Poll on OSAS

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What do you believe?

  • Always had salvation (Calvinism)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
The Barrd said:
No, King J, these are verses that very clearly warn us that we can fall from grace, and lose our salvation.
Here are some of the more obvious ones:
I believe Paul speaking respectfully to all is the reason for us debating OSAS today :). He never differentiated between saved and unsaved. He always spoke to all in the church as though they were Christians. IE He differentiated between those professing to be saved VS those not professing to be saved. I mean just consider the fact that he had to tell Christians'' to stop incest in 1 Cor 5. Then in 1 Cor 5:13 we see he says expel the wicked from among you. So he is talking to Christians to judge themselves for extreme sexual immorality and then explaining that one caught in such is extremely wicked. IE not a Christian. Expelled immediately. Of course he would also say unless they repent don't expel (Christian).

So we see that Paul is simply talking respectfully. Assuming all are Christians that love Jesus. He is doing this for those in church who are not Christians, changed and renewed. So as to not to chase them away with self righteous judgment from us who are. IE he made blanket statements to all in the church.

We see clarification in verses like 1 Cor 6:9-13 where he gets quite literal by saying...If you are practicing these...you will NOT be in heaven.

One thing is certain that we can all agree on. We must all judge ourselves harshly in fear and trembling Phil 2:12, 1 Cor 11:31.

The actual difference between OSAS and non OSAS is really not that material in how it effects our day to day living.
 

KingJ

New Member
Mar 18, 2011
1,568
45
0
41
South Africa
OzSpen said:
King J,

From the link that I gave to what Jacob Arminius wrote on 'The Perseverance of the Saints', we can understand that Arminius says that those who have been grafted into Christ by faith, have the continuing ministry of the grace of the Holy Spirit, are preserved by Christ from falling away. However, he considered it was worthy of Scriptural investigation to consider if it is possible for those who neglect their existence in Christ, pursue evil, reject sound doctrine, can thus cause Divine grace to be useless. He affirmed that he never taught that a true believer will finally fall away from the faith to damnation but there are passages that seem to indicate that aspect. However, there are verses which affirm unconditional perseverance.

As to my understanding, I consider that those who are grafted into Christ through faith in Christ alone for salvation and persevere to the end of life as believers, are saved. Matt 24:10 (ESV) speaks about 'many will fall away'; 'many false prophets will arise' (Matt 24:11 ESV); lawlessness will increase and 'the love of many will grow cold' (Matt 24:12 ESV), BUT ... BUT ... 'But the one who endures to the end will be saved' (Matt 24:13 ESV, emphasis added).

How do I explain 2 Cor 5:17 (ESV)? This reads, 'Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation [or creature]. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come'. This verse does not contradict what I've said. The person who is grafted into Christ is a new creature and the old has passed away with the new creation coming because of faith in Christ. That faith will be demonstrated by persevering to the end. I consider that Henry Thiessen's definition summarises the biblical material well:


I hope that that gives some more clarity to my understanding of the perseverance of the saints. Both Calvinists and Classical/Reformed Arminians teach this view.

Oz

Works consulted
Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Thanks Oz. That link you gave is not working for me.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
KingJ said:
I believe Paul speaking respectfully to all is the reason for us debating OSAS today :). He never differentiated between saved and unsaved. He always spoke to all in the church as though they were Christians. IE He differentiated between those professing to be saved VS those not professing to be saved. I mean just consider the fact that he had to tell Christians'' to stop incest in 1 Cor 5. Then in 1 Cor 5:13 we see he says expel the wicked from among you. So he is talking to Christians to judge themselves for extreme sexual immorality and then explaining that one caught in such is extremely wicked. IE not a Christian. Expelled immediately. Of course he would also say unless they repent don't expel (Christian).

So we see that Paul is simply talking respectfully. Assuming all are Christians that love Jesus. He is doing this for those in church who are not Christians, changed and renewed. So as to not to chase them away with self righteous judgment from us who are. IE he made blanket statements to all in the church.

We see clarification in verses like 1 Cor 6:9-13 where he gets quite literal by saying...If you are practicing these...you will NOT be in heaven.

One thing is certain that we can all agree on. We must all judge ourselves harshly in fear and trembling Phil 2:12, 1 Cor 11:31.

The actual difference between OSAS and non OSAS is really not that material in how it effects our day to day living.
First of all, there is some precedent:

Eze 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Eze 18:25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
Eze 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Paul was always respectful? I wonder what these two guys would think about that:

1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
 

ATP

New Member
Jan 3, 2015
3,264
49
0
U.S.A.
KingJ said:
We see clarification in verses like 1 Cor 6:9-13 where he gets quite literal by saying...If you are practicing these...you will NOT be in heaven.
That is incorrect and sloppy exegesis. That is what we used to be, but not anymore....

1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 2:3 NIV All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Wormwood said:
The first person to teach OSAS was Augustine, who also originated the "Calvinist" system in general. The system was based in the concept of total depravity which involved bondage of the will and resulted in a monergistic view of salvation.

Later, there have been those who have rejected the Calvinist system who felt the OSAS doctrine could stand alone, even though they may have rejected the monergistic view from which the doctrine was developed. So, OSAS is a logical necessity for the Calvinist, wheras others felt a need to hold to the view, "independent of its original and logical mooring."

Personally, I feel that if one rejects the root of TULIP system (TULI) there is little reason to hold on to the fruit of it (P). I do not find sufficient biblical justification for it, although I realize I likely hold the minority view.
Wormwood,

I think we need to be careful about the language we use about Augustine's view of perseverance of the saints. He did not use the OSAS language and concepts. That's a modern view. This is what Augustine wrote (translated into English). It is from his writing, 'On the Predestination of the Saints, Book 2':

Chapter 1 [I.]— Of the Nature of the Perseverance Here Discoursed of.

I Have now to consider the subject of perseverance with greater care; for in the former book also I said some things on this subject when I was discussing the beginning of faith. I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become incontinent—or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience, if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. But how should he who has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that any one shows himself persevering—and this he has not done? But lest any one should object to this, and say, If from the time at which any one became a believer he has lived— for the sake of argument— ten years, and in the midst of them has fallen from the faith, has he not persevered for five years? I am not contending about words. If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by which one perseveres in Christ even to the end. And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years' standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the steadfastness of his faith.

Chapter 2 [II.]— Faith is the Beginning of a Christian Man. Martyrdom for Christ's Sake is His Best Ending.

This matter being settled, let us see whether this perseverance, of which it was said, He that perseveres unto the end, the same shall be saved, Matthew 10:22 is a gift of God. And if it be not, how is that saying of the apostle true: Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake? Philippians 2:29 Of these things, certainly, one has respect to the beginning, the other to the end. Yet each is the gift of God, because both are said to be given; as, also, I have already said above. For what is more truly the beginning for a Christian than to believe in Christ? What end is better than to suffer for Christ? But so far as pertains to believing in Christ, whatever kind of contradiction has been discovered, that not the beginning but the increase of faith should be called God's gift,— to this opinion, by God's gift, I have answered enough, and more than enough. But what reason can be given why perseverance to the end should not be given in Christ to him to whom it is given to suffer for Christ, or, to speak more distinctly, to whom it is given to die for Christ? For the Apostle Peter, showing that this is the gift of God, says, It is better, if the will of God be so, to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. 1 Peter 3:17 When he says, If the will of God be so, he shows that this is divinely given, and yet not to all saints, to suffer for Christ's sake. For certainly those whom the will of God does not will to attain to the experience and the glory of suffering, do not fail to attain to the kingdom of God if they persevere in Christ to the end. But who can say that this perseverance is not given to those who die in Christ from any weakness of body, or by any kind of accident, although a far more difficult perseverance is given to those by whom even death itself is undergone for Christ's sake? Because perseverance is much more difficult when the persecutor is engaged in preventing a man's perseverance; and therefore he is sustained in his perseverance unto death. Hence it is more difficult to have the former perseverance,— easier to have the latter; but to Him to whom nothing is difficult it is easy to give both. For God has promised this, saying, I will put my fear in their hearts, that they may not depart from me. Jeremiah 32:40 And what else is this than, Such and so great shall be my fear that I will put into their hearts that they will perseveringly cleave to me?

Chapter 3.— God is Besought for It, Because It is His Gift.

But why is that perseverance asked for from God if it is not given by God? Is that, too, a mocking petition, when that is asked from Him which it is known that He does not give, but, though He gives it not, is in man's power; just as that giving of thanks is a mockery, if thanks are given to God for that which He did not give nor do? But what I have said there, I say also here again: Be not deceived, says the apostle, God is not mocked. Galatians 6:6 O man, God is a witness not only of your words, but also of your thoughts. If you ask anything in truth and faith of one who is so rich, believe that you receive from Him from whom you ask, what you ask. Abstain from honouring Him with your lips and extolling yourself over Him in your heart, by believing that you have from yourself what you are pretending to beseech from Him. Is not this perseverance, perchance, asked for from Him? He who says this is not to be rebuked by any arguments, but must be overwhelmed with the prayers of the saints. Is there any of these who does not ask for himself from God that he may persevere in Him, when in that very prayer which is called the Lord's— because the Lord taught it— when it is prayed by the saints, scarcely anything else is understood to be prayed for but perseverance?

For Augustine, perseverance of the saints meant:
  • Perseverance is a gift of God;
  • If a person is still alive, it is uncertain whether he has that gift;
  • If a person falls before death, it cannot be said that he persevered;
  • He can fall away, but he then it cannot he has persevered in the faith;
  • 'He that perseveres unto the end, the same shall be saved' (Matt 10:22);
  • The beginning of a Christian is to believe in Christ;
  • What end for the Christian is better than to suffer for Christ?
  • For not all Christians will suffer as the will of God, but if they want to attain the kingdom of God, they persevere in Christ to the end.
  • God promised, 'I will put my fear in their hearts, that they may not depart from me' (Jer 32:40).
  • It is a mocking petition, if perseverance is asked for when God has not given it.
  • Ask anything in truth and faith from the one who is so rich and you will receive from Him.
  • Ask of God for perseverance in Him.
I find this to be a different emphasis to OSAS. Augustine's view of perseverance of the saints is closely connected to his understanding of election/predestination (as it is for Calvinists).

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
KingJ said:
Thanks Oz. That link you gave is not working for me.
KingJ,

It is not now working for me either when I give the link as: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1.iii.vii.html

It could be that you need to log in at http://www.ccel.orgto gain access to Arminius' works. Let's see if we can locate the article on another site. Here goes....

Here you can find Arminius on 'Perseverance of the Saints' in a Google Book online (well, part of a book).

Here is another publication on Arminius, 'Perseverance of the Saints' (Google Book).

See also the 'Articles of Remonstrance' (note Article 5 on Perseverance), drawn up in 1610 by the followers of Arminius that led to the Calvinistic Synod of Dort.

However, I've just tried the link to the ccel.org site and it took me directly to Arminius' article on 'Perseverance of the Saints'. Maybe there was a temporary glitch. Oh the delights of IT help! Perhaps the message is that we need perseverance in this action also.

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Good stuff Ozspen! I briefly read and enjoyed that piece on Augustine and will look at it again soon when I'm a bit fresher (worked about 13 hours today).

From a first look, I agree with what Augustine was getting at. Haven't read much of him. I have read Calvin though and I don't find everything he said to line up with the current OSAS teaching, or at least what it is portrayed as.

Thanks for that post
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oz,

One could say that "Calvinism," as we know it today, was not at all developed by Calvin. TULIP is not something that was taught by Calvin, himself. Yet, that is beside the point. My point was not that OSAS as we understand it today was taught by Augustine. Rather, I think your quotes substantiated my points very well. What I said was that Augustine was the originator of the "Calvinistic" system that viewed salvation as monergistic.

In other words, there is no synergism in salvation, according to Augustine. It is a unilateral act of God due to his view regarding the bondage of the human will. The differences in how Augustine understood "perseverance" and how we might debate that today is besides the fact. The concept of the bondage of the will that led to a monergistic view of salvation originated with Augustine. The necessary result of that was the doctrine of perseverance as a "gift of God." So, my concern is not whether or not all the nuances of OSAS were originated by Augustine. The point is he developed the concept of a monergistic salvation which laid the original foundation for the various nuances of the doctrine we now know as OSAS.

While some who did not cling to monergism still may have held on to ideas of OSAS, the theology that developed OSAS was based in monergism. In my view, there is no need to hold on to such ideas about perseverance if monergism is not found to be a biblical doctrine. In my mind, it is not and thus I see no reason to hold on to a doctrine that was developed in its various forms from a faulty view of salvation at its very inception.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
OzSpen said:
I found the second option, 'We can lose our salvation (Arminianism' to be a straw man fallacy.

Jacob Arminius believed in 'Perseverance of the Saints' (in Works of Arminius). Therefore, I voted for 'None of the above' as I'm convinced that perseverance of the saints is the biblical doctrine and not OSAS.

Oz
We're simpatico my Aussie friend. LOSS is the way RT wants to frame it, but the real issue is APOSTASY, which they seem loathe to deal with. I'm not a fan of labels, but agree that the poll should have been more accurately framed. I voted NONE as well.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
StanJ said:
We're simpatico my Aussie friend. LOSS is the way RT wants to frame it, but the real issue is APOSTASY, which they seem loathe to deal with. I'm not a fan of labels, but agree that the poll should have been more accurately framed. I voted NONE as well.
Stan,

I can't see this gap ever being bridged between Arminianism (as understood) and Calvinism (as understood by TULIP) as the ULI of TULIP is incompatible with the teaching on apostasy (as in Heb 6:4-6 ESV). There is also the challenge of the differences among Arminians, Classical/Reformed Arminians (of the Arminius kind) and Wesleyan Arminians.

Did John Calvin believe in limited atonement?

Oz
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
StanJ said:
Yep...in the context of the world, ALL is indeed whosoever will.
Stan,

Leading Greek exegete and commentator, the late Leon Morris, in his commentary on John 3:16 wrote:

‘God loved "the world"…. The Jew was ready enough to think of God as loving Israel, but no passage appears to be cited in which any Jewish writer maintains that God loved the world. It is a distinctively Christian idea that God’s love is wide enough to embrace all mankind. His love is not confined to any national group or any spiritual elite. It is a love which proceeds from the fact that He is love (I John 4:8, 16). It is His nature to love. He loves men because He is the kind of God He is. John tells us that His love is shown in the gift of His Son’ (Morris 1971:229).
Oz

Works consulted
Morris, L 1971. The Gospel according to John (New International Commentary Series). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanJ

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If the assertion here is that "all" refers to "all people groups" and not specifically all individuals, I think that this is highly problematic (even though I respect Leon Morris' writings). This essentially is spitting hairs that I do not think the context indicates Jesus was trying to split.

Specifically, if Jesus is referring to "all" individuals then of course all people groups plays into that (which certainly would have rubbed some of Jesus' contemporaries the wrong way). However, to say that Jesus is referring to all people groups but not all individuals is certainly not something we would draw from this context at all. Rather, Jesus seems very explicitly to be eliminating all limitations that would prevent people from finding life and this argument implies that Jesus is actually erecting limitations with his universal language. A very perplexing conclusion to say the least.

I find this highly unlikely. The only way someone would come to this conclusion (in my opinion) is if their preconceived theological stance (i.e. limited atonement) forced them to it. Nothing in the text itself would suggest Jesus is erecting such barriers. Apart from any qualifiers, I think it is only right to take Jesus at his word and understand "all" to mean both "all nations" and "all individuals" not just the former.
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Assuredly not "all individuals" are or historically have been privy to the gospel message. This case reduces the capacity of the language given in the text. This in mind with the exclusion of universalism forces the reader to surmise a limited understanding of those who receive God's salvific Grace or even have access to it.

Let's look to the example of Mark 1:5.

Are we to understand every individual from Judea and Jerusalem went to be baptized by John? Perhaps the High Priest Caiaphas came and humbled himself to John? I say no, not all individuals.

So then when we read whosoever will we must understand not all are included simply because not all even get a chance. When Jesus says He will draw "all men" we are not to conclude every individual (at least while here on earth) are drawn to Him.

God's election is based on His will and purpose, not His foreknowledge. My conclusion is based scripturally, not philosophically.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stan, perhaps I was not clear. I think justaname's comments reflect the idea I am opposing. It seems evident to me that the sense in which Jesus is using "the world" and "whosoever" in John 3:16 is universal. Of course, Jesus makes this love and invitation from God conditional with the phrase "believes in him." Not all "believe in him" (whether that is because they do not know, or reject the message...that is besides the point). However, it seems very apparent that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that God's love extends to the entire world and the invitation is open for any individual to become a child of God (which is a constant theme throughout John from John 1:12 to John 21:30-31). The reason people are lost is not because God is unwilling, but because the grace of God has not been accepted (for whatever reason...Jesus specifically speaks of people "loving darkness" in this context).

So, the point I was trying to make is that when God says he loves "all" or he wants "all" saved or "whosoever believes" will be accepted... it is not speaking restrictively about people groups only but not "all" individuals. No, it is saying God loves all individuals, which, by virtue of that, includes all nations and people groups. The idea that God loves all nations, but not all individuals (due to his limited atonement and predetermined election of the few) is simply not a biblical idea. That is inserting concepts into words like "world," "whosoever," and "all" that I think are explicitly rejected by the very terms themselves.

Justaname, I do not think I allow a "philosophy" to explain my view of salvation. I, too, think my view is entirely supported by Scripture, or else I would not hold to it.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Wormwood said:
Stan, perhaps I was not clear. I think justaname's comments reflect the idea I am opposing. It seems evident to me that the sense in which Jesus is using "the world" and "whosoever" in John 3:16 is universal. Of course, Jesus makes this love and invitation from God conditional with the phrase "believes in him." Not all "believe in him" (whether that is because they do not know, or reject the message...that is besides the point). However, it seems very apparent that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that God's love extends to the entire world and the invitation is open for any individual to become a child of God (which is a constant theme throughout John from John 1:12 to John 21:30-31). The reason people are lost is not because God is unwilling, but because the grace of God has not been accepted (for whatever reason...Jesus specifically speaks of people "loving darkness" in this context).

So, the point I was trying to make is that when God says he loves "all" or he wants "all" saved or "whosoever believes" will be accepted... it is not speaking restrictively about people groups only but not "all" individuals. No, it is saying God loves all individuals, which, by virtue of that, includes all nations and people groups. The idea that God loves all nations, but not all individuals (due to his limited atonement and predetermined election of the few) is simply not a biblical idea. That is inserting concepts into words like "world," "whosoever," and "all" that I think are explicitly rejected by the very terms themselves.

Justaname, I do not think I allow a "philosophy" to explain my view of salvation. I, too, think my view is entirely supported by Scripture, or else I would not hold to it.
No, you were WW....factually not ALL will be saved, but God's desire is that ALL would be. 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV)
Sorry I just wanted to ADD to your detail.
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Stan, perhaps I was not clear. I think justaname's comments reflect the idea I am opposing. It seems evident to me that the sense in which Jesus is using "the world" and "whosoever" in John 3:16 is universal. Of course, Jesus makes this love and invitation from God conditional with the phrase "believes in him." Not all "believe in him" (whether that is because they do not know, or reject the message...that is besides the point). However, it seems very apparent that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that God's love extends to the entire world and the invitation is open for any individual to become a child of God (which is a constant theme throughout John from John 1:12 to John 21:30-31). The reason people are lost is not because God is unwilling, but because the grace of God has not been accepted (for whatever reason...Jesus specifically speaks of people "loving darkness" in this context).

So, the point I was trying to make is that when God says he loves "all" or he wants "all" saved or "whosoever believes" will be accepted... it is not speaking restrictively about people groups only but not "all" individuals. No, it is saying God loves all individuals, which, by virtue of that, includes all nations and people groups. The idea that God loves all nations, but not all individuals (due to his limited atonement and predetermined election of the few) is simply not a biblical idea. That is inserting concepts into words like "world," "whosoever," and "all" that I think are explicitly rejected by the very terms themselves.

Justaname, I do not think I allow a "philosophy" to explain my view of salvation. I, too, think my view is entirely supported by Scripture, or else I would not hold to it.
I don't believe you allow a philosophy to explain your view on salvation, rather election. Yet even here I am certain your view of the Scriptures is what shapes your opinion. But in order to achieve your conclusion of God choosing based on foreknowledge you must use a philosophical premise.

All the while the Scriptuers are clear God's election is based according to His purpose and will. Also the Scriptures show God places individuals in Christ. God selected the person and the plan. (1 Corinthians 1:27-30, James 2:5, Ephesians 1:4)
Paul is a prime example, in fact all the apostles were chosen. Jeremiah was selected to be God's prophet. Jonah was selected. Pharoah was raised up for God's purpose. Job was selected by God for His namesake and purpose. All of these individuals were chosen according to His purpose for His plan.

Now when it is said God loves all individuals I agree, yet some individuals are loved more as in the case of Jacob and Esau. God's mercy and grace are on those in Christ. God's love is exemplified through His salvation. True it rains on both the righteous and unrighteous. Yes Jesus atonement and propitiation is for the sins of the world, yet it is only effective for those in Christ. God still hates wickedness and will bring to an end all inequity at the consummation. God does not love all equally else all would be saved. From your analogy God is unable or incapable to save all if he is willing. I say God desires all turn from their wickedness to be saved, yet man is not willing. God selected some to show his great grace towards humanity. Why not select all to be saved? This would deny God's justice.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - John 6:64-65

The idea of God being unable to save men denies His omnipotence. God would be bound to man's decision in accordance with salvation. Ultimately salvation would be based you making the right decision. This then places salvation in the hands of men and not God. I reject this notion. God is not dependent on man for anything including the salvation of individuals.

I apologize if my statement oversimplified your position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Born_Again

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I must reiterate that ELECTION in the NT, is not a choosing for a position above or in lieu of others, but a position of having attained what God KNEW by foreknowledge. Similar to what someone who is elected not such as President Elect. One is NOT elected until they are actually in that position, just as in the case of Esau and Jacob. A careful exegesis of Rom 9 in context, and not just v11 will show that, along with what Paul states it in Acts 9:15. All of these MUST be taken along with other scripture that does show salvation was God's plan for ALL mankind and NOT just an elite God chose before time.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

This cannot be explained away by soteriological bias, it says what it says, simple and truthfully.