.
Subsection
Vindicatory Justice: Essential to God?
Incarnation apart from Redemption?
.
.
Order of Contents
Not Necessary
Hypothetical Necessity
Consequent Necessity
Absolute Necessity
Historical 6+
Westminster
. Commentaries 4
.
Not Necessary at All
This has been the view of persons and groups who deny that Christ’s death was substitutionary, penal or legal at all, such as the the semi-pelagian nominalists of the Middles Ages (such as John Duns Scotus) and the Socinians.
.
A Hypothetical Necessity
Order of
Intro
Articles 12+
Quotes 6+
Historical 2
Latin 1
.
Intro
Louis Berkhof gives a definition of this view:
“Calvin says: ‘It deeply concerned us, that He who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly called simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree, on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us our merciful Father determined.’ (Institutes, II, 12.1)
The atonement was necessary, therefore, because God sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other condition.” Systematic Theology, ‘The Cause & Necessity of the Atonement’
See also John Murray, p. 6, for another definition. This view is related to vindicatory justice not being essential to God.
.
Articles
Early Church
Athanasius
Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 13, ch. 10 & 16
Theodoret, Orations to the Greeks, 6
John of Damascus, 1.3, ch. 18
.
Medieval Church
Aquinas, Thomas – Summa, pt. 3
question 1, ‘Of the Fitness of the Incarnation’
question 46, ‘The Passion of Christ’
.
1500’s
Calvin
Zanchi
Beza
Beza, Theodore – pp. 5-6 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
According to Voet (per Berkhof), Beza changed his view to consequent necessity later in life.
Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), pt. 2, Of the Delivery of Man
2. Whether any delivery might be wrought after the fall
3. Whether delivery be necessary and certain
.
1600’s
Owen, John – in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ… (1647) in Works, vol. 10
This is the “early” Owen. He changed his view when setting about to counter Socinianism in his Dissertation on Divine Justice (1653), below.
“The foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous – namely that God could not have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction were made by his Son.” – Owen, Death of Death in Works 10.205
Rutherford, Samuel – pp. 20-34 of ch. 7, ‘It’s not written in the heart of man by nature that God should promise life eternal to man, upon condition of obedience. 2. And that the debt of justice cannot tie God. 3. God punishes not sin by necessity of nature. 4. Nor defends He his own declarative glory by that necessity…’ in The Covenant of Life Opened… (Edinburgh, 1655)
John Owen had critiqued Rutherford in Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice (1653), pt. 2, ch. 17 in Works, vol. 16, pp. 607-18. Here, two years later, Rutherford rebuts Owen without naming him, while paraphrasing statements from his Dissertation.
Rutherford positively sets forth his own view near the end of his discussion in these propositions (p. 34):
“It is safest to say:
[1.] the only wise God decreed that sin should be.
2. That the glory of his justice should appear in taking away sin, not in our way, but in the way of God, to wit, in a way of justice, of mercy, of free grace, in incomparable love, of mighty power; and
[3.] in all these so acts the Lord as He should not leave off to be the Lord, but acts most freely, though He had not taken that course. But far be it from the godly not to adore him in this, as the admirable way beyond the thoughts of men and angels.”
William Twisse
.
1800’s
Bavinck, Herman
.
Quotes
Order of
Calvin
Davenant & Walaeus
Wendelin
Gataker
Rutherford
Baxter
Norton
Wamphray
.
1500’s
Calvin
Commentary on John 15:13
“God might have redeemed us by a single word, or by a mere act of his will, if he had not thought it better to do otherwise for our own benefit, that, by not sparing his own well-beloved Son, He might testify in his person how much He cares for our salvation.”
.
Institutes, bk. 2, ch. 12, section 1, as provided by Berkhof
“It deeply concerned us, that He who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly called simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree, on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us our merciful Father determined.”
.
1600’s
On John Davenant & Anthony Walaeus
Michael Lynch, John Davnenat’s Hypothetical Universalism: a Defense of Catholic & Reformed Orthodoxy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021), ch. 5.3.2, “Ordained Sufficiency”, pp. 118-21
“Davenant’s third argument, a line of argument for ordained sufficiency [of the atonement] he was especially fond of, compared the relation of Christ’s death to the fallen angels and the nonelect. As noted in chapter 3, when pressed by
the Remonstrants to explain exactly how Christ’s death was related to the reprobate and the fallen angels, the Contra- Remonstrants at the Hague Conference and Davenant’s fellow Englishman William Ames argued (or,
perhaps, conceded) that Christ died for the nonelect in a way that he did not die for the fallen angels. Ames, whom Davenant quotes, writes that “the sufficiency of [Christ’s] death does not refer in the same way to reprobate
mankind as to devils. . . . He paid a sufficient payment price [lytron] for all human beings whosoever, if only they would embrace it, but not for devils.”81
Davenant presses on Ames’s logic, noting that, according to this view, the death of Christ is so paid that even if the devils were to believe, they could not be saved by the death of Christ. In Davenant’s theological scheme, what
is missing for the fallen angels is an ordained sufficiency— the death of Christ was not offered for them. Hence, “the death of Christ is understood to be sufficient for all human beings in the same sense as it is rightly denied to be sufficient for the fallen angels”— by an ordained sufficiency.
At first glance, it may appear that Davenant left out an important element in Ames’s argument. For Ames, what made the death of Christ sufficient for the reprobate but not for the fallen angels was not an ordained sufficiency, but rather Christ’s assumption of a human nature rather than an angelic nature. Ames denies even the mere sufficiency of the death of Christ for the fallen angels.
In contrast, however, Davenant argues that there is a mere sufficiency between the work of Christ and the fallen angels: the death of Christ “had in itself, and by its own intrinsic price, not only a sufficiency, but an infinite superabundance, even if there should be placed in the other scale the sins not only of all mankind, but even the angels.” Ames, however, disagreed with such thinking using this syllogism: a thing “is not sufficient which is not befitting, apt, and suitable [ἵκανον, aptum, ac idoneum]. But a great part of the aptitude in Christ taking away the sins of mankind was in his assuming the similitude of our sinful flesh.” Therefore, “his death was not sufficient to take away the sins of the wicked angels.”
As Ames’s logic goes, the fallen angels could not be redeemed by the death of Christ because Christ did not take upon himself an angelic nature. In contrast, humans can be redeemed precisely because the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature. For Ames, then, redeemability as well as a mere sufficiency is grounded in the similitude of natures, not in an ordained sufficiency.
Davenant, however, did not ultimately overlook this part of Ames’s argument; he deemed it incoherent. First, Davenant insisted that the notion of Christ suffering sufficiently for human beings cannot be simply grounded
upon his assumption of a human nature, but requires both a mere sufficiency and an ordained sufficiency. Moreover, the death of Christ, even though Christ did not assume their nature, must be said to have a mere sufficiency relative to the fallen angels:
[A]lthough there was not that similitude of nature between Christ and angels which there was between Christ and human beings, yet this could not prevent that the payment price [λύτρον] paid by Christ, that is, the blood of God [sanguis Dei], was in itself and on account of its own value also most sufficient to take away the sins of angels. For what guilt of any creature can be so great that the blood- shedding of God [effusus sanguis Dei] could not suffice for its expiation, which is of infinite value from the dignity of the divine person? And therefore, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of human nature, if God had deemed to grant this right in the death of Christ to angels, it would also be applicable for the redemption of angels.
In other words, nothing hinders the nature of Christ’s work to be applicable to the fallen angels for their reconciliation except that his work was not ordained for them, i.e., there was no ordained sufficiency.
Indeed, Davenant observed that many, if not most,
Reformed theologians, along with many church Fathers, argued that Christ the mediator, notwithstanding the fact that he did not assume an angelic nature, merited grace
for those angels who did not fall. Christ actually had a mediatorial role with regard to the non-fallen angelic host:
“Christ, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of nature, is a sufficient, fit, and suitable head to communicate grace even to angels; accordingly, it is asserted by the most learned Divines, that Christ merited the gifts of grace and glory for the good angels.”
It was quite common to argue that the gift of perseverance by which the holy angels continued in their holiness was merited by the work of Christ. According to Antonius Walaeus (1573– 1639), longtime professor of theology at Leiden and Davenant’s fellow delegate at the Synod of Dordt, this is not only the position of Augustine, Chrysostom, and other church Fathers, but also that of Calvin, Bucer, and Junius. These theologians distinguished between Christ’s mediatorial work as an act of reconciliation/redemption and as a work of conservation. The former pertained to human beings alone, but the latter included the angels. Walaeus explains and defends the position this way:
There is a debate among ancient and recent orthodox writers whether the angels were in need of a Mediator for the preservation of their original state. We readily concur with the affirmative position (which has very weighty authors), because, on the one hand, in Scripture Christ alone is called the Son in whom the Father, namely by himself, was well pleased; and because, on the other hand, Christ specifically is called the prince and head of angels.
And finally, we concur because although the angels had no sin from which they needed to be redeemed, nevertheless, even in them would God’s justice find something lacking for granting the reward of eternal life to them, if He would compare them with himself, and would take notice of them as they are in and of themselves alone, as appears from Job 4:18 and 15:15.
To say nothing now about those passages in Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:20, which admittedly are explained by others (but without providing a parallel of similar wording elsewhere) as referring only to the souls that
were dwelling in heaven at the time of Christ’s death.
Davenant, moving from the premise that Christ’s mediatorial work does have a relation to the angels, argues that notwithstanding the fact that Jesus
Christ did not take on an angelic nature, had God willed the work of Christ to be offered on behalf of the fallen angels (i.e., introducing an ordained sufficiency), then they could be redeemed by the person and work of Jesus Christ. Yet, in view of his broader argument, Davenant believes that all fallen and living human beings are redeemable on account of Christ’s death precisely in the same way that all the fallen angels are not redeemable, because, according to God’s will and decree, Christ was sent to redeem only human beings, not angels. There is lacking an ordained sufficiency in Christ’s death for the
angels. Accordingly, while the value of Christ’s death is simply (i.e., necessarily) and intrinsically infinite by virtue of Christ’s divine nature (contra Scotus), its applicability to any being (e.g., angelic, human, believing, unbe
lieving) is grounded solely on God’s will (ut Scotus).”
.
Marcus F. Wendelin
Christian Theology 3rd ed. (1634), Species of the Office of Christ, pt. 2
“[Socinians and Photinians object:] (2) God is able to pardon sins without satisfaction. Therefore, it is probable, that He exacts no satisfaction. The antecedent is proven: Because He is able to remit of His own right as much as He pleases: since He is the absolute judge: but to each one one may remit as much as He pleases of his own right. Responses:
1. I deny the consequence; it is not valid to argue from the possible to the actual.
2. I also deny the antecedent. The proof is inconsequent: God is indeed able to remit of His own right as much as He pleases; but by His truth and righteousness He is not willing to remit so much, that without satisfaction He might forgive sins: because by His just judgment He once dictated to man the punishment of death: in the day that thou eatest therefore thou shalt surely die. Whence Scripture comments the righteousness of God in exacting satisfaction, Rom. 3:25.
(3.) God wills to forgive us our sins without satisfaction. Therefore, He exacts no satisfaction. The antecedent is proven: because God does not exact anything from us except faith and repentance.
Response: I deny the antecedent. The proof is inconsequent. For, even if from us He does not require and exact satisfaction: nevertheless, He exacts it from His Son, our Mediator, and imputes and grants the same to us freely. Faith itself implies this satisfaction: which is born toward Christ as the one redeeming and making satisfaction.”
.
Thomas Gataker
in Anthony Wotton, Mr. Anthony Wotton’s Defence against Mr. George Walker’s Charge... (Cambridge: Daniel, 1641), ‘The Issue’ (1641), pp. 59-60 See the original for the exact references.
“…Socinus in the very entrance into his Treatise of Christ the Saviour affirms that God might if He had pleased, without breach of his justice, have pardoned man’s sin freely, without any satisfaction required: and the same he after again presses and prosecutes in his ensuing discourses. Whether this be an error or no, I stand not now to discuss.
Vorstius herein concurred with Socinus; and is for the same reproved by Tossanus; Grotius likewise for affirming the same is taxed by Ravenspergerus; defended by Vossius, who cites divines not a few, both old and new, saying the same: And it is maintained to pass by all others, by Calvin, Musculus, Zanchi, Grinaeus, Faius, Casman, Tilenus, Franzius, Smiglesius and our reverend Dr. Twisse; yet I am persuaded that no wise or discreet man at least will hence conclude any of these to be therefore Socinian heretics.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: Crooke, 1647), pp. 7-8
“…God, if we speak of his absolute power, without respect to his free decree, He could have pardoned sin without a ransom, and gifted all mankind and fallen angels with heaven, without any satisfaction of either the sinner or his Surety; for He neither punishes sin, nor tenders heaven to men or angels by necessity of nature–as the fire casts out heat, and the sun light—but freely:
Only supposing that frame of providence and decrees of punishing and redeeming sinners that now is, the Lord could not but be steady in his decrees; yet this is but necesity conditional, and at the second hand. But here was the business, God, in the depth of his eternal wisdom, did so frame and draw the design and plot of saving lost man, as salvation was to run in no other chanel, but such an one, the bank whereof was the freest grace and tenderest love that can enter in the heart of men or angels; for He drew the lines of our heaven through grace, all the way.
Secondly, grace hardly can work but by choice and voluntary arbitration: choice and election is suitable to grace… And our Lord contrived this brave way, to out his grace on us.”
.
Richard Baxter
Aphorisms of Justification… (Hague, 1655), thesis 5, pp. 12-13
“Whether there were any flat necessity of man’s suffering after the Fall is doubted by many and denied by Socinus. Whether this necessity arises from God’s natural justice, or his ordinate, viz. his decree, and the verity of the threatening, is also with many of our own divines a great dispute:
Whether God might have pardoned sin if He had not said, ‘The sinner shall die,’ may be doubted of (though I believe the affirmative, yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question. But the word of his threatening being once past, methinks it should be past question that He cannot absolutely pardon without the apparent violation of his truth, or wisdom. Some think that it proceeds from his wisdom rather than his justice, that man must suffer: see Mr. John Goodwin, Of Justification, pt. 2, p. 34), but why should we separate what God has conjoined?
However, whether wisdome, or justice, or truth (or rather all these) were the ground of it, yet certain it is that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted: or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction, nor sinners bear so much themselves.”
.
An End of Doctrinal Controversies… (London: Salusbury, 1691), ch. 12, Of the Several Laws or Covenants of God, sect. 3, ‘Of the Law or Covenant of Grace in the First Edition’, pp. 127-30
“§3. God’s actual continuance of forfeited life, liberty, health, and other comforts, and his actual collation of many great mercies by the course of Nature, to such as by sin have deserved present damnation, is a degree of signification of his pardoning will and mercy by these natural signs (which they were not before sin and forfeiture).
§4. Man being after guilt of death, thus reprieved and enriched with manifold mercies, and his life and faculties continued with many instructing providential helps and means, the very Law of Nature now obliges him to love and thankfulness to God that shows him so great kindness.
§5. And the same Law of Nature obliges him to take that God still for a God of love and mercy, and to believe, that what mercy He has already showed the world and us, is on terms which he knows to be very well consistent with his holiness, truth and justice: And it obliges us therefore to seek to Him for mercy, and to use all possible means for further hope and pardon and recovery, and not to sit down in despair.
§6. The common sense of all mankind from Adam to this day, acquaints us by that experience, that these hopes and duties are found in the Law of lapsed Nature: For all the world that never heard the Gospel, do yet take God to be a merciful, forgiving God, and take themselves to be under some duty for the obtaining of further mercy, recovery and felicity.
§7. Though want of the sense of sin, and its desert, and man’s misery may be thought by some to be the only cause of this, and so that it is but sinful presumption, and no part of Nature’s obligation; yet this upon trial will prove false (though what they allege be one part of the cause). For:
1. These men do acknow∣ledge themselves sinners, and to deserve punishment from God.
2. They find some misery and fear more.
3. It is not presumption to judge God to be merciful, when they and all the world do find Him so.
4. It is not presumption to judge, that he can and will pardon sin, when full experience assures us, that He has already pardoned much. To remit the sin, is (as we now speak of it) to remit the deserved punishment. And He that gives man forfeited life, health, time, and all the abundant mercies which the world is full of, does thereby so far actually forgive sin: Says Christ, ‘Whether is it easier to say thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say arise, take up thy Bed and walk,’ that is, Executively to forgive them, which is the full forgiveness, by taking away the punishment.
5. It is no presumption to believe such duty to be incumbent on us, as the remaining Law of Nature does oblige us to.
6. Nor yet to take God’s own encouragements to seek our own recovery and felicity.
§8. The Light and Law of lapsed Nature does convince men of the duty of repenting and returning to God, and oblige them to it. So that as perfect obedience was the duty of entire Nature, so repentance is the duty of lapsed Nature: And I think few will say that all men are not hereby obliged to repent, and that in hope of mercy.
§9. Hence it is that it is found among the communes notitiae [common notions], and all the world as well as Christians acknowledge it and plead for it.
§10. They that by God’s patience and mercy are invited to repentance, which is a return from sin to God, and are by Nature obliged to it, ought to believe that it is not made their duty in vain, nor shall they lose by it if they perform it; for that were to accuse God of making man’s duty in vain, or to his loss, which is not to be suspected.
§11. Therefore they are bound not to despair of pardon and salvation; for an obligation to use means as tending to recovery, is inconsistent with an obligation to despair. Therefore hope of mercy and use of some means mankind is obliged to by the Law of lapsed Nature.
§12. This is not the obligation of the Law or Covenant of Innocency; for that Law bound us only as innocent to keep our innocency and perfectly therein obey: But it gives no pardon, nor appoints man any duty in order to pardon and recovery: Whatever does this, is a Law of Grace.
§13. The sum of that duty which the Law of Nature now obliges man to, is, to consider of all the mercies which God vouchsafes sinners, and thankfully to improve them; to repent of sin, and turn to this God, who shows Himself a merciful pardoning God; To resign themselves to Him as their Owner, to obey Him as their Ruler, and to love and seek Him as their ultimate end; and to believe that his mercy will not let us be losers in so doing, nor to do it in vain.
§14. But the supernatural revelation tells us much more than all this, of the promised Seed, the means of our salvation, and of our duty in believing them, and of the certainty and nature of the pardon, deliverance, and blessedness which we shall attain.”
.
John Norton
Orthodox Evangelist, ch. 3
“God, by his absolute power, could have saved man without a mediator: He is omnipotent, and could have done what He pleased.”
.
John Brown of Wamphray
Quakerism: the Pathway to Paganism, or a View of the Quakers’ Religion, being an Examination of the Theses & Apology of Robert Barclay, one of their Number... (Edinburgh: Cairns, 1678), ch. 8, ‘Of Universal Redemption’, p. 163 Brown was a disciple of Rutherford.
“13. Again (2) The Scripture every where points out the end of Christ’s coming and dying to have been to procure and obtain some good to man; it were endless to cite the Scriptures speaking this out plainly: But if it had been only to have procured a possibility, then the proper and immediate end of his dying had been only to have procured something to God, viz. a power to Him, that He might, without hurt to his justice, prescribe a possible way of salvation.
Now, not to discuss that question agitated among orthodox divines, viz. whether it was impossible for God to have pardoned the sins of man without a satisfaction made by his Son, or not; meaning antecedently to a decree, determining this way of manifestation of the justice of God; only I must say that as yet I can see nothing from Scripture determining the egresses of the relative justice of God to be more essential to God, and less subject to the free determinations of his good will and pleasure, than are the egresses of his mercy; nor do I see any necessity for asserting this against the Socinians, seing our ground, walking upon a decree, is proof against all their assaults; far less see I any necessity of founding our whole debate with the Socinians upon that ground; yea I cannot but judge it the result of great imprudence so to do, seeing the Socinians may reply that the sole ground of that opposition to them is not only questioned, but plainly denied by such as we account orthodox and learned; and may hence gather that we have no other solid ground whereupon to debate with them but such as the learned of our own side overthrow.
The depth’s of God’s Counsel are beyond our fathoming and it is hard for us to say hithertil the omnipotent can come, but not one ince further. I dare not be wise above what is writen and I would gladly see one passage of Scripture declaring this to have been in itself utterly impossible and inconsistent with God.”
.
Historical Theology
Helm, Paul
‘Analysis 13 – Owen’s Option’ (2008) 17 paragrpahs at Helm’s Deep
This article is the seed from which the more mature chapter below grew. In the article Helm does not evidence that he has gone outside of Owen’s Dissertation for understanding the views of Twisse and Rutherford.
“Here Owen appears to waver. On the one hand he allows that punishments may vary provided that the end of satisfying justice is met. On the other hand he seems to make an exception of the atonement, arguing or rather implying that there could not be another mode of satisfaction for sin than atonement by the God-man, the surety who has substituted himself in the room of sinners. Yet he seems to allow the possibility (though one that we are not in a position to know about) that the manner, time etc. of punishment belongs entirely to God, whose counsel we do not know.
Which raises the question of why, if punishments in general, in respect of their nature and circumstances, are in the hand of God, why the punishment for sin may not similarly be. And if it may similarly be, even if we have not a clue about what an alternative mode of punishment may be in this case, then the atonement by Christ is not necessary in even the restricted sense that Owen has argued for earlier.”
ch. 6, ‘The Atonement’ in Calvin at the Centre (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), pp. 163-96
Amongst other things, Helm shows there is a significant internal inconsistency in Owen’s position regarding divine freedom.
Mosser, Carl – Recovering the Classic Concept of Satisfaction, pt. 1, 2, 3
.
Latin
1600’s
Twisse, William – Vindiciae Gratiae, bk. 1, Of Election, digression 8
“Dr. Twisse maintained, as several eminently orthodox divines have done, ‘That God, by his absolute power, setting aside his decree or free constitution, can forgive sin without any satisfaction.’ He has a whole digression against Piscator and Lubbertus, on this subject.”
.
A Consequent Necessity
Order of
Intro
Articles 10+
Book 2
Confessional Documents 2
Quotes 4
Latin 2
.
Intro
While it was free and not necessary for God to redeem, yet having purposed to redeem, it was necessary that redemption be accomplished according to certain requisites, specifically that God’s righteousness and his law’s justice be fulfilled through the penal, substitutionary death of the divine Mediator in the human nature. God could not have forgiven sin without an expiation of sin by human death.
This view is related to vindicatory justice being essential to God.
.
Articles
Medieval
Anselm – Why God Became Man?
.
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – “An Advertisement Explicatory, especially about the Necessity of God’s Execution of his Threatenings, or of Christ’s Satisfaction: to Prevent Misunderstanding” in The Unreasonableness of Infidelity, Manifested in Four Discourses, pp. iix-xviii
Burgess, Anthony – sermon 11, ‘Why it was necessary our redemption should be by way of justice, with distinctions of natural necessity. And whether God could have remitted sin without satisfaction, modestly discussed’ in The True Doctrine of Justification… (London: Underhill, 1654), pt. 2, sect. 2, pp. 101-111
Burgess surveys the different views and distinctions in detail before concluding with his own opinion on pp. 107-110, with applications following.
Turretin, Francis – ch. 1, ‘The Necessity of the Atonement’ †1687 16 pp. in On the Atonement, pp. 14-30. Also in Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, Locus 14, Question 10, pp. 417-26
van Mastricht, Peter – bk. 5, ch. 7 in Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 4
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 17, ‘The Necessity of Satisfaction by the Surety Jesus Christ’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 465-93
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
De Moor, Bernard – ‘On God’s Essential Vindicatory Righteousness: the Satisfaction of Christ’, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in Theological Disputation on Vindicatory Righteousness as Essential to God in Continuous Commentary, ch. 4, ‘On God’
.
1800’s
Stevenson, George – A Dissertation on the Atonement (Philadelphia, 1832), pp. 5-98
Hodge, A.A. – The Atonement (London, 1868), pp. 217-22
Thornwell, James H. – ‘The Necessity of the Atonement’ in Collected Writings (Richmond, VA: 1886), vol. 2, pp. 205-61
.
1900’s
Murray, John
ch. 1, ‘The Necessity of the Atonement’ in Redemption Accomplished & Applied (Eerdmans, 2015), pp. 3-13 An outline of this chapter is here.
ch. 2, ‘The Necessity’, pp. 2-3 in The Atonement in An International Library of Philosophy & Theology: Biblical & Theological Studies Series Buy (P&R, 1980) The booklet is also here.
Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Cause & Necessity of the Atonement’ 14 paragraphs in Systematic Theology (1950)
Outline
III. The Cause & Necessity of the Atonement
Intro
A. The Moving Cause of the Atonement
B. Historical Views Respecting the Necessity of the Atonement
C. Proofs for the Necessity of the Atonement
D. Objections to the Doctrine of the Absolute Necessity of the Atonement
.
Books
1600’s
Owen, John – Dissertation on Divine Justice… (1653) in Works, vol. 10, pp. 482-624
Owen had previously taken the hypothetical necessity view in his Death of Death. He changed his view in further considering the arguments of Socinianism, and here seeks especially to counter them. In his preface, Owen notes that everyone speaks against his newly-adopted position, this showing that it was very much a minority view among the Reformed at the time, though it grew in popularity to become the majority reformed view by the end of the century.
For an introduction to Owen’s book, and a critique of it, see Paul Helm, ‘Analysis 13 – Owen’s Option’ (2008).
Owen critiques Samuel Rutherford in pt. 2, ch. 17, pp. 607-18 of this work. For Rutherford’s rebuttal, see above in his Covenant of Life Opened (1655).
Ferguson, Robert – Justification Only upon a Satisfaction, or the Necessity & Verity of the Satisfaction of Christ as the alone ground of remission of sin asserted and opened against the Socinians… (London: 1668) 293 pp. ToC
Ferguson (d. 1714) was a non-conforming Scottish presbyterian minister.
.
Confessional Documents
Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 40
Canons of Dort II, article 1
.
Quotes
Order of
Placeus
Amyraut
Hoornbeek
Duncan
.
1600’s
Joshua Placeus
‘Theological Theses on the Justification of Man before God’ (1634), pp. 5-6
“XXI. However, it is not possible for God to grant grace without a satisfaction corresponding to justice. For since He has given a law to man, denounced penalties for transgressors, and appointed judgment—and since He is, by nature, a judge—it cannot happen that in judging, He would act against the office of a just judge. But it would violate justice to justify and release the guilty without satisfaction, even if the guilty party repented.
…
XXVIII. From all this it is understood that there is no remission of sins without satisfaction, and no satisfaction except that which Christ, God manifested in the flesh, has perfectly rendered for us—being made sin and a curse for us (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13), and then justified by the Father through His resurrection and glorification, receiving thereby the full acquittal (or apoche).”
.
Moses Amyraut
A Declaration of the Faith of Moses Amyraut concerning the Errors of the Arminians trans. AI by Onku (Salmur: Lesnerius, 1646), p. 5 Latin
“Regarding the first , the Arminians think that the death of Christ was not necessary for procuring salvation for men, and they believe that God could have pardoned sins without any satisfaction.
The Orthodox [Reformed], indeed, believe that that way of saving the human race was the most fitting of all, since God was pleased to use it; yet most of them readily concede to the Arminians that it was not absolutely necessary, and they do not contend that God’s justice was to that extent inexorable.
Amyraut believes that God’s justice is so inflexible, and the majesty of his laws so holy and inviolable, that it could not suffer sins to be pardoned without satisfaction. In this matter, he has surrounded the orthodox doctrine with a defense by which it is stripped by many others. He has, moreover, proved his opinion on this matter with arguments in his Theses on the Necessity of Satisfaction for Grace.”
.
Johannes Hoornbeek
‘Theological Disputation on the Satisfaction of Christ’ tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht, 1650) Latin
“III. …But what can man do for this? His demerit is infinite (by the previous thesis). But the moral value of human actions is only finite, for the act cannot exceed the dignity of its principle. Moreover, in personal offenses, such as this one, there ought to be order and proportion between the one making satisfaction and the one to whom it is made, but this is far less between God and man than between a king and the vilest slave.
IV. …Indeed, so far is gratuitous remission of sins from being opposed to this satisfaction, that it cannot but have a place in that satisfaction (such as this one is) where another pays and something else is paid than he who was and what was in the obligation, and more so when he to whom satisfaction ought to be made can reject all satisfaction, and especially when he himself appoints the sponsor and in him reconciles himself with his enemies, all of which obtain here.
Hence fall:
1. The mimicry of the Socinians arguing against the satisfaction of Christ from the gratuitous remission made to us, and refuting our arguments for it (see Socinus, De Servatore, part 3, ch. 2, and Praelections ch. 117, §5; Volkelius and Gitichius ibid.).
2. Their argument from Eph 4:32 that we ought to forgive our brothers as God has forgiven us. Right! Gratuitous remission has come about for us, but on account of Christ’s satisfaction “in Christ” (as the Apostle adds there), through whose blood we have remission of sins from the riches of divine grace (Eph 1:7). Indeed, what is clearer for the possibility of composing most strict satisfaction and gratuitous remission than the example of Paul entreating remission for Onesimus and offering his own payment (Philem 10,12,18-19)?
3. Nor is the transfer of our obligation to Christ repugnant to divine justice (as Socinus argues, part 3, ch. 3). It is indeed essential to sin that it be set in order through punishment, but it is not essential that it be vindicated in the very one who sinned. For God is placated provided that esteem is restored to him and his laws satisfied (for in these he was injured, by Thesis 1). But this is done through Jesus Christ; indeed, it can be done through him alone, because he alone has order and proportion with God.
4. Nor does it oppose the truth of [God’s] threats (as Socinus ibid.), since that too is preserved provided that someone sponsors for those who sinned. They indeed have this from transgression, that they are under obligation to punishments, but it is not required that the transgression actually be vindicated in them, as was just said.
V. …its power and value flowed from the divine. Christ our Lord freely, willingly and lawfully undertook this sponsorship (Ps 40:8, Heb 10:9), for he was Lord of his life and had the power of laying it down (John 10:18). It was also of his dignity, that he was most apt for satisfying the rigor of justice.
VI. …The price offered is the whole Christ, ἑαυτὸν ἔδωκεν [he gave himself], etc. For between the person who would make satisfaction and the one to whom it would be made, there ought to be proportion and order, since the nature of the latter demands the rigor of justice (by Theses 2 and 3). For this reason, Christ, a divine person, submitted himself to the whole Trinity, becoming obedient unto death (Phil 2:8)…
It was necessary for Christ to bear these punishments for us in this way, since he took our guilt upon himself and was made our sponsor. I deny, therefore, that Christ was able to make satisfaction by a single drop of blood…”
.
1800’s
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
“It seems to me a terrible thing to say that there was no intrinsic necessity for Christ’s death, for then we virtually say that He died for sin that He need not have died for.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – ‘Is Christ’s Saving the Elect by the Special Grace of Regeneration & Faith Meritorious? [Yes]’ in Select Theological Disputations (1669), vol. 5, p. 270-77
a Marck, Johannes –
.
An Absolute Necessity for the Atonement
Definition:
Man having fallen, God was morally necessitated to send and offer redemption.
.
The Lutherans & Arminians held to this.
.
Historical
On the Early Church
Smeaton, George – pp. 508-9 of ‘Historical Sketch of the Doctrine of Atonement’ an appendix to The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870)
.
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
1800’s
Walker, James – ‘The Necessity of the Atonement’ 1888 8 pp. being section 1 of ch. 3, ‘The Atonement’ in The Theology & Theologians of Scotland: chiefly of the Seventeenth & Eighteenth Centuries, pp. 67-75
A survey of the 1600’s Scottish covenanters on the necessity of the atonement, from a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.
Smeaton, George – p. 530 of ‘Historical Sketch of the Doctrine of Atonement’ an appendix to The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870)
.
2000’s
Muller, Richard – PRRD, vol. 3, on Vindicatory Justice
Trueman, Carl – ch. 9, “The Necessity of the Atonement” in eds. Haykin, Michael & Mark Jones, Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity & Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (V&R, 2011), pp. 204-22
.
Book
Schendel, Joshua – The Necessity of Christ’s Satisfaction: a Study of the Reformed Scholastic Theologians William Twisse (1578–1646) & John Owen (1616–1683) Pre (Brill, 2022) 224 pp. ToC
.
Quote
Richard Muller
ch. 1, “Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: a Historiographical Introduction” in eds. Haykin & Jones, Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity & Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (V&R, 2011), pp.. 26-27
“Carl Trueman’s study of the thought of John Owen both analyzes Owen’s own change of position and sets Owen’s doctrinal argumentation into the context of a centuries-long doctrinal conversation and debate over the necessity of the atonement, noting the position of Aquinas [holding to consequent necessity], the shift in argumentation brought about by Scotus’ voluntarism, and the apparent reflection of the Scotist view in Calvin’s own thought.
Owen’s earlier approach followed out this more or less Scotistic approach and found confirming echoes in the thought of William Twisse and Samuel Rutherford. In his later approach, Owen saw the primary threat to orthodoxy as arising not from the Arminians but from the Socinians and, accordingly refocused his argument from a more intellectualist perspective and rooted the necessity of the atonement in God’s vindicatory justice.
This shift in Owen’s formulation and the fact that it involved significant debate with and departure from the views of such significant Reformed thinkers as Calvin, Musculus, Twisse, and Rutherford and actually, as Trueman notes, put Owen into the company of Pareus, Piscator, Lubbertus, Cameron, and Maccovius, very clearly illustrates the diversity of the Reformed tradition, the presence of significant debates within the confessional tradition… Owen’s mature views placed him, on this particular issue, consciously in the camp of Piscator, Cameron, and Amyraut.”
.
Westminster
Notes on Westminster
1. The WLC uses the term ‘requisite’, not necessity.
2. The WLC does not use the language of a legal atonement or satisfaction, but only that the Mediator should “suffer and make intercession for us in our nature”.
3. The WLC does not clarify or define how these items regarding the Mediator were requisite.
4. Something requisite may be understood as a condition or precondition to the end attained. There are numerous possible reasons why something may be requisite, one of which is because of the free pleasure of God in decreeing human redemption to occur in that way, with such interrelations.
5. Hence the Westminster’s language could accommodate both the hypothetical and consequent necessity views.
.
Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,[h] perform obedience to the law,[i] suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,[k] have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;[l] that we might receive the adoption of sons,[m] and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.[n]
[h] Heb. 2:16
[i] Gal. 4:4
[k] Heb. 2:14; Heb. 7:24,25
[l] Heb. 4:15
[m] Gal. 4:5
[n] Heb. 4:16
Q. 40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us,[o] and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.[p]
[o] Matt. 1:21,23; Matt. 3:17. Heb. 9:14
[p] 1 Pet. 3:6
Commentaries on Westminster Larger Catechism #39-40
1700’s
Ridgley, Thomas – pp. 485-9 in ‘Why the Mediator Required to be God & Man’ in A Body of Divinity… (d. 1734; NY: Robert Carter, 1855), vol. 1
This was the first commentary published on the Larger Catechism, being a series of sermons through it. Ridgley (1667-1734) was a reformed, English Independent, who was the assistant and successor of Thomas Gouge in London.
.
1900’s
Vos, Johannes – The Westminster Larger Catechism, a Commentary ed. G.I. Williamson Buy originally written 1946-49
Vos was a mid-western pastor in the RPCNA.
.
2000’s
Morecraft, Joe – Authentic Christianity: An Exposition of the Theology & the Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism, 5 vols. Buy (2009)
Morecraft has been a pastor in the RPCUS.
Moeck, Gregory – Westminster Larger Catechism Lecture Notes 2015-2020 These are handout notes to his weekly Larger Catechism class in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
39a, ‘The nature of natural theology, and its need for advancement or perfection by grace’ 8 pp.
39b, ‘How our nature is advanced by grace and prepared for the beatific vision’ 10 pp.
39c, ‘The Fittingness of the Incarnation as The Means of Advancing Mankind’s Nature’ 7 pp.
39d, ‘The Humanity Of Christ & Our Participation In His Sonship’ 7 pp.
39e, ‘Merit, Christ’s Human Nature & the Law – Part I’ 8 pp.
39f, ‘Merit, Christ’s Human Nature & The Law – Part II’ 7 pp.
39g, ‘Merit, Christ’s Human Nature & The Law – Part III’ 7 pp.
39h, ‘Merit, Christ’s Human Nature & The Law – Part IV’ 8 pp.
39i, ‘The Passible Flesh Of The Impassible God’ 11 pp.
40, ‘Two Natures, One Person => Two Operations, One Action’ 7 pp.
.
.
.
Related Pages