Why Jesus did not come to save everyone

[Drummer4Christ]

I meant the Jews throughout the OT.
Hasn't God done a whole lot of stuff (everything?) that He was never obligated to do, e.g. giving you His Spirit?
The only part of your John 3:16 that is difficult for me is "For God so loved the world ...".
But then, the predestination/election verses are difficult for others.

For me, it's much easier to view "whosover", "anyone", etc. to mean the elect
than it is to explain the predestination/election verses.

If I may ask, what method do you use when witnessing to the lost? When preaching the Gospel, do you inform those listening that they are of the "elect" or "non-elect", so repenting of their sins & accepting Christ as their Savior is unnecessary, considering they have already been predestined to salvation or damnation? (I'm not being sarcastic)

 

[John Zain]

If I may ask, what method do you use when witnessing to the lost?
When preaching the Gospel, do you inform those listening
that they are of the "elect" or "non-elect",
so repenting of their sins & accepting Christ as their Savior is unnecessary,
considering they have already been predestined to salvation or damnation?
(I'm not being sarcastic)

The Triune God came up with a Plan of Salvation, which resulted in ...
the Logos (the Word) coming to earth preaching the gospel (good news).

Anyone who believed (went along with) Him and the gospel proved that they were elected to be saved.

In this way, God demonstrated that He was gracious, etc. enough to save some, even though
ALL humans were more than deserving to be separated from Him eternally.

It is this last line that most people just cannot fully grasp/accept.

Yes, the Lord did send me to evangelize.
Just like Jesus, you quickly present the gospel, and see who accepts it. Then on to the next village.

Revelation knowledge:
it was obvious that some people were just there waiting to hear the Truth, and they jumped on it,
i.e. they had definitely been prepared beforehand. This, you may take to the bank.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

The Triune God came up with a Plan of Salvation, which resulted in ...
the Logos (the Word) coming to earth preaching the gospel (good news).

Anyone who believed (went along with) Him and the gospel proved that they were elected to be saved.

In this way, God demonstrated that He was gracious, etc. enough to save some, even though
ALL humans were more than deserving to be separated from Him eternally.

It is this last line that most people just cannot fully grasp/accept.

Yes, the Lord did send me to evangelize.
Just like Jesus, you quickly present the gospel, and see who accepts it. Then on to the next village.

Revelation knowledge:
it was obvious that some people were just there waiting to hear the Truth, and they jumped on it,
i.e. they had definitely been prepared beforehand. This, you may take to the bank.

The only thing I have difficulty grasping is the concept that ALL deserve to be punished yet, Jesus did not come to save ALL from punishment. (This isn't to say ALL will be saved i.e. Universal Salvation)

Scripture states God so loved all those who deserve punishment (the World), not God so loved those elected to not be punished.

 

[John Zain]

The only thing I have difficulty grasping is the concept that ALL deserve to be punished yet,
Jesus did not come to save ALL from punishment. (This isn't to say ALL will be saved i.e. Universal Salvation)
Scripture states God so loved all those who deserve punishment (the World),
not God so loved those elected to not be punished.

I believe that it must come down to what really is meant by foreknowledge in Romans 8:28-30.
Why did God choose ONLY SOME unworthies to be given His grace?
And we're working on that elsewhere. (Not that I expect we will resolve it.)

Also, just because God loves every one of His creation doesn't mean He will save them all.
Again, does He see some things in His foreknowledge causing Him to choose SOME, but not others?

I'm thinking He sees absolute willingness in SOME to be SANCTIFIED unto being OVERCOMERS.
These are the ones who are willing to walk the narrow path of Matthew 7:13-14.

I've learned in the past: If we seek long enough, we will find ... yes, believe/trust Matthew 7:7.
(I would suggest the most valuable example for this is the baptism with the Holy Spirit.)

And notice that Jesus says (like it's such an obvious truth) that all of His disciples are evil (Matthew 7:11).
This is another verse for those who don't believe in man's inherited sin nature.

 

[Ace1234]

Thread makes God sound like Hitler, like creating a special race for himself and torturing all the rest.........geesh, I guess we should rewrite the history books to say Hitler was full of love.

The bible says by one mans sin, sin did abound, but through Christ grace abounded more, so if grace can only save a few and one mans sin can condemn all, how doe's grace abound more? If sin condemns more than grace can save, then man and sin abound more than Christ and the cross.

 

[John Zain]

The bible says by one mans sin, sin did abound, but through Christ grace abounded more,
so if grace can only save a few and one mans sin can condemn all, how doe's grace abound more?
If sin condemns more than grace can save, then man and sin abound more than Christ and the cross.

It's not about numbers saved vs. numbers lost.
I believe that you don't really comprehend how totally sinful man is viewed by a totally Holy God.
Try "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6), which means women's menstral cloths.

I believe that you don't really comprehend what ALL men deserve (according to God).
ALL men deserve separation from God in hell.
So, if God chooses to save only one, God's grace has triumphed. It's just as simple as that.

 

[Davies]

I believe that you don't really comprehend what ALL men deserve (according to God).

Hi John,

I was just wondering, do you have a crystal ball? I would have never thought this about Ace1234 based on what he said. I get the same expression of love that Ace1234 does from this thread, and yet, I understand we all don't deserve God's grace.

- Davies

 

[John Zain]

I get the same expression of love that Ace1234 does from this thread ...

Yes, if God's love triumphed over His sense of law and justice, you guys would be happy as larks.
But, sorry, 'taint so.

The whole Bible is about God proving man's sin nature, and the impossibility of him pleasing/satisfying God
... except for Jesus and His gospel, which unsaved man thinks is foolishness.

Are the saved saved because they miraculously choose to think the gospel is not foolishness?
Oh no, you say, a light comes on, and they see.
Yes, they reach up and just flip the switch ... with their own free-will, of course.
Really?
.

 

[smaller]

Matthew 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

I seriously don't want to hear this spoken to me.

s

 

[Davies]

Hi John,

I don't think you should react so strongly to what I or Ace1234 has said. I imagine you are a loving person, you have children, perhaps grandchildren, and I hope you have love for those who are unsaved. I don't know much about you, but I'd cautiously accept you as a brother in Christ who professes Jesus, so we should consider ourselves brothers. We should especially love the brethren, right? I don't think we are too far apart here.

Yes, if God's love triumphed over His sense of law and justice, you guys would be happy as larks.
But, sorry, 'taint so.

What would you think about this verse?

James 2:12-13 (New King James Version)

James 2:12-13
New King James Version (NKJV)
12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

This doesn't mean that law and justice are ignored, because those were fulfilled and satisfied in the cross. Mercy, now, has overcome judgment. You should be happy as a lark.

The whole Bible is about God proving man's sin nature, and the impossibility of him pleasing/satisfying God
... except for Jesus and His gospel, which unsaved man thinks is foolishness.

I think this is great. I agree that in many case, people believe they understand they are sinners, but it is the depth of how sinful they are that is underestimated. The one who has a better knowledge of his/her sin shows more humility.

Are the saved saved because they miraculously choose to think the gospel is not foolishness?

No, I wouldn't think they just chose one day to believe.

Oh no, you say, a light comes on, and they see.

Yes, they same way your eyes have been opened. Purely out of the mercy of God, who didn't have to account your sins on Jesus, gave you faith. This gift(faith), though nothing to boast about, was what enabled you to receive His pardon. Mercy overcomes judgment.

Yes, they reach up and just flip the switch ... with their own free-will, of course.

At least not in the last few posts did anyone support this notion, and I don't subscribe to this notion.

I praise God that his mercy overcame judgment, maintaining his righteousness and justice, thanks to Jesus.

James 1:12
12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

- Davies

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I believe that it must come down to what really is meant by foreknowledge in Romans 8:28-30.
Why did God choose ONLY SOME unworthies to be given His grace?
And we're working on that elsewhere. (Not that I expect we will resolve it.)

Also, just because God loves every one of His creation doesn't mean He will save them all.
Again, does He see some things in His foreknowledge causing Him to choose SOME, but not others?

I'm thinking He sees absolute willingness in SOME to be SANCTIFIED unto being OVERCOMERS.
These are the ones who are willing to walk the narrow path of Matthew 7:13-14.

I've learned in the past: If we seek long enough, we will find ... yes, believe/trust Matthew 7:7.
(I would suggest the most valuable example for this is the baptism with the Holy Spirit.)

And notice that Jesus says (like it's such an obvious truth) that all of His disciples are evil (Matthew 7:11).
This is another verse for those who don't believe in man's inherited sin nature.

Again, I ask in all sincerity:

Are you saying that Jesus did not voluntarily die for someones sin's until they involuntarily accept Christ?

I would appreciate a simple "yes" or "no" with a brief explanation as such.

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh, I'd say the verses you are looking for here don't have to be there.
Ditto with a lot of other "clear" verses you'd like to see in Scripture.
God has not explained everything in Scripture, let alone explained everything clearly.

In the OP, I explained my take on why the free-will verses are in Scripture.
Also, Jesus spoke in parables a lot because the non-elect were NOT supposed to understand His teachings.

In the OT, God promised a NEW covenant where He and His people would have a personal relationship.
This was never even close to being the case in the OT.

I'm certainly not 100% sold on unconditional election, but I wanted to investigate it.

I have a HUGE problem with people NOT understanding the spiritual condition of man.
Scripture explains very clearly how man is TOTALLY filled with sin, and is at enmity with God, etc.
So, how can he all of a sudden miraculously choose God and His "foolish" gospel?

I will address your point first, and then restate my question since they are still separate, I think.

First, I completely agree with you that not all are "invited to salvation" if by that you mean elected. But the Gospel is meant for all men regardless (the great commission did not distinguish to go only to the elect with the Gospel), which gives all men even less an excuse for their neglect (if they do neglect the Gospel) - but indeed the actual turning to Jesus & faith must be, as you say, given to them by God Himself. Jesus in John's Gospel makes that quite clear when he said no man can come to him except the Father draw him (John 6:44). So there we agree. I also agree with total depravity, man is unable to help himself, though he is still responsible (Romans 9:19-22).

My question has to do with whether the assumption that Jesus' atonement and salvation are the same is valid. Certainly they are related, but I draw a certain line of distinction. The atonement was made apart from any man receiving it because it was affected at the very moment of Jesus' crucifixion (and even regarded as being done from the foundation of the world - Rev. 13:8). As such the atonement was given for all men (not to all men - mind you - it must be received also), while those who are actually to receive it are only determined/appointed as such according to God's election.

I gave the example of how the High Priest yearly gave atonement for all of Israel, but that not all were saved (the opposite being 'destroyed' - as Korah was). The atonement is useless to us unless it is received & applied, but it was for us nonetheless, whether we receive it or not. The bronze serpent was made by Moses to save the people from the serpents' bite, but only those who looked upon it were saved. All had equal opportunity. You however may frame the incident in terms of "those who neglected the opportunity were were not elected to be saved/live". But it doesn't change the fact of the opportunity. That is why man is still without excuse. I think those two Old Testament examples bear out my point of how atonement can be for all people, while not all will be saved.

I see at least 5 major factors which are against man choosing God on his own:
1) man's hopelessly sin-ridden nature
2) Satan has blinded man's mind to spiritual Truth (2 Cor. 4:4)
2) Jesus taught with parables so the non-elect would not understand the Truth
4) God's "foolish" gospel, and it is foolish for a reason (1 Cor.)
5) Satan's continual opposition by putting thoughts into man's mind (whenever he feels like it)

I still am on the side of: "It's impossible for man to come to Jesus on his own!"[/B]

1) True.
2) True.
3) True.
4) True.
5) True.

Once again, John 6:44 confirms what you say here.

I'm actually addressing atonement here, something different from what you mention in your OP. It's a somewhat broader subject (perhaps for another thread). I just want to make sure that there is no confusion on that.

 

[smaller]

I will address your point first, and then restate my question since they are still separate, I think.

First, I completely agree with you that not all are "invited to salvation" if by that you mean elected. But the Gospel is meant for all men regardless (the great commission did not distinguish to go only to the elect with the Gospel), which gives all men even less an excuse for their neglect (if they do neglect the Gospel) - but indeed the actual turning to Jesus & faith must be, as you say, given to them by God Himself. Jesus in John's Gospel makes that quite clear when he said no man can come to him except the Father draw him (John 6:44). So there we agree. I also agree with total depravity, man is unable to help himself, though he is still responsible (Romans 9:19-22).

My question has to do with whether the assumption that Jesus' atonement and salvation are the same is valid. Certainly they are related, but I draw a certain line of distinction. The atonement was made apart from any man receiving it because it was affected at the very moment of Jesus' crucifixion (and even regarded as being done from the foundation of the world - Rev. 13:8). As such the atonement was given for all men (not to all men - mind you - it must be received also), while those who are actually to receive it are only determined/appointed as such according to God's election.

I gave the example of how the High Priest yearly gave atonement for all of Israel, but that not all were saved (the opposite being 'destroyed' - as Korah was). The atonement is useless to us unless it is received & applied, but it was for us nonetheless, whether we receive it or not. The bronze serpent was made by Moses to save the people from the serpents' bite, but only those who looked upon it were saved. All had equal opportunity. You however may frame the incident in terms of "those who neglected the opportunity were were not elected to be saved/live". But it doesn't change the fact of the opportunity. That is why man is still without excuse. I think those two Old Testament examples bear out my point of how atonement can be for all people, while not all will be saved.



1) True.
2) True.
3) True.
4) True.
5) True.

Once again, John 6:44 confirms what you say here.

I'm actually addressing atonement here, something different from what you mention in your OP. It's a somewhat broader subject (perhaps for another thread). I just want to make sure that there is no confusion on that.

Determinism has many valid and semi valid points. Unfortunately IF The Gospel is to be proclaimed 'truthfully' the imposed or implied 'limitations' would have to be put on the table. I can't say I've ever heard any determinist proclaimers actually incorporate their limited positions. And I would imply that such proclaimations are not then 'truthful.'

HOW many times for example have we all heard the Gospel preached in order to 'save yourself from eternal hell?'

Yet, we can observe from Paul that his call directly from God in Christ was for the exact matter of turning men from the 'power of Satan' unto God.

Turning from evil in heart unto to LIFE ETERNAL is a far more accurate than the presentation to 'save your own hide' from God.

Almost two entirely DIFFERENT Gospels! The latter is fear based and self serving. And this exact 'mindset of delivery' shows up in the multitude of the converts various 'sects.'

Nevertheless Paul also said that he was basically OK however Christ is proclaimed. I'd say a bit more honesty could be in order. I believe Paul was OK with Christ being proclaimed in pretence because he trusted Christ could pull it altogether in any case of delivery.

Determinism in the 'limited atonement' sense has many other issues. Many. In classic determinism it is entirely technically possible that the proclaimers themselves can't even say they are either elect or determined to believe because they must 'P'ersevere. It is also entirely possible for non-elect to be standing in the pulpits using their own measures. A factual look at these matters will reveal 'many' weak spots and uncertainties. The rapid fire no response starter of this thread for example has a very difficult time acknowledging basic foundational facts of personal statements to even 'measure' to see if one is actually in truth, and runs the other way when it's even brought up.

So not every 'elect' may be as elect as they claim to be. There are matters of truth that have to be put on the table for viewing. I believe Charles Manson for example claims to be 'elect.' Not saying he isn't, but there are a few legitimate queries that every man should answer to to prove our faith. It's not that difficult. I know more than one 'jail convert' who transferred their drug addiction, thievery and assault habits to a jailhouse conversion where they now take great delight in proclaiming other believers and most people are going straight into hell. Evil within just switched horses.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

We can all blow the 'I am saved' trumpet pretty well. When it comes to saying 'how limited' the atonement is, I am not willing to hold back from ANY MAN either. It's just not 'right' to do that. I don't think determinism is all that honest in their proclaiming because they really 'don't' bring this stuff out into the open in preaching the Good News. The position is primarily pumped into the converts 'later.'

s

 

[John Zain]

I believe that it must come down to what really is meant by foreknowledge in Romans 8:28-30.
Why did God choose ONLY SOME unworthies to be given His grace?
And we're working on that elsewhere. (Not that I expect we will resolve it.)

Also, just because God loves every one of His creation doesn't mean He will save them all.
Again, does He see some things in His foreknowledge causing Him to choose SOME, but not others?

I'm thinking He sees absolute willingness in SOME to be SANCTIFIED unto being OVERCOMERS.
These are the ones who are willing to walk the narrow path of Matthew 7:13-14.

I've learned in the past: If we seek long enough, we will find ... yes, believe/trust Matthew 7:7.
(I would suggest the most valuable example for this is the baptism with the Holy Spirit.)

And notice that Jesus says (like it's such an obvious truth) that all of His disciples are evil (Matthew 7:11).
This is another verse for those who don't believe in man's inherited sin nature.

Again, I ask in all sincerity:
Are you saying that Jesus did not voluntarily die for someones sins until they involuntarily accept Christ?
I would appreciate a simple "yes" or "no" with a brief explanation as such.[/QUOTE]

In all sincerity, my computer has been down again ... and I'm away from home at present.

God's thoughts and ways are NOT our thoughts and ways (Isaiah 55?).

If unconditional election is true ...
HOW does He choose some people over others?
WHY is the gospel part of God's Plan of Salvation?
I don't have these answers.

If unconditional election is NOT true ...
WHY are there so many unconditional election verses?
These make no sense otherwise.
(But, I do have possible reasons for the "free-will" verses.)

 

[Ace1234]

It's not about numbers saved vs. numbers lost.
I believe that you don't really comprehend how totally sinful man is viewed by a totally Holy God.
Try "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6), which means women's menstral cloths.

I believe that you don't really comprehend what ALL men deserve (according to God).
ALL men deserve separation from God in hell.
So, if God chooses to save only one, God's grace has triumphed. It's just as simple as that.

You may view yourself as undeserving and filthy, I do not. God created and ordained all the parameters that led to man's fallen sinful state, not man.

The bible says God views our works and righteousness as filthy rags, not our beings or souls.

The bible says we all get death because of sin, not eternal torture....try again.

You've turned God into some corrupt human bigot, because only humans come up with "if only one is saved" and the other few trillion are tortured, God has triumphed, again, you've made God no better than our worldly Hitler, why we know this is false teaching.

Grace will abound more than sin....

 

[Davies]

You may view yourself as undeserving and filthy, I do not. God created and ordained all the parameters that led to man's fallen sinful state, not man.

Hi Ace1234,

I would disagree with John Zain's opening post that not everyone is invited. Luke 14:15-24, in the parable of the great supper, it clearly says, "'24 For I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper.'" So, I believe there is a responsibility we have to respond to God's grace, and we are held accountable if we reject Jesus Christ. The mystery I think is that many do not choose. All we have to do is look into the world where billions of people do not believe in Jesus Christ.

Jesus said, Matt. 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."

I wouldn't blame God for not saving a person, I would blame the person for not repenting and putting their faith in Jesus.

- Davies

 

[John Zain]

My question has to do with whether the assumption that Jesus' atonement and salvation are the same is valid.

I'm actually addressing atonement here, something different from what you mention in your OP.
It's a somewhat broader subject (perhaps for another thread).
I just want to make sure that there is no confusion on that.

Hi Josh,

I've been trying to ignore this atonement -- salvation thing of yours.
Yes, there sure is confusion on that.

I said perhaps you should not make the NT fit the OT regarding this.
I see them being two different covenants (but both require shedding of blood).

So, I really do need for you to explain how your OT atonement fits into NT salvation.

 

[John Zain]

So not every 'elect' may be as elect as they claim to be.[/QUOTE]

From my observation, this is more obvious to the pentecostal-charismatic community.
Consider passages such as the wheat and the tares, and "Depart from Me for I never knew you."

 

[John Zain]

The bible says we all get death because of sin, not eternal torture...

I don't see how you can be a Christian, if you don't believe ...
SIN ---> SPIRITUAL DEATH ---> SEPARATION FROM GOD (in Hell)

This has been explained very clearly in the NT.

 

[John Zain]

I would disagree with John Zain's opening post that not everyone is invited.

I have been discussing this (elsewhere) with unconditional electionists (my term),
and have seen a number of verses which support their views.

My questions to you are:
Why are such verses in Scripture?
How can they possibly fit with the free-will verses?

In the OP, I gave some possible expanations for why God put the latter in Scripture.