Regarding Election - Only 3 Choices...What will it be?

AVBunyan · Nov 1, 2013

Ok folks - which is it?

1. Either Christ died for all the sins for all men...or...

2. Christ died for some of the sins for all...or...

3. Christ died for all of the sins for some.

#1 - Universal salvation
#2 - Nobody goes to heaven
#3 - Those "some" go to heaven.

While I am here - Calvinists (don't really like that term) do not believe God chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell - they believe all are born and deserve hell - God chooses some, by his good pleasure, to go to glory.

God bless

J0SHUA · Nov 1, 2013

Number 3, with "some" referring to the elect.

Skala · Nov 1, 2013

Jack Terrence · Nov 1, 2013

reformed ttL · Nov 1, 2013

hedrick · Nov 1, 2013

I think your choices are slanted. The problem is that the Bible says Christ died for all, and God wants all to be saved. The passages are sufficiently well-known that I'm not going to give yet another list. But it certainly doesn't teach universal salvation. So somehow the authors of Scripture weren't limited by your choices.

I understand the logic: if we really are doomed without God's call, then it would seem that salvation is based on entirely upon whether we're called or not. The problem is that Scripture maintains all of the following:

* our salvation is due to God, not our own merit
* not everyone is saved
* Christ died for all
* God wants all to be saved

When we see what looks like a contradiction, I think it's better to believe that there are things we don't know than to throw away part of the evidence.

AVBunyan · Nov 2, 2013

hedrick said:
1. * our salvation is due to God, not our own merit
2. * not everyone is saved
3. * Christ died for all
4. * God wants all to be saved

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Disagree - If Christ died for all the all would be saved.
4. At least his own - but just not sure on this one to be honest.

God bless

Mediaeval · Nov 2, 2013

Christ died for all for God "is the Savior of all men", according to the apostle Paul.

George MacDonald (1824-1905) defined election thus: a doctrine which in the Bible asserts the fact of God’s choosing certain person for the specific purpose of receiving first, and so communicating the gifts of his grace to the whole world.

pshun2404 · Nov 2, 2013

Yeah AVB, you erroneously conclude that because Christ's sacrifice was for all this must mean all are saved but this does not mean they are all saved (Universal Salvation) only that now salvation is made available to all...one must receive it to become His child and others will reject it and want nothing to do with this God or the knowledge of Him and prefer to be the lord of their own life. So choice 1 is not one of the logical possibilities at all. Perhaps you should offer more possibilities as you have missed at least one...

sdowney717 · Nov 2, 2013

hedrick said:
I think your choices are slanted. The problem is that the Bible says Christ died for all, and God wants all to be saved. The passages are sufficiently well-known that I'm not going to give yet another list. But it certainly doesn't teach universal salvation. So somehow the authors of Scripture weren't limited by your choices.

I understand the logic: if we really are doomed without God's call, then it would seem that salvation is based on entirely upon whether we're called or not. The problem is that Scripture maintains all of the following:

* our salvation is due to God, not our own merit
* not everyone is saved
* Christ died for all
* God wants all to be saved

When we see what looks like a contradiction, I think it's better to believe that there are things we don't know than to throw away part of the evidence.

If God desires all men to be saved, then why does God not get what He wants?

This scripture testifies to us a truth about God regarding this very thing.

11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

Have you not set up for yourself a situation not supported by evidence in the scriptures?
Or do you think what God desires differs from what God arranges to happen.

Here we see God works all things according to the counsel of His will and that we were predestined to the inheritance which is eternal life with Him.
And all these things are done for the sake of those whom He predestined.

So does God truly desire that all men every single one of them be saved?
Or just some of them.
We can all say, those who are saved by Him, that we are glad that He predestined us to this salvation. Because if it depended on the whims of fate, or what God desired but did not arrange on our behalf, then I most certainly could have as easily been lost as I was saved and also some of you.

Peter says in Acts when talking to this man Cornelius about those God accepts among the gentiles.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

How about those who do not fear God or do the right things by Him, they can assume to be not accepted by Him.
There are scriptures that support the idea that God has given over certain individuals to destruction.

2 Chronicles 25:16

New King James Version (NKJV)
16 So it was, as he talked with him, that the king said to him, “Have we made you the king’s counselor? Cease! Why should you be killed?”

Then the prophet ceased, and said, “I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not heeded my advice.”

14 And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

Joshua 11:20

For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

The NT also with Jude talks of this.

4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Skala · Nov 2, 2013

hedrick said:
I think your choices are slanted. The problem is that the Bible says Christ died for all, and God wants all to be saved.

If He died for all, did He die for all in the same way?
What did His death actually do? The bible never says that it made salvation a mere possibility, but an actuality.

God wanting all to be saved does not logically contradict the concept that Christ's death effectually secured the salvation of the elect only. God can express desire for something but yet decree something else. (Even in Arminianism this is true. God can desire all to be saved, but decree to only save believers. He could have easily simply decreed to save everyone)

hedrick · Nov 2, 2013

sdowney717 said:
If God desires all men to be saved, then why does God not get what He wants?

Take it up with God. There are too many statements about God wanting all to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 is the most explicit but there are many others. You can't explain them all away.

Presumably there are reasons why despite God caring for everyone not everyone is saved. I'd rather say I don't know than ignore some of what Scripture says.

AVBunyan · Nov 4, 2013

pshun2404 said:
Yeah AVB, you erroneously conclude that because Christ's sacrifice was for all this must mean all are saved but this does not mean they are all saved (Universal Salvation) Perhaps you should offer more possibilities as you have missed at least one...

#1 - If Christ died for all the sins of all men then all would go to heaven for how can a man whose sins are forgiven go to hell. Some say (which is what I think you are saying) that though Christ died for all his sins that he still has to receive the offer of salvation - so then, Christ didn't pay for the rejection which is a sin? When Christ died for all of one's sins he died for them all - I don't believe a man can go to hell when Christ died for all his sins.

pshun2404 · Nov 4, 2013

His dying for their sins only makes the atonement available to them...it does not remiss them...they must repent and baptized into His name (shem) at which point they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...but alas whether this grace is made available to them to them or not is irrelevant to those will reject God and refuse to give up their self lordship (Gen. 3:5)...like Cain they can hear from God and hear His offer of grace and in their own pride of life reject the knowledge of God and do what is right in their own eyes...

I don't believe a man can go to hell when Christ died for all his sins.

Yes! I know your view well...I do not agree...there are two facts I cannot deny...

1 Jesus died for the sins of the whole world...He came to save it not condemn it
2 Not all are or will be saved, not all become His children having received the gift of eternal life (the Holy Spirit)

In His love

Paul

bling · Nov 5, 2013

AVBunyan said:
Ok folks - which is it?

1. Either Christ died for all the sins for all men...or...

2. Christ died for some of the sins for all...or...

3. Christ died for all of the sins for some.

#1 - Universal salvation
#2 - Nobody goes to heaven
#3 - Those "some" go to heaven.

While I am here - Calvinists (don't really like that term) do not believe God chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell - they believe all are born and deserve hell - God chooses some, by his good pleasure, to go to glory.

God bless

You make an excellent point about some peoples understanding of atonement but:

Did Christ die to solve a problem God was having with an intangible like sin or did Christ die as a gift for sinners (people)?

If Christ is presenting his unbelievable sacrifice as a result of our sins; to us (and really for us) as a gift of Love to help us, than each one of us can either accept or reject that gift?

Charis kai Dunamis · Nov 5, 2013

hedrick said:
Take it up with God. There are too many statements about God wanting all to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 is the most explicit but there are many others. You can't explain them all away.

In the way you are interpreting them? Yes, we can, as has been demonstrated time and time again here on this forum.

1 Timothy 2:4 has been interpreted in many different ways, but I am of the opinion that, contextually (a word synergists hate to hear...), v. 2 clearly defines a general (high positions) as well as specific (kings) people group as needing to be mentioned and included in God's desire for all people to be saved, and thus, it clearly points to people groups as Calvin proposed. It is only more strengthened as Paul makes the specific mention of the Gentiles in verse 7, which now brings three specific mentions of peoples who may have been left out of certain people's prayers and desires for salvation. Grudem has proposed that Paul is saying that the offer of salvation should be made to all people, because Jesus Christ is potentially the salvation for all men, whether Jew or Greek, slave or free.

Of course most would rather ignore all of this and post 1 Timothy 2:4 by itself and give no regard to the surrounding context.

BBAS 64 · Nov 5, 2013

hedrick said:
Take it up with God. There are too many statements about God wanting all to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 is the most explicit but there are many others. You can't explain them all away.

Presumably there are reasons why despite God caring for everyone not everyone is saved. I'd rather say I don't know than ignore some of what Scripture says.

Good Day, Hedrick

One quick question if one is to assume that the "all men" means all with out qualification, then he meditates for the same "men" in the next verse?

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony fngiven at fnthe proper time.

Doe the Lord fail in the mediation for the men that are not saved, is the mediation ineffective, is it of a differnet kind.

What is your view of Christ's role as mediator?

Did he really give himself as a ransom for the same group "all men"?

Was the ransom refused, who was the ransom paid too?

In Him,

Bill

hedrick · Nov 5, 2013

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Hedrick

One quick question if one is to assume that the "all men" means all with out qualification, then he meditates for the same "men" in the next verse?

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony fngiven at fnthe proper time.

Doe the Lord fail in the mediation for the men that are not saved, is the mediation ineffective, is it of a differnet kind.

What is your view of Christ's role as mediator?

Did he really give himself as a ransom for the same group "all men"?

Was the ransom refused, who was the ransom paid too?

In Him,

Bill

I've talked about this more in other threads. First, Jesus himself emphasized his role in establishing the Kingdom of God, and even in defeating Satan. Even at the last supper, he said he was dying to establish the new covenant. Kingdom, covenant, and a defeat of Satan are all things that are objectively true even if individuals don't believe them. Of course the kingdom is currently like the seed growing secretly, so it isn't fully visible yet, nor is Satan's defeat.

That's not to ignore the role of Christ's death for individuals, but I think the whole question of what he died for is more complex than the OP's alternatives, and that the context in which we look at the question should be the context of Jesus' own teaching. That is the Kingdom, with him as King.

The problem with the limited atonement is that the Bible really does talk about him dying for everyone. But in a Kingdom context, that means that he really is everyone's King. We may choose to reject him, but he still died for us, even if we reject that.

The Bible also has statements that Jesus died for his people. It's not so explicit, but most of the statements that he died for us are probably intended to refer to his followers, e.g. 1 Thes 5:10.

The Bible doesn't use terminology in a completely unambiguous way, like a computer program. I don't see any reason that we can't say that Christ died for everyone in one sense, but in a stricter sense he died for his people. And in fact 1 Tim 4:10 combines both usages. Why is this something we need to argue about?

Skala · Nov 5, 2013

pshun2404 said:
His dying for their sins only makes the atonement available to them.

That is not how the Bible describes/talks about the atonement and what it accomplished.

It says:

"he obtained eternal redemption"
"he will save his people"
"He gave himself up for the church, to make her spotless and without blemish"
"He will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied"
"by his stripes we are healed"
"my righteous servant will justify many, for he will bear their sins"
"he bore the sin of many"

There's dozens more but as you can see here, there is no potentiality in the way the Bible speaks about Christ's death. He actually saves people, not merely makes them savable.

Regarding Election - Only 3 Choices...What will it be?

Senior Member

☼

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Fighting the good fight

slowly becoming less newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

baptizatus sum

Newbie

Newbie

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Newbie

Regular Member

χάρις καὶ δύναμις

Contributor

Senior Veteran

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency