All means all

[Marilyn C]

Please explain how that pertains to the scripture of the narrow and wide gates.

That is not what He was talking about. He was teaching on several things. One of them was this. Matt 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gat and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

It sits there by itself between His teaching on Ask, Seek, Knock, and True and False Prophets

Yes, however Jesus is still speaking to people UNDER THE LAW.

The LAW is the narrow gate.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus was speaking to the Jews.

Before the cross Jesus went to the Jews first. Mt.7 is speaking of the White Throne judgment

 

[Iconoclast]

That doesn't preclude God's not wanting those multitudes to perish.

If Jesus did not want them to perish, they would not.God saves each and every person He intended to save.
He is not willing that any perish, but that all those the father has given to Him will be saved. Not one will be lost.

 

[Marilyn C]

Before the cross Jesus went to the Jews first. Mt.7 is speaking of the White Throne judgment

Matt. 7 is speaking of those who will enter the Kingdom (rule) of heaven (v. 21) that was promised to Israel. Jesus came to confirm those promises made to the fathers.

`Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers...` (Rom. 15: 8)

God made the promise of the rulership of heaven to Israel by the prophet Daniel. `...the God of heaven will set up a kingdom (rulership) which shall never be destroyed. ` (Dan. 2: 44)

The phrase the `kingdom of heaven ` is the shortened ` the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, (rule).` It is one of the promises that Jesus came to Israel to confirm. Thus, in Matt. 7 (& other places) we see Jesus doing this.

`Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom (rule) of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ` (Matt. 7: 21)

And we see from God`s word that the rulership of the God of heaven is in the millennium and on into the new earth. Daniel and other prophets reveal the setting up of this rulership in the millennium. After the Gentile rulership has finished -

`Then the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High, His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him. ` (Dan. 7: 27)

 

[Mikeuk]

You recognise some of the problems of deciding what is Calvinism. Thanks for that

I notice you omit the point I made about the double standard:

Protestants generally are happy to dismiss references to post apostolic fathers which are a reasonable test of how the first generation interpreted christianity. They are rejected on the basis of lack of Inspiration ,that they apostasized, or just on Bible alone.

Yet … calvinists are happy to throw their favourite uninspired authors ( there are many to choose) , from a variety of generations to “ prove” their view is correct.
On occasion they even quote Aquinas or Augustine.
To me that reeks of a double standard!!

When in desperation such as I go to what should be a voice of consensus, eg PRCA and quote what they say is the U in TULIP and take the literal meaning , that too is objected as just a proof text… as if to say the real truth is elsewhere!

I think you understand the question, it isn’t obvious what true Calvinism “ is” to outsiders.

I agree the parties talk past each other. One of the books I like is Akin salvation controversy in which he raises the issues of language that bars what should be agreement between protestant groups and Catholicism. he notes much of TULIP which expressed in a different way is part of catholic theology Too. He notes similar concerns on armcalv

He also raises some language confusion eg that Hebrew and Arabic use the same word in two different meanings.
He thinks that might be the origin of the mentality of “ snow covered dung hills”
because in one language it means “ cover” ,but in the other it means “ atone”


The final point is that it is not for us to say what is off topic on this particular thread.
It’s for the OP to decide , who raised the same question begged by my quote from PRCA.

 

[Arial]

Yes, however Jesus is still speaking to people UNDER THE LAW.

The LAW is the narrow gate.

Even if that were true, and the scripture was about the law, which it isn't though law would be included, it would not with the narrow gate but with the wide gate. That passage can be related to Jesus saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus was Jewish, He came to the Jews as was promised in the prophets, but not only for the Jews. He came through and to Israel to keep perfectly all of the law as perfect righteousness. So He was always speaking to the Jews. That does not mean it was always only about them.

 

[atpollard]

You cannot take a single sentence from a website and consider it veracious or representative of the whole. Pink (or Frame) is going to look different than someone like Sproul. Olson is going to look different from someone like Moo.

If you want the correct answer, go to Spurgeon.
[sorry, I couldn’t resist.]

 

[atpollard]

I was just pointing out the great multitude that no one can count as an example of God`s great mercy and that `most people will not perish.`

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” - Matthew 7:13-14 [NASB]

• wide = many = destruction
• narrow = few = life

 

[Iconoclast]

Matt. 7 is speaking of those who will enter the Kingdom (rule) of heaven (v. 21) that was promised to Israel. Jesus came to confirm those promises made to the fathers.

`Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers...` (Rom. 15: 8)

God made the promise of the rulership of heaven to Israel by the prophet Daniel. `...the God of heaven will set up a kingdom (rulership) which shall never be destroyed. ` (Dan. 2: 44)

The phrase the `kingdom of heaven ` is the shortened ` the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, (rule).` It is one of the promises that Jesus came to Israel to confirm. Thus, in Matt. 7 (& other places) we see Jesus doing this.

`Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom (rule) of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ` (Matt. 7: 21)

And we see from God`s word that the rulership of the God of heaven is in the millennium and on into the new earth. Daniel and other prophets reveal the setting up of this rulership in the millennium. After the Gentile rulership has finished -

`Then the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High, His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him. ` (Dan. 7: 27)

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

 

[makesends]

If I may,

I think what makesends is asking is a question that has two parts. The first being is, "Does God experience emotions the same way fallen humans do?" and the second is, "Should, or is, scripture be read to anthropomorphize God's emotions?"

In the case of God desiring all men be saved, His desires occur as holy, righteous, never-adulterated desires and, more importantly, they never occur from a position of want or lack. God lacks nothing. He wants or longs for nothing, not even the salvation of a single sinner. Furthermore, God has many desires, and they never conflict with one another. His desire that all men be saved exists at the very same time He desires to destroy sin and sinners. The two desires do not ever conflict with one another. That would be a conflicted god, a double-minded god, a god at war within himself.

That god is not God.

This is true of all God's emotions. When God feels regret it is not because He's done something wrong or made any kind of mistake. Such a premise would be antithetical to His being both ontologically perfect and perfect in all His ways. All His emotions occur in the context of His imperviousness to temptation and sin. That is never true of humans (collectively or individually). All His emotions occur within the context of His being The Creator, His having a purpose creating creation and His omni-attributed sovereign power to always accomplish His purpose and desires and never not do so.

So when scripture says God desires all men be saved that should be read and understood that not only does He desire it but it will happen. God does not have fruitless desires. But it can't be read to support universalism, either, because God also desire the sinful receive the just recompense for their sin.

The ideas that either God has one chief desire that over-rules all others (the desire to save), or that God experiences that desire in conflict with Himself, or that any alternative is a compromise on His part, or that sinful humans have any ability to circumvent God and His purpose and desires runs into direct contradiction to the fact the exact same cross that saves also condemns.

From the very beginning of creation God had at least two preparations, plans, purposes, and outcomes for Calvary: salvation and judgment. It's not salvation or judgment. It's both simultaneously existing. The exact same Son of God who came like a silent lamb to the slaughter will return in with a sword in his mouth for violent judgement.

@makesends can correct me where I strayed from the intent of his inquiry.

Lastly,

It is, imo, important that you don't know what he's trying to say because what he asked is a very valid question, and one that is fundamental and foundational to a correct reading of the verse in question (and any verse reporting on God's affect). If my clarification is correct, then perhaps now what he asked is better understood.

It is not okay to select one verse and make an entire doctrine from it. That is called proof-texting and proof-texting is rarely sound exegesis and almost always leads to bad doctrine. 1 Timothy 2:4 is not the one single, solitary verse that defines all that God feels or desires about sin, sinners, redemption, and the redeemed.

That's actually better put than I would have done. Thanks!

 

[makesends]

Why did God prepare to create people destined for eternal hell? I know you said it is for His glory, and I know you say everybody deserves hell from conception, but why should any of that be the case? How does God get glory from reprobating people to hell for a reason nobody can understand save for "mystery"?

Where do you get the notion that we can understand no reason for it? We are directly TOLD a reason for it in Romans 9. Further, experience should tell us some other reasons for him to have made them. And reason itself produces some pretty good speculations for why he would have done so.

 

[makesends]

The holiness of God demands that He punish sin. That He must punish sin does not mean that He desires to punish sin. His desire that all be saved and yet punishes sin is not contradictory.

You continue to show your predilection for attributing substance to human terminology.

Again, "wants", "desires" and such are not attributable to God in the same way as they are to humans.

 

[Marilyn C]

Even if that were true, and the scripture was about the law, which it isn't though law would be included, it would not with the narrow gate but with the wide gate. That passage can be related to Jesus saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus was Jewish, He came to the Jews as was promised in the prophets, but not only for the Jews. He came through and to Israel to keep perfectly all of the law as perfect righteousness. So He was always speaking to the Jews. That does not mean it was always only about them.

`Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them for this is the LAW and the Prophets. Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.` (Matt. 7: 12 - 14)

 

[Marilyn C]

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” - Matthew 7:13-14 [NASB]

• wide = many = destruction
• narrow = few = life

Yes, under the LAW.

 

[Marilyn C]

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

The `kingdom` is the rulership that Israel will have over the nations. The generation when Jesus was manifest on earth should have been the one, (end of the 70 x 7 of chastisement) but they missed that and thus the rulership will go to the generation in Israel when the Lord returns. (Zech. 12: 7 - 10)

 

[brightfame52]

This post is a counter to the idea that God preselected a group of people for salvation before creation, and also at that time choose others for damnation, what is known as Calvinism. It is a fatalistic idea that man does not choose to follow God of free will, but rather God elects some to salvation, and elects others to damnation, and the people have no choice in the matter.

Country to this idea, the Bible is clear God gave Himself as a ransom for all men.



The above verse shows us that a) God’s desire is to save as many as receive Him, note b) He gave himself as a ransom for all. This shows that the “all men” being talked about is a reference to their salvation. Not some general form of “other salvation”.

The following scriptures show us that “all men” includes both “saved” and unsaved, and for “us” and the “whole world”.





Not only this when Jesus speaks of His willingness to save, he states that it was “man not him”, that was unwilling.



A Calvinist will say that God chooses some for damnation and others for salvation. Meaning God was unwilling to save the damned that He desired their destruction. That He only had a willingness to save the elect.

But Luke 12:38 above clearly shows that God “desired to save the children of Israel”, but they were in many cases “unwilling”. The following scripture also shows us that God has a willingness to save those who are straying, that contrary to Calvinism, God does not delight in the death of the wicked, that that is not his will.



In light of this, we need to be careful in interpreting scripture in a fatalistic way. For Jesus clearly said “I wanted to gather your children together”, that is God’s will. He wanted salvation for people. But the people “were not willing”.

The same applies today, God wants salvation for all. But often people are not willing to follow Him.

All does mean all, just doesnt mean all without exception in most cases in scripture.

 

[JIM]

You continue to show your predilection for attributing substance to human terminology.

Again, "wants", "desires" and such are not attributable to God in the same way as they are to humans.

Says you, not God. And moreover, if that is not the case, then you have God incapable of communicating with His creation.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Where do you get the notion that we can understand no reason for it? We are directly TOLD a reason for it in Romans 9. Further, experience should tell us some other reasons for him to have made them. And reason itself produces some pretty good speculations for why he would have done so.

I get it from John Calvin. Please give some good speculative reasons yourself.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, under the LAW.

Under ”the Way” … the term used to describe the life of following Christ for most of the first century of the Christian Church precisely because of the words of Jesus that you are so quick to dismiss.


"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” - Matthew 7:13-14 [NASB]

 

[Marilyn C]

Under ”the Way” … the term used to describe the life of following Christ for most of the first century of the Christian Church precisely because of the words of Jesus that you are so quick to dismiss.


"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” - Matthew 7:13-14 [NASB]

So, are the `few` the `great multitude that no one can count? `