An Argument for "Will All Hear the Gospel?"

In my transition from espousing the doctrine of conditional time salvation to crying against it the question which began to raise in my mind was whether all the elect would hear the gospel. The vast majority of those who adhere to this heresy are adamant in their claim that the overwhelming majority of the Lord's people will never be exposed to the gospel of Christ in time. What I discovered, though, is that this position among many of the Primitive Baptists is reached not from biblical exegesis, but from philosophizing. Certain questions such as "What about all the heathen of the past who never heard the gospel?", in particular the American Indians before 1492, lie at the forefront of their mind and dominate their thinking. Instead of going strictly by what the Bible says of the fate of the heathen and granting it the first priority, they resort to speculation to answer the question. This conviction is then carried to the scripture, and a text is interpreted in the light of what they have already pre-judged to not be possible.

It was then that I began to come upon certain texts in the Bible which showed that the distribution of the gospel to the elect was not left to chance, but connected with the absolute intent of Christ.

The short article given below was something I wrote about two years ago when I began to push philosophizing into the background, and rely totally on biblical exegesis in answer to this question.

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify it and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (EPH. 5:25-27)

The love of Christ for His church is here demonstrated as He gave His life willingly for her. The expression ‘game himself for it’ carries our minds to the cross where this grand transaction occurred. At the same time we learn that in His sacrificial death there was a great end in view. It was so that he might sanctify and cleanse His church by the washing of water of the word, in order that it should be presented a church which is holy and without blemish. Let us address some of the key points within this passage so that there remains no doubt to its meaning.

i. “that he might”. We certainly trust that our readers understand that the term ‘might’ here does not signify a future possibility as men use it in their everyday language. They ‘might’ do this or ‘might’ do that. Rather, it presupposes an absolute intent on the part of Christ, and that something is meant to be accomplished by the one who cannot fail. It is in this way in which the scriptures often use the term. The virgin birth of Christ occurred so that the prophecies “might be fulfilled” (Matt. 1:22); that is, so that it WOULD be fulfilled. Jesus was made sin for us “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). And so it shall be done! Many other places might be cited. The stay of our Lord in Egypt until the death of Herod (2:15), his entry into Capernaum (4:14), his healing of the afflicted (8:17), his preaching in parables (13:35), the parting of his garments at the cross (27:35), and so forth---all done that the scriptures might be fulfilled! That they would be fulfilled! Therefore, whatsoever is proposed in this text will come to pass!

ii. “sanctify”. To sanctify means to ‘set apart’. It is our Lord’s intent that His church be sanctified and cleansed so that the ultimate end of possessing and presenting a holy church void of any blemishes would be realized.

iii. “water by the word”. As water is a purifying agent so the word of God has a cleansing effect on the children of God. The Greek word is rhama, meaning ‘that which is or has been uttered by the living voice’ or ‘any sound produced by the voice’. It would be a poor interpretation to feel the word here is anything other than the preached word. Those who are in utter opposition to evangelism might be forced to suggest that the reference here is to the person of Jesus. However, this is bad exegesis, for the text seems to suggest that He who ordained the washing (Jesus) is to be different from that which performs the actual washing. It is only sound interpretation to conclude that that which does the washing is distinct from the actual person of Jesus. Otherwise the text would read “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it by himself”.

iv. “by the washing of water by the word”. The term ‘by’ signifies that that which follows is to be the means by which something is accomplished. It is ‘by’ their fruits that false prophets may be identified (Matt. 7:20). It was ‘by’ Beelzebub that Jesus was charged with casting out devils (Matt. 12:27). It is ‘by’ the word of God that we are born again (1 Peter 1:23). And so forth. In this place the term ‘by’ tells us how the church is to be sanctified. The word is the proposed means by which this sanctifying process occurs. The church is sanctified by the washing of water by the word.

v. “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish”. The expression ‘that he might” connects the means just described to the end here declared. It is by the washing power of the word (the means) that the church will come to its final unblemished state (the end). It is absolutely essential to understand this. If the proposed means of being washed by the word does not take place then the desired end is not accomplished.

The meaning of our text is thus perfectly clear. It is the absolute intent of Christ to sanctify and cleanse His church. The means ordained to accomplish this is stated as being the word of God. The purpose for this is so that he, Jesus, “might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish”. Nothing other than this can possibly be meant.

With this in mind, we must now and ask our audience to weigh carefully the following question. If it is the intent of Christ to sanctify His church which the text declares, is it His intent to do this for all of His church, or only some of it? If all, then the word must come to them all. If for some only, then the church won’t be presented without spot and without blemish. The proposed means towards the intended end becomes a failure. The absolute intent of the Lord Jesus, the sovereign creator of the universe, does not come to fruition. His plans are thwarted and His church is presented exactly opposite to the desired end: with spot, with wrinkle, unholy and with blemish! Our minds could possibly imagine such an end if the Arminian God were in charge for this is an Arminian conclusion! Yet for a people who believe that God works His will and accomplishes all his purposes, most notably the salvation of His elect, how can we tolerate such a conclusion as this? We most certainly cannot. It is the whole of the church which Christ has in view. Sanctification is an integral component of eternal salvation (1 Peter 1:2), and therefore must be administered unto all of those whom he intends to save.

I should think that this should be sufficient exegesis for this text. Yet in order to be thorough and not allow our critic the least hope of escape, we now handle a foreseen rebuttal. That would be to suppose that it was the original intent to only sanctify a portion of His church, whereas the rest of His children are to be denied this blessing for whatever reason. This idea simply states in more theological terms the currently held view that only some of God’s elect will receive the word. If this were the case, however, then the text would have to be read as follows: “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify some of it and cleanse some of it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present some of it to himself a glorious church, having some spots, or some wrinkles, or such things; and that part of it should be holy and without blemish.” Laying aside the absurdity of such a position, we would still ask the question ‘If this was Jesus’ intent, why’? Did he feel that there was some want of power within himself that he would be unable to communicate the word unto the rest? Did he suppose that future circumstances might arise hindering His ability to accomplish His will? Perhaps it was because he loved or preferred some of His elect more than others, and ordained to grant this sanctification to them, but not to the rest? But how could this be seeing that Christ loves all of His children alike and is no respecter or persons? We should point out as well that a partially sanctified church is against the exegetical flow of the text itself. Paul has declared that Christ loved His church---the whole of it! He also gave his life for it---the whole of it! Are we to suppose at this point that there is to be an audience reduction implicit within the text so that we are to understand it as “Christ also loved the WHOLE church, and gave himself for the WHOLE church; that he might sanctify NOT THE WHOLE church!!! Now if this be not utter foolishness to claim that the love of Christ, His redemptive work, and His sanctifying work do not have the same objects in view, in that some loved and redeemed shall not be partakers of His sanctification, then I know not what twice two equals four! The same loving Jesus who was willing to die for His church will see to it that the very same group will be sanctified!