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 te~t 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 ~eption, 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 y~rself 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 spirit~ As James 4:6 states, God resists tlte proud and give~ 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 befor~ he hears, it is JoUy and shame to hiin. Thearrog~nt 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's·sovereignty. 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:21c24). 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 right¢ousness. 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 ~very single ·person on eanh? ' In john 12:19 the Pharisees were , diSgruntled that jesus had a multitude of followers, "The Pharisees iherefore ~d 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 J~ 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 t~e 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, inciudingJ~ws 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 died; 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 co~eming Christ's death.

Let's summarize again Arrninianism's view ofthe exterit of the atonement: It.maintains that Jesus died for every person·who has ever lived. Even·thbugh 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 man~s sins; it only makes; , salvation possible if men choose by their freewill to ffi\l.ke Jesus~ 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 testi~ony 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 J~ died for unbelievers. .

In M<!tthewl:21 we read, "And she will be~r 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 bne.Qn~ 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.

Another~estgnation for the people 9fGod is the term,

28 ,t- TIlE COUNSEL of Ch;d~don J August/September, ~!J98 .

"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 states~ "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. Scriptlm~ says tlui.t JesuS loves, only the church and dies !'Jnly fOF lierj 'Th~ chu~ch 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, ', ':l'urchase~\.:' 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 ~ini;tn idea. th.atJesus' bl~od " never ac~oml'lislieS or secures anyone's salvation, but that it' of!1y makes it possible, contingent upon mans faith. We can see . that Armini;l~ imPoSes ideas upo~ 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 it·Says 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 civi~ 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 natio~, 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 thatJesus·iSa "ransom for all? it means that he is the substitutionary atonement for· all men without distin~tion. ' 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 ~ll these groups. It is the elec;t Of C;;od whom God has loved ~roII\ ete~ty. JesllS said it best in]ohn 17:6,9- ,,"1 manifested Thy name to (~e 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 whoJIlJ~S1IS 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 ~ AngustlSept~ber, 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 ~teipretation that isn't forced to an absurd ' concluSion where there are people in H~ll 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

! .