Christ Died for All

Christ died to save all mankind. "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19.10). "Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5.6). "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1.15). There is no suggestion that only a certain elect group among the "lost...ungodly...[and] sinners" is intended. There is simply no qualifier.

Surely the idea that such general language actually specifies a select "elect" would never be imagined without previous indoctrination into Calvinism. Yet White sees in such verses "the particularity that is so vehemently denied by the Arminian." How obnoxious! What justification is there for changing "sinners" to "some sinners"?

White embarrasses himself when he quotes Paul, "I am crucified with Christ...the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2.20), as proof that "sinners" and "ungodly" mean particular sinners. On the contrary, Paul is giving a personal testimony of his own faith in Christ; it cannot be used to place a limitation on God for mankind. That Jesus loves me and gave himself for me, does not mean He doesn't love the world and did not die for all. How absurd!

Of course the Bible talks about those who are saved also: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all...Christ died for our sins...tht we might be made the righteousness of God in him...who gave himself for our sins...hast redeemed us to God by thy blood" (Is. 53.6; 1 Cor. 15.3; 2 Cor. 15.21; Gal. 1.4; Rev. 5.9). The fact that there are members of the body of Christ in no way nullifies the many verses that just as clearly say that Christ died for all. Arminius reconciled all these sets of verses.

Christ's purpose for coming into the world was to save sinners. That all sinners are not saved is not because Christ did not pay for their sins, but because all do not accept that payment. White assumes the reason all sinners don't get saved is because the sinners Christ came to save could only be the elect.

To sustain that argument, however, one would have to change the meaning of hundreds of other Bible verses as well. Jesus himself declared, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repent" (Matt. 9.13). All sinners do not repent, so the Calvinist is compelled to say that Christ only calls some sinners to repentance, or else His call is in vain.

Only Calvinism claims this because only Calvinism requires it. God sends his prophets to plead day and night to repent, yet God only wants some people to repent? God doesn't want other people to repent? What an evil proposition! Are you so bored with Christianity that you have to concoct this absurdity?

Many Calvinists do not repent of many things even though they think they are saved. Are we to believe God doesn't want them to repent either? Calvinism turns the loving and compassionate pleadings of God and Christ with sinners into a sham, reflecting their unsalvation. It is not easy to convince a Calvinist to be saved who thinks he is saved when he is not. If a person enters into a false salvation then that is what he wants, so to convince him otherwise is effectively moving a mountain. But from time to time God sees fit to touch the heart of a Calvinist and regenerate him with His life so he no longer is a Calvinist.

GOD HAS TWO WILLS IN CONFLICT?

Nothing could be clearer in refuting Limited Atonement than Paul's declaration, "who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2.4). Piper admits that Paul is saying that "God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent and that he has compassion on all people." But this sounds like "double-talk" if Calvinism is true (electing some and sending the rest to hell without the choice), so he sets out to show that there are "'two wills' in God...that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass." This is double-talk.

John MacArthur, Jr. does the same thing in his explanation of a bipolar God with two wills:

"The Greek word for 'desires' is not that which normally expresses God's will of decree (His eternal purpose), but God's will of desire. There is a distinction between God's desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. God does not want men to sin, He hates sin with all His being (Ps. 5.4; 45.7); thus, He hates its consequences-eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest that glory in wrath, chose to endure 'vessels...prepared for destruction' for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Rom. 9.22). In His eternal purpose, He chose only the elect out of the world (John 17.6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Rom. 1.18-32). Ultimately, God's choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desires."

So God goes against His own desire? What kind of God is this? It's like gnosticism which teaches a lesser evil god who provides no salvation to some and saves others who had not repented. What loving God would allow this?

Where is it said in the Bible God does not offer salvation to those "vessels...prepared for destruction"? (Rom. 9.22) Does God pass over, or is the reason that even though "they know God's decree," they "do such things" anyway which is why they "deserve to die" (Rom. 1.32). John 17.6 does not say how God chose the elect out of the world, whether by foreknowing our free-choice or by not giving people the choice.

How could God have "desires" contrary to His "sovereign, eternal purpose"? That condition in a man is condemned as being "double minded" (James 1.8, 4.8). How could God's eternal purpose transcend His desire? Nowhere does the Bible say that God has two conflicting wills. That would be impossible for God "who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1.11).

To be double minded would be inconceivable for God. The Calvinist insists that God could cause everyone to believe and be saved if He so desired. Then how could God desire all to be saved, a desire that He could cause to happen (according to Calvinism), yet not bring it to pass? Such a suggestion is neither biblical nor rational.

MacArthur adds to his error by equating God's alleged failure to fulfill His desire for all to be saved with His failure to prevent all men from sinning. Now we have a further problem. Either man has a genuine power of choice, or all sin must be attributed to God. In fact, the latter is what MacArthur implies and what leadings Calvinists such as R. C. Sproul declare.

The Calvinist is caught on the horns of a dilemma. How can he maintain the position that God decrees and causes all, and yet exonerate God for the wickedness and eternal punishment of the vast majority of mankind? He falls back on the theory that God really doesn't want this state of affairs, and yet His eternal purpose and His decree demand it. What a contradiction!

The biblical solution is so simple: that God indeed loves man, doesn't want any to perish, and has provided full pardon, redemption, eternal life, and the transformation of a new birth for all-but He has given man the power of choice so that man could love his fellows and, above all, love God. Sin, sorrow, and eternal judgment are thus on man's shoulders (fruit of his self-will), not on God's. But the Calvinist could not allow freedom of man's will, for that would destroy TULIP.

The freedom of man's will, thus, requires man can receive the cross faithfully by the grace of God and would not be totally unable in total depravity.

"ALL MEN" MEANS "ALL CLASSES OF MEN"?

James White tries to get around 1 Tim. 2.4, "who will have all men be saved...," wherein the expression "all men" isn't to be taken literally, such as Ananias's statement to Paul at his conversion, "For thou shalt be a his witness unto all men..." (Acts 22.15). White reasons:

Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he would witness of Christ to every single individual human being on the planet. Instead, he would have surely understood this to mean all kinds and races of men.... Paul speaks of kinds of people in other places as well.... Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman....

So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader context of Paul's writings to recognize this use of "all men" in a generic fashion.

On the contrary, Paul would never have understood Ananias to mean kinds and races of men. Obviously, "all kinds and races" is no more reasonable than "all men." Japanese? Australian aborigines? Siberian or North American Indians? If that is what Ananias meant, he was a false prophet. There are surely many kinds and races of men to whom Paul never did witness during his lifetime on Earth.

What would any of us understand such a statement addressed to ourselves mean? Not all men everywhere (and certainly not all kinds) but all those with whom he would come in contact, and for Paul that would include through his testimony in Scripture as well. But what does White's strained interpretation of a statement by Ananias have to do with Paul's clear declaration that God wants "all men to be saved"?

Spurgeon mocked John Calvin-mocking White and Piper as well-but contradicted his own Calvinism:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not.... You must, most you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinist friends deal with this text. "All men" say they "that is some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if He meant some men. "All men," say they: "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said, "All sorts of men" if He had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written, "All men," and unquestionably he means all men.... My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.

With Spurgeon, we ask, if "all classes" is what the Holy Spirit meant to convey, why was it not stated clearly? The truth is that the Holy Spirit declared in unequivocal language that God is not willing for any person to perish-and they tamper with God's Word who put a Calvinist interpretation on it!

"...who gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2.6), a once-for-all sacrifice.

"...who is the Savior of all men" (1 Tim 4.10). MacArthur comments on this verse: "The point is that He is the only Savior to whom anyone in the world can turn to forgiveness and eternal life-and therefore all are urged to embrace Him as Savior.... In setting forth His own Son as Savior of the world, God displays the same kind of love to the whole world that was manifest in the Old Testament to the rebellious Israelites. It is a sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate love that offers mercy and forgiveness."

Can MacArthur be serious? This is typical "moderate Calvinist" double-speak, in contrast to the frankness of those whom they call "hyper-Calvinists" for not trying to hide the truth about Calvinism. Sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate love that offers mercy and forgiveness to those whom both "moderates" and "hypers" agree Christ didn't die, who, as all Calvinists affirm, cannot respond to the offer without being sovereignly regenerated (a privilege that "moderates" agree is only for the elect), and who (again "moderates" agree) have been predestined to eternal torment, a fact that nothing can change?! Whom do the "moderates" think they are deceiving? Surely no one but themselves.