God Does Not Will Any To Be Lost, Some Men Do!

[SovereignGrace]

I don't think that even Calvinists actually fully understand their own theology!

Oh, we understand it fine. You guys on the otherhand...

The doctrine of election means that a person has been, from eternity past, chosen by God to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. As this is a pre-determined act of God, it WILL happen.

Bingo!! And this miffs you how?

This means that ALL of those who are "elect" in Calvinistic "theology", are SAVED from their "mothers wombs"!

Ah, I see where the confusion comes from. Election is not salvation. You are conflating the two. Election is to salvation, not salvation itself. Look at this And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.[Romans 8:28-30] Look at how Paul laid this out. Those God foreknew...look at Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.[1 Peter 1:1-2]

Then those He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of the Christ. Those He predestined, He called. This calling is through the proclamation of His word. Those He called through His word He justified. Those He justified He glorified. That's why they call this the 'Golden Chain of Redemption' as they all link together.

As NO "elect" person can or will ever be LOST, as God will make sure that they ALL make it to heaven. They WILL repent of their sins, and WILL be born-again, and WILL go to heaven, as this is something that is GUARANTEED for them. This is the ONLY way to correctly understand this "election" as taught by Calvinism. Anything less than this, cannot be right!

And why are you taking umbrage with this?? Are you the one who is mad that God makes sure His ppl get to heaven? Srsly? You're messed up to be mad that God saves ppl.

Now, with this in mind, please tell me WHY there is a need for God to be LONGSUFFERING with them? Or, "not be willing that any are LOST"? since the latter is IMPOSSIBLE for the "elect", who are already saved in a sense, as they have been "predestined to eternal life"? The ONLY correct interpretation to 2 Peter 3:9 in context, is that Peter is speaking to the UNSAVED, DAMNED, LOST.

Because they are in the world lost, ruined and undone. He has chosen them to come into the fold. And He makes sure they will be saved.

 

[tyndale1946]

God Does Not Will Any To Be Lost...

Andy... Then do mind explaining to me this scripture?... Who ordained them?... Surely they didn't ordain themselves... Your call... Brother Glen

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Rippon]

You seem to have missed the point. I said, "notorious for their . . . variants."

Notorious = well known.

No, well-known for something bad.

You have not clarified anything.

You need to elaborate. You stated that the CT text forms are notorious for erroneous variants.

I know very few people who are even moderately knowledgeable about bible texts, translations etc., who are unaware there are variants.

Trying to make sense of your sentence. In other words few people you know of have a modest amount of understanding about Bible texts and translations and they are aware of variants? Is that what you meant to say? If so, what's the point you are trying to make with that statement?

And coming back to your mysterious earlier statement. Shouldn't variants be mentioned or referenced in translations? You seem to inclined to believe that that is not proper or something.

 

[Rippon]

Once again you have failed to understand. Every text critic knows that number, being a factor in textual transmission, matters.

It is not the deciding factor. All things considered it is of modest import.

Some place more emphasis on number than others but all consider number to be important. Including my friend, Dr. Robinson.

I can try and find the quote by him in which he downplays the importance of the sheer number of manuscripts.

 

[AndyAnsell]

God Does Not Will Any To Be Lost...

Andy... Then do mind explaining to me this scripture?... Who ordained them?... Surely they didn't ordain themselves... Your call... Brother Glen

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Greetings Bro Glen! I don't get you question here? You have me out of the context here. Again, you have misquoted Jude 1.4, which does not say what the KJV makes it out to. "ordained" is the wrong translation of the Greek "προγράφω", which literally means, "to write before", from "προ" (before), and "γράφω", "to write". And then "condemnation" is also incorrect, where the Greek is "κρίμα", which here simply means "judgement, decision". The KJV with its Calvinistic slant, sees too much of its "theology" in places that say nothing of it!

There is not a single Scripture that says anyone was ever "ordained to eternal life". I know what Calvinists say, but I am more interested in what the Bible says!

 

[AndyAnsell]

It is not the deciding factor. All things considered it is of modest import.

I can try and find the quote by him in which he downplays the importance of the sheer number of manuscripts.

TCassidy and others are more interested in their "theological" positions, than what the evidence actually says. Apart from his dependence on the BT, which supports what he believes here, the evidence that I have given earlier is FAR greater than anything thus far produced by him for supporting the reading "US".

 

[SovereignGrace]

@AndyAnsell

Again, who on here has stated they were willing to see ppl die lost? What Calvinist theologian has quoted this? You need to back the OP's claim up or repent and apologize...

 

[SovereignGrace]

"never intended to save"?

Bingo!!

then just WHY does "God so love the world (human race),

You are conflating 'God so loved the world' as meaning 'God so loved everybody who ever lived'. You guys keep shoving this verse in our faces as if we don't believe it. Yet, you guys dismiss John 3:36. If God loves everybody w/o exception and His wrath abides on those who are disobedient, you have a psyschitzophrenic god on your hands.

that He gave His one and only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him, shall not perish"?

I agree with this. Why a question mark?

Why, as I have shown above from Ezekiel, does God "will the wicked to turn and live"?

Yes, God gets no joy in their destruction, yet in His holiness and righteousness, He must punish sin and sinners. You are conflating God holding ppl to standards they can't keep and punishing them for not doing them as not a possibility. God held the Jews accountable to the Law and killed many when they broke it. He knew they couldn't do it, and yet held them to it. We are to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and He knows we can't. We are commanded to be holy, even as He is holy, and we can't be holy like He is, let we are commanded to be holy. He holds us to standards He knows we can't attain.

Why does Paul say that "God will that ALL should be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4), where the context, verses 1-4 clearly shows that he means ALL of mankind?

All that God wills to be saved will be saved. You are saying, not that God wills all to be saved, but that He tries really, really, really, HARD to save them, but unless they use their mythical free will, His will to save them is thwarted.

Why does Jesus say in Revelation 22, "whosoever (that is, EVERYONE) will (that is, WILLING) let him take of the water of life freely"? Calvinism is a CONTRADICTION to the Word of Almighty God!

Yeah right, a contradiction. Whoever is thirsty is the context. Blessed are those who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, for they SHALL be filled.

 

[AndyAnsell]

@AndyAnsell

Again, who on here has stated they were willing to see ppl die lost? What Calvinist theologian has quoted this? You need to back the OP's claim up or repent and apologize...

ALL Calvinists who hold that Jesus only died for the "elect", and are therefore at odds with the plain teachings of the Holy Bible, which teaches a UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT (not salvation), are guilty of "willing that the non-elect perish". Whether this is liked or not, is not the issue, but the fact that this doctrine teaches something that actually challenges the Lord and His Word, by promoting something that is 100% against His Holy Word!

 

[AndyAnsell]

Bingo!!


You are conflating 'God so loved the world' as meaning 'God so loved everybody who ever lived'. You guys keep shoving this verse in our faces as if we don't believe it. Yet, you guys dismiss John 3:36. If God loves everybody w/o exception and His wrath abides on those who are disobedient, you have a psyschitzophrenic god on your hands.


I agree with this. Why a question mark?


Yes, God gets no joy in their destruction, yet in His holiness and righteousness, He must punish sin and sinners. You are conflating God holding ppl to standards they can't keep and punishing them for not doing them as not a possibility. God held the Jews accountable to the Law and killed many when they broke it. He knew they couldn't do it, and yet held them to it. We are to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and He knows we can't. We are commanded to be holy, even as He is holy, and we can't be holy like He is, let we are commanded to be holy. He holds us to standards He knows we can't attain.


All that God wills to be saved will be saved. You are saying, not that God wills all to be saved, but that He tries really, really, really, HARD to save them, but unless they use their mythical free will, His will to save them is thwarted.



Yeah right, a contradiction. Whoever is thirsty is the context. Blessed are those who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, for they SHALL be filled.

I love it when Calvinists misquote or partial quote from Scripture, so that they don't have to see what is actually said! You say in reference to Ezekiel which I quoted at the start, "Yes, God gets no joy in their destruction". You failed to mention the part that says, "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"( v.23), and "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live" (v.21). You see, if you had quoted all what it says, then you would have very clearly seen that, not only God takes not pleasure in the death of the wicked, BUT also, that they REPENT and LIVE. Why if they are not atoned for?

 

[whitey180]

ALL Calvinists who hold that Jesus only died for the "elect", and are therefore at odds with the plain teachings of the Holy Bible, which teaches a UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT (not salvation), are guilty of "willing that the non-elect perish". Whether this is liked or not, is not the issue, but the fact that this doctrine teaches something that actually challenges the Lord and His Word, by promoting something that is 100% against His Holy Word!

If Jesus died for everyone why are there people in hell? Wasn't his sacrifice enough to save them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

ALL Calvinists who hold that Jesus only died for the "elect", and are therefore at odds with the plain teachings of the Holy Bible, which teaches a UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT (not salvation), are guilty of "willing that the non-elect perish". Whether this is liked or not, is not the issue, but the fact that this doctrine teaches something that actually challenges the Lord and His Word, by promoting something that is 100% against His Holy Word!

When Jesus stood in the place of sinners, He took the full thrust of God's wrath. Now, if He died for everyone without exception, then God's wrath was appeased for all those who ever lived.

However, if He died solely for His sheep, God's wrath has been appeased for them. This is the biblical truth here.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I love it when Calvinists misquote or partial quote from Scripture, so that they don't have to see what is actually said! You say in reference to Ezekiel which I quoted at the start, "Yes, God gets no joy in their destruction". You failed to mention the part that says, "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"( v.23), and "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live" (v.21). You see, if you had quoted all what it says, then you would have very clearly seen that, not only God takes not pleasure in the death of the wicked, BUT also, that they REPENT and LIVE. Why if they are not atoned for?

And yet repentance, itself, is a gift of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

ALL Calvinists who hold that Jesus only died for the "elect", and are therefore at odds with the plain teachings of the Holy Bible, which teaches a UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT (not salvation), are guilty of "willing that the non-elect perish". Whether this is liked or not, is not the issue, but the fact that this doctrine teaches something that actually challenges the Lord and His Word, by promoting something that is 100% against His Holy Word!

Now, for the THIRD time, who on here or a Calvinist theologian has been quoted as they are willing to see ppl die lost?

 

[SovereignGrace]

If Jesus died for everyone why are there people in hell? Wasn't his sacrifice enough to save them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Naw, it takes both Christ and they to procure their salvation. Per their doctrine, that is.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother Andy,

You keep saying man has a free will when Matthew 6:24, Romans 6:6 and Romans 6:16 easily refute it. Also, in John 8:36, Jesus said whoever the Son sets free is free indeed. This also includes their will. Jesus is the only One who can set ppl's will free.

 

[SovereignGrace]

God's not willing any should perish, yet billions will end up doing so.
God loves everyone w/o exception, but His wrath abides on the disobedient.
Man has a free will, yet its enslaved in sin.

Now, whose theology CONTRADICTS God's word?

 

[McCree79]

.

It does matter, as one reading is correct and the other is not. For THEOLOGICAL purposes alone, the reading US is accepted by the few, as it helps their THEOLOGY, and will disregard what has the BEST evidence in textual studies, because if they did accept is, would challenge their THEOLOGY!

I dont see theology or the variant making a difference here. Peter is speak to the beloved. Who is the beloved? Beloved is always used to refer to believers by Peter every time, even in 1 Peter So "you" or "us" is reffering to believers. This group Peter describes as,
" those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". The variants makes no difference. Context controls the meaning .

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Greetings Bro Glen! I don't get you question here? You have me out of the context here. Again, you have misquoted Jude 1.4, which does not say what the KJV makes it out to. "ordained" is the wrong translation of the Greek "προγράφω", which literally means, "to write before", from "προ" (before), and "γράφω", "to write". And then "condemnation" is also incorrect, where the Greek is "κρίμα", which here simply means "judgement, decision". The KJV with its Calvinistic slant, sees too much of its "theology" in places that say nothing of it!

There is not a single Scripture that says anyone was ever "ordained to eternal life". I know what Calvinists say, but I am more interested in what the Bible says!

I almost agree completely! I have one "nitpick." I agree that the word translated "condemnation" or "judgement" can and does mean either one depending on context. Here, comma, I think condemnation best reflects the context.

But your overall assessment is spot on! Translation shopping is akin to agenda driven translation choices. The JW translation (NWT) is considered worthless because they alter the message to fit their doctrine. They changed "the Word was God" into "the Word was a god" which in effect says Jesus was not God. At 2 Thessalonians 2:13 certain agenda driven translations turn "chosen through faith" into "saved through faith" to obfuscate the fact unconditional election for salvation is precluded by scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

I almost agree completely! I have one "nitpick." I agree that the word translated "condemnation" or "judgement" can and does mean either one depending on context. Here, comma, I think condemnation best reflects the context.

But your overall assessment is spot on! Translation shopping is akin to agenda driven translation choices. The JW translation (NWT) is considered worthless because they alter the message to fit their doctrine. They changed "the Word was God" into "the Word was a god" which in effect says Jesus was not God. At 2 Thessalonians 2:13 certain agenda driven translations turn "chosen through faith" into "saved through faith" to obfuscate the fact unconditional election for salvation is precluded by scripture.

The scriptures though do teach the the Election of God is based solely upon His will in salvation and not those of lost sinners!