Combined Objection to Hypothetical Universalism

Thesis

Hypothetical universalism fails because it makes faith meritorious and renders the atonement a meaningless potential rather than an actual, effective work. The only way for the atonement to have real value is through particular redemption.

The Problem with Hypothetical Universalism

• Core Issue: Hypothetical universalism says Jesus’ death is sufficient for all, but it only saves those who believe. The problem? It makes faith part of the grounds for justification.
• Faith as Merit: If faith is required for the atonement to be effective, then faith isn’t just a receiving tool. It’s part of what makes you justified. That’s merit, plain and simple.

Faith in Reformed Theology

• Instrument of Justification: In Reformed theology, faith is the instrument through which we receive Christ’s righteousness. It’s how we grab hold of what Jesus did for us.
• Non-Meritorious: Faith isn’t something that earns us anything. It’s a gift from God, and it’s how we connect to the benefits of the atonement.
• Cross Causes Faith: The cross itself is the source of faith. The efficacy of the atonement brings about faith in the elect, making it a result of Christ’s work rather than a condition for its effectiveness.

The Distortion of Hypothetical Universalism

• Faith as a Condition: By making the atonement dependent on faith to work, hypothetical universalism turns faith into a condition that we must fulfill to be justified.
• Efficacy Misplaced: This view misplaces the efficacy of the atonement. It’s not Christ’s death alone that justifies; it’s Christ’s death plus our faith. That makes faith part of the grounds of justification.

Theological Implications

• Merit-Based System: This approach shifts the basis of salvation from Christ alone to Christ plus our faith. It smacks of a merit-based system.
• Contrary to Grace: The Bible teaches that we are justified by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). If faith is a condition for the atonement’s efficacy, then we’re adding human effort to God’s grace. That’s not the gospel.
• Delayed Effects: The cross’s efficacy includes the production of faith in the elect, resulting in the delayed but guaranteed application of salvation benefits to those for whom Christ died.

Particular Redemption’s Consistency

• Faith as Instrument: Particular redemption holds that faith is the instrument of justification. The atonement is fully effective on its own. Faith is simply how we receive its benefits.
• Intrinsic Efficacy of Atonement: Christ’s death is powerful and effective in itself. It doesn’t need our faith to complete it. God gives faith to the elect so they can receive what’s already been secured.
• Cross Causes Faith: The cross, by its intrinsic power, produces faith in the elect, ensuring that faith is not a meritorious act but a result of the atonement’s efficacy.
• Predestination Not Sufficient: Someone might appeal to the fact it is predestined by God. But predestination isn’t sufficient to make it non-meritorious. The cross itself must cause faith.

The Problem with Potential Atonement

• No Actual Atonement: Hypothetical universalism suggests a potential atonement that could save everyone but only actually saves those who believe. This is like saying you have money that’s only valuable if someone else decides to honor it.
• Promissory Regress: Just like currency that starts a promissory regress when asked about its value, a potential atonement starts a theological regress. What gives this potential atonement its value? It’s supposed to be Christ’s work, but if it depends on human faith to activate it, then its value isn’t inherent.

Currency Analogy

• Value Backed by Substance: Currency only has value if it’s backed by something substantial, like gold or a strong economy. Similarly, the atonement only has real value if it actually accomplishes what it’s supposed to—namely, the salvation of the elect.
• Intrinsic Value: Particular redemption asserts that the atonement has intrinsic value. Christ’s death doesn’t potentially save; it actually saves those it’s intended for. It’s backed by the finished work of Christ, not by the contingent faith of believers.

Theological Implications

• Explanatory Power: Only an actual atonement has explanatory power. It makes sense of how sinners are saved because it effectively deals with sin and secures salvation.
• Certainty vs. Potentiality: Particular redemption provides certainty. Christ’s death ensures the salvation of the elect. Hypothetical universalism offers only potentiality, which is uncertain and ultimately unreliable.

Particular Redemption’s Strength

• Actual Efficacy: In particular redemption, the atonement actually secures the benefits it promises—justification, forgiveness, reconciliation, and more—for those it’s intended for. No additional conditions are needed.
• Meaningful Atonement: This makes the atonement meaningful and valuable. It’s not just a potential promise; it’s a guaranteed reality for the elect.

Addressing Potential Objections

In response to these arguments against hypothetical universalism, some might raise objections. Here, we address those objections:

Objections Related to the Faith Argument

1. Objection: “Hypothetical universalism does not make faith meritorious; it simply states that faith is the means through which we receive the benefits of the atonement.”
   Response: Even if hypothetical universalism claims faith is merely the means, by making the atonement’s efficacy dependent on faith, it inherently elevates faith to a condition that must be met. This risks turning faith into a meritorious act, contrary to the Reformed understanding of grace. In hypothetical universalism, faith is not merely a passive reception of Christ’s atonement; it becomes a condition for its application. This shift makes faith play a participatory role, contributing to the atonement’s effectiveness. While faith is certainly important in salvation, it was never meant to be an additive that completes or activates the atonement. By requiring faith to activate the atonement, hypothetical universalism subtly makes faith part of the atonement’s effectiveness, thus compromising the doctrine of sola gratia (grace alone). The atonement’s sufficiency, in this view, becomes incomplete without the individual’s faith, shifting the focus from Christ’s all-sufficient work to human response, blurring the line between grace and merit.
2. If faith is required to complete or activate the atonement, it inherently adds to Christ’s work, which introduces a meritorious element. Faith, therefore, moves from being merely a gift to something that contributes to the efficacy of salvation, undermining the doctrine that Christ’s work alone secures salvation for the elect. Thus, hypothetical universalism risks elevating faith to a status that compromises the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.
3. Objection: “Faith is a response to God’s grace, not a work that earns salvation. Hypothetical universalism recognizes faith as necessary for receiving the atonement without making it meritorious.”
   Response: While faith is indeed a response to God’s grace, making the atonement effective only upon the presence of faith shifts part of the efficacy onto the individual’s response. This subtly introduces a merit-based component, which contradicts the concept of grace being entirely unearned.
4. Objection: “Predestination ensures that those who will have faith are those whom Christ’s atonement is intended for, thus faith does not earn justification but fulfills God’s predestined plan.”
   Response: Predestination alone does not resolve the issue if faith remains a condition for the atonement’s effectiveness. To preserve the purity of grace, the atonement’s power must be intrinsic and not contingent on human response. Predestination must include the granting of faith as part of God’s sovereign plan, ensuring faith is an instrument, not the ground, of justification. Furthermore, since Christ’s works—though predestined—are still meritorious, predestination alone doesn’t eliminate the concern. The cross must produce faith in the elect, making it the result of Christ’s atoning work, not a meritorious condition.

Objections Related to the Potential Atonement Argument

1. Objection: “Hypothetical universalism argues that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all but effective only for those who believe. This doesn’t make the atonement less real; it acknowledges the role of faith as the means by which individuals are united to Christ.”
   Response: The issue with this view is that it makes the efficacy of Christ’s atonement contingent upon human faith, thus making the atonement conditional. In particular redemption, the atonement is intrinsically efficacious—it secures salvation for the elect without additional conditions. By making faith the condition for effectiveness, hypothetical universalism undermines the atonement’s inherent power, turning it into a mere potentiality rather than an accomplished fact.
2. Objection: “The Bible teaches that Christ’s atonement is universally sufficient (e.g., 1 John 2:2, John 3:16). Hypothetical universalism aligns with these passages by affirming that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but effective for believers.”
   Response: While Scripture does teach the universal sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, this does not necessitate hypothetical universalism. Particular redemption also upholds the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for all, but it emphasizes that Christ’s atonement is intended and efficacious only for the elect. Verses like John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 can be understood in the context of God’s universal offer of salvation, which is particularly applied to the elect through sovereign grace.
3. Objection: “The analogy of currency is helpful but incomplete. Just as currency has value when backed by something substantial, the atonement has value when it is backed by Christ’s sacrifice. Faith is like the means by which individuals access this value, not what gives the currency its worth.”
   Response: The analogy highlights the problem with hypothetical universalism effectively. In particular redemption, Christ’s atonement is like currency backed by gold—it has intrinsic value and efficacy. Faith in this context is simply the means by which the elect access this already guaranteed value. Hypothetical universalism, by making faith necessary for the atonement’s effectiveness, risks making faith part of the currency’s value, which undermines the intrinsic efficacy of Christ’s work.
4. Objection: “The idea of a promissory regress misunderstands the nature of hypothetical universalism. The atonement’s value is not deferred or contingent on human action but is established by Christ’s work. Faith is simply the God-ordained means of receiving this established value.”
   Response: If the atonement’s value is only realized upon human faith, it does create a promissory regress. The atonement is said to be effective only when faith is present, which makes its efficacy contingent on a human condition. This undermines the notion of an atonement that is intrinsically powerful and sufficient. In particular redemption, the atonement’s value is fully realized and effective for the elect without any additional conditions, preserving the complete and unmerited nature of Christ’s sacrifice.

Conclusion

Hypothetical universalism messes up big time because it makes faith meritorious. It turns faith into something that earns justification instead of being the way we receive it. This shifts the basis of salvation from Christ alone to Christ plus our faith, which is contrary to the gospel of grace. Furthermore, a potential atonement is like currency without backing—it has no real value. It sets up a promissory regress, where its value is contingent and uncertain. Only particular redemption offers an atonement with real explanatory value, backed by the finished work of Christ, guaranteeing the salvation of the elect.

For the atonement to have true meaning and value, it must be understood in terms of particular redemption. Anything less is just theological monopoly money, lacking the solid backing of Christ’s accomplished work. The cross itself causes faith in the elect, making faith a result of the atonement’s efficacy rather than a condition for its effectiveness, thus maintaining the purity and power of Christ’s sacrifice.