God wants to save everyone without exception?

Wrong again. Unless you totally wrench the individual verses containing "many" and "all" in this Romans 5 passage out of context, you should clearly see the logical flow of Paul's thought throughout in which he uses "many" and "all" interchangeably to describe the same group of people, especially in contrast with the acts of one (alternatively the first and second Adam). But I'm not surprised you're not going to concede that point.

Pot...Kettle....

You did show me several verses in which Jesus is said to be a ransom for "many". I showed you in response a passage where Paul uses "many" and "all" interchageably in the universal sense. You refuse to acknowledge it as such because you are assuming Calvinism in interpreting the "many" in those other passages. Your ideology demands that you disregard Paul's clear passage and restrict the "many" in those passages to the elect only. [And I disagree that you have in fact "shown" from the "context" of the (alleged) "ONE" case that "all" is restricted to "all without distinction" as opposed to "all without exception". Nice try, though ]

I don't think that's my job at all. As I pointed out, you're assuming the many (which is an indefinite number) is restricted to the elect only. No where is that indicated in the context of those verses.

many: adj consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number (Webster)

That's the plain meaning of "many". Now the burden is on you to demonstrate that "many" really means only "some"...

some:adj one indeterminate quantity quantity, portion, or number as distinguished from the rest

...or only a "few"....

few: adj 1: consisting of or amounting to only a small number 2: at least some but indeterminately small in number 3: a special limited number

Wow, if there was ever a definition to describe the elect it would be the 3rd listed for "few"

In fact look at Matthew 22:14...
"For many are called, but few are chosen."

Now, tell me--if the "few" here are the elect, then who are the "many"?

Indeed.

 

It does not say that God has willed that none should perish. That would mean everyone would be saved. It says that God is not wanting that any should perish -- his desire is that none should perish.

Just as Jesus in Matt 23:37 expresses that he would have gathered the "children" of Jerusalem in his arms, but they were not willing, so God would gather all of us to Him but all are not willing to believe. If Jesus can express a desire that is not satisfied, so can God.

 

So what you're saying is that God does not have the ability to bring about that which He desires? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if free will is true, then the argument is actually quite logical. God could hold two semi-opposite desires: He could desire to have all men come to him, and He could desire to have all who do come come out of free will. Then the question is, "which desire is stronger?"

The Arminian theologian would say that the desire for free will is greater.

The universalist might say that the desire to save all is greater, so God saves people regardless.

Another universalist might say that both are equal, so God allows an infinite number of chances, even after death to come to Him.

Of course, the Calvinist would say there is no free will, rendering the discussion irrelevant.

 

So what you're saying is that God does not have the ability to bring about that which He desires? </font>[/QUOTE]I am saying exactly what I said: It is clear from Jesus' statement that he did not force Jerusalem to embrace him as savior though he wept over the fact they rejected him and he desired them to accept him. I do not think God forces us to believe him, either.

If God wills something to happen, it will happen. But the passage is not saying that God wills that all men will be saved, but that He desires it.

 

"And Can not accomplish His WILL??"

"God is not WILLING that any should perish" 2Peter 3:9.

Question: "Can God accomplish His WILL"?

The Calvinist statement is often that IF He is not WILLING that any perish - but then some perish -- then He is not ABLE to accomplish His WILL and it is a problem of His not being powerful enough to force those He wills to be saved - to choose life.

But that is a Calvinist answer within a Calvinist model. IT "assumes" Calvinism rather than "testing Arminianism".

In Christ,

Bob

 

So then "ONE" would suffice to meet the claim.

How amazing. Although it appears to encompass ALL - it is restricted such that even saving ONE - (or in this case WANTING to save ONE) accomplishes ALL that the text claims as long as that ONE is selectable out of ALL the world without distinction.

Indeed. That is the one that fits the wording that is actually in the text. It is the most apparent and most consistent meaning - given the text and its context.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You changed my words around. I did not say that in Matt 23.37 Jesus said he wanted all men to be saved. I said that he expressed a desire for something that was not fulfilled, so God could do the same, as he does in 2 Pet 3.9. Jesus said that he wanted to gather Jerusalem's children (the Jews) but they were not willing. I did not say this was Jesus saying he wanted all men to be saved.

These are the meanings of the word rendered "willing" in 2 Pet 3.9:

On my Gramcord program (a program giving the Hebrew and Greek, meanings of words, Strong's numbers, does parsing, etc.) it translates 2 Pet 3:9 as

The ESV also uses "wishing."

It is clear from the context that it is saying that God is desiring that not any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

If it is God willing, in the sense of God willing something to pass, that none should perish, then that would be universalism.

 

So if it means that God is intending it, then you are a Calvinist universalist.

 

Yes, sometimes it means what you have in #1 up there, but just as many times it means desire.

This same word is used as wishing, wanting or desiring in
Matt 15.15
Acts 5.33, 18.15, 18.27, 19.30, 22.30, 23.28, 25.20, 25.22, 27.43, 28.18
2 Cor 1.15, 1.17
Ph 1.12
1 Ti 2.8
Titus 3.8
Pm 1.13
He 6.17
James 4.4
3 Jn 1.10
Jude 1.5

The Word Study Greek-English NT has 2 Pet 3:9 as God "not wanting any to perish."

With so many scholars and translators using "wishing" and "wanting" here for this word, why should your insistence on it meaning otherwise be accepted? Are you right and all these scholars and translators wrong?

 

I am saying exactly what I said: It is clear from Jesus' statement that he did not force Jerusalem to embrace him as savior though he wept over the fact they rejected him and he desired them to accept him. I do not think God forces us to believe him, either.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Marcia -
Just a wee note on Matt.23:37. It helps greatly to realize that Jesus was addressing these words to the scribes & pharisees (8 times in this passage we find, "Woe unto you, Scribes & Pharisees, etc.) Did the general population of Jerusalem reject Christ? No, they followed Him around in droves so much so that it was difficult for Him to get some rest. But who was it that turned the crowds against Christ? It was those to whom He was speaking. "How often would I have gathered THY children . . . . . . , but YE would not." (see Jn.9:22).
Christ is not talking about the rejection of the Gospel by individuals, but about the fact that Jerusalem's religious leaders stoned the prophets, etc, and led the people into judgement rather than into safety.

- Paul

 

Ian, nice try but it doesn't explain away your problem. Who wants to gather the children? God does.
Who doesn't want them to be gathered? Men.

God wants something that men prevent by their desire. Regardless of whether you believe this verse is speaking about the gospel or not really is a secondary issue. Plus, look at what you stated:

"Christ is not talking about the rejection of the Gospel by individuals, but about the fact that Jerusalem's religious leaders stoned the prophets, etc, and led the people into judgement rather than into safety."

You don't think there is any connection with stoning prophets, killing apostles and crucifing the Christ to rejecting their message? Come on! You are desperate to avoid the clear meaning of this passage.

 

Skandelon,

You are right. The Jews/Israelites were the ones who killed/destroyed the Lord's messengers to the people. Jesus was gathering His chicks to Himself but 'they would not submit.' Thus the freedom of the will to reject Christ and His plan of salvation. [Matthew 23:37; John 5:40; Acts 7:51] This blows a hole bigger than the one made on our ship, the Cole, compliments of the Iraqi look alikes. This also destroys the erring view of Irressistible Grace. Many millions of people have resisted His grace and hope of Heaven, to their own eternal demise.

Our friends should study the word, 'house;' it does not mean a framed building. Because of the rejection of Christ by His people, He dispersed the Israelites and destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. The 'house' refers to the whole Israelite people of His land, [Ezekiel 36:20f] the seed of Abraham.

Another refer for study about the 'house' is found in Ezekiel 43:10 & Hebrews 3:2,3,4,5,6.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

It is Calvinism that says that "IF God is NOT WILLING that any should perish but some do - then God is not ABLE to accomplish His WILL".

Or were you suggesting that the Calvinists were speaking Greek at the time and using two different Greek words?

Or is this a NKJV is in error using "my" translation instead argument? I am thinking that even NASB's more superstitious "Wishing" does not help your case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is correct. I happen to believe that the word should be translated "willing" not "wishing", but both support the Calvinist position -- one simply supports it more strongly (willing).

As I pointed out above, the context tells you to whom the ANY and ALL refer.

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.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of us, the beloved] should perish, but that all [of us, the beloved] should come to repentance.

In other words, God will take as long as it takes to bring in ALL of the elect. He will not bring things to a close until His entire will in this regard is accomplished. One can still translate the word "wishing" and it works perfectly for Calvinism - it's simply not as strong a statement.

This only becomes a problem for Arminianism if the word is properly translated "willing", because Arminians want the "any" and "all" to refer to "any person without exception" and "all people without exception". In that case, if God is not willing that any without exception perish, and someone DOES perish, then God is not powerful enough to accomplish His own will. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree; the context does not make it clear or even indicate that God is talking about the elect with "any."

Just because God is addressing believers does not mean he is referring to believers or the elect in v. 9 with the word "any." If God had meant the elect, he could have said, "not wanting any of you to perish," or "not wanting the elect to perish," but he didn't. He said "any."

2 Pet 3.9 as meaning "any" is supported by 1 Tim 2.3-4: