Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

[kiwimac]

Universalism? Or was He not yet lifted up? (Because I can assure you that ALL PEOPLE are not drawn to Jesus. Many do not like him.)
I think we need some sort of statement of your thoughts on that scripture.

Jesus was quite clear. All folk are recipients of salvation. This is God's action not any humans'; Paul similarly declares that as "all in Adam died (through no choice of their own) so all in Christ are made alive (also through no choice of their own.)

 

[atpollard]

Jesus was quite clear. All folk are recipients of salvation. This is God's action not any humans'; Paul similarly declares that as "all in Adam died (through no choice of their own) so all in Christ are made alive (also through no choice of their own.)

So Universalism.
(You have other far clearer statements from Jesus that make that conclusion problematic.)

John 6:43-44 NASB Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

So if you honestly believe that Jesus is claiming that he will draw every single individual on the Earth in John 12:32, then you must also believe that Jesus is claiming that He will raise up every single individual on the Earth to eternal life on the last day as promised in John 6:44. That is Universalism.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #98 quoted from Romans 2:5-10.

In part, that says [emphasis added]: 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

To whom was Paul writing?

Romans 1:5-8 [emphasis added]:
5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship, to obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name;
6 among whom you also are the called-out ones of Jesus Christ:
7 to all those who are in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

==============================================================================================

Also in Romans 2:5-10 we find: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

People can only obey the truth if they know the truth. They can only reject it when they know what it is. Therefore, the statement above can only apply to people who know the truth, not people in general. Consider Hebrews 6:4-6 if you will. That confirms that idea. The only people that actually know the truth are members of the true Church.

==============================================================================================

And doesn't Romans 2:6 relate to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 1 John 5:16,17 by degrees? Read 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 1 John 5:16,17. They are pretty straight forward, are they not?

==============================================================================================

Being "saved" is not tied in Scripture to people doing good and doing evil per se.

And the question "saved from what?" still remains unanswered.

 

[atpollard]

Post #98 quoted from Romans 2:5-10.

In part, that says [emphasis added]: 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

To whom was Paul writing?

Romans 1:5-8 [emphasis added]:
5 by whom we have received grace and apostleship, to obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name;
6 among whom you also are the called-out ones of Jesus Christ:
7 to all those who are in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

==============================================================================================

Also in Romans 2:5-10 we find: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

People can only obey the truth if they know the truth. They can only reject it when they know what it is. Therefore, the statement above can only apply to people who know the truth, not people in general. Consider Hebrews 6:4-6 if you will. That confirms that idea. The only people that actually know the truth are members of the true Church.

==============================================================================================

And doesn't Romans 2:6 relate to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 1 John 5:16,17 by degrees? Read 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and 1 John 5:16,17. They are pretty straight forward, are they not?

==============================================================================================

Being "saved" is not tied in Scripture to people doing good and doing evil per se.

And the question "saved from what?" still remains unanswered.

I am a firm MONERGIST, so I agree 100% that salvation is not because of works.
I only pointed out where the Bible says the same thing as the part of the Creed you attacked.
The Athanasion Creed is NOT unbiblical. (That was my only point.)

 

[MennoSota]

And the question "saved from what?" still remains unanswered.[/color]

Saved from the just wrath of God is the answer.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #124:

I am a firm MONERGIST, so I agree 100% that salvation is not because of works.
I only pointed out where the Bible says the same thing as the part of the Creed you attacked.
The Athanasion Creed is NOT unbiblical. (That was my only point.)

The Athanasian Creed makes statements that are universal in application (emphasis added): "At whose [Jesus’] coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.”.

Yet the Scripture quoted in support of those credal statements demonstrably applies to believers (or "born again believers", or "the saved", or whatever term is deemed appropriate by any person). Paul wrote his letter to the church members in Rome as a whole. But in the Scripture segment quoted, he was particularly addressing unsavoury elements within that whole. The context clarifies the application of his statements.

Romans 2:5-10 NASB (as presented in Post #98) [contains ORIGINAL EMPHASIS + emphasis added]:
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

As pointed out previously, only those who know what the precise truth is, only those who have experienced its power, can choose to continue to obey it or to subsequently disobey it.

Judaising and sinful (evil) practices existed among the believers in Rome, just as they did in other churches Paul wrote to. Such sinful practices also exist in churches today. Do they not?

And doesn't Romans 2:5-10 also tie in with 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Hebrews 10:26-27 and 1 John 5:16-17 (for instance)?

==============================================================================================

The intent of Romans 2:5-10 contrasts starkly with the humanity-wide statements made in the Athanasian Creed – humanity wide statements relating to works.

But there is no disagreement between Romans 2:5-10 and the other three "anchor" creeds, including the "Nicene Creed" as defined in Constantinople in 381AD.

It is the Athanasian Creed alone that is weighed in the balances and found wanting in this matter.


(By the way, Pedrito has seen the word "attacked" used in other situations of interest. In those situations, the word "attacked" was used as a means of arousing negative emotions in people – the kind of negative emotion that influences people to gloss over unwelcome evidence.)

 

[Andrew]

Saved from the just wrath of God is the answer.

saved from damnation is also accepted, indeed 'fair' and 'just' is eternal hell for our sins without the Savior and redeemer

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[hedrick]

Any amazement that presumably billions are going to writhe in hell for eternity and all by "God's eternal decree"?

Frankly, I don't see any way to avoid that. Calvin asserted it most explicitly. But any view that makes God omnipotent and omniscient seems to make him responsible for this. I think any reasonable ethics would say that if he creates a world in which billions will experience eternal torture, and he had the power to do otherwise, he is responsible. You can change how we talk about it. Maybe we say that people make their own decisions. But everything that led them to make that decision is known to him and could have been different.

I think either we have to say that what he set out to do is important enough that this kind of collateral damage is acceptable, or we have to accept some kind of open theism, in which God isn't all powerful. If the former, then why not be explicit about what's going on and go with Calvin.

I find Lutheranism attractive, but simply saying "mystery" isn't in the end very attractive when the overall logic of the situation makes God responsible anyway.

If someone could find a way out of this I'd love to see it, but at the moment open theism looks like the best of a couple of alternatives that I'm not very happy with.

 

[MennoSota]

Frankly, I don't see any way to avoid that. Calvin asserted it most explicitly. But any view that makes God omnipotent and omniscient seems to make him responsible for this. I think any reasonable ethics would say that if he creates a world in which billions will experience eternal torture, and he had the power to do otherwise, he is responsible. You can change how we talk about it. Maybe we say that people make their own decisions. But everything that led them to make that decision is known to him and could have been different.

I think either we have to say that what he set out to do is important enough that this kind of collateral damage is acceptable, or we have to accept some kind of open theism, in which God isn't all powerful. If the former, then why not be explicit about what's going on and go with Calvin.

I find Lutheranism attractive, but simply saying "mystery" isn't in the end very attractive when the overall logic of the situation makes God responsible anyway.

If someone could find a way out of this I'd love to see it, but at the moment open theism looks like the best of a couple of alternatives that I'm not very happy with.

Your way out is to admit that you have broken God's law and justly deserve God's judgment. Can you admit that you are 100% responsible for your rebellion?

 

[Josiah]

Frankly, I don't see any way to avoid that.

IMO, embracing Scripture is the way to avoid that.... For example, "God desires all people to be saved." Etc, etc., etc., etc. The "logic" of some can't accept what Scripture says and so "spins" it so that it actually means the opposite of what God stated. IMO, both Arminius and Calvin are equally "logical" and equally unbiblical; when we disbelieve and subject what God declares to our "logic" (and thus need to spin some 180 degrees from what God stated), at the very least, we'll end up contradicting Scripture - or worse.

I think either we have to say.....

Why do we HAVE to say.... anything? Why can't we just say what Scripture does - and admit there's a mystery here, our puny, fallen, limited, sinful, human brains can't wrap themselves around the information God chose to provide? Don't we do that with the Trinity? With the two natures of Christ? Inspiration? I'm not sure why we HAVE to appoint self to correct what God has declared or to supply "answers" God never gave even when such actually contradicts what God did say.

the best of a couple of alternatives that I'm not very happy with.

Since neither is biblical and thus neither is true, I find no reason to proclaim as true either of these 16th Century human "theories" - that of Calvin or Arminius. "The lesser WRONG" is not an option we should choose and proclaim.... especially when both so clearly contradict what God obviously states.



A blessed New Year to all....



- Josiah

 

[hedrick]

Perhaps we don't have to say anything. But if God truly wants everyone to be saved and not everyone is, there are implications for God's omnipotence. Now it's not so clear that Scripture teaches omnipotence in the way many Christians want to present it, but it pushes us down the path to open theism. The only way I can see to avoid the problem is not to speak of omnipotence. That's fine if it's a solution you accept.

 

[MennoSota]

IMO, embracing Scripture is the way to avoid that.... For example, "God desires all people to be saved." Etc, etc., etc., etc. The "logic" of some can't accept what Scripture says and so "spins" it so that it actually means the opposite of what God stated. IMO, both Arminius and Calvin are equally "logical" and equally unbiblical; when we disbelieve and subject what God declares to our "logic" (and thus need to spin some 180 degrees from what God stated), at the very least, we'll end up contradicting Scripture - or worse.





Why do we HAVE to say.... anything? Why can't we just say what Scripture does - and admit there's a mystery here, our puny, fallen, limited, sinful, human brains can't wrap themselves around the information God chose to provide? Don't we do that with the Trinity? With the two natures of Christ? Inspiration? I'm not sure why we HAVE to appoint self to correct what God has declared or to supply "answers" God never gave even when such actually contradicts what God did say.





Since neither is biblical and thus neither is true, I find no reason to proclaim as true either of these 16th Century human "theories" - that of Calvin or Arminius. "The lesser WRONG" is not an option we should choose and proclaim.... especially when both so clearly contradict what God obviously states.



A blessed New Year to all....



- Josiah

Josiah, it seems that you ignore context and the full scope of the scripture in order to maintain an empty position void of any opinion.

 

[Josiah]

Perhaps we don't have to say anything.

Perhaps we don't HAVE to say anything? IMO, there is no divine MANDATE that all humans eventually develop conjectures to supply their OWN theories to their OWN questions - even if such directly contradicts what God actually said - and then require God and man to agree with the conjecture of self in order to be as smart as self.

But if God truly wants everyone to be saved and not everyone is, there are implications for God's omnipotence.

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." See, when I encounter things that I can't seem to wrap my puny, fallen, limited, human brain around..... when God seems bigger than my IQ..... I have no desire to change what God says to the exact opposite (so that I'M right rather than God), I just say, "I can't seem to wrap my puny, sinful, fallen, human brain around that." That doesn't mean God is wrong..... it just means God is bigger than my brain, smarter than my conjectures and theories (that, if true, mean what God says isn't true). Follow me?

The only way I can see to avoid the problem is not to speak of omnipotence. That's fine if it's a solution you accept.

IMO, there is no problem.... no more than with the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ or Inspiration or a whole host of other things I accept. The best way to AVOID making it a problem is to not speak (especially in contradiction of God), not set up self as smarter than God, bigger than God, the one self appoints to correct God. It requires humility..... and that's in short supply in modern Christianity, lol.


That's my perspective....


A blessed New Year to all!


- Josiah

 

[Andrew]

God wishes all be saved but man still has his freewill....

Well why didnt you say that in the first place Patrick?

-Yeah Patrick quit beating around the bush Patrick.

 

[MennoSota]

All whom God has written into the Lambs book of Life will be saved. God does not wish them to perish and he will make sure they do not perish. This is not difficult to understand, yet so many want to force universalism into the word "all." It seems odd to me because never, from Genesis to Revelation, do you find God promising all humanity the gift of salvation. You do find God promising his chosen ones salvation.
Why, then, do we demand a universal "all" in the few verses of the New Testament that say "all?" We even go further and demand that God give humans free-will regarding salvation/adoption. My only conclusion is that we humans are constantly exhibiting a rebellious spirit where we demand the authority to out rank God and make the final decisions.

 

[Josiah]

All whom God has written into the Lambs book of Life will be saved. God does not wish them to perish and he will make sure they do not perish. This is not difficult to understand, yet so many want to force universalism into the word "all." It seems odd to me because never, from Genesis to Revelation, do you find God promising all humanity the gift of salvation. You do find God promising his chosen ones salvation.
Why, then, do we demand a universal "all" in the few verses of the New Testament that say "all?" We even go further and demand that God give humans free-will regarding salvation/adoption. My only conclusion is that we humans are constantly exhibiting a rebellious spirit where we demand the authority to out rank God and make the final decisions.

No one is even suggesting universalism..... that too would be a human conjecture that is contrary to Scripture. But then so is the new conjecture that God does NOT desire all to be saved - as He Himself clearly stated - but actually MEANT to say, "I do NOT desire all to be saved but it is my desire that most fry in hell." When folks won't believe what God states because it seems not to fit with their puny, fallen, human, sinful "brains" and so change what God says 180 degrees, error clearly results.

 

[MennoSota]

No one is even suggesting universalism..... that too would be a human conjecture that is contrary to Scripture. But then so is the new conjecture that God does NOT desire all to be saved - as He Himself clearly stated - but actually MEANT to say, "I do NOT desire all to be saved but it is my desire that most fry in hell." When folks won't believe what God states because it seems not to fit with their puny, fallen, human, sinful "brains" and so change what God says 180 degrees, error clearly results.

You miss the entire work of God in scripture as it relates to salvation, Josiah. As I mentioned, God reserves his salvation for those he chooses. He is not obligated to save any, but he chooses to save whom he wills.
Unfortunately you are looking at each tree and thus miss the forest. Even more so, you claim that your brain is great because you just lump your ignorance into "mystery" when God has not been mysterious about his election of whom he wills. You are content to ignore scripture and let what seems contradictory remain that way rather than seek to understand the whole of scripture. You seem to enjoy ignoring God's word so that the seeming conflict remains a mystery rather than study God's word to see how God has worked from beginning to end. To put it bluntly...quit being lazy. You are trying to hold two incompatible views and convince yourself there is no resolution, only mystery.

 

[Albion]

You miss the entire work of God in scripture as it relates to salvation, Josiah. As I mentioned, God reserves his salvation for those he chooses. He is not obligated to save any, but he chooses to save whom he wills.
Unfortunately you are looking at each tree and thus miss the forest. Even more so, you claim that your brain is great because you just lump your ignorance into "mystery" when God has not been mysterious about his election of whom he wills. You are content to ignore scripture and let what seems contradictory remain that way rather than seek to understand the whole of scripture. You seem to enjoy ignoring God's word so that the seeming conflict remains a mystery rather than study God's word to see how God has worked from beginning to end. To put it bluntly...quit being lazy. You are trying to hold two incompatible views and convince yourself there is no resolution, only mystery.

That seems to be a powerful rebuttal of something or other. It just doesn't have much of anything to do with what Josiah wrote and you quoted.

 

[MennoSota]

That seems to be a powerful rebuttal of something or other. It just doesn't have much of anything to do with what Josiah wrote and you quoted.

Does God desire all (universally) to be saved, Albion?
Josiah seems stumped. He says yes and no...it's a mystery.
Is it a mystery, Albion, or has God explained it and we don't want to accept it?

 

[Andrew]

You miss the entire work of God in scripture as it relates to salvation, Josiah. As I mentioned, God reserves his salvation for those he chooses. He is not obligated to save any, but he chooses to save whom he wills.
Unfortunately you are looking at each tree and thus miss the forest. Even more so, you claim that your brain is great because you just lump your ignorance into "mystery" when God has not been mysterious about his election of whom he wills. You are content to ignore scripture and let what seems contradictory remain that way rather than seek to understand the whole of scripture. You seem to enjoy ignoring God's word so that the seeming conflict remains a mystery rather than study God's word to see how God has worked from beginning to end. To put it bluntly...quit being lazy. You are trying to hold two incompatible views and convince yourself there is no resolution, only mystery.

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

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk