[Source:
Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp.
321-324]
§ 4. Hypothetical Redemption
According to the common
doctrine of Augustine, as expressed in the Westminster
Catechism, “God, having … elected some to everlasting life, did enter into
a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and
to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” In opposition to this
view some of the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century introduced the
scheme which is known in the history of theology as the doctrine of
hypothetical redemption. The principal advocate of this doctrine was Amyraut
(died 1664), Professor in the French Protestant Seminary at Saumur. He taught,
(1) That the motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men
in general. (2) From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all
men possible. (3) God, in virtue of a decretum
universale hypotheticum [hypothetical universal decree], offers salvation
to all men if they believe in Christ.
(4) All men have a natural ability to repent and believe. (5) But as this
natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give
his efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure
their salvation.
This scheme is sometimes
designated as “universalismus hypotheticus” [hypothetical universalism]. It was
designed to take a middle ground between Augustinianism and Arminianism. It is
liable to the objections which press on both systems. It does not remove the
peculiar difficulties of Augustinianism, as it asserts the sovereignty of God
in election. Besides, it leaves the case of the heathen out of view. They,
having no knowledge of Christ, could not avail themselves of this decretum hypotheticum [hypothetical
decree], and therefore must be considered as passed over by a decretum absolutum [absolute decree]. It
was against this doctrine of Amyraut and other departures from the standards of
the Reformed Church that, in 1675, the “Formula Consensus Helvetica” was
adopted by the churches of Switzerland. This theory of the French theologians
soon passed away as far as the Reformed churches in Europe were concerned. Its
advocates either returned to the old doctrine, or passed on to the more advanced
system of the Arminians. In this country it has been revived and extensively
adopted.
At first view it might
seem a small matter whether we say that election precedes redemption or that
redemption precedes election. In fact, however, it is a question of great
importance. The relation of the truths of the Bible is determined by their
nature. If you change their relation you must change their nature. If you
regard the sun as a planet instead of as the centre of our system, you must
believe it to be something very different in its constitution from what it
actually is. So in a scheme of thought, if you make the final cause a means, or
a means the final cause, nothing but confusion can be the result. As the
relation of election to redemption depends on the nature of redemption the full
consideration of this question must be reserved until the work of Christ has
been considered. For the present it is sufficient to say that the scheme
proposed by the French theologians is liable to the following objections.
Arguments
against this Scheme.
1. It supposes mutability [changeability] in the
divine purposes; or that the purpose of God may fail of accomplishment.
According to this scheme, God, out of benevolence or philanthropy, purposed the
salvation of all men, and sent his Son for their redemption. But seeing that
such purpose could not be carried out, He determined by his efficacious grace
to secure the salvation of a certain portion of the human race. This difficulty
the scheme involves, however it may be stated. It cannot however be supposed
that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He does not
intend to effect; that He adopts means for an end which is never to be
attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and
power to secure the execution of his purposes. Much less can it be said of Him
whose power and wisdom are infinite. If all men are not saved, God never
purposed their salvation, and never devised and put into operation means
designed to accomplish that end. We must assume that the result is the
interpretation of the purposes of God. If He foreordains whatsoever comes to
pass, then events correspond to his purposes; and it is against reason and
Scripture to suppose that there is any contradiction or want of correspondence
between what He intended and what actually occurs. The theory, therefore, which
assumes that God purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son to die as a
means to accomplish that end, and then seeing, or foreseeing that such end
could not or would not be attained, elected a part of the race to be the
subjects of efficacious grace, cannot be admitted as Scriptural.
2. The Bible clearly teaches that the work of
Christ is certainly efficacious. It renders certain the attainment of the end
it was designed to accomplish. It was intended to save his people, and not merely
to make the salvation of all men possible. It was a real satisfaction to
justice, and therefore necessarily frees from condemnation. It was a ransom
paid and accepted, and therefore certainly redeems. If, therefore, equally
designed for all men, it must secure the salvation of all. If designed
specially for the elect, it renders their salvation certain, and therefore election
precedes redemption. God, as the Westminster
Catechism teaches, having elected some to eternal life, sent his Son to
redeem them.
3. The Scriptures further teach that the gift of
Christ secures the gift of all other saving blessings. “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?” (Rom. 8:32) Hence they are certainly saved for whom God
delivered up his Son. The elect only are saved, and therefore He was delivered
up specially for them, and consequently election must precede redemption. The
relation, therefore, of redemption to election is as clearly determined by the
nature of redemption as the relation of the sun to the planets is determined by
the nature of the sun.
4. The Bible in numerous passages directly
asserts that Christ came to redeem his people; to save them from their sins;
and to bring them to God. He gave Himself for his Church; He laid down his life
for his sheep. As the end precedes the means, if God sent his Son to save his
people, if Christ gave Himself for his Church, then his people were selected
and present to the divine mind, in the order of thought, prior to the gift of
Christ.
5. If, as Paul teaches (Rom. 8:29, 30),
foreknowledge precedes predestination, and if the mission of Christ is the
means of accomplishing the end of predestination, then of necessity
predestination to eternal life precedes the gift of Christ. Having, as we are
taught in Eph. 1:4, 5, predestinated us to the adoption of sons, God chose us
before the foundation of the world, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins. This is the order of the divine purposes, or the mutual relation of
the truths of redemption as presented in the Scriptures.
6. The motive (so to speak) of God in sending his
Son is not, as this theory assumes, general benevolence or that love of which
all men are equally the objects, but that peculiar, mysterious, infinite love
in which God, in giving his Son, gives Himself and all conceivable and possible
good. All these points, however, as before remarked, ask for further
consideration when we come to treat of the nature and design of Christ’s work.
*
* * *
* * *
* * *
*
No comments:
Post a Comment