What if God, willing to. . . .

[Eleanor]

Sorta. If just one person was saved from sin Jesus would be coming to gather that one person.

But if that person lived in the first century, then that person has already died, has already been gathered, and is already living incorruptly and immortally, having eternal life. There's no reason for Jesus to come for that one elect person.

Jesus is coming for the resurrection and judgment of all mankind, saved and unsaved, which will not occur until the end of time.

He'd still be coming to lay waste to the apostate , but he wouldn't need to come for that one elect person who died in time millennia ago.

Which alters nothing I've presented.

 

[Josheb]

I ask you to do the same.

Not only is that a fallacious attempt at shifting the onus away from your responsibility to prove your own (misguided) claims, but I've already answered that inquiry. You just asked me to do something I have already done. It wastes everyone's time. Here's more:

John 3:3, 6
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew from above he cannot see the kingdom of God.... That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Romans 6:4
Therefore, we have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life.

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled faces, looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

There are many others.


Now will you please, without further delay or obfuscation, provide just one verse that attributes salvation to the sinner changing his/her mind? (or acknowledge there is none)

Thank you.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus is coming for the resurrection and judgment of all mankind, saved and unsaved, which will not occur until the end of time.

Which alters nothing I've presented.

Relevance to this op?

 

[Eleanor]

Not only is that a fallacious attempt at shifting the onus away from your responsibility to prove your own (misguided) claims,

I am asking you to address a statement you never made, just as you are asking me to address a statement I never made.

 

[Eleanor]

Relevance to this op?

See statement it was addressing. . .

 

[Josheb]

I am asking you to address a statement you never made, just as you are asking me to address a statement I never made.

The posts prove otherwise. Your post was quoted verbatim (see Post 247) and then after that post was amended (see Post 255). You did, in fact, demonstrably and undeniably couch salvation in the sinner changing his own mind and turning to God. You were asked to provide scripture to that effect and now the entire matter is being denied. There are three options:

1. Clarify what was posted so that is understood you did not mean to couch salvation in the sinner's change of mind and self-turning.
2. Provide scripture proving the claim.
3. Hold fast to the position and acknowledge there is no scripture to support it.

I will accept any of the three.

 

[Eleanor]

The posts prove otherwise. Your post was quoted verbatim (see Post 247) and then after that post was amended (see Post 255). You did, in fact, demonstrably and undeniably couch salvation in the sinner changing his own mind and turning to God. You were asked to provide scripture to that effect and now the entire matter is being denied. There are three options:

1. Clarify what was posted so that is understood you did not mean to couch salvation in the sinner's change of mind and self-turning.
2. Provide scripture proving the claim.
3. Hold fast to the position and acknowledge there is no scripture to support it.

I will accept any of the three.

You get to quote what I stated verbatim, demonstrating its error.

 

[makesends]

So you can't answer my question. Your exegesis (analysis) of Romans 5, particularly verses 18 and 19, is wrong. The "all men" who were condemned due to Adam's disobedience is in fact all men, with absolutely no one excluded; however, the "all men" who were justified and given life is not really all men. In fact relatively speaking it isn't even a lot of men. Why would Paul make such a mistake?

I hope you aren't saying Paul made a mistake.

But the passage is not about how many are condemned and how many are given life. It is about how these things came about. It is as if to say, "It is thus that all men are affected."

The principle of condemnation via Adam is universal. None of us is excepted.

The principle of life through Christ is universal. There is no other way.

 

[makesends]

I have a question for Josheb, Carbon, Arial or anyone else that will answer. It has to do with the doctrine of election and the position of the elect not perishing.

As I understand it, God, from before all creation, has selected those people (the elect) that He will save. They are fixed in number so when they have all been saved, then this world will end. God has prescribed who those that will be saved (and therefor also those who will be lost). It has nothing to do with them personally. The selection is based only on God's good pleasure having nothing whatsoever to do with anything that the one being selected is or does.

If that is true, I don't understand why God created this universe when in doing so produced so many people that will perish. All indications are that the number that perish will greatly exceed the number that will be saved.

Why didn't God, at the outset, just create the elect and "save" them without all the folderal of this physical creation? What was or will be accomplished by the creation? What purpose will it have served other that putting a few selected individuals in "heaven" and considerably more "selected" individuals in hell? Why the creation?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

My emphasis above.

This question has repeatedly been asked me by atheists, also, as though it proves that theism is nonsense.

My answer:
I believe God did exactly that! And this long time (whether 6000 years, or 15 billion) is what it took to accomplish it. He spoke fact into existence at the beginning. And that fact is, we are his workmanship in Christ. We will see it in Heaven, his Kingdom.

 

[JIM]

I know that last line is a commonly held view among the Reform-minded but I am not personally convinced of that position. As a consequence, my replies to your inquiry may be different than the other two posters. Otherwise, Yes, God ordained from eternity some for salvation. He selected/elected those from among the already-dead-in-sin He would save.

Yes, but He created the conditions under which those already-dead-in-sin would be already dead in sin. So far as I can determine in studying the Reform theology, those already-dead-in-sin really had no ability to not be already-dead-in-sin. That is the essence of Total Depravity, no matter how it is stated.

That is correct.

Oooooo.... Why is that necessary to understand?

Seriously. I'd like you to consider the answer to that question. If you've been caught in a red herring then that is an easily addressed and resolved matter. Whatever God's plan for the creation is or isn't.... it is not dependent on our understanding of that purpose and that purpose may have little to do with election.

Well, within the soteriology of Reformed Theology, I am not sure that there is anything necessary to understand. It certainly cannot effect whether anyone is elect or reprobate.

However, I think that God has put forth a system and the documentation of that system so that understanding God's purpose in His creation, at least of this universe, is available. I think that purpose is to create a system whereby He can populate a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven (kingdom of God) with individuals who have chosen to love Him based upon what they believe about Him. And what the believe about Him is what they learn from hearing (or reading) about Him in the Bible, the word of God (Christ).

However, there is an answer! The purpose of creation is to glorify God. God's purpose is served and accomplished no matter what happens to us humans. The Creator is not dependent on the creature in any way for anything, and that is just as true for His glorification as it is for anything else He wills, purposes, or does. Soteriologically speaking, God is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin. He's is glorified as a just God on that occasion. Even if the entirety of humanity died dead in sin and God destroyed every single human ever made because of sin..... He would be glorified as a just God; a righteous God who justly addresses sin and does not compromise, letting a little sin persist. Likewise, God is glorified when He chooses to save some of those who would otherwise surely and necessarily die as a consequence of their own wrongdoing. God is glorified as a God of grace when He saves. As far as His might goes, He could save all but that would compromise His justness. Grace cannot contradict justice. The divine Law Maker cannot make laws and then ignore them without contradicting His entire existence and calling into question everything He says. God is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and He is glorified as a gracious God when He chooses to save some, and does not dependently base His choice on the sinful creature.

That all seems to me to be a definition of glory to God which is a definition forced in order to legitimize or rationalize your own view of soteriology. It most definitely is not a concept of glory that could ever be used for anyone except God, Himself. You most definitely not ascribe glory and honor to a human father who treated his own children that way, punishing them for something they had absolutely no control over.

I agree but the number of the saved is beyond our ability to count. There will be a multitude standing before God's throne praising Him and they will outnumber the stars in the sky, the grains of sand on the earth, and the drops of water in the sea.

If you believe that to be literally true, consisting of a multitude as consisting of human creatures from earth, then this world is destined to exist far, far into the future

?????

There is nothing "folderal" about creation and creation is not merely physical. Both those implications are completely in error and need to be ditched. I would, however, like to know where you got that notion so if there is a specific source for those assumptions then I would like you to post it so I can investigate it for myself.

Yes, you are correct, the creation is not merely physical, there is the spiritual, the spirits of each and every physical flesh and blood human being. But it is only the spiritual that survives as either the saved or the condemned in the next realm. The flesh and blood bodies return to the dust of the earth which is then destroyed with the rest of the creation.

Case built on flawed premises necessarily end up being flawed cases that lead to flawed conclusions.

I would certainly agree with that. And I would posit that the single greatest flawed premise is Total Depravity.

God's glory and a new creature in whom God Himself dwells.

This physical creation is not necessary for God to achieve that. Those are the elect, the saved. The lost, the reprobates are not necessary for the elect to exist.

No. You guys will first make your own dirt from nothing !

I am proclaiming that in your concept of soteriology, the dirt wasn't even a requirement. Even the dirt of the elect is not going to end up in heaven.

In summary: God's purpose in creation is to glorify Himself and make a new creature in which His Spirit dwells, to, in essence, make new and different sons (and daughters), creatures that bear His image. Perhaps that could have been accomplished in any number of different ways. Perhaps not. God took dead creature and made from them immortal ones.

Clearly not all of the dead creatures. And in fact, not even most. It would seem that God took only a very few dead creatures and made from them immortal ones. Most of those dead creatures were assigned to the suffer the same fate as Satan.

Not even the angels were that blessed.

At least they were given the choice.

 

[Arial]

That was a wasted post. It says absolutely nothing about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality. Nine pages of posts neglected, denied, or ignored this problem.

If that was a wasted post then so was the one it was answering.

Why would it say something about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality? That is not even the subject or intent of the OP. And why would anyone address God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality when no one believes that He would? The problem you continue to say has been neglected,denied,or ignored, is what does not exist. There is no such problem. I am sure to you there is but that does not make it a reality. Courtesy would be to recognize what people do say, instead of what they don't say, recognize tunnel vision when it exists, and try and post without pushing buttons. Listen iow instead of only speak.

I read that. Everything in it has already been addressed. It does not address the matter of God not desiring something omnisciently known to be soteriological impossible. It proves what I said correct: the matter is actively being avoided.

Moving on until the matter is addressed.

For Pete's sake. Let me address it directly.

Since God does not desire something omnisciently known to be soteriologically impossible, when Peter writes:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires They will say,"Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the lord one day is as a thousand years,and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.---

When he uses the word perishing it can only apply soteriologically to the saints in an eschatological sense, not perishing, and cannot apply to His not desiring anyone to perish as in anyone without exception. Eschatologically we have the unbelieving perishing.

FYI the entire Bible is the story of redemption beginning with He will crush your head and you will bruise His heel, is both soteriological and eschatological. Since I used those two words, does it satisfy? Or will it be that all of that has already been said before----which would be one true statement. Do we still "not get you!"

 

[David1701]

That's not the correct syllogism.

1. The elect cannot perish.
2. God does not desire the elect to perish.
3. Therefore, God has no desire that an impossibility would occur.

What has to happen first (re. the matters that we are discussing), is that God purposed to save a people, out of the mass of hell-deserving humanity; and he chose the means that he would use. He then chose who those people would be (the elect). It is logically impossible for this to be the other way round.

1) God purposed to save a people out of the mass of hell-deserving fallen humanity (and how he would do it).

2) God chose whom those people would be (the elect).

3) The elect ones (having been chosen) cannot perish, because God has not purposed them to perish.

The elect will not be saved no matter what; they will only be saved in the way that God has ordained (by grace through faith), which means that God, as part of his plan, had to suffer long until the appointed time when all his elect had been brought to repentance (repentance and faith are inextricably linked).

Everyone here has argued God actually does desire an impossibility. Everyone here has implicitly argued the perishing of 2 Peter 3:9 is a possibility or, more accurately, ignored the word "perish." A perishing elect is a contradiction in terms.

Not a single post that I've posted, or read, has argued that a single one of the elect could perish.

Now take that to its logically necessary conclusion: the elect cannot soteriologically perish. Everyone whose taken issue with Post #4 has ignored the "perish" of 2 Peter 3:9.

God does not want any to perish (soteriologically).
The elect cannot perish (soteriologically).
What God does not desire is something that is impossible (the soteriological death of the elect).

And the reason why the elect cannot perish is that God has not purposed us to perish.

The elect cannot perish. They elect will not perish. The elect cannot perish. God does not desire they perish. God does not desire what is scripturally and logically impossible.

It's only impossible, because God has not willed/purposed it to happen. He has also chosen the means by which he will keep his elect from perishing, which includes his long-suffering, until he brings us all to repentance.

That is how those dissenting Post 84 have implicitly read 2 Peter 3:9's "perish." I've asked the questions. I've tried to engage every naysayer to reason through their view and not a single poster here has responded to the specific point broached: How is it God would not desire what He certainly knows is not a possibility.

• God desires the elect to perish. The elect cannot perish.
• God does not desire the elect to perish. The elect cannot perish.
• Whether God desires or does not desire the elect to perish the fact of reality (according to monergism) is that the elect cannot perish.

• Josh desires apples grow legs. Apples cannot grow legs. Josh desires what is logically impossible.
• Josh does not desire apples grow legs. Apples cannot grow legs. Josh does not desire what is logically impossible.
• Whether or not Josh desires apples grow legs, the fact of reality is apples cannot grow legs!

I'm unsure why you cannot seem to grasp that the reason why the elect cannot perish is because God does not will it. There is no other reason.

It's not, "The elect cannot perish, no matter what; oh, and God does not will it either."; rather, it is, "The elect cannot perish, because God does not purpose/will them to perish.".

Everyone taking issue with Post 84 has God not desiring something that is logically impossible, something He knows is logically impossible, something He made logically impossible.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Why would God not desire something He knows is impossible?

Maybe it is because the perishing of 2 Peter 3:9 is not soteriological

.

See above.

 

[JIM]

I hope you aren't saying Paul made a mistake.

No, of course not. I am saying that you are making the mistake.

But the passage is not about how many are condemned and how many are given life. It is about how these things came about. It is as if to say, "It is thus that all men are affected."

The principle of condemnation via Adam is universal. None of us is excepted.

And in the same sentence(s) the principle of righteousness, justification and life is universal. There is no distinction established between those affected by Adam's disobedience and those affect by Jesus' obedience. They are by any rational exegesis and interpretation the same.

 

[Alive]

No, of course not. I am saying that you are making the mistake.

And in the same sentence(s) the principle of righteousness, justification and life is universal. There is no distinction established between those affected by Adam's disobedience and those affect by Jesus' obedience. They are by any rational exegesis and interpretation the same.

This is not clear to me. Would you elaborate?

 

[JIM]

My emphasis above.

This question has repeatedly been asked me by atheists, also, as though it proves that theism is nonsense.

Whether the question is asked by atheists is of no consequence. But that you can't answer the atheist is. And there is a perfectly good answer.

 

[JIM]

This is not clear to me. Would you elaborate?

Why is it not clear to you? I suspect that the reason it is not clear to you is because that clarity rebuts a preconceived position.

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

There is no legitimate reason to think that the number and identity of the "all men" led to condemnation is different from the number and identity of the "all men" lead to justification and life.

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

There is no legitimate reason to think that the number and identity of "the many" made sinners is different from the number and identity of "the many" made righteous.

The only reason is for thinking that is to support a preconceived (and false) doctrinal position.

 

[Arial]

Why is it not clear to you? I suspect that the reason it is not clear to you is because that clarity rebuts a preconceived position.

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

There is no legitimate reason to think that the number and identity of the "all men" led to condemnation is different from the number and identity of the "all men" lead to justification and life.

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

There is no legitimate reason to think that the number and identity of "the many" made sinners is different from the number and identity of "the many" made righteous.

The only reason is for thinking that is to support a preconceived (and false) doctrinal position.

A preconceived position is not always false. One preconceived is right---and that would be the position of the Bible.

When a verse is difficult to understand or appears to be contradictory to other things in the Bible, it is the scriptures that are clear that clear up the confusion, such as the two uses of "all" in that passage. We cannot automatically assume that they both reference the same thing. And I suppose everyone already has in mind when they read that the trespass of Adam affected all men, that it is obvious from reality and the Bible both, that yep, Adam sinned, all men do sin and always have since Adam, and all are condemned.

So what comes to mind when we read, that "by the one man's obedience (righteousness) leads to justification and life for all men."?

We know from Scripture that not all men are justified, since it speaks of those who have faith being justified through faith in Christ. And we know from reality and Scripture that not all men without exception have faith in Christ, and that many are doomed for judgement and destruction.

So it is not preconceived doctrine that works through this per se, and arrives at a different nuance of "all" in the sentence. It is properly using the word of God, so there are no inconsistencies. The first all is universal. The second all cannot be. So what is it?

The gospel is available to all regardless of gender, nationality, race, creed, social standing. It is preached to all nations---but not all in those nations respond. In addition, and very important, it is stating that there is no other Savior and no other way of being given eternal life than the one Savior, Jesus Christ. No other than the one and through faith in Him, can pay for our sins, purchase a people with His shed blood on the cross, provide eternal life, take someone out of Adam and bring them into Himself.

 

[Alive]

Why is it not clear to you? I suspect that the reason it is not clear to you is because that clarity rebuts a preconceived position.

No. It’s not clear to me because it’s not clear to me what your point is. Still isn’t. This is why I asked nicely, for you to elaborate. I am fine if you don’t. No sweat.

 

[Eleanor]

Why is it not clear to you? I suspect that the reason it is not clear to you is because that clarity rebuts a preconceived position.

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

There is no legitimate reason to think that the number and identity of the "all men" led to condemnation is different from the number and identity of the "all men" lead to justification and life.

Contraire. . .

A text without context is a pretext.

In context of the NT, there is the greatest reason of all (the word of God) to think that "all" means both
"all without exception" regarding condemnation, and
"all without distinction" regarding justification:

1) all sinned (Ro 5:12, 3:9--not one is righteous). . .that means "all without exception" in regard to condemnation of Ro 5:18;
2) only the called (Jew and Gentile), not all mankind, are justified (Ro 8:30). . .that is "all without distinction" in regard to justification.

The word of God does not contradict itself.
The word of God in Ro 5:18 does not contradict the word of God in Ro 3:9, 5:12, 8:30.

 

[Josheb]

You get to quote what I stated verbatim, demonstrating its error.

Still not answering my question.