Augustine taught that God does not want all men to be saved. The apostle should be understood to have spoken of all the elect, who are drawn from all manner of men, when he said that God "wills all men to be saved." (I Timothy 2:4.) The chief theological proof that Augustine offered is the omnipotence of God, according to which he does whatever he wills. If he wanted all men to be saved then obviously he would bring all to salvation. None could effectively resist his will to save them but he does not wish to save all. He offered a further proof that God does not want all men to be saved, citing the passages of the New Testament where God was not willing that miracles should be performed in certain places though the people there would have converted and been saved. Augustine offered four ways in which the apostle may be understood when he said that God "wills all men to be saved;" we may understand him to mean: 1. The predestined elect; 2. That all who are saved are not saved but by his will; 3. That all kinds of men shall be saved; 4. That God makes us wish all men to be saved and to pray for them. Augustine explains as follows:
Augustine argued that it is clear that God does not will all men to be saved because otherwise all would be. His omnipotence implies that he does whatever he wants. Scripture testifies that God "hath done all that he pleased in heaven and in earth" (Psalm 135:6.) The weaker will of men cannot overcome his stronger will and when people are not saved, it is not because they are themselves unwilling. Augustine emphasized that we might understand the apostle (I Timothy 2:4) however we like as long as we do not understand him to mean that God wants all men to be saved. Everything that God wills is necessarily accomplished, he cannot will anything in vain.
The will of every man is as a ‘heart of stone’, ‘absolutely inflexible against God,’ yet the Almighty converts whomsoever he wants and the will of no man can effectively resist him. All would be saved if God wanted them to be. He does not convert all men because he wants to show his wrath against some of them. It is the will of God both when men are saved and when they are damned. In further proof of the doctrine that God does not want all men to be saved, Augustine cited passages from the New Testament where he was unwilling that miracles should be performed in certain places though the people there would have converted and been saved. Augustine commented as follows. God does not want all men to be saved otherwise he would not have refused to work miracles for people who would have repented. As we have seen: God infallibly saves all who are saved but to some it is "not given." We see the mystery of divine predestination in the reprobation of these people.
Prosper of Aquitaine also argued against the Semi-Pelagians that God does not want all men to be saved. He cited the omnipotence of God and his refusal to enlighten some of the true religion that he had made necessary for their salvation. Prosper argued that when the apostle said that God "wills all men to be saved," he should be understood to mean that omnipotent God saves all whom he wants to; he efficaciously calls them to the true religion, teaches them of it and saves them in it. None are saved unless he wills it. Prosper taught that God converts whomever he wants to because he is omnipotent. As we have just seen: ‘the all-powerful goodness of God saves and instructs in the knowledge of the truth all those whom ‘he will have to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’’ (Letter to Rufinus 13) The gospel is not withheld from some because of their obstinacy to convert. The will of God cannot be hindered by the wills of men; he made their hearts and he changes them into willing obedience. As scripture testifies God is "able of the stones to raise up children of Abraham" (St. Matthew 3:9) he works "all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11,) including the predestination of the elect.
Like Augustine, Prosper cited the example of Tyre and Sidon, who would have converted had they witnessed the miracles of Christ, as proof that God does not want all men to be saved. He also cited the nations to whom God would not let his apostles go and the nations even of his own day. The apostle (I Timony 2:4) should be understood in that context.
The only way that Augustine or anyone else can make "wills all men to be saved" to mean what he wants and claims it to mean is by twisted logic and contortions of the plain words of scripture. Of course, it also helps if you don't believe in free will, and he didn't. These beliefs about predestination, especially double predestination, and Calvin's TULIP, are a dark cloud on Christianity, a fatalistic determinism alien to the teachings of Jesus.
This passage doesn't have to altered to support calvinism. You read the passage and see "foreknow" and interpret this as "those whom God foreknew would choose Him". However you are reading too much into the text. And how can God foreordain something He does not know about? But the this doesnt negate the real issue of the nature of this foreknowledge. Is God in control or not? Arminianism makes God out to be a spectator who then tries to plug holes. Calvinism puts God in His rightful place, in the control seat who controls all events and works all things according to His will.
Wonderful arguments Old Christendom, but you rely far more on the comments that others have made on the bible than you do on the actual bible. When people offer criticism of limited atonement using the clear words and plain meaning of Holy Scripture, rather than discuss those verses or show how they cannot have the meaning that is apparent to them, you instead pull out vague verses, that only are relevant if one reads them already assuming that what one wants to believe, in this case, limited atonement, is true. Reading Scripture in a way that reads into them the meaning that we want ascribe them is a dangerous practice. Being from the South, I've seen the scriptures used to justify all manner of unrighteousness from slavery to segregation to banning inter-racial marriage to promoting hatred, bigotry, and homophobia. And in this, I'm sure the South is not unique. But in every case, scriptures were cited that seemed relevant...but only if one read into them the assumption that God already approved of these things and rather than search the scriptures to find where God's position is on a given subject, we often turn to looking only for where God's position and our position on a given subject seem to agree. This kind of bible study leaves one prone to stretch verses, to close one eye and turn one's head just right, so that a verse appears to mean whatever it is the reader needs it to mean to go about justified in continuing in the same old prejudices that one had before. That's an ill use of the scripture imho. There is a passage in the gospels where Jesus speaks about new wine in old wineskins. I had a hard time at first understanding what Our Lord meant when he said, "No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved" (Matthew 9:16-17). For A while I had trouble making sense of this statement. What was God trying to say here? Then as I looked at the context, it became clear. He said this to some of John's disciples who had confronted him on his laxity on the issue of fasting. They asked why, if John's teaching was to fast in a certain way, and the Pharisees agreed, why didn't He do that as well, Jesus gave them his answer, then he went on to make the statement quoted above, which appears to me to rebuke the Disciples of John for the error in their world view. These were people who believed John but were still on the fence about Jesus, otherwise they would have been Jesus' disciples. They were testing the teaching of our Lord against the teachings of John and the Pharisees to see if his commands and teaching were acceptable. The error they made was that they presupposed that the John and the Pharisees were right, and believed Jesus could only be right if he fit into the paradigm they created. It was as if their worldview was a quilt that was well-worn and that they were very happy with it. Only problem was that there were a few holes which needed patching. They came to Jesus looking for a patch to fill the holes in their old quilt, but that's not what Jesus offered, nor has he ever offered. What he offers is a new quilt entirely, a completely new worldview that one can't just graft into one's old worldview, because it won't fit because the two are incompatible. One sees Jesus as a prophet whose words must be tested against the Law given by Moses; the other sees Jesus as the Living Word of God who gave the Law to Moses and to whom all things must be subjected and submitted. John’s disciples didn’t understand this, they view Jesus’ teachings in the light of what they had already accepted from John and the Pharisees, and because of it the fell in the trap of making them their authority instead of Jesus. Without being confrontational, I would submit that perhaps you have fallen into the same trap. Instead of reading the Predestinationists in the light of the Word of God, you read the God’s Word in the light of what Calvin or Augustine have to say about it. With all due respect, while both are important theologians, they are not infallible. To subject the infallible to the fallible is dangerous in deed. So when you say I respectfully suggest you have it backwards. Prosper, Augustine, Calvin, and anyone else comments on the scriptures must be understood in and tested by Holy Scrpiture, which is the faith once delivered to the saints, not the other way round. We are warned by St. Paul that even if "we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). Holy Scripture is our one perfect source of truth in the Church and where it speaks so definitively on an issue, as it does with the question or limited atonement and doubly predstination, there is no need to go to any other source, save to show how the deviate from the Truth as revealed in God's Word written. I think these verses bear repeating: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."-I Cor.15:22 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." -Col 1:19-20 "Therefore as by the offence 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" -Romans 5:18 "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." -Romans 11:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."-John 12:32 "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."-Luke 2:10 "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."-1 John 2:2 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."-John 3:17 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." -Hebrews 2:9 "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands"-Rev 7:9 As for Romans 9:9-24, I took your advice and meditated on it, and it is clear to me that the passage is about God's providence and a warning to people not to grumble over their lot or station in either life or the church. Perhaps, that is not the best interpretation, but one thing is certain. It does not say that Christ died for only some people upon the cross, nor that it is certain that God will condemn a certain number of people to hell. Now, I'd like you to ponder a passage as well, and wee what weight it gives to universal atonement and the status of Faith, rather than predestination, as the condicio sine qua non of one's salvation in Christ: "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:10) I was deeply touched by your quote by Bishop Ryle. I think it's advice that all of us--catholic, lutheran, arminian, amyraldian, calvinist, and whatever else--can use.
Nor does Scripture believe in free will. All men are fallen and turned against God. Free will is a pelagian fable. Don't be silly. What I've shown here is that unconditional election, limited atonement, God willing to save the elect alone, etc., are beliefs that have been around all along, they didn't suddenly pop up on the radar with the Reformation and I quoted two Early Church Fathers on the subject. There are more.
The scripture does speak of pre-fall & post-regeneration free will, the only time that free will does not exist is when we are slaves to sin prior to our being born again. Which is why we so desperately need a savior.
None of those verses contradict the classical Augustinian and Calvinist teachings on grace. If literally all men who exist, will exist and ever existed were made alive in Christ, then none would perish. God's will cannot be frustrated. Do you believe in universal salvation now? Which part of "for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth," haven't you understood? This is unconditional election: the children were not yet born, had not done any good or evil, and their fate was already predestined by God. Some are predestined to life, others aren't. Or "so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." It's nothing we do or can do, it's all God's mercy and grace. "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." He was mercy upon the elect and hardens the reprobate, withdrawing His grace from them. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." The divine potter, who unlike us is sovereign, omnipotent and perfect, is absolutely free to fashion one vessel unto honour (salvation) and another unto dishonour (damnation). There cannot be a clearer affirmation of predestination and unconditional election than this passage. There can be no faith in Christ if one is not first drawn to Him by the Father. And all who were given by the Father to Christ cannot be snatched out of His hand which also means that they're infallibly saved. The conditio sine qua non to our salvation is God's unmerited favour towards us, hopeless sinners. Faith is but the instrument of justification. Yes, it's all up to Him which is why men find it so difficult to accept the gospel: deep down, we always want it to be about us. As for 1 Timothy 4:10, again it doesn't say anything about universal atonement, quite the opposite. He is the saviour of all men, especially of those who believe. It can't mean that God saves all people, especially those who believe in Him, that would be ridiculous. You're trying to read something that it's not there. Perhaps this might help you:
The regenerate man lives by faith and relies on God's grace. His own will, however, is not restored to a pre-fallen status; he is still subject to concupiscence and the inclination to sin. Nevertheless, the Christian does not despair because of the weakness of his flesh because God "works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Phil. 2:13) and surely He who has "begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:6) It's all His grace, it's all His glory. "These men are dreaming of what good God foresaw in man; which good never could have existed, unless He himself had wrought it." -John Calvin
SK, Replying to quotes within a quote is painful, just fyi First off, it is completely and incontrovertibly final that God chooses based on His foreknowledge. This is what the Bible says, he first foreknows, and then ordains. We just have to answer whether there is any secret counsel in such a plan, or whether it's all plainly on the surface. On that, I think we can safely say that not all is plainly on the surface, even in the Arminian scheme. While all have access to salvation, men are denied free will at various times, based on God's unknown objective. The Pharaoh was free to accept or reject God for his own soul, but his will was not free to show kindness to Moses. God forced him to reject Moses, because He pursued a counsel secret and known only to Himself. We can glimpse fragments of that plan, namely the elevation of Moses to leadership, the Exile, the Wandering, and the Promised Land, not to mention what was to happen after. All this is His Secret Plan. That Plan is not open to us. It can be Secret, with or without conditional election. Can you explain how God and man co-operating is not synergistic? Are you 100% able to say that no tinge of Arminianism has entered modern Reformed theology? I have no doubt that you would not be able to find such language in Puritan 17th century writings. If you can find me something from Calvin or the Puritans that has this language, I will be shocked. You're not giving a complete picture, because they also completely reject the Perseverance of the Saints. See Paragraph 42 of the section entitled Election, in the Book of Concord: "many receive the Word with joy, but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8:13. But the cause is not as though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in whom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil. 1:6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away" And likewise the Wikipedia article: "Lutherans reject the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.""Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans do not believe in a predestination to damnation." What does he have to know, exactly? He just enacts his sovereign power, in accord with a plan secret to us. What does he have left to foreknow, in the Calvinist system? Here you're operating out of human sensibilities. You're trying to say what God ought to be, instead of what he revealed his Will to be. This is a problem. He expects repentance from his Creatures, and he works With us, to grant us that repentance. That is the Gospel. If we are automatic creatures, mere robots, there is no gospel. You can't preach a gospel to a robot. You can only preach it to a human being who could act otherwise.
You can't show something that was non-existent. I don't believe you want to get into the early church and the fathers with me, nor the history of Christendom up to the Reformation. "TULIP" is an invention of a 16th century legalist. "TULIP" makes humans mere puppets and God a puppetmaster.
Here is a link to an article in which the author ably refutes another article written to try and prove that the early church fathers believed in penal substitution -- clearly a Reformation doctrine chiefly formulated by Calvin. http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf
Okay, I have decided that this is my last post on Calvinism. It has been my experience, from participating on other forums, that the most heated and, yes, inappropriate debate that I've ever been involved in was about Calvinism, and Roman Catholicism. So, out of personal regard and respect for Old Christendom, Scottish Knight, and others, I will do my best to cease comments about this subject. I don't want this discussion to lead to hard feelings and worse. I've seen it happen. Though I strongly disbelieve both systems, I have Calvinist and Roman Catholic friends. One of my best friends whom I met years ago on a forum is a Primitive Baptist -- difficult to get more Calvinist than that.
Since I grew up in an Anglo-Catholic parish, I guess that's why he appeals to me so. Also, I see nothing wrong with praying for the dead. It was a pious practice spoken of in Maccabees.