Responding to the Statement: All Men Saved?

Here is a comment that was made on a post about Pastor Robert Morris. The author is an atheist and had made a comment that there were other religions where the “god figure” had parents named Joseph and Mary, so that went to prove that the story of Jesus is just another myth. I study stories from other cultures to see the symbolisms back to the story of Jesus and was amazed at this accusation. He has failed to or simply refused to back up his statement by saying what stories contained those names, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt.

This comment was made to another Christian who questioned him, but I wanted to look at it as I asked him what verse showed the bible as being false since it says that all men will be saved.

you are an one of those Christians that interprets scripture as they want and not as it is.

like 1 tim. “this is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth”

that is one interpretation the other is that “who will that all men be saved” and some say that will should be desires. did you ever notice the scriptures that state His will, his pleasures, and his desires WILL be done. now wouldn’t that still make that statement true that all men will be saved? use strongs to lookup the proper translations.
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim. 2:4)!
If jesus is the savior of the whole world, then do you think he will fail to save the whole world? apparently

Here is the verse from the NET since those translation notes are exhaustive and available for all: since he wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:4). His comment to use Strong’s to look up the portion “who will that” is a good comment, but I don’t think he did that since in the method used it says it means “choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication to wish, that is, be inclined” God wants all to be saved it what the verse is saying.

The last line is telling as it looks at the sovergnty of God as being in question if He can not save all. Many people get hung up on this, but it should not be a stumbling block. The law not to speed applies to all regardless if they are caught in the act or not. The validity of the law is not in question if people are not punished for it right? Just because we have not gotten to that point where people have been judged by God does not mean that the sovereignty of God is in question. All will be judged and all can be saved. Only one of those will come to pass for all people.

I Cor. 12:3 says
“NO MAN CAN SAY THAT JESUS IS THE LORD, BUT BY the Holy Spirit” you see, you don’t get to decide to say jesus is lord. you can ONLY do it if you are made to do it.

Is it merely saying that Jesus is Lord that is the work done by the Holy Spirit or proclaiming Jesus as your Lord that is done by the Holy Spirit? Two very different things indeed.

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God Who is the Saviour of ALL MEN specially of those that believe” (I Tim. 4:10). not exclusively of those that believe.

Why does Paul make the comment “especially of those that believe”? It follows the theme that Jesus is here to save all of mankind, both Jew and Gentile, but that does not mean all are saved. We trust in the Living God, who is the Savior of all mankind – this is his role and not a promise to all of mankind of being saved. The letter is being addressed to the believers, so why would Paul be saying that all people will be saved to those who believe?

“I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me” (John 12:32). no, he didn’t say he will draw some or only a few. he said ALL.

“To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trepasses against them ” (II Cor. 5:19)

I love this passage. From the NET again: In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation (2Co 5:19). Of course he left off part of the verse, which says that he has given us the message of reconciliation. That is part of the Gospel. It is not solely that Jesus died for all sins, but that we can be reconciled back to God through Jesus and what He did on the cross.

We see this in Paul’s next verse: Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea through us. We plead with you on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God!” (2Co 5:20). Why plead on anyone’s behalf to be reconciled if it does not matter.

“For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified” (I Cor. 15:22). i guess god didn’t intend to say ALL because you don’t want to believe it? what a joke.

NO, you do not choose: “You have NOT CHOSEN ME, but I have CHOSEN YOU…” (John 15:16). you think you do but the bible says you don’t. you don’t like it…talk to god. not my problem.

Of course we have not chosen God as it was a gift of God to choose to overlook our sin and want us.

“NO MAN CAN COME TO ME except the Father which has sent me draw hiim and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44). wow…doesn’t seem like it is your choice. maybe you should talk to god and have him rewrite some of this scriptures to fit what you want to believe.

“There is NONE that seeks after God” (Rom. 3:11b).
Oh..except the christian that thinks they do? i just didn’t read that in the scripture. but christians make all kinds of shit up, don’t they?

“For it is GOD which works in you both to will and to do of His good PLEASURE” (Phil. 2:13).

for it is impossible with me but with god all things are possible. unless people like you declare it is …right. what pride.

i can provide pages of examples of god’s word specifically stating that all men will be saved. i gave the easy ones because you are not likely able to understand anything more detailed.

if you can’t understand that revelation is symbolic then you can’t understand much of anything else in the bible. hell fire is not literal, it is symbolic and that fire is the actual fire of god himself for which everyone will be “salted”.

I can answer each of his statements, but it is pointless. He will see what he wants to see. I do feel bad for him, because at one point he believed. He lost his faith when it was challenged when he entered school and was able to see the broader picture of Christianity that what he learned in his church.

Do not be afraid if people challenge you or your faith. We know this will happen. If you do not understand, pray for help and ask others until you get a satisfactory answer. I nearly suffered a similar fate as this man did, but I held on the truth in my experience with Christ and he guided me to the answers and strengthened my faith in the process.

Gnu Atheist and the Autonomy of Morality

Through comments and discussions, I am being introduced to the new / gnu atheist and some of the stances or philosophies that they follow. Not being from that camp, it has been a bit slow to listen to their point of view and be able to see the logic in their philosophies. I say their as a generalization as I do not intend to offend any of the gnu’ers by implying that they think or believe a certain way or that I did not go far enough. If I am wrong, please be patient and help me see the error in my understanding.

After reading up a bit on the argument for autonomy in thinking and in forming a moral base, it is implied that religion denies people the ability to full develop a moral view apart from the moral view that is imposed on them by the religious group that they are influenced by. It is a common problem, that people are influenced by their peer group and the values of the group are not always the values of the individual. The individual can choose to disagree with the group and act in their own autonomy, but they risk being mocked/attacked for being different and even removed from the group depending on the groups dynamics and the degree of difference.

From the view point of the gnu atheist, the individual is their own master and if a person chooses to accept the moral view of another as their own, they end up denying themselves the opportunity to fully develop their own moral center as they were influenced by another. I can see the logic that as a child is raised in a household or around an environment where a religion has the ability to shape the moral views and perspectives, that the child will be more inclined to accept those values as their own, which as the gnu atheist will point out stunts the individual from exploring themselves in order to develop their own morality.

So a person, who is under the influence of a type of totalitarian type environment will never fully be able to fully develop their own moral identity and instead be forced to accept the views of others as to what I right and wrong. The individual was able to achieve autonomy in the development because they made the choice to accept the view of the masses, but the moral view never reached a state of maturity because it was forced to conform to a limited view that was imposed on it. Similar to the binding of a woman’s feet. If they are not allowed to grow, they are stunted and deformed.

Now the individual still has the ability to develop their moral stance, but this can happen only by questioning or casting off the restraints and exploring. By casting off the restraints of religion, a person can fully develop into humanism by accepting the morality that is best for humanity. The person can explore and experience life in order to fully develop their own truths, which lessons the oppression that is imposed on humanity as a whole.

I think I got that right.

I have to admit it is a valid philosophy. I understand the need to explore and decide on what is right and wrong. A child, no matter of its environment, will explore and test the boundaries to see what is and is not acceptable. A religion can shape that in one direction, but at the same time a lack of religion will still have a view of morality in which that child will be allowed to function. That is basic child development. How ever you choose to raise up a child is basically the course their life will take.