Chapter 5: A further exploration of impetration and application
Book II, Chapter 5 On the Relationship Between Christ's Purchase and Its Application We've already shown in earlier chapters how this distinction between impetration (Christ obtaining blessings for us) and application (us actually receiving those blessings) can be used in a sound and biblical way. We also exposed the many errors that arise when this distinction is misused—especially in the hands of those who promote universal redemption. Since this misuse is truly the foundational error (proton pseudos) of their system, I'll strike it one more time in hopes of laying it finally to rest.
Let me plainly state the matter: Though impetration and application can be distinguished in thought, they must never be separated in reality. That is, whoever Christ truly obtained salvation for will certainly receive it. All whom Christ reconciled to God through His death will actually be reconciled to God in due time.
It is deeply flawed to imagine Christ's death as a kind of medicine in a bottle, sitting on a shelf, equally available to anyone who might happen to come and use it—its effect depending not on God's purpose but on chance or human choice. That would mean that Christ obtained every good thing for people without securing whether they would ever actually possess it. That's the Arminian view: Christ purchased forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation for everyone, but most of those people still perish in their sins—and always will.
Now, let me offer several reasons why this false gap between impetration and application is unreasonable, unbiblical, and ultimately impossible.
1. It Violates Common Sense In everyday speech, when someone "obtains" something for you, it means it now belongs to you. If a friend secures a job on your behalf, it's now your position by right, even if you haven't started it yet. The same is true of Christ's purchase. If He obtained redemption for someone, then by right it belongs to them. To say, "He obtained it, but they may or may not receive it," is to speak nonsense—it's to say it's theirs and not theirs in the same breath.
2. It Contradicts Divine Intention God's will that Christ should die for someone necessarily includes the will that Christ's death should be applied to them. Otherwise, we would have to say that God intentionally purposed that Christ die for someone—and at the same time, purposed that the person never benefit from it. That is absurd. In the biblical sense, to say Christ died for someone is to say His death is theirs by design. But in the universal view, Christ's death is supposedly for all, and yet its fruits are never even made known to the vast majority of people.
3. It Denies the Power of the Ransom Christ's death is called a ransom in places like Matthew 20:28—a payment made to secure the freedom of captives. And this ransom was paid according to the will of God the Father, who promised to
release those for whom the ransom was paid. To say that this ransom was fully paid, yet the captives remain forever in bondage, is to rob the cross of its power and make God's promise void. It's like claiming the price was paid in full, but the purchased goods were never delivered. That would be a strange and unworthy outcome for the work of Christ.
4. It Contradicts the Scriptures Finally, this false separation between Christ's purchase and its application simply cannot be reconciled with the Word of God. We have already shown in detail that the Bible presents the death of Christ as effectual—not merely making salvation possible, but actually purchasing and securing salvation for His people.
Those for whom Christ died will be saved. His sheep will hear His voice. His people will be justified, sanctified, and glorified.
As we'll demonstrate further in Book III, Chapter X, Scripture repeatedly testifies that impetration and application go hand in hand—one necessarily leads to the other.
Of the Conditional View of Redemption, and the Inseparability of Christ's Purchase and Its Application
Our opponents try to dismiss all that we've argued by appealing to a simple distinction—what they think is a clever solution to all the weighty objections raised against their view. Here it is: they say, "It's true that anything obtained absolutely and unconditionally for someone becomes theirs immediately. But if it's obtained on the basis of a condition, it's not theirs until the condition is fulfilled.
Christ purchased all good things for all people—but on the condition
of faith. Unless people meet that condition, they have no right to or share in what Christ obtained."
Some define this condition as simply not resisting the gospel. Others call it a yielding to the offer. Most plainly just call it faith. Well, let's grant for a moment that Christ purchased blessings for all people, conditional upon their believing. Then I say the following:
1. The Condition Must Be Revealed to All If Christ truly purchased salvation for all, but made it conditional upon faith, then surely the condition must be clearly revealed to all people for whom he died—especially since only he has the power to make it known. But this is obviously not the case. Suppose I paid a doctor to heal anyone who comes to him—but then I never told people about it, and no one else could. Can I sincerely claim to desire their healing? No. That's precisely what the universal redemption view entails.
2. Is the Condition Within Man's Power or Not?
Either all people have the power to fulfill the condition (faith), or they don't.
If they do, then all people can believe in Christ—and we know that is false.
If they don't, then God must either give them the ability to believe, or not.
If He does, why doesn't everyone believe? Why are not all saved?
If He does not, then what is the point of saying Christ died for them "for their good"? Is it truly good news to say:
"Christ died for you—if only you do something you are completely unable to do, and God won't help you"?
That's not salvation. That's a trap. It's like telling a blind man he can have a fortune—if only he can see it.
3. Is Faith Itself Purchased by Christ or Not?
Either faith is one of the blessings Christ died to purchase, or it's not.
If it's not, then the most essential part of salvation is left out of his work.
That diminishes the glory of Christ, contradicts Scripture (Titus 3:5–6; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 1:3;
Phil. 1:29), and severs the condition of salvation from the Savior who provides it.
If faith is a fruit of Christ's death, then why isn't it given to all, if he died for all? Their answer must be: "Faith is given to those who don't resist grace."
But that would imply all who don't resist the gospel are saved— including pagans, infants, and all to whom the gospel never came. That's absurd.
4. This View Reduces Christ to a HalfMediator If Christ obtains salvation, but not the means necessary to receive it, then he is not a full Savior. He starts the work, but cannot finish it.
He makes salvation possible, but not certain. That is not the Mediator of the new covenant revealed in Scripture.
Therefore… Even after their exception and distinction, the truth we've defended remains firm: What Christ obtained by his death is infallibly applied to all for whom he died. The two cannot be separated.
Summary of Our Position Let us close Book II with this clear affirmation:
Christ did not die for any on the condition that they believe.
He died for the elect of God in order that they would believe, and through faith inherit eternal life.
Faith is not a condition they must fulfill in their own strength before Christ's death becomes effective for them. It is one of the chief fruits and blessings purchased by Christ's blood. We do not say, "If you believe, then Christ died for you."
We say, "Christ died for you, and that is why you will believe."
Yes, salvation is bestowed on the condition of faith—but faith itself is secured absolutely for the elect through the cross of Christ.