God's Universal Salvific Will

[Jaltus]

The intention of this thread is to discuss the concept of God having a Universal Salvific Will, or otherwise stated, God wants every single individual person to be saved.

I am going to begin by dealing wth the two major passages dealing with this concept, and then I will just throw a few supporting references in at the bottom.

Passage 1

NIV I Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men-- the testimony given in its proper time.

This clearly shows how God wants all people to be saved. The Greek makes this even more clear, as 2:4 says: oV pantaV anqrwpouV qelei swqhnai kai eiV epignwsin alhqeiaV elqein. The first word is a relative pronoun, clearly referring to God from the previous verse. The verb is QELEI, and the subject is clearly the relative pronoun, so “who wishes.” The content of the wish is where it gets a little awkward. Instead of having an active infinitive, we have a passive infinitive which makes “all men” the subject of the infinitive instead of the simple direct object of the wishing. That means that the entire phrase “all people to be saved” is the object of the wishing. Hence we get, “God, who wishes all people to be saved,” for the first half of 2:4. The KAI connects the two clauses, and since there is no finite verb (as ELQEIN is an aorist infinitive), we know that this is also the object of the wishing. The EIS EPIGNWSIN is actually the location for the place men are to “come to,” as stated by the infinitive. This place is a place of specific knowledge, a knowledge “which is the truth,” would be the best way to put it, making ALHQEIAS an epexegetical genitive. Thus, this is really saying that God wishes or wills for all people to be saved.

The Calvinist response to this is generally to say that God has two separate wills, one actualized and one which is general. However, that normally applies to the distinction between BOULH and QELEMA, and here we have a verb. For that matter, BOULH (which is the decretive will of God) is overturned in Luke 7:30 anyway, as discussed in http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=902 ( this thread.

Passage 2

NIV John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

This clearly shows the death of Jesus is for all people, intending to bring about the salvation for “all who believe.” Again, the Greek makes this even more obvious: kagw ean uywqw ek thV ghV pantaV eklusw proV emauton. The “lifted up” (hUPSWQW) refers to the crucifixion, as any good commentary will tell you. This lifting up refers both to the act of being crucified and to the exaltation of Jesus it results in, namely the ascension and the last judgment. EAN here is translated “when” due to this being a time referential in this specific sentence. We know that PANTAS is not referring to “the earth” since it is not in an attributive position (it would need to be since everything here is in the genitive, though if the phrase were in a different case, PANTAS would be fine right where it is). Thus, Jesus “will draw” (EKLUSW) “all people” (PANTAS) to himself.

Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force. People are not given a choice, in fact, as Jesus is forcing them toward Himself. Why is it that not all are saved, then?

Essentially, what matters in this verse is that it is ALL people who are drawn to Him, not just some.

Conclusion

These two sections of scripture make it quite clear that God not only WANTS all people to be saved, but in fact Jesus is bringing all of them to Himself. This is not a plea for universal salvation, only a plea to realize that the invitation is open for all to be saved. Not all will be saved, but all people can be saved.

Scattered Further References

Mark 16:16
Luke 13:23
Ephesians 2:18 (the word translated “both” really means “all”)
John 3:16


This thread is dedicated to geebob.EDIT: spelling

[Ishmael]

I am still looking at passage 1 but...

Passage 2:
John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

Jaltus rightly states and asks:
Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force. People are not given a choice, in fact, as Jesus is forcing them toward Himself. Why is it that not all are saved, then?

The same question comes to my mind. Why aren't all saved based on your interpretation? Is there a different hermeneutic for this verse from the first passage?

Jaltus concludes:

These two sections of scripture make it quite clear that God not only WANTS all people to be saved, but in fact Jesus is bringing all of them to Himself. this is not a plea fo universal salvation, only a plea to realize that the invitation is open for all to be saved. Not all will be saved, but all people can be saved.


I don't think you have at all proven that these verses don't mean that all are universally saved based on your interpretation. This is key to understanding why Calvinists look at these verses in the context of all the other verses which support Election.

A few here (there are more):
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Romans 9:23-24 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Titus 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

[Jaltus]

I appreciate that you are being canonical, but you totally avoided the thrust of the verses cited.

I could get into the Universalism claim, but I believe that is outside the topic of what we are talking about. I will say one thing, however. Drawing all people to Himself does not mean He is forcing all of them to be saved, only that He is forcing them to see what He did.

Again, it is Universal appeal to salvation, but not universal salvation.

[Bill the Cat]

A few here (there are more):
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

I think you need to look at another verse to understand this phrase.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Was Jesus literally slain before the foundation of the world, or was the PLAN for Jesus' sacrifice enacted? Just as the PLAN for our salvation was enacted at the foundation of the world.


Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

[See above

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

[See above again

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge does not indicate a foregone conclusion. God knew, but let us make the decision

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

[See above

Romans 9:23-24 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

[His glory was what was prepared as the answer part of the PLAN

Titus 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;


[Eternal life was promised before the world began, but not specified who would get it and who wouldn't

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 01:22 PM
Jaltus:

I appreciate that you are being canonical, but you totally avoided the thrust of the verses cited.

I could get into the Universalism claim, but I believe that is outside the topic of what we are talking about. I will say one thing, however. Drawing all people to Himself does not mean He is forcing all of them to be saved, only that He is forcing them to see what He did.

Again, it is Universal appeal to salvation, but not universal salvation.

I don't think that you have demonstrated this verse does not mean universal salvation in the way you have interpreted it.

In fact you make a strong case for universalism IMO:

Jaltus says:
Thus, Jesus “will draw” (EKLUSW) “all people” (PANTAS) to himself.
And:
Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force.

If God is going to draw all men to himself, why hasn't he drawn all men to himself? Because your hermeneutic is flawed.

Clearly this does not mean that all will be saved (as you know) but it does mean that a large portion of people from every nation will be saved-- not a potentiality to be saved. God has not drawn all the ignorant heathen of the world.

And why isn't Christ's atonement here effectual for "everyone"?

Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

ton de bracu ti par aggelouV hlattwmenon blepomen ihsoun dia to paqhma tou qanatou doxh kai timh estefanwmenon, opwV cariti qeou uper pantoV geushtai qanatou.

Here is pantoV again.
paV,a {pas}
1) individually 1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively 2a) some of all types

But this time it refers to "all things" IMO. Does this usage mean that "all things" are "potentially" saved because of Christ's death?
Animals? The Devils? Angels?

[Ishmael]

[Eternal life was promised before the world began, but not specified who would get it and who wouldn't

Wrong, just like the way you twisted the other verses on Election.

More on Predestination "unto Salvation":

John 17:1-4 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

1Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

John 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Romans 8:28-33 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

[Bill the Cat]

I think what you are referring to is the so called "irresistable grace" concept. God wants us and predestined us to be saved, so we have no say. We become the puppets in this big rat race called life. It is a sad doctrine. IMHO God KNOWS (foreknowledge) who will choose Him and who won't but doesn't make us chose him. If He does, then we are nothing more than puppets

I LOVE whoever created the Banana:bow:

LONG LIVE THE BANANA!!!
:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 03:01 PM
Bill the Cat:

I think what you are referring to is the so called "irresistable grace" concept. God wants us and predestined us to be saved, so we have no say. We become the puppets in this big rat race called life. It is a sad doctrine. IMHO God KNOWS (foreknowledge) who will choose Him and who won't but doesn't make us chose him. If He does, then we are nothing more than puppets

I LOVE whoever created the Banana:bow:

LONG LIVE THE BANANA!!!
:yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

Nice. I guess serious dialogue with you is done given that one of my most cherished beliefs is "sad."

No matter, go worship your banana god: :yipee:

[Jaltus]

If God is going to draw all men to himself, why hasn't he drawn all men to himself? Because your hermeneutic is flawed.

Clearly this does not mean that all will be saved (as you know) but it does mean that a large portion of people from every nation will be saved-- not a potentiality to be saved. God has not drawn all the ignorant heathen of the world.

And why isn't Christ's atonement here effectual for "everyone"? Oh, silly me, I try to understand every verse instead of ignoring some and using other verses to gloss over it.

AGAIN, you are not dealing with the verses cited. Can you ever stick tyo an actual discussion? It sure does not look like it. Keep on going with your "duck and hide" maneuver. Eventually a Calvinist who actually holds to ALL of scripture instead of a few dozen proof texts will come along and play.

You have yet to proove that "all" does not mean "all" here. I understand that there is an exclusive all and an inclusive all, but you need to explain why the TWO passages cited above are BOTH using ONLY an exclusive all and not inclusive.

Let me go one step farther: there is nothing in either passage limiting who the all is. I challenge you to show FROM CONTEXT where the exclusivity comes from.

Christ's atonement is not effecacious for everyone because it is only for those who "call on the name of the Lord." If you do not call on Him, He will not come to you.

The above verses are not dealing with who IS saved, but with who COULD BE saved.

[Bill the Cat]

Calvinist, you misunderstand my statement. It seems to me that according to the irresistable grace concept, we are nothing more than people with no will of our own. I think that is incorrect. I may be WAY oversimplifying the concept, but it seems, with the discussions with calvinists I've had (few as they may be), it is right on. Now I've never been involved in a truly theological discussion with a calvinist, so that may explain my lack of tact. For that I am truly sorry. Sad was an improper word for me to use. I am hust trying to put forth my point of reference with as little open-mouth-insert-foot as possible.

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 03:15 PM
Jaltus:
Oh, silly me, I try to understand every verse instead of ignoring some and using other verses to gloss over it.


Implication must be that I try and gloss by looking at the whole counsel of God... interesting...



AGAIN, you are not dealing with the verses cited. Can you ever stick tyo an actual discussion? It sure does not look like it. Keep on going with your "duck and hide" maneuver. Eventually a Calvinist who actually holds to ALL of scripture instead of a few dozen proof texts will come along and play.


Yes I can stick to a discussion. I am dealing with passage 2:
NIV John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. Nobody is ducking and hiding but Jaltus. Jaltus refuses to look at the clear ramification of his interpretation; namely, that his interpretation of "will" here must mean that God is actually saving "all men."

I posted before:
Jaltus says:
Thus, Jesus “will draw” (EKLUSW) “all people” (PANTAS) to himself.
And:
Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force.

This is precisely what Calvinists believe that but we do not hold the univeralism which is the logical ramification of YOUR interpretation of this verse.

My interpretation restated:
Clearly this does not mean that all will be saved (as you know) but it does mean that a large portion of people from every nation will be saved-- not a potentiality to be saved. God has not drawn all the ignorant heathen of the world.

There is not a "potential" salvific act implied in this verse. The passage says "IF, then and WILL" draw men to myself. Not "If, then, people have the opportunity to be drawn to myself."



You have yet to proove that "all" does not mean "all" here. I understand that there is an exclusive all and an inclusive all, but you need to explain why the TWO passages cited above are BOTH using ONLY an exclusive all and not inclusive.


Are all saved? Or do you mean that all men are "being drawn" unto salvation and will be saved? Or that all men are being drawn unto "possible" salvation? The last question seems to contradict the meaning of the Greek:

You state:
Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force. People are not given a choice, in fact, as Jesus is forcing them toward Himself. Why is it that not all are saved, then?



Let me go one step farther: there is nothing in either passage limiting who the all is. I challenge you to show FROM CONTEXT where the exclusivity comes from.


I agree that there is nothing limiting the "all" here. Therefore, using your hermeneutic you make a great Universalist.



Christ's atonement is not effecacious for everyone because it is only for those who "call on the name of the Lord." If you do not call on Him, He will not come to you.


BULL. God comes to us and we are saved by His power alone. Our confession is based on his prior Grace to us:

2 Thessalonians 2
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you[1] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

(And this is just one verse to establish this true doctrine is a sea of others... only one so I don't get accused of side-steping)

[Jaltus]

Oh, major error, my friend. EAN is always followed by a subjunctive, showing possibility. Hence it should not be "will draw" but rather "would draw." There is no predestination here.

Thus your:

There is not a "potential" salvific act implied in this verse. The passage says "IF, then and WILL" draw men to myself. Not "If, then, people have the opportunity to be drawn to myself." ...is more right than you could know.

The subjunctive shows slight uncertainty.


I agree that there is nothing limiting the "all" here. Therefore, using your hermeneutic you make a great Universalist.And you are no longer a Calvinist. If all is not limited, then you must answer why all are not saved. The answer is either free will or universalism. I believe in free will, what about you?


BULL. God comes to us and we are saved by His power alone. Our confession is based on his prior Grace to us: Actually, I disagree with nothing said here, I just think that there is ONE kind of grace, and it is resistable.

Plan on dealing with the I Timothy passage? Feel free to stick to John for now as you have yet to show how you can be a Calvinist and hold to this verse without being a universalist.

Oh, my question about universalism was up for discussion, it was not a leading question into articulating what I believe.

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 03:35 PM
Bill the Cat:

Calvinist, you misunderstand my statement. It seems to me that according to the irresistable grace concept, we are nothing more than people with no will of our own. I think that is incorrect. I may be WAY oversimplifying the concept, but it seems, with the discussions with calvinists I've had (few as they may be), it is right on. Now I've never been involved in a truly theological discussion with a calvinist, so that may explain my lack of tact. For that I am truly sorry. Sad was an improper word for me to use. I am hust trying to put forth my point of reference with as little open-mouth-insert-foot as possible.

No problem. I am well an expert on foot-in-mouth, myself.

[geebob]

EAN is always followed by a subjunctive, showing possibility. Hence it should not be "will draw" but rather "would draw." There is no predestination here.


Music to my ears. :brow:

excellent posts Jaltus. :thumb:

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 03:55 PM
Jaltus:
Oh, major error, my friend. EAN is always followed by a subjunctive, showing possibility. Hence it should not be "will draw" but rather "would draw." There is no predestination here.

Thus your:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is not a "potential" salvific act implied in this verse. The passage says "IF, then and WILL" draw men to myself. Not "If, then, people have the opportunity to be drawn to myself."

...is more right than you could know.


You are stripping the verse of it's context to make this point. Of course EAN is conditional in context.


31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.

But the fact that Jesus "will" be lifted up is drawn from vs. 31. You do believe that the "casting out" of the prince of this world is the cause of Christ's being lifted up?



The subjunctive shows slight uncertainty.


No uncertainty theologically-- only an obvious grammatical device needed.



And you are no longer a Calvinist. If all is not limited, then you must answer why all are not saved. The answer is either free will or universalism. I believe in free will, what about you?


Ahh... well it is limted but not with regard to the way *you* interpreted it, which is my point. For you it is not limited because you believe it is intended to be a universal statement.

"All men" is speaking of "all nations" and is a common theme for John. Note: Jn.1:11-13; 10:16; 11:51-52; Rev.5:9; 7:9.




Actually, I disagree with nothing said here, I just think that there is ONE kind of grace, and it is resistable.


Good. But God's will is not resistable.



Plan on dealing with the I Timothy passage? Feel free to stick to John for now as you have yet to show how you can be a Calvinist and hold to this verse without being a universalist.


Yes, but hopefully I will get some help cause your Greek is obviously better than mine... :argh:



Oh, my question about universalism was up for discussion, it was not a leading question into articulating what I believe.

I understand. I am simply noting that your position makes more sense if you are a universalist. But I see now that you also make EAN into a "possibility" here, ignoring the context of the verse.

[Ishmael]

Passage 1
NIV I Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men-- the testimony given in its proper time.


Although it is true that "all" here can have an absolute meaning in context it just does not fit here. Lets look at this passage in the context of the vs. 2 and vs. 7 of the same passage:

2for kings and all those in authority,b that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

In this context Paul is clearly speaking of the fact that God wants the gospel to go out to "all" nations of the earth regardless of distinctions of race. Paul is mentioning classes in vs. 2 and the Gentiles in vs. 7 in his teaching on prayer for this people and his mission to them. The verse can mean nothing other than that the "all" is with respect to the gospel going out to "all" nations.

[GrayPilgrim]

I will quickly post here, but not get too involved in this debate as Jaltus and I tend to get a little too worked up on this one.

Two quick observations:

1. Jaltus using this one verse as the lens to read all the other Scriptures is like using Gal 3:28 in the Egalitarian/Complimentarian deabte. That is it is problematic. Now it must be treated but you have elevated to the your interprative lens. Now what if I were to do this with Lev 24:16 "All the congregation shall stone him." After all this command is repeated five times, and since Christ has delivered us from sin we are now free from sin so able to cast the first stone.

2. This is related to the first. Good hermeneutics will not allow you cannot set Scripture agaisnt itself as some are wont to do. If 1 Timothy 2 is a problem to Calvinists then the predestination and election passages are just as much a problem. And the use of corporate election is not a sufficient answer IMHO. (Jaltus remember Osborne pointed out that there is one more passage in favor of Calvinsitic Interpratation veresus Arminain, which tells us two things--first both are attempts at understanding the Biblical witness and two :dufus: we've got one more than you :yipee: :yipee: :brow: :brow: )

GP

[Solly]

Tuppence worth.


03-05-2003 @ 06:19 PM
Jaltus:
Passage 1

NIV I Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men-- the testimony given in its proper time.

This clearly shows how God wants all people to be saved. The Greek makes this even more clear, as 2:4 says: oV pantaV anqrwpouV qelei swqhnai kai eiV epignwsin alhqeiaV elqein. The first word is a relative pronoun, clearly referring to God from the previous verse. The verb is QELEI, and the subject is clearly the relative pronoun, so “who wishes.” The content of the wish is where it gets a little awkward. Instead of having an active infinitive, we have a passive infinitive which makes “all men” the subject of the infinitive instead of the simple direct object of the wishing. That means that the entire phrase “all people to be saved” is the object of the wishing. Hence we get, “God, who wishes all people to be saved,” for the first half of 2:4. The KAI connects the two clauses, and since there is no finite verb (as ELQEIN is an aorist infinitive), we know that this is also the object of the wishing. The EIS EPIGNWSIN is actually the location for the place men are to “come to,” as stated by the infinitive. This place is a place of specific knowledge, a knowledge “which is the truth,” would be the best way to put it, making ALHQEIAS an epexegetical genitive. Thus, this is really saying that God wishes or wills for all people to be saved.

The Calvinist response to this is generally to say that God has two separate wills, one actualized and one which is general. However, that normally applies to the distinction between BOULH and QELEMA, and here we have a verb. For that matter, BOULH (which is the decretive will of God) is overturned in Luke 7:30 anyway,

Since Calvinist has addressed the point of this verse a little earlier IN CONTEXT, I would just point out, for consistancy, that SOME Calvinists do not make the distinction in wills. From the Calvinistic sphere I operate in, God decreed the salvation of the elct and that alone; Christ's death was sufficient and effective for the elect alone, because it was a real atonement for real sins, not a Fullerite General Atonement for sin in the abstract.
The verses that seem to imply that God wants ALL men numerically to be saved usually fall into generalisation about the world God created ie John 3.16, or specification regarding the groups of men to be saved, ie ALL manner of men, as opposed to the restrictivism of the Jews, and as was revealed clearly to Paul in the Gospel. We tend to forget the radical nature of the Gospel in Paul's day, that the Gentile should come in on the same terms and same level as the Jew. He goes on to speak of this in vv 5 & 6.

[Jaltus]

GP,

1) The same thing can be said to anyone who looks at a single verse. Thus, according to your theory, you can never look at a single verse. Hence, I am disregarding your point, though solid, as unmanagable in real life. You can only take intertextuality so far, and then you still have to deal with the problem verses. Also, I am not taking a single verse but listed a few of them. The claim that I am being "Galatians 3:28" is quite unfair and unfounded, as it is far from the truth.

2) You are committing the lexical fallacy here, assuming election and predestination mean what you want them to mean. By the way, Osborne DID NOT list all the passages by any stretch of the imagination for either side.

Solly,

The question is not one of effectiveness, but of intention. Is the cross open to every single person, or is it only intended for the elect? The first means God loves all equally, the second means that God does not love certain people. Again, a question of intention, not of effecacy (sp?).

Calvinist,


But the fact that Jesus "will" be lifted up is drawn from vs. 31. You do believe that the "casting out" of the prince of this world is the cause of Christ's being lifted up? No, I think it is the RESULT of Jesus being lifted up, as do all other orthodox believers. What in the world are you saying?


No uncertainty theologically-- only an obvious grammatical device needed. Not really, EI with the future would have sufficed admirably if it means what you are saying. EAN however requires the use of the subjunctive (more or less), so a simple lexical change would mean quite a bit.

As for your passages from John, only one of them refers to "all men," and it really does mean all men and not all nations. John 1 is talking about the world as a unified whole, each man woman and child is able to see the light of Christ. Your other verses do show the stress on all peoples instead of all people, but then they use totally different words. "All men" really does mean "all men" and not all peoples.


But God's will is not resistable.Well, we could debate that if you wish, as I already pointed out Luke 7:30. For that matter see Matthew 18:14.



In this context Paul is clearly speaking of the fact that God wants the gospel to go out to "all" nations of the earth regardless of distinctions of race. Paul is mentioning classes in vs. 2 and the Gentiles in vs. 7 in his teaching on prayer for this people and his mission to them. The verse can mean nothing other than that the "all" is with respect to the gospel going out to "all" nations. LOL, you might want to go a little farther and see why Paul is mentioning those classes.

NIV 1 Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--
2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

We are to pray for them so that we might live godly lives.

This is not teaching about the mission to the Gentiles, though you are right that 7 is. Still, this does not limit "All men" to anything other than "all men," since it is again talking about intention, not effectiveness. What I find even more interesting is that verse 6 does not even use the word "men," but just "all." Why should mention of the Gentiles or mention of mission work limit all men to something other than what it seems to simply say? When we are told to preach the word to all men, does that mean I just need to talk to one person of each nationality and consider the great commission fulfilled?

I would hope not.

[Solly]

03-06-2003 @ 04:34 PM
Jaltus:
Solly,

The question is not one of effectiveness, but of intention. Is the cross open to every single person, or is it only intended for the elect? The first means God loves all equally, the second means that God does not love certain people. Again, a question of intention, not of effecacy (sp?).

That is surprisingly un-nuanced from Mr Nuance.

However, since you also believe in total depravity, you might be inclined to accept the point that it doesn't make a bit of difference whether the Cross was intended for everybody or not, since none of us will come unless God does something about it. You and I differ on what it is God does, but neither of us can get away from the fact that, whether it is Irresistable or Prevenient grace, unless we are going to go down the Inclusivist road, then salvation is obviously NOT for everybody, because it doesn't reach everybody. The Calvinist is as obliged to preach the Gospel wherever he is sent, just as the Arminian. And if the Gospel is not sent somewhere, that is up to God.
The rest is arguments over words.

For myself, even as a High Calvinist, I would quite happily say that the cross is for the elect & the cross is for all who come to it.
No man cometh unto the Father, etc. All who come I will not, etc.

[Gavin]

Dear Jaltus,

interesting thread. :thumb:

I agree with what I perceive to be the central point of your posts, that God wants all people to be saved. I believe in the universal saving will of God based upon primarily upon the following verses.

Ezekiel 18:32
"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD . Repent and live!"

II Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

I Timothy 2:4
"who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

However, I would like to argue for two things, respectively, (1) John 12 cannot be made to support such a belief, and (2) the Calvinist recognition of two divine wills is not so easily dismissed by making an appeal to the two different greek words for willing.

First, on John 12, you said:

Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force. People are not given a choice, in fact, as Jesus is forcing them toward Himself. Why is it that not all are saved, then?

Essentially, what matters in this verse is that it is ALL people who are drawn to Him, not just some.

Given this concession, I am unsure how you can conclude that John 12 does not lead to universalism. When you say that "people are not given a choice, in fact, Jesus is forcing them toward Himself" - Jaltus, this sounds an awful lot like irresistable grace to me!

And if the verse does indeed teach what you have insisted in the quoted section above, that Jesus is forcing people to come to him, and if pantas really is a reference to every single individual on the face of the planet, instead of a reference to "all nations" without a Jew/Gentile distinction anymore - then your exegesis, as I see it, would lead to universalism.

My view of John 12 is that by "pantas" Jesus is referring to "all nations" without distinction anymore between Jews and Gentiles. No longer is YHWH just the God of Israel - now, in the New Covenant, he is the God of all men (i.e., the whole world, all nations, the gentiles as well as the Jews).

Cf. these other instances when the New Testament uses the phrase "all men", but clearly not in reference to every single individual.

John 1:7
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

Acts 17:31
For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Acts 21:28
shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

Acts 22:15
You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.

1 Corinthians 12:6
There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

Titus 3:2
to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

I Thessalonians 2:14ff.
You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved.

Not all these verses are using all men to refer to "all nations" (although some are), but they all butress my central point: references to "all men" in the New Testament must not be interpreted pedantically.

So I view this verse as another support for individual election and irresistable grace, along with the frequent Johannine usage of "drawing" to refer to salvation (which from what you have written seems to be in congruence with you, although I suspect you will clarify your comments).

[I have to go to greek now (ironic?), but I will post the other point, that the Calvinist recognition of two divine wills is not so easily dismissed by making an appeal to the two different greek words for willing, later on today.]

[GrayPilgrim]

03-06-2003 @ 11:34 AM
Jaltus:

GP,

2) You are committing the lexical fallacy here, assuming election and predestination mean what you want them to mean. By the way, Osborne DID NOT list all the passages by any stretch of the imagination for either side.



Lexical fallacy? :huh: I made not lexical argument here. Osborne said he enumerated all the verses used for both sides, so either he lied or he DID list all the passages. There were about 25 passages for both sides with one more for the Calvinistic interpretation. Hey come on I'm quoting Osborne, and you know how much I "enjoyed" Osborne.

[Jaltus]

Gavin,

Thank you for your thought provoking response.

Let me answer in two ways:

1)


Given this concession, I am unsure how you can conclude that John 12 does not lead to universalism. When you say that "people are not given a choice, in fact, Jesus is forcing them toward Himself" - Jaltus, this sounds an awful lot like irresistable grace to me!I never said salvation was the end, I just said coming to Christ was, more specifically coming to see the reality of the cross event, not necessarily understanding the implications of it. Nothing in the verse hints about salvation, but it does lay out quite clearly the recognition of Christ. "Drawn" does not mean saved! That is the problem both you and Calvinist seem to be having.


And if the verse does indeed teach what you have insisted in the quoted section above, that Jesus is forcing people to come to him, and if pantas really is a reference to every single individual on the face of the planet, instead of a reference to "all nations" without a Jew/Gentile distinction anymore - then your exegesis, as I see it, would lead to universalism.Again, you assume drawing means salvation, whereas I am saying it can lead to salvation, but not necessarily (hence my comment about free will to Calvinist).


My view of John 12 is that by "pantas" Jesus is referring to "all nations" without distinction anymore between Jews and Gentiles. No longer is YHWH just the God of Israel - now, in the New Covenant, he is the God of all men (i.e., the whole world, all nations, the gentiles as well as the Jews).
That seems to be a far stretch for this passage as nothing like that fits the context in the least. In order to make PANTAS mean all nations, you have to import a concept into this passage from outside. Again, unless PANTAS is limited by context, there is no reason to make it exclusive instead of inclusive.

By the way, it sure seems like the list you give backs up my position rather than yours, but we can get to that at a later time. It could just be my perception.

2)


Not all these verses are using all men to refer to "all nations" (although some are), but they all butress my central point: references to "all men" in the New Testament must not be interpreted pedantically.I could not agree more. I have argued that importing limitations into this text are misleading. THere is no contextual reason to turn this "all" into meaning "all people groups." THis is unfounded. Each passage needs to be carefully explicated as to why it should be limited. Remember, PAS is assumed to be inclusive unless context dictates otherwise, not vice versa.


So I view this verse as another support for individual election and irresistable grace, along with the frequent Johannine usage of "drawing" to refer to salvation (which from what you have written seems to be in congruence with you, although I suspect you will clarify your comments). The problem is that you just talked about "people groups," which supports GROUP election, not individual. You cannot have it both ways. As for irresistable grace, it would then lead to the dichtomoy of irresistable group election, something that nobody I know of holds to.

I would do a search for "drawing" but the word in this passage occurs only 3 times IIRC in the GNT.

Oh, enjoy your Greek class. I am preparing a lecture for the Greek class I am teaching.

[Gavin]

Jaltus,


I never said salvation was the end, I just said coming to Christ was, more specifically coming to see the reality of the cross event, not necessarily understanding the implications of it. Nothing in the verse hints about salvation, but it does lay out quite clearly the recognition of Christ. "Drawn" does not mean saved! That is the problem both you and Calvinist seem to be having.
. . .
Again, you assume drawing means salvation, whereas I am saying it can lead to salvation, but not necessarily (hence my comment about free will to Calvinist).

Ah, I understand now.

To say that "drawn" does not mean saved is the point I differ on.

Consider this verse, where the same verb, ekluso, is used:

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ekluse) him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Coming to Christ" and being "raised up on the last day" are synonomous with salvation. "Being drawn" (by parallelism) appears to be as well.

Jaltus, have you heard of the book _Still Sovereign: Contemporary Essays on foreknowledge, election, and grace"? The title is something like that, and it formorly released under another title in two volumes. If you can get a copy, look at chapter 2. Bob Yarborough writes it and it is about divine election in John. He outlines a solid case for the idea of God drawing men to be salvific.


unless PANTAS is limited by context, there is no reason to make it exclusive instead of inclusive.
. . .
Remember, PAS is assumed to be inclusive unless context dictates otherwise, not vice versa.


I am not convinced of this. Do a search for "all people" in the New Testament. More often than not, it actually refers to a relatively small group of men.

Here is just two examples.

Acts 17:31
"For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Does this mean that every single individual on the face of the earth has been given proof of, or even heard of, the resurrection? Of course not.

Acts 21:28
shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

Did Paul really teach all men everywhere to go against the Jews?

The New Testament uses hyperbole frequently. Pantes does not necessarily mean every single individual unless shown otherwise by context. Often it refers to either all of a group, or just a whole lot of people.

The problem is that you just talked about "people groups," which supports GROUP election, not individual. You cannot have it both ways. As for irresistable grace, it would then lead to the dichtomoy of irresistable group election, something that nobody I know of holds to.

I am certainly not intending to support group election. My point is very simple. Given the preaching of the gospel to the whole world, which the New Testament foresees, the New Testament often refers to salvation coming to "all men". But this does not refer to every single individual on the earth, but rather to all peoples of the earth, with no Jew/Gentile distinction anymore. This is not supporting group election, otherwise the group elected would be the entire human race!

When Paul says, "This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant" (Colossians 1:23), or "we proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ" (28), he is not advocating the idea that every single individual on the earth has heard the gospel, or that he is literally trying to warn every man who exists.

Oh, enjoy your Greek class. I am preparing a lecture for the Greek class I am teaching.
Aorist and future passives today, oh joy of my life.:argh:

[Jaltus]

Just remember that θη gives away passives every time.

[Gavin]

I said earlier that I embrace the universal saving will of God. How can I do this and still be a consistent Calvinist?

Find out here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html)

[Gavin]

Just remember that èç gives away passives every time.
Ah, true. Kind of like oi (I wish I could type greek letters) with the optative.

[Ishmael]

I get the impression that Jaltus does not seriously consider my arguments so I am out. Thanks Jaltus for your time.

And I did mean "result" not "cause."

[Sozo]

03-05-2003 @ 12:19 PM
Jaltus:

NIV John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

This clearly shows the death of Jesus is for all people, intending to bring about the salvation for “all who believe.” Again, the Greek makes this even more obvious: kagw ean uywqw ek thV ghV pantaV eklusw proV emauton. The “lifted up” (hUPSWQW) refers to the crucifixion, as any good commentary will tell you. This lifting up refers both to the act of being crucified and to the exaltation of Jesus it results in, namely the ascension and the last judgment. EAN here is translated “when” due to this being a time referential in this specific sentence. We know that PANTAS is not referring to “the earth” since it is not in an attributive position (it would need to be since everything here is in the genitive, though if the phrase were in a different case, PANTAS would be fine right where it is). Thus, Jesus “will draw” (EKLUSW) “all people” (PANTAS) to himself.

Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force. People are not given a choice, in fact, as Jesus is forcing them toward Himself. Why is it that not all are saved, then?

Essentially, what matters in this verse is that it is ALL people who are drawn to Him, not just some.


Jaltus...

I have spent the better part of the day trying to confirm the original text on this verse, a verse that I have always thought was misinterpreted by the translators.

Is this not the way it was written?

"... and I if I be lifted up from the earth all will draw to myself "

In context, I have always, and still do, understand the word "all" to refer to judgement.

This is confirmed by verse 31

" Now judgement is of this world now the prince of this world has been cast out... and I if I be lifted up from the earth all will draw to myself ".

John is not speaking of "men" or "people", but of judgement.

[Gavin]

Jaltus - here is the info about the book I alluded to in reference to Johannine usage of ekleuso.

Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. Thomas Schreiner/Bruce Ware, editors (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000)

[Jaltus]

Calvinist,

Huh? I gave a defense against your point, but if you feel the need to bow out, so be it.

Gavin,

Thanks for the info. I'll look for it. I doubt my wife will let me buy it, but I'll look for it.

Sozo,

Interesting idea. I'll look into it and get back to you tomorrow or early next week at the latest.

[TheFiveSolas]

Romans 5:18 says:


Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) . Zondervan: Grand Rapids


Jaltus,
In light of your exposition of the universality of the word "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4 I would like for you to comment on the above use of "all". Specifically I'm wondering if the Greek limits the scope of this word. If it doesn't I would like to know why you, as I, deny universalism.

Also, is it your view that God has the ability/power to save "all men" IF He desired to do so?

[Sozo]

FiveSolas...

If I can comment on that passage, the key is "brings". It is placed before and available to all men. Though condemnation was certainly present in all men after Adam, justification was provided, but only those who receive His life (vs 10) are justified.

[GrayPilgrim]

The NIV muddies the water there just a little by switching the "supplied" verbs for varieties sake. Here is the ESV:

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

Actually, the Greek of this verse has NO verbs. It follows an ABCA'B'C' pattern:

A= the one tresspass
B= for all men
C= unto judgment

A'= the one righteous act
B'= for all men
C'= unto justification of life

GP

[Jaltus]

Again, the problem is not that "all" needs to be limited, it is our understanding of what the verses are saying that needs to be altered. Not every single verse talks about salvation!

[Sheepdog]

03-06-2003 @ 04:51 PM
Gavin:

To say that "drawn" does not mean saved is the point I differ on.

Consider this verse, where the same verb, ekluso, is used:

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ekluse) him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Who is raised up on the last day? the one who comes or the one who is drawn? this verse means what you say it does only if "those who are drawn" is exaclty the same group as "those who come." looks like the question is being begged (i, personally have come to understand that "those who come" are a smaller group within "those who are drawn. i'd appeal to John 15:1-8, Rom. 12:1, Deut. 30:19, and others that imply free choice is a relavent factor)


"Coming to Christ" and being "raised up on the last day" are synonomous with salvation. "Being drawn" (by parallelism) appears to be as well.

careful, albeit it is true that "if come, then you have been drawn" the inverse is not necessarily true ("if you have been drawn, you will come").


I am not convinced of this. Do a search for "all people" in the New Testament. More often than not, it actually refers to a relatively small group of men.

Here is just two examples....

and some examples to consder from John:

But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. John 2:24 (here the understanding seems to be, Jesus knew about the hearts of men-- whether he knew everyone intimately while in the flesh could be questioned).

"He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. " John 3:31.

...so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. John 5:23 (note, the idea here is that people will honor the Son the same way they would honor the Father)

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." John 10:29.

Of course, there are many usages in John that are in the "some of all types" sense, or are inconclusive (setting aside theological biases). my point is, unless the context dictates otherwise, we should assume that "all men" refers to all individuals.


The New Testament uses hyperbole frequently. Pantes does not necessarily mean every single individual unless shown otherwise by context. Often it refers to either all of a group, or just a whole lot of people.

actually, unless we reduce all of Scripture to figurative language (even that which should be literal), the burden of proof lies on the "hyperbole" proponent to show that that is indeed what is happening in a given verse.

[Arminian]

Gavin,


And if the verse does indeed teach what you have insisted in the quoted section above, that Jesus is forcing people to come to him, and if pantas really is a reference to every single individual on the face of the planet, instead of a reference to "all nations" without a Jew/Gentile distinction anymore - then your exegesis, as I see it, would lead to universalism.

When helko is used figuratively it can have a wide variety of meanings. But when used in connection with teaching (as it is here), the word and others like it were references to coming to the truth through instruction. Ancient literature is full of examples, but here's one from P. Aboth 1:12:

Be of the disciples of Aaron, ....bringing them nigh to the Law.

The idea is not one of force, but of instruction. Jesus all along has been claiming to be God's Word. He is not giving the instruction himself, but is only doing what he sees the Father doing (John 5:18). He is not speaking his own words, but only those of the Father. This is why Jesus says, in John 5:24, "He who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life..." When listening to Christ, they were being taught by the Father. That was the means of drawing.

Jesus was teaching them the Father's Word so that they "might be saved" (John 5:34), but they refused to receive the Word (John 5:38) and thereby were refusing "to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:40).

Jesus said that he has life in himself, and he connects this with the "manna from heaven" imagery. Those Jews expected the bread to fall upon them because of their Jewish heritage, but Jesus used the opportunity to show that the "new" way is of faith. Just like the Israelites at Kadesh-barnea, crossing over is a matter of faith n what God has said. Just like the Israelites in the wilderness, they grumble among themselves. Jesus is the True Promised Land, and the ultimate exodus has begun.

Now Jesus being "lifted up" is mentioned twice. The first time is in John 3 where Jesus says that he came to save the world and not condemn the world, but those who do not believe remain condemned. Here, in John 12, he uses the words again, and relates it to drawing all men to himself. So the lifting up of Christ is his means of teaching all men about the love of God and His salvation. Christ will bring nigh, instruct, and guide all men to himself because he is God's Word. Of course, that doesn't mean that all will listen and therefore come to Christ. This is an invitation.

In a nutshell:

John 7
16Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

[Sozo]

Jaltus...

Any thoughts as to my earlier statement that the word all refers to "judgement", and not to "men" in John 12:32 ?

[Jaltus]

Sozo,

Sorry for not getting back when I said.

I would say it could not be judgment for one simple reason: If Jesus is drawing all judgment unto Himself, and He is referring specifically to the cross event, one would then be forced to think that Jesus' death paid for all sins for all people, thus having a non-exclusive universalism, just a true atonement for ALL sin, since He would be drawing ALL judgment unto Himself.

Besides, KRISIS (judgment) is feminine and the word PANTAS (all) is masculine, so there can be no grammatical connection.

[themuzicman]

Romans 5:18-19
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Justification is for all men, but only the many will be made righteous.

Paul first talks about the work of Christ for justification for ALL MEN, and then tells us that not all will be made righteous.


5S: All means all. From verse 1, Paul talks about all men:

1 Timothy 2:1
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Verse 7 goes on to say "For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." For what? What does "this" refer to? "This" refers back to verse 3 and 4, where God desires all men to be saved. Pauls part in all men is the gentiles.

The reason we have an apparant dichotomy in "all men" vs. "the elect" is that while God desires for all men to be saved, not all men are saved, but only those who believe. Thus, we must reconcile these two apparantly clashing sets of scriptures.

How? By acknowledging that God's will isn't always done. (FYI, the word "desire" in verse 4 has a sphere of meaning that includes "will", so we could say that God wills for all men to be saved.)

Michael

[rhutchin]

The intention of this thread is to discuss the concept of God having a Universal Salvific Will, or otherwise stated, God wants every single individual person to be saved.

I am going to begin by dealing wth the two major passages dealing with this concept, and then I will just throw a few supporting references in at the bottom.
...
Passage 2

NIV John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

This clearly shows the death of Jesus is for all people, intending to bring about the salvation for “all who believe.” Again, the Greek makes this even more obvious: kagw ean uywqw ek thV ghV pantaV eklusw proV emauton. The “lifted up” (hUPSWQW) refers to the crucifixion, as any good commentary will tell you. This lifting up refers both to the act of being crucified and to the exaltation of Jesus it results in, namely the ascension and the last judgment. EAN here is translated “when” due to this being a time referential in this specific sentence. We know that PANTAS is not referring to “the earth” since it is not in an attributive position (it would need to be since everything here is in the genitive, though if the phrase were in a different case, PANTAS would be fine right where it is). Thus, Jesus “will draw” (EKLUSW) “all people” (PANTAS) to himself.

Literally EKLUSW means to pull or lead by force. People are not given a choice, in fact, as Jesus is forcing them toward Himself. Why is it that not all are saved, then?

Essentially, what matters in this verse is that it is ALL people who are drawn to Him, not just some.

Conclusion

These two sections of scripture make it quite clear that God not only WANTS all people to be saved, but in fact Jesus is bringing all of them to Himself. This is not a plea for universal salvation, only a plea to realize that the invitation is open for all to be saved. Not all will be saved, but all people can be saved.


The discourse by Jesus in John 12 seems to issue forth from--

20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus...

The term, "all," can refer to (1) each and every individual or (2) each and every type of person (Jew and Greek or Jew and Gentile). On what basis in Scripture is the first option to be chosen?

(I have not read throught he entire thread, so if someone else already asked this I will get to it eventually.)

[themuzicman]

And verse 29 changes that part of the context:

John 12:29-33
So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31 "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

God spoke from heaven, and Jesus was no longer speaking to the greeks.

"All" means "all".

Michael

[Reader]

Let me go one step farther: there is nothing in either passage limiting who the all is. I challenge you to show FROM CONTEXT where the exclusivity comes from.

The "all" is universal only in the sense that the Greeks, whom Jesus was addressing, could be saved by Christ being lifted up in death, just as well as the Jews. Salvation is universal, in the sense, that Christ would save "Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." (Rev. 5:9, 7:9) But whether these would believe unto salvation, depends solely on the will of God.

The "all" does not mean that God wills or intends every single living soul be saved. The context prohibits that interpretation because of Jesus' explanation in verses 38-40, reveals why many men do not believe and are not saved. It is clearly because God as Sovereign, prevents the salvation of many. God will choose and name those to inherit His Kingdom and dwell with Him in everlasting glory. God withholds grace from many, and does not call all men to salvation.

(Reprobation is a very clear teaching throughout Scripture, which "universalists" and "free-willers" just choose to ignore, which leads to much error, and confusion, and often outright heresy.)

The Apostle John quotes Isaiah 6:9&10 (which qualifies and quantifies the "all"):

"But although He had done so many signs befoe them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which He spoke:

'Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' (O.T. saints questioning why not "all" men believed in God.)

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

'He (God) has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'

These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him."
John 12:37-41

Again, this rules out the "all" as being "all men" universally; therefore the correct understanding would be, Christ was lifted up for "all" men and women of "all" nationalities; Gentile as well as Jew.

This truth was taught by Isaiah (Isa. 6:9&10), John (John 12:38-40), Paul (Romans 11:7-10) and Jesus Christ (Matthew 13:10-17).



Christ's atonement is not effecacious for everyone because it is only for those who "call on the name of the Lord." If you do not call on Him, He will not come to you.

God calls those He wills to save. God must draw by calling and regenerate sinners to life, before they will call upon God. This is the meaning of "drawing" in John 6:44:

"No man can come to me unless the Father draws him . . ."

". . Those who are called according to His purpose . . .Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified . . " Romans 8:28b, 30a

". . He calls His own sheep by name and leads them out." John 10:3b

" . . Them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice . ." John 10:16


The above verses are not dealing with who IS saved, but with who COULD BE saved.

I agree with this. People all over the world can be saved by God since the incarnation and death of Christ. The Gospel message and evangelization worked by His Holy Spirit is global. That is the "New Covenant." No longer are the truths of God maintained by one tiny nation of Jews. God now wills to save all kinds of men and women of all nationalities; rich or poor, free or slave, kings or commoners, young or old, etc,

But God has not willed to save every single soul, for He has created two kinds of "vessels;" vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor.

Jesus Christ was not lifted up for dishonorable reprobates, prepared by God for destruction and reserved to suffer punishment and Hell for their sins. (Romans 9:23, II Peter 2:9&10)

"The Lord has made ~all~ for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." Proverbs 16:4

[themuzicman]

Reader, when you cite half of a verse, or skip verses in trying to make your case "in context", it isn't very convicing.

It's not as though Romans 8:29 doesn't have any effect, being between 8:28b and 8:30.

Michael

[mickiel]

These two sections of scripture make it quite clear that God not only WANTS all people to be saved, but in fact Jesus is bringing all of them to Himself. This is not a plea for universal salvation, only a plea to realize that the invitation is open for all to be saved. Not all will be saved, but all people can be saved.



No matter how one uses intelligence on scripture, it still simply means what it says. God desires all men to be saved. Intllectuals are teaching that God does not get his desires, the bible claims he does. Spirituals are teaching God is like men, men do not get all their wishes. Evangelicals are teaching that mankinds wishes are more powerful than Gods. The desires of God have been reduced to powerless matters of human choice, and Gods word has been reduced and added too, something Revelation seriously warns against. Men are reducing salvation to mere human choice, negating Gods express unpartial choice of free inheritance to all. Men limit salvation by limiting the word all, to only mean "some", they are subtracting from the words in Gods book of life. Its called the book of life, because it concerns life, and life more abundantly.

All who teach any form of limited atonement, in any theology, any word usage, you are subtracting from the book of life, and God has promised a curse on those who do as such. Well did Jesus ask God to frogive humanity, for they know not what they do. The mere suggestion that God does not get anything he wishes, is pure ignorance of the raw power that is God. The truth is staring men in the face, and they cannot see it. From the lay member, to the shallow minded church attender, to the pulpit, pastor and theologian, none are righteous, or see what is right. Only one thing seperates mankind from eternity with God, sin. Jesus defeated sin, if salvation is in Jesus hands, it is finished, if its in the explaining powers of the above listed positions of men, most of us are simply doomed, and we serve a shallow-minded god.

[Sheepdog]

The discourse by Jesus in John 12 seems to issue forth from--

20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus...

The term, "all," can refer to (1) each and every individual or (2) each and every type of person (Jew and Greek or Jew and Gentile). On what basis in Scripture is the first option to be chosen?

(I have not read throught he entire thread, so if someone else already asked this I will get to it eventually.)
If Jesus wanted to say "some from all nations," it was semantically possible for Him to say so unequivocally. In other words, unless one has a good reason to accept the latter definition, the former should be assumed. After all, all have sinned... (Romans 6:23).