If God died for the sake of all men, then why isn't each and every man saved - if man has nothing to do with salvation?
Finally without agreeing with me in the slightest I trust that you can understand why I understand that your involvement with God in your salvation makes you the final arbiter; that applies to the other guy also.
With all due respect, I disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I would say that "perseverance of the saints" is a doctrine where the so-called "saint" is the final arbiter. According to each and every Calvinist, they somehow KNOW that they are one of the elect. As of right now, I don't know, nor do I presume to know that I am of the elect. How does my point of view make me the final arbiter of salvation, while your presumption to be in the Book of Life - and not to be blotted out - is not?
Regards
There are numerous replies to that question on this thread alone. The short answer lies in the interpretation of all as in all men. Since Scripture is inerrant & since Scripture under illumination of the Holy Spirit is properly used to interpret Scripture it is advisable to do so. So if you will note there are many Scriptures that seem to the natural man to say the opposite.
So if you are concerned about such things you might perform a word search in a study of the various meanings of all. If you performed that word study of the underlying word which is translated all you will find that all is frequently not meant in any universal sense. That of course is also true of the plain old English use of the word in everday life.
I admit that man being involved in a separate but equal sense in his salvation gets God off the hook, but only superficially, for "how in the world did sin get into Adam & us!?"; that in spite of the three omni's of an all loving God; but God is off the hook only superficially.
If I could answer the question of sin under the light of nature or the light of grace I would be God; realizing that, I have not asked the question you have asked since January of 1970 when confronted with Romans 9. At that time I realized that my asking that question alone implied that I was making myself more righteous than God (I was helped by Job 4:17, Job 40:8, Rom 9 & ...)
Your answer is superficial in that, in view of the three omni's of an all loving God, you also have a question beyond the question. Take a guess at that question; it begins “Why would a …?”
Currently some so-called theologians are removing at least one of the three omni’s to get God off the hook for the entrance of sin; or they might simply deny God’s sovereignty over His creation. All of this is in my opinion replete with the worst kind of sophistry.
The only answer natural man has to the epoch event that ushered in sin that is consistent with the three omni's of an all loving God is universal salvation; salvation for all angels & men (all in the universal sense you posed in your opening question). That does not appear to me to be consistent with Scripture; however there are men who hold that view.
The only answer, in my opinion, for believers is to not ask the question; after all what were the answers Jesus gave to Satan & others regarding entrapment type questions. We must of course trust & rely on the Scripture that God is not the author of sin. Then for those of us who believe that that old heretic from the 1500’s had it right when he spoke in a teaching way about three lights, the lights of nature, grace, & glory, we can resort to the light of glory. As for myself I guess that none of us will either want to know and/or be told the answer
I will even go so far as to say that neither you nor I should challenge the other with the question because it will nearly always be asked in a rhetorical sense. I believe that some have honestly asked the question so I am not trying to avoid it when asked honestly outside of what is clearly a debate. However I am quite certain the answer will be the same as, or similar to, the “old heretic of the 1500’s” non-answer.
I will try to answer the other half of the first question on another post. To be continued: