This is good and acceptable in the

sight of God our Savior, who desires

all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth. For there is
one God, and one mediator also
between God and men, the man
Christ jesus, who gave Himself as a
ransom for all, the testimony borne at
the proper timeO Timothy 2:3-6).
Introduction
For several centuries the
Christian community has been
engaged in an ongoing debate: For
whom did Jesus die and does God
desire every human being to repent
and believe inJesus? The
debate is polarized
between two theological
worldviews, that of
Calvinism and
Arminianism. To better
understand the nature of
the controversy, it is
helpful to give a brief
historical survey.
In 1618 the leaders of the
churches of the Netherlands met at
the Synod of Don to deal with the
proliferation of a teaching that they
saw as a threat to the spiritual
health of the Dutch churches. A
Dutch theologian by the name of
Jacob Arminius had propagated a
system of teaching that challenged
many of the fundamental doctrines
of the great Protestant Reformation
of a previous century. Proponents
of Arminius teaching, who came to
be known as Arminians, put forth
his teaching into five general areas
of disagreement with some of the
doctrines stemming from the
Reformation. The Synod of Dort
responded to these points with five
points of their own. These five
points of the Synod of Dort have
come to be known as the five
points of Calvinism. Without
enumerating each point, we need
to comment on some of the
doctrinal differences in order to
appreciate the nature of the
controversy over the extent of
Christ's atonement. Thf Arrninians
did not believe that man was
totally depraved, that is, unable in
himself to remedy his lost spiritual
condition. While believing that
God had elected a people to be the
reCipients of His grace and mercy,
Arminians taught that this election
was conditional; God chose men
who first chose Him. Essentially,
the Arminians taught that God
looked down the corridors of
history, determined who would
believe in Jesus, and then chose
them to be his elect. Hence, man's
faith precedes election; man must
act first. The salvation process is
initiated by man, who has the
innate ability to respond to the
gospel. Such teaching was
contrary to the Reformations
understanding that Gods election
was unconditional. The Reformers
taught that man was totally
depraved, meaning that man had
no innate ability to respond to the
gospel because sin had affected
evety aspect of mans being (his
mind, hean, and will). His mind
was darkened by sin, his hean was
corrupted by sin, and his will
carried out only the evil desires of
his sinful hean. Natural man was
blinded by Satan unable to see the
gospel (11 Cor. 4:3,4).
Regarding election, the
Reformers understood the Bible to
teach that God's election could not
be conditioned by foreseen faith.
This would make the sovereign
God dependent upon the creature,
and it would introduce the element
of chance into the universe.
Conditional election would make
man the real architect of history
rather than God. The Reformers
emphaSized Acts 13:48, " ... and as
many as had been appointed to
etemallife believed. This text
teaches that election precedes faith,
not faith preceding election as
taught by Arminians.
Arminians also denied the
Reformation's teaching regarding
the extent of the atonement of
Christ. Arminianism emphasizes
an unlimited or universal
. atonement, meaning that Jesus
must have died for all
men without exception.
Jesus death did not .
actually save any man,
but it merely made it
possible for all men to be
saved. Jesus'shed blood
only becomes effective
for a man when he
believes in Jesus. Arminians argue
that God desires all men on earth
to be saved and that Jesus gave
Himself as a ransom for every man.
Arminians argue that all men
simply means all men without
exception; hence, Jesus died for all
men without exception. However,
since all men do not believe in
Jesus, thereby chOOSing to go to
Hell, Jesus must have died for
these people who are in Hell. In
shon, the Arminian argument is -
all means every single person and
since Jesus died for all, He shed
His blood for all.
The Reformers emphasized that
the Bible taught a limited or a
panicular atonement, meaning that
Jesus' atoning death was limited
only to the elect of God whom God
had unconditionally chosen from
all eternity. God the Father sent
His only begotten Son to redeem or
die only for these chosen ones. It
was unthinkable that Jesus would
die in vain for some people. How
could Jesus shed His blood for
August/September, 1998 r- THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t- 23
someone who is 'in Hetl? Yes, I
Tim.2:3-6 does say that God
desires all, men to be saved and to
cOIl).e to the knowledge of the truth
and that Jesus gave Himself as a ,
ransom fQr all. However, as,we
shall set forth, orie is not forced to
an Arrninian interpretation of the
text simply because the word all is
used.
for four centuries the debate
has continued between CalviniSts
and Arminians. Whereas the
Synod of Dort was distinctively
Calvinisric, condemning ,
Arnlinianism as a serious error,
modem evangelicalism is
predominantly Arminian. ' For the
Arminian, the idea [bit] eSus died
only for an elect group is
outrageous. They view a limited,
atonement as a radica( Satanically ,
insp\re,d doctrine. On the other
hand, Calvinists view Aiminians as
misguided and unschooled in a
proper biblical view of
hermeneutics and gUilty of robbing
G9<i of His glory. by detracting ,
from the greamess of Christ's
death.
. The debate between Calvinists
and Arminians are often iJ:uense
and unfortunately sinful. Its not
unusual for one or both sides to
become angry at the, other for
failing to see the obvious truth.
Both sides insist that , the other
4oesn't understand Scripture. So
what is the truth? What does I
Timothy 2:3-6 really mean? Are
we forever hopelessly lost in an
el).dleSs debate? Can both sides be
right? One thing is for'sure. Both
views cannot simultaneously be
correct, They are so diametrically
opposed to each other that only
one can be true. The,other sincere
Christi,an is nlistaken.
Likewise, we must totally
reject the irrational, pluralistic
notion that the Holy Spirit leads
the Calvinist to see the in one
fashion and the Arminian in
another. No, truth is not
contradictoty. Christ'S atonement
is either limited or unlimited;
either Jesus died only for the sins
of Gods elect, Qr He, died for
evetyone without even
for those who die in unbelief
ending up in H,ell.
The issue in any theological
debate among Bible believing '
Christians who hold to the
inemncy of SCripture 'and td its
binding authority is which debater
has done a more thorough study of
reconciling all difficult passages
into a consistent; unified body of
truth where. there ,is no inherent ,
contradiction of one portion of ,
God's word,with another., Truth is ,
non-ccmtradictoty and the Holy'
Spirit is n6tat. odds with HimselL
One of thegreat attributes of
Scripture is its daritY. ACcurate
interpretation is not.restricted toa '
speciaf class. The average "
Christian can understand the Bible,
but this does not mean thai one
can approach bible studyiri a' .'
haphazard, lazy way. n Timothy
2:15 says, Be diligent'topresent
approved to God as .a .'
workmanwho !loes not need, to be
ashamed; htindling accUrately the
word of truth. To understand the
Bible as a glorious unified book
requires diligent study. It requires
a prayerful spirit, hours of study.
and a humble spint, pleadhlg for
wisdom. A hall\nark of the
humble mind is a teachable
As James 4:6 states, God resists tlte
proud and grace to the humble.
It is the arrogant 'man who says, I
will not bother to consider your
arguments; I already, know the
truth. Proverbs 18:13 speaks to
this. attitude: ' . He who gives an
answer he hears, it is JoUy and
shame to hiin. man is
often the' hot teinpetedperson in
the debate, who gets a!lgty when
14 TJiE COUNSEL of Ch'llcedon , AugustlS,eptember, 1998
his oppOnent cannot see his point
of view; Remember, we are
referring to an open-mindedness
only. with respect to an in.house
debate, By this we mean; a deb?te
among Christians who b.oth
acknowledge the authority of
SCripture and who are orthodox in
their other doctrinal views. , We are
never to be open-minded to
heresy.
We now come to an
interpretation of ['Timothy 2:3-6
that is consistent with the. entirety
of Scripture. One of the most
important rules ofinterpretation is
to view the difficult passage in its
immediate and broad contexts. By
immediate context, wi:. mean t/:lat
the verses surrounding the passage
are usually important in clarifying
the true meaning of the text . . By'
broad context, we mean tIilit a text
mUst' be viewed Within its chapter,
book, and theology of the entire
Scripture. No matter from what
angle that we look at the text, there
can be no tontr.adiction with any
passage of Scripture.
To' obtain an accurate
interpretation of I Timothy 2:3-6,
we need to exam,ine the 'passage. in
a fdur fold way: 1) the issue of
God's soyereignty, 2) the iSsue of
how the Blble defines its own
words, 3) an understanding of the
general doctrine of Christ's
atonement, arid 4) how the
immediate context. helps to
accurately interpret the passage . .
Let's begin with the issue. of
God'ssovereignty. Arminianism
believes that man has absolute
independence from God regarding
his conversion. Arminianism's
notion of .freewill states that God'
offers 'man the way of salvation but
, that God does not interfere
, whatsoever with man's decision to
. believe inJesus. God Can only
offer and plead. God supp<l!\edly
. chooses to be impotent in man's
salvation. Anninianism believes
that God loves everyone in the .
world without exception, desiring
that every person come to Jesus in
order to be saved. However, some
men are so stubborn that they
refuse to submit; hence, they reject
God's pleas. Therefore, even
though God really desires the man
to be saved, God's desires can be
effectively thwarted. Since the
penalty for refUSing to believe in
Jesus is eternal death in Hell, this
person, whom God loves, has to go'
to Hell. This person whom God
loves so much that he sent Jesus to
die for him has to be tormented in
Mell forever. God really wanted to
save him but what could God do?
The man chose to reject God's
love. God could. do nothing to
change the man's heart or will;
otherwise, God would violate the
sanctity of man's freewill. In
realiry, this Arminian teaching just
described teaches us that man's
will is superior to God's Will with
respect to man's conversion.
Calvinism does not deny the .
concept of "freewiU"; however, it
does not define "freeWill" in the
same way as does Arminianism.
Arminianism defmes "freewill" in
an autonomous way, meaning that
man's will is an independent entity
which God chooses not to affect
directly. Calvinism defines
"freewill" simply as man's ability to
make moral decisions without any
outside constraint. Calvinism .
understands the Scripture to teach
that man's Will is il1Separably
linked to his heart. The condition
of man's heatt determines the
nature of his behavior. As Jesus
taught in Luke 6:43-45 a bad tree
cannot produce good fruit nor can
a good tree produce bad fruit.
Men with evil hearts always
produce evil behavior, whereas
men who have had their hearts
changed by God produce good
behavior. A man who is a slave to
sin cannot help but make evil
choices; however, a man who has a
regenerated heart can freely make
godly choices.
The inadequacies of Arminian
theology should be readily
apparent. Figuratively,
Arminianism is a slap in the face of
almighty God. It robs God of His
sovereign power and glory, and
gives it to the creature.
Arminianism is humanistic; it
glOrifies man by bringing the
awesome, majestic, and glorious
God down to and even below the
level of the creature. It is absurd to
think that Gods desires could ever
be resisted or thwarted by man.
Though the Scripture abounds in
references stressing God's
sovereignty, we will only quote a
few. Job 23;13,14 emphatically
denies the Arminian idea that Gods
desires can be thwarted - But He is
unique and who can tum Him? And
what his soul desires that He does.
For he performs what is appointed
for me. And many such decrees are
with Him. Daniel 4:34,35 says, For
His dominion is an everlasting
dominion, and his kingdom endures
from generation to generation. And
all the inhabitants of the earth are
accounted as nothing. But He does
according to His will In the host of
heaven and among the inhabitants of
earth and no one can ward off His
hand or say to Him, what hast TIwu
done? Psalm lI5:3 says, But our
God is in the heavens, He does
whatever He pleases. And Psalm
135:6 states, Whatever the Lord
pleases He does. In heaven and in
earth, in the seas and In all deeps.
We really don't have to go any
further in our exegesis of I Timothy
2:4 to know that Arminianism's
interpretation cannot be true. To
believe that God can genuinely
desire a man to be saved but that
what God desires can be set aside
by man's freewill, is an outright
contradiction to the verses quoted
above. The problem with an
Arminian interpretation is its faulty
understanding of man's free will.
This false presupposition leads the
Arminian to a false understanding
of the text. In contrast to
Arminianism's weak God, a biblical
view of Gods sovereignty stresses
that God always gets what He
desires. The point is powerful! If
God desires all men without
exception to be saved, then every
person that has ever lived would be
saved! However, we know
everyone isn't saved; therefore,
where is the answer?
Arminianism is guilty of
another false presupposition which
states that the words "all" and
"wotld" must mean every person
without exception. The Anninian
has often ridiculed and mocked the
Calvinist as being so stupid that he
can't see an obvious, simple truth.
The Arminian argues, One doesn't
have to be a genius to know that
all means everyone and the world
means everyone. As CalVinists, we
must respond gently and lovingly
by saying, One should not be
quick to jump to conclusions
regarding the meaning of biblical
words. The Bible cannot be
approached with such simplistic
arguments. The Bible defines its
own words by how they are used
in their contexts. We don't define
biblical words by using Webster'S
Dictionary. Biblical words can
shift their meaning even in the
same passage. Who is to say that
this cannot happen? Is man going
to argue with the Holy Spilit who
inspired the Bible? The
hermeneutic principle which states
that words must be defined by
their contextual usage is a
fundamental element of sound
exegesis, without which, one will
make numerous theological errors.
Arminianism is hopelessly lost
August/September, 1998 TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 25
in a sea of contradictions when it
insiSts that the words "all" and
"world" must always mean every
person oli earth. When I Timothy
2:6 says about Christ, "who gave
Himself as a ransom for all ... '-
ArminianiSm says, "The Bible says
it, I believe it; it says Jesus was a
ransom for every person who has
ever lived; therefore; He died for
the world." We will see that such a
simplistic interpretation actually
denies Christ's glorio1lS atoning
death.
We m\lst remember that no
passage of the Bible can contradict
another passage or doctrine, of
Scripture. We ask, "Does 'all' and
'world' always mean everyone
without exception?" They can't!
Let's look ,at some passages,
beginning with the use of "all". In
Acts 2: 1 7 the inspired Peter quotes
Joel 2:28. Peter says joel's
prophesy IS fulfilled on the Day of
Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell
upon the Christians, ca\lsing them
to speak in languages that they had
not previously learned. Acts 2: 17
reads, "And it shall be in the last '
days, God says, I WillpouT forth oj
My 5pirii upon all mankind." Taking
Arminianisrrl.'s insistence that "all"
must refer to every person on
eanh, we ask, Did the Holy Spirit
fall upon the entire human race at
Pentecost since the text says "all
mankind"? Of course, not!
IitTit1lS 1:11 we read, "For the
grace of God has appeared bringing
salvatimt to all men.' AnniniaitlSm
says "all" means everyone without .
exception. If thiS is true, then we
are forced to become universalists
and believe that there is no Hell
and that all men are saved. Are all
men saved? No! The 'Bible does
say there IS a Hell (Matt.25:46;
Mark 9:43-47; II Thess.l:7-9; Luke
12:46-48; Matt.ll:21
c
24). The
Arminians simpliStic interpretation
can't be correct for it contradicts
other passages and (ienies a maj or
doctrine of Scripture- a Hell for
unbelievers.
. Romans 5: 18 reads, "So ihen as
through one transgression there
resulted condemnation to all men,
even so through one act of
righteousness ihere resulted .
justification of life to all men."
Again. ArminianiSm's Simplistic
approach leads us to a theological
absurdity. If all in the latter pan
of the verse means everyone who
has ever lived, then everyone has
been and will he J1lStified. To be
j1lStified IS to be pardoned of one's
sins, to be declared innocent, and
to be c(edited with Christ!s
rightousness. Everyone IS not r
pardoned. Hell eXiSts for those
who are not justified.
In I Corinthians 15:22 we read,
"For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ all shall be made alive.' We
ask our Arminian brother; "Are all
men without exception made alive.
in Christ?" Of course not; there IS 'a
Hell.
Let's now look atsome passages '
where the word "world" is used.
Arminians again mock CalVinists
by saying, "World means world,
why can't you see this simple '
truthr But does , "world" always
mean singleperson on eanh? '
In john 12:19 the Pharisees were ,
diSgruntled that jesus had a
multitude of followers, "The
Pharisees iherefore to one
another, You see that you are not
doing any good; look, the world NIS
gone after Him.' If "world" means
everyone living on eanh, the '
passage is self contradictory, for
the entire human race was not in
Jerusalem and the Pharisees, being
part of the world, were not
following jeSus,
InJohn 1:49, john the Baptist
makes the testimonyabout]esus
when he sees coming to be
baptized, "Behold,the Lamb of GOd
26 f THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon r August/September, 1998
who takes away the sin of the world,
Well, we are back to being .
universalists if ArminianiSl)l's
interpretation is correct. The text
says that Jesus takes away the sin
of the world, but is everyone's sins
taken away? No! There is a Hell
where the wages of sin torment
people forever, Thert sins were
never taken away.
InJOhn 3:16 we are told that
God so loved the world that He
sent His only begotten Son; but, in
I John 2:15 we are commanded by
God, "Do not love the world, 'or
things in ihe world; If anyone loves
the world, the love of ihe Faiher is not
ill him:' so, which is it? Does God
have Ii double standard? DDE;s God
love the world, but we are
comqtanded not to? Arminianism
IS in a quagmire.
in !john 5:19 we read, "We
know that we are of God, and the
whole )lIorld lies in the power of the
evil one." .If the whole world lies in
the power of the evil one then
there are no Christians in the
world if ' wqrld alWays means' every
person without exception.
Christians have been delivered out
of the dOll!llin,of darkness (Co\.
1:13; Acts 26:18; I Pt. 2:9).
Frankly, A.rminianiSm's
interpretive skills lead us to a
theological mess - we have
contradictory passages and
contradictory doctrines, '
The Calvinist hai; a clear and
sober expUinatiori of "all;' and
"world" that, does justice to Pauline
theology and IS consistent with the
analogy of Scripture, Soineti1ries
"all" and 'world" do mean
everyone without exception, ,
especiaily when theyreler to man
as a sinner. For example, Romans
3:23 says, 'for all have sinned and
fall shori of ihe glory of God,"
Romans 3:9 interprets "all under
sin" as, and Greeks.
The hUman race is one or the
other. So, if both Jews and Greeks
are "all under sin," then it must
mean everyone without exception
in this instance.
In some instances the context
clearly defines "all" to be "us,"
that is, only believers in Christ.
Referring back to Titus 2:lI, where
it says that God's grace has
appeared, bringing salvation to all
men, the meaning of "all men" is
explained in verse 14 which reads,
"who gave Himself for us, that he
might redeem us from every lawless
deed and pUrify for Himself a people,
zealous for good deeds." The "us" is
the church of Christ, believers in
Christ. The "us" of v. 14 is the
"aU" of verse 11. The "us" are
those who are delivered from their
slavery to sin. Christians are
redeemed from lawless deeds and
are purified!
Let's consider Titus 3:4-7 in the
use of mankind. The text reads,
"But when the hindness of God our
Savior and His love for mankind
appeared, He saved us, rwt on the
basis of deeds which we have done in
righteousness, but according to His
mercy, by the washing of regeneration
and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
whom He poured out upon us richly
through Jesus Christ our Savior that
being Justified by His grace we might
be made heirs according to the hope of
eternal life. " Who does God love
according to verse 4? The text says
that His love appeared to mankind;
however, verses 5-7 limits the
meaning of "mankind" to those
whom God has saved, those whom
God has shown mercy and grace,
those regenerated by the power of .
the Holy Spirit, those justified, and
those who are heirs of etemallife.
The word "mankind" does not in
this context mean everyone on
eanh. It is clearly limited to
Christians only; hence, "mankind"
is used in a generic sense as
referring to a whole group of
humans who are the recipients of
His sovereign love. Yes, God loves
mankind in this restricted sense.
We should understand john 3:16
in the same generic sense. When
God loves the world it is not meant
that He loves every human being.
Rather, God loved the fallen
human race so much so that He
sent His Son to die for the human
race.
Another place where the word
"all" is limited to the elect of God is
2 Corinthians 5:14,15 -10r the love
of Christ controls us, having
concluded this that one died for all,
therefore all di ed; and He died for all,
that they who live should no longer
live for themselves, but for Him who
died and rose again on their behalf."
Our Arminian brethren would be
spared from their theological errors
if they would allow the grammar of
the context to govern their
interpretation. By following what
the pronouns "us," "they," and
"their" refer to, we can understand
the meaning of "all" in this
context. The aforementioned
pronouns and the word, "all," of
verses 14 and 15 refer to a group
of people "who live not for
themselves but for him who died
and rose again on their behalf."
For whom did Jesus die in verse
IS? He died and rose again for
those who no longer live for
themselves. We ask, "If 'aU' means
everyone without exception in the
world, then the 'all' must include
unbelievers, who by their very
nature are self centered, who live
only for themselves, and it would
mean that Jesus rose again for
unbelievers which is nowhere
taught in SCripture."
We can avoid the Arminian
dilemma of inadvettentIy
advocating a universal salvation by
simply understanding that "aU"
and "world" can mean aU persons
without distinction, that is,
selective persons in evelY nation in
the world. A great example of this
is Revelation 5:9 - "and they sang a
new song, saying worthy art Thou to
take the book, and to break its seals;
For Thou wast slain and didst
purchase for God with Thy blood men
from every tribe and tongue and
people and nation." Jesus didn't die
for "aU" or the whole "world" in
the sense of every single person,
but Jesus died for "all" and tbe
"world" in the sense that His elect
. are found in every nation, in every
racial group, in every language
group on earth. In these cases,
"aU" and "world" mean everyone
without distinction, not everyone
without exception. Therefore,
when texts say that Jesus is the
savior of the world or that Jesus
takes away the sin of the world, it
means that He is a savior of
panicular men found in every
racial and language group, taking
away the sins of only these select
persons.
Hence, when I Timothy 2:6
says that Jesus is a ransom for "all"
it means that He was a ransom for
men out of every tribe, tongue,
people, and nation. This brings us
to the third approach to
interpreting I Timothy 2:3-6.
Arminians interpret this text as
teaching an unlimited atonement -
that Jesus died or was a ransom for
aU men without exception. We
shall see that this interpretation
must be false for the Scripture
emphatically denies that Jesus paid
a ransom price for someone who
isn't delivered from their sins!
As noted earlier, a vital
interpretive principle is that an
interpretation of any passage must
not contradict other passages. To
understand I Timothy 2:6
necessitates our understanding of
how the rest of Scripture describes
the implications of Christ's death.
The phrase "who gave Himself as a
August/September, 1998 TIiE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 27
ransoql for aU, . ." must correspond
with the. rest of SCripture
Christ's death.
Let's summarize again
Arrninianism's view ofthe exterit of
the atonement: It.maintains that
Jesus died for every personwho
has ever lived. Eventhbugh men
die without believing in Jesus and '
go to. Hell, Jesus still died for them.
These unbelievers did not receive .
what was dorie for them. They
chose not to apply the benefits of
Jesus' death to themselves. Christ's
death does not actually atone,for
any sins; it only makes; ,
salvation possible if men choose by
their freewill to ffi\l.ke death
beneficial to .themselves,
The inescapable and logical
conclusion of Arminianism's '
uhlimited atonement is that Hell is
populated by-multitudes bf people
for whomJesus'died and that there
are people suffering fotever in HeU
whom God loved. Apninianism
insists that God loves all men and
died for all men without exception.
Think about it! It is a strange and,
cruel love to make someone suffer
foreverl The biblical tn,;th is that ' ,
God does not love everyone
without exception. Hellis a place,
where God sends people that He ,
does not love. Heayen is for thoSe
whom God does love, and Jesus
died only for these.
I ., '
We shall prove from Scripture
that Arrninianism's unlimited
atonement is thoroughly unbiblical .
and that it brings disgrace to the
glory of the ,ltonement,
Arrninianism elqllts man to the
exclusion of God's glory. Its
theology is baDkrupt,fOr it makes
the effectiveness of Christ's death '
coniptetely dependent lipon man's
decision. Men can nUllify the .
efftcacy of chiist's blood if they
refuse tci believe ill Hith,
,The of Scripture is
quite dear. What didJesus'death
al;Complish? Itaccomplished the
elect's redemption, Iorgivep.ess of ;
sins, reconcili;ltion, and
justification. First, Christ.'s death is
onlY,for the elect of God. The
Bible never says directly that Jesus
died for unbelievers, Anninianistn
imposes its bias upon Scripture by .
presupposing that the terms ' "aU"
and "world" must be inclusive of
unbelievers. We trust that we have
shattered that presupposition With
. a careful word study of these
teinis. Not one text ever says
directly that died for
unbelievers. .
In M<!tthewl:21 we read, "And
she will a Sll71, and you shall call
His namejeSl!s,for It is He whowill.
save His people from their sins .
Whoare His people? They are'
Jesus sheep; they are Jesus' church.
John 10:11,15 says" "I am the ,'
good shepherd; the good shepherd '
lays down His life for the sheep ... .
even as the Father knows Me imd I
know the Father. and 1-lay down
My life for the sheep." The Bible
has many different wayS that it
categorizes , or differentiates
b,etweeri the people of God and ,
those who are of the evil
such designation is between sheep
and goats. InMatthew 25:31-46,
the great Day of]udgment is ' .
desCribed. , Jesus, the Judge, Will
separate the sheep from the goats.
The sheep are said to be the
righteous who will inherit eternal
life, \lUt the goats are the . .
unrighteo)lS who will go into .
etewal punishment. The '
implications of the above passages
should be readily seen as being
devastating to the: Anninian
viewpoint that Jesus died for
unbelievers. The only people Jesus "
dies for are sheep! Never goats!
Not one passage ever'states that .
Jestisdied{orgoats.
for the
people 9fGod is the term,
28 ,t- TIlE COUNSEL of J August/September,
"chUrch'.. Acts 20:28 says that the
Ephesian elders' are to ,shepherd
the flock whi<;his called the
church of God, ''which He
purchased with His own blood."
Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands
love your wiyes just as hTtst also
lovedthe,chu,ch F gave'Himself up
for her.' This text shatters the
nption ihanesWi.loves and dies for
all mell regardless of their belief in
Him. says tlui.t JesuS
loves, only the church and dies !'Jnly
fOF is the only
group of people that Jesus
purchased With His blood. John
17:9 states thatJesus prays not for
the'worldbut, only for those whom
the Fatner had given Him: The
"world" is plai::!:d it). conrrast to
. :-: .. ' 1:' - .
God's chosen ones that God gave
to Jesus. Jesus doeSri't,pray for
those who never believe; He '
doesn't love them; and he doesn't
die for them. '
Moreover, Acts 20:28 says that
Jesus purchased a group. The
verb, ', is in the Greek
aorist tense, which is the tetJse of '
completed or accompliShed action.
Some translators translate the "
word,"ilUfchased: to also mean
"acquited."So much for the
idea.
never or secures
anyone's salvation, but that it' of!1y
makes it possible, contingent upon
mans faith. We can see . that
imPoSes ideas
biblicai tl4ts that are never SW:ted
explicitlY,inthe texts in order,to .
preserve their th,eological bias. No
thanJ;:you. We WlU stay with the
authoritative, verbal insPiration of
Scripture ..
Let's now look at specific
biblical references statirig what
Jesus' death actuaUy accomplished.
Jesus' death accomplished
redemption for His people.
Ephesians 1:1 states; "In Him we
have redemption through His blood, ..
I Peter 1:18.19 states, "knowing
that you were not redeemed with
perishable things ... but witli the
predous blood as of a lamb
unblemished and spotless, the blood of
ChrisL" What !!oes the word
"redemption" me;!n? In its usage it
conveys the ide;! of freeing a
captive person by means of a
ransom price. The two ideas in
redemption are: l)freeing from
captivity, and 2) payment of a
price. What bondage are we
redeemed from by Jesus' death?
According to John 8:32-36 an!! 1I
Timothy 2:26 we are delivered ..
from sin and Satan's bondage.
What is the ransom price needed
to accomplish the task? Jesus'
blood! Note, the payment of the
ransom price secures the
redemption or deliverance of the
captives. Jesus' blood
accomplishes or secures
redemption; it doesn't merelY make
it possible. Again, Arminianism
suffers a fatal blow.
Jesus' death obtained the
forgiveness of sins for God's elect.
Ephesians 1:7 states, "In Him we
have redemption, the forgiveness oj"
sins." Colossians 1: 14 states
something similar, "in whom we
have redemption, the forgiveness of
sins: The verb tenses are aorist,
meaning completed action. Jesus'
!!eath actually accomplished or
secured forgiveness of sins for His
sheep, the church. What is the
consequence of not having one's
sins forgiven? It is eternal Hell!
John 3:36 says that God's wrath
abides on all who don't believe in
Jesus. Unforgiven people are
unbelievers . . Hell is comprised
only of unforgiven people. If
Jesus' death accomplished
forgiveness of sins for those faT
whom He died, then it is
impossible for Him to have died
for all men without exception,
since not all men are forgiven.
Arminianism is hopeleSsly lost in a
sea of one contradiction after
another when it believes that Jesus
died for unbelievers as well as for
believers.
Jesus' death brings about
reconciliation of God's elect to a
holy Go!!. Romans 5:10 says, "For
if while we were enemies, we were
recondled to God through the death of
his Son, much more being recandled
we slulIl be saved by His life."
Colossians 1 :22 says, ''yet He has
now reconaled you in His fleshly body
through death in order to present you
before Him holy and blameless and
beyond reproach." Jesus' death
actually brought about the
certainty of the reconciliation of
sinners with a holy God; it didn't
just make it possible.
Reconciliation brings about
salvation, but what are we saved
from? We are saved from God's
wrath in Hell. But if Arminianism
is true that Jesus died for all men
inclusive of unbelievers, and the
Bible says that His death brings
about reconciliation, then then: are
those in Hell who have been
reconciled to God and who are
holy and blameless. See the
absurdity?
Jesus' death is said to
accomplish the justification of
Gods elect. Romans 5:8,9 says,
"But God demonstrates His own love
toward us, in that while we were yet
sinners, Christ died Jar us. Much
more then, having been justified by
His blood we shall be saved Jrom the
wrath of God through Him." In this
passage let's affirm several key
points. Whom does God love? He
loves "us" while "we" were yet
sinners. Christ died for "us." "We"
have been justified by His blood.
The love of God is directed only
toward those whom God will most
certainly justify. Jesus dies only for
those whom God loves. Moreover,
the "we" are saved from God's
wrath. It is clear. Some people
God loves and others God does not
love, and His wrath abides upon
them. The Son dies only for those
whom God loves, not for those
whom God's wrath is poured out.
Romans 8:32,33 states that God
delivered up his Son for His elect
and for these alone does the Son
die, thereby justifying. The
passage states, "He who did not
spare his own Son, but delivered Him
up Jar us all, how will He not also
with him Jreely give us all things?
Who will bring a charge against God's
elect? God is the one who justifies.:'
Since all men without exception
are not justified, this means that
Jesus could not have died for all
men in this sense.
Arminianlsm states thatJesus'
death only makes it possible for
men to be saved and that once they
believe then the benefits of] esus'
death is applied to them.
Arminians might argue that
Calvinists believe that men can be
saved apart from faith since God's
elect have been predetermined.
No, Calvinism has historically
affirmed that the elect are not
technically saved until they believe
in Christ; however, there is no
element of contingency or chance
in the biblical scheme. The elect of
God, having been loved by God
from all eternity, will most
certainly be brought to saving faith
by the power of God. The Bible
affirms that God the Father sent
God the Son to redeem His elect by
the Son's atoning death so that not
one person for whom Jesus died
will ever perish in Hell.
While Calvinism does limit the
extent of the atonement, being
valid only for God's elect,
Arminianism also limits the
atonement. It limits the power of
the atonement,jesus' death cannot
secure salvation for those who
choose not to believe in Him.
Hence, man determines the
AugustlSeptember, 1998 t- THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 29
effectiveness ofjesus' death, Thi.<;
is why we have said. that
Arminianism is a man centered
religion, glorifying man at the
expense of God's glory.
RetJ,uning to 1 Timothy 2:3-6, a
cOnSideration of the irrimediate
context will help clarify the'
interpretative iSsues' at hand. A clue
to understanding how the word
"aU" is used in verses 3-6 is to see .
its use in verses 1-2 whith read, .
."First of all, thtn,lttrge that ' '. '.
entreatl'es and prayers, petitions and.
Thanksgivings, be made on behalf oj
all men,jor kings and all who. are in
authority, in order that we many lead
a tranquil and quiet life in all
godliness and dignity." Arrninianism
insists that the word "aU" must
always mean everyone without
exception. To show hOw
implausible this interpretation is,
let's apply this line of reasoning to
verses 1-2. This would mean that
we must pray for every person on
earth since itSays that we must
make petitions for all men! Taken
to its logical conclusiOn,
Artilinianism's interpretation is
simply impossible. When verse 2
says that we are' to pray for "alt
who are in authority" we would be '
forced to look up every civil official
on.earth and pray for them!
The most consistent
interpretation of ' I Timothy 2:3-6
that does not contradict any
pasSage of Scripture and which is
not absurd is to see thatthe word
''all" refers to men without '
distinction. It refers to "all" men
in their various positions: of
authority. It is mean to be taken
representatively. It is not that we
must pray for every siT;lgle
official. We are to pray for various
civil officials in their corporate
setting such as for the Congress,
the State legislatures, and lOCal law
enforcement agencies to name a
few. To pray for all men in . .
authority is to pray for tl)e,se .
iT;ldividUals ,as theYj!lre found m
their group context. . Prayiv.g for
Congress to .act wisely is a prayer
for each member to act wisely,
Praying for [he whole iIfcorPQrates
a prayer for individual members of i
that whole.
. When I Timothy 2:4 states that
God desires. all men to be, saved;,it ,
, is not that God desires for, each . "
person on earth to be Savedbl\t
that God desires inen in all
men oIall, racial groups, andmen
of a!llango.ige groupslO besaved. ;
This interpretation, does not ",
contradict the dOCtrine of God's '
sovereignty, which affirms that an
omnipotent Creator always gelS
whatever He desires.GOd's.elecl .
are everywhere on earth, When I '
Timothy 2:6 says thatJesusiSa
"ransom for all? it means that he is
the substitutionary atonement for
all men without '
Revelation 5;9 is a great
explanatory passage when it says .
that the Lamb "wast slain and dldst
purchase for God With Thy blood men
from every tribe, and tongue and
people and nation." No nation on
eanh and no language group will
. be missing among Qod's elect. It is
not that God loves eyery person 0':1
earth and sent his, Son to die for
tht;rq,; . God loves certain
individuals out of these groups.
It is the elec;t Of C;;od whom God
has loved JesllS said
it best in]ohn 17:6,9- ,,"1
manifested Thy name to men
whom Thou gavest Me out of the
world; Thine thl;)' were, ' and Thou,
gaves( them to Me .. . 1 ash On their
behalf 1 do not ask pn behalf of the
world, but of those whom Thou hast
given 'Me; for they are Thine. As
Jesus said in]ohn 10:15 - " .. J lay
dowl1 my life for the sheep." It is 1;iis
sheep for prayed for (n
John 17; it is His sheep, for whom .
. He. died, not for the w,orld: at large.
30 TUE COUl"l!);EL of Chalcedon 199(!
In fact; it is only the sheep who
believe in him asJesus saidinJohn
10:26,27 - "But you.do not b.elieve,
because you are not of Mysheep: My
i sheep hear My voict; and 1 know
them, and they follow Me.' It is His
sheep that Jesus .had in tnind
when He said in John 6,,37 - "All
that the Father gives me shall come to
me; and the one who comes to me I
Will certainly IIOt cast ottt.
In conClusion, we have seen
that only the ,o.iviiust '
interpretation is bibli<;aUy
consistent and non-contradictory.
It isthe'o,uy that
isn't forced to an absurd '
concluSion where there are people
in whom God loves, where
there are those in Hell for whom
Jesus slied, thereby forgiving their
sins, reconciling them to God, and
justifying them. No, Hell is a place
restricted for the goats, for th,e .
unbelievers, for those not forgiven,
for the unreconciled, and for t!lose
who are not saved.
My fQ.ends, the death of the Son
of.God f>r an unworthy people is '
thecroWllipg testimony of God's
marvelous grace and mercy. Not
one drop of Jesus' precious blood
was shed in vain! Not one drop
failed to cover all the sins of Gods
elect - Jesus' sheep . . Those of you
who have beetffour pbint
Calvinists can finally Come all the
way hOine. Jesus died only' for His
elect. ,Above all, be sure that. He
died for you by believing in Him as
your Lord and SaVior. n
! .