Could God have saved everyone?

Greetings

The original question.

YES!

Even in this world, God has done something very similar. He has already decisively moved to eliminate the sins of the whole world.

Rom 3:20-30 shows that He put OT sins on a "charge card" until Christ's First Advent where He paid for everything (past/present/future). Col 2:13 says that He has forgiven all our sins. I John 2:2 shows that He forgave the sins of the whole world. Hence, God has extended a universal pardon to all peoples.

That hard hearted self-centered pious types don’t accept the freely offered pardon is not God’s fault. Neither is it God’s fault that one’s ancestors failed to pass on the gospel message of salvation through the Promised Seed and one doesn’t find out about the Promised Seed. One doesn’t need to know Jesus’ name in order to be saved. All OT saints verify this!

This has nothing to do with the fact that this is an easy refutation of Calvinism. The Reformation motto is still valid even if well-intentioned theologians have denigrated God’s Holy and righteous character through the diabolical error of election. Justification is nevertheless and always by grace – alone; in Christ – alone; by faith alone! Any other way is heresy.

YES! Salvation is universal.
NO! Not everyone is automatically saved.

Lloyd

 

Hi Lloyd,

You said:

But God says:

And Christ himself said:

So one needs to know more than just Jesus' name, they need to know Him- or they will not be saved.

Yet you also say:

To which I agree and say amen, but this is a direct contradiction to what you said before.

Either everyone is universally saved, or not everyone will be saved- which is it? You can't have it both ways.

You also said:

How do then explain the doctrine of election in Scripture? Its there- you must have some interpretation of it.

Also I would disagree- it is those that claim that man has some good abilitly in himself to choose his own salvation whether God likes it or not that degrades God's holy and righteous and sovereign character.

 

Greetings

Let's keep this simple. Did Abraham know Jesus' name? Don't be a modern day Pharisee. Your urge for controversy totally ignored the context of the OT.

Not at all. You ignored context. If you open your theology to embrace the OT truths, then you won't make such a hasty denial of God's Word in context.

Yep, this is a mistake on my part. Salvation is universally offered freely to all. Salvation is not automatic just because all sin has been paid in full. Terminology is so important. I botched this one.

You also said:

How do then explain the doctrine of election in Scripture? Its there- you must have some interpretation of it.

Yes! Election depends on God's foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2). God elected Jesus Christ to be the centerpiece of human redemption (Eph 1:1-12). All who believe are immersed into Jesus Christ and are "ELECTED."

Election is particular: Jesus alone.
Election is universal: offered to all; given to all who believe.

Of course. Whenever you emphasize one aspect of God's character (sovereignty) above other aspects, then secondary ramifications like a twisted view of human abilities results.

Humans are able to respond PASSIVELY to God's wooing. Humans are not able to ACTIVELY save themselves. Your view of human ability is as lopsided as your view of God. Things like this tend to correlate rather well.

Yet, in spite of these twisted theological views, faith in Christ is unjeopardized and hence even wild frothing Calvinists faithfully preach the simple gospel message of justification through Jesus Christ.

It is a good thing that salvation does not depend on passing a theology test.
Lloyd

 

Election depends on God's foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2). God elected Jesus Christ to be the centerpiece of human redemption (Eph 1:1-12). All who believe are immersed into Jesus Christ and are "ELECTED."

I get a kick out of Arminians that try to run around foreknowledge and election verses...

The election was ACCORDING to foreknowledge NOT on the basis of our "choosing him" ... no, it was FOR our sanctification and obedience to Christ. We would not be able to do anything except His election first.

Ephesians shows God "electing" Christ? Wow, I heard it all now.... everything from "The elect is just the apostles" to "God elected Christ".... The letter was TO the Ephesians...
CHOSEN Christ? .... No... Chosen US before the foundation of the world....
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated US unto the adoption of children

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also WE have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

NOTHING about God electing Christ.... silly.

 

Greetings

Oh foolish one, simply turn to the verses you think you understand.
Eph 1:1 to the faithful in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:3 spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:4 He hath chosen us in Him (Christ Jesus).
Eph 1:5 predestinated by Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:6 accepted us in the One he loved (Jesus).
Eph 1:7 we have redemption in His (Jesus).
Eph 1:10 that he might gather together all things in Christ.
Eph 1:11 our inheritance is in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:13 sealed in Christ Jesus.

Calvinists are so intent on proving personal election that they are blind to God's repetitive teaching about the centrality of Jesus Christ throughout Scripture.

Here in one of your favorite passages you were "spanked" at least nine times. I left out of few pronouns so as not to confuse you. Twelve times if we count 'em all.

Delusion is strong - even among the saved.
Lloyd

 

[/QUOTE]Oh foolish one, simply turn to the verses you think you understand.
Eph 1:1 to the faithful in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:3 spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:4 He hath chosen us in Him (Christ Jesus).
Eph 1:5 predestinated by Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:6 accepted us in the One he loved (Jesus).
Eph 1:7 we have redemption in His (Jesus).
Eph 1:10 that he might gather together all things in Christ.
Eph 1:11 our inheritance is in Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:13 sealed in Christ Jesus.

Calvinists are so intent on proving personal election that they are blind to God's repetitive teaching about the centrality of Jesus Christ throughout Scripture.

Here in one of your favorite passages you were "spanked" at least nine times. I left out of few pronouns so as not to confuse you. Twelve times if we count 'em all.

Delusion is strong - even among the saved.
Lloyd [/QB][/QUOTE]


Lloyd,

You left out many things not just pronouns. You "spanked"? It seems like you come to the table with set views. You post words that help your doctrine in order to "spank" the other doctrine. This is in no way looking for the truth, but trying to prove you are right.

If you look at the text..the whole text you will find much more then your post. Why over look these? Is you real intent to "spank"? or to find the truth?

Lets try some context and full text as you read it again.


In Christ...James

 

These appear to be words from the wellspring of presuppositional pride. Where is the biblical support for these statements? It is one thing to correct an error with biblical support, it is quite post empty words of correction just to read your own writing.

Show what was overlooked - if you can.
Explain why my nine "IN CHRIST" contextual references are wrong - if you can.

Don't simply pour out empty vanity.
Lloyd

 

These appear to be words from the wellspring of presuppositional pride. Where is the biblical support for these statements? It is one thing to correct an error with biblical support, it is quite post empty words of correction just to read your own writing.

Show what was overlooked - if you can.
Explain why my nine "IN CHRIST" contextual references are wrong - if you can.

Don't simply pour out empty vanity.
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]James is right Lloyd, you seem to be very antagonistic. Please refrain from personal attacks as this one an contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Why don't you look at the context of one of the "in Christ" passages you gave.

As noted before notice that Paul does use the pronoun "us", he is speaking to believers in Ephesus and including himself with them showing that God choose us before the foundation of the world in Christ. Paul was not saying that Christ was the one elected here, but that believers and the phrase "in Christ" demonstrates the freeness of His grace.

I will quote Calvin here

Also keep verse 3 in context with the next verse. Notice Paul says that God predestined "us" (theres that word again) to the adoption of sons by Jesus. If you want to claim that Christ is the one that is elected here you also must be consistent and say that Jesus is the one predestined here as well, and why would Christ be predestined to the adoption of sons? He is the eternal Son of God.

In short the phrase "in Christ" simply is showing that election is nothing of our merit simply the grace of God, in redeeming us through His Son.

 

Greetings

I see your point. However, since each Member of the Trinity is equally God, the planning involved an all three agreement. God the FAther must be not be seen as the arbitrary decision maker in this process. The Trinity decided that Jesus would be the focal point in the gathering process of believers for future covenantal relationships. Jesus is the firstborn (first in kind) among many brethren (Rom 8:29). This refers to Jesus as the federal head of the human race.

That use of "in Christ" does not mean that God predestined Jesus to be adopted in the sense that you used it. The use of "in Christ" must be understood along the lines as "the only begotten Son." While Jesus is the "firstborn" among humans, it doesnt mean that Jesus wasn't created through a birthing process any more than He was predestinated to adoption.

One must avoid such fanciful leaps of theology - even in the refutations of those who oppose your theology. The correct of Eph 1:1-13 still stands as your proposed refutation is based on a faulty use of adoption and predestination.

Jesus was elected to be the federal head of the race. All who freely wish, may enter in. Adoption is "in Christ" our federal head.

Lloyd

 

Jesus is not the federal head of the human race, and thats not what Rm 8:29 is speaking of. Firstborn is a refeernce to His pre-eminance, that is to say He is the one and only rightful heir.

I am having a hard time following you since you seem to jump all over the place.

Are you saying then that you believe that all humanity is adopted?

 

Jesus was elected to be the federal head of the race

Why didn't Paul say this?
The election is always in reference to the church. To the "elect". Was Paul writing to Jesus? Was Peter writing to Christ?

You are not exegeting by authors intent but by readers response, this is faulty. Nowhere is there an application that Paul's intention was to enlighten the Ephesians that they were predestined by the "election" of Christ.

The adoption which you missed is in verse 5 is the adoption of men unto Christ.

All you did is beg the question, you didn't answer anything. All those things where done IN Christ and not any other (which is the POINT). Not Buddha, the LAW, not Molech... but in Christ.

But the question is still begging.

We where elected, predestined, chosen, adopted.
Your statements didn't clarify ANYTHING as far as NOT being elected, predestined, chosen, adopted.

By the way adoption back then was not the way it is now either. A natural born son is not a "son" until the father adopts Him, until then the son (s) are considered servants. It is completely up to the will of the father. He has the right to adopt 1 son of many or adopt all. This was understood by the readers.

 

Greetings

Jesus was elected to be the federal head of the race. Even noted Calvinist Berkhof says the following: "a covenant established with Christ as the representive Head of all those whom the Father had given Him. ... a covenant established with those who are in Christ." (Systematic Theology, 274)

Next, 1 Cor 12:13 shows that believers are immersed into Christ.

Third, 1 Cor 15:22 puts Christ in parallel relationship with Adam.

Paul did say this!!

Author's intent can only be discerned through the common-sense reading. This is one of the basic rules of linguistics. It doesn't take a mystic to figure out the author's intent. Just read what he wrote. Common sense interpretation is the only avenue of discerning the author's intent.


Lloyd

 

Greetings

Yes - I heard. RC thinks that since Paul was writing to the elect at where ever, that proves his point. Big wrong.

Believers are elect in Christ because Christ is the federal head of the race. As sin was passed to the entire race via Adam, so is righteousness spread to all who believe via Christ.

Since Christ's atonement was universal in that all sins of all peoples of all time were paid in full at the Cross, there only remains a willful decision for Christ to take advantage of the universal offer of pardon.

When the pardon is PASSIVELY accepted, the believer is immersed into Christ our Federal Head. There is only one WAY - Christ. Calvinism makes a bunch of individual federal heads (a contradiction of terms) that only anecdotally refers to Christ. Again, there is only one WAY - Christ; not a bunch of particular little ways that use Christ.

Berkhof himself says that Christ is the federal head of the race with respect to the law (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 361, 380-81).

I pose that you guys are so enamored with your presupposition of particular election that you can't see Christ. He is the Surety, Mediator, and Priest of the Covenant. In Him all things are "YES." God is not pleased with sinful humans per se. God is only pleased with sinful humans as they take on Christ's righteousness. God didn't elect sinful humans. He elected Christ - the only sweet savor pleasing to God. How could God possibly elect trash? Silly Calvinists are so self-centered that they cannot see Christ.

The sideshow question of who Paul was writing to is a laugher. It is absolutely nugatory.

After showing RC nine easy English examples from Eph 1 showing that all things are "in Christ," he yet has the foolish right to reject Bible and cling to Calvin. I can only show you Bible, I can't make you drink the water.

In fact, his response, "The adoption which you missed is in verse 5 is the adoption of men unto Christ" only proves my point. We aren't adopted unto God by ourselves via election. Everything goes through Christ.

It is amazing how you say "YES" and "NO" in the same sentence, paragraph, and post. Condeming the self-righteousness of Arminians, Calvinist's lift up their own version of self-centeredness. Theology is Christ - centered or it is human foolishness.

Lloyd

 

All of Calvnism’s favorite words to redefine – are here. WORLD, ALL MEN etc. And who can argue that ALL have sinned (not just the “elect”)?? Who can argue that the WORLD really does Not mean the Whole World has fallen under the domain of sin – for All have sinned. God appears to be using very “Arminian” terms here – once again.

Though it is granted that it can be shown “in some contexts” that “World” is specifically speaking of the “World of unsaved people”. (yet “never” can it be shown that the “world” means “all the saved people” for never does the Bible say “The World is saved” or “The Whole World will one day be saved”.)

The Same all-encompassing Many that were lost because of the one fall of the one man Adam are benefited by the One man Christ!!!

Will not be quoting this text to Arminians any time soon.

Now we see again that the same ALL that were condemned by Adam’s fall – are in the scope of the benefit of Christ’s gift.

Again - all men - same author, same subject, same reference as we see in vs 12 nailed down here again. All men condemned by Adam - and all men benefitted by the one act of Christ.

 

Who "In Christ" did God chose?

 

Those who put their faith in Him.

 

"Those" implies a group of people doesn't it?
What is that group? THat put faith in Him.
That also implies that THOSE that do not put faith in Him are not chosen.

 

No, "those" are the "elect" as the proper definition of elect implies. Those who do not put their faith (born with, not given) in Christ are not "elect". Those who reject Christ on their own are not chosen by their own choice to refuse Christ, but this has nothing to do with God choosing before time who these people are and not allowing them to come to Him. The call to them is to come, but they freely reject, they are not being disabled to reject.

 

Of course God could save everyone but chose to save only those who believe in Him.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike