CHAPTER IV – Distinction between Impetration and Application
CHAPTER IV – Distinction between Impetration and Application The distinction between impetration and application, the use and abuse of the terms. This chapter includes the opinion of the adversaries in this controversy, and it states the question on both sides.
I will defer giving further reasons for our opposition to the general ransom.
For the present, I will remove the usual response to the passages of Scripture I have produced, which is to waive their meaning. This seems to be pharmianon pansophon 73 to our adversaries. They assume it can withstand the weight of all that is urged against them in this case.
They say two things are to be considered in Christ's oblation and in the good things procured by it: first, the impetration or obtaining of those things; and second, the application of those things to particular persons.
FIRST, universalists insist that impetration and application are separate.
I. impetration is for all, application is for believers "The impetration," they say, "is general. It respects all men. By his death,
Christ obtained and procured all good things from his Father: reconciliation, redemption, and forgiveness of sins. And he obtained these for all and every man in the world, if they will believe and lay hold of him. But second, with regard to their application, these things are actually bestowed on only a few, because only a few believe; and belief is the condition on which these things are bestowed. The second is the sense in which the Scriptural texts that we have argued should be understood – all of them. They do not impeach the universality of merit one whit, which they assert. What they impeach is the universality of application, which they deny."
Now, they offer this answer in various forms and dresses, according to what seems best to those who use it, and what is most subservient to their several opinions. For example,
First, Christ reconciled all, but only believers benefit.
Some of them say that Christ, by his death and passion, absolutely purchased for all and every man, according to the intention of God, remission of sins and reconciliation with God, or restitution into a state of grace and favor with God. All of these are actual benefits to them provided they believe. This is the opinion of the Arminians.
Secondly, Christ died for all, but only believers are reconciled.
74 that Christ died for all, but conditionally for some if they believe, or will believe (which he knows they cannot do of themselves).
He died absolutely for his own, on whom his purpose is to bestow faith and grace. In this way, they will actually possess the good things purchased by him. This is the teaching of Camero and the divines of France, who follow a new method devised by him.
Thirdly, Reconciliation is twofold: paid for all, but worked in some.
Some say Some believe there is a twofold reconciliation and redemption. One is worked by Christ with God for man, which, they say, is general for all and every man. The second is a reconciliation worked by Christ in man to God, bringing them actual peace with God.
There are various other ways by which men express their conceptions in this business. The sum of what they say is the same distinction we recounted before: with regard to impetration, Christ obtained redemption and reconciliation for all; with regard to application, it is bestowed only on those who believe and continue in that belief.
II. The True Nature of the Distinction The arguments by which they prove the generality of the ransom and universality of reconciliation must be considered later. For the present, we handle only the distinction itself, its meaning and misapplication.
First, impetration is purchase, application is enjoyment.
We acknowledge that this distinction may be used in a sound sense and with a right meaning, whether expressed as impetration and application, or as procuring reconciliation with God and working reconciliation in us. For by impetration we mean the meritorious purchase of all good things by Christ, for us, with and from his Father. By application we mean the actual enjoyment of those good things upon our believing. It is as if a man paid a price to free captives: paying the price is the impetration we speak of, and freeing the captives is its application. Yet, we must observe these things:
First, The distinction regards what is procured, not Christ's intent.
This distinction has no place in the intention and purpose of Christ, but only with regard to the things that were procured by him. For in his purpose, they are both united. His purpose was both to deliver us from all evil, and to procure all the good that would actually be bestowed on us.
75 But with regard to what was procured, those things may be considered separately either as procured by Christ, or as bestowed on us.
Secondly, what is purchased is not purchased conditionally.
The will of God is not at all conditional in this business. He did not give us Christ to obtain peace, reconciliation, and forgiveness of sins, only on the condition that we believe. There is a condition involved, but not in the will of God. It is absolute that such things should be procured and bestowed.
Thirdly, what is purchased is not bestowed conditionally.
The things which Christ obtained for us are not all conditionally bestowed. Some are absolutely bestowed. And as for those which are conditionally bestowed, the condition is actually purchased and procured for us unconditionally by virtue of the purchase itself. To explain: Christ has purchased remission of sins and eternal life for us. This is enjoyed by us upon our believing, or on the condition of faith. But he has absolutely procured faith itself for us, which is the condition. And he has procured it for us on no condition at all. Whatever condition might be proposed in order to obtain faith, I will later show it to be vain, and to run in a circle.
Fourthly, impetration and application have the same objects.
Both impetration and application have the same individual persons for their objects. Whomever Christ obtained any good thing for by his death, that good thing will certainly be applied to them. He did not obtain anything for anyone, that they will not enjoy in due time. If he worked reconciliation with God for them, then he works reconciliation in them unto God. The one is not extended to some to whom the other does not reach. Now, this being established, the opposite interpretation and misapplication of this distinction vanishes. I will briefly confirm it with two reasons:
First, if applying the good things that were procured is the purpose for Christ's procuring them, then they must be applied to all for whom they are obtained. Otherwise, Christ fails in his purpose to apply them, which cannot be granted. But applying them was indeed the purpose for obtaining all good things for us. If Christ aimed only at obtaining but not applying them, then his death would have achieved its desired result without applying redemption and salvation to anyone. And so, despite all that he did for us, everyone in the world might have perished eternally. Judge for yourself whether that can be reconciled with the dignity and sufficiency of Christ's oblation, the purpose of his Father, and his own intention. And that intention was that he "came into the world to save sinners"
76, "to save what was lost,"
77 and to "bring many sons to glory."
Secondly, we would have to affirm that God was completely uncertain what the outcome would be of sending his Son, laying the weight of our iniquity on him, and giving him up to an accursed death. Did he intend for us to be saved by it? Then he must have aimed at applying the benefit of Christ's death to us, as we assert. Saying he was uncertain what the outcome would be is blasphemy, and contrary to Scripture and right reason. Did he appoint a Savior without thinking of those who were to be saved? Did he appoint a Redeemer without determining who should be redeemed? Did he resolve what means to use without determining their end? It is an assertion that opposes all
God's glorious properties.
Secondly, what is obtained is applied by nature.
Say someone obtains something for another person in such a way that it becomes that other person's by right. Then properly, what was obtained must be given or applied to that other person. It is their right to have it. In the same way, anything obtained by Christ, for whomever he obtained it, must be given or applied to them. What is theirs by charge must be made theirs in fact. All that he purchased for them must be applied to them, for it is by virtue of that purchase that they are saved, verses 33, 34.
Thirdly, Christ intercedes for those for whom he died.
Christ makes intercession for those for whom he died. His intercession is to apply those things purchased by his death, and he is always heard in this. Those to whom the one belongs (impetration), the other also belongs
(application). So in John 10:10, Christ comes that his sheep "might have life, and have it abundantly;" also 1Jn. 4:9.
80 In Heb. 10:10 we read, "By God's will we are sanctified" – this is the end, the application – "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ" – this is the means, the impetration. "For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are sanctified," Heb. 10:14. In brief, all these passages prove what we rightly assign as purpose of Christ's death. As I see it, this may be depended on as firm and immovable: the impetration of good things by Christ, and the application of those things, are done for the same individual persons.
SECONDLY,
universalists say Reconciliation is only Applied to Some.
Here we consider what those who maintain universal redemption mean by the following distinction, and how they apply it. "Christ," they say, "died for all men, and by his death purchased reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sins for them. These benefits, however, are applied only to some, who actually become reconciled to God, and have their sins forgiven them. It is not applied to others, who therefore perish unreconciled and at enmity with God under the guilt of their sins. This application to some," they say, "is not procured or purchased by Christ. For if it was, then he died for all, and all must actually be reconciled, and their sins forgiven them – all would be saved. Instead, the application is made on the fulfillment of the
condition God prescribes, which is believing." Some say they can believe by their own strength, if not directly, then by direct consequence. Others say they cannot believe by their own strength; God must give it.
So when it is said in the Scripture that Christ reconciled us to God, redeemed us, saved us by his blood, underwent the punishment of our sins, and made satisfaction for us, they say it only means that Christ provided what will follow upon fulfilling the condition required of us. They assign many glorious things to the death of Christ, but what they give on the one hand they take away with the other. They suspend the enjoyment of these things on a condition that is to be fulfilled by us, and not procured by him.
They assert that the proper and full end of the death of Christ was to satisfy God's justice so that God might save sinners if he chose to, based on whatever condition pleased him. He died so that a door of grace might be opened to all who would enter. He did not actually procure justification, remission of sins, life, and immortality for anyone, but only a possibility of these things.
Now, that all the venom underlying the exposition and abuse of this distinction is more apparent, I will list in a few assertions the whole mind of those who use it. Then it may be clearly seen what we oppose.
First, Because of God's universal love, He desires all to be saved.
"God," they say, "considers all mankind fallen from that grace and favor in which Adam was created. They are completely excluded from attaining salvation by the covenant of works that was made with Adam at the beginning. Yet, by his infinite goodness, God was inclined to desire their happiness, every one, so that they might be delivered from misery, and be brought to himself." They call this inclination his "universal love and antecedent will," by which he desires them all to be saved, and out of which love he sends Christ.
Observation 1. We deny that God has any natural or necessary inclination to do good to us or to any of his creatures, whether by his goodness or any other property. Everything concerning us is an act of his free will and good pleasure. It is not a natural, necessary act of his Deity, as will be declared.
Observation 2. Ascribing an antecedent conditional will to God means that fulfilling and accomplishing his will would depend on some free, contingent act or work of ours. That slanders his wisdom, power, and sovereignty, and cannot be excused from blasphemy. It is also contrary to Rom. 9:10, "Who has resisted his will?"
Observation 3. Saying that God has ordinary affections, and is inclined to do good to all, does not seem to support the freedom, fullness, and extent of that most intense love of God which Scripture says caused him to send his Son. John 3:16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his onlybegotten Son." Eph. 1:9, "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he has purposed in himself."
Col. 1:19, "It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell."
Rom. 5:8, "God commends his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Observation 4. We deny that all mankind is the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die. God "made some for the day of evil," Prov. 16:4. He "hated [them] before they were born," Rom. 9:11, 13.
They were "before of old ordained to condemnation," Jude 4, being "fitted to destruction," Rom. 9:22, "made to be taken and destroyed," 2Pet. 2:12,
"appointed to wrath," 1Thes. 5:9, to "go to [their] own place,"
82 Acts 1:25.
Secondly, God's love has no effect unless satisfaction is made for all.
They say that "God's justice is injured by sin. Unless something is done to satisfy it, the love of God (by which he desires to do good to all sinners) could not be acted out. Instead, it would reside eternally in his heart without producing any effect."
Observation 1. Neither Scripture nor right reason will enforce or prove that there is an utter and absolute lack of power in God to save sinners by his own absolute will, without satisfying his justice. Certainly he could have effected our salvation without considering it. That would not imply a violation of his holy nature.
Observation 2. It would be opposite to God's eternal blessedness and allsufficiency to wish to do anything (such as doing good to all) which
cannot possibly be accomplished without some work that is outwardly fulfilled by him (such as satisfying his justice for all).
Thirdly, He sent Christ to fulfill his universal love, and satisfy his justice.
"Therefore, God sent his Son into the world to die, to fulfill his general love and good will towards all, to show his love in a way that seemed good to him, and to satisfy his justice which stood in the way as its only hindrance."
We will show the failure of this assertion when we declare the kind of love in which sending Christ was its proper result.
Fourthly, the purpose of Christ's death was to obtain the power to save.
Arminius says, "The proper and immediate end of sending his Son to die for all men was so that God might save sinners in whatever way it pleased him, his justice which hindered [that salvation] being satisfied [by Christ's death]." Or as Corvinus puts it, "He sent his son so that he might will to save sinners. Christ's intention was to so satisfy the justice of God that he might obtain for himself the power to save, on whatever conditions seemed good to his Father to prescribe."
Observation 1. Something was said before based on an examination of those passages of Scripture which describe his purpose in sending his Son.
Let those determine whether God intended to procure for himself the freedom to save us if he would, or he instead intended to obtain certain salvation for his elect.
Observation 2. The thought that there could only be a possibility of salvation, or at best a wish or a willingness for it, that is based on some uncertain condition to be fulfilled by us, and that this would be the full, proper, and only immediate end of Christ's death, is something hard to swallow even with a fine wine.
Observation 3. The statement that he procured for himself the ability to save, upon a condition to be prescribed, does not seem to reflect that sure and certain purpose which the Scripture gives for our Savior laying down
his life. That purpose was to "save his sheep," and to "bring many sons to glory." There is no basis in Scripture for such an assertion.
Fifthly, Christ satisfied God's justice, allowing conditional salvation.
"Christ, therefore, obtained reconciliation with God, remission of sins, life and salvation, for everyone. It is not that they would actually partake of these things, but that God (his justice now unhindered) might and would prescribe a condition to be fulfilled by them. Upon their fulfilling the condition, he would actually apply to them all those good things purchased by Christ."
And here is their distinction between impetration and application, which we intimated before. They are wondrously divided as to what it means:
Some, like Bormus and Corvinus, say it means that all men are received into a new covenant. Adam is personally redeemed in this new covenant, and we are all restored in him, just as we fell with him under the old covenant,. None will be damned who do not actually sin against the condition by which they are born. If they do, then they fall from the saved state into which all men are assumed through Christ's death. In plain terms,
Moore says that all are reconciled, redeemed, saved, and justified in Christ, though he could not understand how (Moore, p. 10).
Those who assert the efficacy of grace, as in France, are more wary. They deny this. They assert that by nature we are all children of wrath. Until we come to Christ, the wrath of God abides on all. It is not actually removed from anyone.
Again, some say that, by this satisfaction, Christ removed original sin in all.
As a consequence, all infants dying before the age of reason must undoubtedly be saved, even though born of Turks and Pagans, or outside of the covenant. And all those beyond the age of reason may be saved from the calamity, guilt, and alienation contracted by our first fall, upon satisfying a new condition.
Others, like Corvinus are more wary. They observe that the blood of Christ is said to "cleanse from all sin," (1Jn. 1:7; 1Pet. 1:18, 19; Isa. 53:6). And so they say that he died for all sinners alike; absolutely for none, but conditionally for all. Further, some of them say that after the satisfaction of
Christ, and before God's consideration of his satisfaction, no condition was yet determined or prescribed. Being undetermined, the Lord might have placed us all under the law and covenant of works again. Still others, like
Moore (p. 35), say that procuring a new way of salvation by faith was part of the fruit of the death of Christ.
Some of them say that the condition prescribed can be met by our own strength, with the help of such means as God will afford to all generally.
Others deny this. They assert that effectual grace, flowing specifically from election, is necessary to believe. The first group establishes an idol of freewill to maintain their own assertion. The others defeat their own assertion by establishing grace. This is true of Amyraldus, Camero, et al.
Moreover, some say that the love of God in sending Christ is equal for all.
Others maintain an inequality in the love of God, although he sent his Son to die for all. There cannot be greater love than that by which the Lord sent his Son to die for us, Rom. 8:32. And so they say that Christ purchased a greater good for some, and a lesser good for others. Here they create a number of awkward distinctions for themselves, or rather (as one calls them), extinctions. They blot out all sense, reason, and true meaning in the Scripture. Witness Testardus, Amyraldus, and, as anyone who can read
English, T. Moore. Hence we see a multiplicity of ends in the death of Christ. Some are the fruits of his ransom and satisfaction, and others are I know not what. It is a most difficult thing to know what they mean, and harder to discover their mind than it is to answer their reasons.
In one particular, they agree well enough. They all deny that faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. For once they grant that, it would overturn the whole fabric of universal redemption. But, in assigning the cause of faith, they fall apart again.
Some say that God sent Christ to die for all men, but only on the condition that they believe. It is as though, if they believed, then Christ died for them; but if not, then he did not. And so, they make the act the cause of its own object. Some others hold that he died absolutely for all, to procure all good things for them. But they will not enjoy those things until they fulfill the prescribed condition. Yet they all conclude that, in his death, Christ had no more consideration for the elect than he did for the others. He did not bear them, or take their place. Instead, he was a public person in the place of all mankind.
III. Summation Regarding the event and the immediate product of the death of Christ, various people have expressed themselves differently. Some place salvation in the power, some in the will, of God; some in the opening of a door of grace; some in a right purchased for himself to save whomever he pleased; some that he had no end at all with regard to us, but that all mankind might have perished even after Christ had done everything. Others vary the ends according to the diversity of the persons for whom he died, granting that these persons are distinguished by a foregoing decree. But I cannot see what purpose the Lord would have to send his Son to die for those he was determined not to save, or at least to bypass, leaving them in ruin for their sins, and without a remedy. Nor can I see the meaning of the twofold destination some have invented.
Such is the powerful force and evidence of truth that scatters all its opposers, and makes them fly to several hiding-corners. If they are not willing to yield and submit themselves to the truth, then they will surely lie down in darkness and error. The truth has no need for their types of arguments, nor such intricate and involved distinctions about hindrances. It does not oblige its supporters to use flimsy shifts and devices, nor any twists and turns to create a defensible posture. And it is not susceptible to contradictions in its own fundamentals. The whole of the truth in this matter may be summed up thus:
"God, out of his infinite love for his elect, sent his dear Son in the fullness of time, whom he had promised us in the beginning of the world,
86 and whom he had made effectual by that promise, to die and pay a ransom of infinite value and dignity, in order to purchase eternal redemption, and bring to himself every one of those whom he had before ordained to eternal life, all to the praise of his own glory."
So the proper results and effects of the death of Christ (the meritorious cause of them all) are these: delivery from all evil, freedom from wrath, and an enjoyment of all the good things that are bestowed on us in our transport from death to life, from hell and wrath to heaven and glory. This may be made clear in all its parts by these few assertions:
First, God sent his Son for the elect alone.
The source and cause of God's sending Christ is his eternal love for his elect, and for them alone. I will not further confirm that now. I reserve it for the second general topic of this controversy.
Secondly, the ransom was sufficient for all those intended.
The value, worth, and dignity of the ransom which Christ paid, was infinite and immeasurable. It was fit to accomplish any end, and procure any good, for everyone for whom it was intended, and for as many as God ordained (more of this later). Acts 20:28, "God purchased his church with his own blood." 1Pet. 1:18, 19, They "were not redeemed with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." That redemption was in response to the mind and intention of Almighty God, John 14:13, "As the Father commanded me, that is what I do." God wanted a price paid that would become the foundation of the intended dispensation of his love and grace, and of the way by which he would dispense it. Acts 13:38, 39,
"Through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." 2Cor. 5:20, 21, "We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God urged you by us: we ask you in Christ's place, be reconciled to God. For he has made him sin for us, who knew no sin, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
Thirdly, those intended were the elect.
The intention and aim of the Father in this great work was to bring many sons to glory. They are, namely, his elect, whom he had chosen by his free grace from among all men, sorts, nations, and conditions, to be taken into a new covenant of grace with himself. The former covenant was null and abolished with regard to them. Jesus Christ is the first and chief promise of this new covenant, the one who was to procure for the elect all the other good things promised in that covenant, as will be proved.
Fourthly, what was purchased is necessarily bestowed.
The things purchased or procured, the proper effects of the death and ransom of Christ, the elect must certainly come to possess and enjoy in
due time. What he purchased for them was the remission of sin, freedom from the wrath of God and the curse of the law, justification, sanctification, reconciliation with God, and eternal life.
It was the will of his Father to send him for these. It was his own intention to lay down his life for them. The truth and fact of his purchase is the foundation of his intercession, begun on earth and continued in heaven.
Christ, whom his Father always hears, desires and demands through his intercession that the good things he procured actually be bestowed on everyone for whom they were procured. So the whole of what we assert in this great business is exceedingly clear and apparent, without any intricacy or difficulty at all. It is not clouded with strange expressions. It does not unnecessarily tear one thing from another, as the opposite opinion does.
But because the whole strength of demonstrating this point lies in that one distinction we spoke of before, we will consider that a little further, and then come to our arguments.