to all. As previously shown, the Bible clearly teaches that redemption was accomplished, not made possible, by Christ. Rushton states, “Christ did not appear to render men salvable and sin pardonable, but He appeared to ‘put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.’”[7] Let us rejoice and serve the Redeemer who effected and accomplished our redemption.

[1] Particular Redemption. Rushton, William. Primitive Publications, Elon College, North Carolina. 1973. p.27.

[2] I would like to assert here that I have personally been blessed by some of Piper’s writings. I do not wish to demonize him, but I do believe that his theology contains some dreadful holes. This is one of them.