God Wants ALL MEN to be Saved

[DeaconDean]

Reading this thread, I have to chuckle, for so many who have written here would claim to follow "no tradition- only the bible"- and then go on to quote men.

Hence, traditions of men.

Each person responds to what they perceive as truth. God IS omnipotent, and yet He allows us to choose- He commands us to do so. He is not in the habit of lying.

His "foreknowledge" is not really 'fore' ITO of His place in time/space, for He is timeless. He simply knows, and is.

He commands us to obey His will, the "calisthenics" which are essential to please Him. He is not in the habit of issuing empty or needless commands. As to the part of such obedience in salvation- what does it matter? Is it too much to ask, since He made, sustains, keeps, and saves, to do what He says? Is it too much for a God of LOVE and mercy to be allowed the position of Lord? I have chosen, and I'm quite confident that I could have- and still could- choose wrongly. If it were not for the love of God, I would have probably killed someone, the way I was going and feeling.

Calvinism and Arminianism are two-dimensional cartoons of a many-dimensioned God.

Gotta laugh at that one.

If Calvinism is a:

cartoon

Then disprove this vicious pack of truth:

In the NT, “proginwskein” is referred to God. His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom. 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (1 Pet. 1:20) (> ginwskw, 698, 706). In Pastor Hermae, mandata, 4, 3, 4 it simply means
God’s foreknowledge (cf. prognwstv in 2 Cl. 9:9). On the basis of prophecy the word “proginwskein” can be used of believers in 2 Pet. 3:17, also as Pastor Hermae, similitudines, 7,5 > eklegw. Another possible meaning in Greek is that of knowing earlier, i.e., than the time speaking (cf. Demosthenes of Athens, 29, 58; Aristotle, Rhetorica, II, 21, p. 1394b, 11; Josephus, Bella Judiacum, 6,8). This is found in Acts 26:5, where the meaning is strengthened by the addition of “anwqen.” In Justin God’s “proginwskein” is Hid foreknowledge (Apol. I, 28, 2 etc.) and the “proegnwsmenoi” are believers (Apol. I, 45, 1 etc.). The polemic against determinism, however, shows that the OT view has been abandoned (Dial., 140, 4). As One who simply knows beforehand, God is called “prognwstv” in Apol., I, 44, 11 etc. as is also Christ in Dial., 35, 7; 82, 1. There is also reference to prophetic foreknowledge in Apol., I, 43, 1; 49, 6 etc. Tatian, of Syria, in Oratio ad Graecos, 19, 3, speaks of Apollo in the same terms, so that what we have here is the Greek understanding.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, “prognwskein”, p. 457, Rudolph Bultmann commenting.


Keeping this in mind, according to “The New Analytical Greek Lexicon” by Wesley J. Perschbacker, editor, “proginwskw” is in the future tense. And it can be translated as meaning “to know beforehand, to be previously acquainted with; (Acts 26:5; 2 Pet. 3:17) to determine on beforehand, to foreordain; (1 Pet. 1:20) in the NT, from the Hebrew, “to know, to appoint as the subjects of future privileges, (Rom. 8:29; 11:2).

"oti ouV proegnw, kai prowrisen summorfouV thV eikonoV tou uiou autou, eiV to einai auton prwtotokon en polloiV adelfoiV:" -Rom. 8:29 (GNT)

To them who were what? Called first, elected, and because they were called, elected, He foreordained them, and because He foreordained them, He predestinated them.

And unless I'm mistaken, isn't "opi" a conjunction used to connect this sentence with the previous sentence or statement.

opi, because, seeing that, since" (The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., Copyright 1990, opi, p. 298)

Because, seeing that, since, they were called, elected, He foreordained them, and because, seeing that, since, they were foreordained, they were predestinated.

And notice well, that I presented my case first, then offered evidence secondly to support it.

It is one thing to quote others then make your case. That, I did not do.

You fault us for:

have to chuckle, for so many who have written here would claim to follow "no tradition- only the bible"- and then go on to quote men.

Hence, traditions of men.

But in retrospect, don't you do the same thing referring to the Early Church Fathers?!?

You yourself follow after the traditions of men too.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Gotta laugh at that one.

If Calvinism is a:



Then disprove this vicious pack of truth:



And notice well, that I presented my case first, then offered evidence secondly to support it.

It is one thing to quote others then make your case. That, I did not do.

You fault us for:



But in retrospect, don't you do the same thing referring to the Early Church Fathers?!?

You yourself follow after the traditions of men too.

God Bless

Till all are one.

LOL
Where have I quoted the ECFs here?

But the point is, we never denied adhering to tradition- nor Tradition.
I presume this escaped your perview?

In point of fact, your "vicious pack of truth" (snicker) references Justin. Who dat? But note well:
"Another possible meaning (of proginwskein)in Greek is that of knowing earlier, i.e., than the time speaking"
And this enforces Calvin how?

You're reaching. Bear in mind that reaching far puts one well off balance.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Calvinism and Arminianism are two-dimensional cartoons of a many-dimensioned God.

They can't both be dimensions of God; They have elements to them which are polar opposites which would contradict each other. Can one lose his/her salvation? Calvinists would say no, Arminians would say yes. Since it is a yes/no question, either one is right or one is wrong. God is not a liar, God is not illogical, God is not irrational.

Necessarily, one is right and one is wrong based upon antithesis.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Romans 9 is regarding our lot in life, not heaven and hell. Regarding 2 Peter, perishing in their own corruption is not God's will.

???????

Our lot in life?

Paul is anticipating an argument that would rise out of Romans 8- "If one cannot be separated from the love of God, then what about Israel?"

Rom 9:6 But {it is} not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are {descended} from Israel;

That is the whole context of Romans 9, not our "lot in life".

 

[chestertonrules]

???????

Our lot in life?

Paul is anticipating an argument that would rise out of Romans 8- "If one cannot be separated from the love of God, then what about Israel?"

Rom 9:6 But {it is} not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are {descended} from Israel;

That is the whole context of Romans 9, not our "lot in life".

Do you think Esau was condemned to Hell?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Do you think Esau was condemned to Hell?

Why don't you address that actual post instead of creating a diversion like you always do?

 

[chestertonrules]

Why don't you address that actual post instead of creating a diversion like you always do?

It is not a diversion. It directly applies to the point. Was Esau condemned, or was he dealt a bad hand by losing his inheritance? Was Paul talking about his situation on earth or his eternal home?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It is not a diversion. It directly applies to the point. Was Esau condemned, or was he dealt a bad hand by losing his inheritance? Was Paul talking about his situation on earth or his eternal home?

One was created for the purpose of fulfilling the promises made to Abraham (Jacob), and one was made to be banished from the promises (Esau), not because of anything one or the other did, but because God willed it. However, you are making the wrong comparison. Really the comparison should be made between Jacob and Pharaoh. That is Paul's conclusion in 9:18-

Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires (Jacob), and He hardens whom He desires (Pharaoh).

This is not simply about a man's "lot in life", for Paul would be asking a pointless question when He says -

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

[quote=chestertonrules;51377224]God Wants ALL MEN to be Saved[/quote]


... I agree. And women, too.





.

 

[chestertonrules]

One was created for the purpose of fulfilling the promises made to Abraham (Jacob), and one was made to be banished from the promises (Esau), not because of anything one or the other did, but because God willed it. However, you are making the wrong comparison. Really the comparison should be made between Jacob and Pharaoh. That is Paul's conclusion in 9:18-

Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires (Jacob), and He hardens whom He desires (Pharaoh).

This is not simply about a man's "lot in life", for Paul would be asking a pointless question when He says -

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

You are the one avoiding the question. As far as we can tell from scripture, Esau went on to become a successful and Godly man.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You are the one avoiding the question. As far as we can tell from scripture, Esau went on to become a successful and Godly man.

I am not avoiding the question, here's the answer which you won't accept:

I never said Esau didn't; however, Pharaoh did not. Jacob was blessed from birth, for nothing other than God's election (v 11-12). Pharaoh was raised specifically so that God could demonstrate His power through him (v 17). One is chosen for blessing, one is chosen for destruction (v 21-23). Why? Because God can do what He wants with His clay (v 21).

 

[chestertonrules]

I am not avoiding the question, here's the answer which you won't accept:

I never said Esau didn't; however, Pharaoh did not. Jacob was blessed from birth, for nothing other than God's election (v 11-12). Pharaoh was raised specifically so that God could demonstrate His power through him (v 17). One is chosen for blessing, one is chosen for destruction (v 21-23). Why? Because God can do what He wants with His clay (v 21).

This all speculation on your part. I don't deny that God uses men to achieve his purpose in many instances. We don't know his ways. However, we have no idea whether or not Pharoah repented before death. Do you think God would have been happy to forgive pharoah had he sincerely repented for his sins?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

This all speculation on your part.

No, it's not. You're not seeing the parallel Paul is making. Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Why didn't he harden Jacob's heart? Was it because Pharaoh was bad and Jacob was good? Certainly not; Jacob stole the birthright from Esau. And clearly God's hardening is based on nothing other than His purpose; this is not speculation, it is directly said in the text:

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

God's purpose in Pharaoh was to show His power; not because of anything Pharaoh did. This is qualified in the next statement:

Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

According to your logic, this would be unfair. Men have "free will" and are condemned/blessed based on their works and their love for God. But according to this passage, mercy and hardening come from God's sovereign choice alone, based on nothing other than His purpose, which is to bring glory and honor to His name.

I don't deny that God uses men to achieve his purpose in many instances. We don't know his ways. However, we have no idea whether or not Pharoah repented before death.

Exd 14:6 So he made his chariot ready and took his people with him;
Exd 14:7 and he took six hundred select chariots, and all the {other} chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them.
Exd 14:8 The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly.

and the result:

Exd 14:28 The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, even Pharaoh's entire army that had gone into the sea after them; not even one of them remained.

Pharaoh was killed in his sin. He did not repent; his heart was hardened towards God, by God. Romans 9 clearly teaches this as well. This is not speculation.

Do you think God would have been happy to forgive pharoah had he sincerely repented for his sins?

Yes, but he didn't.

 

[chestertonrules]

No, it's not. You're not seeing the parallel Paul is making. Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Why didn't he harden Jacob's heart? Was it because Pharaoh was bad and Jacob was good? Certainly not; Jacob stole the birthright from Esau. And clearly God's hardening is based on nothing other than His purpose; this is not speculation, it is directly said in the text:

You deny the crystal clear words of scripture and then build elaborate conjecture about other passages in order to support your man made dogma.

These words are not confusing:

2 Peter 3

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


1 Tim 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You deny the crystal clear words of scripture and then build elaborate conjecture about other passages in order to support your man made dogma.

These words are not confusing:

2 Peter 3

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


1 Tim 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

lol. Another evasion. Let it be seen by all on the thread that Chesterton is running from the Scriptures.

 

[Thekla]

what a loving thread

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Rdr Iakovos; Reading this thread, I have to chuckle, for so many who have written here would claim to follow "no tradition- only the bible"- and then go on to quote men.

Well that makes me chuckle. That you would equate using a quote from a man with being a follower of that man. The only following of Calvin I do is the 5 points that Calvin himself didn't compose, but that is enough for "so many who have written here" enough to call me Calvinist; Does my RCC baptism count for nothing?

Hence, traditions of men.

"Hence" your confusion of our rejection of tradition NOT IN TOTAL, rather we reject it as being equal & above scripture.
Isn't that funny?

Each person responds to what they perceive as truth. God IS omnipotent, and yet He allows us to choose- He commands us to do so. He is not in the habit of lying.

He allowsa us to choose, He commasnds us to choose, He asks us politely to choose, but more importantly, He DESIGNED us to choose. So we do what He designed us to do.

His "foreknowledge" is not really 'fore' ITO of His place in time/space, for He is timeless. He simply knows, and is.

Nonsense. That doesn't destroy the concept or fact of chronology, it merely transcends it.

He commands us to obey His will, the "calisthenics" which are essential to please Him.

Brother please,... I thought Calvinists were supposed to be the ones with the cruel creator. The squirrel cage of religion VS the personal relationship of spirituality; choose one of those.

He is not in the habit of issuing empty or needless commands.

So you've parted with your icons?

As to the part of such obedience in salvation- what does it matter?

In salvation, obedience is the by product of loving gratitude. How 'bout talking about love's labor rather than obedience - one of the 5 pillars of Islam?

Is it too much to ask, since He made, sustains, keeps, and saves, to do what He says?

Not realy, but still some of us cling to calisthenics, props, pomp & regalia.

Is it too much for a God of LOVE and mercy to be allowed the position of Lord?

If you believe in salvation by free will it is way too much.

I have chosen, and I'm quite confident that I could have- and still could- choose wrongly. If it were not for the love of God, I would have probably killed someone, the way I was going and feeling.

Join the party. (leave your weapons at the door)

Calvinism and Arminianism are two-dimensional cartoons of a many-dimensioned God.

That perception is a caricature of two many dimensioned positions.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=chestertonrules;You deny the crystal clear words of scripture and then build elaborate conjecture about other passages in order to support your man made dogma.

No, you're confusing your own mental mud with crystal.

These words are not confusing:

Yet they have escaped you. Part of it is the version you're using. If you use the KJV, you will see more clearly who he is speaking to & thus who he means by "all":

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 should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Not willing that any of US would perish.
You realy have those blinders surgicaly welded on, don't you?

 

[Rick Otto]

[quote=chestertonrules;51377224]God Wants ALL MEN to be Saved

... I agree. And women, too.





.[/quote]
ROFL

 

[Ame4]

You deny the crystal clear words of scripture and then build elaborate conjecture about other passages in order to support your man made dogma.

These words are not confusing:

2 Peter 3

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


1 Tim 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

God has made it impossible that all men could have the opportunity to be saved.

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

We know that all men that live or have lived have not heard the gospel, heard about Jesus. So not all, could repent and be forgiven of sin.

All have sinned, so without forgiveness, they will perish.

Even those that perscribe to complete free will would need to admit that "all men" would not have the chance at forgiveness and salvation.