# Hodge on judicial satisfaction



## Sola Fide (Dec 1, 2010)

I came across a quote which I'm hoping PBers can shed some light on. Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology answers the "double payment" problem by saying that Christ made a judicial not pecuniary satisfaction:

"This objection again arises from confounding a pecuniary and a judicial satisfaction between which Augustinians are so careful to discriminate... 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... 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."

Is Hodge's view of judicial satisfaction rather than "pecuniary" common in the reformed tradition or are there differing views? 

Also, is it commonplace to ground the free offer of the Gospel, as Hodges does, in the infinite sufficiency of Christ's death ("true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice")? Perhaps this is obvious, but thinking about it now, I haven't always heard this point made in connection with the free offer.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 1, 2010)

I would begin my answer by noting a salient point in discussing the finer points of Systematic Theology:


> Generally, the finer the point, the less the truth being expressed is safely generalized.


So, we begin by noting that the answer given is directly germane to the specific question raised. Which seems to have been:


> If God's wrath against the sin of the world (his general disposition against an undifferentiated class) has been answered _in full_ by the death of Christ, why then should ANY go to hell? Is this not a case of expecting sin to be twice paid for?


"Pecuniary" satisfaction is merely "tit-for-tat" consideration. Hodge acknowledges that the intrinsic, infinite worth of the Son of God was enough (yea, worth even more) than the infinite sin debt incurred by "the world." So, indeed, if Christ had been given simply because of, and in the place of, the sin of the world, then universalism is the logical outcome. And no one--not the worst person who ever lived, who died an impenitent and hardened sinner, not believing on the Son of Man--not even he should perish, unless God's "arbitrary" withholding of the blessing was exercised in that case. So, we see the case of many universalists who say yes, everybody goes to heaven... except for Hitler, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. And maybe Stalin and Mao. But everyone else is OK. And maybe a few serial killers get theirs...

In other words, they are OK with an "arbitrary" God, who's only sort of arbitrary, with the worst people, as long as they salvage God's "decency." They don't really want a God of perfect justice, but they want to ensure enough satisfaction for everyone (and let God make negative exceptions--sort of "reverse-election").

Hodge's reply is: the right answer is that the satisfaction is not pecuniary, but judicial. If a substitute is provided (how?), and if God himself accepts it (assuming he is willing)--this is grace, not debt. There may be any and all sorts of conditions and other factors that God weighs into the situation by or how which he then accepts that substitute, and for whom. If it be objected that the value of the Substitute is so great, the volunteering so noble, nothing else should be considered--how does such reasoning take the Free Will of God into account? Does this not suppose a "value" to which God himself submits? Moreover, such insistence never once considers how that the great Judge and Offended One himself contrived the way for substitution in the first place, and so could set the parameters of his gift as he saw fit.

Note that Hodge states the application of the satisfaction is part-and-parcel with the eternal covenant of Redemption, before all time (so the Son is given for the *application* of Redemption, and not simply for Redeption's sake). The satisfaction is "specially rendered" for the elect, who are not justified in the decree for their justification, but only in due time, when the foreordained condition (faith) for satisfying for them has obtained. Hodge believes (and not all Reformed theologians agree) that ALL infants dying in infancy are members of the elect community, not because they died in infancy, but because God predestined only elect persons should die so young. But Reformed theology certainly teaches that at least SOME infants dying in infancy are elect for salvation. Elect infants dying simply believe in the Savior as they are brought to his bosom in heaven; they too are saved by faith; they only ever "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ."

So, when Hodge says, "Should they [those for whom satisfaction was _specially_ rendered (unless the quote is misleading)] die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins," this may only be properly understood as a hypothetical situation. For no elect person can die _*before*_ (unless the infant) he does believe, for unto this he was predestined. So the very next sentence, "It is the stipulations of the *covenant* which *forbid* such a result."

The quote concludes with Hodge saying that the judicial nature of the satisfaction--that it is loaded with internal, covenantal conditions--explains why it NOT simply an announcement that the hearer's sins ARE forgiven, but that they MAY BE forgiven BY believing in the One whom God has sent.


As for the free offer of the gospel, we just need to remember that the gracious invitation to come to Christ for salvation is freely proclaimed to all men. We may safely say that NO ONE who truly desires to be saved will not or cannot be saved, because the benefits of salvation won by Christ most completely (and beyond) are sufficient for the removal of the sins of the world. That they are efficient only for the elect (such being the design for the atonement) has no bearing on the gospel offer. Nor, is there reason to get bogged down in distractions over God's "sincerity" with regard to the reprobate to whom the offer comes. In fact, all men everywhere are COMMANDED to repent and believe. It is grace that makes that insistent call of Christ sound like a sweet invitation, to which the elect make sweet compliance. The same is, at turns, either harsh or foolish sounding to those rejecting it.

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 1, 2010)

Great, reasoned response, Bruce. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## Sola Fide (Dec 2, 2010)

Bruce, your commentary is very illuminating. I am grateful.

I guess one reason for my question was the following. On a personal level, I grew up hearing Calvinistic sermons that did tend, perhaps unwittingly, towards pecuniary or commercial language on the atonement. The impression one could be left with was that the satisfaction of Christ was limited in its nature, as well as its intention or design. The language of a judicial satisfaction handles the problem well, it seems to me, and I was interested whether others in the tradition have spoken in the same terms.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 2, 2010)

Stephen,
Usually, the sufficient/efficient distinction is all that is needful for accurately describing the power of the Atonement. The important thing to remember, in order to avoid the error of Amyraldianism (sometimes called "hypothetical universalism"), is to properly associate the *intention* for the Atonement to the Covenant of Redemption (the Father and the Son agreeing for the matter and manner of Redemption), from all eternity. That Christ's death somehow first satisfies Divine Justice _in toto,_ while accomplishing actually nothing individually Redemptive, is not to be maintained by a strict Reformed rule. In Christ's death, the sins of all the elect (and only the elect) are absolved, entirely. What remains for them, however, is to be "found", historically, in Christ; and until then, they are "children of wrath, as the rest" (Eph.2:3).

It is the view of us "in Christ" that makes the great difference for us, and we are (at different times) in Christ potentially and actually. But the reprobate are NEVER potentially (or even hypothetically) in Christ. So that, while Christ's death is immeasurable in its intrinsic power or efficacy, it is governed from the moment it is instituted by the covenant.


----------



## Sola Fide (Dec 3, 2010)

Bruce,
Thanks again. I agree with what you say about understanding the intention underlying the atonement. I seem to remember reading some old PB threads where Rev Winzer, I believe, talked about definite atonement in terms of this intention.
Would you agree that the following revision of your 3rd sentence _does_ accord with Reformed teaching? "Christ's death satisfies Divine Justice in toto, while individual forgiveness is only received in faith. Thus only the elect are actually redeemed in Christ's death (which was its specific purpose)."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 4, 2010)

Stephen,
I guess I'd be hesitant expressing myself the way you reworded it, given my usage of the term "in toto," without redefenition. Because I intentionally avoid saying or implying that Divine Justice for _every man_ is satisfied, so I said: "It is not to be maintained." I'm using "in toto" *with respect to humanity*, not merely as a generalization for an undifferentiated mankind, but as the sum encompassing all individuals.

But I think I understand you to be using "in toto" differently in your revised sentence. There, you seem to be using it as a synonym for "complete" as it pertains to the divine attribute of Justice. In other words, *with respect to God*. In an abstract sense, Christ's death unquestionably satisfies Divine Justice. The Father did not hold back an ounce of his wrath, as though he needed to "save some" for what the sinners in hell deserve. The point is, that they will "satisfy" Divine Justice also, in the sense that infinite retribution is required of them for said satisfaction. In another sense, theirs is perpetually incomplete because it is "open-ended" on the forward side. But because the wrath has "overcome them to all eternity," it is not as though at every given moment Justice isn't constantly satisfied upon them.

So, Christ absorbs _*the very same retribution that reprobates receive*_. He, however, in virtue of his divine nature, is able to drain the cup of God's wrath, and set it down as drunk. We tend to think of God's wrath as being "parceled out" to each person: some for him, some for her, some for... And Christ took those "units" that were designated for the elect. Well, God doesn't "dole out" his wrath or love in increments, so that each one is allotted his "fair share." His wrath is oriented toward sin--that which are or those which are--opposed to him. And where it is not held back, its full force is unleashed. The same infinite force would have been spent on Adam alone, as will be spent on all who remain under the curse. And the infinite force is not "diluted" by an equation of distribution over the total number of the reprobate. Each one receives the infinite wrath of God.

Therefore, it is according to this sense that we can say God's Justice is completely satisfied by Christ, having respect to God himself (and we could say, with respect to Christ and his elect in him, being the intent of the Atonement). While at the same time we say that his wrath "remains to be" satisfied in another sense, by those who are predestined to satisfy it for and by themselves. Christ's death does not satisfy _for mankind_ "in toto" (as I used that term); but we can say that it does satisfy God's holy (attribute of) Justice completely (such that, no one of earth's billions who come to Christ in faith are ever left without satisfaction).

The accurate Reformed rule continues to measure the scope of the Atonement precisely to those for whom Christ came to die, and then ever live to make intercession for. And still, because of the surpassing greatness of the Sacrifice, it isn't contradictory to the doctrine to proclaim a salvation, full and free, to the whole world. And the elect will embrace it.


----------



## Sola Fide (Dec 4, 2010)

Bruce,
I think we are in agreement. Your interpretation of my usage of an "in toto" satisfaction is pretty much what I was meaning, i.e. a full and perfect satisfaction with respect to God, but in an abstract or potential sense with respect to individual humans. In your original comment you said the Gospel message is "NOT simply an announcement that the hearer's sins ARE forgiven, but that they MAY BE forgiven BY believing in the One whom God has sent." I agree with that - the issue for me here is doing justice to the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice without making unwarranted statements of actual forgiveness/redemption (e.g. as the Lutherans tend to do in this regard).
Thanks again.


----------

