Could God have saved everyone?

Bob,

You post;

This is what I keep call Calvinized "Marketeering".

"Oh sure sure the Bible SAYS whosever will may come -- but that is just to trick you into thinking that the Gospel really and truly IS available to everyone and anyone that wants to come may. But in fact that is like saying anyone that can jump over the moon is welcome to do it".

The Calvinist idea that these Gospel statements (claiming an unlimited scope to the gospel) are really just jump-over-the-moon statements (coded so that ALL might THINK they have a shot - but in fact it is a very very limited solution for "the FEW" only) - is something that seems to appeal to some kinds of Calvinists - but never make it beyond that point.

Kind of like God giving commands to people and people thinking they can keep them all?

Like trying to jump over the moon.

KJB

 

I don't want you to think I am ignoring your answer. There is something about it that troubles me, but I cannot put it into words just yet. I am still mulling it over.

 

God certainly could of saved everyone, but this would not of given Him pleasure of choosing individuals to inherit salvation.

As Eliphaz the Temanite said to Job: "What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you were righteous? What would he gain if your ways were blameless(Job 22:3)."

Before creation God decided to bind "all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on" all those chosen to receive God's grace (Rm. 11:32).

God delights in saving his creation from the clutches of death, he rejoices along with the angels when one comes to know the Lord.

 

Prophecynut,

Pretty good posting there!

Regards, KJB

 

Maybe he has and we just don't know it. Maybe he hasn't because in practice it would be a bad idea.

Some thought says that there are multiple universes, and we only know about this one. Other says that this is the only universe.

If this is the only universe and if we will not have another besides the final new heaven and new earth, then it makes sense that the universe's current design is the best possible. Why would God take one shot and deliver shoddy workmanship? Is saying that God would not create a second-rate universe saying that God is not omnipotent?

I've heard it said that our universe is better than an alternative where it is impossible to sin because God could not really have a relationship with creations that had no real choice in the matter. On the flip side, if God gave us the ability to sin but then gave everyone as long as they needed to repent, I can see how that would result in tremendous misery and suffering! What would result is the regenerate dying and being removed from the world, and the unregenerate living excessively long lives. One good thing about our life span is it limits the harm we can do to others. Remember the Fall? God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden lest they should eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and live forever. Obviously limiting the lifespan of fallen man is preferable to giving them unlimited time to repent.

On a side note, I was thinking about free will. Adam and Eve were created sinless, but then sinned, and all of us after them have sinned. Once we are in heaven it is said that we will sin no more. How can we be prevented? Will God take away our free will? Or will we be "reset" to Adam and Eve's initial state? If so, what prevents a second fall? It is also said that the angels had one chance to make the choice to either stand for God or rebel. Do they no longer have a choice about what they do?

 

prophecynut,

Good post. God's greatest deisre is to be glorified and He will do what ever it takes to reiceive the greatest glory.

 

No takers re my post on 12 August at 16:29? I think it speaks directly to the OP....

 

oops. I should have said that my post speaks directly to a point raised by Monergist. Perhaps, my question is not directly related to the OP....

 

"choosing individuals" is not showing partiality? Why not post the scriptures that show God wishes none perish? Why not post scripture showing Jesus lamenting over Israel how He wanted to gather them under His wing? This isn't a God who only wants some to worship Him, He commands ALL to worship Him, which means He has given ALL the ability to do so.

 

God can show partiality in choosing and does.
God also say when he Judges we will not show partiality.

1 sam

"8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this. 9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this. 10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these. 11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. 12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. 13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah."

 

Webdog

"none should perish" is taken from 2 Pet. 3:9:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is Lon-suffering to , us-ward not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

The "us-ward" is the antecedent of "beloved" in verse 8:

"But, beloved , be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

And 3:1:

"This second epistle, beloved , I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance."

These beloved are identified as "....them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (1:1)"

The "us-ward" are the "beloved" who are faithful to Jesus Christ. God is not willing that any of the believers should perish, but that they come to repentance. Non believers are not in the context of these verses.

 

This makes absolutely no sense if you substitute the word "elect" in this passage in place of the words "all" and "any". How can it be possible that ANY of the elect perish? This is an oxymoron. How can it be possible that all of the elect NOT come to repentance? The any and all being referred to in this passage are the wicked, sinful men, the same men found earlier in this chapter, of which the "believers" you mention were once part of. As God is not willing that any should perish, and as he is willing that all should come to repentance, consequently he has never devised nor decreed the damnation of any man, nor has he rendered it impossible for any soul to be saved, either by necessitating him to do evil, that he might die for it, or refusing him the means of recovery, without which he could not be saved.

 

Hello Webdog:

Very clearly stated. I will be transparent and admit that I come to the Scriptures with a pre-disposition to believe precisely what you have said in the above quote - I certainly want to believe this. I wonder, though, if the above view can be reconciled with the Scriptures. In my relatively unstudied opinion, the Biblical case for "original sin", and specifically that man simply cannot resist his inborn sinful nature, is quite strong.

I understand that you are claiming that God has not "necessitated man to do evil". To me if a person is born with a sinful nature that he simply cannot resist, we can say with confidence that someone has "necessitated" that man to do evil - how could this not be so, by proper understanding of what it means to "necessitate"?

I further assume that you will claim that your position is consistent with the scriptures. Consider, please, the following from Romans (chapter 7?):

"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me."

To me, this text seems to clearly state that Paul has "no control" over his sin - no ability to act on his "will to do what is right". This sounds very much to me like an effective claim by Paul that he is "necessitated to do evil". Do you agree?

If you do agree, do you agree with the following statement: "Man is necessitated to sin, but God is not the agent responsible for such necessitation in the sense that He did not make man "programmed to sin" (since if He did, He presumably would indeed be the necessitating agent)?

 

I don't agree that man has no control over sin, at least one that is born again. I think what Paul was stressing was that even though he was a "new creation", he still has the sinful nature he inherited, and gives into the desires of the flesh. I think he is stressing the power of the sin nature, and his shame in succumbing to it.

I will go as far as to say I don't think someone who is not saved does nothing BUT sin. How many people volunteer and give money to worthy causes who are lost? Help the homeless? Take care of their parents? Even minister to believers? Just because someone is not a believer and is born into sin, does not mean they can do nothing but sin. I think this was the main thing God was saying to Eve in Genesis 3. This doesn't mean they can or will do anything on their own merit to earn salvation, but I think you get my point of what I am trying to say.

 

webdog,

"choosing individuals" is not showing partiality? Why not post the scriptures that show God wishes none perish? Why not post scripture showing Jesus lamenting over Israel how He wanted to gather them under His wing? This isn't a God who only wants some to worship Him, He commands ALL to worship Him, which means He has given ALL the ability to do so.

Only lamenting over Israel seems to show partiality to Israel.

He commands all people not to lie also...but that does not mean people have the ability not to lie.

KJB,

 

Unfortunatly now scripture to back this up. You have to resort to secular, humanistic, moralism to think that man is good. But now lets be Biblical. Man does things that MAN sees and judges to be good. BUT that isn't what God judges, he judges the motives of the heart. Being enlightened to this proposition lets look at what God says about natural man's heart and His judements on thier WORKS, not some of their works but ALL of them, that is including volenteering, feeding the hungry etc....

. all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags

whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Romans 8:7-8 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God


In every action that natural man does, it is an ABOMINATION to God let alone good. Man does so without doing it for the glory of God. Natural man DOES NOT PLEASE GOD, ALL his works (this includes jumping on granades, serving the poor) are evil in his sight.

 

Unfortunatly now scripture to back this up. You have to resort to secular, humanistic, moralism to think that man is good. But now lets be Biblical. Man does things that MAN sees and judges to be good. BUT that isn't what God judges, he judges the motives of the heart. Being enlightened to this proposition lets look at what God says about natural man's heart and His judements on thier WORKS, not some of their works but ALL of them, that is including volenteering, feeding the hungry etc....

. all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags

whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Romans 8:7-8 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God


In every action that natural man does, it is an ABOMINATION to God let alone good. Man does so without doing it for the glory of God. Natural man DOES NOT PLEASE GOD, ALL his works (this includes jumping on granades, serving the poor) are evil in his sight. </font>[/QUOTE]And so you prove no different with the verse from Romans. Who's to say that a lost person doesn't think they are doing "good" deeds for the glory of God? I understand your point if they are trying to inherit the kindom of God by their actions, but their actions in themselves are not sin. Nowhere does it say that a lost person does nothing but sin 24/7. This would include listening to a pastor preach the gospel from which he is saved. There is not secular humanism involved, just plain 'ole common sense that the Lord has given us.

 

You obviously didn't read the other verses.
ALL our works is as FILTHY RAGS.
the natural man CAN NOT PLEASE GOD
ALL the thoughts of the natural man is at enmity with God.

A natural person CAN NOT do anything for the glory of God, that is the point of Romans 8

Is doing something "Good" for the "glory of God" pleasing to Him? ... I would say that it is ... BUT what does God say?

Romans 8:7-8 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God , for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot cannot please God . 8 Those who are in the flesh.

To say a natural person can please God is just flat out being irresponsible to the text and lying to himself.

 

Translated within total depravity, you are correct. I do not go with the total depravity doctrine. What are the works? Works to please God in order to earn salvation. This still does not win the argument that EVERYTHING a lost person does is classified as a "sin" but rather cannot earn righteousness. This would include sleeping, eating, sneezing, going to the bathroom, even BEING BORN. Every man has a purpose in life, and God has a reason for everyone being born.

My mother in law gives me $100 so I can buy medicine for my child who's dying...is she sinning by giving me the money? Only if she did it trying to earn salvation or for an evil purpose. Is loving someone sin also?

 

You are incorrect in your understanding of "works". The verse doesn't say anything about salvation at all. It is talking about the "mind" and the actions that flow from the will of the mind.

Pauls command to do EVERYTHING for the Glory of God. Even as Christians we do not with are whole heart do ANY action fully for God's glory.

If your mother did this in faith and did it for God's glory it is a righteous act.

BUT... if she is not a Christian and she "flesh minded" her act is an abomination to God. He uses acts from unrighteous people to accomplish His will but they are judged as unrighteous and ALL their acts for they do not glorify God in them, they do not please Him as the verse implies.

You underestimate greatly the weight of the law. If you are in the very most slightest not fulfilling ALL of the commands given in scripture in EVERYTHING you do, you are guilty of ALL the law as scripture says. If you think that ANY person (even Christians) do anything PURELY 100% in mind and spirit ANY act for the GLORY OF GOD you don't understand scripture well.
This shows how utterly incapable we are to submit wholly to God let alone someone who is at ENMITY with Him!