Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

[hedrick]

That God is three yet one.... that Jesus is fully human yet also FULLY man..... Until the 16th Century, Christians referred to all these matters as "Divine Mysteries," not "Theology" or "Doctrine."

These things were all the result of long and careful theological thought, mysteries or not. You seem to be proposing that we take certain statements in Scripture and prohibit considering their implication. The Trinity and Incarnation are the result of an approach that's almost the opposite of that.

I actually prefer to stick as close to Scripture as possible. I tend to be skeptical of complex philosophical structures built on top of it. But I don't see how we can say God wants everyone to be saved without some thought about how that fits into other things that Jesus taught. Personally I think we have to say that there are at least some limitations on this desire even if we can't define them exactly. It's generally considered acceptable to say that God may not be able to make a world where everyone freely and responsibility chooses good. This is the so-called "free will defense." Even without committing to the free will defense, I think we can cite it as an example of the kind of qualification that might apply to statements like God wants all to be saved.

If you refuse to qualify the statement that God wants all to be saved (at least to the extent of admitting that there are probably qualifications even if we don't know what they are), I think you've got universalism or open theism.

I am willing to agree that the Biblical statements about God desiring all to be saved rules out some of the more extreme Calvinist claims. I don't see how we can say that God set out with a list of people he wanted to damn. But I don't think we can rule out the possibility that even though that wasn't a specific goal, he adopted a plan that included certain specific people being damned.

 

[MennoSota]

So a missionary goes to indonesia and saves some random person there, then God chose him right?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

No human ever saved another person.

God may send a missionary and use that person as a vessel to plant the seed. Only God can make a dead seed grow.
God knows whom he has written in the Lambs book of Life and He knows the means by which that person will be adopted/saved. In any case, God always makes the choice of whom he adopts/saves. The process by which that adoption takes place is known by God. We are merely the vessels God may choose to use.

 

[Imalive]

No human ever saved another person.

God may send a missionary and use that person as a vessel to plant the seed. Only God can make a dead seed grow.
God knows whom he has written in the Lambs book of Life and He knows the means by which that person will be adopted/saved. In any case, God always makes the choice of whom he adopts/saves. The process by which that adoption takes place is known by God. We are merely the vessels God may choose to use.

Their names get written in the book of Life if they get saved and names can be blotted out. It's not a book w names thats there for 6000 years.

 

[Josiah]

Even more so, you claim that your brain is great

Perhaps you've not read any of my posts in this thread.... I am CONDEMNING those who insist that they are smarter than God, bigger than God; that they are the Corrector of God charged with the mandate of making God "make sense" to self who is smarter than God, and who need to twist what God has said (often 180 degrees) so that God is as smart as they are. If you'd read my position, it is that NO ONE (including me) is smarter than God or is appointed by God to correct what He has proclaimed in Scripture or to answer for God all the questions self asks self. I've been calling for faith and humility in lieu of the pride and conjectures of Calvin and Arminius (and those who have bought their personal conjectures); I've been noting that the major conjectures obviously contradict Scirpture and actually create enormous problems (and mandate they contradict some Scriptures).

You are trying to hold two incompatible views and convince yourself there is no resolution, only mystery.

IMO, you have chosen to embrace SOME of what God has said.... then must contradict all the rest in order for the conjecture of Calvin to seem "logical" to you. Arminius does exactly the same thing, just with another set of Scriptures. We see these ENDLESS "debates" for 500 years between Calvinists and Arminians - each nothing and condemning the EXACT THING they themselves are doing, both (very accurately) condemning the other, neither recognizing they are just pointing 3 figures back at themselves. And it's all fueled by enormous egoism, all fueled with the conviction and assumption that self is smarter than God, that self is the designated Corrector of God, that self is the One with the divine mandate to make God wise and smart as smart as they - even if this means twisting Scripture 180 degrees. MUCH error entered Christianity when humility was replaced with such enormous, individualistic egoism. No, I'm not being "lazy" I'm just rejecting the incredible egoism of those like Calvin and Arminius, suggesting we are called to faith and humility - not to be Correctors of God.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqrIOchEN8




A blessed New Year to all.....


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

Their names get written in the book of Life if they get saved and names can be blotted out. It's not a book w names thats there for 6000 years.

From before the foundation of the world actually.

 

[MennoSota]

Perhaps you've not read any of my posts in this thread.... I am CONDEMNING those who insist that they are smarter than God, bigger than God; that they are the Corrector of God charged with the mandate of making God "make sense" to self who is smarter than God, and who need to twist what God has said (often 180 degrees) so that God is as smart as they are. If you'd read my position, it is that NO ONE (including me) is smarter than God or is appointed by God to correct what He has proclaimed in Scripture or to answer for God all the questions self asks self. I've been calling for faith and humility in lieu of the pride and conjectures of Calvin and Arminius (and those who have bought their personal conjectures); I've been noting that the major conjectures obviously contradict Scirpture and actually create enormous problems (and mandate they contradict some Scriptures).






IMO, you have chosen to embrace SOME of what God has said.... then must contradict all the rest in order for the conjecture of Calvin to seem "logical" to you. Arminius does exactly the same thing, just with another set of Scriptures. We see these ENDLESS "debates" for 500 years between Calvinists and Arminians - each nothing and condemning the EXACT THING they themselves are doing, both (very accurately) condemning the other, neither recognizing they are just pointing 3 figures back at themselves. And it's all fueled by enormous egoism, all fueled with the conviction and assumption that self is smarter than God, that self is the designated Corrector of God, that self is the One with the divine mandate to make God wise and smart as smart as they - even if this means twisting Scripture 180 degrees. MUCH error entered Christianity when humility was replaced with such enormous, individualistic egoism. No, I'm not being "lazy" I'm just rejecting the incredible egoism of those like Calvin and Arminius, suggesting we are called to faith and humility - not to be Correctors of God.



A blessed New Year to all.....


- Josiah



.

Josiah, you imagine that by embracing all views you are embracing God's view and thus you are being humble. That's false. Your ego is no less than those who argue an Arminian or Calvinist position, but your effort to study the scriptures is less because you stop trying and toss God into your mystery pile.
There are things to which God is only privie, such as whom God has chosen, but there is no mystery in the biblical truth that God chooses to extend grace to some and not to others. There is no mystery in the fact that God has chosen some to pardon and others to remain in their sins. The "why" is a mystery, but the fact he chooses is etched all over scripture so that there is no mystery regarding God's sovereign choice to do as he pleases.
Since God does not will to save all people from their sins, it becomes very obvious that the verses you consider to have a universal "all" cannot be what you wish them to be. God does not contradict himself and is not being mysterious in regard to his sovereign right to choose.
I am not correcting God. I am correcting you. A person who is contradicting himself by holding two opposing views and calling it all a mystery. Or...are you God's appointed spokesman on the matter? Perhaps your ego is greater than you imagine.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, you imagine that by embracing all views you are embracing God's view and thus you are being humble. That's false.

No.

I'm REJECTING all the human conjectures..... I'm rejecting ALL those who insist on designating self as the all-knowing, all-wise Corrrector of God who just KNOW what God should have said and that God often meant the exact opposite of what He clearly stated..... I note that BOTH Calvinists AND Arminianists do EXACTLY the identical same thing - they see it in the other but are blind to such in themselves - thus the ENDLESS (and useless) debate between them that has raged for 500 years.

I'm NOT in favor of accepting all human conjectures on how to correct God. I'm in favor of accepting that God has declared. And if the puny, fallen, limited, human brain of no one can fully wrap itself around that - it's good to have the humility to admit that, the humility to accept that God is right (even if self "sees" unanswered questions). Calvin and Arminius were EQUALLY smart but equally egotistical - doing EXACTLY the same thing, just choosing to twist 180 degrees different Scriptures in order to make God as smart as self.

A person who is contradicting himself by holding two opposing views

No, I'm REJECTING both of these 16th Century human conjectures..... I'm REJECTING both Calvin's theory and Arminus' theory..... for EXACTLY the same reason. What I'm accepting is what God has said (rather than the need of both Calvin and Arminius to twist half of such 180 degrees in order to make God as smart as they).

It has become a ploy of BOTH conjectures to insist that EVERYONE must - absolutely MUST - be either a Calvinist or an Arminianist on this issue (ignoring that the vast majority of Christians have never been either).... then (because both are obviously unbiblical) both can blast the other as clearly wrong and then insist that THEREFORE self MUST be right (this coming from those who insist their logic is greater than God's). Yes, both ARE wrong - as both prove. And both are wrong that there can be only two possible conjectures (although no one realized that until Calvin and Arminius came along 1500 years later). No, I'm NOT accepting both wrong, unbiblical 16th Century conjectures. I'm REJECTING both - as most Christians do (all before the 16th Century).



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Does God desire all (universally) to be saved, Albion?

You seem to me to be one of those folks who thinks that this statement means that God intends to save everyone...if only he can figure out some way to do it.

 

[MennoSota]

No.

I'm REJECTING all the human conjectures..... I'm rejecting ALL those who insist on designating self as the all-knowing, all-wise Corrrector of God who just KNOW what God should have said and that God often meant the exact opposite of what He clearly stated..... I note that BOTH Calvinists AND Arminianists do EXACTLY the identical same thing - they see it in the other but are blind to such in themselves - thus the ENDLESS (and useless) debate between them that has raged for 500 years.

I'm NOT in favor of accepting all human conjectures on how to correct God. I'm in favor of accepting that God has declared. And if the puny, fallen, limited, human brain of no one can fully wrap itself around that - it's good to have the humility to admit that, the humility to accept that God is right (even if self "sees" unanswered questions). Calvin and Arminius were EQUALLY smart but equally egotistical - doing EXACTLY the same thing, just choosing to twist 180 degrees different Scriptures in order to make God as smart as self.





No, I'm REJECTING both of these 16th Century human conjectures..... I'm REJECTING both Calvin's theory and Arminus' theory..... for EXACTLY the same reason. What I'm accepting is what God has said (rather than the need of both Calvin and Arminius to twist half of such 180 degrees in order to make God as smart as they).

It has become a ploy of BOTH conjectures to insist that EVERYONE must - absolutely MUST - be either a Calvinist or an Arminianist on this issue (ignoring that the vast majority of Christians have never been either).... then (because both are obviously unbiblical) both can blast the other as clearly wrong and then insist that THEREFORE self MUST be right (this coming from those who insist their logic is greater than God's). Yes, both ARE wrong - as both prove. And both are wrong that there can be only two possible conjectures (although no one realized that until Calvin and Arminius came along 1500 years later). No, I'm NOT accepting both wrong, unbiblical 16th Century conjectures. I'm REJECTING both - as most Christians do (all before the 16th Century).



- Josiah

You realize that you are providing a human conjecture...don't you?

 

[MennoSota]

You seem to me to be one of those folks who thinks that this statement means that God intends to save everyone...if only he can figure out some way to do it.

You didn't answer the question.
Does God desire all (universally) to be saved, Albion?
Please answer the question.

 

[Albion]

You didn't answer the question.
Does God desire all (universally) to be saved, Albion?
Please answer the question.

The statement does not mean that God intends to save everyone. Universalists love to think that this is the meaning, but it's not. It also doesn't say that God will save everyone, just that he would that all be saved. That obviously was his plan when humans were created. He would have had it be that Adam and Eve did not go on to sin in the Garden, but they were allowed to, and they chose to, and there were consequences.

 

[MennoSota]

The statement does not mean that God intends to save everyone. Universalists love to think that this is the meaning, but it's not. It also doesn't say that God will save everyone, just that he would that all be saved. That obviously was his plan when humans were created. He would have had it be that Adam and Eve did not go on to sin in the Garden, but they were allowed to, and they chose to, and there were consequences.

If God would, it means God wills.
But, God clearly doesn't will all persons to be saved.
Albion, is the human will greater than God's will?
If a human "would not be saved" is the human's desire to "would not" greater than God desire to "would?"
Can you see your dilemma?

 

[psalms 91]

Exactly and that is why there seems to be misunderstanding about a lot of things surrounding being saved, it is our free will that determines being saved, we have the right to reject salvation and many do. It is the Holy Spirit that draws us to God and salvation but it is still our choice.

 

[Albion]

If God would, it means God wills.

No, it doesn't.

So that's your answer and my previous post condensed to the essentials so that there is no misunderstanding.

 

[Josiah]

Exactly and that is why there seems to be misunderstanding about a lot of things surrounding being saved, it is our free will that determines being saved, we have the right to reject salvation and many do. It is the Holy Spirit that draws us to God and salvation but it is still our choice.

I disagree with Arminius just as much as I do with Calvin - and for the identical reasons.

Did you watch the (admittedly long) video in the opening post?

 

[MennoSota]

No, it doesn't.

So that's your answer and my previous post condensed to the essentials so that there is no misunderstanding.

Albion, you cannot or perhaps will not see your error in thought.

You still do not answer my question.
Does man's "would not" overcome God's "would?"
Does mankind determine his/her own destiny?
Is God some passive bystander who waits for humans to take him up on the offer?

 

[MennoSota]

Exactly and that is why there seems to be misunderstanding about a lot of things surrounding being saved, it is our free will that determines being saved, we have the right to reject salvation and many do. It is the Holy Spirit that draws us to God and salvation but it is still our choice.

Congratulations, you have just declared yourself ruler over God and effectively emasculated God's sovereignty. Why do you even worship the god who is beneath you?

 

[psalms 91]

Congratulations, you have just declared yourself ruler over God and effectively emasculated God's sovereignty. Why do you even worship the god who is beneath you?

Nope, just stating that free will is given to man by God and we have the right to accept or reject a gift which salvation is, it is not of ourselves but it is our choice whether to accept or not

 

[Imalive]

Albion, you cannot or perhaps will not see your error in thought.

You still do not answer my question.
Does man's "would not" overcome God's "would?"
Does mankind determine his/her own destiny?
Is God some passive bystander who waits for humans to take him up on the offer?

No He wept.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!

Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

 

[MennoSota]

Nope, just stating that free will is given to man by God and we have the right to accept or reject a gift which salvation is, it is not of ourselves but it is our choice whether to accept or not

You are stating something the Bible doesn't state, which is a very dangerous thing to do.
God gives the gift of grace and the gift of faith. (I can show you the passage) There is no gift of salvation for you to accept or reject. Nowhere in all scripture will you find the gift you are claiming. Therefore, you have no choice in the matter. Plus, if you did you would have salvation by works and not by grace. How can I express how horribly wrong you are?