Redemption (V)

With this fifth number we will first recap what we have already advanced on the subject of a sinner's redemption in Christ.

Redemption #1

- What is "redemption"
- Christ "paying the price" of redemption is the legal act
- The realization of redemption for sinners occurs in conversion and present transformation
- Complete redemption occurs when Christ comes and resurrects the saints

Redemption #2

- Complete redemption is connected with Christ's return (via the seven sealed scroll of the Apocalypse)
- Redemption is connected with the creation of the new heavens and new earth (restored inheritance)

Redemption #3

- Conversion is an act of redemption
- Redemption involves actual deliverance
- The Bondage that redemption involves
- Redemption and atonement
- Redemption among the Hebrews (OT)

Redemption #4

- Redemption is progressive and not confined to one act or singular event
- Redemption has its objective (legal state) and its subjective (conversion, glorification) aspects
- Redemption is not only the work of the second person, but also of the Father and Spirit
- Creation is unto redemption in the order of the decrees of God (Supralapsarian)

In Jonathan Edward's great work on "The History Of Redemption," previously cited, he wrote (emphasis mine):

"From what we have learnt, we can argue that the work of redemption is the greatest of all God’s works, overshadowing all others. Redemption is plainly the most important of all God’s works of providence, and everything else was subordinated to the grand affair of redemption. We have seen that all the revolutions that have taken place in the world tended to forward this great design. How much greater is the work of redemption than the work of creation, because it is the end of it as a house is the end of the building of it! The work of redemption is the sum of all God’s works of providence, all of which fall down before it. Therefore, the work of the new creation is greater than the old. (pg. 182)

This statement by Edwards clearly reflects the Supralapsarian scheme, that creation is unto redemption, a proposition that Hodge questioned and doubted was taught in scripture, or in Ephesians 3: 9-10, as we have seen. Creation is a means to the teleological "end," which is redemption (and salvation), and redemption, like creation, is "to (or 'for') the glory of God." God's "eternal purpose" (Eph. 3:11) in Christ was for the Godhead to be glorified and pleased through "bringing man sons unto glory" (Heb. 3:10), which is complete redemption. We will expand upon this, but first let us cite from Edwards again. In chapter nine, "Christ's Incarnation For The Purchase Of Redemption," he wrote:

"God saw to it that the same world that was the stage of man’s Fall and ruin should also be the stage of his redemption. We read often of Christ coming into the world to save sinners, and of God sending him into the world for that purpose. He needed to come into this sinful, miserable, undone world in order to restore and save it. For man’s recovery, he needed to come down to man, to man’s proper habitation, and dwell (tabernacle) with us - “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)"

This is what we intend to enlarge upon yet in this series; the earth is connected both with the fall of man, receiving its curse and bondage as a result of man's transgression, and with the redemption and salvation of man, receiving (in the "day of redemption") a full and glorious restoration.

Wrote Edwards:

"God used his creation for no other purpose but to forward the work of redemption. To achieve this end, he created and disposed his works - to the angels this way, to the earth that way, and to mankind another way."

People debate whether Edwards was Infralapsarian or Superlapsarian, but the above citations are very clear. Edwards says that "creation" was purposed for "no other purpose but to forward the work of redemption."

Wrote Edwards:

"God created mankind to provide a spouse and kingdom for his Son; and the building up of the kingdom of Christ, and the spiritual marriage of this spouse to him is what the whole creation labours and travails in pain to bring about. The work of redemption is the greatest of all the works of God; so much so, that all others are seen either as parts of it or as appendages to it. Indeed, all the decrees of God, in some way or other, belong to the eternal covenant of redemption agreed between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world. Every decree of God, in some way or other, looks to that covenant. Therefore, the work of redemption is so great that we should not wonder that, “such things the angels desire to look into.” (1 Peter 1:12) We should not be surprised that so much is made of it in Scripture, and that it is appears so often in the histories and prophecies and songs of the Bible. The work of redemption is the greatest subject of the Bible, with its doctrines, promises, types, songs, histories, and prophecies. (pg. 181)

It is not good that most Christians do not fully appreciate God's work of redemption, which involves a "new creation," God saying to us "behold, I make all things new." (Rev. 21:5) Sinful man, through redemption, is "renewed," first, in the work of regeneration and new birth, and then "day by day" as the Christian grows and progresses towards the final goal. The renewal of the soul is begun in regeneration, continued in sanctification, and completed when the soul is received into glory and experiences the "beatific vision." Not until the "day of Christ," and the day of resurrection and glorification, will the body be glorified, made spiritual and immortal.

Wrote Edwards:

"Thirdly, from what we have learnt, we can see the truth that Christ has the preeminence in all things. (Colossians 1:18) He is our great Redeemer, and the work of redemption is the sum of God’s works of providence, revealing the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ above everything else. He is through all things, and is in all things. That God intended the world for his Son‘s use in the affair of redemption is one reason why he created the world through him. (See Ephesians 3:9-12)"

Not only did God intend that the earth, and this cosmos, be the scene of the Redeemer's work, but for it to also experience renewal and recreation. So, the apostle says "we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness."

Wrote Vincent Cheung (see here - emphasis mine):

"Under infralapsarianism, since the decree of election and reprobation comes after the decree for the fall of humanity, this means that at the point when God decrees the fall of humanity, he does so without knowing why he decrees it or what he would do about it." 

I don't see why many do not understand this. When God decreed to permit the fall of man to occur, what was his purpose? If it was not redemption, then what was his reason?

Wrote Cheung:

"If he has redemption in mind, and thus the distinction between the saved and the damned, so that he knows why he is decreeing the fall of humanity, then at that point he has already decided on redemption, and thus this becomes supralapsarianism. This means that under infralapsarianism, at the point when God decrees the fall of humanity, he does it just so he wishes humanity to fall."

Again, the logic of this is plain and irrefutable. Cheung asks - "is it better for God to decree that all of humanity should fall into sin without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption?"

Those who deny the Supralapsarian order are logically forced to aver that God, in willing the fall of man, did so "without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption."

Wrote Cheung:

"On the other hand, although supralapsarians would say that God could indeed decree the fall of humanity just because he wishes it, in their scheme, God decrees the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save and to damn."

How could any disagree with this? If we substitute "willed" or "allowed" for "decreed," we would say that "God permitted the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save," who would disagree? The question is - "does God permit willingly and knowingly?"

Wrote Cheung:

"As with many such controversies, the real question in this disagreement between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism is whether we are willing to “let” God be God on his own terms. A consistent supralapsarianism is the only position that honors God, Scripture, and logic. And it is the only God-centered position. One of the things that we learn from the doctrine is that God actively decreed and caused the fall of humanity as one of the steps by which he would fulfill his eternal plan." 

Will we let God have his sovereignty? Will we deny his absolute foreknowledge? Will we affirm that things come to pass apart from God willing or suffering it?

Wrote Cheung:

"Sin was not an accident, and redemption was not a mere reaction on the part of God. As the Scripture says, “The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster” (Proverbs 16:4). Thus supralapsarianism results in praise and reverence toward God."

Those who deny that God has decreed all things are forced to aver that "redemption" was an accident and a mere reaction on the part of God.

In "A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World," Jonathan Edwards wrote:

"To avoid all confusion in our inquiries concerning the end for which God created the world, a distinction should be observed between the chief end for which an agent performs any work, and the ultimate end. These two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification: and though the chief end be always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end. A chief end is opposite to an inferior end: an ultimate end is opposite to a subordinate end.

A subordinate end is what an agent aims at, not at all upon its own account, but wholly on the a account of a further end, of which it is considered as a means. Thus when a man goes a journey to obtain a medicine to restore his health, the obtaining of that medicine is his subordinate end; because it is not an end that he values at all upon its own account, but wholly as a means of a further end, viz. his health. Separate the medicine from that further end, and it is not at all desired.

Some ends are subordinate, not only as they are subordinated to an ultimate end; but also to another end that is itself but subordinate. Yea, there may be a succession or chain of many subordinate ends, one dependent on another, one sought for another; before you come to anything that the agent aims at, and seeks for its own sake.

So whenever a man comes to that in which his desire terminates and rests, it being something valued on its own account, then he comes to an ultimate end, let the chain be longer or shorter; yea, if there be but one link or one step that he takes before he comes to this end. As when a man that loves honey puts it into his mouth, for the sake of the pleasure of the taste, without aiming at anything further. So that an end which an agent has in view, may be both his immediate and his ultimate end; his next and his last end. That end which is sought for the sake of itself, and not for the sake of a further end, is an ultimate end; there the aim of the agent stops and rests.

Thus God may have ends of particular works of providence, which are ultimate ends in a lower sense, which were not ultimate ends of the creation.

That which God had primarily in view in creating, and the original ordination of the world, must be constantly kept in view, and have a governing influence in all God’s works, or with respect to every thing he does towards his creatures."

The logic of Edwards, like that of Cheung, and others who have written on the subject, such as Jerome Zanchius, is irrefutable and irresistible.