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

[Winman]

I would ask any here that do not believe God loves all men and desires to save all men:

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD LOVES AND WANTS TO SAVE YOU?

Did God appear to you like Paul on the Road to Damascus and tell you that you are elect, that he loves you personally, and that he wants to save you personally?

How do you KNOW this?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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?

Preach.....lets just give Icono time to respond. I do recall his studying Aurthur Pink. Let him expound on him. That should prove interesting. Im beginning to read him myself so Im interested in his take.:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would ask any here that do not believe God loves all men and desires to save all men:

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD LOVES AND WANTS TO SAVE YOU?

Did God appear to you like Paul on the Road to Damascus and tell you that you are elect, that he loves you personally, and that he wants to save you personally?

How do you KNOW this?

Havent you read my testimony? Back in the archives if not. :thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Preach.....lets just give Icono time to respond. I do recall his studying Aurthur Pink. Let him expound on him. That should prove interesting. Im beginning to read him myself so Im interested in his take.:thumbs:

And lets give ben time to respond, OK? There was no need to construe a brother as if in darkness. :thumbsup:


Thanks

 

[preacher4truth]

I would ask any here that do not believe God loves all men and desires to save all men:

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD LOVES AND WANTS TO SAVE YOU?

Did God appear to you like Paul on the Road to Damascus and tell you that you are elect, that he loves you personally, and that he wants to save you personally?

How do you KNOW this?

Is that what He told Paul? Where? No.

Your point?

 

[Benjamin]

And lets give ben time to respond, OK? There was no need to construe a brother as if in darkness. :thumbsup:


Thanks

About God's light being truth for all in the world and in Him being no darkness at all:

Posted by Iconoclast:

4] if election comes up.....I stress that it is certain to come to pass..I tell Him the truth...do not hide it under a bushel.
5] I stress that the issue he needs to concern himself with..is His sin against a Holy God that has to be paid for.....He is responsible to repent and believe the gospel command.

6] If he tries to mock and scoff like those in 2 pet3...I do mention that God has not planned to save everyone, and unless God allows a sinner to repent and believe,,,they will die in their sins.......

7] I do not give Him false hope, I do not give him no hope.....just point out that the only Hope is In Jesus...not remaining in Adam.

Case closed!

 

[preacher4truth]

Case closed!

No, the case isn't closed at all.

No need to paint a brother as if he is in darkness. What does darkness imply? To me it implies a lost state, and surely you don't imply such, correct?

- Peace

 

[Benjamin]

No, the case isn't closed at all.

No need to paint a brother as if he is in darkness. What does darkness imply? To me it implies a lost state, and surely you don't imply such, correct?

- Peace

You are the one who misrepresents, my reference to darkness had to do with the Divine nature of God being light and in Him no darkness at all. You have turned this around as a personal attack toward me, accusing me of a personal attack against Iconoclast, when the issue I argued about is the attacks going on here against the Divine Nature of God. An issue you seem to have no problem with which goes to show my previous point about the leanings on this board.

Typical deflections from the important premise at hand...

 

[preacher4truth]

You are the one who misrepresents, my reference to darkness had to do with the Divine nature of God being light and in Him no darkness at all. You have turned this around as a personal attack toward me, accusing me of a personal attack against Iconoclast, when the issue I argued about is the attacks going on here against the Divine Nature of God. An issue you seem to have no problem with which goes to show my previous point about the leanings on this board.

Typical deflections from the important premise at hand...

Uh, not so fast friend. I in fact have a serious issue with the attack upon the Divine Nature, i.e. His Sovereignty & Omniscience being relentlessly attacked.

You said concerning Iconoclast:

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.

He is accused of preaching a love full of darkness, which implicates the preacher. No need for that. And no mirsepresentation either.

- Peace

 

[Benjamin]

He is accused of preaching a love full of darkness, which implicates the preacher.

- Peace

Exactly, I accused 'his preaching' of being unbiblical, which they are.(1John 1:5) Can't help your convictions of the implictions that come on those that do such preaching. Live with it...

 

[preacher4truth]

Exactly, I accused 'his preaching' of being unbiblical, which they are.(1John 1:5) Can't help your convictions of the implictions that come on those that do such preaching. Live with it...

Now you admit to implicating Iconoclast as to living/being in darkness.

How unfortunate and uncalled for.

Thanks.

 

[Winman]

Is that what He told Paul? Where? No.

Your point?

My point is, if God does not love everyone, and if God does not desire that all men be saved, then how can you know he loves you, and how can you know he wants to save you?

 

[preacher4truth]

My point is, if God does not love everyone, and if God does not desire that all men be saved, then how can you know he loves you, and how can you know he wants to save you?

Again:

Is that what He told Paul? Where? No.

Your point?

I asked you direct questions against your reply. Answer them. No need to go down another trail until you do.

 

[Robert Snow]

No, the case isn't closed at all.

No need to paint a brother as if he is in darkness. What does darkness imply? To me it implies a lost state, and surely you don't imply such, correct?

- Peace

Darkness doesn't have to imply lostness. It can apply to someone who is a Christian following a form of doctrine that is contrary to the bible, like Calvinism.

 

[Skandelon]

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

I didn't think you were, which is why I made the "maverick" jest.

I want you, Icon, and others to understand that the view your are exposing is really more in line with what some might call "Hyper-Calvinism." Here is an article written by respected Reformed author John Hendryx, titled "The Will of God - Hyper-Calvinism Versus Historic Calvinism," which explains why this view is not orthodox or mainstream.

Here is the opening paragraph:

I had a very interesting online discussion recently with a brother who took issue with a comment in an earlier article on HyperCalvinism. In that essay I alluded to the idea that evangelical/historic Calvinists believe that God's will is that all mankind obey the gospel and in this respect, he desires their salvation. I contrasted the Calvinist position with both extremes of Aminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. But this brother took offense when I wrote, "The Hyper-Calvinists will argue that God has no desire whatsoever that all men be saved." His position was that God's had no desire "to save the reprobate" ... but he didn't consider himself a "hypercalvinist" since he believed in the free and promiscuous proclamation of the gospel to all men. I assured him then that I did not think he fit the label of hypercalvinist since there is a world of difference between God's desire for sinners to repent and obey the gospel and God's desire TO SAVE the reprobate. While this may seem like a difficulty at first glance, I will explain what I mean in more detail below.

I hope you will take some time to read it and see that what I'm saying here is not unique to me, or in anyway an attack on you all personally. I just think this belief should be a common ground for us, and can be while maintaining our soteriological differences.

 

[preacher4truth]

Darkness doesn't have to imply lostness. It can apply to someone who is a Christian following a form of doctrine that is contrary to the bible, like Calvinism.

Not Biblically. Darkness implies lostness.

It could also apply to someone who is a Christian following a form of doctrine contrary to the Bible, like Arminianism or non-calvinistic teachings.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

Here from the article:

here JM is speaking about the general goodness of God;

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.

I conceded the difference in our soteriological views on election from the beginning brother. We are talking about God love (or what you might label "common grace") AND his desire for all to be saved. MacArthur affirms these biblical truths as do mainstream and historical Calvinists... (see the Hendryx article above)

MacArthur disagrees with Pink and others who take things "too far," because they don't have any biblical support for such a view. This is what I'm hoping to help curtail on the BB, if possible.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

On this point, I can understand the need to draw a distinction in God's common love and his salvific love unique to the elect. I'm fine with that, but this encompasses more than that. It also covers the genuine expressed desire of God for the salvation of all people.

 

[Winman]

Again:



I asked you direct questions against your reply. Answer them. No need to go down another trail until you do.

Paul knew how to know he was saved, by believeing on Jesus as he told the Philipian jailer. But Calvinism teaches only the regenerated elect can believe, so you have no idea if you've really believed. In fact, Calvinism teaches that unless you are regenerated, you cannot possibly know what saving faith is.

The only way you can know you have truly believed is if you know you are regenerated.

Isn't that so?

 

[Jim1999]

The problem comes when we foolishly offer a "yes, No" answer to this type of question.

Cheers,

Jim