All Men Saved

Predestination is the doctrine that God alone is the One who chooses who is saved, that He ordains the means, the time, and the circumstances of salvation and that without His predestination, no one would ever be saved. In part this is because human nature is so completely corrupted by sin that no person is capable of choosing God unless God first regenerates that person. But any Bible student will soon discover there are verses which say God wants all men to be saved. For example, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV). The question, then, is if God predestines only some to salvation, why are there verses that say God wants all to be saved?

The answer is simple: The "all" are the Christians. Now, before you toss this paper aside, please try to be open-minded. I will prove that the "all" in at least three important verses that deal with salvation means the Christians. To do so, I would like to examine 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, and then Rom. 5:18 where the word "all" is used in a way that can only mean the elect. Then I will examine other apparent universal passages.

Before I begin, and for clarity, I would like to introduce a couple of terms: Arminianism and Calvinism. Essentially, Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the Christians.

Also, I would like to introduce a principle that will become important later in this paper. It will help us in understanding God's word. Let's say we have two sets of scriptures that are related. For example, they deal with salvation and contain the word "all." And let's say that some of the scriptures can be interpreted in two ways, and the rest of the scriptures can only be interpreted one way. It follows then that those that can be interpreted two ways must be interpreted in harmony with those that have only one interpretation.

If the first group of salvation verses containing "all" have two interpretations and the second group of salvation verses containing "all" has only one possible interpretation...Then the first group must be interpreted in such a way as to agree with the second group; both must be interpreted as, say, "B." This will prove helpful in looking at scriptures later, especially after we've examined the next three verses.

One last thing: you will find that though I seek to prove a single presupposition, I end up discussing several points. This is because of the intermingling of theological ideas that flow from the verses discussed. I simply ask that you bear with me.

"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

At first glance the phrase "He died for all" would lead you to think that Jesus died for every individual who has ever lived. But upon a closer look we see something different revealed. When Paul speaks of people dying, in relation to the death of Christ, he is speaking of the Christians who have died in Christ: "Now if we have died with Christ..." (Rom. 6:8); "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world..." (Col. 2:20); "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3); "It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him" (2 Tim. 2:11). The only ones who have died with Christ are the believers, not the unbelievers. Therefore, this verse can only make sense if it is understood that the "all" spoken of is not everyone who has ever lived, but only the Christians: "...that one (Jesus) died for all (the Christians), therefore all (the Christians) died..."

But, you might ask, "If God meant only the Christians, then why did He use the word ‘all'?" I believe it is because from all eternity God knew who He had chosen to be the elect and the eternal plan of redemption was carried out to reclaim "all" He had chosen. Therefore, the "all" to Him is the all for which He intended the death of Christ to atone.

It is important here that you understand that sometimes God uses words differently than we do. For example, the Bible says that God only knows believers, not unbelievers. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27, NIV); "...The Lord knows those who are his," (2 Tim. 2:19, NIV); "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,'' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matt. 7:21-23, NIV). Of course, God knows who everyone is, He is omniscient. But the way He is using the word in relation to the saved is different than we use it: He knows the Christians, and doesn't know the non-Christians. This knowing is an intimate, familiar kind of knowing.

You see, it is important to understand that the Bible best interprets itself. We need to see how it uses words and phrases and then, once we have a clearer understanding, attempt to interpret the Word of God.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming."

Who are the ones who will be made alive? They are the Christians and only the Christians. First of all, to be "in Christ" is a phrase that describes a saving relationship between the redeemed and the Redeemer: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1, NIV) (See also, Rom. 6:11; 12:5; 16:7; 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.); second, those who are made alive at Christ's coming are the believers. We will be made alive with Christ: "By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also" (1 Cor. 6:14, NIV); "in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed" (1 Cor. 15:52, NIV).

The "all" that died in Adam were all that Adam represented: every individual who ever lived. Those "in Christ" are only believers. The "all" therefore can only be the believers, because it says "in Christ all shall be made alive." If all shall be made alive, then the "all" can only mean the believers because only believers are made alive in Christ. There simply isn't any biblically consistent alternative interpretation. But you might object and say that the first "all" refers to everybody, obviously. So why, then, doesn't the second do the same? Because the second "all" can't refer to everyone. Only the Christians are made alive.

It could be said that everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, will be raised; only the unbelievers are raised to receive damnation. This is true, but it does not fit here in this passage because it is speaking of those who are Christ's; that is, the believers. The "all" of these verses can only be the elect.

"So, as through one offense, there resulted condemnation to all men, so also, through one righteous deed, there resulted justification of life to all men."

so therefore as through one offense into all men into condemnation, so also through one righteous deed into all men into justification of life"

So, therefore, as through one offense, into all men into condemnation, so, also, through one righteous deed, into all men into justification of life.

Because there is no verb in this verse (it is not unusual in Greek for there to be no verb in a sentence), a verb must be borrowed or implied. Since there isn't a verb close enough in the previous verses to borrow and that would fit appropriately, one from the context must be derived. A smoothed out version would be:

So, as through one offense, there resulted condemnation to all men, so also, through one righteous deed, there resulted justification of life to all men.

We know that inserting the words "there resulted" into the text is correct by simple logic. The offense of Adam resulted in condemnation to all men--no one disputes that. Adam represented all his people (everybody) in the garden. When he sinned, we fell with him. There was a result, an actual result to his sin: condemnation. It follows that "there resulted" should be in the second part of the sentence as well because the second part has the same syntax as the first and says "also." That is, Paul is implying a parallel between the actions of Adam and the actions of Jesus. Adam represented his people; Jesus represented His.

1) The structure of the first and the second parts of the verse are the same: adverb(s), preposition, noun, (verb place), noun, and object.

Paul is trying to make it clear in this verse that the deeds of the respective persons had definite results upon those whom they represented. That is why the verse is really two sentences of identical structure.

Adam's sin resulted in condemnation to all Jesus' sacrifice resulted in justification to all

Where the first Adam brought condemnation to all, the second Adam (Jesus is called the second Adam in 1 Cor. 15:45) brought justification to all--that is what the text says, despite the apparent problem of "all people being justified."

Justification is being declared legally righteous before God. If someone is declared legally righteous before God, then he is saved. Only the saved are justified: "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him " (Rom. 5:9). Since the Scriptures clearly teach that not all men are saved (Matt 25:31-33), we know that the "all" in this verse can't refer to every individual. It must refer to something other than everyone who ever lived. I conclude that the "all" can only mean the Christians. God was so sure of His predestination that to Him, the elect are the "all" He wishes to save.

The NASB gives the best translation: "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."

The NIV does not translate it as literally. It 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 NIV is right in adding the word "result." The NIV is an excellent translation but in this verse it sacrifices the literalness needed to draw out this aspect of biblical teaching.

Furthermore, if the verb phrase "that brings" is in the second part, it should then be in the first part of the verse because the verse is two identical thoughts. If that were done, then "that brings" would take on the meaning of result, because condemnation is exactly what resulted to all men when Adam sinned. Since the verse is in two identical parts, what is done to one should be done to the other. The NIV is not consistent in its translation at this point.

The KJV translates it thus: "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The words "free gift" are not in the Greek. The translators have drawn conclusions, though accurate ones, but I believe this too does injustice to the text by not letting it say what it says. Also, if the free gift simply came upon all people, then it does not mean that it resulted, and the apparent problem of all people being justified is taken care of. Unfortunately, that isn't what the Greek says.

I believe some translators of the Bible, when coming across this verse, realize the problem of saying the atonement resulted in justification to all men. They assume the "all" means every individual and then translate the scripture in light of their theology to allow harmony with their interpretations of the rest of the scriptures. I think that is a mistake. Translators should translate the text as accurately as possible, even if it conflicts with their theology.

In these three verses it is clear that God has used the word "all" differently than what would normally be expected. This is an indication that God has intended for the "all" to be saved, and they are. When God is thinking of the "all" He is thinking of a specific group. These three verses bare that out. But, what about other verses that have a universal flavor to them?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

If predestination is true, then why does this verse state "whoever believes" will be saved? The Bible says that faith is a gift from God (Rom. 12:3); that it is God who grants belief (Phil. 1:29); it is God who produces belief in a person (John 6:29); and only those appointed to eternal life by God are the ones who believe (Acts 13:48). Also, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). In order for someone to believe, they must hear the gospel of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4) because the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). There is no other name under heaven besides Jesus by which anyone may be saved (Act 4:12). And, one must receive Jesus (John 1:12) in order to be saved.

Since these things are true, then how can the "whoever" of John 3:16 apply to those who never heard the Word of God? There are multitudes who never heard the gospel at all, who never had the chance. Consider the Aborigines, the Bushmen, the Eskimos, or the American Indians, who died before the time of Christ, or who even lived before the time of Christ. Yet they NEVER heard ANYTHING about Christianity, the atonement, the resurrection, the holy scriptures, or the gospel. It was never preached to them at all. How, then, can the "whoever" apply to them when they have no chance of hearing the Word of God concerning Jesus and salvation? From what I know of scripture, they cannot.

To answer this question some say that those who never heard the gospel will not be judged the same way as those who have. But that answer contradicts the scriptures that clearly say no one gets to the Father but through Jesus (John 14:6); that it is the gospel that saves (Rom. 1:16); the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection for sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4); and, there is no other name under heaven besides Jesus by which anyone may be saved (Acts 4:12).

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

Does the "all" here refer to every individual on the planet? If yes, then how can they be drawn and come to salvation if they never hear of Jesus and the gospel message? I don't see how they can since they never had the opportunity to hear and, therefore, believe in Jesus. Again, what about the tribesmen in the Amazon? What about the Incas and Aztecs at the time of Christ? What about the countless people who had never even heard of Jesus, the Bible, Jehovah, or the Jews? How are they drawn if Jesus draws all men? They certainly must be drawn if the Arminian position is valid and the "all" here means every individual. But no one can believe unless they hear the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). How can the heathen believe without hearing? How can they all be drawn if they never hear the gospel or even have the slightest chance to ever hear it? They cannot.

Romans 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" The question again here is, who are the "all"? Are they every individual on the planet who ever lived (the Arminian position) or are they the elect, the chosen of God (the Calvinist position)? We need to examine the verses in their context.

Romans 8:31-38: "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all -- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died -- more than that, who was raised to life -- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (NIV).

Verse 31 starts the context and it is clearly speaking of the Christians. Only those who are covered by the blood of the Lamb have been reconciled and are no longer enemies of God (Rom. 8:7). The "us" of verse 31 can only refer to the Christians. Verse 32 speaks of Jesus' sacrifice for "us all." Is the "us" suddenly everyone, the unbeliever too? Verse 33 speaks of the ones God has chosen; that is, the Christians. Verse 34 speaks of Jesus' intercession for "us"; the "us" can only be the Christian's because Jesus is not mediating for the unbeliever. Verses 35-39 speak of the Christians inseparability with God. It is clear that the whole context is speaking about Christians and no one else. The "us all" of Rom. 8:32 must, then, refer to the Christians.

Before beginning the next section, I need to propose what I think is a correct supposition regarding the mind of the Jews and, therefore, bears influence on interpreting the writers of the N.T. It is this: The Jews were so narrowly minded that they considered the Messiah to be for them only, not the whole world.

That is why there are salvation verses that speak of all being saved, of a sacrifice not only for our sins, but those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). In other words, Jesus is the savior not only of the Jews, but of all people, including the Gentiles -- the whole world. Please consider the following as proof of Paul's attempt to correct the mistaken idea that the Jews alone were to be saved:

Rom. 1:16: "for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Rom. 2:9-10: "There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Rom. 10:12: "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him." Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Incidentally, the "all" here means only the believers.) Col. 3:11: "and a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew..."

1 Timothy 2:4-6: "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."

First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers. To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians. Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.

Second, considering that "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18 can only mean the Christians, it follows that when we approach verses like 1 Tim. 2:4-6, there is legitimacy in interpreting it in a consistent manner with the other verses; that is, the "all" is the elect. Therefore, 1 Tim. 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:

2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians. But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.

Also, there is the problem of answering how the desire of God is thwarted. The Arminian position has the desires of God frequently thwarted in addition to having the decision of God depend on the decision of man. God can only save someone if that someone makes the right choice.

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

Peter wrote this epistle to the Christians. "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). Also, "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you..." (2 Peter 3:1).

In the immediate context, verse 8, says, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

It is very clear that Peter is talking to the believers. It follows, then, that in verse 9 when it says the Lord is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, he again is speaking of the believers. God's patience is here told to be toward the believers, not the unbelievers. God does not want any of them (the believers, the elect) to perish. And they won't, because God's wishes are not thwarted. But again if "any" is every individual then we again have the problem of God's desires being thwarted.

John 1:19: "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp. However, if the sins of every individual are actually taken away, then why do any go to hell? After all, aren't all the sins taken away? "Ah," but you say, "they are taken away only if that person believes." The only problem with that is that Jesus' blood is sufficient to cleanse of all sin, even the sin of unbelief. Therefore, even that sin is covered. Remember, it says that the sins were taken away by the cross of Christ, not made possible to be taken away.

John 6:33: "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." How is "gives life" to be understood? Does it mean that the life is offered or does it mean that it is given? If something is offered, it does not mean that it is received. If it is given, then it carries with that word the implication that it is received. Only the believers receive life. The world in general is the recipient of that life.

John 6:51: "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Simply partaking of the Lord's Supper does not guarantee salvation. To eat the bread of Jesus means that it must be done by faith--which only the believer, only those who are appointed to eternal life and believe (Acts 13:48), can do. This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp.

Rom. 11:12,15: "Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!...15For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" It is only the Christians who are reconciled. If the Jews' rejection of the Christ be the reconciliation of the world, "the world" there must mean the believers. It cannot mean that every individual is reconciled to God; otherwise, everyone would be saved, and this simply isn't true. If you say this means that reconciliation is generally applied to the world and that whoever wants to believe may, then you are ignoring what the verse says, that their rejection be the reconciliation of the world.

2 Cor. 5:19: "namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." Again Paul speaks of God reconciling the world to Himself. This verse is even more clear than Rom. 11:12,15, for it states what the reconciliation of the world entails: not counting their trespasses against them. This clearly means salvation for only the Christians who are forgiven and reconciled. The word "world" here can only mean the Christians. Its interpretation makes the most sense in the Calvinist camp.

Hebrews 2:9: "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. " This verse can be interpreted in both the Arminian and Calvinistic camps. The Arminian and the Calvinist say that Christ tasted death for everyone. To the Calvinist, the death of Christ actually removes the wrath of God upon the ungodly (the elect). To the Arminian the death of Christ was for all and doesn't actually remove the wrath; it makes it possible for the wrath to be removed based upon a human condition: belief. Therefore, the choice of God depends upon the choice of the person man.

Matt. 26:28: "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Notice that the verse does not say for all, but for many.

John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." and John 10:15: "even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." Both these verses specifically state that Jesus laid His life down for the sheep (Christians) as opposed to the goats (non-Christians). These verses are best interpreted in the Calvinist camp. Frankly, I don't see how this could be interpreted in the Arminian sense at all.

John 17:9: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine." Jesus is making a distinction in His prayers to the Father in regard to who is being asked for. It is the ones whom the Father gives to the Son that are being prayed for. The whole of John 17 bears this out. Jesus is not praying for everyone. His prayers are "limited."

Acts 20:28: "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp but makes more sense in the Calvinist one. It was the church that was purchased with the blood. The unbeliever was not purchased. Also, this shows that there was a result, a direct result to the sacrifice: the church was purchased, not made possible to be purchased. It occurred. It happened because of the atonement. The Arminian might say that the purchase made by the blood becomes effectual only after the person believes in Jesus. But this is a problem because then the sacrifice of Christ must await validation and efficacy depending upon what people do. I see that as a problem because the infinite value of Christ's blood accomplished what it was shed for; it purchased the church.

Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp but makes more sense in the Calvinist one. Jesus gave Himself up for the church, not the unbelievers.

Rom. 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with him freely give us all things?" I addressed this verse above. The "all" here can only mean the believers. Paul is speaking of the saved which is why he says that God will "freely give us all things".

Isaiah 53:12: "Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors." Obviously this speaks of a limited sacrifice, that Jesus bore the sin of many, not all. How does the Arminian interpret this passage?

Heb. 9:28: "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." Again, another verse that says that Jesus bore the sins of many, not all.

It seems clear that God sometimes uses words differently than we do. When we examine the scriptures, we see that "all" when used in the context of salvation can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1) It can only mean the elect, 2) it can mean everyone. As I mentioned above, when two sets of related scriptures have various interpretations and there are a few that can only be interpreted one way, then it seems best to interpret all the scriptures in such a way so that they agree.

When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines. He died for those He predestined. And He has been working from all eternity to atone for, sanctify, and glorify His elect. It will occur because God has ordained it so.

"Interesting argument. If we follow it through this same convicted felon who has accepted the pardon can go right back to committing crimes and then will go back to prison if he's caught. IOW, salvation is only good if you "toe the line". If you deviate you lose it? "

Ah, but all sins past present and future went to the cross with Jesus. A Christian has effectively been pardoned for his future sins as well.

So can a Christian commit sin with impunity? Hardly. A Christian "has been bought with a price". And he has been "adopted". If a Christian commits sin, he may well find himself being chastised by God, but it will not affect his salvation. Nothing can change his "adopted" status.

The prophet Joel wrote that God would write his laws on their hearts and they would never leave him. Jesus said, He would never drive them away. Paul said that "He is able to keep that which I've committed, until Him against that day."

We won't leave Him, He won't drive us away. And our salvation is firmly in His hands, not ours. Because of the pardon, in one sense we have been "perfected forever". But we can certainly still sin, as Paul clearly communicated he still struggled with his old nature.

Hbr 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

"Both are correct. We need God to draw us AND we have to come to our senses and turn to Christ. God draws all men, but not all come to their senses. We have to respond to God's invitation.

You make accepting the gift of salvation, sound like work. It is not "work" to accept a gift. Nor does a "free gift" become a "reward" merely because you accept it."

Jesus' words in the Gospel according to John disagree with you, my FRiend. Chap. 6:44 and again in :65, Jesus makes it clear that, "No man CAN come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Unless you are a universalist, you must admit not everyone will be raised up on the last day. Thus, if anyone is left, then Jesus must be arguing that not everyone will be drawn. But, even more importantly, if you are drawn, you will be raised up.

This is part of the very foundational views of the Reformation, the Irresistible Grace of God. When He sets His sights on a man, that grace begins to impinge upon the heart until it cannot resist the drawing to confess and believe. This Amazing Grace is not something we induce, request, assist, or even are aware of in the early stages as God's Spirit adopts us, regenerates us, thus making us alive to the fact we are beiing rescued.

And I certainly do not want to imply this is a "work". The glory of the Gospel is that it is truly not a "work" of any kind on our part. Not a decision, not a commitment, not a prayer, not a ceremony, not an acquiescence to a creed, not a joining to a group...nothing. It begins by God raising us from the dead, while we are at war with Him, and clothing us in the righteousness of His Son. This He has promised to do for those elect before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1). Then, and only then, do we begin to recognize what is happening to us as our hearts of stone have been replaced by hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26).

This is what the Scriptures means by being "born again". Just as you had no conscious part of being born the first time, you cannot elect to be born again. Should a man respond and repent (change his mind)? Certainly, but which has happened first...the adoption or the change in thinking? According to Paul, the change in thinking is a product of the adoption. This is a crucial distinction and separates believers from religionists. And, this is precisely why the Gospel is such good news. There is no "work" for me to do, no work I can do.

Should I try to grow as a beleiver afterward? Absolutely. But, even this is the work of God. Phil. 2:12, 13 "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God at work in you both to WILL and DO for His good pleasure." Who exactly is inducing the "work" here?

"Jesus' words in the Gospel according to John disagree with you, my FRiend. Chap. 6:44 and again in :65, Jesus makes it clear that, "No man CAN come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. But that doesn't say that everyone the Father draws will come. God tries to draw all men. Some just won't respond.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It doesn't sound like we disagree all that much. I firmly believe in the Blessed Assurance that once the Lord has us in His hand nothing can pull us away.

So it seems where our views differ is prior to that point where we believe The Gospel and are saved. If this is the case why does the individual have free will before and not after?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The author made a good point that had not occurred to me before in reference to the "all". He pointed out that from the Jewish perspective the Messiah was strictly for them, that from their view there was no consideration of "all" including Gentiles. However, it's clear in the NT that through Jesus Christ "all" meaning Gentiles as well are to be saved, IF they believe The Gospel.

IOW, we should be thinking the word "all" means people from every nation, but not all people of the Earth.

"I am very familiar with the context. Paul was not recreating a legal code, but rather applying broad Christian concepts to the practices of the Jews. In doing so he contextually referenced willful sin as not being absolved by the blood of sacrificial animals. The characterization of sin as a willful act was presented as a given."

There is no place in the Scriptures which claim that man has no "will". That is, if by the definition of "will" you mean a perception that the man/woman is making a decision to do things. The underlying question is, "Is this 'will' being conditioned, managed, guided by God or is the man an entity with complete freedom in this decision making?" The answer Scripture provides is, "There is nothing without the direct influence of God's management."

All of the admonitions to, "...do this, do that..." may seem to imply to you that there must be "freedom" to accompany the request or they would be meaningless. Sorry, this is your misunderstanding. The entire point of the Mosaic Law was to demonstrate the inability of the Jews to be holy. Irrespective of effort, intent, piety, or work. Read Paul's epistles, especially Romans & Galations. God asked Israel many times to do something, all the while denying them the ability to perform. Why? To demonstrate their broken natures. And, the need for His intervention.

God is managing it all. But, if you believe I am arguing that this removes my guilt, let me assure you I am not. The Scripture is crystal clear...men will be held responsible in spite of the fact that He manages us into the sin.

And an uproarious argument against this claim is precisely what Paul anticipated he would hear from Roman congregations who read his letter (Chap. 9). "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul's answer is sobering. Who exactly do you think you are to question God's right to do this? Are you God's judge? He can, and does, exactly as He wishes with each person, molding them, making them into vessels for honor...or destruction. Erase this material from your theology at your own peril.

"So Hitler's sins, by virtue of his baptism, was pardoned for his future sins and was therefore under no obligation to alter his behavior? Go figure...... "

Your premise that baptism saves you is false. Repentance and accepting Jesus as your savior is what saves you. Baptism is the first act of obedience and is symbolic of the salvation and new life that has already occurred.

But nevertheless, let's consider the possibilities of Hitler's salvation....

Suppose Hitler had repented of sin and accepted Jesus prior to his atrocities. It's really hard for me to imagine that anybody can get that confused after accepting Jesus. But let's keep in mind, King David, who clearly had a relationship with the Lord. King David committed adultery and murder and it took God sending a prophet to confront David before he would admit his sin. There were clear consequences to David's sin. But three or four chapters later we see God has so completely forgiven David that he calls him a man after His own heart. The consequences still followed David, but was David forgiven. Yes.

So would Hitler be forgiven had he accepted Jesus before committing his crimes? Yes he would. However, clearly Hitler's life was cut short. Not before much pain was inflicted on the world, but it was cut short.

Now let's suppose Hitler found salvation after committing his crimes. Could he have? Well, we have the Apostle Paul who prior to his conversion was known as Saul and was running around killing Christians and doing so in the name of God no less. So it's basically the same crime, Hitler just did it on a grander scale. So yes, I believe Hitler could have been saved. I don't think he was, but if the Lord dismissed his sin, I'm not going to argue about it. I'm just glad He dismissed mine. In fact, it doesn't even have to be the same crime to get lumped together. Jesus said if you have broken one part of the law, you have broken the whole law.

The thing that separates Judeo-Christianity from all other religions, is that other religions teach you have to be "good enough". Only Judeo-Christianity calls people to be perfect and holy. Only Judeo-Christianity teaches that you didn't qualify and so you need a Savior.

God doesn't judge on a bell curve of man's goodness. Where if you're better than Hitler, or better than average, you're ok. It doesn't matter whether you are Hitler or Mother Teresa, compared to God and his perfect holy standard, you stand condemned.

There are two ways to be perfect. Never sin, but scripture records that we all have, that none of us are righteous and all have fallen short of the glory of God. And 2) be forgiven. And the only plan to grant forgiveness requires Jesus.

I don’t know about “protect the obedient”. God pretty watched Satan beat the Hell out of Job, and Job was obedient.

The only thing God wouldn't allow Satan to do was kill Job. Satan took everything from Job and God allowed that to happen. Job remained obedient but he sure did his share of complaining go God about the things that were happening to him. Job is right when he insists upon his own virtue and innocence. But Job does go wrong when he thinks that God is doing all this to him on purpose, deliberately, with malice of forethought.

Thus God's answer to Job "Who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge? ... Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" [38:1-2,4a,7]

As I read Job during a particularly difficult time in my own life, I found our Father's answer to Job and his subsequent blessings on him particularly comforting. It's during the times of trial and tribulation that the Lord works wonders in our hearts and lives. We always come out better for it.

If there is no such thing as "free" will. There there is no such thing as sin. How can man be held accountable for that which he had no control over? And if there is no sin, then there is no need for redemption.

Spot on. To which I'd add: If there's no such thing as free-will and all who are saved are already pre-destined, then exactly what is the point of our existence in the first place?

Would God have deliberately made mankind so flawed and incapable of choosing Him that He himself had to determine the outcomes of our existence?

And if that were true, then why is there evil in our world? Clearly a loving Father who just so happened to pre-determine everything would never allow evil in the world, would he?

I read that as God wills all people of the earth to come to repentance. He draws all people. He gives them time. But not all respond to His drawing.

Then why didn't all the world hear The Gospel. There are large areas of the earth that never heard The Gospel at the time of Christ, or in the centuries following. In fact there are still people who do not have a Bible translated into their native tongue. If Jesus Christ died for all people why is the process so slow getting The Gospel to all people so they can believe.

Secondly, if it's totally up to the individual to respond why do some respond and not others. I don't believe there are any studies that show Christians have a greater IQ than the rest of the population. What causes Christians to be wise enough to recognize their fallen state and need of a Savior?

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.