was there ever a possibility/potential salvation offerred by God to some who chose to reject it then?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How About An Agreement ...
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
was there ever a possibility/potential salvation offerred by God to some who chose to reject it then?
My Internet Connection Is Not Allowing Me To Quote
EW&F: "So here's the question, how can you glorify that which you are an enemy with? We are born with the sin of Adam so are you not born with that corruption ingrained in you already?"
You had just provided Romans 1:18-21. What does verse 21 say? "For although they knew God..." They knew God. It certainly doesn't say they were in union with Him. But they knew God --just as all people know God --it's ingrained in everyone.
But read on..."they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him..."
So they did not glorify him though knowing him. Their "knowing" is not the intimate knowing that believers have of God. But they recognized, as all people do, that God exists and that there is a coming judgment of sin. God has stamped His image on every soul. It is marred by man but it is still there. The creature cannot erase the link with the Creator.
Yes, everyone is born corrupt --but that fact doesn't negate any of the above.
EW&F: "So here's the question, how can you glorify that which you are an enemy with? We are born with the sin of Adam so are you not born with that corruption ingrained in you already?"
You had just provided Romans 1:18-21. What does verse 21 say? "For although they knew God..." They knew God. It certainly doesn't say they were in union with Him. But they knew God --just as all people know God --it's ingrained in everyone.
But read on..."they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him..."
So they did not glorify him though knowing him. Their "knowing" is not the intimate knowing that believers have of God. But they recognized, as all people do, that God exists and that there is a coming judgment of sin. God has stamped His image on every soul. It is marred by man but it is still there. The creature cannot erase the link with the Creator.
Yes, everyone is born corrupt --but that fact doesn't negate any of the above.
Yes. Christ’s death made possible the salvation of all men and made certain the salvation of the elect…therefore the Cross is the basis of condemnation for those who do not believe (John 3:18). There can be no rejection of an offer not made, nor can one be justly condemned for not accepting what was not rightly offered.
Christ's death made possible the salvation of all men Jon? What about those who were marked out for condemnation?
Of course people can be condemned for an offer not made to them. There have been many people throughout the centuries who have never heard of Christ or the gospel who have been condemned because of their sin --and rightly so. No "offer" has to be made for them to be eternally punished for their sins. The Lord hides the truth from many. Does that give those people the right to complain to the Lord at the Judgment Day thast they didn't hear the message? Of course not. The Lord is under no obigation to reveal Himself to anyone, but He has graciously revealed Himself to some --the ones of His choosing. He doesn't seek those He does not draw.
To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? --To those He is pleased to reveal it. Why does the Lord say, in the 6th chapter of Isaiah, that he wants some people to hear but not understand. he wants their hearts to be calloused and their ears plugged? He wants to close their spiritual eyes --otherwise they would savingly understand the message and be saved.
Of course people can be condemned for an offer not made to them. There have been many people throughout the centuries who have never heard of Christ or the gospel who have been condemned because of their sin --and rightly so. No "offer" has to be made for them to be eternally punished for their sins. The Lord hides the truth from many. Does that give those people the right to complain to the Lord at the Judgment Day thast they didn't hear the message? Of course not. The Lord is under no obigation to reveal Himself to anyone, but He has graciously revealed Himself to some --the ones of His choosing. He doesn't seek those He does not draw.
To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? --To those He is pleased to reveal it. Why does the Lord say, in the 6th chapter of Isaiah, that he wants some people to hear but not understand. he wants their hearts to be calloused and their ears plugged? He wants to close their spiritual eyes --otherwise they would savingly understand the message and be saved.
Romans 1:20
John 16:8-11
Perhaps I misspoke (mistyped) when I chose the word “offer.” I was thinking in the context of my previous post…that there is a basis for salvation for all men…a provision. Those who are condemned are so not only because of their sins (as a manifestation of their hearts) but they are condemned because of their sin (their “sin nature”). Both the elect, while yet sinners, and the non-elect alike share this state. But salvation comes by grace through faith, and it is God who draws the elect to Himself. The basis is the same (Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the world) for those being saved in Christ and those who are condemned for rejecting Christ. Those condemned for rejecting Christ are justly condemned (God’s nature is manifest in general revelation…to include His mercy). This “general revelation” falls short of actual salvation. God draws His elect to Himself (efficacious grace).
God is under no obligation to save anyone…you are absolutely correct. But we are speaking of strictly of Christ’s death (apart from faith, grace, etc.). Christ’s death alone, in this manner, saves no one. It is the central part of salvation but not salvation in its entirety. God still draws people (while yet sinners) and these drawn people come to a belief (and are saved). Christ’s death has in view a provision and a certainty. Arminianism chooses one and magnifies it to encompass everything. Some Calvinists choose the other, and magnify what they find out of proportion (I still think in reaction to the Arminians). Classical Calvinistic soteriology (pre-1619) seems to often avoid this mistake.
What is interesting to me is that both of these were asked and answered in Scripture. Why are those who don't hear guilty? Because God's nature, and even the Godhead, is revealed to them...they are without excuse. Why are not all shown mercy? Because God is Creator...He is the Potter, we are the clay. I don't find the remainder (and some interwoven points) of your reply applicable to my post, but I hope I addressed the parts that apply.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the intention of God though was not to have all sinners saved by it, but that it would be effectual towards just His elect ones, how could that be a possib;e/potential salvation, since God Himself chose to limit it?
Think this shows up in Arminian/non Calvinist circles, where the common answer is that we are judged guilty due to unbelief, not that we were already judged such by the fall.....
The death of Christ is not effectual in and of itself (I think Scripture is abundantly clear here). Your question then is how God could purpose the atonement to be a basis for all and a certainty for some?
Yes, as God does not deal in salvation with possibilities, but in certainties, correct?
My answer then is that we are speaking here of "why" Christ died. As established, His death in and of itself did not "save." God draws, the Spirit works, the elect believe. Christ's death is the basis of salvation for all men. It is that certain salvation for the elect who God draws and a certain condemnation for those who don't believe. We are found dead in our sins, but John 3 tells us why the condemnation. The basis there is Christ. Some Calvinists only see one aspect of the doctrine regardless of Scripture. This is more true today than when Calvin and others insisted on implications of the Atonement to the reprobate because He died for the human race.
Last edited by a moderator:
Get specific. What are you referencing?
Oh really? When Calvin commented on Ezekiel 18:28 he said:"...it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it, he could do it; and hence it appears that he does not wish it."
Calvin writes:"How come, then, if God wills all to be saved, that he does not open the door of repentance to those wretched ones that would be more ready to receive his grace?...Experience, however, teaches that he so wills the repentance of those whom he calls to him that he does not touch the hearts of all." (Institutes 3.24.15)
Snips from his work "The Eternal Predestination of God" follow.
"Now all this is in perfect harmony with His secret and eternal counsel, by which He decreed to convert none but His own elect. None but God's elect...He brings to eternal life those whom He willed according to His eteral purpose, regenerating by His spirit, as an eternal Father, His own children only." (p.100)
"Most certainly nothing was less in the mind of the apostle than an extension of the mercy of God to all men." (p.89)
"For if God willed or wished that His truth should be known unto all men, how was it that He did not proclaim and make known His law to the Gentiles also? Why did He confine the light within the narrow limits of Judea?"
"Now let Pighius boast, if he can, that God wills all men to be saved!...even the external preaching of the doctrine of salvation, which is far inferior to the illumination of the spirit, was not made common to all men." (103,104)
"... no one but a man deprived of his common sense and common knowledge can believe that salvation was ordained by the secret counsel of God equally and indiscriminately for all men...Who does not see that the apostle is here speaking of orders of men rather than of individuals?" (105)
I’m sorry, I thought I was being specific…but I’ll try. I am referring to the denial that Christ’s death was for the sins of the world.
I am not going to take the room to copy all of your quotes as they are not relevant and I agree with Calvin in all of these. My argument is not that God’s plan is to save everyone and somehow man trumps God. The problem with your assertion here is that you are jumping from the topic (Christ’s death) to conversion, God’s effectual call, etc.
Did you ever wonder how Calvin, Zwingli, etc., could believe that Christ “suffered and died for the salvation for the human race” and still believe in sovereign election? Some have told me that it simply was not an issue back then, therefore Calvin did not understand the subject. But looking at his, and other writings…this seems to discredit their scholarship and ignore what was written.
You seem not to understand why I can believe that Christ’s death is for the sins of the world, the basis of salvation for all men…yet still be the basis for definite and particular salvation to the elect alone. I have difficulty understanding why you cannot reconcile the two. Perhaps we will understand each other better through the discussion.
For my part...Christ's death for the sins of the world and as a basis of salvation for humanity does not equate to God "wishing their [the reprobate] conversion." Instead it equates to a condemnation on the basis of the cross. His death also secures as a certainty the salvation of the elect. But the death of Christ in and of itself is not "salvation." You could say "salvation is here" but not "I am saved" without the work of the Godhead (God draws the elect, the Spirit convicts, the elect believe...all centuries after the death of Christ). But those who God calls, who He draws, are those chosen before the foundation of the earth...not "all men."
Last edited by a moderator:
The death of Jesus, and His resurrection, though are the very basis salvation to sinners rest upon, correct?
If so, again, why would God have Jesus death be in the stead of all sinners, if the intent was to only apply it towards the elect?
Do you see the death for all as maybe providing for some of the blessings God grants towards the unsaved, as they do have needs met, will have a resurrection etc?
Yes. The Cross is the basis of salvation. Our sin is not forgiven us based on Christ’s vicarious death alone. This is where I agree with the Reformers. The difference is salvation by grace through faith. Your question, if I understand you correctly, would be why God would have Christ die for the human race if it is not His plan to save all mankind. My answer is that you are looking at only half of the purpose of the Atonement. How do you interpret John 3:14-21 in relation to the condemnation of the world?
I’ll offer my view, which you are more than welcome to dismiss if you find it lacks biblical merit. Jesus is saying, in effect, that he is to be a Sacrifice so that whoever believes will have eternal life. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him might be saved through Him. Those who do not believe (to include the elect prior to belief) are already under judgment because they have not believed in the name of Christ. The judgment is that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light. Christ Himself places the condemnation somehow on the work of the Cross. For me, taking a literal position regarding Christ as the propitiation for the sin of the world results in a two fold “purpose” or outcome of the work of the Cross. Not an “if,” but a definite certainty…not only for the elect but also for the reprobate. Everything (not just the salvation of the elect) is centered on Christ.
Anyway, I am looking forward to your answer. When I held your view, this was one difficulty for me.
This thread is closed.
- Status