Fate Of The Unreached - Part IV - Finale

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Fate Of The Unreached
Part IV – Finale
​

NOTE: This final column on the Fate of the Unreached is composed mostly of Questions and Answers, many of which you have perhaps entertained--Buff.​

<><><>
​

Question: If, in the end of all things, God considers safe those who lacked capabilities, will He not consider saved those honest persons who lacked opportunities?

My Answer: Yes.

Question: May a person reach heaven without believing in the Person of Jesus?

My Answer: I'm inclined to answer in the affirmative. Among those who will be in heaven are infants and small children. As David said, after his infant son died, “I can go to him, but he cannot come to me.” And Jesus compared little children to the kingdom of heaven. Then there are the severely retarded and the mentally incompetent. I have also added the honest unexposed or uninformed, those who are receptive to celestial truth through creation.

Question: If the unregenerate will be saved, in spite of ignorance, what purpose was served in sending a Savior and the proclamation of that fact?

My Answer: It is God’s intention, through the Good News, to not only save the unregenerate from their fallen nature, but that those who are righteous like Cornelius might be conformed to the image of His Son (2 Cor. 3:18). This is why we take the saving message to the unregenerate. Those who are not seeking additional light will reject it. Those who are seeking more light will accept it.

Question: Why take the saving message to the honest unregenerate if they are saved already?

My Answer: Why cultivate a field of corn if it can be harvested without cultivation? To make it a better field of corn. We take the saving message to the honest unregenerate because we are commissioned, and because the elected ones need to hear and be spiritually cultivatedthereby, producing a better harvest.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (Matt. 9:37). There are not enough laborers to take additional light to all peoples like Cornelius. Consequently, it is my position, based upon what I believe heaven teaches, that God’s mercy and grace will compensate for those honest, receptive persons whose only available light is creation (Rom. 1).

Question: So you believe many of the unregenerate ones are part of God’s elect?

My Answer: I believe all who reach heaven, whether those born anew or the devout unregenerate, are part of God’s elect.

Question; You seem to be saying the "honest uninformed" will be saved by responding to some divine revelation. Isn't this legalism? Paul says people are saved by grace through faith.

My Answer No responsible person will be saved except on the basis of grace through faith, regardless of the divine revelation under which he lived and died. His positive response to the revelation under which he lived was a reflection of his faith. If I understand the divine testimony accurately, God’s grace cannot be applied to an accountable person without faith.

Question: Isn't your position regarding the fate of the unreached based primarily upon theory and supposition?

My Answer: Absolutely not. I have provided numerous scriptures that tend to heavily support my perspective. I’d like to share another one. When Peter was conversing with Cornelius and his household, he said, “Truly, I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:34-35).

Every nation? Yes, even those nations whose only revelation was/is creation, as per Romans 1. It is interesting that Cornelius was acceptable to God prior to Peter being sent to him. The Lord described Cornelius as a "righteous and God-fearing man" before Peter laid his eyes on him and before he brought him additional light (Acts 10:22). I have no doubt but that there are many "Corneliuses" scattered throughout the earth.

In the final analysis, it seems there are two principal schools of thought relating to this subject. I suggest you select the one that best coincides with your doctrinal position. Here they are:

1) Only those who consciously accept the redemptive acts of Jesus will be saved.
2) Only those who consciously reject the God of creation are lost.

Needless to say, I accept the latter premise. The principle I have introduced in these essays should be pondered deliberately, namely:

Some lack capabilities; others lack opportunities. If God extends grace and mercy to those persons lacking capabilities, will He not grant grace and mercy to those honest persons lacking opportunities? I tend to believe our Lord uses the same measuring rod for both.

If we limit heaven’s population only to those who had the opportunity to hear and respond to divine revelations in the form of audible and written messages, the corridors and airways and arcades of heaven will be mighty spacious! I suspect that when we reach heaven we will find many people there whom we felt would not be there, and quite a few not there whom we felt would be there.

It is good that God is the Judge, for we are too prone to misjudge. He understands the predicament of the unreached. He is not a phantom. He is real! And He will save those who seek Him (Acts 17). The bottom line, however, is that God is still at the controls, and He will accept or reject whomever He wishes. Praise His Name!​

 

[Eleanor]

Fate Of The Unreached
Part IV – Finale
​

NOTE: This final column on the Fate of the Unreached is composed mostly of Questions and Answers, many of which you have perhaps entertained--Buff.​

<><><>
​

Question: If, in the end of all things, God considers safe those who lacked capabilities, will He not consider saved those honest persons who lacked opportunities?

My Answer: Yes.

Question: May a person reach heaven without believing in the Person of Jesus?

My Answer: I'm inclined to answer in the affirmative. Among those who will be in heaven are infants and small children. As David said, after his infant son died, “I can go to him, but he cannot come to me.” And Jesus compared little children to the kingdom of heaven. Then there are the severely retarded and the mentally incompetent. I have also added the honest unexposed or uninformed, those who are receptive to celestial truth through creation.

Question: If the unregenerate will be saved, in spite of ignorance, what purpose was served in sending a Savior and the proclamation of that fact?

My Answer: It is God’s intention, through the Good News, to not only save the unregenerate from their fallen nature, but that those who are righteous like Cornelius might be conformed to the image of His Son (2 Cor. 3:18). This is why we take the saving message to the unregenerate. Those who are not seeking additional light will reject it. Those who are seeking more light will accept it.

Question: Why take the saving message to the honest unregenerate if they are saved already?

My Answer: Why cultivate a field of corn if it can be harvested without cultivation? To make it a better field of corn. We take the saving message to the honest unregenerate because we are commissioned, and because the elected ones need to hear and be spiritually cultivatedthereby, producing a better harvest.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (Matt. 9:37). There are not enough laborers to take additional light to all peoples like Cornelius. Consequently, it is my position, based upon what I believe heaven teaches, that God’s mercy and grace will compensate for those honest, receptive persons whose only available light is creation (Rom. 1).

Question: So you believe many of the unregenerate ones are part of God’s elect?

My Answer: I believe all who reach heaven, whether those born anew or the devout unregenerate, are part of God’s elect.

Question; You seem to be saying the "honest uninformed" will be saved by responding to some divine revelation. Isn't this legalism? Paul says people are saved by grace through faith.

My Answer No responsible person will be saved except on the basis of grace through faith, regardless of the divine revelation under which he lived and died. His positive response to the revelation under which he lived was a reflection of his faith. If I understand the divine testimony accurately, God’s grace cannot be applied to an accountable person without faith.

Question: Isn't your position regarding the fate of the unreached based primarily upon theory and supposition?

My Answer: Absolutely not. I have provided numerous scriptures that tend to heavily support my perspective. I’d like to share another one. When Peter was conversing with Cornelius and his household, he said, “Truly, I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:34-35).

Every nation? Yes, even those nations whose only revelation was/is creation, as per Romans 1. It is interesting that Cornelius was acceptable to God prior to Peter being sent to him. The Lord described Cornelius as a "righteous and God-fearing man" before Peter laid his eyes on him and before he brought him additional light (Acts 10:22). I have no doubt but that there are many "Corneliuses" scattered throughout the earth.

In the final analysis, it seems there are two principal schools of thought relating to this subject. I suggest you select the one that best coincides with your doctrinal position. Here they are:

1) Only those who consciously accept the redemptive acts of Jesus will be saved.
2) Only those who consciously reject the God of creation are lost.

Needless to say, I accept the latter premise. The principle I have introduced in these essays should be pondered deliberately, namely:

Some lack capabilities; others lack opportunities. If God extends grace and mercy to those persons lacking capabilities, will He not grant grace and mercy to those honest persons lacking opportunities? I tend to believe our Lord uses the same measuring rod for both.

If we limit heaven’s population only to those who had the opportunity to hear and respond to divine revelations in the form of audible and written messages, the corridors and airways and arcades of heaven will be mighty spacious! I suspect that when we reach heaven we will find many people there whom we felt would not be there, and quite a few not there whom we felt would be there.
​

It is good that God is the Judge, for we are too prone to misjudge. He understands the predicament of the unreached. He is not a phantom. He is real! And He will save those who seek Him (Acts 17). The bottom line, however, is that God is still at the controls, and He will accept or reject whomever He wishes. Praise His Name!

And no one seeks him apart from his enablement (Jn 6:44, 1 Co 2:14), which he does not grant to all (Jn 6:44).
And those to whom he grants enablement do come to him (Jn 6:37).

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

​

And no one seeks him apart from his enablement (Jn 6:44, 1 Co 2:14), which he does not grant to all (Jn 6:44).
And those to whom he grants enablement do come to him (Jn 6:37).

On John 6:44: The Father draws everyone via the message of salvation, called the "Gospel." But most reject the drawing.

On I Cor. 2:14: As long as a person remains a natural person by rejecting the things of God, he cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God. But Jesus says he has a will to do God's will, and at that point he will know whether the teaching is from God (John 7:16)​

 

[Eleanor]

On John 6:44: The Father draws everyone via the message of salvation, called the "Gospel." But most reject the drawing.​

Read it again, that is not what it states.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (Jn 6:44).
All that the Father gives me will come to me (Jn 6:37).

Do all come to him?
They do not. . .because all are not drawn.

On I Cor. 2:14: As long as a person remains a natural person by rejecting the things of God, he cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God. But Jesus says he has a will to do God's will, and at that point he will know whether the teaching is from God (John 7:16)

A will to do God's will must be given by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 2:14), and he does not give it to everyone.

 

[Eleanor]

. . .

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Read it again, that is not what it states.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (Jn 6:44).
All that the Father gives me will come to me (Jn 6:37).

Do all come to him?
They do not. . .because all are not drawn.

​

A will to do God's will must be given by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 2:14), and he does not give it to everyone.

Eleanor, no offence but according to Heaven's messages, you are far out in left field on this issue. You might consider this thought. Did Adam & Eve have a free will when they disobeyed God's command not to eat from the forbidden tree? You see, if God's Holy Spirit gave them that free will and knew in advance they would disobey Him, what kind of a God do we have? What description would you place upon Him?

 

[Arial]

Eleanor, no offence but according to Heaven's messages, you are far out in left field on this issue. You might consider this thought. Did Adam & Eve have a free will when they disobeyed God's command not to eat from the forbidden tree? You see, if God's Holy Spirit gave them that free will and knew in advance they would disobey Him, what kind of a God do we have? What description would you place upon Him?

Does it matter what description anyone places on God? Does any of that change who he is? Does it become the correct description of him simply by a person placing that description on him? So, you are assuming here that the description you would place on him would be the same one everyone would place on him. You arrive at that suggestion that it would be a God who is not loving, by leaving out most of the Biblical (self revealed) "description" of God. It only arrives at its beliefs and opinions by leaving out a whole plethora of what God says about himself. It takes only what it considers the "good" parts----therein dividing God into parts.

There is a book in the Bible titled Job. A profound lesson is to be learned about who God is and who we are by reading it with understanding. Job's friends said a great many things that were true about God. They knew a lot about him, but they misapplied it by insisting that Job would not be suffering unless he had sinned badly against God. And Job himself showed he knew a great deal about God, which is why he wanted a counsel with him as to his guilt or innocence.

We already know, what neither Job or his friends knew, because it is give to us in the first chapter of Job. Why Job was really suffering. God, you see, had a purpose in giving Satan permission to come against Job. When God spoke to Job out of the whirlwind, Job stopped arguing with God, stopped telling him what he should do and how he should be. And the purpose God had was good. And it was loving.

So when one comes to the very first chapter of the Bible and begins telling God what his purpose is, and that it is all about us, and that if it isn't the way we think it ought to be, then he isn't good; well then we have lost our way right out of the gate. We stand there telling God what his purpose can and cannot be. At that rate, but for the grace of God, one cannot truly arrive at the place Job arrived when God spoke to him. 42:4-6 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.

 

[Josheb]

Question: May a person reach heaven without believing in the Person of Jesus? ​

My Answer: I'm inclined to answer in the affirmative. Among those who will be in heaven are infants and small children. As David said, after his infant son died, “I can go to him, but he cannot come to me.” And Jesus compared little children to the kingdom of heaven. Then there are the severely retarded and the mentally incompetent. I have also added the honest unexposed or uninformed, those who are receptive to celestial truth through creation.​

And yet scripture plainly, explicitly states there is no other name by which anyone may be saved.

Your inclination contradicts some scripture and makes a mishmash of other scripture. For example, if David's son was in heaven and David was going to eventually go to heaven the David could and would be going to him, his son. The only way David could/would never be able to go to the boy was if either the boy was in hell and David in heaven, or David was in hell and the child in heaven. Jesus never said those children were saved, nor did he ever state they would all be saved. What he said was unless a person turns from sin and becomes like little children, and this kingdom is of those like those children (the word "belong" isn't in the Greek). Lastly, there are no "unexposed" or "uninformed" humans. That last sentence contradicts itself.

I, therefore, respectfully encourage and exhort you to continue thinking through the whole of scripture as you attempt to fathom the fate of those who've never specifically heard the gospel preached to them.





Here's something to consider:

If you were a social worker and I gave you a book specifically on how to grow tomatoes and I asked you to use that book to repair my broken lawn mower engine what would you say?

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor, no offence but according to Heaven's messages,

Not too sure what "Heaven's messages" are, but I know what the word of God written (2 Tim 3:16) presents.

you are far out in left field on this issue. You might consider this thought. Did Adam & Eve have a free will when they disobeyed God's command not to eat from the forbidden tree? You see, if God's Holy Spirit gave them that free will and knew in advance they would disobey Him, what kind of God do we have? What description would you place upon Him?

Buff, it is God who judges the ways of man, not man who judges the ways of God.

Because he's God, we're not., . .and he says:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isa 55:8-9)

You are in the middle of God's thoughts, which are not in agreement with your thoughts.
This is what you must reckon with.
You must decide who is God and who gets to call the shots, you or Him.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

And yet scripture plainly, explicitly states there is no other name by which anyone may be saved.

Your inclination contradicts some scripture and makes a mishmash of other scripture. For example, if David's son was in heaven and David was going to eventually go to heaven the David could and would be going to him, his son. The only way David could/would never be able to go to the boy was if either the boy was in hell and David in heaven, or David was in hell and the child in heaven. Jesus never said those children were saved, nor did he ever state they would all be saved. What he said was unless a person turns from sin and becomes like little children, and this kingdom is of those like those children (the word "belong" isn't in the Greek). Lastly, there are no "unexposed" or "uninformed" humans. That last sentence contradicts itself.

I, therefore, respectfully encourage and exhort you to continue thinking through the whole of scripture as you attempt to fathom the fate of those who've never specifically heard the gospel preached to them.





Here's something to consider:

If you were a social worker and I gave you a book specifically on how to grow tomatoes and I asked you to use that book to repair my broken lawn mower engine what would you say?

Josheb, you stated, "And yet scripture plainly, explicitly states there is no other name by which anyone may be saved." You may not be reading me closely enough, for I have stated more than once that no living being, from Adam on down, will be saved except what our Lord Jesus has done. His blood flowed backwards as well as forward.

The offspring of Abraham and Moses who obeyed God, as per the revelation they lived under, were save by the blood of Messiah Jesus.​

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Not too sure what "Heaven's messages" are, but I know what the word of God written (2 Tim 3:16) presents.

Buff, it is God who judges the ways of man, not man who judges the ways of God.

Because he's God, we're not., . .and he says:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isa 55:8-9)

You are in the middle of God's thoughts, which are not in agreement with your thoughts.
This is what you must reckon with.
You must decide who is God and who gets to call the shots, you or Him.

You're not sure what "Heaven's messages are"? Come on. Let me help you. "For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable..." (Heb. 2:2). Try I John 1:5.

Not too sure what "Heaven's messages" are, but I know what the word of God written (2 Tim 3:16) presents.

Buff, it is God who judges the ways of man, not man who judges the ways of God.

Because he's God, we're not., . .and he says:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isa 55:8-9)

You are in the middle of God's thoughts, which are not in agreement with your thoughts.
This is what you must reckon with.
You must decide who is God and who gets to call the shots, you or Him.

Eleanor, you hardly said anything about my remarks pertaining to Adam and Eve, so let me enlarge. Adam and Eve were born in a state of perfection, biologically and otherwise. They, of course, were born with a free will, otherwise they could not have eaten from the forbidden tree. Cain could not have slain his brother Able without a free will.

If God's Spirit gave Cain that free will...that is, he was not born with it...is God equally guilty of the death of Able? Every person on Earth since Adam has been born with a will to do right or a will to do wrong, to accept God or reject God. To claim that man does not have a will to accept God, that God must first confer free will upon him, is contradictory to everything God says and collides with every basic biblical principle.​

 

[Arial]

Eleanor, you hardly said anything about my remarks pertaining to Adam and Eve, so let me enlarge. Adam and Eve were born in a state of perfection, biologically and otherwise. They, of course, were born with a free will, otherwise they could not have eaten from the forbidden tree. Cain could not have slain his brother Able without a free will.

Having a will, and having a free will, are not the same thing. Adam's will was free from sin and a nature to sin. That is exactly what was lost when he fell. So you cannot equate post fall with pre fall. Man still has a will, and he can make choices. But that will has now been corrupted with the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, no one lives a life without making sinful choices, and his enemy is God. Everyone is a sinner. His will is bent away from God because he likes his ability to follow his desires even if they are sinful. To him it is freedom when in reality it is bondage. Bondage to sin, the Bible tells us in no uncertain terms. And bondage is not freedom.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Having a will, and having a free will, are not the same thing. Adam's will was free from sin and a nature to sin. That is exactly what was lost when he fell. So you cannot equate post fall with pre fall. Man still has a will, and he can make choices. But that will has now been corrupted with the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, no one lives a life without making sinful choices, and his enemy is God. Everyone is a sinner. His will is bent away from God because he likes his ability to follow his desires even if they are sinful. To him it is freedom when in reality it is bondage. Bondage to sin, the Bible tells us in no uncertain terms. And bondage is not freedom.

Not too sure what "Heaven's messages" are, but I know what the word of God written (2 Tim 3:16) presents.

Buff, it is God who judges the ways of man, not man who judges the ways of God.

Because he's God, we're not., . .and he says:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isa 55:8-9)

You are in the middle of God's thoughts, which are not in agreement with your thoughts.
This is what you must reckon with.
You must decide who is God and who gets to call the shots, you or Him.

Your doctrinal agenda is still colliding with Jesus in John 7:16 & John 3:17, and others - Even the WORLD has a freewill to be save, should they decide to do so. "For God did not send His Son unto the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him." "The world" includes every human being since Adam, the unsaved and the ungodly. "...that WHOEVER believes in Him will be saved." Bottom line: All can freely accept the Good News, for all were born with a will to be rescued should they so decide.

 

[Eleanor]

You're not sure what "Heaven's messages are"? Come on. Let me help you. "For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable..." (Heb. 2:2). Try I John 1:5.

Eleanor, you hardly said anything about my remarks pertaining to Adam and Eve, so let me enlarge. Adam and Eve were born in a state of perfection, biologically and otherwise. They, of course, were born with a free will, otherwise they could not have eaten from the forbidden tree. Cain could not have slain his brother Able without a free will.​

If God's Spirit gave Cain that free will...that is, he was not born with it...is God equally guilty of the death of Able? Every person on Earth since Adam has been born with a will to do right or a will to do wrong, to accept God or reject God. To claim that man does not have a will to accept God, that God must first confer free will upon him, is contradictory to everything God says and collides with every basic biblical principle.

But it's not about freedom, it's about power to execute freedom.

Only Adam had the power/freedom to choose to be sinless.
We do not have that power because Adam lost it in the fall.

 

[Arial]

Your doctrinal agenda is still colliding with Jesus in John 7:16 & John 3:17, and others - Even the WORLD has a freewill to be save, should they decide to do so. "For God did not send His Son unto the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him." "The world" includes every human being since Adam, the unsaved and the ungodly. "...that WHOEVER believes in Him will be saved." Bottom line: All can freely accept the Good News, for all were born with a will to be rescued should they so decide.

The world is where we live---in the world. If the context in those passages intended it to mean all person's without exception, there would be some indication of that. The world has no will at all. If you check in Rev 21 (and other places but that is the end of the story of redemption) you will see that the world is saved. This is done by the work of Jesus defeating the power of sin and death on the cross, (for these who believe) and at a future time set by God, the serpent's and those who follow him (unbelievers) are destroyed.

The "whoever believes in him" does not actually imply any choice being made, except in the minds of those who can't abide a God who would choose who to save, leaving the rest in their sins and unbelief. It is simply stating that it is those who believe in the person and work of Jesus are the ones who are saved.

The world, our created world, is saved through the redemption of persons, and only they will inhabit the new creation. God created the world, he created it as mankind's home, he created it good (perfect), mankind corrupted it with his sin, Jesus came to undo that and did so, though it has not yet reached its consummation. Not all of his people (that would be the ones God is giving to him as per scripture) have been gathered to him yet.

"All were born with a will to be rescued should they so decide" you say? Where does Scripture say anything of the sort? It says instead, that all are at enmity with God. If we all consider him an enemy in our natural state in Adam, we consider that we have been rescued---from him. The things of the Spirit are foolishness to us. We may want things from God from time to time, do not recognize that we already have things from him, life and provision, so take all the glory for those things for ourselves; but we do not want him. I speak of the natural man here, as you have made a statement about the natural man.

If a person knew they needed to be rescued and what they needed to be rescued from, wouldn't all desire to be rescued? Can God not rescue without it hinging on the decision of a sinner? Does he need their permission to make Christ's death successful in its intent? If he does, if the actual atonement by substitution is not 100% successful---a great deal of the time Jesus was a failure and died for naught. I ask you, "How can that be?"

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The world is where we live---in the world. If the context in those passages intended it to mean all person's without exception, there would be some indication of that. The world has no will at all. If you check in Rev 21 (and other places but that is the end of the story of redemption) you will see that the world is saved. This is done by the work of Jesus defeating the power of sin and death on the cross, (for these who believe) and at a future time set by God, the serpent's and those who follow him (unbelievers) are destroyed.

The "whoever believes in him" does not actually imply any choice being made, except in the minds of those who can't abide a God who would choose who to save, leaving the rest in their sins and unbelief. It is simply stating that it is those who believe in the person and work of Jesus are the ones who are saved.

The world, our created world, is saved through the redemption of persons, and only they will inhabit the new creation. God created the world, he created it as mankind's home, he created it good (perfect), mankind corrupted it with his sin, Jesus came to undo that and did so, though it has not yet reached its consummation. Not all of his people (that would be the ones God is giving to him as per scripture) have been gathered to him yet.

"All were born with a will to be rescued should they so decide" you say? Where does Scripture say anything of the sort? It says instead, that all are at enmity with God. If we all consider him an enemy in our natural state in Adam, we consider that we have been rescued---from him. The things of the Spirit are foolishness to us. We may want things from God from time to time, do not recognize that we already have things from him, life and provision, so take all the glory for those things for ourselves; but we do not want him. I speak of the natural man here, as you have made a statement about the natural man.

If a person knew they needed to be rescued and what they needed to be rescued from, wouldn't all desire to be rescued? Can God not rescue without it hinging on the decision of a sinner? Does he need their permission to make Christ's death successful in its intent? If he does, if the actual atonement by substitution is not 100% successful---a great deal of the time Jesus was a failure and died for naught. I ask you, "How can that be?"

Arial, if the unbeliever who comes to accept Jesus has no freewill in the matter and is compelled to respond positively, he’s a robot. Did God create robots and program them to respond to certain commands and “nudges,” or did He set the proposals before them and give them the power to either accept of reject?

If we have no “say-so” in our salvation, why did Jesus implore people to come to Him and He would give them rest (Matt. 11:28)? For if they are compelled to come to Him—if they have zero choice in the matter Jesus spoke meaningless words.

On the Birthday of the Christian community, as recorded in Acts 2, Peter told the 3,000 who accepted the message of salvation precisely what to do upon their asking (Acts 2:38). If those 3,000 could do nothing to effect their initial salvation or new birth, why would Peter go to the trouble of telling them what to do? He could well have answered, “There’s nothing to do, for you have no say or choice in the matter.” Instead, he instructed them what to do to finalize their initial response.

The bottom line is that God accepts the responsive heart. But to respond to the message of salvation, a decision must be made by the person who has been touched by that message. And if a decision must be made on the part of the candidate, choice and freewill are part of the overall process. Jesus thought so, for He said, “If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God...” (John 7:17).​

 

[Arial]

Arial, if the unbeliever who comes to accept Jesus has no freewill in the matter and is compelled to respond positively, he’s a robot.

That is a false dichotomy. There are other options besides either free will or a robot. It is illogical to decide biblical doctrine in that manner. Or anything for that matter.

Did God create robots and program them to respond to certain commands and “nudges,” or did He set the proposals before them and give them the power to either accept of reject?

God neither created robots, programs these imaginary robots, or set proposals before them, or give them the power to either accept or reject. A thorough and consistent doctrine of God as his word reveals to us, would understand that. If you would like a rundown with scriptural evidence of why none of the things you suggest is an option, I would be happy to provide it for you.

If we have no “say-so” in our salvation, why did Jesus implore people to come to Him and He would give them rest (Matt. 11:28)? For if they are compelled to come to Him—if they have zero choice in the matter Jesus spoke meaningless words.

He wasn't compelling them to come to him. Compel by the way means to force a person to do something, to require it. So you are using the same word (in definition) that you arguing so stridently against.

As to the passage itself, I am curious as to why you quoted it outside of the context? Here is the immediate surrounding context. 25-29 At that time Jesus declared, "I think you , Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gently and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

The meaning you have given the isolated scripture, directly contradicts the previous statement. That would make Jesus say one thing in one breath and exactly the opposite in the next breath.

On the Birthday of the Christian community, as recorded in Acts 2, Peter told the 3,000 who accepted the message of salvation precisely what to do upon their asking (Acts 2:38). If those 3,000 could do nothing to effect their initial salvation or new birth, why would Peter go to the trouble of telling them what to do? He could well have answered, “There’s nothing to do, for you have no say or choice in the matter.” Instead, he instructed them what to do to finalize their initial response.

On the Birthday of the Christian community, as recorded in Acts 2, Peter told the 3,000 who accepted the message of salvation precisely what to do upon their asking (Acts 2:38). If those 3,000 could do nothing to effect their initial salvation or new birth, why would Peter go to the trouble of telling them what to do? He could well have answered, “There’s nothing to do, for you have no say or choice in the matter.” Instead, he instructed them what to do to finalize their initial response.

Does "What shall we do?" always mean "How do we---?" They didn't ask what they should do to be saved. But again, small, but very critical words are glossed over that are included in the context.

Acts 2:37-41 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of them apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

What would they receive if they repented (turned from one way to the opposite way. Away from God as is the condition of the natural man in Adam) towards God. The Holy Spirit. And what was the Holy Spirit given for? Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and ain all Judea and a, and to the end of the earth."

Who was present in Jerusalem when this happened? Found in verses 8-11. Many languages hearing the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus, returning after Pentecost to their homelands---with this good news.

Doctrine is derived from singular texts. It comes from a proper biblical hermeneutic---which includes surrounding context, historic application (time and place)and must be consistent with all of Scripture.

The bottom line is that God accepts the responsive heart. But to respond to the message of salvation, a decision must be made by the person who has been touched by that message. And if a decision must be made on the part of the candidate, choice and freewill are part of the overall process. Jesus thought so, for He said, “If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God...” (John 7:17).

A person never chooses to go against his hard, stony heart. Something we all have by being sinners. As sinners, we already stand opposed to God---that is what sin is. And we cannot change our heart. That is why God had to come into our history, as one of us, and fulfill all righteousness in the Son, and take our punishment upon himself, and be resurrected, guaranteeing the resurrection of all who are in him through faith. It is God, and only God who can change a person's heart, and he declares that he will do that. Jesus says the same, "No one can see (or enter) the kingdom of God unless he is born again. John in his first chapter tells us a person must be born of God, form above, that the flesh, or the will of man, is not what initiates this new birth.

And if a decision must be made on the part of the candidate, choice and freewill are part of the overall process. Jesus thought so, for He said, “If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God...” (John 7:17).

You have not established that a decision must be made on the part of the candidate as being a free will choice. The choice is made after regeneration at which time the person can see the kingdom. That "see", since the kingdom is not visible, is like a light turning on in a dark room---"Oh, I see!" What was utter foolishness before, is now understood, and its value seen. So riddle me this---if that were the case, would any say "no thanks." It is as scripture says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." And in another place "We love him, because he first loved us." And those words are not written to the general population, they were written to those who already believed.

So again, if Jesus means in that verse what you attribute to him he contradicted himself.