Re: For Whom Did Christ Die?

Carl wrote:
> 
> In the following article, Charles Hodge addresses the question "For Whom
Did
> Christ Die?" from a Biblical perspective. This is quite informative.
> 
> May God bless,
> Carl
> my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
> 
> ---
> 
> For Whom Did Christ Die?

All we need here are a couple of lines.

He died because the folks who made him up wanted him to, on
their behalf"

The story was a bit primitive, but nevertheless , that's the
way it was.



> by Charles Hodge
> 
> 1. State of the Question
> 
> This is a question between Augustinians and Anti-Augustinians. The
former
> believing that God from all eternity having elected some to everlasting
> life, had a special reference to their salvation in the mission and work
of
> his Son. The latter, denying that there has been any such election of a
part
> of the human family to salvation maintain that the mission and work of
> Christ had an equal reference to all mankind.
> 
> The question, therefore, does not, in the first place, concern the
nature of
> Christ's work. It is true, if it be denied that his work was a
satisfaction
> for sin, and affirmed that it was merely didactic; that his life,
> sufferings, and death were designed to reveal and confirm truth; then it
> would follow of course that it had no reference to one class of men more
> than to another, or to men more than to angels. Truth is designed for
the
> illumination of all the minds to which it is presented. But admitting
the
> work of Christ to have been a true satisfaction for sin, its design may
> still be an open question. Accordingly, Lutherans and Reformed, although
> they agree entirely as to the nature of the atonement, differ as to its
> design. The former maintain that it had an equal reference to all
mankind,
> the latter that it had special reference to the elect.
> 
> In the second place, the question does not concern the value of Christ's
> satisfaction. That Augustinians admit to be infinite. Its value depends
on
> the dignity of the sacrifice; and as no limit can be placed to the
dignity
> of the Eternal Son of God who offered Himself for our sins, so no limit
can
> be assigned to the meritorious value of his work. It is a gross
> misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches
that
> Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more
had
> more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine
of
> any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was
> suffcient for all. Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is
> sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary
for
> each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of
plants
> and animals which fill the earth. All that Christ did and suffered would
> have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of
redemption;
> and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had
every
> child of Adam been saved through his blood.
> 
> In the third place, the question does not concern the suitableness of
the
> atonement. What was suitable for one was suitable for all. The
righteousness
> of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for
justification
> by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all. It is no
> more appropriate to one man than to another. Christ fulfilled the
conditions
> of the covenant under which all men were placed. He rendered the
obedience
> required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred; and
> therefore his work is equally suited to all.
> 
> In the fourth place, the question does not concern the actual
application of
> the redemption purchased by Christ. The parties to this controversy are
> agreed that some only, and not all of mankind are to be actually saved.
> 
> The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the
> mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ's coming into the
world,
> and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely
to
> make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood
> in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, was it
> specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those
> given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians,
> and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there be no
election of
> some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to
the
> elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not
follow
> from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that
it
> had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the
death
> of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had
not
> to, the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to
> every creature under heaven who hears, the gospel; but it gives no
authority
> for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures, to the whole
race
> at large, and to all cl***** of men, innumerable, blessings, both
> providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these
> effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects
> which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to
God, it
> has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died
> "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;" sufficiently
for
> all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in
which
> He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect
alone.
> The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect
> which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the
> salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects
of
> his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of
that
> object?
> 
> 2. Proof of the Augustinian Doctrine.
> 
> That these questions must be answered in the affirmative, is evident, -
> 
> 1. From the nature of the covenant of redemption. It is admitted that
there
> was a covenant between the Father and the Son in relation to the
salvation
> of men. It is admitted that Christ came into the world in execution of
that
> covenant. The nature of the covenant, therefore, determines the object
of
> his death. According to one view, man having by his fall lost the
ability of
> fulfilling, the conditions of the covenant of life, God, for Christ's
sake,
> enters into a new covenant, offering men salvation upon other and easier
> terms; namely, as some say, faith and repentance, and others evangelical
> obedience. If such be the nature of the plan of salvation, then it is
> obvious that the work of Christ has equal reference to all mankind.
> According to another view, the work of Christ was designed to secure the
> pardon of original sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit for all men, Jews
or
> Gentiles, and those are saved who duly improve the grace they severally
> receive. The former is the doctrine of the ancient Semi-Pelagians and
modern
> Remonstrants; the latter of the Wesleyan Arminians. The Lutherans hold
that
> God sent his Son to make a full and real legal satisfaction for the sins
of
> all mankind; and that on the ground of this perfect satisfaction the
offer
> of salvation is made to all who hear the gospel; that grace is given (in
the
> word and sacraments) which, if unresisted, is sufficient to secure their
> salvation. The French theologians at Saumur, in the 17th century, taught
> also that Christ came into the world to do whatever was necessary for
the
> salvation of men. But God, foreseeing that, if left to themselves, men
would
> universally reject the offers of mercy, elected some to be the subjects
of
> his saving grace by which they are brought to faith and repentance
According
> to this view of the plan of salvation, election is subordinate to
> redemption. God first redeems all and then elects some. This is the view
> extensively adopted in this country. According to Augustinians, men, by
> their fall, having sunk into a state of sin and misery, might justly
have
> been left, as were the fallen angels, to perish in their sins. But God,
in
> his infinite mercy, having determined to save a multitude whom no man
could
> number, gave them to his Son as his inheritance, provided He would
assume
> their nature and fulfil all righteousness in their stead. In the
> accomplishment of this plan Christ did come into the world, and did obey
and
> suffer in the place of those thus given to Him, and for their salvation.
> This was the definite object of his mission, and therefore his death had
a
> reference to them which it could not possibly have to those whom God
> determined to leave to the just recompense of their sins. Now this plan
only
> supposes that God determined from eternity to do what in time He has
> actually accomplished. If it were just that all men should perish on
account
> of their sin it was just to leave a ****tion of the race thus to perish,
> while the salvation of the other ****tion is a matter of unmerited
favour. It
> can hardly be denied that God did thus enter into covenant with his Son.
> That is, that He did promise Him the salvation of his people as the
reward
> of his incarnation and sufferings; that Christ did come into the world
and
> suffer and die on that condition, and, having performed the condition,
is
> entitled to the promised reward. These are facts so clearly and so
> repeatedly stated in the Scriptures as not to admit of their being
called
> into question. But if such is the plan of God respecting the salvation
of
> men then it of necessity follows that election precedes redemption; that
God
> had determined whom He would save before He sent his Son to save them.
> Therefore our Lord said that those given to Him by his Father should
> certainly come to Him, and that He would raise them up at the last day.
> These Scriptural facts cannot be admitted without its being also
admitted
> that the death of Christ had a reference to his people, whose salvation
it
> rendered certain, which it had not to others whom, for infinitely wise
> reasons, God determined to leave to themselves. It follows, therefore,
from
> the nat ure of the covenant of redemption, as presented in the Bible,
that
> Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for
his
> people and for their redemption.
> 
> Argument from the Doctrine of Election.
> 
> 2. This follows also almost necessarily from the doctrine of election.
> Indeed it never was denied that Christ died specially for the elect
until
> the doctrine of election itself was rejected. Augustine, the follower
and
> expounder of St. Paul, taught that God out of his mere good pleasure had
> elected some to everlasting life, and held that Christ came into the
world
> to suffer and die for their salvation. He purchased them with his own
> precious blood. The Semi-Pelagians, in denying the doctrine of election,
of
> course denied that Christ's death had more reference to one class of men
> than to another. The Latin Church, so long as it held to the Augustinian
> doctrine of election, held also to Augustine's doctrine concerning the
> design and objects of Christ's death. All through the Middle Ages this
was
> one of the distinctive doctrines of those who resisted the progress of
the
> Semi-Pelagian party in the Western Church. At the time of the
Reformation
> the Lutherans, so long as they held to the one doctrine held also to the
> other. The Reformed, in holding fast the doctrine of election, remained
> faithful to their denial of the doctrine that the work of Christ had
equal
> reference to all mankind. It was not until the Remonstrants in Holland,
> under the teaching of Arminius, rejected the Church doctrine of original
> sin, of the inability of fallen man to anything spiritually good, the
> sovereignty of God in election, and the perseverance of the saints, that
the
> doctrine that the atonement had a special reference to the people of God
was
> rejected. It is, therefore, a matter of history that the doctrine of
> election and the Augustinian doctrine as to the design of the work of
Christ
> have been inseparably united. As this connection is historical so also
is it
> logical. The one doctrine necessarily involves the other. If God from
> eternity determined to save one ****tion of the human race and not
another,
> it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had
equal
> reference to both ****tions; that the Father sent his Son to die for
those
> whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same
sense
> that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of
> salvation.
> 
> Express Declarations of Scripture.
> 
> 3. We accordingly find numerous passages in which the design of Christ's
> death is declared to be, to save his people from their sins. He did not
come
> merely to render their salvation possible, but actually to deliver them
from
> the curse of the law, and from the power of sin. This is included in all
the
> Scriptural representations of the nature and design of his work. No man
pays
> a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it
is
> paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is
no
> sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates.
> 
> The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the
> occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly
> sacrifice is offered.
> 
> There are also very numerous passages in which it is expressly declared
that
> Christ gave Himself for his Church (Ephesians v. 25); that He laid down
his
> life for his sheep (John x. 15); that He laid down his life for his
friends
> (John xv. 13); that He died that He might gather together in one the
> children of God that are scattered abroad (John xi. 52); that it was the
> Church which He purchased with his blood (Acts xx. 28). When mankind are
> divided into two cl*****, the Church and the world, the friends and the
> enemies of God, the sheep and the goats, whatever is affirmed
distinctively
> of the one class is impliedly denied of the other. When it is said that
> Christ loved his Church and gave Himself for it, that He laid down his
life
> for his sheep, it is clear that something is said of the Church and of
the
> sheep, which is not true of those who belong to neither. When it is said
> that a man labours and sacrifices health and strength for his children,
it
> is thereby denied that the motive which controls him is mere
philanthropy,
> or that the design he has in view is the good of society. He may indeed
be a
> philanthropist, and he may recognize the fact that the well-being of his
> children ill promote the welfare of society, but this does not alter the
> case. It still remains true that love for his children is the motive,
and
> their good his object. It is difficult, in the light of Ephesians v. 25,
> where the death of Christ is attributed to his love of his Church, and
is
> said to have been designed for its sanctification and salvation, to
believe
> that He gave Himself as much for reprobates as for those whom He
intended to
> save. Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a
denial
> of the doctrine that He died equally for all men.
> 
> Argument from the Special Love of God.
> 
> 4. By the love of God is sometimes meant his goodness, of which all
> sensitive creatures are the objects and of whose benefits they are the
> recipients. Sometimes it means his special regard for the children of
men,
> not only as rational creatures, but also as the offspring of Him who is
the
> Father of the spirits of all men. Sometimes it means that peculiar,
> mysterious, sovereign, immeasurable love which p***** knowledge, of
which
> his own people, the Church of the first-born whose names are written in
> heaven, are the objects. Of this love it is taught, (1.) That it is
> infinitely great. (2.) That it is discriminating, fixed on some and not
upon
> others of the children of men. It is compared to the love of a husband
for
> his wife; which from its nature is exclusive. (B.) That it is perfectly
> gratuitous and sovereign, i.e., not founded upon the special
attractiveness
> of its objects, but like parental affection, on the mere fact that they
are
> his children. (4.) That it is immutable. (5.) That it secures all saving
> blessings, and even all good; so that even afflictions are among its
fruits
> intended for the greater good of the sufferer. Now to this love, not to
> general goodness, not to mere philanthropy, but to this peculiar and
> infinite love, the gift of Christ is uniformly referred. Herein is love,
not
> that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the
> propitiation for our sins. (1 John iv. 10.) Hereby perceive we the love
of
> God (or, hereby we know what love is), because He (Christ) laid down his
> life for us. (1 John iii. 16.) God commendeth his love toward us, in
that
> while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans v. 8.) Greater
love
> hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
(John
> xv. 13.) Nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which
is
> in Christ Jesus. (Romans viii. 35-39.) He that spared not his own Son,
but
> delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give
us
> all things? (Romans viii. 32.) The whole argument of the Apostle in
Romans
> v. 1-11, and especially throughout the eighth chapter, is founded upon
this
> infinite and immutable love of God to his people. From this he argues
their
> absolute security for time and eternity. Because He thus loved them He
gave
> his Son for them; and, having done this, He would certainly give them
> everything necessary for their salvation. No enemy should ever prevail
> against them; nothing could ever separate them from his love. This whole
> argument is utterly irreconcilable with the hypothesis that Christ died
> equally for all men. His death is referred to the peculiar love of God
to
> his people, and was the pledge of all other saving gifts. This peculiar
love
> of God is not founded upon the fact that its objects are believers, for
He
> loved them as enemies, as ungodly, and gave his Son to secure their
being
> brought to faith, repentance, and complete restoration to the divine
image.
> It cannot, therefore, be explained away into mere general benevolence or
> philanthropy. It is a love which secured the communication of Himself to
its
> objects, and rendered their salvation certain; and consequently could
not be
> bestowed upon all men, indiscriminately. This representation is so
> predominant in the Scriptures, namely, that the peculiar love of God to
his
> people, to his Church, to the elect, is the source of the gift of
Christ, of
> the mission of the Holy Spirit, and of all other saving blessings, that
it
> cannot be ignored in any view of the plan and purpose of salvation. With
> this representation every other statement of the Scriptures must be
> consistent; and therefore the theory which denies this great and
precious
> truth, and which assumes that the love which secured the gift of God's
> eternal Son, was mere benevolence which had all men for its object, many
of
> whom are allowed to perish, must be unscriptural.
> 
> Argument from the Believer's Union with Christ.
> 
> 6. Another argument is derived from the nature of the union between
Christ
> and his people. The Bible teaches, (1.) That a certain ****tion of the
human
> race were given to Christ. (2.) That they were given to Him before the
> foundation of the world. (3.) That all thus given to Him will certainly
come
> to Him and be saved. (4.) That this union, so far as it was from
eternity,
> is not a union of nature, nor by faith, nor by the indwelling of the
Holy
> Spirit. It was a federal union. (5.) That Christ, therefore, was a
federal
> head and representative. As such He came into the world, and all He did
and
> suffered was as a representative, as a substitute, one acting in the
place
> and for the benefit of others. But He was the representative of those
given
> to Him, i.e., of those who were in Him. For it was this gift and the
union
> consequent upon it, that gave Him his representative character, or
> constituted Him a federal head. He was therefore the federal head, not
of
> the human race, but o those given to Him by the Father. And, therefore,
his
> work, so far as its main design is concerned, was for them alone.
Whatever
> reference it had to others was subordinate and incidental. All this is
> illustrated and proved by the Apostle in Romans v. 12-21, in the
parallel
> which he draws between Adam and Christ. All mankind were in Adam. He was
the
> federal head and representative of his race. All men sinned in him and
fell
> with him in his first transgression. The sentence of condemnation for
his
> one offence passed upon all men. In like manner Christ was the
> representative of his people. He acted for them. What He did and
suffered in
> their place, or as their representative, they in the eye of the law, did
and
> suffered. By his obedience they are justified. As all in Adam died, so
all
> in Christ are made alive. Such is the nature of the union in both cases,
> that the sin of the one rendered certain and rendered just the death of
all
> united to Adam, and the righteousness of the other rendered certain and
just
> the salvation of all who are in Him. The sin of Adam did not make the
> condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their
actual
> condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation
of
> men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom
He
> wrought. As it would be unreasonable to say that Adam acted for those
who
> were not in him; so it is unscriptural to say that Christ acted for
those
> who were not in Him. Nevertheless, the act of Adam as the head and
> representative of his race, was fruitful of evil consequences, not to
man
> only, but to the earth and all that it contains; and so the work of
Christ
> is fruitful of good consequences to others than those for whom He acted.
But
> this does not justify anyone in saying that Adam acted as much as the
> representative of the brute creation, as of his posterity; neither does
it
> justify the assertion that Christ died for all mankind in the same sense
> that He died for his own people. This is all so clearly revealed in
> Scripture that it extorts the assent of those who are decidedly opposed
to
> the Augustinian system. One class of those opponents, of whom Whitby may
be
> taken as a representative, admit the truth of all that has been said of
the
> representative character of Adam and Christ. But they maintain that as
Adam
> represented the whole race, so also did Christ; and as in Adam all men
die,
> so in Christ are all made alive. But they say that this has nothing to
do
> with spiritual death in the one case, or with the salvation of the soul
in
> the other. The death which came on all men for the sin of Adam, was
merely
> the death of the body; and the life which comes on all through Christ,
is
> the restoration of the life of the body at the resurrection. The
Wesleyans
> take the same view of the representative character of Christ and of
Adam.
> Each stood for all mankind. Adam brings upon all men the guilt of his
first
> sin and corruption of nature. Christ secures the removal of the guilt of
> original sin and a seed of grace, or principle of spiritual life, for
all
> men. So also one class of Universalists hold that as all men are
condemned
> for the sin of Adam, so all are actually saved by the work of Christ.
> Rationalists also are ready to admit that Paul does teach all that
> Augustinians understand him to teach, but they say that this was only
his
> Jewish mode of presenting the matter. It is not absolute truth, but a
mere
> transient form suited to the age of the Apostles. In all these cases,
> however, the main fact is conceded. Christ did act as a representative;
and
> what He did secured with certainty the benefits of his work for those
for
> whom He acted. This being conceded, it of course follows that He acted
as
> the representative and substitute of those only who are ultimately to be
> saved.
> 
> 6. There is another argument on this subject generally presented, which
> ought not to be overlooked. The unity of the priestly office rendered
the
> functions of the priesthood inseparable. The high-priest interceded for
all
> those for whom he offered sacrifice. The one service did not extend
beyond
> the other. He bore upon his breast the names of the twelve tribes. He
> represented them in drawing near to God. He offered sacrifices for their
> sins on the great day of atonement, and for them he interceded, and for
no
> others. The sacrifice and the intercession went together. What was true
of
> the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ. The former, we are told, were
the
> types of the latter. Christ's functions as priest are in like manner
united.
> He intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He
> himself, however, says expressly, "I pray not for the world, but for
them
> which thou hast given me." (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth
always,
> and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not
> actually receive the benefits of his redemption.
> 
> The Church Doctrine Embraces All the Facts of the Case.
> 
> 7. The final test of any theory is its agreeing or disagreeing with the
> facts to be explained. The difficulty with all the Anti-Augustinian
views as
> to the design of Christ's death, is that while they are consistent with
more
> or less of the Scriptural facts connected with the subject, they are
utterly
> irreconcilable with not less clearly revealed and equally im****tant.
They
> are consistent, for example, with the fact that the work of Christ lays
the
> foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men, with the fact that
men
> are justly condemned for the rejection of that offer; and with the fact
that
> the Scriptures frequently assert that the work of Christ had reference
to
> all men. All these facts can be accounted for on the assumption, that
the
> great design of Christ's death was to make the salvation of all men
> possible, and that it had equal reference to every member of our race.
But
> there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with
which
> it cannot be reconciled. On the other hand it is claimed that the
> Augustinian doctrine recognizes all the Scriptural assertions connected
with
> the subject, and reconciles them all. If this be so, it must be the
doctrine
> of the Bible. The facts which are clearly revealed concerning the death
or
> work of Christ are,
> 
> (1.) That God from eternity gave a people to his Son.
> (2.) That the peculiar and infinite love of God to his people is
declared to
> be the motive for the gift of his Son; and their salvation the design of
his
> mission.
> (3.) That it was as their representative, head, and substitute, He came
into
> the world, assumed our nature, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the
> curse of the law.
> (4.) That the salvation of all given to Him by the Father, in thus
rendered
> absolutely certain.
> 
> That the Augustinian scheme agrees with these great Scriptural facts, is
> readily admitted, but it is denied that it accounts for the fact that on
the
> ground of the work of Christ, salvation may be offered to every human
being;
> and that all who hear and reject the gospel, are justly condemned for
their
> unbelief. That these are Scriptural facts cannot be denied, and if the
> Augustinian doctrine does not provide for them, it must be false or
> defective. There are different grounds on which it is assumed that the
> Augustinian doctrine does not provide for the universal offer of the
gospel.
> One is, the false assumption that Augustinians teach that the
satisfaction
> of Christ was in all respects analogous to the payment of a debt, a
> satisfaction to commutative or commercial justice. Hence it is inferred
that
> Christ suffered so much for so many; He paid so much for one soul, and
so
> much for another, and of course He would have been called upon to pay
more
> if more were to have been saved. If this be so, then it is clear that
the
> work of Christ can justify the offer of salvation to those only whose
debts
> He has actually cancelled. To this view of the case it may be remarked,
-
> 
> 1. That this doctrine was never held by any historical church and the
> ascription of it to Augustinians can only be accounted for on the ground
of
> ignorance.
> 
> 2. It involves the greatest confusion of ideas. It confounds the
obligations
> which arise among men as owners of property, with the obligations of
> rational creatures to an infinitely holy God. A debtor is one owner, and
a
> creditor is another. Commutative justice requires that they should
settle
> their mutual claims equitably. But God is not one owner and the sinner
> another. They do not stand in relation to each other as two proprietors.
The
> obligation which binds a debtor to pay a creditor, and the principle
which
> impels a just God to punish sin, are entirely distinct. God is the
absolute
> owner of all things. We own nothing. We cannot sustain to Him, in this
> respect, the relation of a debtor to his creditor. The objection in
> question, therefore, is founded on an entire mistake or
misrepresentation of
> the attribute of justice, to which, according to Augustinians, the
> satisfaction of Christ is rendered. Because the sin of Adam was the
ground
> of the condemnation of his race, does any man infer that He sinned so
much
> for one man and so much for another? Why then should it be said that
because
> the righteousness of Christ is the judicial ground of our salvation,
that He
> did and suffered so much for one man and so much for another?
> 
> 3. As this objection is directed against a theory which no Church has
ever
> adopted, and as it attributes to God a form of justice which cannot
possibly
> belong to Him, so it is contrary to those scriptural representations on
> which the Augustinian doctrine is founded. The Scriptures teach that
Christ
> saves us as a priest, by offering Himself as a sacrifice for our sins.
But a
> sacrifice was not a payment of a debt, the payment of so much for so
much. A
> single victim was sometimes a sacrifice for one individual; sometimes
for
> the whole people. On the great day of atonement the scape-goat bore the
sins
> of the people, whether they were more or less numerous. It had no
reference
> at all to the number of persons for whom atonement was to be made. So
Christ
> bore the sins of his people; whether they were to be a few hundreds, or
> countless millions, or the whole human family, makes no difference as to
the
> nature of his work, or as to the value of his satisfaction. What was
> absolutely necessary for one, was abundantly sufficient for all.
> 
> The objection, however, is at times presented in a somewhat different
form.
> Admitting the satisfaction of Christ to be in itself of infinite value,
how
> can it avail for the non-elect if it was not designed for them? It does
not
> avail for the fallen angels, because it was not intended for them; how
then
> can it avail for the non-elect, if not designed for them? How can a
ransom,
> whatever its intrinsic value, benefit those for whom it was not paid? In
> this form the objection is far more specious. It is, however,
fallacious. It
> overlooks the peculiar nature of the case. It ignores the fact that all
> mankind were placed under the same constitution or covenant. What was
> demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all.
> Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is
required
> to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a
> representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all. The
> secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has
nothing to
> do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness. The
> righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in
its
> nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is
thus
> offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both
cl*****
> conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only
> ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to
> accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they
> would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The
> advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was
to
> render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is,
that
> if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of
what
> Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same
thing.
> Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well
as
> any other scheme. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his
own
> people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and
> therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel. If
a
> ****p containing the wife and children of a man standing on the shore is
> wrecked, he may seize a boat and hasten to their rescue. His motive is
love
> to his family; his purpose is to save them. But the boat which he has
> provided may be large enough to receive the whole of the ****p's company.
> Would there be any inconsistency in his offering them the op****tunity to
> escape? Or, would this offer prove that he had no special love to his
own
> family and no special design to secure their safety. And if any or all
of
> those to whom the offer was made, should refuse to accept it, some from
one
> reason, some from another; some because they did not duly appreciate
their
> danger; some because they thought they could save themselves; and some
from
> enmity to the man from whom the offer came, their guilt and folly would
be
> just as great as though the man had no special regard to his own family,
and
> no special purpose to effect their deliverance. Or, if a man's family
were
> with others held in captivity, and from love to them and with the
purpose of
> their redemption, a ransom should be offered sufficient for the delivery
of
> the whole body of captives, it is plain that the offer of deliverance
might
> be extended to all on the ground of that ransom, although specially
intended
> only for a part of their number. Or, a man may make a feast for his own
> friends, and the provision be so abundant that he may throw open his
doors
> to all who are willing to come. This is precisely what God, according to
the
> Augustinian doctrine, has actually done. Out of special love to his
people,
> and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to
do
> what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it.
> Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his
life
> for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect
consistency
> with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction
to
> justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men.
So
> that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, "No man
> perishes for want of an atonement."
> 
> If the Atonement Be Limited in Design, It Must Be Restricted in the
Offer.
> 
> There is still another ground on which it is urged that Augustinians
cannot
> consistently preach the gospel to every creature. Augustinians teach, it
is
> urged, that the work of Christ is a satisfaction to divine justice. From
> this it follows that justice cannot condemn those for whose sins it has
been
> satisfied. It cannot demand that satisfaction twice, first from the
> substitute and then from the sinner himself. This would be manifestly
> unjust, far worse than demanding no punishment at all. From this it is
> inferred that the satisfaction or righteousness of Christ, if the ground
on
> which a sinner may be forgiven, is the ground on which he must be
forgiven.
> It is not the ground on which he may be forgiven, unless it is the
ground on
> which he must be forgiven. If the atonement be limited in design it must
be
> limited in its nature, and if limited in its nature it must be limited
in
> its offer. This objection again arises from confounding a pecuniary and
a
> judicial satisfaction between which Augustinians are so careful to
> discriminate. This distinction has already been presented on a previous
page
> (470). There is no grace in accepting, a pecuniary satisfaction. It
cannot
> be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the
debtor
> is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the
case
> of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is
a
> matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may
> accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a
remote
> period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it
may
> never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application
is
> suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those
who
> hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to
divine
> justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant
> between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered
are
> not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state;
they
> are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the
> children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain
in
> this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless
in
> infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish
notwithstanding
> the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the
covenant
> which forbid such a result. Such being the nature of the judicial
> satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are
placed,
> it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they
> believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially
> designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the
> conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly
> consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the
> gospel. Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in
their
> views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so
far
> as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general
> offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or
> Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the
> atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for
all
> mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as
to
> its application.
> 
> Certain Passages of Scripture Considered.
> 
> Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died
specially
> for his own people does account for the general offer of the gospel, how
is
> it to be reconciled with those passages which, in one form or another,
teach
> that He died for all men? In answer to this question, it may be remarked
in
> the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all
men.
> What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for
all
> men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of
the
> penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might
secure
> for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which,
in
> one im****tant sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the
> foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on
condition
> of faith and repentance. These are the universally admitted consequences
of
> his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this
> dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven
and
> upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition
of
> those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that
they
> may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but
they
> will not answer. He says, "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast
> out." Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant
when
> it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a
> propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole
world. He
> was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and
sufficiently
> for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the
> Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their
fundamental
> principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his
theories
> to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable,
but
> simply what the Bible teaches.
> 
> But, in the second place, it is to be remarked that general terms are
often
> used indefinitely and not comprehensively. They mean all kinds, or
cl*****,
> and not all and every individual. When Christ said, "I, if I be lifted
up
> from the earth, will draw all men unto me," He meant men of all ages,
> cl*****, and conditions, and not every individual man. When God
predicted
> that upon the advent of the Messiah He would pour out his Spirit upon
all
> flesh, all that was foretold was a general effusion of the Holy Ghost.
And
> when it is said that all men shall see (experience) the salvation of
God, it
> does not mean that all men individually, but that a vast multitude of
all
> cl***** shall be saved. The same remark applies to the use of the term
> world. It means men, mankind, as a race or order of beings. No one
hesitates
> to call the Lord Jesus the "Salvator hominum." He is so hailed and so
> wor****pped wherever his name is known. But no one means by this that He
> actually saves all mankind. What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the
> Saviour of men, not of angels, not of Jews exclusively, nor yet of the
> Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the
righteous
> only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men
who
> come unto Him. Thus when He is called the Lamb of God that bears the sin
of
> the world, all that is meant is that He bears the sins of men; He came
as a
> sin-offering bearing not his own, but the sins of others.
> 
> In the third place, these general terms are always to be understood in
> reference to the things spoken of in the context. When all things, the
> universe, is said to be put in subjection to Christ it is, of course, to
be
> understood of the created universe. In 1 Corinthians xv. 27, Paul
expressly
> mentions this limitation, but in Hebrews ii. 8, it is not mentioned. It
is,
> however, just as obviously involved in the one passage as in the other.
When
> in Romans v. 18, it is said that by the righteousness of Christ the free
> gift of justification of life has come upon all men, it is of necessity
> limited to the all in Christ of whom the Apostle is speaking. So also in
1
> Corinthians xv. 22, As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made
> alive (i.e., quickened with the life of Christ), it is in both members
of
> the sentence not absolutely all, but the all in Adam and the all in
Christ.
> This is still more obvious in Romans viii. 32, where it is said that God
> gave up his own Son for us all. The us refers to the class of persons of
> which the whole chapter treats, namely, of those to whom there is no
> condemnation, who are led by the Spirit, for whom Christ intercedes,
etc.
> Ephesians i. 10, and Colossians i. 20, are favorite texts with the
> Universalists, for they teach that all in heaven and on earth are
reunited
> unto God by Jesus Christ. They are right in understanding these passages
as
> teaching the salvation of all men, if by all in this connection we must
> understand all human beings. But why limit the word to all men? Why not
> include angels and even irrational creatures? The answer is, because the
> Bible teaches that Christ came to save men, and neither angels nor
> irrational animals. This is only saying that all must be limited to the
> objects of redemption. Who they are is to be learned not from these
general
> terms, but from the general teaching of Scripture. The all who are to be
> united in one harmonious body by Jesus Christ are the all whom He came
to
> save. The same remark applies to Hebrews ii. 9, Christ tasted "death for
> every man." It is well known that Origen understood this of every
creature;
> others, of every rational creature; others, of every fallen rational
> creature; others, of every man; others, of every one of those given to
the
> Son by the Father. How are we to decide which of these interpretations
is
> correct? So far as the mere signification of the words is concerned, one
is
> as correct as another. It is only from the analogy of Scripture that the
> meaning of the sacred writer can be determined. Christ tasted death for
> every one of the objects of redemption. Whether He came to redeem all
> created sensuous beings, or all rational creatures, or all men, or all
given
> to Him in the councils of eternity, the Bible must decide. The great
> majority of the passages quoted to prove that Christ died equally for
all
> men come, under one or other of the cl***** just mentioned, and have no
real
> bearing on the question concerning the design of his death.
> 
> There is another class of passages with which it is said that the
> Augustinian doctrine cannot be reconciled; such, namely, as speak of
those
> peri****ng for whom Christ died. In reference to these passages it may be
> remarked, first, that there is a sense, as before stated, in which
Christ
> did die for all men. His death had the effect of justifying the offer of
> salvation to every man; and of course was designed to have that effect.
He
> therefore died sufficiently for all. In the second place, these passages
> are, in some cases at least, hypothetical. When Paul exhorts the
Corinthians
> not to cause those to perish for whom Christ died, he merely, exhorts
them
> not to act selfishly towards those for whom Christ had exhibited the
> greatest compassion. The passage neither asserts nor implies that any
> actually perish for whom Christ died. None perish whom He came to save;
> multitudes perish to whom salvation is offered on the ground of his
death.
> 
> As God in the course of nature and in the dispensation of his
providence,
> moves on in undisturbed majesty, little concerned at the apparent
> complication or even inconsistency of one effect or one dispensation
with
> another; so the Spirit of God in the Bible unfolds the purposes, truths,
and
> dealings of God, just as they are, assured that even finite minds will
> ultimately be able to see the consistency of all his revelations. The
> doctrines of foreordination, sovereignty, and effectual providential
> control, go hand in hand with those of the liberty and responsibility of
> rational creatures. Those of freedom from the law, of salvation by faith
> without works, and of the absolute necessity of holy living stand side
by
> side. On the same page we find the assurance of God's love to sinners,
and
> declarations that He would that all men should come unto Him and live,
with
> explicit assertions that He has determined to leave multitudes to perish
in
> their sins. In like manner, the express declarations that it was the
> incomprehensible and peculiar love of God for his own people, which
induced
> Him to send his Son for their redemption; that Christ came into the
world
> for that specific object; that He died for his sheep; that He gave
Himself
> for his Church; and that the salvation of all for whom He thus offered
> Himself is rendered certain by the gift of the Spirit to bring them to
faith
> and repentance, are intermingled with declarations of good-will to all
> mankind, with offers of salvation to every one who will believe in the
Son
> of God, and denunciations of wrath against those who reject these
overtures
> of mercy. All we have to do is not to ignore or deny either of these
modes
> of representation, but to open our minds wide enough to receive them
both,
> and reconcile them as best we can. Both are true, in all the cases above
> referred to, whether we can see their consistency or not.
> 
> In the review of this subject, it is plain that the doctrine that Christ
> died equally for all men with the purpose of rendering the salvation of
all
> possible, has no advantage over the doctrine that He died specially for
his
> own people, and with the purpose of rendering their salvation certain.
It
> presents no higher view of the love of God, or of the value of Christ's
> work. It affords no better ground for the offer of salvation "to every
> creature," nor does it render more obvious the justice of the
condemnation
> of those who reject the gospel. They are condemned by God, angels, and
men,
> and by their own consciences, because they refuse to believe that Jesus
is
> the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, and to love, wor****p, trust,
and
> obey Him accordingly. The opposite, or anti-Augustinian doctrine, is
founded
> on a partial view of the facts of the case. It leaves out of view the
> clearly revealed special love of God to his peculiar people; the union
> between Christ and his chosen; the representative character which He
assumed
> as their substitute; the certain efficacy of his sacrifice in virtue of
the
> covenant of redemption; and the necessary connection between the gift of
> Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It moreover leads to confused
and
> inconsistent views of the plan of salvation, and to unscriptural and
> dangerous theories of the nature of the atonement. It therefore is the
> limited and meagre scheme; whereas the orthodox doctrine is catholic and
> comprehensive; full of consolation and spiritual power. as well as of
> justice to all mankind.
 f