Does God Try His Best to Save Everyone?

[TaylorSexton]

You did not have to respond at all since I was posting in response to someone else and have not been in discussion with you at any point of this thread. Besides, my intention was not to insult, but express my perspective since I have past experience with indoctrination from cults. I also saw what I believe to be the same process and change of thinking take place in the minds of those who are taught week after week from Calvinistic teachers.

It doesn't really matter whether or not you were talking to me. This is a public forum, friend, and I took great exception to your characterization of my faith. It is certainly within my rights to comment and to report. If you do not wish either of those to happen, I would suggest using more careful and fair language in the future. Your personal experience, although no doubt real, is no basis for such bold assertions and accusations.

I realize the men were serious scholars and theologians, nevertheless, they were still men and the confessions are not the Word of God.

Neither those men nor we claim them to be. I don't understand what you're complaint is. You are acting as if we are basing our arguments on these confessions, when in reality we are just trying to get people to understand what we believe.

It just seems to me that too many in Reformed or Calvinistic circles place as much or more emphasis on the confessions and writings of men as they do on the biblical scriptures.

Absolutely everyone does that: They form their theology, and then they defend it because they believe it to be the best representation and summary of biblical teaching. You're doing it right now, and so is everyone else here—me included. What else would you expect thinking Christians to do?

What you are asking in essence is that no one have a confession or creed. But, of course, that's impossible, because everyone has a confession, regardless of whether it is written.

 

[RisenInJesus]

It doesn't really matter whether or not you were talking to me. This is a public forum, friend, and I took great exception to your characterization of my faith. It is certainly within my rights to comment and to report. If you do not wish either of those to happen, I would suggest using more careful and fair language in the future. Your personal experience, although no doubt real, is no basis for such bold assertions and accusations.

I know it is a public forum. I do apologize and am sincerely sorry if my words caused you to feel I was attacking your faith or you personally. Yet, I feel just as sincere and concerned about the teachings of Calvinism because I honestly see them as contrary to the scriptures and maligning the character of God. And here is something I don't understand, why do Calvinists seem so much more identified with Calvinism than with Christianity? It comes across as if Calvinism or Reformed theology is a different faith.

 

[Reformationist]

I realize the men were serious scholars and theologians, nevertheless, they were still men and the confessions are not the Word of God. It just seems to me that too many in Reformed or Calvinistic circles place as much or more emphasis on the confessions and writings of men as they do on the biblical scriptures.

Lol! I always find it very telling when some armchair theologian comes along and makes a comment like this. "You take the word of these learned biblical scholars over the Word of God!" No...we recognize the credibility of these people to properly understand and convey the Word of God. You sit there acting like your practice of trusting your own interpretation is, somehow, more reliable than trusting their interpretation. Is it that you think we should trust your unbiblical understanding of Scripture as if you have some insight that these renowned scholars don't have? The confessions are their understanding of the Word of God. The only difference between you and us is that we're trusting the understanding of learned, devout, scholars and you're trusting you're own interpretation. I think it's obvious who is more reliable.

Hmmmm...RisenInJesus or Jon Calvin...yeah, not so hard a choice.

 

[Reformationist]

And here is something I don't understand, why do Calvinists seem so much more identified with Calvinism than with Christianity? It comes across as if Calvinism or Reformed theology is a different faith.

The only time I've ever heard a reformed Christian refer to themselves as anything other than simply a Christian is when they're discussing theological issues with a semi-Pelagian Christian like yourself. More often than not, someone recognizes something we say as being identified with the reformed teaching on the doctrines of grace and they label us "Calvinists."

 

[Reformationist]

It comes across as if Calvinism or Reformed theology is a different faith.

And for the record, reformed theology IS a different faith...than the man centered nonsense peddled from the pulpit in most mainstream evangelical churches. It's the biblical faith.

 

[Reformationist]

Jimmy's world must also ignore every biblical instance in which God expresses regret and repents for what has happened, thus demonstrating that He is not in complete control.

If this alone doesn't tell you that such a view of God should be placed in the round file, nothing will.

Good luck with that pitiful non-god you worship. I'll continue to trust that nothing happens apart from the will of God. Sovereignty has meaning for me. For you it may as well be a sno-cone flavor.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't know if I can answer this all in one go; it's quite long.

For several reasons. First, such a view makes God the potential Savior of all without exception and the actual Savior of no one. In your view, Christ didn't save you. You see salvation as that of a man drowning out in the ocean whereupon Christ throws him a life preserver.

No I don't.
Christ IS the life preserver. He doesn't stand on the shore throwing out ropes and waiting for half dead people to locate and grab hold of them; he wades into the sea and rescues them.
Someone who is in the sea and in distress will very likely call out for help. Does their calling save them? No, but maybe it alerts someone to their condition so that the appropriate help can be sent. The lifeguard, coastguard, air ambulance or whoever is the one who saves them.

Christ's act of throwing the life preserver wouldn't save anyone. You believe that the work of Christ is powerless, in and of itself, to save a single person.

No I don't. But Christ's work is more than standing at a distance and tossing out a life preserver.

In your view, it isn't until the drowning man lays hold of the life preserver that Christ's actions are of any benefit. In that case, Christ didn't save you. You saved yourself by laying hold of the life preserver.

No. Christ saved me.
If you were in the sea, in great trouble and actually in the act of drowning, it would be because the conditions were too bad/you were blown out to sea/tangled in seaweed or whatever, and unable to save yourself. In that situation, you may not realise someone had even thrown you a life preserver, never mind have the strength to physically grab hold of it. Someone who stood on the shore and did nothing else but throw a rope would be rather callous if they later said "well I threw the rope; it's his fault if he didn't grab it." They would probably be told that the way to save you was to go into the sea, grab hold of you, bring you to safety and provide whatever medical treatment that was needed. They might face prosecution for failing to save you, or alert the right people to save you - and any attempt to blame you, the drowning man, would no doubt be dismissed.

That analogy doesn't work exactly for salvation. I would say that most non Christians aren't aware/don't believe that they are drowning. Are they in trouble and realise they can't save themselves? The people I talk to either don't believe in God, so therefore there is no one to sin against, or do believe but don't count themselves as sinners, "I help others and lead a pretty good life really." Did Christ die for them? Yes, but they don't realise it. They don't realise they are drowning and WILL die spiritually unless they call on their Saviour.

But you will say, "Wait, I didn't throw the life preserver to myself." Surely not. However, you cannot discount the fact that neither the life preserver, nor Christ's work of throwing it to you, is what saved you.

If I was in the sea in trouble, called for help and someone stronger than I waded in to save me; that person is the one who saved me. Did my calling out save me? No, although it may have got someone's attention and alerted them to my plight. And I would have been calling out for help because I knew that I was in trouble and could not save myself.
If I was in the sea and didn't call for help because I didn't realise I was drowning, how would I be saved? Only by a lifeguard realising what was happening and swimming out to save me. If I then turned to him and said "what are you doing?", he would probably say "you would have drowned if things had carried on as they were; I saw that danger and saved you before that could happen." At which point I'd probably feel very grateful that he had seen a danger that I hadn't seen, and that I was still alive.

Most non Christians, I would say, have no idea/don't believe that they are drowning. Christ has died to save them, and is doing everything to make sure both that they realise their condition and that he has provided the answer. But it's not exactly the same as the lifeguard scenario; he doesn't zap people and say "you are now saved/born again whether you realised you needed, and wanted, it or not."

The most you could say is that you and Christ worked together to save you and, therefore, you deserve as much, if not more, credit for your personal salvation than Christ.

No; Christ saved me.
All is from God. He created me, loved me, saved me, filled me with his Spirit and gave me eternal life. I did nothing to earn this or make it happen. All I did was to say, "I agree that I am a sinner and cannot save myself. It is only Jesus who can save me; please save/help me." And God didn't say, "you are already saved; Jesus' death benefits and saves you whether you realised it or not." Otherwise, the logical argument is that since Christ died for everyone, everyone in the world now has, and is living in a state of, salvation.
In the Bible, God issues invitations; "come, let us reason together", "come, all who are thirsty", "come to me all who labour and are heavy laden". Jesus did not order people to follow him, he invited them. They still had to respond. Were the Pharisees, generally speaking, Jesus' disciples? They could see him, hear his teaching, see his miracles etc, but they didn't believe in him and they opposed, rather than followed, him.

It simply isn't in accord with the Gospel account of redemption.

Scripture says that people were saved, baptised and born again after they confessed their sins and called upon the Lord.
This is the spiritual equivalent of a drowning man calling for help.

The Bible gives a perfectly good parallel of the process of rebirth. It is the story of Lazarus. Like Lazarus, natural man is incapable of responding to the call to life. Such an invitation simply falls on deaf ears.

Unless the Spirit is already, maybe through the prayers of others, at work in that person; convicting them of sin, producing a thirst for life and drawing them to Jesus.

It is not until Christ gives life that we are able to respond.

Yes, we respond to Christ through the Spirit; because he has provided people to preach the Gospel/teach us and then convicts us that what we are hearing is true. Not because we have done enough good deeds, or whatever, to earn God's attention/favour.
Even then, I don't believe that God forces anyone to accept the Gospel.

Will try to finish this later. I need to go out.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If this alone doesn't tell you that such a view of God should be placed in the round file, nothing will.

A being who has the power to create an entire universe, yet has no control over it, can certainly not be trusted with one's life. How could one trust a God who isn't sovereign over all? I wouldn't trust him with a $5 bill, let alone my life. He might lose either one - to both.

This impotent and incompetent, "god" - a mad scientist who's lost control of his experiment, is more to be pitted than worshipped. Though, perhaps he is to be feared, as he might just flip he wrong switch as he mutters, "I wonder what this one does?"

 

[Adstar]

Isn't teaching a Spiritual gift, as in God's Holy Spirit?

You are on dangerous ground with that statement.

We must always go back and test what we have been told against scriptures.. So one trusts in God and His word and not in men..

 

[jimmyjimmy]

We must always go back and test what we have been told against scriptures.. So one trusts in God and His word and not in men..

That's not what you originally said.

 

[Adstar]

That's not what you originally said.

Well now i have clarified my POV, At least i hope so..

 

[TaylorSexton]

And here is something I don't understand, why do Calvinists seem so much more identified with Calvinism than with Christianity? It comes across as if Calvinism or Reformed theology is a different faith.

That's a good question, and truly a valid one. You are certainly right in saying that Calvinists often refer to themselves as Calvinists before Christian. But, again, let's be fair: Don't all groups do this? Of course, many people, in trying to sound pious, say that they are Christians only a nothing else, but even they realize that the title "Christian" in today's world is virtually meaningless. Catholics consider themselves Christians, as well as the Orthodox, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the Mormons! So, while people would like to think that "Christian" means something to everyone, it in reality means nothing in particular to anyone. Therefore, we have to have secondary titles to make sure that we are understood to believe what we believe. If I say, "I am a Christian," to someone, there is nothing that would differentiate me from the local Catholic or Mormon. However, if I say that I am Reformed (or Calvinist, although that is regrettable nomenclature, and Calvin himself would no doubt complain about it), that is very specific: I am a Reformed Christian. It is sad we have to be identified by our differences, but such a thing is made necessary by the sheer plethora of heresies today.

In the end, I really do think that your perception of the Reformed in this regard (i.e., the use of "Reformed" over "Christian") is truly because you just don't like our theology. That's okay, but please realize the bias, and what misconceptions that bias leads to. Every Christian group does what you see the Reformed doing, otherwise words have no meaning.

 

[1213]

You are righteous, correct? And, it sounds like you chose to be righteous. Is that correct, as well?

As Jesus said,
If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
John 5:31

I am not right person to say am I righteous, but if I am, I think you can see it by yourself.

 

[1213]

...
Good deeds will never make us righteous...

I agree with that, but if we are righteous, we do righteous actions.

 

[Strong in Him]

I agree with that, but if we are righteous, we do righteous actions.

Oh yes; we are saved to do good deeds, Ephesians 2:10, we show our faith by our works and if we are to love as Jesus loves, that means showing it.
I do lots of voluntary work now. Once upon a time I would have done it because I didn't believe God could love ME, so I wanted him to at least be impressed by what I did. Now I do it because I know how much he loves me, and I want to show him that I love him. To other people, the results are the same; but God sees my heart and I know what the difference is.

Jesus gave his life fr me when I was a sinner; not because I somehow made myself righteous.

 

[Strong in Him]

As Jesus said,
If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
John 5:31

I am not right person to say am I righteous, but if I am, I think you can see it by yourself.

It depends on how you're defining "righteous."
Christ has made you righteous and holy; i.e right with God, set apart for him and his child, and you have every right to say that. Some people think of righteousness as goody two shoes, holier than thou, disapproving of everything sinful or risque. "He's righteous" could be seen as an insult.
But if God calls you righteous, it's not an insult; it's beautiful.

 

[RisenInJesus]

The problem is that, as you've shown in at least one post, you do not know what Calvinism teaches. You just know what someone else said it teaches. Find my recent post with links to three free resources and read one or two. That way you can argue against what we really believe.

I find that it is a problem to be in discussion with Calvinists because this charge always comes up. The language used by those defending or explaining the "doctrines of grace" is so slippery that it makes it difficult to have reasonable conversation. I have found this same problem in having discussions with Mormons with their different definitions/meanings applied to biblical words and I am always charged with ... you are misrepresenting what Mormonism teaches or you don't actually understand Mormon doctrine. Yet, prior to being saved by Jesus Christ and delivered from darkness I was a Mormon, baptized into the LDS Church, married in the Mormon temple. I do understand Mormonism, but because I now see it as false and contrary to the biblical scriptures, my experience in the Mormon Church and understanding of their doctrine is disregarded by Mormons as invalid.

Later after a few years as a Christian, I spent five years in a Reformed/Covenant/Presbyterian church. Every Sunday School class was a video lecture by R.C. Sproul, Piper, or another Reformed/Calvinist. The pastor spent a few months preaching through the five points: T.U.L.I.P. The ladies made a pretty TULIP banner to hang in the sanctuary during the series. The books recommended and shared among the congregation were books by a variety of Calvinistic authors and teachers. I admit I am not a theologian, but I at least have a basic understanding of Calvinism.

 

[Hammster]

I find that it is a problem to be in discussion with Calvinists because this charge always comes up. The language used by those defending or explaining the "doctrines of grace" is so slippery that it makes it difficult to have reasonable conversation. I have found this same problem in having discussions with Mormons with their different definitions/meanings applied to biblical words and I am always charged with ... you are misrepresenting what Mormonism teaches or you don't actually understand Mormon doctrine. Yet, prior to being saved by Jesus Christ and delivered from darkness I was a Mormon, baptized into the LDS Church, married in the Mormon temple. I do understand Mormonism, but because I now see it as false and contrary to the biblical scriptures, my experience in the Mormon Church and understanding of their doctrine is disregarded by Mormons as invalid.

Later after a few years as a Christian, I spent five years in a Reformed/Covenant/Presbyterian church. Every Sunday School class was a video lecture by R.C. Sproul, Piper, or another Reformed/Calvinist. The pastor spent a few months preaching through the five points: T.U.L.I.P. The ladies made a pretty TULIP banner to hang in the sanctuary during the series. The books recommended and shared among the congregation were books by a variety of Calvinistic authors and teachers. I admit I am not a theologian, but I at least have a basic understanding of Calvinism.

If you have all of this knowledge of reformed theology, then why misrepresent it? Why not just argue against what it really taught as opposed to putting up straw men?

 

[RisenInJesus]

That's a good question, and truly a valid one. You are certainly right in saying that Calvinists often refer to themselves as Calvinists before Christian. But, again, let's be fair: Don't all groups do this? Of course, many people, in trying to sound pious, say that they are Christians only a nothing else, but even they realize that the title "Christian" in today's world is virtually meaningless. Catholics consider themselves Christians, as well as the Orthodox, Baptists, Presbyterians, and even the Mormons! So, while people would like to think that "Christian" means something to everyone, it in reality means nothing in particular to anyone. Therefore, we have to have secondary titles to make sure that we are understood to believe what we believe. If I say, "I am a Christian," to someone, there is nothing that would differentiate me from the local Catholic or Mormon. However, if I say that I am Reformed (or Calvinist, although that is regrettable nomenclature, and Calvin himself would no doubt complain about it), that is very specific: I am a Reformed Christian. It is sad we have to be identified by our differences, but such a thing is made necessary by the sheer plethora of heresies today.

In the end, I really do think that your perception of the Reformed in this regard (i.e., the use of "Reformed" over "Christian") is truly because you just don't like our theology. That's okay, but please realize the bias, and what misconceptions that bias leads to. Every Christian group does what you see the Reformed doing, otherwise words have no meaning.

I appreciate your response and I do understand and agree with you. The term "Christian" is very ambiguous today. It is very discouraging to hear Mormons or JW's and others who promote false teachings called Christians. Although I was raised a Catholic, I know I was not a Christian all those years.
I guess I have just been around too many in Reformed circles who display such an attitude of proud superiority and consider themselves so much more enlightened than those other Christians. I don't really like labels, but prefer to consider myself a Bible-believing Christian.

 

[RisenInJesus]

If you have all of this knowledge of reformed theology, then why misrepresent it? Why not just argue against what it really taught as opposed to putting up straw men?

Okay, if you help me out I will because I am not trying to misrepresent it. Can you give me an example of what you think is a straw man and then tell me or explain why and what the actual point of argument should be according to Reformed theology or Calvinism.