9 comments so far
Hodge also said, “The work of Christ is not of the nature of a commercial transaction. It is not analogous to a pecuniary satisfaction except in one point. It secures the deliverance of those for whom it is offered and by whom it is accepted. In the case of guilt the demand of justice is upon the person of the offender. He, and he alone is bound to answer at the bar of justice. No one can take his place, unless with the consent of the representative of justice and of the substitute, as well as of the sinner himself.”
Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 3: Systematic theology (173).
“It is obvious that the objections presented in the above extracts arise from confounding pecuniary with judicial or legal satisfaction. There is an analogy between them, and, therefore, on the ground of that analogy it is right to say that Christ assumed and paid our debts.”
Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 2: Systematic theology (487).
Hey Michael,
That’s not a problem at all. Analogy means “similarity with a difference.”
The Arminian said that the death of Christ does not infallibly secure the salvation of any man. It only makes the salvation of any man possible.
Hodge agrees with both premises as long as we take out the negative, its not an either/or, but a both-and. And so, because f the Covenant of Redemption, and the Work of the Spirit, the death of Christ infallibly secures the salvation of the elect. In this sense, or aspect, it can be likened to a pecuniary satisfaction.
Now look at the critical line there which you cite: “It is not analogous to a pecuniary satisfaction except in one point. It secures the deliverance of those for whom it is offered and by whom it is accepted.”
When a man accepts the work of Christ, there is no way a second punishment can be demanded from him. For that would violate God’s own law. See Shedd for explanation: The Double Payment Dilemma Legitimately Applied.
And, when a man accepts the satisfaction, his deliverance is absolutely certain and can never ever fail to come to pass.
I would encourage you to read the following files I host here:
1) Shedd on the death of Christ.
2) Dabney on the same.
3) C Hodge on the same.
4) Their comments on double payment and double joepardy
5) The Distinction between atonement and redemption which many of them made.
And finally, read some C Hodge on imputation.
Use the name index and the main index to find all this.
Thanks,
David
Hi David. You appear to be using the argument that since an elect person is still an unbeliever, they are under the wrath of God and therefore this negates Owen’s argument?
Are you saying Owen applied this argument to men still living and not in eternal punishment after the judgment?
I just want to make sure there is no “blurring of distinctions” here.
Hey Michael,
The alleged principle is, “God cannot not punish the same sin twice,” and that first in Christ, and then second in the sinner.
That argument is shown to be false because the living unbelieving elect are objects of the punishing wrath of God. Hence, God can punish the same sin twice (in different people).
Are you saying that Christ only suffered for those sins which are punished with eternal death? Yet he did not suffer for those sins which only (apparently) receive punishment in this life?
Will you make a category distinction between sins that are punished in life and sins which are punished in hell? or some such other distinction?
Owen:
2. The second thing eminent in it is, an act of supreme sovereignty and dominion, requiring the punishment of Christ, for the full, complete answering of the obligation and fulfilling of the law, Rom. viii. 3, x. 4. Now, these things being thus at large unfolded, we may see, in brief, some natural consequences following and attending them as they are laid down; as, — First, That the full and due debt of all those for whom Jesus Christ was responsible was fully paid in to God, according to the utmost extent of the obligation. Secondly, That the Lord, who is a just creditor, ought in all equity to cancel the bond, to surcease all suits, actions, and molestations against the debtors, full payment being made unto him for the debt. Thirdly, That the debt thus paid was not this or that sin, but all the sins of all those for whom and in whose name this payment was made, 1 John i. 7, as was before demonstrated. Fourthly, That a second payment of a debt once paid, or a requiring of it, is not answerable to the justice which God demonstrated in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins, Rom. iii. 25. Fifthly, That whereas to receive a discharge from farther trouble is equitably due to a debtor who hath been in obligation, his debt being paid, the Lord, having accepted of the payment from Christ in the stead of all them for whom he died, ought in justice, according to that obligation which, in free grace, he hath put upon himself, to grant them a discharge. Sixthly, That considering that relaxation of the law which, by the supreme power of the lawgiver, was effected, as to the persons suffering the punishment required, such actual satisfaction is made thereto, that it can lay no more to their charge for whom Christ died than if they had really fulfilled, in the way of obedience, whatsoever it did require, Rom. viii. 32–34. Now, how consistent these things (in themselves evident, and clearly following the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, before declared) are with universal redemption is easily discernible; for, — First, If the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, If the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? Let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, Is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgment, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient? Hath he an after-reckoning that he thought not of? for, for what was before him he spared him not, Rom. viii. 32. Fourthly, How comes it that God never gives a discharge to innumerable souls, though their debts be paid? Fifthly, Whence, is it that any one soul lives and dies under the condemning power of the law, never released, if that be fully satisfied in his behalf, so as it had been all one as if he had done whatsoever it could require? Let them that can, reconcile these things I am no Oedipus for them. The poor beggarly distinctions whereby it is attempted, I have already discussed. And so much for satisfaction. “Death of Death,” in Works, 10:272-3.
If you can find Owen saying that Chris did not suffer and die for those sins for which God punishes the living unbelieving elect in life, please let me know.
As it stands, the major premise is false.
Hope that helps,
David
Thank you for the reply David. I’m still unclear as to your argument. In what manner does God punish the living unbelieving elect in life? My understanding is that Owen’s argument of double punishment deals with eternal punishment, i.e. “hell”. Punishment against an infinite God is infinite and is not enacted upon us in that sense in this lifetime. That is the wrath Owen is speaking of.
Christ suffered and died for all the sins of the elect, but redemption is not applied at birth. It’s applied at the point of saving faith, when we are declared just in His sight (Rom 3:26.) I’m not aware of anyone who holds that redemption is applied at the time of creation.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness….
Ephesians 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Michael: My understanding is that Owen’s argument of double punishment deals with eternal punishment, i.e. “hell”. Punishment against an infinite God is infinite and is not enacted upon us in that sense in this lifetime. That is the wrath Owen is speaking of.
David: Thats not the assumption of the argument. The trilemma works on the assumption, as a major premise that God cannot demand a second payment, first from the substitute, and then second from the sinner. If Christ only suffered for the hell-receiving sins, then Christ was not punished for all the sins of the elect.
Sins like unbelief are sins committed in life. Did Christ die for the sins of unbelief that a living, but one-time Christ rejecting elect person commits? What are the grounds a person is sent to hell? The sins done in life.
If you are interested, check out this link, Confessional Statements:
All Men Subject to the Wrath and Curse of God in this Life: A Brief Survey of Confessional Comments
all men, living unbelieving elect included, are objects of and subject to the punishing retributive wrath of God. The WCF statements are the clearest.
Divine punishment of sin, infinite in value, begins in this life, and finds final expression in eternal damnation and punishment. But it would be incredible to say that Christ only made a payment only for the sin which incurs eternal punishment. That would be incoherent, as all sin incurs-deserves eternal punishment.
Michael:
Christ suffered and died for all the sins of the elect, but redemption is not applied at birth. It’s applied at the point of saving faith, when we are declared just in His sight (Rom 3:26.) I’m not aware of anyone who holds that redemption is applied at the time of creation.
David: that’s a different problem. For Owen, once the debt is paid, all demands for a payment must stop. Owen bound himself into a contradiction at this point, which he was aware of, how is that one is not justified at birth. The problem is, there is nothing in Owen’s system that can account for this. And what is more, even Truman, the Owen scholar admits that Owen opens the door to eternal justification.
Hope that helps,
David
I think you are confusing the argument. I have only heard it presented as “God can not punish a person in hell if Christ has already paid for their sins.” The “in hell” part assumes the judgment has already occurred, meaning the person in hell is an unbeliever.
Hey there,
Michael says:
I think you are confusing the argument. I have only heard it presented as “God can not punish a person in hell if Christ has already paid for their sins.” The “in hell” part assumes the judgment has already occurred, meaning the person in hell is an unbeliever.
David:
1) Sure its right there in the quotation from Owen I cited above:
The premises:
“Christ cannot demand a second payment, first from the surety, then from the sinner,”
and
“God cannot punish the same sin twice”
are identical in content, though not in form of expression.
This basic premise, stated either way, is the fundamental assumption in Owen’s trilemma.
2) Next, Christ did not actually suffer in hell, at all. He never descended into hell. Rather he suffered an equivalent punishment, which is equivalent to all punishment due to us.
3) Take a look at Ursinus:
HC Q37: What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
A37: That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.
Christ suffered the wrath of God, in our place, in all his miseries and afflictions. His penal payment includes all his vicarious sufferings, and for all our penal sufferings, for all penal sufferings due to us, not just some penal sufferings due to us.
4) The argument very loosely and simply stated is that a man cannot suffer in hell if Christ has already suffered for that man does not itself explain much, unless the assumption behind that is made clear?
If I were to ask of Owen, “Why is that so?,” he will say, “Because it is unjust for God to punish the same sin twice, first in Christ, then secondly in the sinner.” That’s the universal premise-assumption.
But as Dabney and C Hodge point out, its false, simply false. It can only work on the terms of a debt or fine payment.
Why should the looser expression be true? Because, it is claimed, supporting that premise the this: “That God cannot punish the same sin twice, first in Christ and then in the sinner.
The counter-factual to that, is that God punishes living unbelieving elect in life, with temporal punishments, for which Christ has already suffered. As Owen says, Christ paid for all my sins, not just some of them, not just the hell-deserving-receiving kind but all of them.
If Christ did not make a penal payment for all my sins, then what is Justification? Why is it that when a person believes, he is justified, and removed from the sphere of divine wrath, to the sphere of divine favor? As Paul says, we were children of wrath, even as the rest are.
Hope that helps,
David
[…] That brings us to the Calvinist objection that there is double payment if sinners are punished for sins for which Christ had already been punished. For one thing, this is too individualistic and quantitative a way of looking at the matter. We should not picture a situation in which Christ gave to the Father the payment which every individual owed for the debt of his/her sins, but that God still demanded that payment from some of those individuals. Charles Hodge nicely pointed out that we need to view Christ’s satisfaction in “judicial” rather than “pecuniary” terms: 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. (Systematic Theology, 1: 557-58; also available digitally here). […]