God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4)

A. INTRODUCTION

One of the seeming paradoxes of the Bible is to reconcile (1) the idea that God is totally sovereign, that he knows in advance what will happen, and that his purposes will prevail and cannot be thwarted (all of which Scripture declares) with (2) the idea that man has free will and is responsible for the choices he makes (all of which Scripture also declares).

This seeming paradox comes into sharp focus in the question whether, and to what extent, predestination or prior election can be said to control our salvation, so that some can be said to be foreordained by God to salvation and others to eternal damnation.

I approach this area with a great deal of hesitancy. There is a vast literature dealing with it, most of which I have not looked at. But I hope that the very fact that I was not brought up within any of the particular traditions surrounding this area, and have not been burdened by all that has been written about it, might possibly bring a fresh perspective that could be helpful to some. I approach it, as I approach everything, looking to see what the words of Scripture have to say about it. If I express myself in rather simplistic terms, this is deliberate. Jesus expressed himself very simply and I think it is often good for us, in trying to understand the Scriptures, to do so in as simple terms as possible. If I can't express my thoughts simply, I may not really understand them.

My brother, an engineer, used to say that if he could not express his ideas in simple lay language, perhaps he didn't understand them himself! I sometimes think this principle may be applicable to our ideas about the truths of Scripture. I like to document my conclusions from the words of Scripture, and I tend to do so at some length, so that any reader can check whether what I am saying has scriptural validity. But I also like to try to keep the basic ideas as simple as I can.

There are many variant views of predestination and election. To keep this paper simple, I shall simply try to address what seem to me the basic underlying issues.

(Unless otherwise indicated all Scripture quotations are from the New International Version, and any emphasis has been added. To avoid cumbersome phrasing, I shall use "men" to mean all humans, male or female, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.)

B. SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES

1. GOD IS SOVEREIGN AND HE WILL
ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSES

"I am the first and I am the last. Apart from me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). He is "the only true God" (John 17:3). No plan of his can be thwarted (Job 42:1). "What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do" (Isaiah 46:11; see also Isaiah 14:24). "My word that goes out from my mouth... will accomplish what I desire" (Isaiah 55:11). God "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

I think everyone would agree with this. The question is, what are God's purposes concerning man's salvation? I shall discuss this question in the next section.

2. GOD HAS GIVEN MAN FREE WILL

God wants a love relationship between himself and man. "God is love" (1 John 4:15). He loves "the world" (John 3:16). He wants us to love him "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30).

In order to have a love relationship there must be free will on both sides. God wants our love because we choose to give it. If it is not given by our choice, is it really love? Jesus is coming for a bride, not a concubine, and a bride submits herself to her bridegroom out of free will and not out of compulsion.

God also wants to see man grow and develop (see, for example, 2 Peter 1:5-11, 3:18; Colossians 1;10; Hebrews 5:14, 2 Corinthians 3:18). He wants us to trasin ourselves to be godly (1 Timothy 4:7) and we do this "by constant use" (Hebrews 5:14). One of the best ways to grow is to have freedom to choose and to bear the consequences of one's choices. If everything we do is predetermined in advance, how can we learn from it.?

For these, and doubtless other, reasons, God has chosen to give man free will. I think we cannot understand Scripture if we do not understand the importance of free will.

It was because man had been given free will that Adam and Eve were able to disobey God in the Garden of Eden, with the result that sin and death came into the world. It was "through the disobedience of the one man" (Romans 5:19) that sin and death entered the world. Obedience and disobedience are matters of choice. Does not this clearly mean that Adam had free will, that he could choose whether to obey or disobey, and that God allowed him to make the wrong choice? All through Scripture we see the importance of the choices man makes. Choice is a central theme of Scripture. There are a great many examples I could give, but I shall be brief.

In Deuteronomy chapter 28 God spelled out in impressive detail for his people what the consequences would be if they obeyed him or disobeyed him. He called these consequences blessings and curses. Then in chapter 30 he said, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life..." (Deuteronomy 30:19). God gave his people a choice. He wanted then to choose life, but he would not impose his will on them. This theme runs all through the Old Testament. Again and again God tells his people to choose, he allows them to choose, and he holds them responsible for the choices they make.

The people of Israel chose disobedience, and had to pay a terrible price for their choice. The northern kingdom of ten tribes was totally destroyed by the Assyrians and its people scattered. The southern kingdom of two tribes went into captivity in Babylon for 70 years and many never returned. Only a remnant came back to rebuild Jerusalem. Scripture makes it very clear that it was God who brought this on because of their disobedience, because of the wrong choices they made. "All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God." "They did wicked things that provoked the Lord to anger." Through his prophets God warned them to turn from their evil ways, but they would not listen, so "The Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence" (2 Kings 17:7-23). "The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again , because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the Lord was aroused against his people and there was no remedy" (2 Chronicles 36:15-17). They made the wrong choices and had to bear the consequences.

The same theme runs through the New Testament. Matthew 7:13 says "Enter through the narrow gate." There are two gates and two roads and we choose which we will take. We choose whether to receive Jesus (John 1:11-12). We choose whether to believe or not to believe in Jesus (John 3:16, 18). We choose whether we will be "slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness" (Romans 6:16). We choose whether we will live by the Spirit or by the flesh (Galatians 5:16). We choose what we will sow and we reap what we have sown (Galatians 6:7-8). These are not small choices; their result is life or death.

The New Testament is full of energetic imperatives that tell us to "strive", "make every effort", "see to it", "pursue", "run", "continue", "persevere", "fix our eyes", "stand", "resist", and the like. These are all passages that imply a choice that has important consequences. We are not automatons. We have free choice and are held responsible for the choices we make.

Men are often tempted. To be tempted implies a freedom to choose, a freedom either to resist or to yield. Without that freedom there is no temptation. Scripture makes it very clear that we are tempted by our own evil desires. God does not tempt us (James 1:13-15). He gives us a way out of every temptation, and will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). But ghe does not compel us either to yield or to resist.

I see no conflict between man's freedom of choice and God's sovereignty. God is sovereign. He has all power. Nothing can prevail against him unless he allows it to. But he has chosen to exercise his sovereignty by allowing free will to mankind. At times he chooses to give man's freedom of will priority over some of his other purposes. That is an exercise of sovereignty, not a denial of it. Nothing can frustrate God's purposes, but one of God's primary purposes is that man shall have free will.

Let me suggest a simple analogy. As a married man I am head of my family, and my wife recognizes that. Because she knows more about cooking than I do, I have chosen to say that in the kitchen she will be in charge. If I work with her on a cooking project, I am her helper and she is in charge. In saying this I am not giving up my headship of the family. I am simply exercising it in this area in a way that I consider wise and appropriate. In somewhat the same sense, when God allows man to have freedom of will, he is not giving up any of his authority or sovereignty. He is simply choosing to exercise that authority in a way that he considers wise and appropriate.

I have no doubt that God can override man's free will any time he chooses to. All things are possible for God. But God chooses not to.

Giving man free will may often have been inconvenient for God. He could get things done more quickly and easily if we were not in the picture. He could accomplish his purposes better and more easily if he did not have us as fellow workers (1 Corinthians 3:9). But I think he is more interested in his relationship with us than in immediate practical results,

Another simple analogy may be helpful. A wise father will often let his child help him in a job he is doing. He can get the job done faster and better without the child's "help"; but he is more interested in enabling the child to learn and grow, and in building a relationship with the child, than he is in getting the particular job done. I think God's relationship with us is somewhat like that. He is more interested in building a love relationship with us, and in helping us to grow, than he is in immediate results.

One other comment is appropriate. Often we can see that men's wrong choices have merely delayed the carrying out of God's purpose, or caused it to be carried out in a different way, but God's purpose still is carried out. So men's wrong choices did not prevent his purpose from being carried out.

Consider the invasion of Canaan. I believe God wanted and expected that the Israelites would move directly into Canaan. Because of the unbelief (Scripture calls it "rebellion") of the people of Israel, God's purpose was delayed for forty years. And those who disobeyed had no part in carrying it out. But eventually God's purpose was accomplished under Joshua.

Jesus said, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man. It would be better for him if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). God's purpose will be accomplished. It does not depend on the action of one man or another. But the one who betrays Jesus will bear a heavy personal responsibility for his actions.

Calvinists often cite Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." There are times when it seems that God limits men's choices by hardening their hearts or stopping their ears. But when we look at these times, we find that he did this after they had already shown their tendency to turn away from him. He gave some over to their reprobate minds (Romans 1:26) after they had already shown their sinful nature. He closed the eyes and ears of the people of Israel and made their minds calloused (Isaiah 6:9), but only after they had rebelled against him and turned their backs on him (Isaiah 1:2, 4). When he called Moses at the burning bush, God told him that he would harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21), but God already knew Pharaoh's pride and knew that he "will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him" (Exodus 3:19). I believe these instances lend no support at all to the idea of an election that has nothing to do with men's actions.

3. GOD SEES THE FUTURE

God said, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come" (Isaiah 46:10.) This is the whole basis of predictive prophecy, and there is much predictive prophecy in Scripture. God knows the future before it happens. One could give innumerable examples. Two will suffice. (1) Psalm 22 (a Psalm of David which was written some time before 970 B.C.) and Isaiah chapter 53 (written, I believe, between 740 and 681 B.C.) both contain remarkably detailed and graphic descriptions of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which occurred in about 30-33 A.D. (2) Jesus, in Matthew chapter 24, gave a remarkably detailed and graphic description of events which have not yet occurred 2,000 years later.

How does man's free will fit in with God's foreknowledge? This is a difficult issue. Does God always foresee how man will exercise his free will? Those who believe in strict predestination - for simplicity I shall call them "Calvinists" - would say "Yes". I have two problems with this answer. (1) Logically, it seems to me to deny that there is any free will. If a choice is a foregone conclusion, how can it be said to be a choice? (2) I don't think it is scriptural.

There are many cases in Scripture in which God accurately foretold what men would do. (See, for example, Deuteronomy chapter 31 and Jeremiah 29:10). But there are also a number of passages which indicate rather clearly, I think, that God is surprised, disappointed, hurt, displeased or angry at how man has exercised his free will. If God always knew ahead of time what man was going to do, why should he ever be surprised, hurt, displeased or angry? I shall develop the point at some length because I believe it is very important to an understanding of the whole issue of predestination and election as it relates to salvation. Perhaps no one example is absolutely compelling, but I find their cumulative force powerful.

In the time of Noah, "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I created, from the face of the earth... for I am grieved that I have made them'" (Genesis 6:5-7). This certainly sounds as if God did not expect what he found on earth, he was grieved by it, and he decided to do something about it. The word translated "grieved", naham, Strong's #5162, means, among other things, to be sorry, to grieve, to repent. There have been attempts to explain away this meaning of the word, but I think the simplest and most obvious explanation of the passage is the best. It sounds to me as if God was faced with something he had not expected, and decided to take some very drastic action to deal with it.

Something similar occurred when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf at the foot of Mt. Sinai. God had chosen the people of Israel as his covenant people. But now he says, "I have seen these people... and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone, so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you [Moses] into a great nation" (Exodus 32:9). God was so angry that he wanted to destroy the whole nation of Israel and start over. Moses persuaded him not to do so, and "the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened" (Exodus 32:14). Again, we see God as surprised and angry, and planning drastic action.

When Saul disobeyed God, God said, "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and not carried out my instructions" (1 Samuel 15:11). Because of this God rejected Saul as king, and told Samuel to anoint David in his place. It would seem that God's initial choice as king did not work out as he had expected, and so God chose someone else.

In Isaiah's parable of the vineyard (a parable about God's relationship with his people Israel) , God declared, I think in sorrow and disappointment, "What more could have been done to my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?" (Isaiah 5:4). He expected to find good spiritual fruit from his chosen people, but he was disappointed. "He looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress" (Isaiah 5:7). Is it not perfectly clear that the people of Israel and Judah did not behave as God had expected them to?

God said, through Jeremiah, "'Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror,' declares the Lord. 'My people have committed two sins; they have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns'" (Jeremiah 2:13). If God had perfect foreknowledge that this would happen, why should the heavens be appalled and shudder with great horror when it did happen? Another time God said "A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land" (Jeremiah 5:30). If God had foreseen it, would he call it "shocking"?

God declared, "I called but you did not answer. I spoke but you did not listen" (Isaiah 65:12; see also Jeremiah 25:3,7). If God knew ahead of time that they would not answer and would not listen, why did he call and speak? Does God do useless things that he knows will have no effect? We see the same theme in the passages from 2 Kings 17 and 2 Chronicles 36 quoted in the previous section. God spoke to his people repeatedly through his prophets but they did not listen.

I find an infinite sadness in "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him" (John 1:11). And there is great sadness and disappointment in Jesus' cry "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... how often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing" (Matthew 23: 37).

In the parable of the tenants, the landowner (God) sent his son, saying, "They will respect my son" (Matthew 21:37). They did not do as he expected. They killed the son, and therefore he removed them as tenants and rented the vineyard to others. The lesson for the Jewish leaders was that, because of their unexpected response to Jesus, "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit" (Matthew 21:43).

Prophecy is often conditioned, explicitly or implicitly, on what men do. In the time of Jonah, God declared unconditionally, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned", but then when the people of Nineveh repented, God "had compassion and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened" (Jonah 3:4,10). Later God generalized this into a principle which shows how much God's action can be influenced by what man does in his freedom of will. "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it" (Jeremiah 18:7-10: see also 2 Chronicles 7:13-14; Ezekiel 22:30-31). Is it not crystal clear, from this passage, that God does not always know in advance how men will choose, and that he may change what he planned to to do based on what men have chosen?

To say all this is not to deny God's sovereignty or his omniscience. It is simply to recognize (a) that God has chosen to exercise his sovereignty by giving man free will and (b) that one consequence of giving man free will is that God himself does not always know how man will exercise his free will.

The other position, that God always knows in advance how man will choose, seems to me to create enormous problems. Consider the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. There are some who are so insistent on God's omniscience that they assert that God knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would disobey. But what does this lead to? First, I think we would have to say that God deliberately set Adam and Eve up for failure, and that God, when he created them, intended to put them under the curse of sin and death. I am not willing to believe that a loving God would do such a thing. Second, I think we would have to say that, before God created man, he knew that sin and death would be in the world. Does not this mean that God intended sin and death to be in the world, and, indeed, that God is the cause of sin and death? How can this be asserted?

This is not how I read the Scriptural record. Initially God put Adam and Eve in the Garden, gave them dominion over the earth, and gave them eternal life. But after they made the wrong choice he changed all that. Twice we see the word "because" (Genesis 3:14, 17). God took certain actions because of the choice Adam and Eve made. Because Adam and Eve sinned, God increased the pain of both Adam and Eve, and required Adam to toil for food. Then God said, "The man has now become like one of us", and therefore he took away eternal life and drove them out of the garden. God made one set of arrangements for Adam and Eve. Then because they made the wrong choice, he changed those arrangements quite drastically. This does not sound as if he knew all along what they were going to do!.

I recognize that we humans, living in our time-bound world, have difficulty understanding how God sees time. We cannot really understand eternity, nor can we understand how a God who is timeless acts in what we call time. Our situation is somewhat like that of a two-dimensional creature trying to understand a three-dimensional world. Some might say that for God the future has already happened. I don't see that stated in Scripture, but Scripture does say that God's sense of time is very different than ours. "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8). Almost 2,000 years ago Jesus said "I am coming soon" (Revelation 22:20) but he has not yet come. "Soon" must mean something different to God than it does to us. And so I think we can never hope, while here on earth, to understand fully God's sense of time. But, in the face of the Scriptures I have cited, it seems to me very difficult to assert with any confidence that God always knows in advance what men are going to do in the exercise of their free will.

C. GOD'S PURPOSE FOR SALVATION

What is God's purpose for salvation? Whenever we talk about God's purpose we need to remember that his thoughts and ways are higher than ours, and his paths are sometimes past our finding out. But I believe Scripture tells us quite clearly what his purpose for salvation is.

When we talk of God's purpose for salvation, we are talking about God's purpose after the fall of man. Before the fall, there was no need for salvation. Adam and Eve were created in God's image, they had dominion over all the world, and they had eternal life. But after the fall, men were lost unless God provided a plan of salvation.

Strict Calvinists say that God's purpose is that some will be saved and have eternal life and others will be damned to eternal punishment. Or they say that all are damned to eternal punishment, but God in his mercy has chosen a few who are relieved from that damnation and are saved into eternal life with him. They say that God makes this choice ahead of time, that the choice is irrevocable, and that men can do nothing to affect their fate. Alternatively, they say that God knows in advance who will be saved and who will be damned and nothing they do can change what God already knows will happen. I think this is really saying the same thing in different words. It all comes out to the same place.

I think this is a very hard position to maintain. How can it be that a loving and good God intends that many, perhaps most, men should be damned to eternal destruction? It is true that many do go to eternal destruction. To say that they do so because of their own wrong choices I can understand. But to say that this is what God intends, what he wants, and that nothing we do can change that intention, seems to me very hard to accept. If the words of Scripture compelled such a position I would have to accept it. But I do not think Scripture compels it. Indeed, my sense is that Scripture contradicts it.

I think Scripture says, quite clearly, that God loves all mankind and wants all men to be saved. This, I believe, is his purpose. He also has a purpose that men will have freedom of choice. The result of this freedom of choice is, unfortunately, that many men do not choose to be saved and are for that reason condemned. But to assert that God intends, or desires, that anyone should go to eternal damnation seems to me contrary to what Scripture says. He allows it because he will not interfere with man's freedom of choice, but he does not will it or wish it.

"The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made" (Psalm 145:9). He is the God of the living and "to him all are alive" (Luke 20:38). "God is love" (1 John 4:16). He loves "the world" (John 3:16). He loved us and his Son died for us "while we were still sinners" (Romans 5:8). His love is unlimited and beyond our comprehension (Ephesians 3:18-19).

As part of this love God wants all men to be saved. He "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). "The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11). God is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). "Whoever believes in [Jesus]" has eternal life (John 3:16). God is "not willing that any of these little ones should be lost" (Matthew 18:14). "Everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened" (Matthew 7:8). "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in" (Revelation 3:20). I don't see how Scripture could say it more clearly. God's love extends to all humanity, he wants all men to be saved, and he gives to all men the opportunity to accept the wonderful gift of salvation.

God's desire for us is always good. Jesus Christ is not "Yes" and "No" but "in him it has always been 'Yes'" (1 Corinthians 1:19).

Jesus defined God's purpose in this way. "My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes on him shall have eternal life" (John 6:40). Is not this quite explicit? God wants "everyone" to be saved, on one condition. They must look to the Son and believe in him. The offer of salvation is to everyone but it can be appropriated only by those who believe.

There are some who argue that "all" in these passages does not mean "all", that "everyone" does not mean "everyone", that "whoever" does not mean "whoever", that "the world" does not mean "the world", etc. I am not persuaded by these arguments. I think Scripture should be taken at its plain meaning unless there is some strong reason in the context itself, or the meaning of the words used, to give it a more limited meaning. I think these Scriptures are so many, and so various, that it is very difficult to say that they do not mean what their words seem clearly to say.

God does also hate. He hates iniquity and sin (Isaiah 61:8; Zechariah 8:17; Proverbs 6:16). Sometimes it is said that he hates "all who do wrong" (Psalm 5:5; see Psalm 11:5; Hosea 9:15). As I see it, this is a hatred based on men's actions, men's choices. God loves all men until, by their evil actions, they incur his hatred. Scripture also speaks of God's wrath. Again, this is a wrath based on men's actions. It is incurred by those who reject Jesus (John 3:36), who are godless and wicked (Romans 1:18), who are disobedient (Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:8), and the like. It is based on men's choices. God loves all men until they do things that incur his wrath.

Many Calvinists say that Jesus did not come to save all men. They say that he only came to save the "elect" - those who are actually saved. They call this "limited atonement" They argue that if we say that Jesus came to save everybody, he obviously did not succeed and we cannot accept the idea that he failed in his purpose. It makes quite a difference how you state this proposition. If we say that Jesus' purpose was to offer salvation to everyone, and leave it to their free will whether to accept what he offered, then he did achieve his purpose.

The problem I have with limited atonement is that it contradicts Scripture.

Look at the texts. "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2 ). "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" ( 1 Timothy 4:10). "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10). Jesus is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send has Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:16-17). "We know that this man really is the Savior of the world" (John 4:42). "My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life" (John 6:40). "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). Jesus is "the Light of the world" (John 8:12). Jesus is "crowned with glory because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:9). "He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:8). "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6). God "did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all" (Romans 8:32). I don't see how anything could be more clearly stated, over and over. Jesus came to save all men.

Scripture repeatedly says that all have sinned and Jesus came to save all. The problem is universal and God's solution is universal. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came from Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:23-24). All have sinned and all are justified. In Romans 5:18-19 Paul compares Adam and Jesus. He says, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all man, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Adam's sin brought death and sin to all men. Jesus' act of righteousness in coming to earth and dying on the cross brought life for all men. "All" means all. Isaiah 53:6 says, "we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." All have gone astray, and God has laid on Jesus the iniquity of us all. God's solution is not less extensive than the problem. God has done his part completely. But some of us have not accepted his solution.

Jesus said on two occasions that he came to give his life a ransom for "many" (Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; see also Hebrews 9:28). "Many", polos, does not necessarily mean that some are excluded. It can just mean a large number as cmpared to a small number. We see this clearly in Romans 5:15. "For if the many died because of the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many." "Many" here must mean "all", because Adam's sin brought sin and death to all men, as Paul explicitly says in Romans 5:12 and 18.

There are also Scriptures that talk of Jesus laying down his life for his "sheep", for the "church", and for his "friends" (See, for example, John 10:15, Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25). These do not say, nor do they necessarily imply, that these were the only ones he gave his life for. I think we can see them as verses which emphasize Jesus's special relationship with certain groups of people, without in any way implying that he did not also come to save others. To read them otherwise would create a direct conflict with the verses which clearly say that he came to save all men, that is, all who would accept his gift of salvation.

I believe Scripture clearly says that God's purpose is that all men should be saved. But his purpose also is that men should have free will. He will not impose salvation on us against our will. So we can say that his purpose was to offer salvation to all, and leave it to men's free choice whether they would accept that offer. I believe this choice is a free choice, not circumscribed or limited by an irrevocable election that God has made, or by an irrevocable foreknowledge that, in effect, requires men to act in a way that God has already foreseen.

... Text Continues on Next Page

Home
Download
Top