CHAPTER II – Three More Arguments
CHAPTER II – Three More Arguments ARGUMENT III.
If the ransom is universal, any condition is paid for too.
If Jesus Christ died for all men, that is, if he purchased and procured all those things we named for them, according to the mind and will of God, and the Scripture says the effects and fruits of his death are summed up in "eternal redemption," then he did this according to the purpose of God, either absolutely or subject to some condition to be fulfilled by them. If he did this absolutely, then everyone ought to absolutely and infallibly partake of that eternal redemption. What, I ask, would hinder the enjoyment of that redemption by anyone whom God absolutely intended it for, and Christ absolutely purchased it for?
If the purpose was conditional, then he either procured this condition for them, or he did not. If he procured it for them, then either he did it absolutely, or on condition. If he absolutely procured the condition, then it is the same as before. If he procures something for another, which will be conferred on him if he meets a condition, and that condition is also procured which will absolutely bestow it on him, then it is equivalient to absolutely procuring the thing itself.
That is what we affirm in this very business: Christ procured salvation for us, to be bestowed on the condition that we believe; but he has absolutely procured faith itself, belief, without prescribing any additional condition.
Thus we affirm that purchasing salvation for us conditiionally is equivalent to absolutely purchasing and bestowing it on us, with regard to the event and result. Thus all must be absolutely saved. But if this condition is procured on another condition, whatever it is, we will begin our query as to whether it is absolute or conditional all over again. And so we would run in a circle until the conditions end somewhere.
On the other side, if this condition is not procured by him, then, First, such a condition must be made known to all
(Arg. II).
Secondly, all men must be able to believe.
If all men are able to meet this condition themselves, and that condition is faith in the promises, as all concede it is, then all men in themselves, by the power of their own free-will, are able to believe.
That is contrary to the Scriptures.
By the Lord's assistance, this contradiction will be declared. If they cannot believe, 102 and faith must be bestowed on them and worked within them by the free grace of God, 103 then when God gave his Son to die for them, to procure eternal redemption for them all, on the condition that they believe, he either purposed to work faith in all of them by his grace so that they might believe, or he did not. If he did, then why does he not actually do it?
"He is of one mind, who can turn him?"
104 Why do all men not believe?
Why do all men not have faith? Or does he fail in his purpose? If he did not purpose to bestow faith on all of them, then it comes to this: God gave
Christ to die for all men, but on the condition that they perform what they cannot perform without him, and he purposed not to accomplish that in them.
Now, this is extreme madness. It assigns to God a will to do what he knows and orders will never be done, of granting something on a condition which cannot be fulfilled without his help, and choosing not to grant that help.
Does this do anything besides delude poor creatures? Is it possible for any good to come to anyone by a purpose such as this, or by giving such a Redeemer? Is it consistent with the goodness of God to intend so great a good as the redemption purchased by Christ, and to pretend that it will profit men, when he knows that they can no more fulfill the condition he requires than Lazarus could come out of the grave by himself? Does it befit the wisdom of God, to purpose what he knows will never be fulfilled?
If a man promised a thousand dollars to a blind man on the condition that he open his eyes and see, which he knows he cannot do, does that promise come from a heartfelt pity for the blind man's poverty, or from a mind to mock his misery? If the king promised to pay a ransom for the captives at Algiers on the condition that they conquer their tyrants, which he knows they cannot do, would this be a kingly act? It is like a man paying to redeem
captives, but not removing the chains that bind them to their prison walls; or promising dead men great rewards on the condition that they live again.
These are as fruitless to their ends as obtaining salvation for men on the condition that they believe without obtaining that condition for them. It assigns to the will and purpose of Jesus Christ something like this: "I will obtain eternal life, which will be bestowed on men and become theirs by applying the benefits of my death to them. But it will become theirs only on the condition that they believe. However, I will not reveal to countless numbers of them my mind and will in this matter, nor this condition. I know they are completely unable in themselves to perform the condition that I require. They are no more able than Lazarus was to rise, or a blind man to see. And yet, without performing this condition, none of the good things intended for them can ever become theirs. Nor will I procure that condition so that it can be fulfilled in them. That is, it is my will to have something done which I know will never be done, and cannot be done, because I will not do what is needed to accomplish it." Now, whether such a will and purpose as this befits the wisdom and goodness of our Savior, let the reader judge.
In brief, intending to do anyone good on their performance of a condition that the intender knows is absolutely beyond their strength, especially knowing that it cannot be done without him, and being resolved not to assist, is a vain and fruitless flourish. It would be unworthy of Christ (and useless to those for whom it is meant) to obtain eternal redemption from his
Father, when the Lord intends that they will never partake of it because they cannot perform the condition which will actually make it theirs. That is a hard saying indeed. Again, if through Christ God purposes to save everyone, because Christ died for all, but they will only be saved if they believe, and this faith is not purchased by Christ, and men are not able to believe by themselves, then how can any be saved?
"God bestows faith on some, but not on others," is my reply. Is this selective grace purchased for some by comparison to those who are bypassed? If it is, then did not Christ die equally for all. He would have died so that some might have faith, but not others. Indeed, in comparing them, he cannot be said to die for those others at all. He did not die to give them the faith he knew they needed to obtain everything else he purchased.
But if faith is not purchased for them by Christ, then would those who are
saved have no more to thank Christ for than those who are damned? That would be strange, and contrary to Rev.1:5-6, "To the one who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us kings and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever."
For my part, I do not think that Christ obtained salvation for men on the condition that they receive it; instead, he has so fully and perfectly obtained it that they must certainly receive it. He purchased salvation, which is to be bestowed on those who believe; but he also purchased faith along with it, so that they can believe.
Nor can it be objected that, according to our doctrine, God requires anything of men that they cannot do, for example, faith to believe in Christ.
Commands do not indicate what God intends should be done, but only what it is our duty to do. They may be made known to us whether we are able to perform those duties or not. They do not signify any intent or purpose of God. As for the promises linked to the command to believe:
First, it is not God's intent and purpose that Christ only died for us if we believe. It would be absurd for the act to constitute its own object.
Secondly, it is God's purpose that the death of Christ is profitable to us only if we do believe; which we argued before.
Thirdly, faith is the only way to salvation which God has appointed, so that all who believe will undoubtedly be saved. These two things, faith and salvation, are inseparably linked together, as will be declared.
ARGUMENT IV. Men are two sorts; Christ died for one, not for both.
If by God's eternal purpose, all of mankind is divided into two sorts or conditions, separately portrayed in the Scripture, and Christ is specifically said to die for one and not the other, then did he not die for all. For if he died for all, then he died for everyone of the one sort, and no one of the other.
First, Scripture identifies two sorts of men.
There is such a discriminating distinction between men, by the eternal purpose of God. There are those whom he "loves" and those whom he
"hates," Rom. 9:13; whom he "knows," and whom he "knows not," John 10:14; "I know my sheep;" 2Tim. 2:19, "The Lord knows those who are his;" Rom. 8:29, "Whom he foreknew;" Rom. 11:2, "His people which he foreknew;" "I know you not," Matt. 25:12; "I do not speak of you all; I know whom I have chosen," John 13:18.
There are those who are appointed to life and glory, and those appointed to destruction, the "elect" and the "reprobate." There are those who were
"ordained to eternal life," Acts 13:48, and those "of old ordained to condemnation," Jude 4. "He has chosen us in him," Eph. 1:4; "whom he predestined, he also called: and whom he called, he also justified: and whom he justified, he also glorified." Rom. 8:30. "God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation," l Thess. 5:9. "He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardens. Will you say then to me,
'Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?' No but, O man, who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why have you made me this way?' Does the potter not have power over the clay, to make of the same lump a vessel of honor, and another of dishonor?" Rom. 9:18-21. "Made to be taken and destroyed;"
2Pet. 2:12; "Sheep and goats," Matt 25:32; John 10 throughout.
There are those on whom he has "mercy," and those whom he "hardens,"
Rom. 9:18. There are those who are his "special people," Tit 2:14; "the children of promise," Gal. 4:28; who are "not of the world," John 15:19; his
"church," Col. 1:24. And then there are those who, in opposition to them, are "the world," Jn. 17:14; "not prayed for," John 17:9; and "not his people," Heb. 10:30; Rom. 8:9.
This distinction between men is ascribed everywhere in the Scripture to the purpose, will, and good pleasure of God. Prov. 16:4, "The Lord has made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil." Matt. 9:25, 26,
"I thank you, O Father, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes… for it seemed good in your sight." Rom. 9:11, 12, "The children not yet being born, having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the one who calls; it was said to her, 'The elder shall serve the younger.'" Rom. 9:16, 17, "So then it is not of the one who
wills, or the one who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, 'for this purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and my name might be declared throughout all the earth."
Rom. 9:28-30," Who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the first-born among many brothers. Moreover, whom he predestined, he also called: and whom he called, he also justified: and whom he justified, he also glorified." So the first part of the proposition is clear from the Scripture: men are of two sorts.
Second, Christ died only for the one sort.
Now, Christ is said to expressly die for those of the one sort: for his "people," Matt. 1:21; his "sheep," John 10:11, 14; his "church," Acts 20:28,
Eph 5:25. This sort is distinguished from the world, Rom. 5:8, 9, 106 John 11:51, 52.
107 He died for his "elect," Rom. 8:32-34; his "children," Heb.
2:12, 13, as declared before. From this we may surely conclude that Christ did not die for everyone. He did not die for those he "never knew,"
108 whom he "hates,"
109 whom he "hardens,"
110 on whom he "will not show mercy,"
112 in a word, he did not die for a reprobate. He did not die for the world he would not pray for. who were "ordained to condemnation;"
What some except is that, although Christ is said to die for his "sheep," for his "elect," his "chosen," he is not said to die only for them. Saying that the term is nowhere expressed is an argument that has no value. It does not require any forced interpretation to produce the same conclusion. Common sense and ise pf speech shows that if men are distinguished into two opposite conditions, such as elect and reprobate, or sheep and goats, then affirming that Christ died for his elect is equivalent to saying that he died for his elect only. The meaning is as clear as if the term "only" had been added. Where our Savior says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," John
14:6, he does not say that he is the only way, and yet that is how it must necessarily be understood. In Col. 1:19, "It pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell in him;" Paul does not say "only in him," and yet it would be blasphemy to say that of any other.
So this exception is unanswerable, as far as I can see. The response might be furthered by a larger explication of God's purpose in election and
reprobation. It could be shown how the death of Christ was a means set apart and appointed for saving his elect. It was not at all undergone and suffered for those whom God, in his eternal counsel, determined would perish for their sins, and so never partake of its benefits. But this must be addressed in the other part of this controversy, concerning the cause for sending Christ.
ARGUMENT V. Scripture nowhere says that Christ died for all men.
We should not assert or affirm anything that the Scripture does not address.
And the Scripture nowhere says that Christ died for all men, much less for all and every man (there is a wide difference between the two, as will be declared). Therefore, this is not to be asserted. It is true that Christ is said to give his life "a ransom for all," but nowhere does it say "for all men." It is expressly affirmed in other passages that he died for many, for his church, for those who believe, for the children that God gave him, for us, or for some of all sorts.
113 Because of that, it must be clearly proved that where "all" is mentioned, it cannot mean these limited groups, before we can conclude that it does mean universal. If men will just consider the particular passages, and contain themselves until they have done what is required, I am persuaded we will be at rest in this business.