Can we ALL agree that God loves and wants every person to be saved?

[Winman]

Winman comment: So, Jesus is not interested in saving only some men, he wants to save all.

So why doesent he?

Because men have to submit to God and trust in the righteousness that is of faith and not works.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

The problem is that men want to establish their own righteousness. They do not want to admit they are sinners who cannot save themselves and submit to God by trusting in Jesus for salvation.

Everyday experience will show just that. Try talking to people about Jesus and you will hear the same excuse all the time, "I'm not a bad person, God would not send me to hell" or similar remark. Or, "I'm a good person, I try to help everyone, I do good things."

To be saved you must submit to God, you must trust in Jesus alone to save you. You cannot save yourself.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your statements either suggests:

1. These men don't really believe what I claim they believe (yet the link is provided for you to view the context for yourself)

Or

2. These men may believe that, but you are not bound to them. (in which case, I never said you were, I only mentioned them to prove they represent the mainstream view)

That would be true of every passage related to this topic and most others, so are we now always going to default to this answer?

This comments suggests you believe Calvin, MacArthur and Piper don't represent the mainstream "Calvinistic" view in this instance. Is that the case?

The is evident, but fine. May I suggest you objectively consider their view?

Skan,
What I am saying is that I am not going to be pigeon holed by three small quotes to have you claim that these 3 sentences are somehow mainstream, or better yet that these three statements represent these men.
I have heard johnny mac teach exactly what i have posted before. i have read some calvin statements that indicate the same.
piper in my view is a loose cannon....says some things good,and some not so good...he is hardly who i would look to on this.

here is where i look to support my post concerning the original post;

5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

here in Romans 5 we have the Holy Spirit have paul speak to those who are justified...vs1

in vs 5...we are told.....because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us


Very simply put...
1] The unsaved are not justified

2] The unsaved do not have the Holy Spirit in their heart....he is given unto US. The christians
3] the Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts...by the Holy Spirit.

4] verse 8 speaks of the love of God..being given to US...the justified, from vs 1,,,,those who have the Spirit.
If anyman have not the Spirit of God he is none of His, rom 8:9

The same is taught here in romans 8...after all the verses about election, predestination, foreknowledge, which many here violently resist... but what do we find...where is the love of God???

31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here we are told where the saving, justifying love of God is...IN CHRIST.

I do not have to read or consult anyone to see it..in the english, in the greek, i do not think even any of the BB philosophers can explain away or dispute this! I am sure we might see some attempts at this very thing!:thumbs:

These passages like Gods election , foreknowledge, saving grace and love are not spoken of all men without exception...but those who are

elect, foreknown, called, justified, glorified, In Christ.
As I said earlier.....God is good to all men, he instructs believers to show His love to them , by speaking the truth in love,etc....but that is a side issue to the original post.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is fine, so long you are aware that your view is not the view of most mainstream Calvinists.

Knowing you, I doubt that will matter much. You've always been somewhat of a maverick. I say that as a compliment, not in derision.

I put this post here for those who might care what other Calvinistic scholars believe on the matter, so as to find common ground. It is also to show that even those who do agree with your view of sovereignty and soteriology at least acknowledge the clear biblical proof supporting this view making the case even more difficult for you to combat, IMO.

Yes, but let's keep the focus on God's love and desire for all people to be saved, ok? We can discuss the views of atonement in another thread.

But it is the position of mainstream old schoolers. Again I am not a Calvinist.

 

[Iconoclast]

So here you are looking back into eternity past, as if to say what God has decreed cannot be changed.

But here are you are looking at the present as if to say that regardless of what was decreed in the past, if sinners do repent right now God would accept them. Isn't that a contradiction of what is typically called Calvinism.

Yes...you are correct.

I agree with the first statement...What God has decreed always comes to pass..100% everytime.

The second statement is an obvious absurdity...but helps illustrate the point.

It is absurd because ;

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil

If the fantasy of dead sinners bringing them selves to life in response to the Love of God, and then they in and of themselves repent ,have faith, walk the aisle, rededicate themselves, give their heart ot Jesus,etc Then the possibilty would also exist of what has been decreed ..not coming to pass.

There is no if...what if.... is it possible,,,,maybe....there is only what God has decreed.
I wrote it that way to illustrate the confused idea that we have when we turn from truth.

 

[DHK]

Skan,
What I am saying is that I am not going to be pigeon holed by three small quotes to have you claim that these 3 sentences are somehow mainstream, or better yet that these three statements represent these men.
I have heard johnny mac teach exactly what i have posted before. i have read some calvin statements that indicate the same.
piper in my view is a loose cannon....says some things good,and some not so good...he is hardly who i would look to on this.

here is where i look to support my post concerning the original post;


here in Romans 5 we have the Holy Spirit have paul speak to those who are justified...vs1

in vs 5...we are told.....because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us


Very simply put...
1] The unsaved are not justified

2] The unsaved do not have the Holy Spirit in their heart....he is given unto US. The christians
3] the Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts...by the Holy Spirit.

4] verse 8 speaks of the love of God..being given to US...the justified, from vs 1,,,,those who have the Spirit.
If anyman have not the Spirit of God he is none of His, rom 8:9

The same is taught here in romans 8...after all the verses about election, predestination, foreknowledge, which many here violently resist... but what do we find...where is the love of God???



Here we are told where the saving, justifying love of God is...IN CHRIST.

I do not have to read or consult anyone to see it..in the english, in the greek, i do not think even any of the BB philosophers can explain away or dispute this! I am sure we might see some attempts at this very thing!:thumbs:

These passages like Gods election , foreknowledge, saving grace and love are not spoken of all men without exception...but those who are

elect, foreknown, called, justified, glorified, In Christ.
As I said earlier.....God is good to all men, he instructs believers to show His love to them , by speaking the truth in love,etc....but that is a side issue to the original post.

In the passage you quoted, Romans 8:31-38, the pronoun "us" is used 8 times. Paul is writing to the believers at Rome, and he includes himself. Those that are the elect chosen to be conformed to the image of Christ...are the believers in Rome. When speaking of election Paul refers to believers. Why has he called these ones? What is their purpose? To be conformed to the image of Christ.

Skip forward a few chapters.
Romans 12:2 "Be not conformed to this world."
He is not speaking of election here but he is speaking to the same group of people. In fact the context is the will of God. Be not conformed to this world. Why? You were chosen to be conformed to the image of Christ.

The passage you chose to wax eloquently on election, God's decrees, determination, predestination, God's hatred for the lost, etc., says none of those things. In fact if anything it speaks of God's love (Romans 8:38,39). It speaks of God's love, not from the point of eternity past, but from the point of salvation onward.

The believer's purpose IS to be conformed to the image of Christ.
The believer's purpose IS NOT to be conformed to the world.
God loves him right now.
The believer is not concerned with eternity past; but with the present, especially his present relationship with Christ. He must be acutely aware of God's love for him now, in this generation, as he must be acutely aware of God's love for his neighbor (the second Great Commandment), whether he believes him to be one of the elect or not.

 

[DHK]

There is no if...what if.... is it possible,,,,maybe....there is only what God has decreed.
I wrote it that way to illustrate the confused idea that we have when we turn from truth.

But you wrote it as a possibility that God would entertain--one that you believed God would entertain.
And God is not confused. I believe what you wrote is true for the simple fact that Christ said it was true. He is able to save even from the uttermost.
He is able to save all that come to him. Not only is he able; he will.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's fine as long as you acknowledge this views stands in contrast to those quoted in the OP including Calvin himself, not to mention the texts of scripture that have gone unanswered.

Here from the article:

Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2]

Pink was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally. Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7:6-7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4:8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same.
Nothing but God's own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love.

Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.

here JM is speaking about the general goodness of God;

We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love

Pink has it correct when you zero in on the saving love.
Most men will speak in general terms of God's goodness being expressed to all men in general...this is more of the debate about common grace...not about who God has elected to save.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Because men have to submit to God and trust in the righteousness that is of faith and not works.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

The problem is that men want to establish their own righteousness. They do not want to admit they are sinners who cannot save themselves and submit to God by trusting in Jesus for salvation.

Everyday experience will show just that. Try talking to people about Jesus and you will hear the same excuse all the time, "I'm not a bad person, God would not send me to hell" or similar remark. Or, "I'm a good person, I try to help everyone, I do good things."

To be saved you must submit to God, you must trust in Jesus alone to save you. You cannot save yourself.

So your saying that because of mans free will that Jesus is inept. IE, He has to rely on man.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Icono..... try Romans 9; 11-15 :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

But you wrote it as a possibility that God would entertain--one that you believed God would entertain.
And God is not confused. I believe what you wrote is true for the simple fact that Christ said it was true. He is able to save even from the uttermost.
He is able to save all that come to him. Not only is he able; he will.

DHK,
Excuse me...but you are mis-representing my post which was this

If every person living today would like to stop sinning and repent......God would not forbid them. If followers of Islam wanted to repent of jihad and murder and trust Jesus as Lord and Saviour I am sure that would be fine also.

I no where said i believed God would entertain it.....because the absurdity could never take place.
The If could not happen...get it?
the fact of heb 7:25 has nothing to do with the issue.

Also your attempted response to my Romans post....did not really address any point of it.You seemed confused in your response.

If you are attempting to seperate God's Love, from His eternal Covenant purpose you have failed big time:thumbs:

jumping to Romans 12 ...has nothing to do with what I posted. try again.

The passage you chose to wax eloquently on election, God's decrees, determination, predestination, God's hatred for the lost, etc., says none of those things. In fact if anything it speaks of God's love (Romans 8:38,39). It speaks of God's love, not from the point of eternity past, but from the point of salvation onward.

says none of those things....lol....sure DHK....it does if you understand all of chapter 8.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus died for EVERYONE and has no desire that any should perish, but many will not heed the convicting message of the Holy Spirit and will not accept His free gift of forgiveness and salvation.

John,
The bible does not teach this as stated. Men teach and preach this idea.
The bible does not.

John,
What you are really needing to discuss is;
DiD Jesus actually save anyone at the cross when He said ..it is finished.

Did he save...or only make salvation possible?
did Jesus die for satan?..you said everyone?
when God scattered the people...did he die for those who never heard HIm?
He indeed has purposed that many will perish Mt.7:21-24

 

[Iconoclast]

Icono..... try Romans 9; 11-15 :thumbs:

They will not get past ROMANS 8:28-39.....not today, not tommorow, not eternally,:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

I refuse to quibble with you again brother. I am OBVIOUSLY saying that this is common ground in the mainstream views of Calvinism and Arminianism, but not always here on the BB and thus I'm asking if it can be. Enough said, let's discuss the subject of the thread now, thanks.

LOL! I guess if quibbling to you is stating your OP knows that it's objective is false and impossible, then so be it. I've stood my ground on OP's I've started, which were called blatantly false, false accusations, misrepesentations when they weren't, &c, and never resorted to saying another is "quibbling" but have instead attempted to get said to stay on track of the subject at hand and continue the main subject within. So, this is nothing new on the BB. :wavey:

I've also addressed your subject. Thanks.

I also believe your quotes within the OP to be taken out of a broader context and don't accept them then as proof, and will look into them. The only one I agree to be concise, is MacArthurs.

- Peace

 

[preacher4truth]

They will not get past ROMANS 8:28-39.....not today, not tommorow, not eternally,:thumbs:

Absolutely correct Iconoclast.

 

[Iconoclast]

Skan,
got to get back on the road now...if time permits i will go over each link.

I think what all the men are trying to do is show that we are not to be caustic in presenting the gospel. The goodness of God is meant to lead men to repentance.
JM is set against Pink from the start as I will show later. he expands the arguement to God's goodness....AWPink is not here to defend himself...I have read much Pink and know that he careful spells out a clear distinction on these areas. Again...Jm is speaking more about God's goodness,and a love of benevolence, rather than the special Covenant Love to the elect.

All calvinists would agree that we are to show the LOVE OF GOD to the unsaved in being truthful to them, pointing out God has been good to them, they have many blessings, family, food, pleasures, the air they breathe,etc.
The OP is dealing with the saving love of God however.

 

[Winman]

So your saying that because of mans free will that Jesus is inept. IE, He has to rely on man.

Do you understand what submit means?

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The publican is the fellow down on his knees. He submitted to God and was justified. Jesus did not tell this story without reason.

 

[Benjamin]

Can we ALL agree that God loves and wants every person to be saved?

We should be able to agree, but I believe the BB to be increasingly overrun with so called “Calvinists” who are far out there, way beyond mainstream Calvinism and drifting ever further into and preaching unorthodox principles to argue and support their views. It’s painfully obvious something is wrong here when even those who would be considered mainstream Calvinist will not stand up to defend against those who would wallow in their unbiblical doctrines which attempt to deny God’s Omnibenevolence. Such is the world of the internet I suppose, yet there are simple and practical alternatives other than partaking with the darkness here that is also increasingly becoming clear…

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We should be able to agree, but I believe the BB to be increasingly overrun with so called “Calvinists” who are far out there, way beyond mainstream Calvinism and drifting ever further into and preaching unorthodox principles to argue and support their views. It’s painfully obvious something is wrong here when even those who would be considered mainstream Calvinist will not stand up to defend against those who would wallow in their unbiblical doctrines which attempt to deny God’s Omnibenevolence. Such is the world of the internet I suppose, yet there are simple and practical alternatives other than partaking with the darkness here that is also increasingly becoming clear…

Thats what I like about you Ben, Glass always half full. dont candy coat anything bub, tell us what you really feel....

 

[Benjamin]

The OP is dealing with the saving love of God however.

No, the OP is dealing with the pure, unmixed nature of the divine attribute of God being Love; that is the message believers are to preach to the world. You OTOH preach a love that is separated out to be “saving love” and some other kind of love which is also full of darkness.

(1Jn 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

“And this is the sum of the message which we have heard of him - The Son of God. That God is light - The light of wisdom, love, holiness, glory. What light is to the natural eye, that God is to the spiritual eye. And in him is no darkness at all - No contrary principle. He is pure, unmixed light.” ~ John Wesley

 

[preacher4truth]

No, the OP is dealing with the pure, unmixed nature of the divine attribute of God being Love; that is the message believers are to preach to the world. You OTOH preach a love that is separated out to be “saving love” and some other kind of love which is also full of darkness.

I don't see this with Iconoclast, and to extend fairness further, I believe your misrepresentation and accusation of him to be more representative of your attitude and demeanor.

Where's the love?