CHAPTER II – Refuting Mistaken Purposes of Christ’s Death
CHAPTER II – Refuting Mistaken Purposes of Christ's Death Some mistakes and false ends that have been assigned to the death of Christ.
The death, oblation, and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ are means to an appointed end; and such means are not inherently desirable except to attain that end. Now, because the end of anything must be good or desirable (for it is the agent's intent to accomplish it), the proposed end must be his Father's good, his own good, or our good.
I. It was not for Christ's own good It is very apparent that the end was not merely his own good. For in his divine nature, he eternally and essentially partakes of all the glory that belongs to the Deity. With regard to us, that glory is variously manifested, but in itself it is always eternally and absolutely perfect. At the close of all, he desires and requests no other glory than what he had with his Father
"before the world was," John 17:5. With regard to his human nature, he was eternally predestined to be personally united with the second person of the Trinity. There was no foresight of doing or suffering anything from the instant of his conception. Therefore, while he was in his humanity, he did not merit anything for himself by his death and oblation. He did not need to suffer for himself, because he was perfectly and legally righteous. The glory he aimed at by "enduring the cross, and despising the shame," was not so much to exalt his own glory, as it was to bring many children to glory. This was in the promise made to him, as we declared before. His own exaltation, his power over all flesh, and his appointment to be Judge of the quick and the dead, was a consequence of his deep humiliation and suffering. But we deny that it was the effect and product of his death, that it was procured meritoriously by it, or that it was the end aimed at in his making satisfaction for sin.
Christ has power and dominion over all, but the foundation of this dominion is not his death for all. He has dominion over all things, because he has been appointed "heir of all things, … upholding them all by the word of his power," Heb. 1:2, 3. "He is set over the works of God's hands, and all
things are put in subjection under him," Heb. 2:7, 8. And what "all things" are, or include, may be found in Ps. 8:5-8,
44 the passage cited by the apostle.
And did he die for all these things? No. Does he not have power over the angels? Are not principalities and powers made subject to him? Will he not judge the angels at the last day? Even the saints will do it with him, by attesting to his righteous judgments, l. Cor. 6:2, 3. And yet, it is expressly said that the angels have no share in the whole dispensation of God demonstrated by Christ's dying for the saints to redeem them from their sins. The angels had no need, and any others are eternally excluded: "He did not help angels; but the seed of Abraham," Heb. 2:16. God made him
"king upon his holy hill of Zion," to spite his enemies, to bruise them, and to rule them "with a rod of iron," Ps. 2:6, 9. Yet these things are not the immediate effect of his death for them. Rather, all things are given into his hand because of the immediate love of the Father for his Son, John 3:35;
Matt. 11:27.
45 This is the foundation of the sovereignty and dominion he has been given over all creatures, and his power to judge.
Besides, even if it were granted that Christ procured this power to judge by his death (which cannot be proved), would anything follow from that to prove a general ransom for all? Undoubtedly not. This dominion and power to judge is a power to condemn as well as to save. "All judgment" is committed to him, John 5:22. "He has authority given to him to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man." He will execute it at that hour
"when all who are in their graves hear his voice and come out; those who have done good, to resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to resurrection of condemnation," Jn. 5:27-29; 2Cor. 5:10. Now, can it be reasonably asserted that Christ died for men to redeem them, so that he might gain the power to condemn? No. These two things defeat one another. If he redeemed you by his death, then his intent was not to obtain the power to condemn you. If it was, then your redemption was not his intent.
II. It was not for his Father's good.
Secondly, the purpose of Christ's death was not for his Father's good. I am speaking of the immediate end of Christ's death, not its ultimate end. The ultimate end of Christ's oblation (with all the benefits that it purchased and procured) was "to the praise of his glorious grace."
46 But as to its immediate
end, it does not directly obtain anything for God. Instead, it obtains all good things from God for us. Arminius and his followers, along with the other universalists of our day, assert that the end is so that God might save sinners. His justice has been satisfied, and the hinderance to his saving sinners has been removed by the satisfaction of Christ. By his death, they say, Christ obtained a right and liberty to pardon sin on whatever condition he pleased. Once the satisfaction of Christ was yielded, and considered
"integrum Deo fuit"
47 (as Arminius put it), it was wholly up to God whether to save any or not, and on what condition – whether a condition of faith or works. "God," they say, "had a good mind and will to do good to human kind, but could not because of sin. His justice lay in the way. Therefore he sent Christ to remove that obstacle, that so he might have mercy on them once they fulfilled whatever condition he was pleased to prescribe." Now, because the Arminians consider this the primary, if not the only, end of Christ's oblation, I must show the falseness and folly of it. This may be done plainly by the following reasons:
First, God was not restricted to this solution The foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous. They claim that God could not have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction was made by his Son. Assuming it was God's decree, purpose, and constitution to manifest his glory through vindicative justice, it was impossible to be otherwise; for with the Lord there is "no variableness, nor shadow of turning," James 1:17; 1Sam. 15:29. But to assert that, prior to his decree, he absolutely could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition. The Scripture affirms no such thing, nor can it be justifiably inferred from there. If anyone denies this, we will see what the Lord has for us to say about it. In the meantime, we rest contented in what
Augustine had to say: "Though his infinite wisdom did not lack other ways to save us, certainly the way in which he proceeded was the most convenient, because he proceeded in it."
Secondly, it would be wishing, not willing This would make the cause of God sending his Son to die a common love.
It would be wishing that he might do good, or show mercy to all, instead of being entirely an act of his will or purpose, an act of knowing,
redeeming, and saving his elect. Later we will disprove that it was merely a wish.
Thirdly, it would liberate the Father, not us If the purpose of Christ's death was to acquire a right for his Father so that, notwithstanding his justice, he might save sinners, then he died to redeem a liberty for God to save, rather than a liberty for us to be free from evil. He would have died to gain his Father a greater estate than the one in which it was impossible for him to do what he desired, and toward which his nature was inclined. Christ would not have died to free us from an estate and condition in which we must perish without his purchase of our freedom. If what they say were true, then I see no reason why Christ would be said to come to redeem his people from their sins. Rather, he would plainly have purchased this right and liberty for his Father. Now, where is there any such assertion, or anything of this nature, in the Scripture? Does the Lord say that he sent his Son out of love toward himself, or toward us? Is God, or are men, the immediate subject of the good attained by this oblation?
Reply by the universalists: Although this right did arise to God immediately by Christ's death, it also tended to our good. Christ obtained that right, so that the Lord might now bestow mercy on us, if we fulfilled the condition that he would propose.
But I answer, that this would utterly defeat all the merit of the death of Christ towards us. Not even the nature of merit would be left. If something is truly meritorious, then it deserves that the thing which is merited will be done, or that it ought to be bestowed, and not only that it may possibly be done. There is such a relation between merit and the thing obtained by it, whether it is absolute or contractual, that there arises a real right to the thing procured. When the laborer has worked all day, we do not say, "Now his wages may or may not be paid;" rather we say, "Now his wages must be paid" Does he not have a right to his wages? Have we ever heard of the kind of merit in which the thing procured by what was done might be bestowed, and not that it ought to be?
And did Christ's meritorious oblation purchase only the possibility that he might bestow and apply the fruits of his death by his Father's hand to some or all? "To the one who works," the apostle says, "the reward is not
reckoned to be of grace, but of debt," Rom. 4:4. The fruits of Christ's death are as truly procured for us as if they had been obtained by our own hand. With regard to the persons on whom they are bestowed, these fruits are applied as a matter of free grace. Yet, with regard to the purchase, their application is a matter of debt.
Fourthly, despite his sacrifice, some would not be saved It cannot be said that the ultimate purpose of Christ's death was to create a situation in which it is not only possible that no one would be saved, but indeed impossible for any sinner to be saved by virtue of Christ's death alone. The Scripture fully declares that through Christ we have remission of sins, grace, and glory. But now, notwithstanding this, it might very well be that none of us will enjoy eternal life: for suppose the Father would not bestow it. After all, he is not obligated to bestow it according to this persuasion. He may have a right to do it, but he may exercise this right or not, at his discretion.
Again, suppose God prescribed works as the subsequent condition, and it was impossible for anyone to fulfill it. Then the death of Christ might have accomplished its full purpose, and yet no one would be saved. Was this what was meant by his coming to "save what was lost?" Or could he, by such a limited accomplishment as this, pray as he did, "Father, I will that those whom you have given me be with me where I am; so that they may behold my glory?" John 17:24.
Various other reasons might be given to affirm what this fancy turns on its head. They would make the purchase of Christ not for the actual remission of sins, but only for its possibility; not for salvation, but only salvability; not to achieve reconciliation and peace with God, but only to open a door towards it. But I will use such reasons to assign the right end to the death of Christ.
Ask these universalists what the Father will do upon the death of Christ to satisfy the justice which previously hindered his good will towards men.
They will tell you he enters into a new covenant of grace with them. And upon the performance of some condition, they will have all the benefits of Christ's death applied to them. But it seems to us that Christ himself, with
his death and passion, is the chief promise of the new covenant as it is found in Gen. 3:15.
49 And so the covenant cannot be said to be procured by his death. Besides, the nature of the covenant defeats this proposal. They say that those with whom the covenant is made will have such and such good things if they fulfill the condition. It is as though it all depended on this obedience, when that obedience itself, and its whole condition, is a promise of the covenant, Jer. 31:33, 50 a covenant which is confirmed and sealed by the blood of Christ.
We deny that the death of Christ has any proper end with regard to God other than to manifest his glory. That is the reason God calls him "his servant, in whom he will be glorified," Isa. 49:3. Bringing many sons to glory, a duty with which he was entrusted, was to the manifestation and praise of his glorious grace.
51 And that was so his love for his elect might gloriously appear, his salvation being borne out by Christ to the ends of the earth. This full declaration of his glory, made evident by his mercy tempered with his justice, 52 is all that accrued to the Lord by the death of his
Son. He gained no right or liberty to do what his justice allegedly prevented him from doing before. With regard to us, the end of the oblation and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ was not so that God might pardon us if he would, but that he should pardon us by virtue of the covenant that was the foundation of Christ's merit. He agreed to bestow on us all the good things which Christ intended to purchase and procure by offering himself to God for us.