Does God want everyone to be saved?

redleghunter said:

Or the belief was the sealing of the elect. Why so important to start with verse 1.

Click to expand...

I did. In him we are chosen, as it says again and again. And then, how do we become one of the " in him"? When we believe.

ecletcchristian said:

In my case, I really don't think God didn't give the chance of salvation to some people because of what 1 Timothy 2:4-6 says. But what do you believe? Do you believe God has always given the chance of salvation to everyone with no exception?

Click to expand...

We require more depth and historical study to answer these questions.
God wants humanity to be saved, but how he did it in the Old Testament was in complete contrast to how he does it in the New Testament.
The method by which God uses to heal the peoples of all nations is to first strike them, then to heal them, take for example the Men of Nineveh.
In the New Testament according to Daniel 2:44 his everlasting Kingdom is made up of a Royal Priesthood, that evangelises the world through the Living Word.
In the Old Testament it was at times done through a prophet like Jonah, but mainly militarily.

It’s interesting that none of Israel’s ancient enemies had survived as a people group. Despite Israel’s failure to obey (“strives with God”), God’s promise in Genesis 12:3, “to bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you,” has proven true. Today the Church who is Israel today has been carrying on that mission as a Royal Priesthood commissioned as a spiritual army of the Cross. Joel 2 conveys poetically the priesthood army that evangelises the peoples of all nations and history has shown just that.

All of Ancient Israel’s enemies have vanished from history, either they have been assimilated or had lost their power as a nation, but Israel the Church with its Spiritual Temple continued even after the Old Covenant Physical Temple was torn down, as does God’s Messianic promise to the SEED of Promise Jesus Christ who would be clothed with Kingly Royal Priestly garments of Honour, “and in you (Jesus) all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

So in a historical theological comparative study, we see the might of Ancient Israel's military army as being the evangelising agent and in the New Testament, this Israeli army became a Kingdom of Royal Priests, who are commissioned with what Joel terms.....

Beat your ploughshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong!" (Joel 3:10)

The poetic verse actually implies the opposite, that the army is not a military force, but actually are a gathering agent of farmers who gather the crop of the harvest, to which Jesus alluded to in his parable of the vineyard workmen.

Percivale said:

It doesn't make sense to believe that one's deathbed is one's last chance to be saved. If God wants everyone to be saved, as the Bible says both in I Timothy and 2 Peter, it wouldn't make sense for Him to put such a short time limit on it as a human lifetime. Recognizing that salvation is possible after death, and that Christ preached to the dead for that purpose (I Peter:4:6), clears up a lot of confusion.

Click to expand...

Jesus preached to Job, I'm sure, and to Abraham and to Rahab and to Ruth. As explained in Hebrews, they were all looking ahead for Him. Job cried out for Him.

There are others I'm not so sure about. The pharaoh that contended against Moses, for instance. The people of Jericho save Rahab.

Loren T. said:

I did. In him we are chosen, as it says again and again. And then, how do we become one of the " in him"? When we believe.

Click to expand...

Yes God's election (choosing us) requires a response. Meaning our conversion is a faith of action and not 'comatose.'

If we say God elects us based on us choosing Him first, then that really is not Him electing or choosing. It is God capitulating to our human efforts. Where the paradox becomes more clear is that even 'us' coming to the Lord as convicted damned and destitute sinners in need of the shed blood of His Son, is in itself a miracle wrought by God. Meaning, we cannot come to Him unless He first calls us. Reformed theology looks to the parable of the soils (sower) and the "many are called but few are chosen" and term this effectual call.

Loren T. said:

So? JWs are taught. They didn't get there from just reading scripture. Yeah it's sad.

Click to expand...

Taught or untaught, everyone that reads Scripture brings assumptions to Scripture. It's more about recognizing them and being open to the correction and instruction from the Spirit of God. One problem people have, even the un-churched folks reading Scripture, can and are subject to imposing assumptions from a non-Christian worldview into their reading of Scripture. Then there are other issues, such as understanding culture in Biblical times because we're so far removed from those cultural understandings. Now what kind of tickles me is, like you I wasn't taught Calvinism growing up, for the longest time as a born again Christian, I was completely oblivious to the whole Calvinism/Arminianism/Weslyian debate. Initially, when I learned about Calvinism, I rejected every doctrine of TULIP, because I learned that the theology I held to was closest to Wesleyan. I started out against Calvinism, it repulsed me, but God changed all that through much struggle.

Not what some man or group thinks or agrees on its whats the Father said. For God so loved the world..gave His only son..that NONE should perish. Yet this choice is up to you. There is ALL or SOME or whatever. Its Christ... do you believe? Do you take this free gift or not.

The GOOD NEWS! Thats what we focus on.. share with the WORLD! As you might have heard.. you might be the ONLY Light someone sees..so SHINE!

bling said:

Then why is there a problem with God saving everyone who never heard about Christ including children and mentally handicapped?
Do you rejoice than with the death of a new born, since they are thus saved?

Click to expand...

God can save as many or few as He wants to. Quite honestly the questions you are asking are far more of a problem for the synergistic believer. Mental handicaps are no obstacle for monergism, neither is perseverance an obstacle for people who develop mental diseases with old age. These are far more troubling questions for a semi-palagian believer. He's got the whole world in His hands, I trust Him.

ecletcchristian said:

According to the calvinist theology, God has never given the opportunity of being saved to everyone because He has his elect ( decided before the very foundation of the world based only on his sovereing decision. Not based on anything outside His Counsel ). And sometimes, some calvinists rely on examples of people that were never given the chance of being saved ( just to try to "confirm" their thesis ):

- Almost all of the gentiles who lived in the Old Testament times died without ever being exposed to God's Word and the Gospel message.

- The same thing about the natives in the Americas who lived in the Pre-Columbian era. Because there is no record in history that any christian went to some part of the Americas ( in the times prior to Columbu's arrival ) to spread the Good News.

Basically, calvinists would say that all those people died without ever hearing the Gospel message because God has never wanted them to be saved ( Otherwise, He would have sent messengers to preach them ). They argue no person can be saved without first hearing the Gospel and then believing. And that the light of Creation and conciousness is intended only for showing a person's fault for his sins but not enough to save.

In my case, I really don't think God didn't give the chance of salvation to some people because of what 1 Timothy 2:4-6 says. But what do you believe? Do you believe God has always given the chance of salvation to everyone with no exception?

Click to expand...

God wants everyone who repents to be saved, and they will be saved indeed.

Hank77 said:

Your first answer, of coarse not, seems to be the correct answer according to God.

Jer 19:4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Click to expand...

In other words, neither did it originate in the mind of God, not that He does not know the thoughts beforehand, but He does not will evil in a created being. To put it in a different application, God does not cause my evil thoughts, but He knew I would think them beforehand, and He allowed for them. The value of systematic theology pertaining to the will of God shines when considering the will of God. Even so, we can only perceive to a point as finite creatures, the Word of Scripture communicate much about God, and in language we can understand and especially in the Old Testament the use of anthropomorphism.

For example: Psalm 91:4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

The intention of the verse above is not to teach us that God is a bird, rather it is an analogy of how a bird cares for it's own, an analogy of care and protection.

The Times said:

We require more depth and historical study to answer these questions.
God wants humanity to be saved, but how he did it in the Old Testament was in complete contrast to how he does it in the New Testament.
The method by which God uses to heal the peoples of all nations is to first strike them, then to heal them, take for example the Men of Nineveh.
In the New Testament according to Daniel 2:44 his everlasting Kingdom is made up of a Royal Priesthood, that evangelises the world through the Living Word.
In the Old Testament it was at times done through a prophet like Jonah, but mainly militarily.

It’s interesting that none of Israel’s ancient enemies had survived as a people group. Despite Israel’s failure to obey (“strives with God”), God’s promise in Genesis 12:3, “to bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you,” has proven true. Today the Church who is Israel today has been carrying on that mission as a Royal Priesthood commissioned as a spiritual army of the Cross. Joel 2 conveys poetically the priesthood army that evangelises the peoples of all nations and history has shown just that.

All of Ancient Israel’s enemies have vanished from history, either they have been assimilated or had lost their power as a nation, but Israel the Church with its Spiritual Temple continued even after the Old Covenant Physical Temple was torn down, as does God’s Messianic promise to the SEED of Promise Jesus Christ who would be clothed with Kingly Royal Priestly garments of Honour, “and in you (Jesus) all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

So in a historical theological comparative study, we see the might of Ancient Israel's military army as being the evangelising agent and in the New Testament, this Israeli army became a Kingdom of Royal Priests, who are commissioned with what Joel terms.....

Beat your ploughshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, "I am strong!" (Joel 3:10)

The poetic verse actually implies the opposite, that the army is not a military force, but actually are a gathering agent of farmers who gather the crop of the harvest, to which Jesus alluded to in his parable of the vineyard workmen.

Click to expand...

In the Old Testament God evangelised the world through Ancient Israel's Military Army as the agent to conquer the false gods of the nations. At times Israel became also sucked into embracing some of their idols and as a result God used an enemy force to over throw them, with a prophet to point their errors and a solution to how to recitfy the problem. God would also raise up kings like Hezekiah to tear down the idols and prophets to send to the other nations, like the Men of Nineveh.

The main thrust of the method was to militarily conquer and to assimilate!

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Take a look around you and tell me it is the will of God that everyone be saved. How's that coming along?

Click to expand...

Not true, Jesus (Who is God) desired Jerusalem to be gathered to Him like a hen does her chicks, but they would not let Him.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me." (Matthew 23:37) (NLT).

You said:

Your view bans God from exercising His sovereign free will.

Click to expand...

Well, while there are different flavors of Calvinism, in general Calvinism appears to ban God from being loving and good in the name of false Sovereignty. At least, that is how I see it anyways (No offense). For in Calvinism: God saves some and He does not save others based on no condition within the individual whatsoever (Hence why it is called: "Unconditional Election"). Whatever God feels like doing that is what He is going to do (Whether it be good or bad for us). He really does not care about the whole of humanity but only a lucky chosen few who He picks for no real good reason. This to me is not the loving God I have come to walk with over the years and in studying the Holy Scriptures.

You said:

Is it really hope if Christ died for everyone and yet God knew before the creation of the world that they would never choose Christ? Is that a genuine hope? On preaching salvation to a crowd, I suppose that all depends on how one is preaching salvation, one can give a general invitation (salvation call) while still preserving the doctrine of particular redemption, ask a Calvinistic Baptist minister or elder. Or consider the difference between an omniscient mind and a finite mind.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a genuine hope (even if God knows they will not accept Him) because they could have accepted him and the offer to them was very real and possible for them to do so. They simply made their own free will choice not to be with God. But the hope is very real for them. The hope is not real for all of mankind in your view. For God so loved the world is an important part of what John 3:16 says. You just do not like that verse because it does not fit in with what your church or belief teaches, so you seek to change what it says. For me John 3:16 is one of the most beautiful verses out there. The hope of salvation is for all. For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that WHOSEVER believes in him shall have everlasting life. WHOSEVER. God so loved the world. You have to keep changing or twisting the meaning of words like these in your Bible in order to make Calvinism work.

ecletcchristian said:

According to the calvinist theology, God has never given the opportunity of being saved to everyone because He has his elect ( decided before the very foundation of the world based only on his sovereing decision. Not based on anything outside His Counsel ). And sometimes, some calvinists rely on examples of people that were never given the chance of being saved ( just to try to "confirm" their thesis ):

- Almost all of the gentiles who lived in the Old Testament times died without ever being exposed to God's Word and the Gospel message.

- The same thing about the natives in the Americas who lived in the Pre-Columbian era. Because there is no record in history that any christian went to some part of the Americas ( in the times prior to Columbu's arrival ) to spread the Good News.

Basically, calvinists would say that all those people died without ever hearing the Gospel message because God has never wanted them to be saved ( Otherwise, He would have sent messengers to preach them ). They argue no person can be saved without first hearing the Gospel and then believing. And that the light of Creation and conciousness is intended only for showing a person's fault for his sins but not enough to save.

In my case, I really don't think God didn't give the chance of salvation to some people because of what 1 Timothy 2:4-6 says. But what do you believe? Do you believe God has always given the chance of salvation to everyone with no exception?

Click to expand...

I believe that I Timothy 2:4-6 spells it out for us just as you cite. God is a righteous judge. We know that when Jesus lived among man on this sin-cursed earth that He said I have sheep from another pen they knew nothing about...John 10:16. If this was the case we can be assured that all men are given a chance with the Gospel in spite of us not knowing or becoming aware of. As for the American Native Indians you cite we must correct our doubts with Scripture. Paul pens in Colossians that the Gospel was proclaimed to every living creature...all this under inspiration of God...Colossians 1:23. All heads of families, all Pastors and teachers...yes, all creatures...bear the responsibility to pass the Gospel on to the following generation...which perhaps wasn't carried out in many cases.

ecletcchristian said:

According to the calvinist theology, God has never given the opportunity of being saved to everyone because He has his elect ( decided before the very foundation of the world based only on his sovereing decision. Not based on anything outside His Counsel ).

Click to expand...

.
Calvin was wrong with his Theology.

Not knowing who the Elect spoken of actually were.

Calvin didn't understand, God can and did have His Elect, but by having His Elect, this in itself did not exclude everyone else.

It's like saying I have five children, but I have a favorite.

Example:

The world was populated, but God chose the Jews above all the peoples of the earth for His own.

Percivale said:

No one has a perfect understanding of the truth and many have never heard the gospel clearly and accurately. They die without having the chance to make an informed decision.
You seem to be saying that for it to be a real choice people need to not be sure of the consequences of that choice. That seems rather odd to me.

Click to expand...

The “choice” is not “Love me or go to hell”, that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, which would not be “Loving” on God’s part and the “love” the person would have for God with that scenario would not be Godly type Love, so yes, the full “consequences” do not have to be realized.

The “choice” is between giving up, wimping out, and surrendering or being macho, hanging in there, accepting the punishment you fully deserve, paying the piper and not furthering your bothering of your Father (God) with your presence (who you really do not like anyway).

All mature adults are spirally down to the pigsty of life (we are like the prodigal son in this respect) and along the way we bring ourselves to our senses by our own poor choices. At these moments of being brought to our senses we make the choice as stated, but eventually God would realize we will never be willing to humble ourselves to the point of accepting His pure charity as charity, so our choice is to not go to heaven (this is like the prodigal son refusing to go home).

This is all tied into the earthly objective of man which can only be fulfilled while on earth and God knowing from mature adult free will choices who will and who will never enjoy heaven. Heaven is like one huge Love Feast but the only Love at the feast is Godly type Love (totally unselfish and unconditional type Love). Most people do not want to be Loved unconditionally or Love others unconditionally and prefer to be loved for how they want others to perceive them to be, which is not Godly type Love.

Really read and think about the prodigal son story (Luke 15), because most people are like the younger son at sometime in their life. If the prodigal son decided to just stay and starve to death in the pigsty (the worst situation he could be in) he could certainly rationalize that decision. He would have protected his pride (a false pride), taken the punishment he fully deserved, not bothered his father further and avoided is older brother’s chastisement. The Father (like God) set the son up: first with showing and teaching the son what Love truly is, allowing the son to get himself into real trouble needing to accept the father’s Love as charity (Love) and being there ready to react when and if the son repented (changed). What this father did was done perfectly for the son and he could do no more to help the son become like he is, but it was left to the son to return.

Realize this the only way to initially obtain Godly type Love (which cannot be learned, developed, or paid back) is though what Jesus taught us “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” It is automatic, but the person has to humbly accept the forgiveness (which is always there) as pure charity. This Godly type Love enables us to fulfill the mission statement of Loving God (and secondly others) with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy. BUT like the prodigal son, we have got to humbly accept God’s forgiveness as pure charity. Being forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt means we will automatically be given an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). Accepting that forgiveness cannot be forced on you, so it has to be your choice.

The prodigal son would have had a huge Love for his father after accept his father’s forgiven as charity.

God need us to have that Love to be happy in heaven and be around Him who is Love.

God is setting up each mature adult individual to make that one choice while on earth, so once they had the very best opportunity to make that choice and chose not to accept, what more can be done and how could it be done any where else, like in heaven or hell?

A lot more can be said.

Jason0047 said:

Not true, Jesus (Who is God) desired Jerusalem to be gathered to Him like a hen does her chicks, but they would not let Him.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me." (Matthew 23:37) (NLT).

Click to expand...

Just curious, is the New Living Translation, which is a reworked paraphrase (Living Bible) published by Tyndale your go to translation or is there another reason you preferred it?

Pastor John Piper addresses this: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/those-whom-he-predestined-he-also-called-part-2


Continued in this article: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/those-whom-he-predestined-he-also-called-part-2

Honestly there are so many Scriptures (not even included in the quote above) supporting the sovereign free will of God it’s difficult to know where to begin. Here are a few from the Gospel of John:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: (13) who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 12:39-40. “Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and understand with their heart, lest they should turn, so that I should heal them” (cf. Mk. 4:11-12).

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

John 17:1-2 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, (2) "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.

So my recommendation to readers is, go with the greater context of Scripture, rather than construct a theology around a verse or two.

redleghunter said:

Paul explains this a bit in Romans 9.

Click to expand...

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

God can save as many or few as He wants to. Quite honestly the questions you are asking are far more of a problem for the synergistic believer. Mental handicaps are no obstacle for monergism, neither is perseverance an obstacle for people who develop mental diseases with old age. These are far more troubling questions for a semi-palagian believer. He's got the whole world in His hands, I trust Him.

Click to expand...

God cannot lie, so who He said he would save will be saved and who He said are lost will not be saved. God has limited Himself to who and who will not be saved.
There is no problem for those who understand "sin" was not past down to all people from Adam and Eve. Those who have not sinned are in a "safe" condition not needing to be "saved", they just have not fulfill the earthly objective of a mature adult. It is sad when people die without having the opportunity to fulfill their earthly objective, but that does not mean they are hell bound. The Bible does not need to address this since information will not change the outcome and we should know from knowing God's Love and man's objective what would happen.

bling said:

There is no problem for those who understand "sin" was not past down to all people from Adam and Eve. Those who have not sinned are in a "safe" condition not needing to be "saved", they just have not fulfill the earthly objective of a mature adult.

Click to expand...

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Genesis 6:5-8,11-13 - Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually..... The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Genesis 8:19 - Then the Lord said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

Job 15:14-16 - What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous? If God puts not trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, how much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water!

Psalm 14:1-3 - The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:1-5 - Do you indeed speak righteousness, you silent ones? Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men? No, in heart you work wickedness; you weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Psalm 143:2 - Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous.

Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned– 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

The Doctrine of Original Sin in the Early Church "Fathers"

“Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; that ‘we are born sinners;’ and that we are entirely flesh, and no good thing dwells in us; he asserts the weakness and disability of men either to understand or perform spiritual things, and denies that man, by the natural sharpness of his wit, can attain to the knowledge of divine things, or by any innate power in him save himself, and procure eternal life,” (Epist. ad Zenam, p. 506.). Justin Martyr A.D. 150

“Having sometime before convinced us to of the impossibilityof our nature to obtain life, hath now shown us the Savior, who is able to save that which otherwise were impossible to be saved,” (Epist. ad Diognet. p. 500.). Justin Martyr A.D. 150

“Satan is “the angel of wickedness, the artificer of every error, the interpolator of every age; by whom man from the beginning being circumvented, so as to transgress the commands of God, was therefore delivered unto death, hence he has also made the whole kind, or all mankind, which springs from his seed, infected, partaker of his damnation,” (Tertullian. de Testimon. Animae, c. 3, p. 82.).Tertullian A.D. 200

“In Adam,56 as saith the word, all die, and are condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, which the divine word says not so much of some one, as of all mankind—for the curse of Adam is common to all,” (Contr. Cels. 1. 4, p. 191.). Origenus A.D. 230

“Who will boast that he has a pure heart before God? No, not an infant, though but of one day, the original and law of sin remaining in us,” (Euarr. in Psal. 58 p. 392.). Hilarius A.D. 363

A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and On Original Sin by Aurelius Augustin, Bishop of Hippo Book II Chapter 50

“It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul.” NEW ADVENT CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

The Augsburg Confession (1530)

Article II: Of Original Sin.

“Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

They Condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.”

Etc. etc. so on and so forth in countless other confessions...

ecletcchristian said:

Some would counter by saying that the light of Creation and conciousness are not intended for salvation but only to show people's responsibility for their damnation. Actually some calvinists told me that.

Click to expand...

Well, Romans 1 is not talking about salvation there in those verses is it.
Israel experienced supernatural revelation of God's power and they also did not believe.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

The Doctrine of Original Sin

]

Click to expand...

This has been discussed many times and is way off topic. but you can read this:
Original sin refuted

This is no small subject and there appear to be verses on both sides of the issue.

The Bible does not say after Adam and Eve sinned: “Man’s nature changed”, or “The sin of Adam and Eve was pasted on”. It does say the knowledge of good and evil came into the world and does not use the word “fall” to describe this.

Is knowledge bad in and of itself?

To refute the idea: “Children and anyone else that has not reached mature adulthood have not sinned yet and do not need saving, since they have done nothing wrong. They are in a safe condition.” Using:

Rom 3:23 says "for ALL have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". We are born sinners, thanks to Adam.

Yet: The key to this verse is accountability.

“All have sinned”, so is Paul addressing an unborn child with that statement? Paul did not say we “all” inherited Adam and Eve’s sin, but all have (actually) sinned. It also does not say we inherited even a “sinful nature”, but talks about knowledge, so does knowledge=nature? “All” does not have to include everyone including unborn children, but could be referring to all of us (whom Paul is addressing at that time those that can understand his letter).

A. The mechanism for the transmission of inherited sin is false:

Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30

1. Exodus 32:3133 In this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else's sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned.

We will be judged only by our own actions: Mt 12:36-37; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17

Isa 59:1-2, "Your sins have separated you from your God" not Adams

Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4 (Infants have done nothing)

Where is one Bible verse that says we will be condemned for sin other than our own?

B. Unsaved and unregenerate men are capable of doing good and have freewill:

Calvinists teach that if a sinner helps an accident victim, he still sins because he does it for the wrong motive.

Gentiles do by nature the good things of the law: Rom 2:14-16

Cornelius was devout, feared God, righteous, Acts 10:1-4, 22 yet unsaved: 11:14

Man has a freewill and can choose to do good or evil: Josh 24:15 "Choose this day..."

C. God requires man to act and do something to be saved...infants can't act or do

"Unless you repent you will perish": Lk 13:3

"Save yourselves": Acts 2:40 KJV

"Repent and be baptized every one of you for forgiveness of sins": Acts 2:38

Why are we told to "work out our own salvation": Phil 2:12

The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 cor 1:18

D. The words used to describe salvation refute inherited sin:

These words imply that we, individually, were once in God's grace at conception and birth

Justification - Romans 5:18

A court term; a legal word

Addresses the subject of our guilt before God



Reconciliation - Romans 5:6-11; Col 1:14,20,21

A word dealing with social intercourse; human relations; to make friendly again, payment of a price to recover from the power of another, a restoration to favor.

Addresses the subject of our being estranged from God



Redemption - Colossians 1:13-14

to buy back; A slavery term; human commerce; purchasing one's freedom; a ransom

Addresses the subject of our slavery to sin



"Regenerate"

to generate again, renewed, restored






E. The Bible describes infants are pure and holy:

Why would Jesus use infants as a model for all believers to imitate in character if they were "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil"? Mt 18:1-3; 19:13-14

Paul also used infants as a model of purity for Christians to follow: 1 Cor 14:20

Paul states that he was once spiritually alive but then he sinned & died/was killed: Rom 7:9-11

God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezek 28:15

"God made men upright but they sought devices" Eccl 7:29 (plural can't refer only to Adam)

Newborns do not know the difference between good and evil

God allowed the children to enter Canaan but not the parents: "your little ones who...have no knowledge of good and evil shall enter". Deut 1:34-39

Jesus "Before He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good" Isa 7:15-16

Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"

If newborns do not know "good or evil" yet the Bible says , "Your sins have separated you from your God" (Isa 59:1-2) then newborns must be born united with God.

Apostle Paul: Rom 7:9-11

"Once alive"

"sin killed me"



King of Tyre: Ezek 28:15

"Blameless from creation"

"until sin found in him"



All men: Eccl 7:29

God made men upright

They sought out devices



Like Adam, each man is born in the "Garden" and is cast out when he sins


F. The second Spiritual death implies a first spiritual death & initial spiritual life:

Second death is hell: It is a spiritual separation from God: Rev 20:6,14

First death is when we first sin and are separated from God till judgement

For us to die a first death we must have been spiritually alive at birth.


Those that argue for a baby being in sin will miss-use this:


Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

A Perspective on Psalm 51:5


But I would use this explanation:

by William P. Murray, Jr.


Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.



Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV


This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.


The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")


David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:


1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”


....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:


2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”


Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:


1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”


1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”


David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.


2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”


David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....


1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”


...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as 'true' a son as his half-brothers. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected 'all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring 'his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....


1Sam 16:11 “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.”


....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the 'least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)


David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because 'no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered 'defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.


Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17



This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.