God's Desire to Save Everyone and Predestination

[siliconwafer]

Assuming that God decides who will believe in Christ and that God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, does it make sense to say that God desires that everyone will be saved? Some people believe that even though God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, He still desires that everyone will be saved. Others think that if God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, then He does not desire that everyone will be saved. What do you think?

[Phat8594]

Assuming that God decides who will believe in Christ and that God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, does it make sense to say that God desires that everyone will be saved

Thats quite the assumption....

[jesusfreak]

Thats quite the assumption....

I agree that is quite the assumption... It might be safer to say that with God not being controlled by time and knows everything then he knows who will and won't be saved.

[siliconwafer]

Thats quite the assumption....

Acts 13:48 says that those who believed in Jesus were the ones who were chosen to receive eternal life.

[oxmixmudd]

Acts 13:48 says that those who believed in Jesus were the ones who were chosen to receive eternal life.

You are pushing that verse a bit farther than I think makes sense. As I read it, it simply is saying the ones who were inclined to receive Christ did, acknowledging that God would know who they were.Though the language would be similar, there is a large difference between knowing who will chose Christ, and choosing (arbitrarily) who will receive Christ. The first is based upon the nature of the individual, who they are, the second is an imposition outside the will, arbitrary.

The verse in Romans says "Those whom he foreknew, he predestined". There is no sense of imposition here, its more a response, an assuring that those who would receive Christ will indeed have the opportunity to do so.


Jim

[Phat8594]

Acts 13:48 says that those who believed in Jesus were the ones who were chosen to receive eternal life

And Acts 13:46 says that it is the Jews who decide that they unworthy of salvation:

46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

So in context, I think its clear you are taking the verse further than where it was ever intended....note there is no talk of foreordained or predestined. Rather the Gentiles are appointed in the time of (and in response to) hearing the Gospel. Not to mention there is much debate as to what extent "were appointed" should be taken.

If we are going to use verses, lets examine them in context and original intent rather than using the common "proof-text" practice. A lot of crazy (and can I say misguided?) doctrines get created through proof-texting.

[The Remonstrant]

The Universal Saving Will of God & Election to Belief (?)

Assuming that God decides who will believe in Christ and that God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, does it make sense to say that God desires that everyone will be saved?

First, I would strongly dispute the assumption that "God decides who will believe in Christ." This notion stems out of unconditional election to salvation and invincible (or "irresistible," or "efficacious") grace, neither of which presuppositions I would assent to.

Second, no, I do not believe it makes a whole lot of sense to say that God desires all people without exception to be saved while he has "passed over" the "non-elect." The "reprobate" in Calvinism are those whom God is said to have not chosen unconditionally to be predestined to salvation and "irresistibly" drawn to him through an invincible operation of the Holy Spirit.

Calvinists have traditionally given the strained interpretation to 1 Timothy 2:4 that God desires "all of every kind or every sort" to be saved, not all persons without exception. Of course this does horrible violence to Paul's structure. In 1 Timothy 2, verses 1-6 establishes the universal and indiscriminate call for disciples to pray for all those in authority (v. 1-2); God's desire for all people without exception to be saved (v. 3-4); and Christ as the one mediator between God and man, who gave himself a ransom for all (v. 5-6 [re: universal atonement]).

Realizing this, some neo-Calvinists have discarded the old interpretation and now say that God does indeed desire the universal salvation of all mankind. So what's the catch? Well, God apparently desires to have a portion of mankind damned eternally more than he desires to save all people without exception (supposedly deriving this idea from Romans 9.) So the "full display" of God's glory can only be manifested by unconditionally electing some to salvation and passing the rest over (which results in the inevitable damnation of the "non-elect").

Toward A More Biblical Approach

Here's a better way to view the NT data:

(1) God desires the salvation of all people without exception (the universal salvific/saving will of God)
(2) Christ died for all people without exception (universal/unlimited atonement)
(3) The gospel call is universal and indiscriminate (universal gospel call)
(4) Those who repent, believe and persevere in faith in Christ will inherit final salvation

Notice there is nothing here about God "choosing" particular persons to believe in Christ (as if faith were the fruit or evidence of election). Nor is there anything here about "passing over" other particular persons to not receive "the gift of faith." Before any discussion of predestination to salvation, one first needs to accept the basic scriptural truths as enumerated above. Following the TULIP acrostic is a backward approach to understanding these basic soteriological biblical truths. The universal saving will of God and the universal atonement of Christ would never be lost on a simple, unbiased reader introduced to the NT without a previous background or instruction in ecclesiastical or theological matters. But hand him (or her) one of the fifty or so introductory books on the "Doctrines of Grace" in print and suddenly confusion enters clouds his or her mind.

The teaching of predestination to salvation is scriptural, but it does not contradict basic NT truths that God wants everyone to be saved and Christ died for all without exception. God's provision for salvation is conditional from start to finish. God took the initiative in saving fallen mankind and he will see to it that whoever is trusting in him will by no means be cast out. We can trust God entirely for our salvation, but we ought not trust ourselves (notice the numerous exhortations to persevere throughout the NT addressed to believers to encourage us in the faith to not fall away).

God predestines believers to be saved, not persons to become believers.

[RBerman]

Assuming that God decides who will believe in Christ and that God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, does it make sense to say that God desires that everyone will be saved? Some people believe that even though God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, He still desires that everyone will be saved. Others think that if God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ, then He does not desire that everyone will be saved. What do you think?

Given that your starting assumptions are Calvinistic, I think you probably should have said "non-debate thread" or "Calvinists only" in order to avoid having the thread becoming what it is becoming: The billionth run-through of "But Calvinism isn't Biblical" with the same old people raising the same old objections. Anyway...

As I understand your question, it is, "Does Unconditional Election entail Limited Atonement?" First, one must make the (Biblical defensible) assumption that not everyone is elected. Second, one must define "atonement." If it means "the potential to be saved" or "the removal of the obstacle to salvation on God's end," then one could speak of Christ actually atoning for all men without all men actually being saved. thus it's said that all Christians believe in limited atonement; some limit it to saving all men halfway, while others limit it to saving only some men all the way. (When we speak of "saving" in this context, we're talking about justification.) Given those stipulations, yes, we should say that unconditional election entails limited atonement. Jesus knew the specific sheep for which he was dying, the specific sheep which God had given him. (John 10:7-17) The divine will is unitary, so that those whom Father intended to save are those for whom the Son intended to die, and those whom the Spirit intends to indwell. Any other formulation functionally denies the Trinity.

[siliconwafer]

And Acts 13:46 says that it is the Jews who decide that they unworthy of salvation:



So in context, I think its clear you are taking the verse further than where it was ever intended....note there is no talk of foreordained or predestined. Rather the Gentiles are appointed in the time of (and in response to) hearing the Gospel. Not to mention there is much debate as to what extent "were appointed" should be taken.

If we are going to use verses, lets examine them in context and original intent rather than using the common "proof-text" practice. A lot of crazy (and can I say misguided?) doctrines get created through proof-texting.

The Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life so Paul and Barnabas decided to go to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were appointed to eternal life which means that they were chosen. Just because the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life does not mean that the Gentiles were not chosen to believe in Christ.

[siliconwafer]

Given that your starting assumptions are Calvinistic, I think you probably should have said "non-debate thread" or "Calvinists only" in order to avoid having the thread becoming what it is becoming: The billionth run-through of "But Calvinism isn't Biblical" with the same old people raising the same old objections. Anyway...

As I understand your question, it is, "Does Unconditional Election entail Limited Atonement?" First, one must make the (Biblical defensible) assumption that not everyone is elected. Second, one must define "atonement." If it means "the potential to be saved" or "the removal of the obstacle to salvation on God's end," then one could speak of Christ actually atoning for all men without all men actually being saved. thus it's said that all Christians believe in limited atonement; some limit it to saving all men halfway, while others limit it to saving only some men all the way. (When we speak of "saving" in this context, we're talking about justification.) Given those stipulations, yes, we should say that unconditional election entails limited atonement. Jesus knew the specific sheep for which he was dying, the specific sheep which God had given him. (John 10:7-17) The divine will is unitary, so that those whom Father intended to save are those for whom the Son intended to die, and those whom the Spirit intends to indwell. Any other formulation functionally denies the Trinity.

I'll try to rephrase that I said in my OP.

Are the following beliefs consistent with each other?

1. The belief that God desires to save everyone.
2. The belief that God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ.

[RBerman]

I'll try to rephrase that I said in my OP.

Are the following beliefs consistent with each other?

1. The belief that God desires to save everyone.
2. The belief that God does not choose everyone to believe in Christ.

That depends on what one means by "desire." Humans are capable of having desires which go unfulfilled, because we lack the power to make our wishes into reality. God lacks that limitation, and thus Scripture teaches us that everything comes to pass just as God intends (i.e. 'desires') it. But God commands men to do some things which do not come to pass, and we speak of those things also as God's "desires." So it depends on which sort of desire you mean. The Bible uses the term "God's will" for both sorts of desires, allowing context to clarify which sort of will/desire is in view in some particular text. When we use those terms apart from the Biblical context, the opportunity for confusion presents itself as to which sort of desire/will we mean, so I prefer to avoid that confusion by speaking instead of God's decrees (which always come to pass) and God's commands (which do not always come to pass).

[siliconwafer]

That depends on what one means by "desire." Humans are capable of having desires which go unfulfilled, because we lack the power to make our wishes into reality. God lacks that limitation, and thus Scripture teaches us that everything comes to pass just as God intends (i.e. 'desires') it. But God commands men to do some things which do not come to pass, and we speak of those things also as God's "desires." So it depends on which sort of desire you mean. The Bible uses the term "God's will" for both sorts of desires, allowing context to clarify which sort of will/desire is in view in some particular text. When we use those terms apart from the Biblical context, the opportunity for confusion presents itself as to which sort of desire/will we mean, so I prefer to avoid that confusion by speaking instead of God's decrees (which always come to pass) and God's commands (which do not always come to pass).

When I wrote "desire" I meant a longing for something.

I understand that God's will can mean two different things. God's will could be His decrees or it could be His commands.

[RBerman]

When I wrote "desire" I meant a longing for something.

I understand that God's will can mean two different things. God's will could be His decrees or it could be His commands.

I find itdifficult to conceieve God's "longing" or "desire" in a way that doesn't ultimately devovle into either a decree or a command, depending on whether the desire is satisfied or not. You could probably find examples of "desire" used either way in Scripture where God is concerned.

[Phat8594]

The Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life so Paul and Barnabas decided to go to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were appointed to eternal life which means that they were chosen. Just because the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life does not mean that the Gentiles were not chosen to believe in Christ

I think you are missing my point. My point is that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere in the Bible where it says that God chooses men to believe. The scripture you gave does not say what you claim it says.

In context, we also see people judging themselves unworthy. If God chooses who will believe, then if follows that it is God who unconditionally chooses who will be worthy, and who will not; man has not part in that decision.

[Phat8594]

I find itdifficult to conceieve God's "longing" or "desire" in a way that doesn't ultimately devovle into either a decree or a command, depending on whether the desire is satisfied or not. You could probably find examples of "desire" used either way in Scripture where God is concerned.

So in other words you do not believe that God desires all men to be saved...?