Did Jesus Die For All of Us, or Just a Select Few?

Gary: Now, Contending for the Faith. Here’s this week’s question: “Dear Mr. Hunt and Mr. McMahon, I have a question that is creating a problem in our church. There are a few who are teaching that God did not die for everyone but only those who are referred to as God’s Elect. They are very persuasive in their arguments, but it doesn’t seem to square with the scriptures. What is your view?”

Tom: Dave, when we discuss issues like this, people get upset out there, because there are many, many people who take a Reform theological view or a Calvinist view, and so on. And to say anything about it is to just get them so upset. Supposedly, these issues have nothing to do with the true gospel, but they do affect things related to the gospel, like the character of God. Didn’t God die for everyone?

Dave: First of all, Tom, I like the way the person expressed it. “God died.” Because Jesus is God, and God is the only One who could die, because He’s the only one who has life. All the rest or us are dead in trespasses and sins. God became a man, and as we’ve said over and over, the Bible teaches that He didn’t cease to be God, He’ll never cease to be man, the one-and-only God-Man, Jesus Christ. And He alone could pay the penalty that His own infinite justice required.

Now, the question is, did He pay that penalty for everyone? I believe the Bible teaches that He did. I mean, we have verse after verse that… I know that those who object to this, they go to these verses and they try to change it around and somehow explain it away. I think what they are doing is explaining away God’s mercy and God’s love.

The children of Israel were told [that] even an enemy’s ox or ass that goes astray, bring them back. Return it. And yet the God who created us and taught us that, He won’t bring human beings back who have gone astray? But somehow He doesn’t even care, because part of this doctrine is “irresistible grace,” so that God could—and I believe all Calvinists would agree with us; we can agree on one thing, and that is that the God of Calvinism could cause everyone to believe the gospel…

Tom: Because there’s nothing in man…

Dave: That’s right…

Tom: God’s no respecter of persons, that’s what they say, and that’s what they agree to.

Dave: That’s right. There’s nothing in us that could either believe it or reject it. God has to do it all. Therefore, He could save everybody, and yet He chooses not to, and they even say it was His good pleasure not to do so, and that somehow it magnifies—Calvin said, “It magnifies God’s grace and it shows His power for Him not to save everyone.” I don’t think that magnifies His grace. It’s like saying it magnifies my generosity to tell how stingy I am, and it certainly—we have no question of God’s power over His sovereignty, so this does not magnify His power and sovereignty. He’s sovereign. He can do what He wants.

Tom: Yeah, but, Dave, wouldn’t they say that by not putting the right emphasis on God’s sovereignty, then we’re elevating man? If man can do something, then he’s the one that can boast. He’s the one that…for example, you make faith, faith as a work.

Dave: Yeah, well, Tom, let me go back first of all a little bit before we get into that, if we have any time. The Bible does say “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,” John:3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
See All.... John:3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
See All... says, “He sent not His Son into the world…” that’s into the world, sounds like the world, “to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” First Timothy 2:4-5, says, “He’s not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth.” I’m sorry! That’s 2 Peter:3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
See All...! First Timothy 2:4 says, “God would have all men everywhere to be saved,” and so forth. Now, the only way you can get around that is to say, “But ‘world’ doesn’t mean ‘world’; and ‘all men’ doesn't’ mean ‘all men’; it only means ‘the elect.’”

First John chapter 2 verse 2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” And there the “us,” which would be the elect, is put in contra-distinction to the whole world. So, you could hardly say they’re the elect. Well, the Calvinist says, “No, no, that means the Christians to whom he was writing at that time, and the whole world is ‘other Christians.’”

But, Tom, you brought up something else that you wanted to get onto, so let’s get back to it.

Tom: Well, you know, as I said, aren’t we elevating ourselves by saying that we have to make a response, that we have to believe in God…?

Dave: Yeah, Tom, that is an argument that is used. In other words, then man is the one who decides. But it’s a misunderstanding of “love” and a “gift.” You can’t force love on anybody. So this irresistible grace that makes people believe, that makes people love—you can’t force someone to love you. You can’t force a gift! And if you give me a gift, Tom, I have the option of accepting it or rejecting it. That is the very nature of a gift. That does not detract from God’s sovereignty at all. Furthermore, I cannot take credit for the gift. You were the one who came up with the idea of a gift; you provided the gift. All I have to do is accept it.

So, it’s too big a topic to discuss this briefly, Tom, but we want to go to the Word of God, and I know that the Calvinists want to go to the Word of God. So, we go to the Word of God together, and in fact, I’m working on a booklet that I’m going to try to lay it out as clearly as possible. Maybe that will be helpful.

Tom: Great!