God wants all men to be saved

When The Lord Jesus stood looking over Jerusalem, tears were in His eyes as he reflected of how often God had sent servants urging the people to repent, and how meaning those servants had been treated.

Certainly, God "desires" all men to be saved.

However, because of the rebelliousness and love of darkness rather then light condition of the humanity, then the only salvation is by God purposely choosing those in whom he wills the change of the heart, giving ears that hear so that true faith is implanted by His word, and cause by the work of the Holy Spirit that person to awaken to the claims of Christ, and from that changed heart repent and confess.

 

Can you show from John's Gospel, where he records the institution of the Lord's Supper? John chapter 13 is the Passover Meal, which was held before the Lord's Supper. Luke's Gospel, written by an historian of the highest authority, very clearly says that Judas was present for both meals. I refer to Gill and Henry, as they were of the "Reformed/Calvinistic" groups, who admit that the language of Luke 22 shows that Judas did indeed take part in the Lord's Supper. Dr A T Robertson, the Greek scholar, says this:

"That betrayeth (tou paradidontos). Present active participle, actually engaged in doing it. The hand of Judas was resting on the table at the moment. It should be noted that Luke narrates the institution of the Lord's Supper before the exposure of Judas as the traitor while Mark and Matthew reverse this order."

 

John 6:70 tells us, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? "

Here we have the Greek word, "ἐκλέγω" (to pick out for oneself, choose), which is used to include Judas. This word is also used in Luke 6:13, "And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose (ἐκλέγω) twelve, whom also he named apostles". And, John 15:16, "You have not chosen (ἐκλέγω) me, but I have chosen (ἐκλέγω) you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you"

God also "chose" Judas, as He did the other 11, yet we know that he is not in heaven!

 

It is possible to choose people for different purposes and/or ends. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. 'But we are bound to give thanks for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God, from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief of the truth.'

 

And yet, I read elsewhere that He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardeneth.

Yet you say He is willing to have mercy on all, and not willing to harden any?

Don't think you're reading that verse quite right.

 

And your point is?

The choosing one out of many (the contextual term definition) does not mean that He choose them for salvation, but for service. (validated by John 15:16)

Remember Nebuchadnezzer? God called him "my servant."

Remember the fish in the book of Jonah?

God chooses and selects for service from all that He creates regardless of the estate of salvation.

That He has bestowed on to some eternal life is His right. That He has not bestowed on some eternal life is His choice.

It isn't that God has chosen some for life and some for death!

ALL are destined to the Lake of Fire. God did not choose that destiny, humankind did by rebelliousness and rejection of light.

From all those destined to the that eternity, God chose some at His pleasure and His purpose to be saved.

You and I may not like His selection, we may disagree about who is selected, we may argue between ourselves about the particulars of how that selection is carried out, but DO NOT ever think that we have the right to question God. The vessels of dishonor and the vessels of honor are both made by Him for His purpose.

I get that impression by some of the responses on this thread that folks are attempting to argue with God and try to scheme some authority away from Him in puffing up some human assigned attribute that just is not Scriptural.

 

Did you know that there is a textual variant for this verse, and the evidence for both readings is almost equally balanced? In which case it should not be used for any definite doctrine either way.

ἀπαρχὴν] B F G P 075 33 81 256 326 365 1573 1739 1881 1912 2127 2464 itc itdem itdiv itf itx itz vg syrh copbo Ambrose1/2 Didymusdub Pelagius Theodorelat(1/2) Cyril Euthalius John-Damascuscomm CEI TILC

ἀπ' ἀρχῆς] ‭א D K L Ψ 0150 6 104 181 263 330 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1852 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2492 2495 Byz Lect itar itb itd ite itg itmon ito vgms syrp copsa arm eth geo slav Ambrosiaster Ambrose Chrysostom Theodorelat(1/2) Varimadum Theodoret Vigilius John-Damascustext

"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" (ESV, NIV, ISV, etc)

 

My point being, not that Judas was saved and therefore in heaven, but that he was part of the 12 in every respect, as one "chosen and ordained" by God. For those who can accept it, Luke 22 shows that Jesus told him that He was to die also for him, which shows beyond any doubt, that Jesus' death is not limited only to the "elect"

the "vessels of dishonor and the vessels of honor" are for service and not as some misuse this verse, to show evidence for "election", which I have read in some places!

 

As one that does hold to the Doctrines of Grace, yet recognize that the blood was shed for all sin of all time, it is important to me that a distinction be made as to the purpose of the blood and the purpose of the death. The two, imo, are not synonymous.

But, in casual conversation, I rarely make the distinction a mater of the discussion because it can lead to distraction from the message of salvation which is that work of reconciliation as Paul mentions is the ministry.

 

so, you separate the "blood" of Jesus from His "death"? How so?

 

Thanks for that. I had not noticed because both the NKJV and the 1984 NIV have the text as I gave it.
What difference to you see it making? The Thessalonian Christians are still chosen for salvation, and if you want election (Gk. eklego) from eternity you can go to Ephesians 1:4 or Titus 1:1-2.

 

I don't see in either passage you give, any "election to life"? I know this is used (or rather, misused) by some for theological purposes, but the Reformed doctrine of "election" is not taught here! Show me where I am wrong here?

 

I will add here, Ephesians 1:4 reads, "For He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love", which says nothing of God's "electing to salvation", but Paul saying that we as Christians must "be holy and blameless" in God's sight. "He chose us...to be holy and blameless". In Titus 1:1-2, it says, "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began". Again, nothing here to suggest anything about "electing to salvation"? These views are forcing what the passages actually teaches!

 

Have you looked at Romans 11:28-32?

"As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience, even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shewn to you they also may now obtain mercy. For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all."

Here Paul is speaking of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews, who were still in a sense, "the elect" of God. He then goes on to show that though they (like the Gentiles) were disobedient to God, yet God is willing to show them "mercy". God had concluded ALL (Jews and Gentiles alike) to "disobedience" (sin), in order that He might have "mercy" to the ALL, that is, "THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE", which is made up of both Jews and Gentiles!

 

The blood was splattered from the garden (representing sin in Eden), through the temple (representing the religious), the palace (representing the political), the streets (the common and economy), and upon the spearhead (representing the military might). The wood of the cross would have some blood as the body would raise itself up to exhale, reopening the wounds of the scourging. So the shedding of blood for the remission (forgiveness) of sin was all sin of all types, of all peoples, of every walk of living, in every institutional setting. From the creation to eternity, the blood set aside the sin issue that Paul could rightly offer reconciliation to all humankind.

The death was not by lack or loss of blood, but the determination of the Lord Jesus who willed Himself at the appointed moment to commend His Spirit to the Father. “Finished, completed” was the word. The power over death was transferred to the Christ, who would also have the authority of resurrection to life and hell in the resurrection. Where, before Satan had to be told he could not take a life, such authority, by the virtue of the determined death of the Christ, was ripped from that evil and given into the conquering Savior. Does not He say, “All authority has been given to me,” and in another, “He holds the keys...”.

Now there is much more that is involved, and for brevity I did not place Scriptures in this post that it not become burdensome and tediously tombed. I figured you seem smart enough for me not to have to document what you already know as truthful.