TFG, I know that you are trying to help your sister, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions, which I will lay out below:
Salvation is available to all men through Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18-19
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. NASU
Notice that the verse you quoted here has nothing to do with the assertion you made. This verse doesn't say that that salvation is merely available to men, it says that Christ's work has actually resulted in justification and life for all men.
The problem here is that if you take "all men" to mean "all individuals" and not, say, "all men in Christ", which is more likely based ont eh context, you have just found a verse that teaches universalism. Your insistance on "all men" meaning "all individuals" forces you to water down Paul's words to mean "potential justification" or "the possibility or availability of justification", when that is not what he says. he says that this group of men, whoever they are (I argue he means the men in Christ, as opposed to the men in Adam),
actually are justified and have life. That is why your original assertion didn't match what Paul said. Your assertion was that justification and life was merely made available to this group, but Paul says it is actually
applied to this group. The context demands that two different groups are in mind here sister, from about verse 15 to 18:
Rom 5:15-19
(15) But the free gift is not like the trespass.
For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ
abounded for many.
(16) And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin.
For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation,
but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
(17) For if, because of one man's trespass,
death reigned through that one man, much more wil
l those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
(18)
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,
so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19) For as by the one man's disobedience
the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience
the many will be made righteous.
There are two groups here sister, not one group. The many in Adam receive death. What Adam did affected all who are in him. The many in Christ receive life. What Christ did affected all who are in him.
Your conclusions are making Paul's argument nonsensical. You are trying to say that what Christ did affects all who are in Him, and also all who are
not in Him. Not everyone is in Christ, only believers are. This is why Paul describes them as "the ones that receive the gift". (v17) Not everyone receives the gift - many men reject the gift and end up in hell.
I'm sorry but your conclusion doesn't hold water when held up to the scrutiny of exegesis. It only looks good when you pluck one verse in isolation away from the rest of Paul's argument.
God's will and desire is that all men come to Christ and be saved.
1 Tim 2:3-6
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimonygiven at the proper time.
NASU
There are two answers/responses to your conclusions here my friend.
1) The first is that
even if you are using this verse correctly (I don't think you are) this verse doesn't' do anything to debunk the doctrine of unconditional (calvinistic) election. Why? Because Calvinists affirm that sometimes God lets some desires override his other desires.
For example, non-Calvinists believe that God desires all men to be saved, but he lets his desire to let them choose for themselves whether to be saved override his desire to see that they are all saved.
So it is feasible to believe that God may desire to see all saved but yet his desire to choose for Himself, for His own glory, and to remove human boasting, who is saved, override his desire to see all men saved.
The point is, neither of these disproves election, so quoting it as part of an argument really doesn't accomplish anything.
2) The second response is that indeed I think you are using the verse out of context. Paul has just listed "types" of men that we are to pray for, and anytime you find that in Greek language, when the word 'all' is employed by an author, you can pretty much put money on the fact that the author is using the other definition of "all" (pas in the Greek), which means "some of all sorts" or "all types". Since Paul has just said to pray for all types of men "Kings, and those in authority" his argument is that God desires to see all types of men saved, which is why we should pray for all types of men. His argument is that God desires to save every single individual born into Adam's race. That would make the Bible contradict itself since the doctrine of reprobation is so plainly taught all over the Bible, and that it constantly teaches that God has blinded eyes and hardened hearts sot hat people will not believe (Check John 12)
In short, you are ignoring the fact that "all" has not just one, but two definitions in the Greek. It's like non-Calvinists like to pretend that that other definition is never used or worse, it doesn't exist. Look it up for yourself in a Greek Concordance. the word is "pas". (also, "world" (kosmos) in Greek has around 10-14 definitions, but I digress)
Rom 11:32
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
NASU
Your verse here is out of context as well, as Paul is talking about the Jews who were consigned to disobedience.
Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
NASU
Obviously, this verse doesn't teach universalism. So we can rule out the interpretation that says that God has actually saved all men. That leaves an interpretation that says that God has indeed brought salvation to all men, but we know that many men reject salvation. So, this verse doesn't' disprove anything. calvinism affirms that men are asked, commanded to repent, but they reject God and disobey. It's because of that hard heart you see, which makes converting grace mandatory and necessary for anyone at all to be saved. We call that "effectual grace"
Salvation is for everyone who believes.
Rom 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,
NASU
Yep, and that's exactly what Calvinists believe. Every single person who believes will be saved. No argument there. Why did you think this verse disproved anything?
The elect are those whom God foreknew would come to Him. He is omnicient, and foreknows all things. Those whom He foreknew would come to Him, He predestined to be conformed to His likeness.
Rom 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
NASU
Ah, finally the thrust of your argument. You make many mistakes here sister.
1) You presuppose that "foreknowledge" means that God passively gathers intellectual information. When in fact it means much more than that. For starters, God cannot learn anything, so there is no such thing as God "looking into the future to see who will believe".
2) You falsely read that God foreknew
actions of people, rather than what Paul says God knows, which is people
themselves.
Notice, he says "
whom He foreknew..he predestined". God didn't foreknow men's faith, he foreknew men themselves. Thus foreknowledge is a personal knowing, not a mere intellectual assent that men would do something. Grammatically, the object of God's foreknowledge is men, not their actions. So you are reading an idea into the text which isn't actually there.
When God knows someone, it doesn't just mean he knows about them, (or about their actions). Observe:
Amos 3;2 You only have I known among all the families of the earth..
did God intellectually know only Israel? No, obviously he knew all the other families too. But God only "knew" Israel in a personal, loving way. That's what it means for God to "know" someone. It doesn't mean to know "about" them. Or "about" what actions they would commit.
The Lord knows who are His 2 Tim 2:19
Obviously God "knows" those are not his too, but here he says he knows who are His. It means he loves those who are His. It means he knows them in a personal, relationship sense. Not that he merely knows about them.
Matt 7:23 "Depart from me, I never knew you"
Does Jesus know everyone? Sure he does, he's God. So what he means is not that he never knew "about" them, but he never "knew" them in a personal, meaningful way.
This is the type of "know" that God has for his people. He foreknew them. He knew them from eternity past. He set his covenental love upon them. The verse doesn't' say he knew about their actions. It says he knew
them.
3) Thirdly sister, you twist around Paul's argument. Paul says that being predestined, and called, and justified, is the
result of being foreknown.
However, according to your thinking, God only foreknows because people answer the call and are justified. This is backwards from what Paul says. he doesn't' say "and whom he called, and saw would be justified, He foreknew.."
He says the opposite. he foreknew them first, and
that's why he called them, and then justified them.
According to Paul, being justified is the
result of being foreknown. According to you, being foreknown is the
result of being justified. Don't you see how you totally mixed up Paul's order of events?
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
To insinuate that He would pick and choose only a few to die for is to malign His perfect character of love and justice, and goes against what He Himself explicitly stated in His word.
This is pure opinion on your part, and has no Biblical basis. Men arent' innocent bystanders waiting to be picked for heaven or hell. They are guilty criminals, sinners, who deserve hell. If God saved zero people, he would be justified in his decision.
If God saved some, and not the others, he is still justified in his decision, because all of them deserved hell to begin with. Yet he has grace and mercy on multitudes out of pure love.
The Calvinist believes that the people that Jesus dies for are actually saved. That's how loving Jesus is. he actually saves the ones he suffers and dies for. They believe God actually, literally saves millions of people for His own glory. he doesn't try, and fail. he doesn't dangle Jesus out and say "come on", without entering the situation to make sure people are saved. No, he actually ensures that people come to salvation, because he set out from eternity past to do exactly that - save people for his own glory.
This whole "try and fail" to save thing that you believe is likened to a parent seeing his toddler running into a busy street, but isntead of rushing out to save the child, he says "let's wait and see what he does..i don't want to interfere with his will!"
That's what your view of salvation is like. God just waits and sees who will get lucky and escape hell.
In my view, he
actually ensures that multitudes escape hell, because He Himself chose them and redeems them and saves them.
This was long winded, but I just cannot in good conscience let someone mishandle the bible in such a way and portray such an awful view of God's saving grace.
Jesus saves. He doesn't try to save, and fail with the majority of mankind. He saves, without fail, 100% of the time. God has a 100% success rate in salvation. He's Almighty God for crying out loud.
