Chapter 10: On the merit of Christ and how it supports definite atonement
To interpret "bearing sin" as meaning "revealing we were always righteous" is not just a mistake—it's a corruption of God's Word.
Everywhere in Scripture, to "bear sin" means to suffer the punishment due to it (cf. Lev. 5:1). That is what Christ did.
Any theology that tries to explain this away is nothing more than a clever trick—"a cunning gamester," —trying to cheat the believer of their only true foundation.
Conclusion of the Digression Though I could multiply texts and arguments, I have pressed the point far enough for a mere digression. I won't attempt now a full response to every objection—though I'm aware of those raised in the debate that sparked this discussion. They were so weak and ineffective that I fear repeating them might lead some to suspect I invented straw men just to defeat them easily.
But let me say this: those who deny the satisfaction of Christ are striking at the very heart of the gospel. They are not merely rearranging doctrines—they are removing the only shelter we have from the wrath to come.
Without Christ as our substitute, bearing our sin, suffering our penalty, and drinking the cup of wrath for us, there is no peace, no pardon, and no gospel.
Book III, Chapter 10:
Christ's Merit—Its Nature and Implications Argument XIV The fourth truth the Bible ascribes to Christ's death is this: merit— the infinite worth of his obedience and suffering, by which he earned and secured every saving blessing for all those for whom he died.
Though the word "merit" isn't used in the New Testament (at least not in any Greek manuscript or faithful translation), the reality it describes is found everywhere. Roman Catholics sometimes point to Hebrews 13:16 in the Latin Vulgate, where the word promeretur appears, but even there it's an awkward and inaccurate rendering of the original word (euaresteo), which simply means "pleasing." In fact, no word in either biblical language directly means "merit" in its native, legal sense. But the concept is unmistakably biblical.
For example:
Isaiah 53:5: "The chastisement that brought us peace was upon him, and with his wounds we are healed."
His suffering accomplished, or merited, our peace and healing.
Hebrews 9:12: "By his own blood he obtained eternal redemption."
That word "obtained" (heuramenos) points to a purchase— something earned and secured.
Acts 20:28: "He purchased the church of God with his own blood."
That language of purchase is the heart of what we mean by
"merit." Christ's death didn't just make salvation possible—it acquired it.
These ideas—merit, purchase, impetration (securing a benefit)—are interchangeable in this context. Romans 4:4 gives the clearest definition: "To the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." In other words, merit is the accomplishment of a work that obligates a reward according to justice.
Now, virtually all Christians (except perhaps the Socinians) affirm that Christ's death accomplished something real and definite—that it purchased salvation for sinners. So we may safely treat this principle as settled.
What Did Christ Merit?
Christ, by his death, merited every spiritual blessing for those he died to redeem. We can group these blessings under two headings: what he delivered us from, and what he secured for us.
I. What He Delivered Us From (Privative Blessings) 1. The hand of our enemies – Luke 1:74
2. The wrath to come – 1 Thess. 1:10
3. The power of death – Heb. 2:14
4. The works of the devil – 1 John 3:8
5. The curse of the law – Gal. 3:13
6. Our vain way of life – 1 Pet. 1:18
7. The present evil age – Gal. 1:4
8. This world and its condemnation – Rev. 14:3–4 9. The guilt of our sins – Heb. 1:3
II. What He Secured For Us (Positive Blessings) 1. Reconciliation with God – Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:16
2. Propitiation and peace – Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2
3. Salvation itself – Matt. 1:21
4. Adoption, sanctification, eternal life, and every grace, as summarized in Ephesians 1:3–4 and Philippians 1:29
All of this Christ purchased for those for whom he died. And because he merited it by his obedience and blood, God is not merely free to give these blessings—he is justly bound to do so.
It was pure grace that moved God to send his Son. It was pure grace that determined whom he would save. And it is pure grace that applies salvation to any of us. But—here's the key—once God appointed Christ to merit these things for a specific people, and once Christ fulfilled that work, then God, in his justice, must give what Christ purchased.
To deny this is to deny either the sufficiency of Christ's merit or the faithfulness of the Father.
What Does This Mean for "Universal Redemption"?
Now we see how impossible it is to reconcile universal redemption with the true doctrine of Christ's merit.
Let me ask one simple question:
If Christ truly merited grace and glory for everyone—if he died for all people—why aren't all people saved?
Where does the failure lie?
Did Christ's merit fall short?
Has God's justice failed to honor the purchase?
Or must we say, as some do, that Christ's death only purchased a possibility of salvation, not salvation itself?
But if even faith itself was part of what Christ merited for his people—as Scripture teaches (Eph. 1:4; Phil. 1:29)—then no condition remains unmet. Everything necessary for salvation has already been purchased by Christ, and it must be applied.
So if Christ died for all, and yet all are not saved, then either:
Christ did not truly merit salvation for all, or God does not honor the merit of his Son.
Both conclusions are blasphemous.
No—the truth is better:
Christ died for his people, and for them only. And for them, he secured every blessing of salvation, including their very faith, repentance, and final glory. The justice of God demands that all
Christ merited must be bestowed upon those for whom he died. That is the power of his cross, and the foundation of our assurance.
Argument XV: Christ Died in the Place of Sinners—Not for All Another decisive argument comes from the very language Scripture uses to describe Christ's death—phrases like "dying for us,"
"bearing our sins," and being our "surety." All these expressions, rightly understood, make it impossible to hold to the idea that Christ died equally for every person without distinction.
What Does It Mean That Christ "Died for Us"?
In Scripture, to "die for" someone clearly means to die in their place—to take their place in judgment, so they might go free.
In Genesis 44:33, Judah pleads with Joseph to let him stay as a slave instead of Benjamin. He offers his own life to take the place of another. That's the essence of a surety—someone who steps in, bears the obligation, and suffers the consequences meant for another (see Heb. 7:22).
David, mourning over Absalom, cries out: "Would God I had died for thee!" (2 Sam. 18:33)—meaning, "in your place."
Paul echoes this understanding in Romans 5:7, alluding to rare acts of self-sacrifice even among men: "One will scarcely die for a righteous person… yet perhaps for a good man one would dare even to die." Dying "for" another is plainly substitution.
The ancient world even had examples of such substitutionary deaths—those like the Roman Decii, or Menoeceus in Theban legend—who willingly perished for the sake of their people.
So when the Bible says "Christ died for us," it is speaking of substitution, not vague benefit. Christ died in our place, under the sentence we deserved.
What About the Word "For"?
Some object that the Greek word used in many of these texts— huper ("for")—does not always require a substitutionary meaning.
For example, they point to Hebrews 2:9, "He tasted death for every man," and argue that this only means "for the benefit of," not "in the place of."
But this objection falls flat.
That same word—huper—clearly indicates substitution in many other places:
Romans 9:3: Paul says he could wish himself accursed from Christ for (huper) his brothers—clearly meaning "in their place," not just "for their benefit."
2 Corinthians 5:20: "We are ambassadors for Christ"—clearly in his place, representing him.
1 Corinthians 1:13: "Was Paul crucified for you?" The implied answer is a strong no. But if "for" only meant "for your benefit," then it could be true—Paul suffered much for their good. But the word clearly implies substitution.
Even more strongly, consider the Greek word anti, which is used in Matthew 20:28: "The Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for (anti) many." That word always means substitution—one thing or person in place of another.
Matthew 2:22: Archelaus reigns "instead of" (anti) his father.
Matthew 5:38: "An eye for an eye."
Luke 11:11: "A serpent instead of a fish."
So when Scripture says Christ gave his life a ransom anti many, it means without doubt that he died in their place.
What Does This Imply?
If Christ died in the place of certain people—as their surety (Heb.
7:22), bearing their sins (1 Pet. 2:24), made a curse for them (Gal. 3:13)—then several serious questions follow:
1. Did Christ die in the place of all people?
That is, did he truly substitute himself for every single person— Cain, Pharaoh, Judas, and all the rest? Even those already condemned to eternal death long before he died? If so, how can they still perish?
2. Can God justly require punishment from both the surety and the sinner?
If Christ bore their sins and endured God's wrath for them, how can they be punished as well? What sort of justice demands double payment?
3. Is it equitable to punish someone for whom a full satisfaction has been made?
If Christ, as surety, paid the full debt, then justice demands that those he died for go free. Otherwise, the payment is meaningless.
4. Was Christ crucified in the place of the reprobate?
Did he die for those who never believe, who persist in unbelief, who are never regenerated, and never justified? If so, what did his death actually accomplish for them?
5. Did Christ endure all that was due to those he died for?
If yes, why are not all saved? If no, how can we say he died in their stead?
These are not minor questions. To affirm that Christ died for all without exception, and yet that many perish under the wrath of God, is to gut the cross of its power. It turns Christ's death into a mere offer, not a saving act. It gives us a general redemption that secures no actual redemption.
Conclusion To say Christ died for everyone without exception is the quickest path to the conclusion that he died effectively for no one—that his death actually saves no one. It aligns more with the heresies of Socinianism than with the truth of the gospel. For if Christ died for all, and many perish, then his death is not substitutionary, not effectual, not saving. It is a mere moral example or general gesture of goodwill—an ark that floats, but saves no one.