Chapter 3: Defining the immediate goal of Christ's death and the various ways it is described
display both mercy and justice in saving sinners through a crucified Substitute.
So what was the end of Christ's death, in relation to us? It was not to say, "Now God may save you, if he chooses." Rather, it was to say,
"God shall save you, according to his covenant promise." Christ's death was the fulfillment of a covenant agreement made before the foundation of the world between the Father and the Son. That compact guarantees that all those whom the Son represented and for whom he died will receive every spiritual blessing that his death secured.
And it is that glorious end—grace secured, not merely made possible —that we now turn to consider in the next section.
Book II, Chapter 3:
The Immediate End of Christ's Death, and How Scripture Declares It Having already explained the biblical teaching on the death of Christ and what we believe to be its true purpose, we now turn to a more focused examination of Scripture itself. What do the Scriptures say about the immediate end of Christ's death? That is our task in this chapter.
Here is the heart of our claim:
Jesus Christ, according to the will and counsel of the Father, offered himself upon the cross to purchase all
the blessings of salvation for his people. And he now continually intercedes with the express intention that all those blessings—secured by his death—will be actually and infallibly applied to every person for whom he died, just as God decreed.
This truth is found in many places throughout Scripture. For clarity, we'll group these verses under three headings:
I. The Will and Purpose of God and Christ in Redemption 1. Matthew 18:11 and Luke 19:10 – "The Son of Man came to save that which was lost."
In Matthew, these words introduce the parable of the lost sheep; in Luke, they follow the salvation of Zacchaeus. In both, they declare Christ's mission: to do the will of His Father by recovering lost sinners. Whether as Zacchaeus, who was saved by conversion and brought into God's covenant, or as the lost sheep carried home by the Shepherd—unless Christ recovers what He came to save, He fails in His mission. But we know He does not fail.
2. Matthew 1:21 – "You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins."
This declaration by the angel sets forth the purpose of Christ's incarnation and, by implication, all His sufferings. It is not a partial or potential salvation, but a complete deliverance of His people from their sins. To claim He merely made it possible falls far short of Scripture's testimony.
3. 1 Timothy 1:15 – "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."
Not to merely make salvation possible, or open a path for those who might choose to walk it—but to actually save. This includes delivering from the guilt and power of sin, and from God's wrath. If that outcome is not achieved, then His mission has failed—a conclusion no believer should accept. As we saw in Isaiah 53:10–12, Christ was promised a faithful people ("His seed") as the fruit of His offering. This was the goal: that through His death He would secure a believing people.
4. Hebrews 2:14–15 – "Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery."
Here we see clearly: Christ took on flesh and died in order to destroy the devil and deliver the children given to Him. There is no mention of purchasing a "possible deliverance" for everyone.
Not all are delivered—therefore not all were the intended recipients of His work.
5. Ephesians 5:25–27 – "Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify her... that He might present her to Himself in splendor..."
Titus 2:14 – "He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works."
These texts speak as plainly as possible. Christ gave Himself for the church, to redeem and purify a people. If He died for all people alike, then why aren't all sanctified, all purified, all glorious and without blemish? Unless we are willing to say that
Christ fails in His purpose, we must say that He died for those whom He intended to redeem—and for them only.
6. John 17:19 – "For their sake I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth."
Who are the "they"? In verse 6, He tells us: "The men whom You gave Me out of the world." Not the world itself (v. 9—"I do not pray for the world"), but His own people. His sanctifying
Himself—setting Himself apart for sacrificial death—had as its purpose their sanctification. This is not a vague or general aim.
It is definite and personal. And we know He accomplishes all He intends (Rom. 11:26).
7. Galatians 1:4; 4:4–6 – Jesus "gave Himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of God and our Father."
This will is further clarified: "God sent forth His Son... to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons."
His purpose was not hypothetical. Adoption, redemption, the sending of the Spirit—these were God's aims in sending Christ.
And they are actually achieved for all who belong to Him.
8. 2 Corinthians 5:21 – "He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
Why did God make Christ to be sin? So that those for whom He was made sin would be made righteous. If they are not made righteous, then the purpose is not fulfilled. But God does not purpose in vain. He does not intend what He does not accomplish. Christ was made sin only for those who, in Him, would be made righteous.
From all this we can draw a simple but powerful argument:
Whatever the Father and the Son intended to accomplish in and for those for whom Christ died— that is without doubt fully and certainly achieved.
(And if anyone wishes to deny this, by God's grace I am ready at any time to defend this truth.) But as we've already shown, the Father and the Son intended—by the death of Christ—to redeem, cleanse, sanctify, purify, and deliver from death, from Satan, and from the curse of the law; to remove all sin; to make righteous in Christ; and to bring near to God all those for whom Christ died.
Therefore, we conclude:
Christ died only for those in whom all these saving effects are actually accomplished.
And whether that includes every single person without exception— or only some—I leave to the judgment of all who have any understanding of these things.
II. Scripture Texts That Reveal the Actual Accomplishment and Effect of Christ's Death Now we turn to a second group of Scripture passages—those which clearly set forth what Christ's death actually accomplished, what it truly produced in and for those for whom he offered himself.
These verses show that the atonement was not a vague or potential work, but an effective, powerful, and saving act of redemption.
Take, for example, Hebrews 9:12, 14:
"By his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us… How much more
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Here we see two effects of Christ's death:
Toward God: He obtained eternal redemption—he purchased it.
Toward us: He purges our consciences—he cleanses us for holy service.
So, then, justification before God (by redemption from guilt and wrath), and sanctification within us (cleansing from sin) are the immediate and actual results of Christ's blood. This is no mere possibility—it is what his death accomplishes.
Likewise, Hebrews 1:3 tells us that "when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." This was already finished before he ascended. Again, Hebrews 9:26 confirms, "He appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
As the old sacrifices under the law brought outward purification to the flesh, so Christ's offering truly brings spiritual cleansing for those for whom he died. His death effects everything that the types and shadows only pointed to—actual sanctification and forgiveness.
Then there is 1 Peter 2:24:
"He himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."
This verse quotes directly from Isaiah 53, which also teaches that Christ bore the iniquities of his people. What was the effect of his sin-bearing? That we would be healed—that is, spiritually restored and made righteous. He bore our sins so we wouldn't have to bear them ourselves.
This truth is also revealed in Galatians 3:13:
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
There is a real exchange here—a substitution in suffering and curse-bearing. Christ took what we deserved so that we might go free.
Next, we consider the effect of his death in terms of peace and reconciliation. Look at:
Colossians 1:21–22 – "You, who were once alienated… he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death."
Ephesians 2:13–16 – "You who were far off are brought near by the blood of Christ… that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] to God through the cross."
All that separated us from God—our sin, guilt, and enmity—has been removed. Reconciliation is not offered as a possibility, but accomplished as a fact.
Furthermore, Romans 5:8–10 teaches that we are not only justified by his blood, but also saved from God's wrath. It is by his death that Christ secures our peace with God.
He purchased his church with his own blood, Acts 20:28. And for all whom he has redeemed, they can say with full assurance:
"Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died…" (Romans 8:33–34) Could all people say this? Clearly not. And yet, this is true of all for whom Christ died.
Revelation 5:9–10 gives us a beautiful picture of the redeemed in glory:
"You were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and made them a kingdom and priests to our God."
This is not a universal redemption, but a definite, effectual one— resulting in worship and dominion.
As Daniel 9:24 puts it, Christ came "to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, and to bring in everlasting righteousness." This is what his atonement accomplishes.
And as for life itself, we see the same effect.
John 6:33 – "The bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
John 10:15, 28 – "I lay down my life for the sheep… I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish."
2 Timothy 1:10 – "He abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."
Romans 5:6–10 – "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son."
Where Christ gives his life, life is actually given. Not merely offered, but secured.
Final Argument:
Let us now summarize the force of all these Scriptures with one clear statement:
If the death of Christ actually sanctifies, purifies, justifies, redeems from wrath, reconciles to God, gives peace, and secures eternal life for all those for whom it was offered…
Then Christ died only for those who are in fact sanctified, justified, redeemed, reconciled, and saved.
But not all are saved.
Therefore, not all were the objects of Christ's saving death.
This conclusion is firmly based in Scripture, plainly confirmed by experience, and, unless I am greatly mistaken, stands on solid theological ground.
III. The Scriptures Identify the Specific People for Whom Christ Died There are many passages in the Bible that explicitly identify those for whom Christ died, showing that they were peculiarly chosen to be the beneficiaries of His redeeming work, according to the sovereign purpose and design of God. Let's briefly review some of them.
In some places, they are simply called "many."
Matthew 26:28 – "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Isaiah 53:11 – "By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."
Mark 10:45 / Matthew 20:28 – "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Hebrews 2:10 – "To bring many sons to glory, it was fitting that he… should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering."
Now, it's true that the word "many" by itself doesn't necessarily restrict the atonement to only some people, because "many" is sometimes used for "all," as in Romans 5:19. But these same
"many" are elsewhere clearly described in ways that do restrict the reference—ways that obviously do not apply to every human being without exception.
Who are these "many"? Scripture describes them as:
The sheep for whom Christ lays down his life (John 10:15).
The children of God who were scattered abroad and gathered into one by his death (John 11:52).
The brothers of Christ (Hebrews 2:11).
The children God gave him, partakers of flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:13–14).
Those given to him by the Father—those for whom he prays, not for the world (John 17:2, 6, 9, 11).
His elect (Romans 8:33).
His people, whom he came to save from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
The redeemed people whom the Lord has visited (Luke 1:68).
Those foreknown by God (Romans 11:2).
Those who were already his people before their conversion, by virtue of election (Acts 18:10).
Those he suffered for "outside the gate," to sanctify (Hebrews 13:12).
His church, which he "purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
The church he loved and gave himself for (Ephesians 5:25).
The "many" whose sins he bore (Hebrews 9:28).
Those included in the covenant he established by his death (Daniel 9:27).
These "many," then, are identified in Scripture by characteristics that are true only of the elect—those whom the Father chose and gave to the Son, and for whom Christ effectively died.
So it is crystal clear: Christ died for a particular people, not for every individual in the world.
Answering Objections: "What About the Word 'Many'?"
Now, some try to escape the force of this biblical teaching by attacking the argument with harsh language rather than careful reasoning. One well-known opponent (in The Universality of Free
Grace, p. xvi) describes this argument as "weak and of no force, equivocal, subtle, fraudulent, false, ungodly, deceitful, and erroneous." All of that!
But what is this long string of insults really telling us? Likely, it reveals how little the author is able to refute the actual argument.
When people don't have a solid answer, they often resort to namecalling. As the Pharisees, unable to answer Christ's wisdom, resorted to saying, "He has a demon and is a Samaritan" (John 8:48). As the saying goes, empty barrels make the most noise.
It reminds me of the Scythian proverb: "The dogs that bark the loudest are the ones that bite the least." So, instead of being intimidated by loud accusations, let's calmly examine the response and see what real weight—if any—it carries.
"Let's hear, then, what argument is 'worthy' of so grand and dramatic a rejection…"
Response to the Objection: "The Word Many Sometimes Means All"
Objection:
This argument from the word many is weak, because many can sometimes mean all and may simply be used to express a large number—like in Daniel 12:2 and Romans 5:19, where "many" is understood by Christians to refer to all people.
Response:
1. The argument isn't based on the word many alone.
If our entire case rested only on the word many, this objection might carry some weight. But that's not the issue. We are arguing not just from the term many, but from how the many are described in the context. These "many" are said to be sanctified, justified, ransomed, purified, and saved. These descriptions do not and cannot apply to all people.
Let me illustrate: Suppose someone divides the population of London into two groups—rich and poor—and then says, "I will give financial aid to many in London: to the poor." It's immediately understood that the aid is being given only to the poor, not to all
Londoners. In the same way, when Scripture speaks of Christ giving his life for "many" and then defines them as his sheep, his people, his church, etc., the limitation is obvious and intentional.
2. The passages cited don't prove what the objector claims.
In Daniel 12:2, the word "many" doesn't mean all without exception. The text speaks of the resurrection: "Many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt." The word many here is simply used in both parts of a divided statement—many to life and many to
shame. It doesn't mean "all to both," which would be absurd. It's a Hebraic way of speech, not a universalizing statement.
In Romans 5:19, even though the "many" seem to parallel "all" (as in Adam's disobedience affecting all, and Christ's obedience affecting many), the passage is contrasting two representative heads and their effects, not doing a strict numerical comparison. Paul is emphasizing the nature of the effects (condemnation vs. justification), not the size of the groups. There is no intent here to say the same number are in both groups.
As for other passages allegedly supporting the view that "many" means "all," we strongly doubt they exist in any persuasive way.
These are the standard proof texts used by Arminians, but even if more were brought forward, they would not overturn our main point: the description of the "many" in key passages clearly distinguishes them from "all people."
Answer to the Further Objection: "Your Argument is Equivocal and Deceptive"
Objection:
This argument is deceitful because when Christ is said to die for "all," it's only about his death as a ransom. But when he's said to die for "many," there are multiple ends in view. So the "many" passages go beyond just atonement and include other benefits, while the "all" passages refer only to the ransom, not to sanctification, justification, etc.
Response:
1. The premise is false.
There is no place in Scripture where it is clearly stated that Christ died for "all men" or "every man" in the way the objector assumes. That claim is simply asserted, but never proved. We reject it outright.
2. The separation of ransom from its fruits is unbiblical.
The objection tries to create a strange separation between the ransom itself and the fruits of the ransom. But what is the ransom for if not to actually accomplish redemption, forgiveness, sanctification, reconciliation, and eternal life? The fruits of the atonement are not optional add-ons—they are its very purpose. You cannot have a meaningful ransom that doesn't save.
When someone earns wages, we don't say, "He has the right to be paid if the employer wants to." No—we say, "He has a right to his wages." So also with Christ's death: it merits actual results. The benefits purchased by Christ's blood are owed to him and to those for whom he died—not as a matter of merit from us, but as the fulfillment of God's gracious covenant.
3. This response actually concedes our point.
The objector admits that in passages where "many" is used, more fruits of Christ's death are mentioned than in the "all" texts. That only strengthens our argument. If more benefits are described for the "many" than the "all," then clearly "many" and "all" are not the same group. The objector ends up contradicting his own earlier claim that "many" just means "all."
4. The argument is plainly inconsistent.
For example, in Matthew 20:28, Jesus says he came "to give his life a ransom for many." This is exactly the same kind of
language used in 1 Timothy 2:6, where he is said to give himself as a "ransom for all." There is no meaningful difference between these statements in terms of the kind of death being spoken of—they're both referring to the atoning, redeeming work of Christ. So the proposed distinction falls apart.
Furthermore, the objector's own book contradicts his claims. In Chapter 1, he quotes passages where Christ dies for people who are referred to in the first or second person—like "us," "our sins," etc. (1
Peter 2:24; 3:18; Isaiah 53:5–6; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 3:13). Yet in Chapter 10, he tries to argue that in all redemption passages, the people Christ died for are spoken of in the third person—like "all the world." This internal inconsistency undermines his whole case.
Objection 3: "Your Argument Is False and Ungodly"
Objection:
The argument is not only weak but false and irreverent. Scripture never says Christ died only for many, or only for his sheep.
Therefore, it is adding to God's Word to conclude that he died for his sheep alone and not for others.
Response:
Let us pass over the charitable tone of the author's accusations for now and grant him a small allowance of misunderstanding, just to keep the conversation moving. Then:
First,
When Scripture explicitly says that Christ died for his sheep (John 10:15), and for his church (Eph. 5:25), and that he laid down his life for many (Matt. 20:28), and at the same time it affirms that not all are his sheep (John 10:26), or his church, or among the many, it follows by sound and necessary inference that Christ did not die for those who are not his sheep, his church, or the many.
To draw that conclusion is not adding to the Word of God; it is expounding it. If this is "adding to Scripture," then no one who ever explains the Bible is innocent. But surely, explaining Scripture by Scripture is the very task of every teacher and pastor.
Second, Look again at John 10. In verse 15, Christ says, "I lay down my life for the sheep." Then, in verse 26, he says to others, "You are not of my sheep." That is not a minor observation—it is a built-in contrast. The very passage makes the distinction that this objection denies.
If Christ lays down his life for the sheep, and some are not sheep, it is plainly wrong to say that he laid down his life for those who are not sheep. The exclusion is built into the text itself.
Third, Though we might be tempted to point fingers and accuse in return, we restrain ourselves for the sake of the truth—not to trade insults, but to bring clarity.
Fourth,
Now let's consider the bulk of this reply. It tries to dismiss the force of John 10 by saying: "Jesus isn't distinguishing between those he died for and those he didn't; he's just distinguishing between believers and unbelievers." But this evasion doesn't hold.
Here are a few specific problems with that reasoning:
1. It ignores the clear connection between Christ's death and his sheep.
In John 10:15, Christ does say whom he dies for: "I lay down my life for the sheep." Then he contrasts them with those who "are not of my sheep." To act as though that doesn't mean he dies for the sheep only is to disregard the very structure of the passage.
2. It wrongly claims the chapter is only about gospel ministry, not atonement.
But in John 10, Christ explicitly speaks about his death as a sacrifice—"I lay down my life." It is a deliberate and personal giving of himself as a ransom, not merely an example of love.
Verse 11 calls him the "Good Shepherd" who lays down his life for the sheep. This is no vague metaphor—it is language of substitution, of atonement.
3. It tries to dilute the clear fruit of Christ's death.
The objector says that the chapter is not about those who benefit from the ransom, but only those who believe. But this is precisely the point: those who believe are his sheep—and he lays down his life for them. Faith, then, is not the cause of Christ's dying for someone; rather, being his sheep is. And that status is given by the Father (John 10:29), not earned.
4. It tries to remove the exclusivity from Christ's death.
The objector says Christ wasn't trying to show that he died for
some and not others, but only to show how great his love is. But that love is shown precisely in its specificity—he lays down his life for the sheep, not the wolves. The whole beauty of the Shepherd's love is that it is effectual, sacrificial, and secure—for his own.
Final Reflection:
The objection is a fog—a haze of words meant to obscure the power of a plain truth. But clarity emerges when we simply follow Christ's own words:
"I lay down my life for the sheep."
"You are not of my sheep."
If we cannot conclude from that that Christ did not die for all, then we can conclude nothing from Scripture. No argument is more clearly built into the fabric of the biblical text than this one. To deny it is not to preserve the Word, but to empty it.
Response to the Objection Concerning John 10 and the Sheep I begin, then, with the following clarifications:
First, That the "many" for whom Christ died are his sheep has already been clearly established. The passage in John 10 is not misused or twisted. On the contrary, our Lord plainly sets forth a difference between those for whom he died—called his sheep, verse 15—and
others, for whom he did not die, who are not his sheep. These sheep are further described in verse 28 as those to whom he gives eternal life, and in John 17:9 as those who were given to him by the Father.
This is not speculation; it is Christ himself who draws this distinction. Our argument is not from some supposed overarching intent in the passage, but from the very words he uses, and the truths he reveals. The purpose is the consolation of believers
—those who know they belong to Christ.
Second, The objection claims there is a difference between those Christ died for "so and so" and others he died for "so and so." But this is wordplay, not serious exegesis. We deny that Christ's death was applied in different "ways" to different people. He died the same way and for the same end for all those for whom he died. The nature of the atonement does not change from person to person.
Third, It is not accurate to say that Christ is merely contrasting believers with unbelievers in John 10. Rather, he is contrasting the elect and the non-elect, the sheep and the not-sheep. Believing and hearing his voice (v. 27) are not causes but results of being one of his sheep. In verse 26, he says to the unbelieving Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of my sheep." Note that: they are not sheep, and therefore they do not believe. The status of being a sheep is grounded in the eternal counsel of God, not in foreseen faith.
Thus, the foundation for this distinction lies in the differing conditions of people according to God's eternal purpose and Christ's particular love. Christ's death flows from that love and purpose.
Fourth, Whether or not Jesus here describes the privileges of his sheep is not the point. The central issue is for whom he says he lays down his life—and he says it is for the sheep, not for the world, nor for the goats. As for the repeated phrase "so and so," it serves only to confuse the reader, not clarify the argument.
Moreover, we outright deny that Christ died for any except those who shall certainly come to him through the preaching of the gospel.
The ones for whom he died are the same ones who are brought to him. They may differ in various graces and levels of maturity, but they are not different people.
Fifth, This entire argument is not about the purpose of Christ's speech in John 10, but about the people for whom he died. And those people are expressly identified as his sheep, and it is equally clear from verse 26 that not all are his sheep. Therefore, not all were the object of his death.
Sixth, The love and faithfulness of Christ in his gospel ministry is most fully demonstrated in this: that he laid down his life for his sheep.
This is not merely an example of love (though it is that too, as we see
in John 15:13), but a substitutionary act, a ransom. And in John 10, there is no hint that his death is being portrayed only as a moral example. The focus is clearly redemptive, not exemplary.
Someone objects, "But the contrast in John 10 is not between the elect and non-elect, but between called Jews and uncalled Gentiles."
Response: The text itself makes clear that the contrast is between sheep and not sheep, and this is rooted not in their outward calling but in their election. If the "not sheep" are meant to be the uncalled
Gentiles, this directly contradicts verse 16, where Jesus calls those Gentiles "other sheep" who are not yet in the fold—but who certainly will be. And if the "called" are the Jews, then what of verse 26? Many
Jews, though called outwardly, are said to be not his sheep. Evasions like this—twisting the Word of God so openly—are no small offense before the Lord whose glory it seeks to obscure.
Another claim is made: "There's a difference in Scripture between sheep, and sheep of his pasture, and in John 10, Jesus speaks only of the latter."
Response:
1. This is an artificial distinction with no warrant from the text.
2. If any distinction is to be made, it would be between the sheep given to Christ by the Father from eternity (John 17:2, 6) and the sheep who have already come to Christ by the Spirit's effectual calling. But both groups are Christ's sheep. He died for both, and he gives eternal life to both (John 10:15, 28).
Then it is said, "The sheep mentioned in verses 4, 5, 11, 15 are not all for whom he died, but only those brought to faith by his ministry,
who receive the Spirit."
Response:
1. This implies that the sheep = believers. But verse 16 explicitly calls "sheep" those who had not yet believed, nor yet been gathered into the fold.
2. Verse 15 directly says, "I lay down my life for my sheep." To say these sheep are not the ones for whom he died is to contradict
Jesus.
3. There's no difference between those for whom Christ died and those who are effectually brought to him. They may differ in experience or stage of life, but they are the same persons—his sheep. This argument tries to smuggle in the very point in dispute.
Someone continues, "The sheep here are those who believe and enjoy the benefits of Christ's death."
Response: That's only half the picture. The very act of bringing someone to believe is itself a benefit of Christ's death—a fruit of the atonement. If one is not brought to faith, he cannot be saved at all.
Therefore, Christ's death, which procures faith, cannot be said to be for those who never receive it.
It is added, "There are more ends to his death here than just ransom or propitiation. Yet it is not said, 'only for his sheep.' And where his death is said to be a ransom or propitiation, it is said to be 'for all men.'"
Response:
1. Every fruit and benefit of Christ's death comes through his being a ransom and a propitiation. These are not separate ends but the very means by which his love and grace reach us.
2. If other benefits are named that don't belong to all, then this confirms that "his sheep" must be a limited group.
3. As to the supposed universal passages ("he gave his life a ransom for all"), the word ransom is never actually used in a context where "all men" is clearly affirmed. But when Jesus says he gave his life a ransom, it's in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45
—where he explicitly says he gave it for "many," not all.
Conclusion of the Section:
Anyone reading this with even a fair mind can see how weak the arguments are against the clear biblical teaching. And yet, having failed to deal with the actual reasons drawn from Scripture, Mr.
More invents a new objection he attributes to his opponents. He says that those who deny universal redemption argue that the general terms in Scripture (like "world" or "all") meant something different at the time of Christ and the apostles—something more fitting to that era.
But this is a straw man. No serious opponent of universal redemption ever made such a claim. It's an argument no one holds, invented only so Mr. More can show off his rhetorical flourishes by refuting it with loud exclamations and cries of "error" and "blasphemy." But when a man sets up his own shadow just to knock it down, we see clearly what kind of swordsman he is.
And this sort of empty arguing—claiming victory over objections no one made—is what fills much of Mr. More's book. It proves nothing, answers nothing, and should persuade no one.