God desires for ALL to be saved!

[BobRyan]

Bill

Calvinists might argue that he is speaking about the elect who have not repented, but certainly will once God regenrates them. If this is the case why would God need to be patient with them, He is just waiting on Himself, not them.??????

Indeed Bill. "Not willing for ANY to perish" is a concept that does not fit Cavlinism so it INJECTS into the text "Not willing for ANY of the arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7 to Perish".

Basically the Calvinist view is a little bit like legaleeze saying "We will give a million dollars to EVERYONE". And when people show up for their millions they add "FOR EVERYONE in MY FAMILY with the name LISA".

Calvinism insists that all these unqualified "ALL" and "ANYONE" and "WHOLE WORLD" statements should be "WHOLE WORLD of my two brothers" or "ANYONE that is one of my two brothers" or "ALL of my two brothers". Basically they argue that God likes to be viewed as the SAVIOR of the WORLD (1John 4:10) but does not like to be seen as "Savior of the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7" which in fact (according to Calvinism) He really IS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tyndale1946]

One question... The scriptures state that God has included them all in unbelief... That he might have mercy on all both Jews and Gentiles. Since all are included in unbelief... Where is the believer?... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

 

[tyndale1946]

Another thing you accuse Calvinist and the Primitive Baptist brethren of their misunderstanding of Limited Atonement but do you not also limit God saying that God desires to save everybody?... If he desires to save everybody why is there the doctrine of election?... Election is biblical doctrine and John Calvin didn't invent it... If God desired as you say to save everybody... His desire also could be to save nobody?... As nobody deserves the saving grace they are in possession of?... If you say you are you do not understand grace as I understand grace... Unmerited favor bestowed upon an unworthy subject... YOU! and ME!... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
You say that "YOU" is the elect, but that makes no sense because what is God waiting for in your system?

Well, Bill, since this epistle is written to Christians who are already saved, why would "you" be referring to people who are already saved? Why would God need to be patient for the salvation of people who have already repented?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
FEW of Matt 7

I have never understood your interest in this "few" word. Calvinists and Arminians don't ordinarily argue over the number of people that will be saved. Calvinists say that the "few" are saved by God's amazing free grace. Arminians say that the "few" are saved by man's free will. That's the only difference. The same number and the same people are saved.

 

[Helen]

...since this epistle is written to Christians who are already saved, why would "you" be referring to people who are already saved? Why would God need to be patient for the salvation of people who have already repented?

Although this epistle was written to Peter's brothers in Christ, it was written ABOUT others, as evidenced by the long section on false teachers and then on mockers. Thus the verse about God not wanting any to perish clearly refers to everyone, not just the Calvinistic elect.

Nevertheless the argument is not, as Ken pointed out, about the 'few,' actually -- but rather about the fact that many are called in contrast to the fact that only few are saved. This is another verse the Calvinists must dance around.

 

[Eladar]

Calvinists say that the "few" are saved by God's amazing free grace. Arminians say that the "few" are saved by man's free will. That's the only difference.

No, I think that Arminians would also say that few are saved by God's grace.

Arminians believe that God judges us by our based on either accepting Jesus as Lord or rejecting Jesus as Lord.

Calvinists believe that God chooses who He is going to save and then judges based on who He already chose.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Helen:
Although this epistle was written to Peter's brothers in Christ, it was written ABOUT others, as evidenced by the long section on false teachers and then on mockers. Thus the verse about God not wanting any to perish clearly refers to everyone, not just the Calvinistic elect.

Or perhaps it would be valid to say that Peter is drawing a contrast between "them" (the mockers/unbelievers) and "you" the elect of God. It is obvious in vv. 3-8, he is talking about "them," not "you." Now in verse 9 he turns to "you" and says to not let the long period fool you, for God will not end this world until "you" (all that he is willing to be saved) are saved.

So the point of this section is "What is the long period of time for?" Peter says it is for salvation of "you." Will he postpone the world until all are saved?? Clearly not; only until "you" are saved. Then he will come and destroy the world with explosions and fervent heat, and then there will be no more delay. So who are the "you"? The ones chosen of God to salvation. And that "Fulness" has come in, then the end will come (Cf. Rom 11:25).

 

[William C]

What amazes me about this discussion is that the Calvinists on this board are actually trying to argue that God doesn't desire for all to be saved despite the countless verses that contradict that belief. That is such a departure from the mainstream Calvinistic stance on passages like the ones presented on this thread.

I recommend that you Calvinists read John Piper's article posted by Archangel on the first page and learn that it is an undeniable truth that God desires that all mankind are saved.

Once we have established this basic and easily discernable truth then we can move on to the implications of it.

So, please Calvinists, do your homework.

 

[tyndale1946]

Are you really reading what Paul says here?

Romans 10:[1] Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

If this scripture read God's heart desire for Israel is that I might save them then I could understand the argument. It doesn't say it is God's desire but Paul's desire and prayer to God that it might be done. Paul is making the plea for his brethren to be released from their blindness to the truth... Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

They have a zeal of God though in error are God's children though disobedient... God is not angry at his people but his wrath is pointed toward the leaders that lead his children away from the truth... And they as ignorant sheep follow and are lead astray by false teachers... That is my understanding of it and where I stand!... To each his own!... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

 

[William C]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Are you really reading what Paul says here?

Romans 10:[1] Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

If this scripture read God's heart desire for Israel is that I might save them then I could understand the argument. It doesn't say it is God's desire but Paul's desire and prayer to God that it might be done. Paul is making the plea for his brethren to be released from their blindness to the truth... Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

They have a zeal of God though in error are God's children though disobedient... God is not angry at his people but his wrath is pointed toward the leaders that lead his children away from the truth... And they as ignorant sheep follow and are lead astray by false teachers... That is my understanding of it and where I stand!... To each his own!... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

Glen, you have still failed to deal with any of the other verses that I have shown that clearly show us God desire for all to be saved.

I'll let a fellow Calvinist answer your response:

The fact that the hardening has an appointed end -- "until the full number of the Gentiles comes in" -- shows that it is part of God's plan rather than a merely contingent event outside God's purpose. Nevertheless Paul expresses not only his but also God's heart when he says in Romans 10:1, "My heart's desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is their salvation." God holds out his hands to a rebellious people (Romans 10:21), but ordains a hardening that consigns them for a time to disobedience. -- John Piper

As you can clearly see, John Piper, as well as most Calvinists I have read affirm that God desires for all to be saved. This is why I have asked you all to do your homework. I think it is quite clear you are on the wrong side concerning God's desires for salvation.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Helen:
Calvinists must dance around

Sorry, Helen, but I am a Southern Baptist and I don't dance.

Seriously, I am surprised and somewhat saddened, Helen, that a person as well educated as you would evidently think that Calvinists have not dealt with difficult verses for centuries and arrived at answers that we believe are consistent with Biblical teaching. There are thousands of volumes that deal with these issues.

Just as there are thousands of volumes by non-Calvinists/Arminians that deal with the difficult verses that your side must deal with and that these writers believe are consistent with Biblical teaching.

So, let's not bald-facedly state that Calvinists or non-Calvinists have ignored any verses or issues down through the centuries. Okay? Just because you don't like or you disagree with an answer does not mean it is not a legitmate answer.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I recommend that you Calvinists read John Piper's article posted by Archangel on the first page and learn that it is an undeniable truth that God desires that all mankind are saved.

I was not aware that John Piper has been appointed "pope" of Calvinist theology.

I will agree with John Piper when he agrees with the Bible(as I understand it to the best of my knowledge) and I will disagree with John Piper when he disagrees with the Bible(as I understand it to bhe best of my knowledge).

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Ken the Spurgeonite:
I was not aware that John Piper has been appointed "pope" of Calvinist theology.

I will agree with John Piper when he agrees with the Bible(as I understand it to the best of my knowledge) and I will disagree with John Piper when he disagrees with the Bible(as I understand it to bhe best of my knowledge).

What scholars agree with you? (I'm not saying there not there, I just don't know them)

I just can't understand how anyone can believe that God doesn't geniunely desire that all are saved in light of the biblical text. I point out people like Sproul and Piper because at least they are knowledgable enough about the issues to affirm the obvious.

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother Bill... We could argue this until the cows come home... I will be preaching on this come Sunday and let our preacher Elder Amos hone it to perfection... I know what I believe and stand on the same and if I am wrong then I'm also blinded to the truth... And as the Jewish brethren grope in the darkness for the light I do also... Until I am proven wrong by my brethren I stand unmoved... I Say what I believe and believe what I say... And I expect you to do the same!... To each his own!... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

 

[William C]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Brother Bill... We could argue this until the cows come home... I will be preaching on this come Sunday and let our preacher Elder Amos hone it to perfection... I know what I believe and stand on the same and if I am wrong then I'm also blinded to the truth... And as the Jewish brethren grope in the darkness for the light I do also... Until I am proven wrong by my brethren I stand unmoved... I Say what I believe and believe what I say... And I expect you to do the same!... To each his own!... Brother Glen

&

Sister Charlotte

It's sad that you depend on "your brethren" to prove you wrong instead of relying upon the scripture alone as the foundation for your doctrine.

You have not even attempted to provide any kind of interpretation for Matt. 23:37 or the other texts in light of your view, nor are you willing to engage me or John Piper at this point except to say "I stand unmoved." Well, so does the lamp post outside my house, I think I might get more substance from debating it.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
at least they are knowledgable enough about the issues to affirm the obvious.

Of course, Bill, you evidently think that the rest of us are knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal ignoramuses in your book.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
What amazes me about this discussion is that the Calvinists on this board are actually trying to argue that God doesn't desire for all to be saved

If it is God's decretive will for all people to be saved, then all people will be saved. To say that God actively, not merely passively, wills for something to happen, and then to claim that it doesn't happen, is to effectively state that God is not omnipotent. And to say that God is not omnipotent is a false teaching. Period.

 

[William C]

Ken,

Did you even read Piper's article? How do you argue with that?

God desires for you and I to be holy. Are we? No. He desires that no one lies. Do people lie? Yes.

God continually expresses his desire for things that may or may not be accomplished throughout the scripture. Matt. 23:37 is a perfect example. Piper denies that this supports the Arminian premise but he doesn't do so to the expense of the obvious meaning of the text. He affirms that God does desire all men to be saved as is clearly taught throughout scripture, but He maintains that God has a higher will, a sovereign will, in which He ulimately brings about.

Did God desire for his son to die. No. He took no pleasure in that. Did he sovereignly will for it to happen? Yes. I could go on....

You just need to read the article, I really think that Piper might shed some truth to you on this subject and you won't even have to give up your Calvinism in the process of learning.

 

[KenH]

Then I submit that John Piper, and anyone like him, advocates an inconsistent Calvinism.

Regardless how accurate some of his other teaching is, he is mixing apples and oranges in this case.