How were Gentiles saved, or could they be saved before Christ? Did they have to be grafted into the nation of Israel(observe all their ceremonial laws, etc.) to be spiritually saved?
« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | In Memory of John Stott »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Greg,
I find your answer to be well thought out. It is I believe a difficult question, and I think one would find more comfort in that view particularly if they are a Calvinist as you are.
Where I may differ is based on a commentary I've heard from other thinkers who suggest that God responds to people's faiths based on the information they have.
In Romans, Paul says there are 3 ways a man can know there is a God:
1.) The Creation
2.) Conscience and an inherent knowledge right and wrong
3.) Light of Christ
The belief is that God responds to one's acknowledgement of those revelations. If you had #1 and #2, and lived your life positively in light of that knowledged, then God would judge you based on it. So for us today, and for those around Jesus' time, to have His revelation, and not respond to that, as most of the Jews did, that is what God will judge them on.
And then of course there is the idea of the "age of accountability" for those children who die young.
I'm sure there are holes in both of those arguments, but again, i've heard them raised by thoughtful thinkers on the subject.
Posted by: PTB | August 01, 2011 at 10:15 AM
The message of Romans 1+ seems to be that men are without excuse because of general revelation. It's not terribly comforting.
On the other hand, the hopelessness Greg offers for Gentiles is also unwarranted. No Gentile will be saved. Only those of the house of Israel will be saved. But plenty of people not born of that house will be grafted in. The means of being grafted in that the Bible has a lot to say about is to become a baptized, believing, communing member of the Christian church.
If there is any other means, it will also be through Christ. The Bible is clear on that score. But the Bible is silent about whether there is another means and about what it might be. So we should both find an urgency in preaching the Gospel and not become concerned about just how God carries out His peculiar business.
Where the Bible is silent, it is best for us also to be silent. But, it is just worth noting that there are philosophical answers to the general problem of the unevangelized or inadequately evangelized, if your reason becomes a stumbling block for you.
Posted by: WisdomLover | August 01, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Wisdomlover I couldn't have said it better. I love this: "So we should both find an urgency in preaching the Gospel and not become concerned about just how God carries out His peculiar business".
I would add this of yours to this general area of wondering about God's "mechanisms",
"There may be things that God does that I might never, not even on the other side of glory, with my limited vision, be able to understand enough to justify. I might not ever come to be emotionally comfortable with each of God's actions....But rationally, I know that whatever God does, He bears the cost of more fully than any of us can remotely imagine. And I know that God is morally perfect. Not because I can feel His perfection...my experience is too limited for that, but because Scripture and reason tell me that it is so in spite of what I feel.”
As for the Grafting In and all of that, I'm not really strong enough in this area to comment....but...what I know of Him, I know that, whatever we find out, as we find it out, it will be Good, and, I dare say, it will have been worth it.
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 02:07 PM
Q: Gentiles saved before Christ?
A: For the most part, no.
Q: Humanity saved after Christ?
A: For the most part, no.
Posted by: Malebranche | August 01, 2011 at 02:53 PM
Malebranche IF Eternal Damnation is not forever as in time, but instead is in Ages, as it so often is, then Free Choice allowing for Real Love is a BETTER model than your universalism wherein God rapes His puppets. If Forever IS forever, as in time, then your universalism IS the better option. I say this not b/c I believe in any, or none, or both, or care to discuss them, but only to show you that you have not chosen the BETTER option, the more KIND option, the more LOVELY option. There are better things than your universalism.
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 04:43 PM
LHRM,
There are also better things than God sovereignly abandoning most of humanity to eternal horror, reducing them, in the fashion of despot, to fertilizer in the soil of his glory.
Posted by: Malebranche | August 01, 2011 at 05:30 PM
Thats what I just said. Read.
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 05:34 PM
1. Free Choice & Real Love & the prison of hell's chosen Isolated-Self lasting till the end of an Age, & then ceasing to exist.
2. The same but our chosen home in the Pure Self never ceases to exist.
3. Univesalism which has God rapping His puppets.
4. #3 with or without hell's chosen & loveless Pure-Self.
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 05:44 PM
Lucifer proves either 1 or 2. ALL cannot come Home.
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 05:49 PM
Unless of course Lucifer is Made To Choose & even hell is saved. (Scripture says otherwise) But then, God rapes, & Choice dies, & with it Love. And God's Puppet Heaven lies dormant, void of Love, void of God, for God is Love.
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 06:06 PM
Hey guys .....Does Jesus leading captivity captive touch on those pre-Him or after Him or both....?
Posted by: LHRM | August 01, 2011 at 06:37 PM
Hey LHRM, does the morally perfect and omniscient Father, Son, Holy Spirit have the freedom to not be wholly devoted to each other in their perfection? The answer is no. Will the resurrected saints after the resurrected Firstborn Son be able to sin in heaven? No.
Then in your formula as I tried to point out to you before, there can be no love there. It is a faulty formula unless you can prove the necessary connection that freewill--the libertarian kind--is necessary for love. I think you have the scriptures stacked against you not to mention pure logic.
Posted by: Brad B | August 01, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Is it Gods Will that all be saved?
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 03:33 AM
Brad you are not answering a very important question which Jesus Christ presents to the world.
It is the Father's statement to the world of, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Son, that whosoever....."
And,
The Son's offer, which I take to be a sincere, or valid, offer, which is, "Let whosoever wills come unto me and I will in no wise cast him out".
This business of "whosoever" and "wills" and "I will not turn him away".
And,
"For it is God's Will that all should be saved".
Is it God's Will that all be saved?
I think I stand on solid ground when I tell the world that each and every person is invited into union with this God who Is-Love and the Door-In is the Eternally Sacrificed-Self we find in Him on His Cross.
Is it God's Will that all be saved?
If not, well, then we disagree obviously. If so, then God-Wills-All, while the Whosoever of Man Wills No-Thank-You-Sir.
Posted by: LoveHimselfRescuedMe | August 02, 2011 at 04:07 AM
Brad,
I think that the Gospel is for all men and women everywhere, and I would stretch that to include the "peculiar business" of what we can't see which WL touches on, which is sheer guesswork but in our minds I think as a question. Whatever happens to all men everywhere will involve the Door Himself and no other. But that it is God's Will that all men come to Him is I think valid. It is the clear message of the entire New Testament and the very life and ministry of Jesus Christ. "Whosoever" and "all men" stand out I think in enough ways that I feel validated to tell the whole world, whichever ear it may land on, "God loves YOU, and God invites YOU, and it is God's Will that YOU come to Him". I think if every ear heard this (perhaps all will) then the Truth of it would still be valid.
God wills that all men come to Him, through the Door, which is Himself.
I think if we disagree on this single point, then the rest of what is launched off of this core platform is really of no consequence, as the tangents which such lines would shoot off into would be to incurably and radically diverging, perhaps not in the Near, but certainly off in the distance, as those two lines would, if traveled far enough out, lead to two different sorts of Gods.
--- WHOSOEVER MAY BE READING THIS: God loves you, and invites you into His House.
Posted by: LoveHimselfRescuedMe | August 02, 2011 at 05:14 AM
Well, if God loves me why should I change anything? I might be happy right where I am, afterall He wants me to stop doing certain things that I want to do.
LHRM, please show where God has invited anyone into His house. I can show you plenty of places where He's excluded some.
You "God is Love" view underestimates the holiness of God while underestimating the depths of depravity in man and the offense presented before the face of God.
Posted by: Brad B | August 02, 2011 at 06:50 AM
Is it God's Will that all be saved? Pretty simple question...
You're evading....
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 06:54 AM
...Oh, underestimating man's depravity.... I think maybe you think that I am saying God will insist that all will be saved, even if they don't repent etc...which would confuse this whole thing; I'm not saying that. I'm only addressing God's Will for all men everywhere, which is that they do come to repentence, etc....
Is it God's WILL (not outcome, but will) that all come to the knowledge of Him and repent and be saved?
I think that is now as clear as possible....Yes it is God's Will that all be saved. No it is not God's Will that all be saved.
You can evade if you want...but then I'll just have to let my message to the world stand: Let whosoever will come....for it is God's will that all should come to repentence....for God gave His Son that whosoever....
I suppose you can say that He only Wills for SOME to be saved (and contradict Timothy and Peter), but at least we'd be clear and finally stop evading....
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 07:03 AM
Timothy and Peter say it's God's Will that all be saved.....something about God not willing than any should perish and stuff....added to the language of the four Gospels, is clear.
Roman's deals with Wills who Will Not, as in Pharoh, and indeed this hardending and final-state is what happens to EVERY Will whether they choose Life or Death: there comes a point when the Choice is made and made forever. All men who choose life are turned to stone (in a good way) forever, and, all men who choose death are turned to stone (in a bad way) forever....The Heart finally becomes what it chose all along. It was not God's Will that they choose that; but, once that "point of no return" is crossed by a Soul (God only knows the location of such a plane inside a soul) then God, whose Eyes are all seeing, there does what He ALWAYS does to ALL men, which is to turn the Final Choice into the Final State (enter Judgement, Wrath, Heaven, Hell, Eternal Joy, and etc...).
Roman's cannot UNDO Timothy and Peter and the Gospels. They must coexist. And, as I have described it, they do. Your solution is to mute "God Wills for all to be saved" by saying Pharoh is an example of when He did not Will that a person repent. But that makes a lie out of Peter and Timothy to defend Romans. Whereas, as I have painted it, both remain true. God Wills for all to choose Him. He judges FINALLY AND FOREVER all choices by all men everywhere.....Life AND Death become our Final Heart, which ever we choose....
Yes, it is God's Will that all repent.
Yes, there is a final judgement wherein God, who can juge whenever He wants, gives a soul over forever to that souls Final Choice, and, from that point forward, He uses that Heart of Stone for His purpose, JUST AS, He uses Hearts Afire With Life for His purpose. But WHICH Heart or WHICH Final-State the man becomes is the Man's Will. God Wills-All-Be-Saved. Many Men-Will-No-Thank-You-Sir.
BRAD IS IT GOD'S WILL THAT ALL BE SAVED? =)
Boy...tough getting a ya or na out of this one ;)
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 07:31 AM
LHRM-
Again, we have to distinguish what God wants, all things equal with what He wants all things considered. Otherwise, everything you say about what God wants is going to end up a conceptual hash.
In the one sense, God does want all to be saved. In the other sense, He does not want all to be saved. I know that God has this later desire because some people go to Hell.
"But it's their free choice" you say.
Fine.
But God could have forced them to repentance anyway. He obviously preferred to let them have what they want and stay free and go to Hell rather than to have what He wants by compelling them.
"That's right!" you say. "He preferred NOT to have what He wants. WL has admitted that God doesn't always get what He wants and isn't always in control."
But wait. "He preferred?"
Uh-oh!
When you say "God preferred A to B" you're saying that He wanted A more than He wanted B.
So God wants to send those who freely choose Hell to Hell. He wants it more than He wants to compel them to repentance.
But God clearly does want all to be saved. He did, after all, die for all. That's the measure of how fervent His desire is for their salvation.
So God wants not to get something that what He wants so much that He died so it could happen.
Boy! He must have wanted not to get what He wants an awful lot!
Yeah.
Is God irrational to want not to get what He wants?
Again, only if "want" is used in the same sense in both places. But it's not, so He's not.
Now...Here is what's going to chap everyone's hide.
The people that go to Heaven are there because God compels them against their free choice to be there. Their free choice was to go to Hell, just like all the people who do go to Hell. But God preferred to compel them to repentance rather than let them go to Hell and remain free.
Well, if the saved are really no different from the damned except that God wanted to compel the saved to repentance more than He wanted to leave them free, why aren't all saved (or damned)?
Surely, there's no individual who goes to Hell that God could not have compelled to repentance. Surely, there's no person who goes to Heaven that God could not have left free.
So why aren't all saved (or damned)?
As with the inadequately evangelized (such as the BC Gentiles), Scripture is silent. So it is usually best for us too to remain silent.
We can say with full confidence that there's no injustice in it.
There's no injustice in the original sentence, because sin is universal. What's more, there's no injustice in the subsequent pardon and call to repentance, because it's universal. And there's no injustice in the adequacy of the call, because it's more than adequate, even in the face of stiff resistance, to bend every will.
And finally, there's no injustice in the final result, even though some do successfully resist God's call. I know this is true, because God is just. But I don't know why because His ways are above our ways and His thoughts above our thoughts.
Posted by: WisdomLover | August 02, 2011 at 07:43 AM
Im still not sure what to tell "anyone" if they ask me "Does God Will that I come to Him?" I think through your 100 escape hatches you are whispering "yes".....
But honestly Im not SURE you mean to repeat scripture's "God wills that all be saved" ...... ?
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 09:00 AM
I say some go to hell AGAINST Gods will, b/c scripture says He Wills ALL to be saved and NO verse has God telling a man "I really Will that you end up in hell".
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 09:03 AM
Hey LHRM,
What do you tell them when they ask if God willed that all Israel repent and turn back to Him? Or whether He willed that they follow after Baal and sacrifice their children to Molech? What do you tell them when they ask if He willed that Judas Iscariot betray Jesus and that Pilate had Him Crucified? That Joseph's brothers sold Joseph into bondage?
Will you whisper?
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 09:11 AM
The Exodus seems like a pretty central part of God's redemptive plan and it is unlikely that God left it to chance, LHRM. Do you think He willed the Exodus, and, therefore, the necessary conditions for it to have occurred?
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 09:17 AM
So God does not Will that all be saved?
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 09:47 AM
You've put a question instead of an answer, LHRM. How about an answer?
When you capitalize "will" you make me nervous. What is Will?
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 10:05 AM
Actually I guess I should phrase that in two questions, followed by a brief (unwhole, choppy, hurried) reply to Daron's question, which is well received and indeed very important, but, I see it with the abbrieviated explanation after these two questions:
First Question One:
So God does not Will that all be saved?
And question Two:
God created never willing everyone to come to Him, His plan is wholly void of "All Men" on any level and void of "Whosoever, let him come" and no one can come to Him without His help (obviously) and He witholds help from most, gives it to a few, chooses who will and will not go to heaven and hell, and if you should find yourself reading this and asking God-If-You-Are-There then Save-Me, you really ought to first ask Him IF He actually Wills to save you; you may NOT be one of those He loves, you may be the pawn He uses to get to that other guy, the one He actually does love....
Is that about it? (this is question Two)
DARON:
Here is/was my use of Pharoh and Romans, as I see it it IS possible for BOTH [Romans] AND [Timothy/Peter/Gospels] to be True. I think if we undo any of each then we error, and we must come up with a description that allows both to be true:
Timothy and Peter say it's God's Will that all be saved.....something about God not willing than any should perish and stuff....added to the language of the four Gospels, is clear. Whosoever is the Good News.
Roman's deals with Wills who Will Not, as in Pharoh, and indeed this hardending and final-state is what happens to EVERY Will whether they choose Life or Death: there comes a point when the Choice is made and made forever. All men who choose life are turned to stone (in a good way) forever, and, all men who choose death are turned to stone (in a bad way) forever....
ALL OF US FACE THIS END. The Heart finally becomes what it chose all along. It was not God's Will that they choose evil; but, once that "point of no return" is crossed by a Soul (God only knows the location of such a plane inside a soul) then God, whose Eyes are all seeing, there does what He ALWAYS does to ALL men, which is to TURN THE SOUL OVER (to Life or to Death) and turn the Final Choice into the Final State (enter Judgement, Wrath, Heaven, Hell, Eternal Joy, and etc...).
Roman's cannot UNDO Timothy and Peter and the Gospels. They must coexist. And, as I have described it, they do. Your solution is to mute "God Wills for all to be saved" by saying Pharoh is an example of when He did not Will that a person repent. But that makes a lie out of Peter and Timothy (and Jesus) to defend Romans. Whereas, as I have painted it, both remain true. God Wills for all to choose Him. He judges FINALLY AND FOREVER all choices by all men everywhere.....Life AND Death become our Final Heart, which ever we choose....God can use a donkey, or a stone, or anyone, He need not violate His word and "leave it to chance" when He can use a rock to get the job done. If all of Egypt repented, He would have used a heard of donkeys, or stones, or another nation, but He need not contradict Himself as I think you have Him doing.
Yes, it is God's Will that all repent.
Yes, there is a final judgement wherein God, who can juge whenever He wants, gives a soul over forever to that souls Final Choice, and, from that point forward, He uses that Heart of Stone for His purpose, JUST AS, He uses Hearts Afire With Life for His purpose. ALL (ALL) men are used by God in that sense. But WHICH Heart or WHICH Final-State the man becomes is the Man's Will. God Wills-All-Be-Saved. Many Men-Will-No-Thank-You-Sir.
Herein these various scriptures can all COEXIT without Muting each other. Man chooses. God wills all choose Him. God turns hearts to Final-Stone/Final-Life in all Men (Judgement). God uses all men for His purposes, yet without violating Whosoever. The "World" and the "Whosoever" of the four Gospels remains in place. And etc....we must strive for a "package" in which all of the above run WITH the other rather than canceling one another out.
So, "Is it God's Will that all be saved?" ABSOLUTELY.
My two questions above this reply to Daron remain open for anyone willing to say ya/na etc...I think my answer is sound and mutes no scriptures out for the sake of another...
Posted by: LoveHimselfRescuedMe | August 02, 2011 at 10:20 AM
Sorry... "COEXIST"...not coexit (i told you it was hurried!)
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Daron,
Come on, LHRM has been asking that question since post #1 and nobody has answered it. It seems like you're the one is is answering his question with other questions.
It seems like he capitalizes a lot of words that are not usually capitalized. Why does that bother you?
As you were, gentlemen...
Posted by: Austin | August 02, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Hi Austin,
Come on, I never said I was answering his questions and I specifically directed a question directly to him.Has nobody answered? I dispute that. Because he has already been told that God has two wills, as is standard orthodoxy, and he is trying to force a univocal meaning onto this one version of the word. So i want to know what this one version means before I can answer it.
Thanks for your clarifying questions.
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Thanks for your post, LHRM.
Yes He does and no He doesn't. Since you are not satisfied with the orthodox answer or Wisdom Lover's very good reply, what is it you mean by "Will"?I enjoy reading you most of the time (though, like others, I avoid the longest ones).
No, that's kind of junky, question 2. The Bible makes clear that you can't turn to God unless He is already turning you. Indeed. Just as God in the Old Testament desires that none perish but there they are perishing. So His "Will" is not always done. In fact, every part of the Bible and God's story must coexist. This includes the Lamb slain before Creation ... according to God's Will. My solution is never to mute Scripture. Just because we appear to disagree on a fine point please do not start making things up about me. So God Wills that all choose Him. And He wills that He will allow them not to choose Him .. even though He could force them to, and even though He could have refrained from creating a world where He knew they would make these choices. So He Wills that they not choose Him. So you have advanced the argument not one millimeter, even as you claim to have solved the problem, deny others' solutions, and falsely accuse us. So, obviously, God Wills, even in your "solution", both that all will come to Him and that some will not. Therefore, why not attend to the answers given you, and the ones worked out over the preceding millennia? Why are you picking and scratching at those answers and insisting on an univocal answer when you can't provide one yourself? And God Wills to accept man's Will. Thus, God Wills their condemnation. And He has reasons for this. Good and Just reasons, even if we don't know what they are. Not without equivocation and not without falling to the problem you are trying to force on everyone else. Exactly. That's exactly what WL did above. But you mocked his "whispering". But you actually haven't answered the questions I asked of you. God wills that none perish ... Did He will that Judas betray His Son to death? Did He will that Adam and Eve eat of the Tree and, as per His decree, die? Did He will to banish them and prevent them from eating of the tree that would have allowed that they never perish? Did God will the Exodus? Or was He lucky? The Exodus required Moses' killing of the overseer, by the way. Did He will that Ananias and Saphira die when they lied to Him?
etc.
Is "Will" a word with absolutely only one meaning? Or only when you are trying to push on others?
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Yes, but, again, we are told God wills that all be saved. I have yet to hear you agree, b/c you add to it what I do not find in any verse anywhere, which is this: "God wills that many go to hell".
You "infer" this and tack it on, but you cannot show me; and, b/c that is the case, I wonder if such a thing which outright contradicts "God wills that all be saved" ought to be so allowed by a statement not found in the New Testament, which is that God wills many to be lost.
That is where you are loosing me. I see you using a verse/statement not found in scripture (what you "infer") and that is fine, and allowed, UNLESS it "outright" (as you do) contradicts an ACTUAL statement found (which it does....God wills all to be saved).
I'm not sure how you justify this use of your Non-Found-In-Scripture-Statement (God wills that many go to hell) in the face of an actually-found-in-scripture statement of God wills all to be saved.
In other words, I "know" and "see" in scripture the undeniable, which is God wills all to be saved, and, if you add to that, I am happy to have it, EVEN if it is only an inferrence (God wills many to go to hell). But, if an inferrence, and not an actually stated "statement" (as yours is for no where can you show me God wills many to go to hell) then it must AT LEAST not contradict (yours does) that which is ACTUALLY stated (God wills all to be saved).
It's a matter of standards gentlemen... I don't mind inferring nuance around the blurry margins, but I AT LEAST have to not allow my little "additions" (I have many) not outright contradict a very clear and overt statement of God-Wills-All-To-Be-Saved (etc).
Scripture is very plain on God's Will. It is you who are inventing, as Jeff says, the 900 flavors of will, which is fine, so long as you don't have God's will contradicting God's will or Word, etc. Which you do.
If you can live with that sort of cheating and invention, then so be it. I can too, in my own nuances, but I am at least honest enough to include phrases like "this is sheer guesswork on my part...." or whatever.
Honesty counts for alot. And, a 1000 years of error didn't stop Luther from saying salvation is of faith; I would caution you against using "everyone says so" as a reason to trust a doctrine. Especially when the great mass of Non-Calvinistic Christians out there disagree with you, and there are "more of them than you" so, if you want to use that logic (which you just did) then you must be the incorrect one.
You're cheating, and adding to scripture what is not found in scripture, which is fine. I do so too. But I put it out there as my guesswork, my take. But, you won't even admit it, which is where you loose me.
Are you willing to say that the statement, "God wills that many go to hell" is NOT found anywhere and that "God wills that ALL (as in all...as in all) men be saved" IS found in scripture?
I can read. As can the great mass of Non-Calvinists who disagree with you.
You: "God's will is that many go to hell".
Scripture: "God wills that no one be lost, but that all come to Him...or that ALL be saved".
One of those is actually found in the Bible.
I, and many, many others, can read gentlemen. I find it odd that you think we can't, or think we won't notice.
I have many of my own additions and guesswork items as well...but, I call them such. You seem to be unwilling to admit something about your "take" on things. Something glaringly obvious to the "majority" of Christianity who feel that it is God's will that all (as in all) be saved.
Will means will. If you want to say God wills that many go to hell, you could at least use a differnet word than will in order not to so plainly lie against scripture.
IF ANYONE IS READING: God's will is that you, and everyone, (all), be saved.
That is in the Bible.
Gentlemen, it is a matter of standards towards honesty about what one is doing, what one is, or is not, quoting.
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 12:45 PM
How's this look?
(1) God's will cannot be thwarted. (2) God's will, in some instances, is to allow his creation to thwart his will.
Therefore, (1) always holds true.
Posted by: SteveK | August 02, 2011 at 12:55 PM
To Whosoever:
"No one can come to Him without His help (obviously) and He witholds help from some, gives it to a some, chooses who will and will not go to heaven and hell, makes some choose Him, excludes some others from choosing Him (for He wills many to go to hell), and if you should find yourself reading this and asking "God-If-You-Are-There then Save-Me", you really ought to first ask Him IF He actually Wills to save you; you may NOT be one of those He loves, you may be the pawn He uses to get to that other guy, the one He actually does love....For God wills many to go to hell."
I take this as a ball-park approximation of your message to the world and technically accurate for the most part.
God wills that "ALL" be saved resolves this statement (by canceling it out) but, if "all" REALLY doesn't mean "all" then, well, we are back to your message to the world.
God wills that all be saved apparently really does not mean that God wills that all men be saved.
Posted by: ?GodWillsManyToHell? | August 02, 2011 at 01:02 PM
Back To Topic:
The BC crowd and Christ's Gospel:
About Gentiles before Christ and etc. I really feel WL is right in that I think the Bible is silent on that, and I ought to be too. The question I ask is that I have been told by some that Christ "leading captivity captive" somehow involves Him bridging the Gospel through or to those who lived before Him and are waiting in "hati or hell or whatever". I think this amounts to speaking when the Bible is silent, so I don't trust it, but does anyone link that verse to Him "witnessing to them"?
Also, I think somewhere in Revelations it talks about all those who have been, even cities from the old test. etc, being called up to judgement and after that it talks about the righteous going right and the others left....and I ask or guess if that means that (somehow) those who "have lived BC" are there/then actually invited in (some of them). Totally clueless here, but wonder if those two areas give a door into Christ having contact with the BC crowd and actually having Gospel/Enter In be part of the conversation??
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 01:11 PM
Steve sounds about right...I think Daron and WL and Brad are right in that God does have CONTROL. And, I think He does will all to be saved, and wills none be lost. But, here, "Control" and "Not-Saved" make nonsense of his "Wills ALL to be saved", unless He gives to Man an actual part in the show, by His choice and His alone. Such Glory, if true, is indeed Weighty.
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 01:17 PM
Hi LHRM,
I'm only saying that He does will that all are saved, as is told in the Bible, and I allow what you have already mentioned - that not all are saved. What I infer is that whatever comes to pass is according to God's will. That, my friend, is what is in and throughout the Bible. You have already "contradicted" the Scripture when you admit that God wills all to be saved and then admit that they are not. If they are not all saved then, in fact, He did not Will their salvation. You're not sure? Let's review the facts, then. By your own admission: 1) God both wills all to be saved 2) some are not saved. So we already have tension, which you seek to explain (but fail). And then, not by your admission, however, is the plain fact that nothing happens that God does not will, or "Will". Amos, Isaiah, Lamentations, Job, Romans and James, among others, all make this clear. You are creating the contradiction yourself. And you know that you are not dealing with the Bible fairly because you refuse to answer the questions. Let's look at Ezekiel. God says He does not delight in the death of any. But He actually causes the deaths of some, doesn't He? And, in fact, He does delight in some deaths, doesn't He? So we know from Scripture itself that we can not force these univocal readings on passages when we clearly see otherwise. You clearly see otherwise yourself when you admit that not all will be saved. Scripture gives us different senses of God's will. Plain as day. Scripture also says God has right hand. Are we inventing 900 flavours of hand to call this a metaphor? So now we're cheaters and dishonest. Are you okay today, LHRM? You seem a little off. Superb caution. But that's not what I did, is it? I referred you to the arguments, and I asked why you don't attend to them. I did not appeal to their authority. Actually I didn't use that logic. When your critique of my logic requires your own illogic you should try to dial back a little. We aren't cheating, we are dealing with the texts. The word is "lose". I am. I am also willing to say that the Bible says God is One and never says God is Triune. And yet, He is, and has revealed Himself to be. I know you CAN read. I hope you will read better. Oh, but we are merely admonishing you to do some real reading. I gave you many examples to think about but you refuse to weigh them and answer. Why is that? Why is it when you guys decide to critique the "Calvinsists" (and the Lutheran Wisdom Lover) all you want to do is ask questions? Funny, but I've asked you at least twice what "Will" means and you refuse to answer. What does it mean for God to "Will" something which will not come to pass? What does it mean for something to come to pass that God does not "Will"?While you boast of your reading ability why have you only mocked and insulted rather than interacted with what I have written?
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 01:17 PM
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 01:20 PM
Thanks SteveK,
This looks good to me (and somehow to LHRM...?). You and your brevity! :)Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 01:34 PM
Hi ?,
You are right in that "all" doesn't have to mean "all men". LHRM won't admit that right now, but we all know that words are equivocal, even in the Bible. One quick example at the tip of my tongue today for some reason is in Mark 1:
5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
ALL the land of Judea, and ALL were baptized? Of course not. Even our strongest universalists here have admitted that "all" doesn't always mean "all".
They will, though, claim that it does apply (for some reason) universally in the passages LHRM has been using,and in the Ezekiel passage I've been citing. This is why, unfortunately, we often have to bypass, for the sake of time, space and sore fingers, the discussion on "all".
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 01:42 PM
Daron the MacArthur study bible in Romans agrees with you, havent used it alot but Ive found it more often helpful than not. What is your take on God's "not saving"? I mean is it a "No way!" from God to one knocking, or something else? ((phone typing...excuse typos))
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 03:18 PM
Darron did u agree with steve on God allowing man to thwart His will ?
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 03:25 PM
"This looks good to me" sounds like agreement from Daron, LHRM.
Posted by: SteveK | August 02, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Hi LHRM,
Testaments both Old and New say:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. "
"Knock and the door will be opened to you."
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
"But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.”
------
And without that call?
"There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;.”
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 03:38 PM
Therefore, you will not be knocking unless God is drawing you to do so, and He will not say "no way" to those He draws to knock.
I think it is generally presumed that I am writing my own opinions, but in case you are wondering, I do not claim to speak infallibly ex cathedra.
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Thanks SteveK.
Of course I have to rely on a few of 900 meanings of the word "Will" (as did Steve's comment) since Job tells us clearly that God's will is not thwarted and we see elsewhere (for instance, in all your proof texts) that it is.
Thus, by agreeing with Steve we have both agreed that there are at least two meanings of God's will (not sure about "Will"). You've of course, already made this concession by citing Timothy.
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 03:43 PM
Oops, sorry. Though I thanked SteveK in that comment the "you" addressed thereafter was LHRM.
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 03:44 PM
Is that a permissive will then? A will to permit?
Posted by: LHRM | August 02, 2011 at 03:50 PM
"Thus, by agreeing with Steve we have both agreed that there are at least two meanings of God's will"
Yes, for that is the only way you can avoid the contradition of thwarting God's will and not really thwarting it (because he willed it)
Posted by: SteveK | August 02, 2011 at 03:51 PM
I think that picking labels out of a hat will not help us at this point, LHRM.
Looking things over again I am reminded that WL has said it all already, and SteveK's concise summation is just fine.
Posted by: Daron | August 02, 2011 at 03:54 PM