primarily the Calvinist vs Arminian views on this matter. Introduction

Transcription

1 Introduction Tonight, we are looking at the doctrine of Limited Atonement. This is the L in the acronym TULIP, which is often used to summarize the five core doctrines of Calvinism. If you ask someone you think has Calvinistic leanings if they are a Calvinist they ll usually say, Do you mean a four or five point Calvinist? If they say they are a five point Calvinist, that means they believe in all parts of the TULIP. If they say they are a four or a four and a half point Calvinist, that usually means they have some reservations regarding. In preparing for this message. I read most of the 312 pages in John Owen s book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. In his book, Owen s goes into great detail discussing what Christ accomplished on the cross and to whom Christ s work applies. I also read large sections of a book I received at T4G several years ago titled From Heaven He Came and Sought Her. It is a collection of essays by some 20 modern day theologians discussing 1 primarily the Calvinist vs Arminian views on this matter. Finally, I combed through the scriptures cataloging passages that might help me get a handle on what it teaches regarding the Father s purpose in sending His Son to die on a cross. Needless to say, I have been on information overload for several months now as I try to assimilate all this information. The term is a bit unfortunate because of some of the misunderstanding those words can cause. Some hear the term limited and think we are saying that Christ s work was limited in its ability, or power, to save all men. That is not what is meant by limited. To try and get around this confusion some prefer the terms Particular Redemption. This gets more at the core of what this doctrine declares. Terms Before we go any further we need to take a moment and define terms. We need to ask what is meant by Atonement and what is meant by Limited? 2

2 The English word atonement is derived from the phrase at-one-ment. The word itself tries to convey the essential meaning. Atonement occurs when two parties who were at odds with each other are reconciled. Implied in this definition is the understanding that both sides are at peace with the other. Atonement is not achieved if one side is still at odds with the other. This is an important point because it challenges those who hold that Christ s death provided unlimited atonement for all but that it isn t actualized until a person accepts it. Clearly, those who never accept Christ cannot be said to be at-one with God. To believe in unlimited atonement requires you to believe that Christ only made atonement possible and that his work on the cross is effectual only if man closes the deal. As you can imagine, there is no small number of opinions among theologians regarding the atonement and exactly what it entails. There is the governmental view, moral influence view, penal substitution view, ransom view, and the satisfaction view. We don t have time tonight to 3 dive into each of these and consider their merits, or lack thereof. Most of the reformers settled on the penal substitution view which holds that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. This act of Christ propitiates the Father (placates or satisfies his wrath) and we are thereby declared not guilty and are reconciled with Him. Limited While theologians may wrangle over exactly what atonement means, a bigger debate has waged for centuries over the doctrine of the atonement being limited. This part of the debate deals with who is covered by the atonement and how or when are they covered. We ll have more to say on this in a few minutes. Presuppositions Now that we have a basic definition of the terms, I want to point out some of the pre-suppositions we tend to bring to this conversation. 4

3 When you first bump into doctrines like election and limited atonement there is usually a knee-jerk reaction against them. We don t like the idea of someone else determining our future, including God. We want to believe we have the freedom of will to make our own choices. I sometimes hear someone say Well, my God would never That statement, and others like it, exposes a big problem we have as we approach this topic. The problem is that we don t truly understand what is meant by good and love. The thought goes something like this: certainly, a good God would will that all men be saved or at least give them an equal fighting chance to be saved. Rooted in this kind of thinking are human notions of what good and love mean. The scriptures tell us that God is love and that only He is good. This means we must look to Him to get our definitions and the only place we can do that is in Scripture. As image bearers of God, we do have a notion of what good and love are, but those notions are significantly tainted by sin. We must be careful to not interpret God s actions while looking through glasses tinted with human definitions of good and love. This is especially true today where love has been reduced to a set of sentimental feelings and actions. I recently came across two examples of this kind of man-centric thinking. A person I know, was arguing for the doctrine of Christian Universalism which holds that all people will be reconciled to Christ eventually whether in this life or the one to come. They were talking about some homeless teenagers they know who presumably are not saved and might die on the streets. They made the statement I cannot I will not believe in a God who would take someone like that from the frying pan into the fire (hell). I understand their feelings but isn t that just sentimentalism speaking? That feeling in no way alters the reality of God s purpose just because they don t like it. 5 6

4 This same person said on a blog that belief in eternal hell makes God out to be worse than ISIS. Statements like this are simply appeals to human concepts of fairness, love and goodness. It is dangerous ground to evaluate God s actions based on our definitions of love and fair play. The second example I came across was while reading a book on the same subject of universalism titled The Inescapable Love of God. In one section the author was dealing with where in the Bible God says, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. The author is a tenured professor of philosophy and is highly trained in logic. However, he lost me on one of his points. He first stated that if someone was to truly love him they must also, of necessity, love his daughter because of how precious she is to him. His point being, that to truly love someone you must have their best interests at heart which includes loving who they love. From this analogy, he wrote And similarly for Jacob, who finally came to love his brother Esau and to see in his brother s own forgiveness a reflection of God. God could not both love (or will the best for) Jacob and literally hate (or refuse to 7 will the best for) Esau; the whole thing is a logical impossibility, and it is an impossibility that lies at the heart of Augustinian theology. Why this would be a logical impossibility escapes me. It seems that the author is using his own interpretation of love to evaluate God s love in this case. I say all this simply to make the point that as we encounter hard doctrines we need to be aware of any biases or pre-suppositions we have that might taint how we read the Scriptures. This warning applies to everyone, not just those who disagree with our interpretation. Another reason the doctrine of grates on us is because it doesn t seem fair. Why would Jesus sacrifice on the cross only atone for some men s sins but not others? That s not fair. The best response I have against the fairness argument is that I m glad God is not fair. Fair would mean no one is saved. At the core of this argument, I believe, is a failure to understand how much sin is an affront to God. Three Positions 8

5 As we dive into this doctrine, there are three basic positions. First, Christ s death atoned for some (called the elect) and those for whom he died will be saved. This is the position. Second, Christ s death atoned for all but only some will be saved. Man must accept Christ s work on the cross by faith to make it effectual for him. This is the classic Arminian position. Arminians believe in what is called previent grace, or enabling grace, that is, God gives all men just enough grace to be able to understand the claims of the gospel and the ability to accept or reject it. Third, Christ s death atoned for all and all will be saved. This is the Christian Universalist position. This is not to be confused with general universalism which says all paths lead to God. Christian Universalism holds to salvation only through Christ but they believe all will eventually come to Christ either in this life or sometime after death. At the core of their thinking is that the essence of God is love and thus every act God does, be it saving, judging, punishing, exercising wrath, all of it, is driven by His love for His creation with the end 9 goal of bringing all of creation into glad submission to Him someday. The Debate So then, who Christ died for and who is ultimately saved are the main points of disagreement. If we resolve those differences we can all turn in our Tulips and Daisies and live happily ever after. In theological terms the debate turns on two questions. What is the extent of the atonement, who is it for? And the efficacy of the atonement, who is ultimately saved and what role does man play in salvation? History of Each of the three positions on the atonement can point to church history for support of their views. Calvinists and Universalists can point to early church history for support while the Arminian view seems to only go back about 500 years. The Calvinists point to men like Augustine, Lombard, Aquinas and others. 10

6 The Arminian view seems to have its origins around the early 1600s. In 1610, followers of Jacobus Arminius gathered and crafted five Articles of Remonstrance in response to their concern with the Dutch Reformed Church s support of Calvin s teachings. Article II specifically challenges the doctrine of limited atonement saying in part Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross redemption, and the forgiveness of sins.. The article goes on to say that men don t receive this unless they believe it. This view was later rejected by the Dutch Reformed Church at the Synod of Dort. The Christian Universalists point to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. They would argue that this view was prominent among church fathers prior to Augustine and that it was political motivations that caused some church fathers to reject it. They suggest that the doctrine of eternal hell was invented as a means to keep the people in check. What s at Stake So, why does this doctrine matter. Would we say unlimited atonement and Christian universalism are minor or major heresies? Or are they heresies at all? All agree that salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Isn t that good enough and why quibble over the details of the atonement? I think it is important to keep debating this doctrine because it goes to the nature and character of God. If God wills all men to be saved but not all are saved, what does that say about the sovereignty of God? When someone says, if eternal hell is real, then God is like ISIS that is an assault on the character of God. If limited atonement is false then we are likewise understating the extent of God s love for men. Do I think those who hold these opposing views are evil and not saved? No. Do I think these opposing views warp a proper understanding and appreciation of the gospel? Yes. Do I think any of these positions are air-tight and leave no room for questioning? No

7 In discussing all I suggest is that we act like good Bereans and search the scriptures diligently to see what is so. I believe the preponderance of biblical evidence supports the doctrine of and I ll try and show you why I think so although we don t have enough time to cram the 600 pages I ve read so far into one little message. The Crux I believe all the debate surrounding this doctrine could be ended if we could answer one basic question What was the Father s purpose in sending the Son? If we could find a verse that simply said God sent Jesus to die only for some people and not for others, it would end the discussion right there. But, we don t have one killer verse we can go to. I do believe though, that we can look to scripture and piece together enough biblical evidence to strongly suggest for whom did the Father send the Son to die on a cross. Let s survey some of the texts that apply and see if we can begin to answer the question of God s purpose. To begin let s go to the end of the Bible. In Revelation 5:9-10, the Apostle John records a vison he had. In it, Jesus is about to open the scroll with seven seals. As he takes the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders start singing Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth. Let me key in on the phrase by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. Notice it doesn t say Jesus ransomed all. He ransomed from, implying that not all were ransomed. Also note, he ransomed a completed act, not a potential act dependent on human response. Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many

8 Put these verses together and we see that Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many from among every tribe, language, people and nation. We keep seeing this theme of God ransoming men from among the nations Luke 24:45-47 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem John 6:37-40 gets very specific All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 15 Notice all that the Father gives me will come to me. How does that comport with free will? Does it say, will come to me if they are willing? Again, man has no part in deciding the matter: John 6:63-65 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe. (For Jesus from the beginning knew who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father. Listen to this excerpt from Jesus high priestly prayer recorded in the book of John.. John 17:6-26 I have manifested your name to the people who you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word...i am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.i do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as 16

9 you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world Isn t it interesting that Jesus says we were the Father s and the Father gave us to Jesus? When were we the Father s? How can someone have been the Father s if they are going to reject Him in the future? Notice also that there are some people Jesus prays for and some that he does not pray for. He is not praying for the world but wait a minute John 3:16 says For God so loved the world What s up with that? How can God so love the world but then Jesus specifically says he is not praying for the world? Didn t Jesus come to do the will of the Father? Notice in all these passages that there is no hint of any contingency on man agreeing to God s terms before being saved. The fact that we were the 17 Father s strongly implies that our salvation was a settled fact long before we were born. Consider Matthew 26: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Does this forgiveness of sins take effect when Christ died on the cross or when an individual acknowledges that sacrifice on their behalf? This passage does not imply the potential of sins forgiven, it declares the fact of sins forgiven. Romans 5:10-11 makes it clearer when and how our reconciliation with God occurs, For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Notice the timing in this verse while we were enemies of God we were reconciled, what? While 18

10 we were enemies we were reconciled? What was the event that caused this? Our acceptance of the gospel? No! It was when the Son died on the cross. It was at that moment in time that the eternal intention of the Father regarding us was actualized. We are not a part of the transaction that brings about our reconciliation with God. Another consideration is what it means to say we were reconciled. To be reconciled means both parties are restored to each other relationally. A pair can t be declared reconciled if one of them refuses to accept the terms of reconciliation. It makes no sense to say we were reconciled at the cross if reconciliation is dependent on the sinner s approval. We could go on but I think that is a pretty good sample that supports the claim that the Father has a select number of persons who will be saved and that the Son s work on the cross atones only for the sins of those persons. If Christ atoned for the sins of all men then the will of God is thwarted and that is not possible. Difficult Texts 19 You may have noticed that I conveniently skipped over certain texts where words like all and whole world are used. In the time remaining I d like to tackle some of those and show that even they are perfectly consistent with the doctrine of. As we dive into these texts I d like to comment that we need to be careful when we run into terms like all and whole world. We ve all (no pun intended) have sat in sermons where the preacher reads the word all in the text and stops, looks at the congregation, and says What does all mean? He waits until everyone in unison says All. I suggest the next time a preacher does that you reply instead, It depends. The point is, you can almost never tell the meaning of words like all without some surrounding context. For example, if I see a sign posted at the local car dealership that says Take a test drive today. All are welcome. Who is included in all? Are babies included? Of course not. It is understood that the all applies to those capable of driving. 20

11 This is a common interpretive technique we use regularly in our communication. We consider the context. For some reason, many approach reading the Bible differently. They read the word all or whole world and assume those terms must be all inclusive without considering the context. This leads to some bad interpretations and is what has greatly fueled the debate on. Add to this, the problems our own biases of what we assume a good or loving God is like, and you can see how easy it is for us to end up with interpretations that miss the mark of what is being said by the author. Consider John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. Three times the word world appears. Should we interpret the word the same in each occurrence? We need context to know how to interpret verses like this. 21 Another example is Romans 1:8 where Paul says, First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world Was the Roman believer s testimony really proclaimed in all the world? Of course not. Clearly, we cannot decide what words like all and world mean without considering the context surrounding their usage. There is one more observation I want to make before we look at some of the difficult texts. Most of the New Testament was written before Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D. The Apostles were constantly confronting the Jews nationalistic pride and disdain for non-jews. For millennia, the Jews had been taught that they, and only they, were God s chosen people. They didn t understand what God meant when he told Abraham in Genesis 22:18 that through his descendants all the nations would be blessed. We now know this was referring to the fact that salvation was going to come to all nations and not just the Jews. The Apostle Peter had trouble grasping this. Recall how God used a vision while he was visiting 22

12 Cornelius to show him that Jesus wasn t just for the Jews. It wasn t easy for Peter to come to terms with this revelation. Acts 21 tells the story of Paul visiting James and other leaders in Jerusalem to give a report on his ministry to the Gentiles. While he is there the local Jews get irritated with Paul and incite a riot. The Roman guard comes to breaks things up and Paul asks to speak to the people. He proceeds to share his testimony of how he got saved. The crowd listens quietly to Paul until he says that Jesus told him to Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles. At this point the crowd of Jews lose it. They tear off their robes and start throwing dust in the air and shouting Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live. This is the mindset the Apostles had to constantly combat as they wrote their letters to predominantly Jewish readers. Even Paul seems to have had some question about his calling. In Galatians 2 he describes how he went to Jerusalem some 17 years after his conversion to report to the church leaders there. He wrote and (I) set before them (though privately before those 23 who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. The point of all this is to remind us of the historical climate at the time most of the New Testament was written. With these grammatical and historical points made we can tackle some of those difficult texts. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. If this was the only fragment of scripture we had available to us you could easily argue that it is God s intention to offer salvation to all men. But, is that what these verses are saying? We know that Jesus came to do the will of the Father because he told us so. Therefore, Jesus would not pray in any way other than what is in accordance with the Father s will. 24

13 John 17:6-25 captures a large portion of Jesus highpriestly prayer. In that section, he mentions the world 16 times (in the ESV). This seems like a good place to look to try and get a better handle on God s thoughts about the world. From John 3:16-17 we see two main points: 1) God so loved the world he sent his Son 2) The Son came so that the world might be saved From this passage, the Arminians would argue God has made a sincere offer of salvation to all. The Universalists would argue God will save all. Does this understanding of John 3:16 jive with Jesus prayer in John 17? Without reading the whole prayer here are some bullet points we can glean: The Father gave the Son some out of the world (vs 6,7) Jesus prays for those the Father gave him (vs 9) Jesus says he is not praying for the whole world (vs 9) Jesus prays for the Father to keep us in his name (vs 12) 25 Jesus says he has not lost one (except Judas) (vs 12) The world hates followers of Jesus because they are not of this world (vs 14) Jesus asks the Father to keep his followers safe in the world rather than take them out of it (vs 15) Jesus followers are not of this world (vs 16) Jesus sends his followers into the world to be witnesses (vs 18) Jesus prays for those who will believe because of his follower s witness (vs 20) Jesus prays for oneness among his followers (vs 22,23) If the Father gave His Son so that all might be saved why did Jesus specifically not pray for the whole world? Why does he pray only for those that the Father gave Him, or will give Him, as opposed to those who might believe in him someday? The tenor of this prayer clearly pits those who are of the world vs those who belong to Christ. There is no hint in this prayer that the Father s intention is to give every person an equal opportunity to respond to the gospel. This prayer seems to tilt in the opposite direction. 26

14 From this little bit of exegetical data it seems more likely that the world in John 3:16 cannot refer to all men without exception. The next text we will look at is 1 Timothy 2:4 where it says God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. There are two main arguments against this being a verse supporting a universal offer of salvation. First, is the word desires. I won t dive into that discussion here other than to say that the word used here expresses the idea of wish or desire rather than determined will. What God has determined to do he will do but Paul used a different word here then God s explicit will. If you want to dig into a study on the differences between will and desire I point you to a message Dave gave in 2012 titled Desire and Plan. You can find it under sermons on our website. The second argument has to do with how we should understand Paul s use of the word all here. Does all people refer to all without exception? Remember, we pointed out that we need to consider the context in which the word all is used to be able to figure out what all means. Obviously, it refers to 27 people but does it mean each and every person who has ever lived? Looking at the surrounding text we read in 1 Tim 2:1-6 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Notice in verse one the same phrase all people. Is he thinking of all people without exception or all kinds of people? Notice in verse two that he starts to list out people groups kings, and people in high positions. In verse 6 he says Christ was given as a ransom for all. Then, in verse 7 it s as if he is saying even for the Gentiles, which again, is singling out a people group. 28

15 It is not unreasonable, given the context here, to argue that Paul has people groups in mind when he uses the phrase all people. Some commentators suggest that Timothy was dealing with some degree of Jewish exclusivism given Paul s instruction a chapter earlier in 1 Timothy 1: 3-7 where Paul wrote As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. This may explain why Paul felt the need to give a shout out to the Gentiles in verse 7 of chapter 2. Combined with other passages that explicitly refer to the elect it is not unreasonable to believe that the all people here is referring to all kinds of people rather than all people without exception. 29 We only have time for 1 more text so let s go to 1 John 2:2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Once again, we need to try and decipher what John meant by whole world. It would help if we knew who John s readers were but he doesn t identify them by name. We do however have some clues. First, John, himself was primarily focused on taking the gospel to the Jews whereas Paul went to the Gentiles. In Galatians 2:9 Paul wrote and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Second, John intimates that his readers were knowledgeable about the law. In verse 7 he wrote to his readers Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you 30

16 had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. Third, John warns of the false teachers, seducers and anti-christs. These would have very likely been of Jewish origin. It appears John s readers are primarily Jews. Given the Jewish dislike for Gentiles already mentioned it is very plausible that John is identifying with his Jewish little children and reminding them that Jesus died for not just them but for the Gentiles as well. If he means the whole world without exception then it seems strange that he would say in verse 15 Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. Wouldn t it be strange for John to say, Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world but make sure you don t love the world? As you start looking at the other texts that refer to all and whole world you will find that the surrounding text strongly supports that the writers have nations and people groups in mind rather than the all without exception interpretation often claimed. This is especially true in Romans where 31 Paul is building the case that membership in true Israel is based on faith and not DNA. Having made his case for salvation through faith he writes in Romans 5:17-19 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for fall men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Paul s point here is not to quantify how many are dead in Adam and how many are alive in Christ. The emphasis is on the persons of Adam and Christ and what identification with them means. Through Adam we are dead. Through Christ we are alive. Whether Jew, or one of the many non-jews, the means of spiritual death and the means of spiritual life are the same. Other scriptures teach us that all men without exception are spiritually dead. Other scriptures teach 32

17 us that any person who is made spiritually alive only is made so only through the person of Jesus Christ. Summary I have tried briefly, to show that these so-called difficult texts aren t slam-dunks for Arminians and Universalists. There are several more we didn t have time to tackle. I recommend The Death of Death in the Death of Christ and From Heaven He Came and Sought Her if you want to take a deep dive into this doctrine. When you take the whole of scripture together the preponderance of biblical evidence supports the claim that The Father and Son s purpose was for Jesus to become a man, redeem all those chosen by the Father before time by dying on the cross, receive those individuals from the Father, and keep them safe until they are received into glory. 33