Conditional and Unconditional.
By Editor
AN esteemed brother objects to an expression of ours in the work on the Atonement, as follows:— “With the highest regards for you I am obliged to say that I cannot receive some statements contained therein as being sound and true. For instance: On page 161, third line from the top, you state that ‘Eternal life through Christ was freely and unconditionally brought to man.’ And you cite in proof Rom. 6:23. Of course you immediately quote passages to show the conditions of eternal life, which most effectually destroy the force of the statement and show it to be unsound. We think our position is correct, and our statement not unsound. Moreover, we think we guarded the statement so that there is little chance for misapprehension if the whole paragraph be considered, and not merely a single sentence. We spoke of the differences between the Calvinists and Arminians and said:— “The great question to be decided is this: In what respect is the gospel plan unconditional, and in what respect is it conditional? If there is anywhere such a distinction, and if we can clearly trace the line, the subject must then be relieved of much difficulty. Examining this, we find the introduction of the gospel, or setting forth Christ as the way of salvation, is unconditional; but the application of the gospel to individual salvation, is conditional. Thus, it is not said to the world, nor to any part thereof, that if they would believe and do certain things Christ should die for them. But it is said that if they will believe and do certain things they shall be saved by his blood so freely and unconditionally shed for the sins of the world.” We presume our brother will admit that the whole plan of salvation was laid upon the death or sacrifice of Christ, and that his blood alone cleanses from all unrighteousness. And we think it is not too much to ask him to concede the soundness of our position, or show that there was a condition laid upon man whereby he might secure the death of Christ, or the shedding of his blood for the remission of his sins. We have studied this subject with great care for years, and we have never yet found any such condition presented in the Scriptures, and we still believe that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,” and that the all-important gift rested upon no condition for man to fulfill in order that the Son might die for him. On pages 81, 82, the same point is brought to view in noticing the errors of popular authors in regard to the penalty of the law, and whether Christ suffered it for man. The following language is there used:— “Burge on the Atonement, says: ‘If a man engage to perform a certain piece of work, for a reward which is proposed, it makes no difference whether he do the work himself, or procure another to do it for him. Let the work be done according to agreement, and he is entitled to the reward. So, if Christ has done for believers the work which the law required them to do, God is now bound, on the principle of strict justice, to bestow the promised reward, eternal life. There is no grace, but stern, unbending justice, here.’ Pp. 202, 203. Barnes takes substantially the same view, and both aver that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. Did this illustration merely go to show the insufficiency of Christ’s obedience to moral law to make an atonement, without the suffering of death, there could be no objection raised against it. But it goes far beyond this. In order for an illustration to be worth anything, there must be some analogy between its main points and the thing illustrated. In this case there is none whatever. Man is a rebel, condemned to death; the law can only be satisfied with the taking of life. Now in regard to rendering satisfaction to a broken law there cannot possibly be anything existing between sinful man and his Creator, answering to the nature of a contract, as this illustration supposes. But its defect is most plainly seen in this, that man does not, and cannot, procure a substitute. If man by his own efforts had procured the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, atonement would rest on an entirely different footing from what it now does. Any illustration based on such an utter impossibility, which is so contrary to evident truths, and to the whole revealed plan of the atonement, cannot aid in a correct understanding of it. God has set forth his Son to be a propitiation—to suffer death, the penalty of the law, for us; so that his substitutionary sacrifice is the gift of God, even as Christ himself was the gift of God. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.’” If we take for granted that the death of Christ meets every demand of the law, yet so long as he is the gift of God, there is mercy in the transaction.” Can any one gainsay this, and show that man did, by the fulfillment of some condition, procure the sacrifice of Christ, on which all our hopes of eternal salvation rest? When Christ shall cease pleading “for the sins of the whole world,”—when his priesthood shall be ended,—then the plagues of God’s wrath will be poured out upon a guilty, unrepenting world. The common bounties and mercies of life, which all men now receive alike, will be withdrawn. Then the whole race will understand that which they will not now consider, that Jesus is their constant benefactor; for truly, in a certain sense, he is “the Saviour of all men.” But do all men recognize their obligation, and fulfill a condition that Christ may thus become their benefactor? They do not. These mercies are bestowed unconditionally; they are the necessary concomitants of the plan which embraces human probation. They are necessary in order that probation shall be complete, and that men may live under such circumstances that it is possible for them to embrace the offer of salvation and have eternal life. For without these the race would soon become extinct, and none would remain to save. And yet again, by virtue of his power to redeem, he reverses the consequences of the fall by bringing all men from the dominion of that death which we suffer because of our relation to Adam. As the resurrection reaches all classes, just and unjust, it is proved to be unconditional, and therefore that provision of grace by which it is effected must be unconditional. The fact that Christ died for man does not make his salvation a necessity nor a certainty. He did not die in order that any man must be saved, but he died in order that all may be saved. Our brother further says:— “Certainly if eternal life is unconditionally brought to man, then all men to whom it is thus brought will have it—cannot having it.” We do not view it in that light. It is brought to them, and placed within their reach, without any condition or work on their part. But suppose they refuse to receive it; what then? And could they refuse it if it were not brought to them? As it is said in the book in question: “How can they be said to neglect so great salvation, Heb. 2:3, if no salvation was provided for them?” Page 160. “A scheme might be arranged sufficient to benefit one thousand persons, and still the design of the primary movers in it embrace only ten men.” The design of this, as well as of the expression before quoted, is to show that all embraced in the plan, or all to whom salvation was brought, will be saved. The Scriptures directly negative this. It is true that a plan might be sufficient for a thousand, and embrace only ten; but if the movers in it declared explicitly that it was for the whole thousand, and if the entire thousand were exhorted to come and receive it, and earnestly warned against the consequences of rejecting it, and if they were told that their loss was because they would not come and accept it, what then must we think of the person who yet declared that it was designed for only the few who did accept it? If men bring upon themselves swift destruction by denying the Lord who bought them, 2 Pet. 2:1, is it consistent with his word to say that they were destroyed because the Lord did not buy them? All readers will please bear in mind that there is the closest friendship and fullest confidence existing between the objecting brother and ourself. There is no controversy, as that word is generally understood. We write for the truth, and for profit. May the Spirit of truth guide us aright.