It Is God’s Will That All Men Be Saved

Written by Adam, Posted in Christian, Soteriology, Theology

In the comments section of Fisher’s post John Calvin on Fatalism, the conversation seemed to have found its way to 1 Tim 2:4. And since this verse seems to generate a lot of debate these days, at least from my perspective, I thought it would be a good idea to explore 1 Tim 2:4 a little bit more thoroughly.

1 Tim 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”

The key part is “who will have all men to be saved” (KJV). Other versions state it as “who desires all men to be saved” (NASB) and “who wants all men to be saved” (NIV) but it essentially means the same thing.

The first thing we need to do is look at the context of this verse. According to John MacArthur (from whom I’m getting this explanation), this verse falls in the middle of a section of scripture addressing Evangelistic Prayer (verses 1 through 8). So given the context of this section, we should remember that Paul is addressing how we, as believers, should be praying for the lost to be saved as this lines up with Gods desire. It is Gods desire that all be saved so therefore it should also be our desire that all be saved.

The full explanation can be found here, but I just want to look at the words will, desire and want as used in verse 4 of the various english translations. In each case we find it has been translated from the Greek word “thelo” into will, desire, or want. Now, working back to the Greek from will (KJV). There are two basic Greek words for will and they are “thelo” and “boulomai”. So what does each of these words mean? “Thelo” reflects the will of desire springing from feeling and inclination while “boulomai” speaks of a will that comes from precise determination.

So the will/desire/want used in 1 Tim 2:4 is not the will/desire/want in the “boulomai” sense; that God has precisely determined the salvation of all men. It is not a sovereignly ordained fact that everyone is going to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 is not talking about that kind of will but that of “thelo” which is the word used in the original Greek text.

It’s not simply a “What God wants he gets” in some sort of universalistic salvation or that we have some sort of impotent God who is unable to fulfil His will. There’s a distinction between God’s sovereign will and His moral will.

To put it another way, we would all agree without equivocation that God does not desire people to sin. Could we agree with that? We do not believe that God desires people to do evil, to sin, to be disobedient, to be unholy, to fail to give Him glory. No, we would all agree with that. In fact the spectrum of evangelical theology would agree to that. We know God desires men not to sin. We do not for a moment advocate anything different than that. So turn the table a bit. Would we would all agree then that God desires all men to be holy? No one would argue against that, right? God desires all men to be righteous. God desires all men to be sinless. God desires all men to give Him glory and give Him honour and give Him respect. God desires all men to be obedient. I mean, He commands men over and over and over and over to be obedient. He calls for righteousness. He calls for holiness. He calls for sinlessness. He calls for everyone on the face of the earth to give Him honour and give Him glory. He calls for all men everywhere to repent. Nobody debates that. We all know God wants men to be holy.

Therefore, we conclude that people sin though God does not want them to. That’s obvious. People are unholy though God does not want them that way. People do not give God glory though God does not want them not to give Him glory. Then why is it such a hard thing for some people to realise that people also go to hell though God does not want them to? God wants all men to be saved. That is the desire of God.

Men sin and they go to hell, not because it is God’s express sovereign purpose for them. They go to hell because they denied God’s moral will for their life. He calls them to repent. He calls them to be saved. If anyone goes to hell, they go there not because of the predetermined choice of God, but because of the rejection of Jesus Christ. That’s what He’s saying. He wants all men saved.

In the exact words of John MacArthur;

I believe in the sovereignty of God, I believe in election, I believe in predestination, beloved, I also believe that God wills men to be saved and by their choice they are not saved and that is their responsibility not God’s. And if you ask me how those two things harmonize, I say I’ll tell you our first day in heaven, I’ll explain the whole thing. But I know this, God has a broken heart because He desires salvation from the ends of the earth, why else would Jesus weep over Jerusalem. “O how often I would, I willed to gather you together but you would not.” He said that. You wouldn’t do it. Why will you die? Why will you reject?

So in tying this with the challenge in the comments of Fishers post, I believe the will of God espoused by John Calvin, Ryft and Fisher with regard to the issue of choice, election and predestination is the will of “boulomai.” It is not the will of “thelo” that we find in 1 Tim 2:4.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Zemanta

Calvinism election John MacArthur predestination soteriology

Marc

u00a0u201cIt is not a sovereignly ordained fact that everyone is going to be saved.u201dnnA straw man. No non-Calvinist would argue that they would be. nnYou have avoided the crucial issue, namely, that if there is an elect, in the Calvinist understanding, then how do its members get there: by their will or by God’s?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

1. Not a straw man, for there are many non-Calvinists who argue precisely that very thing (e.g., universalists, such as certain Anabaptists).nn2. Who does the electing might be a crucial issue for you, but it is not the crucial issue vis-a-vis 1 Tim. 2:4. Ergo, he did not “avoid” anything.
Marc

Here we go again – never a direct answer to my question but an allusion to something else.nnAnd even if the Anabaptists hold to a universalism, non-Calvinists generally do not.nnTo say it again to all of you: You have avoided the crucial issue, namely, that if there is an elect, in the Calvinist understanding, then how do its members get there: by their will or by God’s?u00a0u00a0u00a0u00a0u00a0
Marc

MacArthur said: “if you ask me how those two things harmonize, I say Iu2019ll tell you our first day in heaven, Iu2019ll explain the whole thing.”nnWhat arrogant question begging! nnWho says they will be harmonised? Calvinists in heaven (and now)u00a0of course! We are right, despite out soteriology not harmonising and we not having any answer to the most basic question…but no matter we’re right because we know we’re right and the other mob are wrong, wrong, wrong!
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

Is there a verse where God specifically says “I choose you, you do not choose me”? No.nnIs there a verse where God specifically says “I am a trinity. Three persons in one God”? No.nnBut can we reason to these positions from other texts in the Bible that speak of such things? Of course we can.nnIt is a reasonable conclusion to come to from passages such as Eph 1:4-5 “For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will”nnAnd since the choice was made before we were created, the choice is Gods, not ours. Is this not a reasonable conclusion?
Marc

Adam,nnYou skirt around the important point which no one has the guts to articulate, namely, that on the Calvinist soteriology God could just as easily have chosen ALL people but opted for only choosing some. nnTell me why a Calvinist doesn’t believe that, based on their view of election.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

It is but a small matter to quibble over, but I think I should just put it out there… I don’t believe it was ever Adam’s intention to address the text as a “Calvinist”. We are not attempting to defend “categories” but to try and determine the truth revealed in Scripture as best we can.
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

Yes Duane, that was not my intention.nnI am not that familiar with Calvinists or have a thorough enough knowledge of Calvinist theology to answer your question(s) from their perspective Marc. I was just trying to provide some light on this particular verse from my perspective. If the explanation corresponds to the answer a strict Calvinist would give then that would just be coincidental.u00a0Is John MacArthur a Calvinist? I don’t know enough about him to make that call. But I love his work and respect him as a thorough expositional Bible teacher and his reasoning on this verse appears sound to me. Please feel free to refute his reasoning if you like.Could God have done other? Sure He could. He could have done a lot of things differently. The issue is not whether or not He could have done something else or His reasons why He did one thing over another, but rather what He actually did as recorded in scripture.Could He have saved everyone? I guess, but this question seems irrelevant in the light of scripture telling us He did otherwise. It’s like asking why God chose to strike down Saul with blindness on the road to Damascus rather than some other Christian persecutingu00a0Pharisee. u00a0I don’t feel that I have to know the reason why God does what he does. I accept that is what God did and move on.BTW For those interested parties who are following this conversation and the one on Fisher’s post, the previous debate between Marc, Ryft, Duane and myself that Ryft alluded to on Fisher’s post can be found at Duane old blog (http://home.people.net.au/~DuanesMind/wpblog/?p=511).
Marc

Adam,nu00a0n1. How can quote Macarthur then say you don’t know enough about him to know whether he is a Calvinist or not? Of course he’s a Calvinist,u00a0even tending toward the hyper end of things.n2.u00a0 “I don’t feel that I have to know the reason why God does what he does. I accept that is what God did and move on.” That’s assuming he did it the way you believe. And of course, if he hasn’t, then by “you moving on”, you won’t know he hasn’t.n3. Your analogy about men sinning doesn’t work. He has ALREADYu00a0provided the means to to remove ALL sin, namely,u00a0the sending of his son. The point I’ve been hammering onu00a0about faith is entirely different. This two types of will argumentu00a0is a red herring. The fact is, God wants ALL men to come to him. In your view, God’s wanting something i.e. all men to come to him, can’t be accomplished and that says lots about God’s sovereignty. So you have a VERY, VERY, BIGu00a0problem: God wants something (salvation of all) but can’t get itu00a0+ God only elects SOME, not all, and so doesn’t really want all to come to him. What a mess of a soteriology, not to mention theology.
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

Marc,nn1. I’ve never heard John refer to himself as a Calvinist or say that this is Calvinistic theology he is expounding. If you (and others) wish to categorise him or us as Calvinists then thats your perogative. I not particularly fond of labels and categories. I’m just trying to explain the text the best I can.nn2. I’m not “assuming” anything. I’m reasoning to this conclusion from the text as evidenced by the content of this post. So far I haven’t received any response of any kind as an explanation to the supposedu00a0correct meaning of this text. Emotive appeals tou00a0the character of Godu00a0fall way short when you consider God’s character holistically. If it’s all about the love then whats with the Flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah … etc etc etc.nn3. u00a0″…can’t be accomplished”? Whoever said it can’t? I’m saying that it “isn’t” not that it “can’t”. God can save every single person who ever lived. But He doesn’t. Scripture tells us He doesn’t. Our answers are replete with scripture references and exposition. Yours seem more like emotive appeals rather than substance. Is God soverign or isn’t He? What does soverign mean to you? Can God’s will be thwarted by men? Did God just cross His fingers and hope that Saul would respond positively to his blinding, saying “Oooh…I hope this works!”nn”Can’t” is a straw man. I never made that case. And I don’t think anyone here has made that case either.
Marc

Adam,nnNow that you’ve admitted that God can but WON’T save all me, DESPITE SCRIPTURE SAYING HE WANTS ALL MEN (in case you fail to notice, Adam, I’ve just quoted scripture), then you and I worship two entirely different Gods, though in your case it’s more a god. In fact, remove the name Muhammad, and your god is not so unlike Islam’s. nnNow this last comment may sound hyperbolic, but for someone who lived and worked in the Middle East, whose wife comes from the world’s largest Islamic country, who studied Islam as part of one of his uni majors, who’s argued with 1000′s u00a0of and been beat up and threatened with deathu00a0by a number of Muslims for his Christian faith, is now an international star on one of their DVDs in a “debate” with their most senior apologists, has been told that he knows Islam better than 99% of Muslims by a “fundie”, I can say your commentu00a0communicates u00a0EXACTLY – hear that – EXACTLY the same soteriology as Islam’s. I know Islam very well and that, like yours,u00a0is one of their core beliefs.nnWilder-Smith, my favourite scientist/theologian, once opined that Calvinism is the curse of Europe. I have come to believe it has diseased men’s minds to the extent that they no longer reason on the issue!nnAs fas as your accusation of my being emotive, it’s a silly charge. It’s actually called ‘reasoning’. nnMay I suggest a book called ‘The Grace of God, the Will of Man’. It helped me know that there is actually another way of using your understanding to understand God.nnAs Wilder-Smith used to say, Adam (well, he didn’t sayu00a0your name!), put that under your pillow tonight and sleep on it.nn
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

Marc,nnYou may be quoting scripture but youu00a0haven’t explained it. Where’s your exposition of “thelo” and “boulomai” explaining where Macarthur’s exegesis is in error? I keep inviting you to make your case but so far you have not. Vague appeals to Gods character and love are not sufficient. Nor is criticism andu00a0invective rejoindersu00a0making your case against mine.nnI don’t know where you got your definition of reasoning but responding with You’re just like a Muslim is not reasoning as far as I’mu00a0concerned. Surely “reasoning” should come with some sort of exegesis of the text in question?nnOf course I must reject your implication that I worship a false “god” based on the objection you raised – because do youu00a0know what other belief I share “EXACTLY” with Islam? The belief that there is only one true God. I’m sure there are probably others too. I’d say that Christianity shares some beliefs with the majority of religions around the world, like the golden rule for example “Do unto others..etc”. So what does this tell us about the truth and validity of Christianity, or of the particular position being presented here? Nothing, as far as I can tell. The truth claims ofu00a0Christianityu00a0needu00a0to be assessed outside any such taint from other religions. So how about we do that with the focus text of this post?nnI thank you for the booku00a0recommendationu00a0but unless you make some sort of positive case for your point of view then I really feel there is not much more that can be said between you I on this topic. Do you want to take part in a conversation on the topic at hand, or do you want to stand on the sideline and yell abuse at the referee? I’ll leave that choice up to you.
Marc

You haven’t really responded to my criticism of your unbiblical belief thatu00a0 “God can but WON’T save all men”. You believe that it is biblical but it isn’t.nn1. The elect is never in the singular but is used to identify the Church. That is, the elect is the Church, not this and that individual personu00a0individually chosen before time to fill his Church. It’s the Church which was predestined for glory.n2. Did you actually ever read all the instances of ‘thelo’ and ‘boulomai’? It really is a red herring and has nothing, I mean, NOTHING, to do with the theological and soteriological argument. Meaning is not justu00a0a function of a word’s derivation or what appears in a dictionary but how it is used in context. n3. Thus, how do you deal with the question of God’s sovereignty (i.e. God gets what he wants)u00a0when God wants something to happen to ALL people but simultaneously declines to make it happen for ALL. Sounds quite complicated to me and ever so schizoid.n4. Despite your remonstrance, your belief that God’s intending some people to necessarily go to hell when he could have sent them to heaven because that’s the prerogative of God, is the same as Islam’s belief on the matter. If you think that’s no problem, then what can I say.n5. I haven’t bothered tou00a0explain “God wills that all men be saved” because it doesn’t require explanation as it stands alone, it’s far too plain.u00a0Within a Calvinist theology it does because it conflicts with its warped and entirely pagan view of God’s election promise.
Marc

Adam,nnYou asked Iu00a0explain “where Macarthur’s exegesis is in error”. Mate, brother, I would…if only Macarthur would GIVE his explanation. nnLet me remind you of his own words, the ones YOU quoted: ” And if you ask me how those two things harmonize, I say Iu2019ll tell you our first day in heaven, Iu2019ll explain the whole thing.”nnNow maybe, brother, you can explain how this is an explanation?nnBTW, this is what ALL Calvinists end up saying i.e. they don’t know!
Marc

BTW Adam, Macarthur got fired from a Christian radio broadcaster because his views on election were so extreme i.e. we’re saved and you’re not and there’s nothing you can do about itu00a0i.e. hyper-Calvinist. nnAnd you think the guy’s worthy of respect?n
Marc

u00a0Adam,nn1. Please explain this: “Emotive appeals tou00a0the character of Godu00a0fall way short when you consider God’s character holistically. If it’s all about the love then whats with the Flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah … etc etc etc.”nn2. Strange, considering that the only time God is ontologicallyu00a0defined is atu00a0 1 John 4:8, 16. Most Christians choose to ignore it or downplay it e.g. your above comment.
Trolando

Alright, so “thelo” would refer to God’s moral will and “boulomai” would refer to God’s decreed will, His ultimate plan?nnThen what do you make of 2 Peter 3:9? “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”nnHere, “boulomai” is used. And not only is it stated that God wants (boulomai) all to be saved, but also no one to be lost, which makes an even stronger case for universalism.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

I have answered your question in a blog post:nnhttp://aristophrenium.com/ryft/2-peter-39-and-universal-salvation/
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

nMarc,n nThe reason I haven’t responded to you critisisms is becasue they are nunsubstantiated invective. Just because you call it unbiblical does not make it nso. The fact you refuse to explain why this view is unbiblical leads me to nbelieve you don’t have a reason why, just your opinion on the issue.n n1. At least now you seem to be stating your case but can you defend it? What nis your exegetical proof that election is in the corporate sense only and nexcludes individual election?n n2. Again your saying it is a red herring does not make it so. Please ndemonstrate how it is a red herring. This whole conversation is about Gods will nso the definition of the word in context is critical for this conversation to nhave any meaning. My definition and context can be found in the original post, nyours can be found……..where?n n3. You are twisting my view and creating a straw men here again. It makes me nthink you have not read or understood my explanation because you keep repeating nthe same challenge with the same word meanings that I have repeatedly stated nwith explanation that this is not the position I hold.n n4. Same as point 3, where did I ever say that God intends for people to go to nhell?n n5. If it is far too plain then we wouldn’t be having this conversation now nwould we.n nMacArthur’s explanation may only lack in the harmonisation of HOW God elects, nnot THAT God elects. The HOW is not the discussion here, rather the THAT which nMacarthur gave and so far remains unrefuted.n nIt would help if you cited the radio station and their theological position n(liberal?). If rejection by others is the defining characteristic of falsehood nthen Christianity as a whole must be false. Anyhow, you are playing the man nrather than the ball here. How about you address his argument rather than ndemonising his character in order to make your point? Extreme does not equate to nfalse in my dictionary.n nIf you want my explanation of the “God is Love” verses please see my pervious npost where I address this issue. http://aristophrenium.com/adam/god-is-love/
Marc

Adam,nnYes, yes, yes…it must be I who has failed to understand your position.nnNo, Adam, your position is that some are saved, some aren’t. Who decides? nnIt’s a simple question: What is the difference between a man who is saved and one who isn’t, with respect to God’s will?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

What is the difference? One is condemned by his own nature and thus receives what he deserves. The other is redeemed by God’s sovereign grace, not getting what he deserves.
JoE

But….? u00a0Didn’t somebody here say something to the effect that God decides those who seek Christ?
JoE

Oh, and of those who are condemned by their own nature, u00a0God really must condemn them then. u00a0Because we already know from a previous discussion u00a0that God controls all aspects of creation, and leaves nothing *to it’s own devices*. u00a0Sou00a0in this regard, those who turn away from God and reject Christ do so because He has created them in this way. u00a0I.E. green is my favourite colour becasue God has put that particular preference within me when He created me. u00a0I honestly do not see how those who assert that God maintains direct, constant control over all of Creation can then say that we have any sort of Free Will. u00a0Unless of course it is to say that we are completely free to choose what God has intended for us to choose through Creating us.
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

Well it must be if you because you kept on reflecting back a challenge to a position I do not hold. I’ll try again. This time I’ll be brief because we are getting nowhere.nnSome are saved. Some are not. Who decides who are saved? God.nnThe difference between the saved and the unsaved is that God actively works to save those whom He chooses. What God does not do, which you keep claiming that I believe he does, is actively force unbelievers to be unbelievers. No, they are reprobate because they choose to be (they can be no other), not because God makes them reprobate.nnThe only further thing I will add is that I have made my case by expositing scripture. You seem to think you case is made simply by saying “No it isn’t, thats unbiblical and you worship a false God” and backing up that claim with nothing. Hardly convincing. And I do wonder why you still use the term “brother” if you think I worship a false God? Do you call Muslims Brother?
Marc

u00a0Adam said: u201cThe difference between the saved and the unsaved is that God actively works to save those whom He chooses.u201dnnThus, God doesn’t save those whom he doesn’t choose. Of course, he could, but he won’t.nnLet’s read some Scripture together.n’Then one of the experts in the Law stood up to test him and said, “Master, what must I do to be sure of eternal life?”n”What does the Law say and what has your reading taught you?” said Jesus.n”The Law says, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind’, and ‘your neighbour as yourself’,” he replied.n”Quite right,” said Jesus. “Do that and you will live.”nBut the man, wanting to justify himself, continued, “But who is my ‘neighbour’?”nAnd Jesus gave him the following reply: “A man was once on his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho. He fell into the hands of bandits who stripped off his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead. It so happened that a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. A Levite also came on the scene and when he saw him, he too passed by on the other side. But then a Samaritan traveller came along to the place where the man was lying, and at the sight of him he was touched with pity. He went across to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put him on his own mule, brought him to an inn and did what he could for him.u201d’nSo, Adam, from this parable, if God were a man, who would he resemble more: the Levite, priest or Samaritan?
Marc

Evasive, Mathew, purely disingenuous. You just don’t want to say the unspeakable.nnThe reality is this:u00a0One is condemned by his own nature and isn’t saved by God because God refused to save him.nnThe other is also condemned by his own nature and is saved by God because God didn’t refuse to save him.nnAll the time through this very weird scenario is the fact that God wills both men to be saved.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

“Disingenuous”, perhaps, to someone holding your view. However, at least what I stated and what Adam and Ryft have stated is supported by scripture. If I draw conclusions that are biblically sound, I don’t much care what label you wish to ascribe to me.nn”Evasive” I would more aptly apply to yourself who is yet to present any sort of positive biblical case for your own position, despite being asked to.
Marc

Mathew,nu00a0nThere is a stinking dishonesty and haughtiness around this site. nnYou have wilfully ignored my case, refused to engage with anything. There are a number of biblical questions I’ve asked and you leave them. I justu00a0used the good Samaritan parable, you refsue tou00a0respondu00a0because I guess that would have meant saying God was more like the priest or Levite.nnThe hypocrisy level is high too. You explain your position by this: “One is condemned by his own nature and thus receives what he deserves. The other is redeemed by God’s sovereign grace, not getting what he deserves.”. I counter with this: “One is condemned by his own nature and isn’t saved by God because God refused to save him. The other is also condemned by his own nature and is saved by God because God didn’t refuse to save him. All the time through this very weird scenario is the fact that God wills both men to be saved.” yet you refuse to address the point I’ve raised and misdirect people’s attention byu00a0accusing me of being evasive. Tres rum.nnI’ve pointed to scripture, you special plead and ignore the implications of your view from these scriptural quotes, and then complain I don’t use scripture. Do you realise how bizarre that seems?
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

JoE,nnI don’t think we would have used the word “seek” in that way. See Romans 3:11. Same with your claim that “we already know from a previous discussion that God controls all aspects of creation, and leaves nothing *to it’s own devices*.” Are you quoting us? To which discussion are you refering?
http://uca.brokenbay.org/sawf/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=397387b50e826386955760b7c9c09f8b Adam

Marc,nnReplace the word “won’t” with “doesn’t” and you will have reflected my position. Your continued misuse of words in order to try to describe my position is tiring. “Won’t” has a significantly more “actively denying” connotation to it which I have never postulated. Is it really that hard for you to accurately restate someones position even though you may not agree with it?nnYou want to read some scripture? How about you read some that address soteriology? Instead of confronting the topic at hand you try to evade the issue by attempting to illustrate a view that God’s character can be summed up as merely Samaritan-like? God may have “love” and “Samaritan-like” characteristics, but if you bothered to consider the scriptural record of what God has actually done you will find a plethora of Godly deeds that are very un-Samaratin like and very un-Love like. Noah’s Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jesus’ response to the money lenders in the temple, Matthew 3, 12 & 23 “You brood of vipers”, Psalm 5:5 “…You hate all who do inequity.”, Uzzah in 2 Sam 6… etc.nu00a0n”if God were a man”nnWhat do you mean, if…? u00a0Under my theology God is a man: Jesusnn”There is a stinking dishonesty and haughtiness around this site.”nnIf that’s what you think then feel free to move on. No-one is keeping you here. We have been more than generous with our answers to your challenges while you have not been so forthcoming to any of ours.n
JoE

Adam,nnhttp://aristophrenium.com/ryft/deism-versus-scriptures/u00a0 u00a0[b]Deism: winding up the clock and letting it go (Final Paragraph)[/b]u00a0″Not only is God the one who brings all things into material existence but he is also the one who continually sustains all of creation. The idea that God got everything running and then stood back to let nature do its thing [would have been laughable in the ancient world...]“nn”Seek” = “guided”, “led”, “enlightened”, or another then? u00a0Either way, it all supports Marc’s question/statement: God CAN choose all, but doesn’t. u00a0I don’t have any problems at all with the stance, because, well Hell wasn’t made to just sit there empty. u00a0I’m just not sure I agree with the current presentation of it. u00a0Let me ask this to all who ascribe to it to help me understand it better: u00a0Are any of you among the “Elect”?
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Joe,nn“Didn’t somebody here say something to the effect that God decides those who seek Christ?”nn”For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him …” (Phil. 1:29). “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65). “For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him” (John 17:2; cf. John 10:27-29; John 6:37). “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1). “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (Act 13:48). “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thes. 5:9). “It is because of [God] that you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30). “Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). “One of those listening was a woman named Lydia … The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message” (Acts 16:14). “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction” (1 Thes. 1:4-5). “The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast” (Rev. 17:8). “For [the Father] chose us in [the Son] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and willu2014to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (Eph. 1:4-6). “But you do not believe because you are not my sheep” (John 10:26). And so on…nn“Those who turn away from God and reject Christ do so because He has created them in this way.”nnFirst, those who are in Christ are no longer condemned (Rom. 8:1) while those who do not believe stand condemned already (John 3:18). People have a tendency to forget that John 3:16 is followed by subsequent verses, such as 17-18 which are pregnant with soteriological import. Why was Jesus not sent to condemn but rather to save? Because the world apart from the Son is condemned already; we move from being condemned in Adam as sinners to being justified in Christ as saints. There is no neutral ground; one is either in Adam condemned or in Christ justified. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36; cf. Rom. 5:9; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; 1 Thes. 5:9). nnSecond, “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathu2014prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryu2014even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:19-24). Do not overlook that last part of v. 22.nnThird, non-Reformed theology must contend with the same issue; namely, that God knows who will reject him to their death bed, yet he creates them anyway.nn“I honestly do not see how those who assert that God maintains direct, constant control over all of creation can then say that we have any sort of free will. “nnMe neither (if libertarian free will is in view here).
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Referring to the Parable of the Good Samaritan an-argument-against-unconditional-election does not make. Where is the notion of man’s sin and God’s justice? How is it dealt with? How does the parable conflict with any other scripture passages we’ve quoted that support an Unconditional Election view? Does Jesus allude that the Good Samaritan represents God?nnAnd I don’t think any of us here are ignoring the implications of the scriptures we’ve quoted, we just think the implications are, in and of themselves, pretty straight forward: God elects some, and not others. The grounds for God’s election is his grace; the grounds for reprobation (condemnation of sinners) is his justice. In either instance, God’s character is glorified.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Mathew

Is Jesus, in relating this parable, therefore hoping you don’t recall OT narratives such as Noah’s Flood (surely God could have had Noah build a bigger boat to fit everyone in or … not had the flood at all?) or the conquests by the Jews over the inhabitants in the Promised Land where whole cities were wiped-out? On your own view, would not those accounts demonstrate to you that “God himself doesn’t actually put [helping his enemies out] into practice”?nn(Leave aside the fact that I think you are misusing the parable altogether, packing it with meaning that Jesus never intended …)
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Joe,nn(1) What I reject is libertarian free will as unbiblical and incoherent.nn(2) That is a very contentious way of stating the matter.nn(3) I believe I am, but ultimately I do not know (Deut. 29:29; Rom. 11:33). And the question does not even matter to me. What I know is that I am commanded to repent and believe, that God is most glorified in me when I am most satisfied in him, that being sanctified and indwelt by the Spirit produces good works for the kingdom and glory of God, that I hate sin and love God, that I have a deep and abiding passion for the truth of God and his word, that I abound in love for God’s people and for serving the church, that the family and ministry of God has the highest priority in my life, that I am most undeserving of heaven or any of God’s blessings, that sharing the truth of God and the gospel is a great joy and sacred dutyu2014and so on and on. Such things are what I know, and that is what matters to me.
JoE

Ryft,nnThank you for answer (3). u00a0Though it is still a… u00a0strange and awkward concept to me (NOT intended as critical), it is a very straightforward and concise answer that gives me a great deal of info into your way of thinking on things. u00a0Again, Thank you very much for your honesty and insight there! u00a0nnAs far as (1) “libertarian free will”, meaning? u00a0Is this as opposed to “parliamentarian” free will? u00a0″Libertarian” is a political movement in my country, so I’m not really sure what you mean by it.nnAnd by (2) I intended No contention, nor insult. u00a0It was simply a statement of fact as I perceive it. u00a0And a little bit of a question for confirmation of your take on it. u00a0So apparently it was incorrect for you? u00a0nnThe lack of facial expressions and vocal inflections in our written words makeu00a0misunderstandingsu00a0much more common than if we were having this conversation in front of each other. u00a0Because of that it is difficult to get what we are truly expressing across in just a single go. u00a0With this in mind, I do appreciate your patience with me, and your continued displays of honesty and integrity toward me despite any contrary impressions you may be getting from my wording.nnSalute!
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Libertarianism is not just a political philosophy in your country; it is also a metaphysical philosophy. They share in common rigid human autonomy, but the latter sense is what is meant by libertarian free will; it is a metaphysical position, that the human will is uncaused by either internal or external forces.nnAnd “contentious” does not carry the implication of insult. It simply means that how you stated the matter is an invitation to controversy. Contentious means “causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial.”

The Aristophrenium

20

37