Chapter 8: A digression: an account of a theological discussion on Christ's satisfaction
refuted.
And so, we conclude this chapter: The satisfaction of Christ, rightly understood, is completely incompatible with the idea of a universal redemption. Christ's death was a true and just satisfaction made to God for specific persons—the elect—and not for all indiscriminately.
Book III, Chapter 8 A Digression: A Discussion on Christ's Satisfaction While I was working on the previous chapter about Christ's satisfaction, a man (whose name I will withhold out of respect for his character and humility) came to the place where I live. In a private address on Christ's sufferings, he presented ideas that seemed to undermine—or even deny—Christ's satisfaction. Concerned about the dangerous implications, I responded publicly to clarify the truth.
Later, at his request, we had a respectful and thoughtful debate on the subject.
During that conversation, it became clear to me what he believed and where his misunderstanding lay. His error stemmed from this idea: that God's eternal and unchanging love for the elect places them in such a secure condition that they cannot be said to need satisfaction.
Since the purpose of satisfaction is to remove wrath and make atonement for sin, and God has always been pleased with his elect, then—so the argument goes—they have no need of satisfaction.
Instead, what they need is a clearer understanding of that love to relieve the guilt and fear brought about by Adam's fall and their own lack of assurance.
In this view, Christ came not to satisfy God's justice but simply to reveal God's eternal love—to take away our sins by removing the misunderstanding and fear that clouded our consciences. In short, this position turns election into a denial of redemption.
How our debate ended is for the judgment of those who heard it, as it was intended for their benefit. But because the issue is weighty— blending truth with serious error, affirming some necessary doctrines while denying others—I believe it's worth summarizing and correcting here. I'll begin with the doctrine of God's eternal love for the elect and what it actually implies.
Clarifying the Eternal Love of God 1. This is not a new teaching—but an old objection.
What is now presented by some as a "fresh insight" into God's grace is actually a recycled error. The idea that election makes satisfaction unnecessary was raised long ago by the Pelagians against Augustine.
Calvin answered the same objection in his Institutes (Book 2, Chapter 16), and even the medieval scholastics dealt with it (see
Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III, Q. 49, A. 4). Despite its obvious flaws, this argument was revived by the Arminians at the Synod of Dort as a key objection to Christ's definite redemption of the elect. Now, some today are not merely raising it as a challenge—but embracing it as truth. In their hands, the logic becomes this: if election is true, then satisfaction is unnecessary.
2. Election and reprobation stand or fall together.
If God's decree of election means the elect are already justified and saved, needing only a clearer awareness of that fact, then the same must be said of the reprobate: that they are already damned, only waiting for it to be revealed. But that contradicts everything we see in God's dealings with mankind. The elect are not saved until they believe (John 3:18), and the reprobate are not damned apart from sin and unbelief (2 Thess. 2:10–12).
3. God's eternal love is not a changeable emotion.
God's love is not a fluctuating passion like human affection. He is unchanging in his essence (James 1:17). His eternal love is not an emotional reaction but an act of his sovereign will. Scripture calls it his "good pleasure" (Matt. 11:26), his "purpose according to election"
(Rom. 9:11), and "the foundation of God" (2 Tim. 2:19).
This eternal purpose of God does not itself change anything in the creature. It is an inward act of God's will, not an outward action. It doesn't create actual justification or salvation until God works outwardly by his Spirit to bring it about.
Take this example: God eternally purposed to create the world, but the world did not exist until he actually made it. Similarly, he has purposed a day of judgment—but that day has not yet come. In the same way, though he has eternally purposed to justify certain individuals through Christ, they are not justified until he brings them to faith.
So yes, God has eternally loved his elect. But this love does not mean they were eternally justified. Rather, they are brought to justification in time, by the Spirit applying Christ's satisfaction to them.
First, God's eternal love for his elect is nothing other than his sovereign purpose—his good pleasure—an eternal act of his will. It is his determination to do certain things for them in his appointed time and manner.
Second, no purpose or eternal decree of God in itself brings about any outward effect. It does not change the nature or condition of the person or thing concerned. What it does is make the eventual outcome certain, but it does not create any present change until God acts to carry out that purpose.
Third, when Scripture speaks of God's wrath or anger against sinners, it doesn't mean that God experiences emotional agitation like we do. Rather, it refers to the actual consequences and judgments that follow from sin—guilt, bondage, condemnation, and so forth.
Fourth, even though God has eternally purposed to save the elect, that eternal purpose does not automatically remove them from their fallen state. Until God takes some decisive action in time—some gracious intervention—they remain under wrath and judgment just like all others.
To illustrate this: God holds all humanity in his hand, like clay in the hands of a potter. He determines to make some into vessels of honor for the praise of his grace, and others into vessels of dishonor to reveal his justice. He allows them all to fall into sin and guilt, so that by nature, all are liable to wrath and condemnation. His purpose to save some does not, in and of itself, change their fallen condition.
That purpose must be acted upon by some distinct work of grace— some historical, temporal act—that draws them to himself.
This point can be further clarified with a few arguments:
1. If all that sinners need is a better understanding of God's eternal love, then justification becomes nothing more than realizing that God has chosen them.
But that's not what Scripture teaches. Justification is not simply God revealing his election. Nor is it merely our realization that God loves us. There is no biblical support for the idea that God's act of justifying a sinner is the same as him disclosing his eternal purpose.
It's true that believers can and do gain assurance of God's eternal love, as in Romans 5:5—"God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us"—but that happens after they have been "justified by faith" and have "peace with God"
(Rom. 5:1). In 2 Peter 1:10, we are told to make our calling and election sure, not that we are justified by it.
In Scripture, justification is God's legal declaration that an ungodly person, upon believing in Christ, is absolved from guilt and accounted righteous through Christ's perfect obedience. God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), by granting them Christ's righteousness
(Rom. 3:22). Nowhere does Scripture define justification as simply the manifestation of God's eternal purpose.
2. Scripture clearly teaches that all people, before they are reconciled to God, are in the same fallen condition.
Until God's grace makes a distinction, all are equally lost. "There is none who does good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12). Jews and Gentiles
alike are "under sin" (v.9). All the world is "guilty before God" (v.19), liable to judgment.
Even those who later believe and are saved are, by nature, "children of wrath, just like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:3). What makes the difference is not God's eternal decree in itself, but his actual, in-time work of grace in the sinner's life.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What do you have that you did not receive?" That's because all distinguishing grace is the result of God's action, not our condition.
So, here's the question: Do those who are reprobate lie under God's wrath while they are in sin? Of course they do.
But what about the elect—do they lie under wrath while still unconverted? If not, what real, actual difference exists between them and the reprobate while they're in the same sinful state?
There is none—until grace makes the difference.
So then, if the wrath of God abides on the one, it must also abide on the other, until God in time brings about the effect of his eternal purpose.
Unless someone can point to a real and present difference between the elect and the reprobate while still in unbelief, the argument falls apart.
3. Answering the Error That the Elect Are Never Under Wrath Let's consider what it means, according to Scripture, to be under the effects of God's wrath—and then ask whether the elect are truly
delivered from this condition before they are actually called to Christ.
The Bible describes this condition in several ways:
1. Alienation from God—So much so that even their religious acts are offensive to him: "The prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 28:9).
2. Unsanctified Enjoyments—They cannot enjoy any blessing in a holy way. "To the defiled, nothing is pure" (Titus 1:15).
3. Dominion of Satan—They are under Satan's power. "The spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).
4. Bondage to Death—They live in fear and slavery. "Through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Heb. 2:15).
5. Under the Curse of the Law—They bear its condemning power (Gal. 3:13).
6. Liable to Judgment—They are guilty and deserving of eternal condemnation (Rom. 3:19).
7. Slaves to Sin—They live under its rule (Rom. 6:19).
All these are the effects of God's wrath.
Now, tell me: What more do the reprobate suffer in this life than these things? Are not the elect themselves in this exact condition— until they are actually reconciled to God in Christ?
Let's walk through this:
Are their prayers acceptable to God? No. Without faith, it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6). But if they had faith, they
would already be reconciled.
Are their daily blessings sanctified to them? No. Without faith, nothing is sanctified (1 Cor. 7:14).
Are they free from Satan's power? No. If they were, there would be no need for Christ to destroy the works of the devil (1 John
3:8). But he came to do just that (Heb. 2:14).
Are they free from bondage to death? No. Until they are redeemed, they live in fear and servitude to death (Heb. 2:15).
Are they not under the law's curse? Paul tells us they are, and Christ became a curse for them to redeem them from it (Gal.
3:13).
Are they not under judgment? Paul says "all the world is guilty before God" (Rom. 3:19), and that Christ came to save us from the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:10).
Are they not slaves to sin? Paul thanks God that his readers were once slaves to sin until they obeyed the gospel (Rom. 6:17).
In short, Scripture overwhelmingly teaches that the elect remain under the guilt and misery of sin, like all others, until Christ sets them free.
Now, some try to escape this conclusion by saying that all of this is true only in their own perception—that the elect merely feel as if they are under wrath, but in reality they are not.
But if this is only perception, why does the Bible speak in the same terms of all people, with no distinction between elect and reprobate in their natural state? If it's all just a misapprehension, then let's fix
the whole world by changing their perception—and just tell them sin is imaginary, the Bible is a scare tactic, and God's judgment is just a myth. That would be nonsense. Such teaching eats away at truth like a cancer.
4. Let me add one more Scripture, though many could be given:
"Whoever does not believe the Son, the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36).
Notice: it remains. It doesn't just come upon them; it is already there and continues, unless and until they believe. But once they believe, it is removed.
Now, someone might ask, "Isn't it God's love that frees us from his wrath?" Yes, of course. But does that mean we are already free just because God intends to free us?
Is an apprentice a free man simply because his freedom is promised at the end of seven years? Just because God has purposed to deliver his elect in due time, does that mean they are already free before he actually does it?
"But aren't we in Christ from eternity?" Yes, in a sense—we were chosen in Christ from eternity (Eph. 1:4). But how? Not actually, but by God's purpose. Are we eternal? No—we were not yet born. Our eternal election does not mean we were already justified or reconciled before we existed. Just as we are not actually eternal beings, so we are not actually in Christ until we are united to him in time.