Posted on 08/23/2003 3:48:39 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Why, Then, do some still Believe in Selective Salvation?
Important Note
This section on selective salvation is 66 chapters long. If you arrived at this page via an Internet search engine, you might want to start with the first chapter. This will provide you a complete presentation of this subject.
Chapter: 14.19 (Section 14: Selective Salvation)
Copyright © Michael Bronson 1998 - 2003
BibleHelp.org
In the previous chapter we looked at over 300 verses that say salvation is open to everyone. These verses use words like all, everyone, whoever, world, etc. If the Bible clearly states the gift of salvation is open to all, why do some Christians believe otherwise? Why do some denominations make selective salvation a major component of their belief system?
When I was first introduced to this doctrine, I couldn’t understand how a person couldn’t see this contradiction. I couldn’t understand how a person could say salvation is offered to "everyone" and still be able to say that salvation is not offered to everyone.
I would show them the verses that clearly state God is offering salvation to everyone and they would tell me there is no contradiction. They would say these verses are completely consistent with selective salvation. This totally baffled me. I wondered if they were trying to be deceptive or if they just could not see the contradiction?
Their explanation was quite simple. They believe all of these verses that say "all," "whoever," etc., are only referring to the elect. For example, a verse that says, "Christ died for all" actually is to be viewed as saying "Christ died for all of the elect." Another example is 1 John 2:1 that says, "If anyone sins, he has an advocate with the Father." They say this verse should be viewed as, "If anyone of the elect sins, he has an advocate with the Father."
I have discovered it didn’t matter how many verses I had that said salvation is offered to everyone, they still come back with the same reply. I soon realized an additional 5,000 verses would not make any difference. They would view all of these verses as referring to the elect. In fact, and additional 5,000 verses would only bolster their position. They would say, "See, we have 5,000 verses supporting our position."
Bill Clinton testifying before the Grand Jury
To be honest, I was very shocked when I first heard this explanation. It reminded me of President Clinton’s infamous impeachment testimony, "It all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is." I believe there are many Selective Salvationists who are not being totally honest about this issue.
I want to emphasize that this type of deception is not limited to Selective Salvationists. All Christians have the potential to distort the facts to make their position look more favorable. All Christians have the ability to selectively ignore verses that don’t align with their theological stance. We all, including myself, must guard against this problem.
Are Selective Salvationists simply ignoring the facts
or do some really not see the contradictions?
Although I believe there are many Selective Salvationists who deliberately ignore verses that contradict their beliefs, I have come to the conclusion there are some who actually don’t see a contradiction. The question, of course, is why don’t they see the contradiction? Basically, it boils down to a flawed approach to Biblical interpretation. They have started out with the premise, "Since I know selective salvation is true, these verses must be interpreted this way."
This approach to interpretation is incredibly flawed. All data must be interpreted on its own merit. Data should always be interpreted independently of currently held beliefs. New discoveries should be investigated without the pressures of "political correctness."
It was this flawed approach to interpreting data that led to centuries of errors, bondage, and murder. For several thousand years mankind believed the world was flat and at the center of the universe. Even after there was substantial evidence to prove otherwise, these myths hung on. These myths could have been buried centuries earlier except for the fact people used the above flawed approach to interpretation.
If people still believed the world to be flat, this is how our high-tech society might draw it
They would say, "Since we know the earth is flat, the new discoveries should be interpreted as … ." It didn’t matter that there is substantial data to disprove these myths. These leaders knew their views were correct, so any facts contradicting these views were altered until they conformed to their own views.
We should always let the data speak for itself and not put our own slant on it. If the evidence points us in a different direction, we must follow it. Look at the following chapter (Interpreting the Bible) for more information on this subject.
All verses must be looked at individually (in the context of the surrounding verses) and its interpretation must be based on its own merit. It is wrong to look at a verse and say, "Since I know a certain doctrine is true, this conflicting verse must be interpreted this way." Unfortunately, Selective Salvationists have made this violation. They have taken the stance that since Selective Salvation is true, this is the only logical explanation for these verses.
Even the founding fathers of selective salvation made this mistake. The president of Synod of Dort said, "The scriptures must be interpreted according to the catechisms and confessions." (Harrison, Beginnings of Arminianism, p. 87.) Fancois Windel acknowledges of Calvin, "Truth compels us to admits frankly that, despite all his fidelity to the Bible, he seems to have been searching the Scriptures more frequently for text to support a doctrine accepted in advance, than to derive doctrine from the Scriptures." (Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thoughts, p. 359)
(Excerpt) Read more at biblehelp.org ...
I had the same response to some Calvinists recently.
Upon reflection, prayer, insuring I was in fellowship with God, and then studying Scripture I was led to consider the issue in a different light.
Too many people, including Christians, are basing their behavior upon their conscience, rather than upon Bible doctrine. The doctrines associated with Paul's soulish man apply here, even when dicussing Christians who fall away, but continue to study doctrine and the Bible, but never fully repent their sins.
The soulish man is a natural consequence for this type of behavior and it manifests itself in these types of situations.
This is how I see this happening. A man is communicated the Gospel by common grace, inhales, accepts the message and believes in Christ in exhale and receives efficacious grace for salvation by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit, then indwells the believer. The believer is bestowed his gifts from the Spirit and begins to work on the believer over time. The believer is indwelt, but only filled with the Spirit when the believer has confessed and repented of his sins, thereby in faith of Christ has his sins forgiven and reenters into a relationship with God, (action from God for the relationship, but not possible if the believer is rebellious.)
In the case of the religious sinner, he may in fact be saved, been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but by his subsequent sin by man's own volition, has now made a situation where he Holy Spirit is quenched.
The believer, now separated from God and the filling of the Spirit, is still indwelt by the Spirit, but senses the evil in his life via the soul,..his conscience.
If he repents the sin, then God is faithful to return to him, but if he doesn't repent his sin, he remains backslidden or carnal in nature or a soulish person.
There are many soulish persons who have established a good habit of going to church, studying the Bible and doctrine, but unless that study is preceded by true repentence, it still amounts to a human good, rather than Divine good. A negative righteousness rather than a positive righteousness, if you will.
Such a soulish believer will still have times where he is grieved because he has grieved the Spirit. His soul is in pain and the believer responds. Some respond by repentence. Those who don't fall victim to a myriad of degenerate complexes.
One such complex I've observed in religious systems are believers who refuse to repent, then study doctrine, even to the point of knowing the logical and doctrinal positions eloquantly. But their faith is evidenced in their works. Those who are not repentant, reflect that soulishness in their behavior.
This seems to be where religion is better associated with a backslidden state, rather than a relationship with God or being in fellowship with Him.
While remaining unrepentant, the fallen believer continues to scar his soul.
For example, there may be those who are very orthodox, read orthodox doctrines, even recite the Creeds, take part in sacraments, even return to a cacophonous emotional elation asserting praise for God, yet while they are rebellious and haven't repented and confessed their sins to God,...(not man, but through Christ) then they still haven't returned into fellowship with God.
Their reactions to doctrine and Scripture is then characterized by soulish behavior. They've numbed themselves in the spirit, and now only act as though a soulish man.
Frequently, as the soulish man, the only way they can reason is to follow the doctrine they have studied and mechanically return to God. But unless they repent and confess, even if they perform mechanistic attempts, they remain unrepentant and scar their soul. In this condition, they may then fall back and claim that whatever belief they have is 'scriptural' because they have studied the logic, language, and doctrine, but have failed to apply it and remain in fellowship.
Worse, as the study in a fallen state, they then become succeptible to errors in doctrine, but in order to numb their soulish pangs, will even clamorously priase God, rather than repenting from the earlier sins. This repetitve scarring of the soul, even of the believer, then is an evil which IS NOT solved quickly by repentance.
Instead, evil is solved in time. The believer might indeed repent, but since he has scarred his soul, he isn't as quick to avoid the same sin, the next time the temptation arises. The consequence of evil is that scarring of the soul. This is one mechanism by which the cults or even mainline orthodox churches fall away from His Will.
All sin was paid for on the Cross by an impersonal love for man by God. Now, it is possible to return to fellowship immediately by confessing those sins to God through faith in Christ. Sin had already been judged. Evil has not been so judged. Evil will still have effects on the soul and must be dealt with in time.
The unrepentant believer, when studying doctrine and Scripture, fails to bring that Word of God into His soul and spirit, but instead is performing a human good, out of fellowship with God, consequently scarring his soul so that when he returns to God, he is less likely to obey a holy conscience, but instead might asscoiate by thinking, that the same response he had while a soulsh man, is indeed the path of God because of that scarred soul. A major reason why religiousity is so tragic to the believer's walk if he falls away. Even more tragic, misery loves company, so the soulish unrepentent believer is very likely to associate with other fallen believers, even form religious groups with one another and then begin to reinforce one another in their vice, rather than in common worship and fellowship with God. Funny thing, is that the institution of the Church can never solve this. It ultimately depends upon the individual believer and the groups of believers to reinforce eith other, while in fellowship with God.
Or perhaps, "all sorts."
I'm a Calminian. My response to this issue is "both-and." How's that for muddying the waters.
Pretty good!
In the previous chapter we looked at over 300 verses that say salvation is open to everyone. These verses use words like all, everyone, whoever, world, etc.
The same old tired misrepresentations of definite atonement. Exegesis has been provided for each of these. Does the author reference and refute these? No. This is either intellectually dishonest or the author is ignorant of the arguments. Either way, that renders the piece useless. Come on ftD, I know that you know the arguments much better than this. Please find pieces that provide honest, informed arguments. Here's a challenge: either provide yourself or find someone who handles John 6:35-65 in context. Now that would be interesting!
come on now!
As for Jn.6:35-65 see Vances work on it, he does deal with them.
Moreover, they really aren't that difficult.
Speaking of Romans 11:32, 1Tim.2:6, 2Pet.3:9, one writer notes
It takes an exegetical ingenuity which is something other than a learned virtusity to evactuate these texts of their obvious meaning. It takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explict universality (Vernon C.Grounds, God's Universal Salvic Grace, p.27, in Grace Unlimited, Ed.Pinnock)
As for Jn.6:35-65 see Vances work on it, he does deal with them.
I don't have Vance's work. Perhaps you could exerpt it. That would be an interesting read.
It takes an exegetical ingenuity which is something other than a learned virtusity to evactuate these texts of their obvious meaning. It takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explict universality (Vernon C.Grounds, God's Universal Salvic Grace, p.27, in Grace Unlimited, Ed.Pinnock)
This is simply bluster and ad hominem. I want to see analysis of the text in context.
What I do not understand Rochester. If God really desires that all men everywhere with out exception be saved,why did He place some in a time and place where they could never hear and respond to the gospel? Why did he Harden some hearts and blind some minds?
They really need to consider that the word PAS does not mean all men without exception . That would make God a hapless god that lied in His word.
Is His arm too short to save?
Amen!
If we who are wicked find it appalling how much more a Loving and Just God!
We are the Lords elected few
Let all the rest be damned;
There's room enough in hell for you,
We won't have heaven crammed!
Who is CTD?
Moreover, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
This is not a 'debating' contest.
As Corin pointed out, some have better debating skills then others, yet, no sinful man is going to out debate Satan, but that does not mean that he is right.
Now you know that the issue in unconditional election and conditional election is the Love of God and the Justice of God.
Why would a loving God create beings for the purpose of sending them to hell when He could save them with a soverign decree as He does the 'elect'
How is God Just in saving some and not all when all deserve the same fate and the fact is, man is in the position that he is in because God decreed Adam's Fall.
The Calvinist runs to Sovereignity, but Sovereignity cannot contradict God's very nature, as expressed in Scripture.
God is sovereign, but not in the way expressed in TULIP.
Well here is a little song that the Particular Baptists use to sing,
None of the Regular Bapists or Reformed Bapists I know would sing this. I would be surprised if any Calvinist on FR would be sing that. Heaven will include all His chosen people. Personally, I like the chorus in Rev 5:9...
Sovereignity cannot contradict God's very nature, as expressed in Scripture.
As it has been presented by the Calvinsits here, it doesn't
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.