MORE FREE RESOURCES on CALVINISM are at
|
Sovereign Grace |
by Brian Schwertley
|
Introduction |
|
The modern era is a time of great theological ignorance, indifference, and declension. Most of the denominations and churches which are generally referred to as conservative, Bible-believing and evangelical have in the past few hundred years succumbed to Arminian 1 or semi-Pelagian interpretations of the doctrine of salvation. The doctrines of sovereign grace which have been nicknamed "Augustinianism" or "Calvinism" have been abandoned as obsolete, unfair, unbiblical, and irrational. The typical evangelical usually hears the name Calvin or the term Calvinism treated scornfully from the pulpit or at a Bible study. It is even labeled a dangerous heresy by some. People are falsely told that Calvinism destroys personal responsibility; that it teaches that people are little better than robots, etc. |
|
The purpose of this book is to examine the five points of Calvinism in order to prove that they are thoroughly scriptural and to dispel the common misconceptions often heard regarding them. This task will involve refuting some of the typical Arminian doctrines which are so popular today. Many poor souls have been seduced by Arminianism’s appeal to human autonomy. People need to be made aware that Armianism is a deadly perversion of the gospel of Christ. It implicitly denies the sovereignty of God, it perverts the doctrine of original sin, it turns the doctrine of election upside down and makes the new birth dependent upon man’s will. In the Arminian scheme men are not saved through faith which is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), but rather because of faith. Furthermore, Christ’s atoning death is not viewed as securing any person’s salvation but merely making salvation possible between God and sinful man. |
|
|
|
Many doctrines of the Bible are intimately related. If a person holds to a deficient view of one doctrine, it will logically lead to a defective view of other related doctrines. A doctrine that historically has had a crucial influence upon the doctrine of salvation is the doctrine of original sin. Original sin refers to the sinful state and condition into which all men are born as a result of Adam’s sin. The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all men, while the pollution and inner corruption of sin is inherited by ordinary generation. Professing Christians differ regarding man’s state after the fall. These differences have led to divergent views regarding redemption. Theological liberals have generally denied the fall and original sin, and thus have developed a humanistic, moralistic, good works version of Christianity. They openly deny the biblical doctrine of the vicarious atonement and the supernatural nature of salvation. Evangelicals and fundamentalists hold to an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view of the fall. They believe that the whole human race was in Adam when he fell; that human nature is thus tainted with hereditary sin and that all men by nature are inclined toward evil. But they believe that man still has a free will and still has the ability to discern spiritual truth and believe in Christ without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. They view man as spiritually sick but not dead. Man may need the help of the Holy Spirit, but it is man’s will which controls this help. Man is said to be the author of faith and repentance. According to this view, salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man in which man plays the decisive role. The biblical view (often called Augustinianism or Calvinism) holds that the fall has not just rendered mankind sick or disabled, but rather spiritually dead. Men are totally depraved and totally unable to respond to the gospel without first being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Man’s will is not free to choose spiritual good, because it is enslaved to a heart that cannot discern spiritual truth, that hates God and loves sin. This view holds that salvation is totally a work of God. |
|
Adam was the federal head (or representative) of the human race in the garden of Eden. When he sinned, the entire human race fell in him. "The consequences of Adam’s sin are all comprehended under the term death, in its widest sense." 2 Spiritual and physical death passed to all men. The guilt of Adam’s sin is passed unto all by imputation, and the pollution (innate hereditary moral depravity) is passed to all men naturally born of Adam’s seed. All men are born sinners by nature. "The imagination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5). "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3). "That which is born of flesh is flesh" (Jn. 3:6). "We were by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). Contrary to modern evangelicalism, the Bible teaches that the penalty for sin (spiritual death, etc.) and man’s inherited moral corruption have rendered man totally unable to respond to the gospel. The Bible, therefore, teaches that salvation is absolutely and solely a work of God’s grace. |
|
|
|
The fall of man has rendered man totally depraved. This means that from birth man’s heart is morally corrupt. "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mt. 15:19). The word "heart" in Scripture represents every aspect of man’s nature, including the intellect, will and emotions. Since this inherent corruption extends to every part of man’s nature, it is unbiblical to assert that the human will is unaffected by the fall. "Man is totally depraved in the sense that everything about his nature is in rebellion against God." 3 "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). "Sinfulness...describes unregenerate man’s rebellious nature.... Everything that unregenerate man does or thinks is undergirded by rebellious inclinations against God or motivations that are sinful. He is a sinner and violates God’s law because he is bound by that sinful nature inherited from Adam (Rom. 5:12)."4 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9). |
|
The doctrine of total depravity is easily misunderstood. It does not mean that man is as wicked as he could be. It is obvious that the pagan man who works hard to support his family, who is faithful to his wife, who obeys the civil laws, etc., is much better than a hardened criminal or serial murderer. It does not mean that an unsaved man cannot do good deeds. Jesus Himself acknowledged that evil men could give good gifts to their children (Mt. 7:11). It does not mean that the image of God in man in the broader sense is destroyed. Man still has reasoning capabilities and a conscience that discriminates between good and evil. Man has an active spirit that creates beautiful works of art, music, architecture, and that makes great strides in science. "What it does mean is that, since the fall, man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation." 5 "[T]here is no spiritual good, that is, good in relation to God, in the sinner at all, but only perversion."6 Custance writes: "The ability of man to do good deeds in no way challenges his basic depravity. For what is corrupt in human nature is motivation, the inability of man to be good."7 A wicked person may go work in a soup kitchen in order to feel good about himself, but he cannot go even one day without committing sin, because by nature he is a sinner. |
|
What this inward depravity does is make all unregenerate men hostile to God and spiritual truth, and in love with sin and self. "Sin, and not righteousness, has become his natural element so that he has no desire for salvation." 8 Unregenerate men may act very religious and outwardly good, but these actions do not flow from a true love of God and His glory; they flow from selfish, evil motives. To the unregenerate man, religion is something to make himself feel good; or to receive glory from other men. The author of Hebrews says that "without faith it is impossible to please Him" (11:6). Paul says "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). The proverb says that even "the plowing of the wicked [is] sin" (Pr. 21:4). True faith in Christ, which issues forth from a regenerate heart, is the foundation of genuine virtue. An act which is outwardly good, but done in the service of self and Satan, cannot please God. "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8). Paul describes unregenerate man as continually suppressing the truth about God and replacing it with various forms of idolatry in order to serve his own sinful lusts (Rom. 1:18-32). Man is born a covenant breaker with an innate hostility toward Jehovah. Man has a heart that at every moment suppresses the true knowledge of God. |
|
|
|
Total depravity describes man’s inherited pollution from Adam, the inherent corruption that extends to every part of man’s nature. Total inability refers to the effect of man’s inherent corruption on his spiritual powers and discernment. Berkhof writes: "When we speak of man’s corruption as total inability, we mean two things: (1) that the unrenewed sinner cannot do any act, however insignificant, which fundamentally meets with God’s approval and answers to the demands of God’s holy law; and (2) that he cannot change his fundamental preference for sin and self to love for God, nor even make an approach to such a change. In a word, he is unable to do any spiritual good."9 The Westminster Confession of Faith describes total inability as follows: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."10 Gordon Clark writes: "…Adam’s ability to will what is good was lost by the fall. From that time on man could not chose to will ‘any spiritual good accompanying salvation.’ True, a man might will to be honest, to support his family, to discharge most of his obligations as a citizen. In colloquial language these things are called good. But they are not spiritual goods, and they have nothing to do with salvation. Furthermore, a man cannot will to be saved. He cannot convert himself, nor even make preparations for conversion. The simple reason is that he is dead in sin."11 |
|
This doctrine of total inability plays a crucial role in understanding Christ’s redemption. If men are dead in sin, helpless, and cannot believe in Christ; then the salvation of sinners of necessity involves much more than Christ dying for all men and then waiting to see who will accept His gift. If unsaved men are unable to choose or to will any spiritual good, then apart from a spiritual rebirth, no man would choose Christ. If the doctrine of total inability is true, then Christ’s death not only removed the guilt of sin and God’s curse against sinners, but also must be the foundation and guarantee of the application of His work to specific individuals. The common evangelical’s view is that Christ, by His death, made salvation possible for all men; that forgiveness is there waiting for men to receive; that the Holy Spirit may gently urge men to change, but cannot interfere with man’s free will. This cannot be true if men are totally depraved and unable to respond to divine truth. Men don’t need a gentle push; they need a spiritual resurrection, a quickening. It would mean that God "in his saving operations, deals not generally with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are actually saved." 12 It would mean that regeneration must precede and not follow saving faith. It would mean that God works directly upon the human soul in salvation; that Christ is not passively waiting, but actually saving His people. It would mean that salvation is totally a work of God–that God receives all the glory; that man contributes nothing of his own to the process; that even faith and repentance are gifts from above. Salvation is by sovereign grace. Since the doctrine of total inability is so important as it relates to other doctrines, one must carefully examine the scriptural evidence for it. "What saith the scriptures?" (Gal. 4:30, KJV). The evidence is abundant, strong, and clear. |
|
|
|
The whole faulty system of salvation as taught by modern evangelicalism rests upon the dogma of "free will." Arminians argue that man’s ability to will spiritual good and choose spiritual good (Jesus Christ) was left unaffected by the fall. There is no question that man is free in the sense that he acts as he pleases. But can the will of man act independently from the human heart? "Is it an independent, self-determining power?–i.e., does the Will stand apart from the other great faculties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can reverse the man and fly against the man and split him into segments, as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or, is the Will connected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the head goes, the whole creature goes, and, as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he?" 13 The will of man always acts in accordance with man’s heart or sinful nature. This is the explicit teaching of Scripture. "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Lk. 6:45). "Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life" (Pr. 4:23). "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23). "For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders..." (Mk. 7:21). Jesus says that the source of sinful thoughts and acts is the heart and not the will. In other words, the will simply follows or carries out the desires, inclinations, habits, etc. of the heart. |
|
"Heart" in the Bible refers to the innermost core of man’s being. In includes the whole human nature (i.e., the mind, will, intellect, emotions, etc.). So, although man is at liberty to choose whatever he desires, since his heart is evil he will only choose between greater and lesser evil. Those outwardly good deeds that he does do are not prompted by love to God and thus are not spiritually good. "Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not prefer the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful." 14 Boettner writes: "Man is a free agent but he cannot originate the love of God in his heart. His will is free in the sense that it is not controlled by any force outside of himself. As the bird with a broken wing is ‘free’ to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able. How can he repent of his sin when he loves it? How can he come to God when he hates Him? This is the inability of the will under which man labors."15 |
|
Although man is spiritually impotent he is still responsible for his actions. Man rendered himself unable in the garden; he is not coerced by outside forces. Man freely sins and loves it. His will is in bondage to his wicked heart. "He cannot renew his own will, change his own heart, nor regenerate his bad nature." 16 He is helpless and hopeless apart from a sovereign work of grace upon his heart by God the Holy Spirit. This doctrine of total inability explains why the Bible (unlike modern evangelicalism) never attributes salvation to an act of the human will. "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16). "Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn. 1:13). "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (Jn. 15:16). "Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen to my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do" (Jn. 8:43-44). When Jesus said, "Without Me you can do nothing" (Jn. 15:5), He really meant nothing. Luther writes: "It is totally unheard of–grammar and logic to say that nothing is the same as something; to logicians, the thing is an impossibility, for the two are contradictory!"17 |
|
Total inability and the bondage of the will are taught throughout Scripture. What follows is a summary of the biblical teaching regarding the state of fallen, unregenerate man: |
|
|
|
"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we [Christians] all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph. 2:1-5). Because of man’s fall into sin, men are dead. Unregenerate man can no more choose Christ or see spiritual truth than a rotting corpse can play tennis or debate philosophy. There is no middle ground between being alive and being dead. Unregenerate men are not just sick, handicapped or impaired but dead. The biblical view of the unregenerate is totally at odds with most fundamentalist pastors and teachers who teach that unregenerate man has the ability to choose Christ. "You may use all human persuasion possible, but you cannot give spiritual life where death reigns. God alone, by a creative act, can bring life out of death. Spiritual arguments to an unregenerate man are only warm clothes to a corpse." 18 "If a man is dead spiritually, therefore, it is surely equally as evident that he is unable to perform any spiritual actions, and thus the doctrine of man’s moral [or spiritual] inability rests upon strong Scriptural evidence."19 |
|
When Paul compares the mind of believers with the unregenerate he states unequivocally that unbelievers cannot even do one thing that pleases God. "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:5-8) The carnal mind has no ability to change itself. Luther writes: "Let the guardian of ‘free will’ answer the following question: How can endeavours towards good be made by that which is death, and displeases God, and is enmity against God, and disobeys God, and cannot obey him?" 20 Murray writes: "Here we have nothing less than the doctrine of the total inability to be well-pleasing to God or to do what is well-pleasing in his sight. In the whole passage we have the biblical basis for the doctrines of total depravity and total inability. It should be recognized, therefore, that resistance to these doctrines must come to terms not simply with the present day proponents of these doctrines but with the apostle himself. ‘Enmity against God’ is nothing other than total depravity and ‘cannot please God’ nothing less than total inability."21 |
|
|
|
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23). "They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions...having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin.... It has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire’" (2 Pet. 2:13-14, 22). "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:6-8). Without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit applied to a man’s heart, no one would ever believe in Christ and repent. Genuine repentance is the fruit of a regenerate heart. "They glorified God, saying, ‘Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life’" (Ac. 11:18). |
|
|
|
"The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have all together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no not one" (Ps. 14:2-3). "There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God" (Rom. 3:11). Why is it that not even one man seeks after God? It is because men cannot seek God. Luther writes: "Do we not know what it means to be ignorant of God, not to understand, not to seek God, not to fear God, to go out of the way and to be unprofitable? Are not the words perfectly clear? and do they not teach that all men are ignorant of God and despise God, and moreover go out of the way after evil, and are unprofitable for good? Paul is not here speaking of ignorance in seeking food, or of contempt for money, but of ignorance and contempt of religion and godliness." 22 The idea that unregenerate men are objectively examining different philosophies and religions in search of the truth is totally false. Unregenerate men turn to false religions, philosophies and ideologies to escape reality, to escape from the true God (Rom. 1:21-28). Those who seek God do so only because God first sought them out and changed their stony hearts into hearts of flesh: "I [God] was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me" (Rom. 10:20, cf. Isa. 65:1). |
|
|
|
"Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see [comprehend, perceive] the kingdom of God’" (Jn. 3:3) "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). The unregenerate man can study the Bible and learn what it teaches regarding history and God’s way of salvation. He may even teach a course on the Bible as literature at a major university. But to him the Bible is mythological nonsense; it is foolishness. Apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, people are completely incapable of discerning spiritual truth: "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. Therefore let no one boast in men" (1 Cor. 3:20-21). |
|
|
|
"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them" (2 Cor. 4:3-4). "I [Jesus Christ] will deliver you [the Apostle Paul] from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:17-18). "Man is loyal to the god of darkness and loves darkness rather than the Light. His will is, therefore, not at all ‘free.’ It is bound by the flesh to the prince of darkness." 23 Men who have "been taken captive by [Satan] to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:26) can only be set free by someone stronger than Satan–Jesus Christ and His Spirit (Mt. 12:29). |
|
|
|
"In Him [Jesus Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" (Jn. 1:4-5). "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn. 3:19-20). "They...became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened.... God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Rom. 1:21, 28). Pure darkness is the absence of all light. Those who are not born again dwell in spiritual darkness. How can those who are in total darkness, who hate the light, choose or cooperate with light? The unregenerate will not choose the light because he cannot choose the light. It is impossible with man. "Non-existent spiritual life cannot give being to itself. Light is not brought out of darkness, neither does love come from hate. Every seed bears its own kind. ‘That which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’ (Jn. 3:6). A new creature, therefore, cannot be the product of natural power." 24 |
|
|
|
"Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and return and be healed" (Isa. 6:9-10; cf. Mk. 4:12, Lk. 8:10). "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil.... He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God" (Jn. 8:43-44, 47). The preaching of the gospel is useless to the deaf. The written word is of no effect to the blind. Only God can open blind eyes and deaf ears. "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the LORD has made them both" (Pr. 20:12). |
|
|
|
"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6). "And when I [God] passed you by and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’" (Ezek. 16:6). |
|
|
|
"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears!" (Acts 7:51). "Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary’" (Ezek. 44:9). "Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh" (Ezek. 11:19). "I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezek. 36:26). An uncircumcised heart is a heart still enslaved to the filth and pollution of the flesh. A heart of stone is totally unresponsive to spiritual truth. An unregenerate man will no more respond to the gospel than will a rock. Regeneration is absolutely essential if fallen man is to believe. |
|
|
|
One often hears sermons in fundamentalist churches in which people are told that "Christ did everything He is going to do to save you; now it is up to you to do your part." Salvation is viewed as a cup of medicine that is of no use whatever until a man accepts the cup and drinks it. The idea that Christ can or will save only those who of their own "free will" are willing to accept Him completely contradicts what the Bible says about the effect of total depravity upon the human race. All men are dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1-5), hate the truth, hate Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:19-21), dwell in darkness (Jn. 1:4-5), have a heart of stone (Ezek. 11:19), are helpless (Ezek. 16:4-6), cannot repent (Jer. 13:23), are slaves of Satan (Ac. 26:17-18), and cannot see or comprehend divine truth (1 Cor. 2:14). This teaching is offensive to the natural man but unavoidable unless one is willing to abandon the word of God. |
|
The doctrine of total depravity is important, for when it is properly understood, it proves that salvation is totally of God’s grace. Those who reject this doctrine and teach that the human will is the sole determining factor between who is and who is not saved have abandoned the biblical doctrine of salvation. Speaking of W. E. Henley, B. B. Warfield writes: " ‘When one says,’ he tells us, ‘ "I believe in God, the Father Almighty," he means it with reserve for in the domain of man’s moral choices under grace, man himself is almighty, according to God’s self-limitation in making man in his image and after his likeness.’ God himself, he goes on to declare, has a creed which begins: ‘I believe in man, almighty in his choices.’ " 25 |
|
Arminians believe that God has provided forgiveness in Christ and now is waiting for men to appropriate the redemption provided. It is as though there is a pot of gold sitting there waiting for man to discover it and take it. This view, which makes salvation a cooperative effort between God and man (synergism), is not grace as biblically defined. The moment man contributes something of his own to salvation, even if it is just one act of the will, grace is no more grace. Luther writes: "Granted that your friends assign to ‘free will as little as possible’, nonetheless they teach us that by that little we can attain righteousness and grace; and they solve the problem as to why God justifies one and abandons another simply by presupposing ‘free-will’, and saying: ‘the one endeavoured and the other did not; and God regards the one for his endeavour and despises the other; and He would be unjust were He to do anything else!… They [the guardians of ‘free will’] do not believe that He intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by His blood, and ‘grace’ (as is here said) ‘for grace’. And as they believe, so it is unto them. Christ is in truth an inexorable judge to them, and deservedly so; for they abandon Him in His office as a Mediator and kindest Saviour, and account His blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavours of ‘free-will’!" 26 Arminianism is the first cousin to Romanism. It is a damnable heresy. If one man had the wisdom and will to choose Christ while his neighbor did not, then he has reason to boast. But if men are dead in trespasses and sins and totally unable to respond to Christ until He raises them from the dead through regeneration, then there is no reason for a man to boast. God receives all the glory. "Just as Lazarus would never have heard the voice of Jesus, nor would he have ever ‘come to Jesus,’ without first being given life by our Lord, so all men ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ must first be given life by God before they can ‘come to Christ.’ Since dead men cannot will to receive life, but can be raised from the dead only by the power of God, so the natural man cannot of his own (mythical) ‘free will’ will to have eternal life (cf. John 10:26-28)."27 The gospel really is good news. Jesus Christ actually saves sinners. |
|
|
|
The Bible clearly teaches that God chose a people for Himself before the foundation of the world. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1:3-5). When the Bible discusses the predestination of those who are in Christ it speaks of the doctrine of election. The "elect" are those chosen by God. The verb "to elect" simply means to choose. The doctrine of election refers to "that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal salvation." 28 In order to emphasize the fact that God’s election or choice of certain sinners to be saved is not based upon anything that the sinner himself does, Reformed theologians refer to election to eternal life as unconditional election. |
|
|
|
Virtually all modern evangelicals and fundamentalists emphatically reject the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. They teach that election is based not solely upon God’s choice or good pleasure but upon God’s foreknowledge of man’s exercise of faith. In other words, before God created the world, He looked down the corridors of time and observed all those who exercised faith in Christ and then chose them. "Arminians, broadly speaking, hold that election is based upon God’s foreknowledge of who will actively co-operate with God in the saving of his own soul. Lutherans hold that it is based upon God’s foreknowledge of who will not resist his invitation to accept salvation as an outright gift. Wesleyans believe that it is based upon God’s foreknowledge of who will persevere to the end." 29 |
|
The view that God only chooses those who first elect Him by making a decision for Christ is based on Romans 8:29: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." The Arminian or semi-Pelagian understands the word foreknow simply to mean an intellectual knowledge of something before it happens. Thus they argue that God knew beforehand who would believe and repent and then elected them. There are a number of reasons why the Arminian understanding of Romans 8:29 is unscriptural and impossible. |
|
1. The first reason that the Arminian understanding of Romans 8:29 is unscriptural is the fact that "foreknow" in this passage does not simply mean to know an event before it happens. Paul uses "foreknow" in the Old Testament Hebraistic sense of to love beforehand. John Murray writes: "Although the term ‘foreknow’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know.’ Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love,’ to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen. 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:23; 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 3:1).... It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved.’" 30 God’s electing love originates from Himself and not out of a foreseen faith or repentance. Therefore, when the Bible discusses election, it always grounds it in God and not sinful, depraved humanity. Election is "according to His good pleasure" (Eph. 1:9). It is "after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11). |
|
2. The Arminian interpolation receives its death blow from the immediate context of Romans 8:29. Arminians argue that predestination is based on a foreseen faith and thus that man is ultimately sovereign in salvation. God decides what He will do on the basis of what man first decides to do. Since, according to the Arminian, man is sovereign over his own salvation, the Arminian logically concludes that man can also reject God at any time and lose his salvation. But Romans 8:30 ff. shows that God’s love is not a passive, waiting, helpless love but a sovereign, active love–a love that nothing can impede, stop, or override. "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: ‘For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.’ Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:30-39). |
|
The interpretation that foreknowledge is merely a recognition that certain people will exercise faith some time in the future; a faith that is solely dependent on man and that can fail at any time simply contradicts Paul’s emphasis on God’s determinative action in salvation. Paul presents a chain of events, all of which are dependent solely upon God. Paul is teaching a monergistic doctrine of salvation. That salvation depends solely upon divine choice and action. Paul emphasizes that God is the one who predestinates, calls, justifies, and then glorifies. Furthermore, it is Christ who achieved an objective, perfect redemption; who intercedes at the right hand of God for His people (v. 34). The three actions (called, justified, and glorified) which inevitably flow from God’s eternal counsel cannot be separated. "The future glorification of the believer is designated by the aorist, as his justification, calling, predestination, and election have been; because all these divine acts are eternal, and therefore simultaneous for the divine mind. All are equally certain." 31 Paul emphasizes that salvation is certain for the elect because "God is for us" (v. 31). |
|
Salvation is guaranteed by God’s electing love and predestinating power. Such a doctrine is totally incompatible with the idea that everything boils down to the "free" choice of people who are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1); who could lose their faith and salvation at any moment. Since it is God alone who saves, Paul can affirm that nothing created can separate the elect from God’s love (v. 39). Nothing created–not even man’s will–has veto power over the elect’s final salvation. "He has shown how the present pilgrimage of the people of God falls into its place in that determinate and undefeatable plan of God that is bounded by two foci, the sovereign love of God in his eternal counsel and glorification with Christ in the age to come." 32 Girardeau writes: "Whatsoever, then, may be, according to the Arminian view, the love of God towards his saints, it is a love which does not secure their salvation: it is not a saving love. It is not equal to the love which a mother cherishes for her child. She would save him if she could. This reputed divine love may be called a special love, but it is not the love for his saints which the Scriptures assign to God. The idea of it was not born of inspiration: God never claimed such love as his own."33 "What God is assuring his children in Romans 8:29 is not that He has foreseen our favourable response to his call when the time comes and has therefore decided that we shall duly be conformed to the image of his Son. It is rather that he loved us in anticipation and determined, for reasons entirely hidden from us, that we should be conformed to the image of his Son by an act of his sovereign grace."34 Therefore, Christians can be "confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). |
|
3. The Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29 would place a blatant contradiction within Scripture. It would contradict the biblical teaching with regard to man’s state after the fall. The Bible teaches that unsaved, unregenerate men hate both Christ and the truth (Jn. 3:19-21). Unregenerate fallen man: dwells in darkness (Jn. 1:4-5); is dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1-5); has a heart of stone which is unable to respond to divine truth (Ezek. 11:19); is helpless (Ezek. 16:4-6); is unable to repent (Jer. 13:23); is enslaved to Satan (Ac. 26:17-18); and is unable to see or comprehend divine truth (1 Cor. 2:14). Unconditional election is the logical corollary to total depravity. Thus Jesus Christ taught: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.... No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father" (Jn.. 6:44, 65). An unregenerate man can no more choose Christ as Savior than can a rotting corpse. |
|
Since the Bible teaches that the fall has rendered man incapable of believing in Christ and repenting, the idea that God looked through time and chose those who first chose him is absurd and impossible. That is why the Bible teaches that faith and repentance are gifts from God (cf. Jn. 3:3-8; 6:44-45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2). "For unless God by sovereign, operative grace had turned our enmity to love and our disbelief to faith we would never yield the response of faith and love." 35 Furthermore, the biblical passages which teach unconditional election are clear and abundant. |
|
|
|
Acts 13:48. "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Here is the explicit statement of the doctrine of election by Luke. The Greek word tetagmenoi, which is translated as ordained (KJV, ASV, RSV), appointed (NKJV, NASB, Berkeley) and destined (JB) is the passive form of the verb tasso which (as might be expected) means to ordain, or to appoint. The fact that the verb is passive indicates that these people did not ordain themselves but were chosen by an outside agent–God the Father. These people believed in Christ because God first appointed them to eternal life. Luke, by the Holy Spirit, is stating in unambiguous terms why some people believe and others disbelieve. The difference is not that some people are smarter, wiser, or more holy than others, but that God has chosen or ordained some to life and passed by the rest. "[A] Divine ordination to eternal life is the cause, not the effect, of any man’s believing."36 "Those believed to whom God gave grace to believe, whom by a secret and mighty operation he brought in subjection to the gospel of Christ.... Those came to Christ whom the Father drew, and to whom the Spirit made the gospel call effectual."37 |
|
Those who strongly disagree with predestination have approached this passage in different ways in order to avoid its plain meaning. One method is to simply twist the meaning of the Greek language to fit one’s own unbiblical presuppositions regarding election. Thus the Living Bible translates Acts 13:48b as follows: "...and as many as wanted eternal life, believed." Likewise, the old heretic Socinius invented his own Greek grammar to have the passage say, "...as many as believed, were ordained to eternal life." A more sophisticated method is to argue that the verb is not passive but middle: "...as many as were disposed were ordained to eternal life." Such a translation, however, ignores the teaching of the entire New Testament that God ordains or predestinates and not man (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; 9:11; Eph. 1:4; 1 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:26-29, etc.). "Moreover, the phrase of being disposed unto, or for eternal life, is a very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one; men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment." 38 "[W]henever this verb occurs elsewhere, it invariably expresses the exertion of power or authority, divine or human, and being in the passive voice, cannot denote mere disposition, much less self-determination, any more than the form used in 2, 40 above...."39 Thus it is no wonder that all the ancient versions (including the Latin Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic) as well as virtually all modern translations (Living Bible excepted) translate tetamenoi as the passive: "were ordained, or appointed." Spurgeon writes, "Attempts have been made to prove that these words do not teach predestination, but these attempts so clearly do violence to language that I shall not waste time in answering them. I read, ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ and I shall not twist the text but shall glorify the grace of God by ascribing to that grace the faith of every man. Is it not God who gives the disposition to believe? If men are disposed to have eternal life, does not He–in every case–dispose them? Is it wrong for God to give grace? If it be right for Him to give it–is it wrong for Him to purpose to give it? Would you have Him give it by accident? If it is right for Him to purpose to give grace to-day, it was right for Him to purpose it before today–and, since He changes not–from eternity."40 |
|
|
|
If one has ever wondered why some people become Christians and others continue in darkness, he need only read Romans 9:6-24. Paul argues that the reason some are saved and others are damned is that God so willed it. Paul says that God ultimately decides who receives mercy. Election reflects God’s will and purpose: "it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16). |
|
In order to emphasize God’s sovereignty over salvation (out of the whole Old Testament), Paul chooses the twin brothers Jacob and Esau as a case study in divine election. Paul sets out to prove that election to salvation flows solely from God’s will and purpose; that one’s blood line, parentage, upbringing, actions, or human choice have nothing to do with election. Note that Jacob and Esau were twins. They were conceived at the same moment and born only minutes apart. Unlike the case of Isaac and Ishmael who had different mothers, one being an Egyptian slave (Hagar), Jacob and Esau had the same mother, Rebekah. Both were covenant children born of the patriarch Isaac. Their conception was a miraculous answer to prayer (Gen. 25:21). From a human standpoint, if anyone had the advantage it was Esau who was the first born (Gen. 25:25) and favored by Isaac his father (Gen. 25:28). Furthermore, in order to make it absolutely clear that election has nothing to do with human merit or choice, Paul says that God chose one to salvation (Jacob) and one to reprobation (Esau) before they were even born; before either had done good or evil. Why is it that some people believe in Christ and others do not? Because God has mercy on some and others He hardens (Rom. 9:18). Ultimately God makes the difference. Paul reasons as "plainly as language can express the idea, the ground of the choice is not in those chosen, but in God who chooses." 41 |
|
There are a number of objections that have been raised against the doctrine of unconditional election as taught by Paul in Romans 9. First, it is said that when the passage says God hated Esau, it really means that God loved him less than He loved Jacob. Although the word hate can sometimes be used in Scripture to mean to love less (e.g., Lk. 14:26), the context of the passage quoted by Paul (Mal. 1:2-3) and Romans 9 itself indicate that in this instance hate does not mean to love less. "The context of Mal. 1:2-3 is one of judgment, punishment, indignation: ‘...Esau have I hated, and made his mountains a desolation.... They will build, but I will throw down.’" 42 If Paul meant to love less, then why compare Esau to Pharaoh, whom God destroyed? God killed Pharaoh’s firstborn son and then drowned Pharaoh in the Red Sea. If a person slit the throat of your firstborn son and then drowned you in the backyard swimming pool, would you regard that person as loving you less? Also, why would Paul explain what he meant by saying that those hated beforehand are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v. 22). They are lumps formed by God for dishonor (v. 21). It is obvious that hate in Rom. 9:13 does not mean and cannot mean to love less. |
|
Another objection is that Paul is not really referring to individual election, but the election of nations. Were not Jacob and Esau both the father of nations? Indeed they were. But the context of the passage indicates that here Paul is not at all concerned with collective or national election, but is explaining why "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6). Paul is explaining the distinction between Israel and true Israel. He wants his reader to understand why so many within the elect nation do not believe. This brings Paul to a lengthy discussion of individual election so that all may understand: they are not all elect (individually), who are of elect Israel (nationally). Furthermore, according to the Arminian conception of justice and fairness "is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation, but the election of so many units, of so many people?–and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if–which we do not for a moment believe–there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in choosing one nation and not another. No! The difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God’s Word." 43 |
|
The most common objection is: "That’s not fair!" Paul himself anticipates such a response in verse 14: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" Many people think that the doctrine of predestination, where God foreordains some to salvation and others to destruction before they are even born, is unjust. Although such a response may be natural for the unregenerate and those ignorant of theology, it should never be the response of a Christian. Paul, after posing the question, says, "Certainly not!" (v. 14). Furthermore: "It is not for their being passed by that they are punished, but for their sins. Their being passed by is a sovereign act: their condemnation is a judicial act of God in His capacity as a Judge. ‘Salvation is all of grace; damnation all of sin. Salvation [is] of God from first to last–the Alpha and the Omega; but damnation [is] of men not of God: and if you perish at your own hands must your blood be required’ (C. H. Spurgeon)." 44 |
|
A fatal problem with the objection that predestination or unconditional election makes God unjust is the simple fact that all human beings because of the sin of Adam and their own sins deserve eternal damnation. "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10-13). God could justly send every human being to hell. He is not obligated to save anyone. If God had not (because of His love) elected some to life and sent His only begotten Son to die, no one would go to heaven. "Shall we not fix it once for all in our minds that salvation is the right of no man; that a ‘chance’ to save himself is no ‘chance’ of salvation for any; and that, if any of the sinful race of man is saved, it must be by a miracle of almighty grace, on which he has no claim, and, contemplating which as a fact, he can only be filled with wondering adoration of the marvels of the inexplicable love of God? To demand that all criminals shall be given a ‘chance’ of escaping their penalties, and that all shall be given an ‘equal chance,’ is simply to mock at the very idea of justice, and no less, at the very idea of love." 45 This explains why election is always presented in Scripture as according to God’s will and purpose and not man’s merit. |
|
Paul goes on to quote Exodus 33:19 in response. The key to understanding election for Paul is God’s mercy. "For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15). What is mercy? Mercy is the unmerited or undeserved favor of God. "Compassion has to do with recognizing the poor or helpless state of a person and stooping to help that person. Mercy does the same, but its unique quality is that it is shown to people not only who do not deserve it, but who in fact deserve the opposite. In this case, mercy describes the giving of salvation to people who actually deserve to perish." 46 |
|
The Arminian thinks he is avoiding the common objection of unfairness by making the ultimate cause of election man’s choice of Christ. However, this supposed solution to the question of fairness does not really address the "problem." The Bible clearly teaches that no one can be saved apart from Christ (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6; 15:5; 1 Jn. 5:12; Rom. 10:13). Yet throughout the history of mankind, very few people have had the opportunity to hear the gospel. If God was trying to meet this human, unscriptural standard of justice that undergirds Arminianism, would He not give every person in history an opportunity to hear the gospel? Yet, the biblical account shows that God in the Old Covenant era focused His attention on a tiny nation in Palestine while the rest of the world was left in complete ignorance and darkness. And even in the New Covenant era, when God is gathering His elect from every nation, the vast majority of people have not heard the gospel. Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel in Asia, but rather was directed in a vision to go to Europe (Macedonia; cf. Ac. 16:6). God excluded some and focused on others. "It was the sovereign choice of God which brought the Gospel to the people of Europe and later to America, while the people of the east, and north, and south were left in darkness." 47 |
|
Also consider that God is in total control of when and where each person is born, yet some individuals are born into households where they are taught false religions and philosophies while others are born into Christian households where they hear the gospel throughout childhood. One child is born in poverty to wicked parents who worship idols, and another is born into a middle-class Christian family where Christ is taught, honored, and worshipped daily. The Bible teaches that God has the power to open and close the womb (cf. Gen. 30:2-3). God could (if He wanted to meet the Arminian standard of fairness) only allow children to be born into godly Christian households. Furthermore, some are born more intelligent, trusting, kind, etc., than others. If God’s elective choice is dependent upon the foreseen faith of man, as the Arminian asserts, then election is unjust, because all men are not born into equal circumstances and all are not born with equal intellectual capabilities. |
|
The doctrine of unconditional election is the only view of election which is just. The whole human race is dead in trespasses and sins, and under the just sentence of eternal damnation. But God, who is merciful, chooses "according to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1:5) to save some. None are deserving. None are spiritually able. None have a spiritual advantage. They all are at the same point. Then apart from anything in them God saves some and passes by others. This is exactly what Paul is saying when sinful, guilty humanity is compared to the "same lump." "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21) "This scripture evidences that there is ‘no difference,’ in themselves, between the elect and the non-elect: they are all clay of ‘the same lump,’ which agrees with Eph. 2:3, where we are told, that all are by nature children of wrath." 48 "The main idea Paul is putting across is this: if even a potter has the right out of the same lump or mass of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor, then certainly God, our Maker, has the right, out of the same mass of human beings who by their own guilt have plunged themselves into the pit of misery, to elect some to everlasting life, and to allow others to remain in the abyss of wretchedness."49 |
|
Another fatal problem for the Arminian view of election as taught in Romans 9 is that if Paul is teaching that election is based not on God’s will, but human choice, the hypothetical objections that Paul raises to the doctrine don’t make any sense. If Esau was not elected because he did not exercise faith, why would anyone accuse God of injustice? The Arminian teaches that ultimately God had nothing to do with it. The objection raised in verse 19 ("You say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’") is obviously made against predestination. If (as Arminians erroneously assert) God cannot violate man’s free will, and salvation is merely a possibility which man sovereignly appropriates, why an objection against God’s absolute control of salvation and reprobation? Furthermore, the illustration developed above regarding the potter fashioning the clay solely as he pleases is also totally out of place. Unconditional election is a hated doctrine by most professing Christians today. Yet, the apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, championed the doctrine and taught it with such clarity that one can only wonder how those who profess belief in the Bible can deny it. |
|
It is truly sad that so many who profess the name of Christ hate the doctrine of unconditional election, for it is the heart of biblical religion and a God-glorifying doctrine. What is more fundamental to biblical truth than the fact that salvation is a gift from God? "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). Those who hate the doctrine in reality hate God’s sovereign grace. They would ignore the doctrine if they could, but since it is taught so clearly and often in the New Testament, they have no choice but to attempt to explain it away. Their main attempt–the idea that election is based on a foreseen faith–turns election into its very opposite: God does not elect man, but rather man elects God. Furthermore, predestination in such a scheme is really a postdestination. The Arminian viewpoint is unbiblical and illogical for it makes the eternal counsel and choice of God contingent upon the choice of men who are spiritually dead and unable to choose Christ (apart from regeneration) and who do not even exist yet! The Arminian scheme has temporal events controlling and conditioning the eternal, unchanging will of God. In other words, the clay has control over the potter. The Arminian, by taking election out of God’s hands and placing it in the hands of depraved man, has destroyed salvation by grace alone and replaced it with a humanistic synergism. Christ testified against such Scripture twisting when He said to His disciples: "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" (Jn. 15:16). Arminianism is unscriptural, irrational, and takes the glory due to God alone and bestows it upon sinful man. |
|
|
|
Some attempt to avoid the plain meaning of this passage by asserting that God has elected all men. Such a view is mistaken for three reasons. First, the whole idea of election presupposes that some are chosen and others are not. If election applies to every human being, it is meaningless. Second, the eternal election of some by the Father is "in Christ." Election cannot be separated from union with Christ. "[B]efore the foundation of the world, Christ was the Representative and Surety of all those who in time would be gathered into the fold." 51 Election is in Christ because those chosen were "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1), "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3), and deserving (apart from Christ) eternal damnation. Christ, the covenant head of the elect, promised the Father before the foundation of the world to fulfill the law and die a sacrificial death for His people, the elect. "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (Jn. 6:39). "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them" (Jn. 17:9-10). Third, the purpose of election is in order "that we should be holy and without blame" (v. 4). Girardeau writes: "The testimony in Eph. i. 4 is indisputable. Arminians are compelled to evade it. For example, Wesley says upon the text: ‘ "As he hath chosen us"–both Jews and Gentiles, whom he foreknew as believing in Christ.’ That is, he chose us because he foreknew that we would be holy. But Paul says just the opposite: he chose us that we should be holy. So clear is the affirmation that holiness is the effect of election, that even Meyer and Ellicott both acknowledge that the Greek infinitive rendered ‘that we should be’ is one of intention–in order that we should be holy."52 Election does not open the possibility of salvation, but guarantees its actual accomplishment. As in Romans 8, election, justification and glorification cannot be separated. "[E]lection does not carry man half-way only; it carries him all the way. It does not merely bring him to conversion; it brings him to perfection. It purposes to make him holy–that is cleansed from all sin and separated entirely to God and to his service–and faultless–that is, without any blemish whatever (Phil. 2:15), like a perfect sacrifice."53 Thus, if God elected all men in Christ, then one would have to argue that all men will actually be saved. |
|
|
|
The doctrine of unconditional election is foundational to biblical Christianity for it places the salvation of men squarely in the hands of God. "Salvation is of the LORD" (Jon. 2:9). Men are saved solely by God’s grace. Calvin writes: "We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast; that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others. How much the ignorance of this principle detracts from God’s glory, how much it takes away from true humility, is well known…. If–to make it clear that our salvation comes about solely from God’s mere generosity–we must be called back to the course of election.… 54 |
|
|
|
A doctrinal issue which is crucial to our understanding of God’s nature (i.e., His sovereignty) and the gospel is the extent of Christ’s atoning death on the cross. 55 There are three different views current among professing Christians today: universalism, inconsistent universalism, and particularism. Universalists believe that Christ died for every individual (without exception) who ever lived. They believe that God intended to save every man by the death of Christ, and that since Christ died for everyone, everyone will without exception be saved. Although this view is logically consistent, it is obviously unscriptural. The Bible teaches that many people will go to hell (Mt. 7:13). Universalism is the dominant view among theological liberals, but since it is rare among evangelicals, our attention will be directed to the two remaining positions. Inconsistent universalism holds that Christ died for all men without exception, but that only some of those for whom Christ died actually will be saved. The rest will go to hell. This view is held by virtually all so-called fundamentalists and evangelicals today. Inconsistent universalists (i.e., Arminians) believe that Christ’s meritorious work did not actually secure the salvation of any man, but merely made salvation a possibility for all men. Those who hold to a particular atonement (i.e., Calvinists) teach that Christ died for the elect only. Christ’s atoning death definitely secured the salvation of those for whom He died. The doctrine that Christ died only for some is very unpopular today; therefore, it is important to establish this doctrine from a careful examination of Scripture. |
|
|
|
Since many professing Christians have been taught that a limited atonement is a dangerous error, one must carefully and objectively look at the scriptural evidence for such a doctrine. One must avoid going to Scripture with a set of preconceived notions that are not derived from the Bible itself. This brief study will show that the doctrine of limited atonement is expressly taught in Scripture. Furthermore, the doctrine of a limited atonement logically proceeds from the other well-established doctrines, such as God’s absolute sovereignty, total depravity, regeneration, election, etc. After the scriptural evidence is set forth, the Arminian arguments against this doctrine will be examined. |
|
|
|
There is a great significance in the angels’ expression "His people." Did Christ come to save every person? Did He come to save the Jews only? No, He came to save His people. "Jesus is not to save every man, but only his own people, for whose ransom he made a pact with the Father, in the covenant of redemption, for it is said, he shall save his own people." 56 Jesus came to save only those (the elect) given to Him by the Father. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.... This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (Jn. 6:37, 39). |
|
Note that the passage does not say that Jesus came to make salvation a possibility for every individual, but that He actually will save His people. Jesus saves His people from their sins. He saves from the guilt and penalty of sin by His sacrificial death. He provides a perfect sinless life through His righteousness to satisfy the covenant of works and the demands of the law. Furthermore, He saves from the pollution and dominion of sin by the Spirit of His grace. "[I]n the fullest and most glorious sense he will save his people from their sins." 57 The angels’ glorious declaration regarding Jesus could not have been made if Christ did not actually secure any person’s salvation but had merely opened the possibility of salvation. B. B. Warfield writes: "The Calvinist is he who holds with full consciousness that God the Lord, in his saving operations, deals not generally with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are actually saved. Thus, and thus only, he contends, can either the supernaturalism of salvation which is the mark of Christianity at large and which ascribes all salvation to God, or the immediacy of the operations of saving grace which is the mark of evangelicalism and which ascribes salvation to the direct working of God upon the soul, come to its rights and have justice accorded to it. Particularism in the saving processes, he contends, is already given in the supernaturalism of salvation and in the immediacy of the operations of the divine grace; and the denial of particularism is constructively the denial of the immediacy of saving grace, that is of evangelicalism, and of the supernaturalism of salvation, that is of Christianity itself. It is logically the total rejection of Christianity."58 |
|
|
|
Here is a portion of Scripture from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself which explicitly teaches a particular redemption. Jesus does not lay down His life for the goats, for those who on the day of judgment are cast into the lake of fire, but only for the sheep. "It is for the sheep–only for the sheep–that the good shepherd lays down his life. The design of the atonement is definitely restricted. Jesus dies for those who have been given to him by the Father, for the children of God, for true believers. This is the teaching of the Fourth Gospel throughout (3:16; 6:37, 39, 40, 44, 65; 10:11, 15, 29; 17:6, 9, 20, 21, 24). It is also the doctrine of the rest of Scripture. With his precious blood Christ purchased his church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27); his people (Matt. 1:21); the elect (Rom. 8:32-35)." 59 |
|
|
|
If Jesus’ statement regarding bearing the sins of the sheep were contrary to all the other biblical teaching regarding the extent of the atonement, election, predestination, and so on, one could reasonably argue that perhaps this passage does not mean what it appears to mean. There are several passages, however, which teach that Christ died not for every individual, including those in hell, but only for His church. Writing to Roman Christians Paul says: "Jesus our Lord...was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification" (Rom. 4:25). To the Galatians Paul writes: "Our Lord Jesus Christ...gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age" (Gal. 1:4). Paul says that Christ became "a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13); and that He actually redeemed His people from the curse of the law (v. 13). The church–the bride of Christ–is the object of His love: "Christ...loved the church and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). If Christ died for every individual, and God really intends to save everyone, Romans 8:31-33 cannot be true, for nothing created can separate us–that is, God’s own people–from His love: "If God be for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also freely give us all things?" How does Paul define us in Romans? As every person in the world? No, but only as the elect: "Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect?" (8:33). |
|
When the apostle Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders regarding their responsibility toward God’s people, he says: "Shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Ac. 20:28). Christ purchased, redeemed, and rescued from destruction His people, His bride, His church. Thus the saints in heaven proclaim: "You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). Note that Christ did not purchase all men from every nation, but only some out of each nation. Christ purchased the elect, the universal church, with His own blood. This incredible purchase price (the bloody death of Christ) is repeatedly used by Paul to goad Christians to a greater sanctification: "You were bought at a price" (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). If Christ did not purchase all men, then He certainly did not die an atoning death for all men. "Furthermore, when it is said that Christ gave His life for His Church, or for His people, we find it impossible to believe that He gave Himself as much for reprobates as for those whom He intended to save. Mankind is divided into two classes and what is distinctly affirmed of one is impliedly denied of the other." 60 |
|
Christ came not to save each individual in the world, but to set apart for Himself a special people: "Jesus Christ...gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works" (Tit. 2:14). This passage restricts salvation "to his people, his church, those who are redeemed from iniquity, who are purged, who are a choice and peculiar people, and are zealous of good works. For these Christ gave himself and no other." 61 Peter, writing to the elect (1 Pet. 1:2), agrees with Paul: "Christ suffered for us...who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). The writer of the epistle to Hebrews says that Christ "Himself purged our sins" (Heb. 1:13); that He "obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12). "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). The inspired apostles never speak of a salvation made possible to all men, but of the actual salvation of some men: the elect. Christ sets apart a people and removes their punishment. As John says: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin" (1 Jn. 1:7); "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.… He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn. 4:9-10). |
|
|
|
At the last supper Jesus tells His disciples that His blood is poured out "for many": "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt. 26:28). Jesus did not die for all or for just a few, but for the many–the elect. In Mark 10:45 Jesus says: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." "Many, distinguished from one and all, and here applied to true believers, or the elect of God, for whom Christ came to suffer." 62 Jesus dies as a substitute for His people the many. "The sacrifice of the one is contrasted with those for whom it is made; in allusion to Isa. 53:11 f. In rabbinic literature, and even more strikingly at Qumran, "the many" is a technical term for the elect community, the eschatological people of God."63 The apostle John understood Christ’s meaning when he wrote "He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 Jn. 3:16). The author of the epistle to the Hebrews says that "Christ was offered to bear the sins of many" (9:28). "The ‘many’ here are the same as the ‘many sons’–His ‘brethren’–those who should be ‘heirs of salvation,’ for everyone of whom, ‘by the grace of God, He tasted death.’"64 |
|
There are some who argue that "many" is simply synonymous with "all"; that Christ died for all or every individual. There is a passage where all and many are used in a parallel manner: Romans 5:18-19: "Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." Although Paul describes the benefits of Christ’s death to "all men," the "all" refers only to those united to Christ in His death. As Adam is the covenant head of all who are sinners by imputation, Christ is the covenant head of all who are justified or made righteous. "The plain meaning is, all connected with Adam, and all connected with Christ.... If the all in the latter part of the verse is co-extensive with the all in the former, the passage of necessity teaches universal salvation; for it is impossible that to be justified, constituted righteous, can mean simply that justification is offered to all men. The all who are justified are saved. If therefore the all means, all men, the apostle teaches that all men are saved...but Paul himself, distinctly teach[es] that all men are not to be saved, as in 2 Thes. i. 9." 65 Thus, not only does Paul teach that "all" refers not to the whole human race but only those united to Christ in His death, but he also teaches that Christ’s death actually guarantees or secures salvation for the elect. Paul rules out the idea that Christ’s death merely made salvation a possibility. |
|
|
|
The inconsistent universalist and particular redemptionist both limit Christ’s death in some manner. The Arminian limits the power of Christ’s death to save, while the Calvinist limits the design of it. 66 The Calvinist teaches that Christ’s death is of infinite value to God because Christ was the divine-human mediator. Christ’s death was sufficient to save every man, woman and child who ever lived. In fact, it was sufficient to save everyone on a thousand planets, if God so desired. What limits Christ’s death is that by God’s design and purpose Jesus died only for the elect, those chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world. His death is directed to and actually saves particular persons; not an indefinite mass of people or a hypothetical humanity. Christ offered a definite atonement. It is personal. He knows His own by name (Jn. 10:14). |
|
The Arminian believes that Christ’s death guarantees the actual salvation of not even one person. The Arminian believes in a very limited atonement: an atonement that is weak and impotent to save. God is helpless and waits for the sinner to save himself by choosing Christ. The Father’s plan to save humanity has been defeated, because almost all of mankind has gone to hell. Christ shed His blood and suffered horrible tortures in vain for those who throughout eternity scorn and reject Him. The Holy Spirit has been overpowered and successfully resisted by the vast majority of people throughout history. If Arminianism is true, then God’s plan of redemption is a colossal failure. God simply could not get the job done. Can a view which presents Christ’s death as a failure be true? Should we believe in a theological system which presents God as mere puppet of man, as incompetent in achieving His own purpose? Arminianism presents a false picture of God. It is man-centered, a deadly hybrid between biblical Protestantism and humanism. |
|
|
|
The greatest theological problem for Arminians (or inconsistent universalists) is the doctrine of the atonement. If one is going to hold that Christ died for every person, and yet hold that millions of people are going to hell, then one must distort the biblical meaning of Christ’s death. That is precisely what Arminians have done. They argue that Christ’s death has opened the door to reconciliation with God but has not actually achieved a reconciliation. They believe that Christ’s death has made salvation possible for all, but has guaranteed the actual salvation of none. Does the Bible teach that Christ simply removed some legal obstacles, making salvation a possibility? No, that is not what the Bible teaches at all. |
|
|
|
When the Bible discusses Christ’s work of redemption, it uses terms that can mean nothing less than the actual accomplishment of a people’s comprehensive salvation. All the theological words derived from the biblical doctrine of the atonement are unmistakably clear. Christ suffered vicariously; that is, He died in the place of His people. Christ was the substitute for His people. He assumed all their legal responsibilities; He suffered their penalty and rendered a perfect obedience for them. Christ could not be a substitute or vicarious sacrifice in a hypothetical sense. He lived and died for a real, definite, actual group of people. Christ’s death was expiatory; His death actually removes the guilt of sin. His sacrifice of Himself was propitiatory; that is, it actually removes God’s judicial displeasure against the sinner. Christ not only eliminated the guilt, penalty, and wrath due sinners, but He also lived in perfect obedience, fulfilling all the requirements of God’s law and the covenant of works. If Christ has rendered a perfect and complete satisfaction to God, it logically follows that those united to Him in His life, death and resurrection must be saved and cannot go to hell. |
|
|
|
That is the reason why the Bible teaches that Christ actually secured the salvation of His people, the elect. "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (Mt. 18:11; Lk. 19:10). In the same discourse Christ says, "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Mt. 18:14). "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). "Christ...gave Himself for our sins; that He might deliver us from this present evil age" (Gal. 1:4). Jesus was "born under the law to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Gal. 4:4-5). "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (Jn. 6:39). "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:21). "When Paul says that ‘Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it’ (Eph. 5:25), he is alluding to Christ’s sacrificial offering. But he also states the design: ‘that he might sanctify and cleanse it...that he might present it to himself a glorious church’ (vv. 26, 27). The love spoken of here, the reference of the sacrificial offering, and the design are all restricted to the church. The design will certainly be fulfilled, and so the love and the giving of Himself achieve their object in the glorifying of that to which they were directed. It is impossible to universalize the reference of the sacrifice of Christ alluded to here; it is severely limited to those who will finally be holy and without blemish." 67 |
|
|
|
The Scriptures do not teach that Christ made reconciliation with God possible, but that He accomplished reconciliation, justification, and peace with God. Christ "is our peace" (Eph. 2:14). He died "that He might reconcile them [Jews and Gentiles] both to God in one body through the cross" (Eph. 2:16), "which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:11). Paul says that Christ achieved a reconciliation not for those who made the first move toward God but for sinners, for enemies. "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.... For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Rom. 5:8, 10). "But to make salvation possible, to make possible purification, deliverance, reconciliation, is something very different indeed from actually saving, purifying, delivering or reconciling. No man has the right to empty the glorious terms in which the gospel is revealed of all their saving power." 68 |
|
|
|
The Bible describes Christ’s death as a ransom or payment to God. Jesus came "to give His life a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:28; cf. Mk. 10:45; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Heb. 9:12; Rev. 5:9, etc.). Jesus eliminated the penalty due from the guilt of sin by His blood. He "redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13). By His death, Christ obtained the forgiveness of sins for His people (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). There is no indication in Scripture that Christ only paid a partial ransom, or that God the Father has not accepted the ransom price. On the contrary, Paul says that Christ "gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people" (Tit. 2:14). If Christ has paid the full ransom price, then those bought and paid for with Christ’s blood cannot go to hell. Such a thing would be a travesty of justice and would make God’s acceptance of Christ’s work a sham. The implications of Christ’s ransom payment are obvious. Boettner writes: "If the suffering and death of Christ was a ransom for all men rather than for the elect only, then the merits of His work must be communicated to all alike and the penalty of eternal punishment cannot be justly inflicted on any. God would be unjust if He demanded this extreme penalty twice over, first from the substitute and then from the persons themselves." 69 |
|
|
|
The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ accomplished an objective redemption for the elect. No one who takes the Bible seriously can question the legal, forensic, objective nature of the terms used within the theological orbit of Christ’s atoning sacrifice (e.g., expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, justification, and redemption). But another crucial aspect of Christ’s atonement that is ignored by Arminians is the biblical teaching that Christ by His death also guaranteed the application of His work to the elect subjectively. Christ purchased all the spiritual graces for His people. God "has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3). Christ’s perfect redemption is the fountain out of which flows regeneration, faith, repentance, and sanctification. |
|
Although faith, repentance and sanctification are spiritual graces in which man cooperates with the Holy Spirit, nevertheless they are described in Scripture as gifts from God. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). "Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins" (Ac. 5:31). "When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God saying, ‘Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life’" (Ac. 11:18). It is man who must believe, repent, and grow in holiness, yet man, being dead in trespasses and sins, has no natural power to do these things. But because of God’s election of some and their union with Christ in His life, death, and resurrection, God enables those who are unable. Even the believer’s sanctification is guaranteed by his union with Christ. Paul argues in Romans 6:1-14 that real Christians cannot continue living in sin, because they were united with Christ in His death and resurrection. This means that those who are never sanctified (i.e., unbelievers) were never united to Christ in His death and resurrection. In other words, Christ did not die for them. Morey writes: "When Christ lived, died, was buried, arose, ascended, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, we are told that the ones for whom He did these things are to be viewed as being in such a life union with Him as their covenant head and representative that it is said that they lived, died, were buried, arose, ascended and sat down at the Father’s side ‘in Christ’ (Rom. 6:1-11; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; Eph. 2:5-6). To say that Christ died for all is to say that all died in Christ. It means that unbelievers are to be told that they have been crucified with Christ, been buried with Christ, have been resurrected with Christ and have ascended and sat down with Christ. This position is so manifestly false that it should grieve the child of God even to consider it." 70 |
|
|
|
All the graces mentioned in which man must cooperate have their starting point in regeneration. Regeneration is an act of God the Holy Spirit upon the human heart, which enables men who are dead spiritually to live, understand spiritual truth, and trust in Christ. Regeneration, or the new birth, is sovereignly bestowed by God. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3:8). God is the author of regeneration. "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols...I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezek. 36:25-26). Regeneration is a gift of God. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5). The foundation of a believer’s regeneration is not his faith, but union with Christ in His death and resurrection. "God...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph. 2:6). "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him (Col. 2:11-13). |
|
If you are a Christian, it is because the Holy Spirit first renewed your heart and raised you up spiritually, enabling you to believe in Christ. Why did Lydia believe in the gospel preached by the apostle Paul? Because God first opened her heart and enabled her to respond to the gospel. Paul "sat down and spoke to the woman who met there. Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul" (Ac. 16:13-14). If regeneration is something that the Holy Spirit works directly upon the human heart, and is based upon a believer’s union with Christ in His death and resurrection, then one must conclude that God only regenerates the elect, and the rest He passes by. 71 If every person were united with Christ in His death and resurrection, then God would regenerate every person–but He does not. |
|
The doctrine of a universal atonement has led out of logical necessity to a perversion of the biblical teaching regarding regeneration. Arminians argue that the new birth is God’s response to man’s faith in Christ. This assumes that man has the ability to believe apart from the regenerating power of God’s Spirit. "It infers that sinners are not really dead in sins or totally depraved. It implies synergism, i.e., salvation is accomplished by man and God, each doing his own part. It implies free-willism, i.e., Adam’s fall into sin and guilt did not bring man’s will into bondage to sin." 72 The cart is placed before the horse, and God must share credit and glory with sinful man. "On the other hand, if regeneration precedes faith, this implies monergism, i.e., salvation is totally God’s work from beginning to end."73 As Jonah declared: "salvation is of the LORD" (Jon. 2:9). |
|
|
|
In His priestly office Jesus Christ not only sacrificed Himself on the cross for the elect, but also continuously intercedes for them. "If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn. 2:1). "He continues forever [and] has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save those who come to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:24-25). Christ’s bloody death and His high priestly work go hand in hand. They cannot be separated. The common notion that Jesus died and is now passively waiting for people to accept Him is false. This means that if Christ died for every person in the world He must also intercede for every person in the world. It would be absurd for Christ to suffer and die an agonizing death to save someone and then refuse to pray for that person, yet in Jesus’ high priestly prayer He refused to pray for all men and prayed only for the elect. "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, then He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.… I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given me, for they are Yours.... Holy Father, keep through your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.… I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one...and for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word.... Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved me before the foundation of the world" (Jn. 17:2, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 24). |
|
If Jesus had indeed died for everyone in the world and was endeavoring to save all mankind, would He not then pray for everyone in the world to be saved? Yet He prays only for those chosen by the Father, those whom the Father gives to the Son. J. C. Ryle wrote: "This special intercession of the Lord Jesus is one grand secret of the believer’s safety. He is daily watched, and thought for, and provided for with unfailing care, by One whose eye never slumbers and never sleeps. Jesus is ‘able to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by Him, because He ever liveth to make intercession for them’ (Heb. vii. 25). They never perish, because He never ceases to pray for them, and His prayer must prevail. They stand and persevere to the end, not because of their own strength and goodness, but because Jesus intercedes for them. When Judas fell never to rise again, while Peter fell, but repented, and was restored, the reason of the difference lay under those words of Christ to Peter, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not’ (Luke xxii. 32)." 74 |
|
One is left with only three possible choices. First, Christ prays for everyone and the Father refuses to answer Christ’s prayers. This option is unscriptural and impossible, for Christ doesn’t pray for all, and we are told that Christ’s intercession does save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). Second, Christ died for all but refuses to intercede for all. This would place a gross disharmony within Christ’s redemptive work. Third, Jesus died only for the elect, and thus prays only for the elect. This is the only option that is scriptural and makes any sense. |
|
The apostle Paul clearly held to the third view. "Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.... It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us" (Rom. 8:33-34). Owen writes: "That he died for all and intercedeth for some will scarcely be squared to this text, especially considering the foundation of all this, which is (verse 32) that love of God which moved him to give up Christ to death for us all; upon which the apostle infers a kind of impossibility in not giving us all good things in him; which how it can be reconciled with their opinion who affirm that he gave his Son for millions to whom he will give neither grace nor glory, I cannot see." 75 |
|
|
|
The Arminian view of Christ’s atonement not only contradicts the biblical definition of Christ’s redemptive work, but also contradicts itself. An examination of three options regarding Christ’s death will prove that Arminianism is irrational. Jesus Christ paid the price and endured God’s wrath against sin for either: 1) all the sins of all men, 2) all the sins of some men, or 3) some of the sins of all men. If number 3 is true, then all men still have the guilt of some sins to answer for. This would mean that all men will go to hell, for it only takes the guilt of one sin to merit eternal damnation. If one holds to option 2, that Christ died for all of the sins of some men, then one believes that only some men (i.e., God’s elect) will be saved and go to heaven. This is simply biblical Christianity; that Christ actually achieved the salvation of all of God’s elect. The non-elect are passed by and perish. Arminianism, or inconsistent universalism, holds to position number 1, that Christ died for all the sins of all men. If this position is true, then why are not all men freed from the punishment of all their sins. The Armini |