CHAPTER V - Answer to Last Argument for Universalism
CHAPTER V - Answer to Last Argument for Universalism The last argument from Scripture answered.
III. Passages which affirm Christ bought, or died for, those who perish I come next to the third and last argument, drawn from the Scripture, with which the Arminians and their successors (as to this point) strive to maintain their figment of universal redemption. It is taken from those texts of Scripture which seem to show the perishing of some of those for whom
Christ died, and the fruitlessness of his blood with regard to various persons for whom it was shed. On this theme, their wits are wonderfully luxuriant and they are full of rhetorical strains to lay out the unsuccessfullness and fruitlessness of the blood of Christ with regard to most for whom it was shed, with the perishing of bought, purged, and reconciled sinners. Who can believe that this kind of persuasion aids the consolation of poor souls? Its strongest defense lies in making the precious blood of the Lamb vile, indeed, trampling upon it, and treating it as a common thing. But, friends, let me tell you, I am persuaded it was not so unvaluable in the eyes of his
Father, that He would cause it to be poured out in vain with regard to any soul. But we must be put to this defense. We cannot but rejoice in this, because it so evidently tends to the honor of our blessed Savior. So let us consider what can be said by those Christians (at least in name) who would enervate 279 the efficacy of the blood-shedding of Christ's death, the very one by whose name they desire to be called. Thus, then, they argue:
"If Christ died for reprobates and those who perish, then he died for everyone, for confessedly he died for the elect and those who are saved; but he died for reprobates, and those who perish: therefore," etc.
ANSWER: For the assumption or second proposition of this argument, we will do what we conceive was fit for all the elect of God to do, to positively deny it. We consider the death of Christ, which is here said to be for reprobates, not with regard to its own internal worth and sufficiency, but as it was intended by the Father and Son with regard to those for whom he
died. We deny, then, that Christ laid down his life for reprobates and those who perish, by the command of his Father, and with the intention to make satisfaction for their sins.
This, then, they prove from Rom. 14:15; 1Cor. 8:11; 2Pet. 2:1; Heb. 10:29.
Now, we will show that no such thing as they pretend, is proved from any of the passages alleged; and we will do so by considering them in the order they are laid down.
1. Rom. 14:15
The first is Rom. 14:15, "But if your brother is grieved with your [eating] meat, then you do not walk charitably. Do not destroy with your meat the one for whom Christ died."
ANSWER: Had we not experienced the nimbleness of our adversaries in framing arguments for their cause, I would despair to find their conclusion pressed out of this place; for what coherence or dependence, I beseech you, is to be discerned here? "The apostle exhorts strong and sound believers to such a moderate use of Christian liberty that they do not grieve the spirit of the weak ones, who were also believers (professors, all called 'saints, elect, believers, redeemed,' and in charity they were so esteemed), and so give them occasion to stumble and fall from the gospel: therefore, Jesus Christ died for all reprobates, even those who never heard word or syllable of him, or the doctrine of the gospel." One would have to be very quick-sighted to see the dependence of this inference on that exhortation of the apostle.
But you might say, "Is it not affirmed that he for whom Christ died may perish?"
ANSWER: In this passage there is no such thing at all mentioned or intimated even once; only other believers are commanded not to do what goes in a direct way to destroy this person by grieving him with their uncharitable walking.
"But why should the apostle exhort him not to do what he could in no way do, if the one for whom Christ died could not perish?"
ANSWER: Though the one could not perish with regard to the event, the other might sinfully give cause for perishing with regard to a procuring cause. May not a man be exhorted from attempting that which, even if he should attempt it, he could not effect it? It was no thanks to the soldier who
ran a spear into the side of our dead Redeemer, that he broke none of his bones. Besides, is every one damned that someone else attempts to destroy by grieving him with uncharitable walking? Such arguments are poorlymade straw men. Yet, notwithstanding that, we do not deny that many may perish and utterly so, whom in our walking towards them and in our conversation with them, we are bound to conceive of as redeemed by Christ; even all who think themselves redeemed are to be esteemed "saints and brethren," as the language of the Scripture calls those who profess the gospel. And this is most certain, that no place in Scripture mentions any who were to be bought or redeemed by our Savior, except those who had the qualification of being members of this visible church; which comes infinitely short of everyone.
2. 1Cor. 8:11
But let us see a second verse, which is 1Cor. 8:11, "And through your knowledge shall your weak brother perish, for whom Christ died." This seems to have more color, but really it yields no more strength to persuade than the previous verse. A brother is said to perish for whom Christ died. I cannot apprehend that "perishing" here means eternal destruction and damnation. What the apostle intimates caused this perishing, is eating things offered to an idol with a guilty conscience, regarding the idol as something, justifying his eating by the example of others who pretended to know that an idol was nothing; and so the weak brother ate freely of the things offered to them. None can doubt that doing so was a sin for him, which is in its own nature damnable. All sin is damnable; every time we sin, for anything that lies in us, we perish, we are destroyed. So the eater of things offered to idols perished. But we deny that God always revenges sin with damnation on all in whom it is found; he has revealed himself otherwise in the blood of Jesus Christ. It cannot be proved that every such person actually perished eternally, as well as meritoriously. Besides, the one who is said to perish is called a brother, that is, a believer; we are brethren only by faith, by which we come to have one Father. As he is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die for him. It may easily be proved that a true believer cannot finally perish; therefore, he who does perish is manifestly declared never to have been a believer: "They went out from us, because they were not of us." If anyone perishes, then, he was never a true believer.
How, then, is he said to be a brother? Because he is so in profession, and he
is so in our judgment and persuasion; it is fitting for us to think so of all of them. As he is said to be a brother, so Christ is said to die for him, even in that judgment which the Scripture allows us of men. We cannot count a man a brother, and not esteem that Christ died for him; we have no brotherhood with reprobates. Christ died for all believers, John 17.
So we esteem all men believers who are walking in the due profession of the gospel, and who do not manifest the contrary; yet, no one ever denied that many of these may perish. Furthermore, "so shall he perish" refers to the sin of the one who lays the offense; for nothing that lies in him, he ruins him irrecoverably. Hence we see their argument: "The apostle tells persons walking offensively, that by abusing their liberty in this way, others will follow them, to the wounding of their conscience and ruin; these are brethren, acknowledged so by you, and those for whom Christ died: therefore, Christ died for all the reprobates in the world. 'Is it just and equal,' asks the apostle, 'that, you should do things that will put stumblingblocks in the way of the weak brother, things at which he might stumble and fall?' Therefore, Christ died for all." We do not deny that some may perish, eternally so, concerning those whom we ought to judge that Christ died for, and while they live and converse with us according to the rule of the gospel. [What we do deny is that they were ever elect].
3. 2Pet. 2:1
The next verse, 2Pet. 2:1, is greatly insisted on, "There shall be false teachers, denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruction." All things here, as to any proof of the business in hand, are exceedingly dark, uncertain, and doubtful. It is uncertain, that "the Lord" means the Lord Christ; the word in the original is (NT:1203 despotes), which is seldom or never ascribed to him. It is uncertain whether the purchase or buying of these false teachers refers to their eternal redemption by the blood of Christ, or a deliverance from the defilement of the world in idolatry or the like, effected by God's goodness and by the knowledge of the truth, which the last part of the text expressly affirms (v.
20). It is uncertain, whether the apostle speaks of this purchase according to the reality of the thing, or according to their own apprehension and their profession of it.
On the other side, it is most certain,
First, that there are no distinguishing spiritual fruits of redemption ascribed to these false teachers, but only common gifts of light and knowledge, which Christ has purchased for many for whom he did not make his soul a ransom.
Secondly, that, according to our adversaries, the redemption of anyone by the blood of Christ cannot be a special aggravation of the sins of anyone because they say he died for all; and yet this buying of the false teachers is held out as an aggravation of their sin in particular.
I will give a brief account of the former uncertainties upon which our adversaries build their inference of universal redemption (which can still by no means be wire-drawn 283 from that, even if they were most certain in their meaning), and then I will say something as to the proper intent of the passage.
For the FIRST, it is most uncertain whether Christ as mediator is intended by "Lord" here or not. There is nothing in the text to force us to conceive of it this way; the contrary seems apparent,
First, because in the following verses only God, as God, is mentioned with his dealings towards such as these; there is not a word of Christ.
Secondly, the name despotes, properly herus (Latin), which is attended by dominion and sovereignty, is not usually, if at all, given to our Savior in the New Testament; he is called kurios everywhere, but nowhere is he clearly called despotes, as the Father is in Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, and in various other passages. Besides, if it should appear that this name were given to our Savior in any one place, does it therefore follow that it must be so here? No. Is the name proper for our Savior in the work of redemption? Despotes is a Lord or Master as it refers to servants and subjection; the outcome of Christ's purchasing anyone by his blood in the Scripture is always and constantly expressed in other terms of more endearment.
It is, then, most uncertain that Christ should be understood by the word "Lord".
For the SECOND, suppose that he should be intended here; it is most uncertain that by buying these false teachers it means he purchased them with the ransom of his blood; for,
First, the apostle insists on a comparison with Old Testament times, and the false prophets that were among the people then. He backs his assertion with various examples out of the Old Testament throughout the following chapter. Now, the word "bought" used here (NT:59 agorazo), signifies primarily the buying of a thing; metaphorically, it means the redemption of persons; and the word (OT:6299 padah) in the Old Testament, which corresponds to it, signifies any deliverance, as in Deut. 7:8, 15:15, Jer.
15:21, with countless other passages: and therefore, only some such deliverance is intimated here.
Secondly, there is no mention of the blood, death, price, or offering of Jesus Christ here, as in other passages where proper redemption is addressed; to specifically express proper redemption, some expression is added where the word agorazo is used, as in 1Cor. 6:20 ("bought with a price") and Rev. 5:9 ("by your blood"), which distinguishes it from deliverance in common from any trouble.
Thirdly, the apostle sets forth at large the deliverance they had, and the means of that deliverance in verse 20. It affirms that it consists in the "escaping of the pollutions of the world," such as idolatry, false worship, and the like, "through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ;" this plainly declares that their purchase was only with regard to this separation from the world, and with regard to the enjoyment of the knowledge of the truth; but he is wholly silent as to washing them in the blood of the Lamb.
Plainly, there is no purchase mentioned of these false teachers, but only a deliverance by God's dispensations towards them, from the blindness of Judaism or Paganism, by the knowledge of the gospel; by this deliverance, the Lord bought them to be his servants as their supreme head. So our adversaries' argument from this passage is this: "God the Lord, by imparting the knowledge of the gospel, and working these teachers toward a professed acknowledgment of it and subjection to it, separated and delivered from the world various "saints" who were so only in an outward show, but who were really wolves and hypocrites, ordained of old to condemnation: therefore, Jesus Christ shed his blood for the redemption and salvation of all reprobates and damned persons in the whole world." Who would not admire our adversaries' chemistry?
For the THIRD, it is no more certain that the apostle speaks of the purchase of the wolves and hypocrites with regard to the reality of that purchase; it is rather with regard to the estimation which others had of them and, by reason of their outward seeming profession, they ought to have had; and by reason of the profession that they themselves made to be purchased by him whom they pretended to preach to others. As the Scripture says [of Abaz],
"The gods of Damascus struck him," because he himself so imagined and professed, 2Chron. 28:23. The latter verse makes it probable that it is the perpetual course of the Scripture to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the fellowship of the church, which are proper only to those who are true spiritual members of the same church, so as to render all to be saints, elect, redeemed, etc. Now, the truth is, from their profession, they were bought by Christ; the apostle might justly, and according to the opinion of our adversaries, press these false teachers as having their sin aggravated.
For the thing itself, being bought, it could no more be urged as applying to them as to heathens and infidels who never heard of the name of the Lord
Jesus.
Now, after all this, if our adversaries can prove universal redemption from this text, let them never despair of success in anything they undertake, be it never so absurd, fond, or foolish. But only when they have first completed the work already cut out for them, and proved, first, that "the Lord" means Christ as mediator; secondly, that "buying" means spiritual redemption by the blood of the Lamb; thirdly, that these false teachers were really and effectually redeemed, and not accounted so simply because they belonged to the church; fourthly, that those who are really and effectually redeemed may perish, contrary to the express Scripture in Rev. 14:4,
fifthly, demonstrate the strength of this [unwarranted] inference, "Some in the church who have acknowledged Christ to be their purchaser, fall away to blaspheme him, and perish forever; therefore, Christ bought and redeemed all that ever did or shall perish;" sixthly, how it may be that what is common to all becomes a specific aggravation to the sin of any one person more than others;
I assure them that they will have more work provided for them, which they themselves already know for a good part where to find the answers.
4. Heb. 10:29
The last place produced for the confirmation of the argument in hand is Heb. 10:29, "Of how much worse punishment do you suppose, shall he be thought worthy of, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has considered the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done insult to the Spirit of grace?" "Nothing," say our adversaries, "could be affirmed of all this concerning apostates, namely,
'That they have trodden under foot,' etc., unless the blood of Christ was in some sense shed for them."
ANSWER: The intention of the apostle in this place is the same as the general aim and scope of the whole epistle, which is to persuade and urge the Jews, who had embraced the doctrine of the gospel, to perseverance and continuance in it. This he does, as in other places, with diverse and various arguments. Most of them are taken from a comparison at large instituted between the gospel in its administration, and those legal shadows which, they lived under before their profession, and to which they were in bondage. So here, too, he urges a strong argument to the same purpose "ab incommode, seu effectu pernicioso,"
285 from the miserable, dangerous effects and consequences of the sin of backsliding, and willful renunciation of the truth which is known and professed, using any motives and inducements he can bring to bear; which he assures [them] will be no less than totally throwing away and depriving themselves of all hopes and means of recovery, with the dreadful horror of conscience in expectation of judgment to come, vv. 26-27.
Now, this he confirms, as is his manner in this epistle, from some thing, way, and practice which was known to them, and with which they were all acquainted by that administration of the covenant under which they had lived before in their Judaism; and so he makes up his inference from a comparison of the lesser offense to this one. He takes his example from the punishment due, by God's own appointment, to all those who transgressed
Moses' law in the same way as apostates sin against the gospel – that is, "with a high hand," or "presumptuously". For such a person was to die without mercy, as in Num. 15:30-31.
Then, having abundantly proved that the gospel, and the manifestation of its grace, is to be far preferred to and exalted above the old ceremonies of the law, he concludes that certainly a much worse punishment (which he leaves to their judgment to determine) awaits those who willfully violate the holy gospel and despise the declaration of grace contained in it, and revealed by it. To further manifest this, he sets forth the nature and quality of this sin into which all those who are professing redemption and deliverance by the blood of Christ, shall willfully cast themselves. "It is," he says, "no less than to tread under foot or despise the Son of God; to esteem the blood of the covenant, by which he was set apart and sanctified in the profession of the gospel, to be like the blood of a vile man; and thereby to insult the Spirit of grace." This being (as is confessed) the plain meaning and aim of the apostle, we may observe various things, to vindicate this passage from the abuse of our adversaries. Such as, First, He speaks here only of those who were professors of the faith of the gospel, separated from the world, brought into a church state and fellowship, professing themselves to be sanctified by the blood of Christ, receiving and owning Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as in Heb. 4:4-5.
286 Now, it is most certain that these things are specific only to some, indeed to a very few, in comparison to the universality of the sons of men; so what is affirmed of such men can by no means be extended to all men. Now, if any one may be exempted, then universal redemption falls to the ground; from the condition of a very few, having qualifications which the multitude do not have, nothing can be concluded concerning all men.
Secondly, the apostle neither declares what has been, nor does he assert what may be, but only adds a threat of punishment based on a supposition of something happening. His main aim is to deter believers from the thing, rather than to signify that it may actually be possible. He does this by showing the misery that must necessarily follow if it should come to pass.
When Paul told the soldiers in Acts 27:31, that if the mariners fled away in the boat they could not be saved, he did not intend to signify to them that they would necessarily be drowned if they did it. For God had declared the contrary to him the night before, and he conveyed that message to them; but he only wanted to exhort them to prevent what was a likely way for their ruin and perishing. Neither will the Remonstrants,
with all their rhetoric, ever persuade us that it is in vain and altogether fruitless to forewarn men of an evil, and to exhort them to take heed of those ways, and the relationship among those ways, by which that evil is naturally to be incurred; even though, with regard to the purpose of God, the thing itself has no possibility, nor will it ever come to pass. A threat of punishment of the judgment, due to apostasy, is an appointed means to preserve the saints from that sin; it may be held out to them even though it is impossible that the elect should be seduced. Now, that Paul deals here only with a supposition 287 is apparent from verse 26, where he introduces this argument and the motive to persevere: "For if we sin willfully." As to whether believers may actually do so, he does not speak one word; but if they should do so, he shows what would be the effect; as to whether the soldiers in the ship would perish, Paul did not tell them; but yet he showed what must come to pass if the means of prevention were not used. Now, if this is the intention of the apostle, as is most likely by speaking in the first person, "If we sin willfully," then nothing in the world can be concluded from this, either for the universality of redemption or the apostasy of saints; for this passage is usually urged for both those ends; for "suppositio nil ponit in esse."
Thirdly, it is most certain that those of whom he speaks did make a profession of all those things mentioned here, namely, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant, and enlightened by the Spirit of grace; indeed, as is apparent from the parallel passage, Heb. 6:4-5, they had many gifts of illumination; besides this, in their initiation by baptism, they made open profession and demonstration of these things. So that by renouncing all these things, and openly detesting them, as was the manner of apostates, and cursing the name of Christ, this became a sin of such deep an abomination, attended with so many aggravations, that it might well have this remarkable threat of punishment annexed to it, even though the apostates never had any true effectual interest in the blood of Jesus.
Fourthly, it was the manner of the saints, and the apostles themselves, to esteem as sanctified everyone who is baptized, all initiated persons, everyone ingrafted into the church; so that, when speaking of backsliders,
Paul could not make mention of them at the time in any way other than as they were commonly esteemed to be, and were considered to be, in the
judgment of charity. Whether those to whom this argument against apostasy is proposed were true believers or not, but only temporary, they could not be otherwise described according to the usual manner of speech used by the Holy Ghost.
Fifthly, if the text is interpreted positively, and according to the truth of the thing itself in both its parts (1. that those of whom the apostle speaks were truly sanctified; 2. that true believers may totally perish), then these two things will inevitably follow from it: first, faith and sanctification are not the fruit of election; secondly, believers may fall finally from Christ. I have yet to find either of these assertions owned by our new universalists, though both of them are contended for by our old Arminians.
Sixthly, there is nothing of force in the text to persuade us that the persons spoken of here must be truly justified and regenerated believers, much less that Christ died for them; which comes in only by strained consequences.
Only one expression seems to give any color to this, that they were said to be "sanctified by the blood of the covenant." Now, concerning this, we need only consider the following, first, the manner and custom of the apostles in writing to the churches was to call them all "saints", ascribing to every one what belonged only to some; secondly, these persons were baptized; among the ancients, this ordinance was sometimes called "enlightenment," or "sanctification"; by a solemn sprinkling of the symbol of the blood of Christ, they were externally sanctified, separated, and set apart, and they were esteemed as saints and believers by all; thirdly, the various meanings of the word hagaizo (NT:5719) "sanctify"
(used here) in the Scripture, the one most frequently intended is to consecrate and set apart to any holy use, as in 2Chron. 29:33 and Lev.
16:4; fourthly, in this epistle Paul uses many words and phrases in a temple sense, alluding to the old legal observances in the things and ways of the Christian church; fifthly, this supposed and professed sanctity is often called and esteemed to be sanctity, but only in its estimation. If we consider these things, it will be most apparent that what is intended here is not at all the true,
real, internal, effectual sanctification which is proper to God's elect.
Rather, it is only a common external setting apart from the ways of the world and customs of the old synagogue (having the repute and the esteem of real holiness), and setting apart to an enjoyment of the ordinance of Christ representing the blood of the covenant.
So this threat of punishment is being made to all who are so externally and apparently sanctified; and to those who were truly so, it declared the certain connection between apostasy and condemnation, thereby warning them to avoid it. Joseph was warned to flee into Egypt, lest Herod slay the child; yet, with regard to God's purpose, that could not be effected; it would not happen. With regard to those who were only apparently sanctified, this warning held out the odiousness of the sin, with their own certain inevitable destruction if they fell into it; which it was possible they might do.
And thus, by the Lord's assistance, have I given you, I hope, a clear solution to all the arguments which up to this point the Arminians pretended to draw from the Scripture in the defense of their cause; some other sophisms will be removed shortly. But because of late we have had a proliferation of arguments on this subject, some of which, at least in form, appear to be new, and these may cause some trouble to the unskillful, I will in the next portion remove all those objections which Thomas Moore in his book, "The Universality of Free Grace," has gathered together against our main thesis, which is that Christ died only for the elect; Moore puts his objections together in one bundle in chapter 20, sec. 6 of his book, calling them "reasons".