Proveing Universal Salvation the easy way!

[jesushandsarekindhands]

SALVATION - Meaning.
n.
Preservation or deliverance from destruction, difficulty, or evil.
A source, means, or cause of such preservation or deliverance.
Deliverance from the power or penalty of sin; redemption.
The agent or means that brings about such deliverance.

The primary Greek noun translated salvation is soteria (found 45 times in the Greek New Testament). Soteria means, "denotes deliverance, preservation, salvation"

Luke 3:6
NIV©   And all mankind will see God's salvation.'"
NAS©   AND ALL FLESH WILL SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD.'"
ISV©   Everyone will see the salvation that God has provided.'"
GWT©   All people will see the salvation that God gives.'"
KJV   And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
AKJ   And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
ASV   And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
BBE   And all flesh will see the salvation of God.
DRB   And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
DBY   and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
ERV   And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
WBS   And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
WEY   and then shall all mankind see God's salvation.'"
WEB   All flesh will see God's salvation.'"
YLT    and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'

[Dallas]

yup... everyone will see, percieve, witness and identify.... it doesn't however say be enveloped, or included.

Great scripture, but not diffinitive.

[jesushandsarekindhands]

yup... everyone will see, percieve, witness and identify.... it doesn't however say be enveloped, or included.

Great scripture, but not diffinitive.

Breaking the meaning down further...

Luke 3:6
And all mankind will see God's salvation.'"

And all mankind will see preservation.
And all mankind will see deliverance from destruction.
And all mankind will see deliverance from difficulty.
And all mankind will see deliverance from evil.
And all mankind will see deliverance from the power of sin
And all mankind will see deliverance from the penalty of sin
And all mankind will see redemption.

[Seth]

What I have found in my journey so far is that proof is really what people accept AS proof. People can make the Bible say whatever they want. I am not saying that there is no objective truth, just the opposite. But I what I am saying is that if someone doesn't want to agree with you, they will twist the scripture, so that there really aren't any definitive proofs to them who cannot see the texts for what they say.

There are two scriptures that I find very powerful though, if you want to really narrow it down.

1 Timothy 2:4
God will have all men to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.

Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

[Seth]

With that, they must face two possibilities: 1) either they believe God can do all his pleasure by saving everyone only he does not want to, which contradicts the first scripture saying he DOES want to  or 2) they must say that God does want to save everyone, but cannot which contradicts the second scripture.

Even if they find ways to twist either the first or second scripture, they still have to deal with that dilemma and those scriptures underline the dilemma which is completely solved by saying "God does want all to be saved and he both can and will do all his pleasure."

Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.) But the dilemma will never change as long as they teach that either God wants to but cannot, or can but does not want to.

Again, this will not be taken as proof by them, but it will at least get them thinking and will establish that it is not the URer who is confused.

[legoman]

While I agree with you Seth, it does get harder to prove if they are not even willing to accept the scripture at face value.

Try posting 1 Tim 2:4 over at the CARM board and you will just get laughed at by the Calvinists.  They all "know" it doesn't really mean "all men", but only means "all sorts of men"... CONTEXT CONTEXT!  LOL.

There is no reasoning with them.  Its funny, an Arminian will post 1 Tim 2:4 and say look: God desires to save all men.  And the Calvinist laughs and says, if you really believe God desires to save all men, then you must believe in universalism because God gets what He desire!   :BangHead:  So close yet so far...  :sigh:

Then of course they will go on, "since universalism is false, that can't be the meaning" and then come to the conclusion that God doesn't really want all men saved.

[legoman]

I like the verse in the OP, it floored me when I first read it... but people skew it as you suggest.

Personally I like this verse now; its in an obscure versions, but man oh man is it clear.  From the CEV (see biblegateway):

Titus 2:11 God has shown us how kind he is by coming to save all people.


Can't get much clearer than that.  Its still twistable though, all verses are.  People will say its not really "all", or He doesn't actually do it etc.... nothing is proof if they are not open to it.

[legoman]

How do you deal with the "context" argument?  For example Titus 2:11:

Titus 2:11 God has shown us how kind he is by coming to save all people.

People will say this is only Paul talking to Titus, so the "all people" is only referring to believers.  When words cease to mean anything, you can make them say whatever you want I guess... but no one will admit that.

[claypot]

No need to prove anything and the way of the cross is anything but easy.

cp

[Seth]

While I agree with you Seth, it does get harder to prove if they are not even willing to accept the scripture at face value.

Try posting 1 Tim 2:4 over at the CARM board and you will just get laughed at by the Calvinists.  They all "know" it doesn't really mean "all men", but only means "all sorts of men"... CONTEXT CONTEXT!  LOL.

Exactly, so then they will say that God does not want to save ALL men, just all sorts of men. Then you point out that Jesus Christ came to die for the WHOLE WORLD. They make the "all sorts of men" argument from a Calvinist perspective that Christ actually did not die for all men, just for the elect. Easy to disprove....to those who are willing to accept what the Word says.

Not only that, contextually the Timothy verse says that we are supposed to pray for ALL men, then it says that God desires for ALL men. If a Calvinist were to try to disprove that God wants all to be saved, they would also be saying that we are not supposed to pray for ALL men, just all types of men. hmmmm....

There is no reasoning with them.  Its funny, an Arminian will post 1 Tim 2:4 and say look: God desires to save all men.  And the Calvinist laughs and says, if you really believe God desires to save all men, then you must believe in universalism because God gets what He desire!   :BangHead:  So close yet so far...  :sigh:

Exactly. Both verses expose the duelling and equally wrong concepts.

Then of course they will go on, "since universalism is false, that can't be the meaning" and then come to the conclusion that God doesn't really want all men saved.

Probably. I had an experience where a minister told my friend in one meeting that God CANNOT get what he wants, and this was directly after he told me that God can get what he wants. He wasn't lying to either of us, just making arguments to suit the moment.

[Seth]

How do you deal with the "context" argument?  For example Titus 2:11:

Titus 2:11 God has shown us how kind he is by coming to save all people.

People will say this is only Paul talking to Titus, so the "all people" is only referring to believers.  When words cease to mean anything, you can make them say whatever you want I guess... but no one will admit that.

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So what happens here with a Calvanist is a larger issue which will be exposed with those two scriptures: does God want all to be saved? If not, then why did Christ die for the WHOLE WORLD? When Christ says "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save mens lives" why do they contradict him by saying Christ WANTS only some lives to be saved and WANTS to destroy other men's lives.

Well then they will either say that Christ either wants to destroy some lives, or wants to save those lives. If they say that Christ wants to destroy some men's lives, they contradict not only that verse but many others. If they say that Christ wants to save all men's lives, then they just contradicted themselves.

[legoman]

While I agree with you Seth, it does get harder to prove if they are not even willing to accept the scripture at face value.

Try posting 1 Tim 2:4 over at the CARM board and you will just get laughed at by the Calvinists.  They all "know" it doesn't really mean "all men", but only means "all sorts of men"... CONTEXT CONTEXT!  LOL.

Exactly, so then they will say that God does not want to save ALL men, just all sorts of men. Then you point out that Jesus Christ came to die for the WHOLE WORLD. They make the "all sorts of men" argument from a Calvinist perspective that Christ actually did not die for all men, just for the elect. Easy to disprove....to those who are willing to accept what the Word says.

Not only that, contextually the Timothy verse says that we are supposed to pray for ALL men, then it says that God desires for ALL men. If a Calvinist were to try to disprove that God wants all to be saved, they would also be saying that we are not supposed to pray for ALL men, just all types of men. hmmmm....

Of course some of them come to that conclusion too... why should we pray for all men?  God won't save them all.  Why should we love God's enemies?  God doesn't love them... and on and on it goes.  Its all circular based on the notion that God predetermines people to eternal torment - a sick sick twisted doctrine.

Probably. I had an experience where a minister told my friend in one meeting that God CANNOT get what he wants, and this was directly after he told me that God can get what he wants. He wasn't lying to either of us, just making arguments to suit the moment.

When you believe in contradictions (God is love, God wants to save all, God doesn't get what he wants, so God tortures people instead) etc, sooner or later you will have to contradict yourself when explaining it to another.

Try to explain a square circle to someone.  Its completely square, yet completely round!

[legoman]

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So what happens here with a Calvanist is a larger issue which will be exposed with those two scriptures: does God want all to be saved? If not, then why did Christ die for the WHOLE WORLD? When Christ says "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save mens lives" why do they contradict him by saying Christ WANTS only some lives to be saved and WANTS to destroy other men's lives.

Well then they will either say that Christ either wants to destroy some lives, or wants to save those lives. If they say that Christ wants to destroy some men's lives, they contradict not only that verse but many others. If they say that Christ wants to save all men's lives, then they just contradicted themselves.

Well many Calvinists freely admit that verses like "Jesus is the savior of the world" don't mean "Jesus is the savior of every single individual".

But you are right, they completely miss the character of Christ.  Instead it always come down to "us" and "them".  I had one Calvinist tell me that you must understand it is about "us" and "them" before you even start reading the bible.


Even simple concepts like this elude them:  they claim "God is love" is not the primary attribute of God.  God is holy holy holy - yes, but this does not contradict His nature which is love.

For example:  they will claim Christ only died for some people, not all. 

But Christ gave His life up for mankind, partly because there is no greater act of love than to sacrifice yourself for another, and to sacrifice yourself for ALL mankind is simply the greatest act of love one could do.  So which "act of love" would be more in character with the God of love: one which only has Jesus sacrificing himself for some of mankind, or one which is for ALL of mankind?

It seems obvious to me.  God does indeed harden peoples hearts.

[Seth]

Of course some of them come to that conclusion too... why should we pray for all men?  God won't save them all.  Why should we love God's enemies?  God doesn't love them... and on and on it goes.  Its all circular based on the notion that God predetermines people to eternal torment - a sick sick twisted doctrine.

Exactly. This is why I will use those two scriptures because like any sword it cuts straight to the issue. It exposes concepts which are not Biblical, until the entire belief system is shown to be what it is: as sick twisted doctrine. Now that might now convince them, but as the scripture says,

Ezekiel 2:5
And whether they listen or fail to listen--for they are a rebellious house--they will know that a prophet has been among them.

They will know they have heard the Word.

When you believe in contradictions (God is love, God wants to save all, God doesn't get what he wants, so God tortures people instead) etc, sooner or later you will have to contradict yourself when explaining it to another.

Yes, and if you study to show yourself approved of God you will expose the contradictions. They won't want to talk to you for very long. But exposing those contradictions in me is what changed my mind. Some folks will or will not listen but they will know they have heard the Word of God.

[WhiteWings]

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."

If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.

[legoman]

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."

If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.

God's rolling the dice again I guess.  "With a few more years I'll give'em 60/40."

[Seth]

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So what happens here with a Calvanist is a larger issue which will be exposed with those two scriptures: does God want all to be saved? If not, then why did Christ die for the WHOLE WORLD? When Christ says "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save mens lives" why do they contradict him by saying Christ WANTS only some lives to be saved and WANTS to destroy other men's lives.

Well then they will either say that Christ either wants to destroy some lives, or wants to save those lives. If they say that Christ wants to destroy some men's lives, they contradict not only that verse but many others. If they say that Christ wants to save all men's lives, then they just contradicted themselves.

Well many Calvinists freely admit that verses like "Jesus is the savior of the world" don't mean "Jesus is the savior of every single individual".

But you are right, they completely miss the character of Christ.  Instead it always come down to "us" and "them".  I had one Calvinist tell me that you must understand it is about "us" and "them" before you even start reading the bible.


Even simple concepts like this elude them:  they claim "God is love" is not the primary attribute of God.  God is holy holy holy - yes, but this does not contradict His nature which is love.

For example:  they will claim Christ only died for some people, not all. 

But Christ gave His life up for mankind, partly because there is no greater act of love than to sacrifice yourself for another, and to sacrifice yourself for ALL mankind is simply the greatest act of love one could do.  So which "act of love" would be more in character with the God of love: one which only has Jesus sacrificing himself for some of mankind, or one which is for ALL of mankind?

It seems obvious to me.  God does indeed harden peoples hearts.

That's right. The concept that Jesus does not want all to be saved is so easily disproved. Take a look at Romans 5. That is an ANTI "limited atonement" chapter. That's the chapter I go to to show that the gift is for all men for that all men were sinners. Then there's the verse that says, "If one man died for all, then were all dead." So how many were dead? All men, or all types of men.

This of course reminds the Calvanist of the total depravity theology. They cannot admit that NOT ALL men were dead because they teach rightly that everyone is born in sin. So if all men are dead that means Christ died for all, not all types of men, but all who were dead which is ALL.

If they teach that Christ did not die for all men, then they unwittingly teach that not all men were dead.

[Seth]

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."

If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.

Yup and that answer is one I have received. That is the obsfucation I was talking about. They will retreat to generalities rather than addressing the point.

[WhiteWings]

Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.)

Isn't that pure blasphemy? They accuse God of lies, mistakes or changing His mind. A divided kingdom shall not stand. Verses are the pilars of Gods kingdom. And the way they put it the pilars are divided...

[legoman]

On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle".  The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas".  Then they quote this verse:

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4.  The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all".  But it does make the issue more difficult.

It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".

Comments?

[Seth]

Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.)

Isn't that pure blasphemy? They accuse God of lies, mistakes or changing His mind. A divided kingdom shall not stand. Verses are the pilars of Gods kingdom. And the way they put it the pilars are divided...

YUP!

[WhiteWings]

Well Jesus rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire from heaven on unbelievers by saying "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them."

If they don't repent before they die, they will fry.
That's the answer you will get. Jesus was giving the people a few years extra time to learn the truth.

Yup and that answer is one I have received. That is the obsfucation I was talking about. They will retreat to generalities rather than addressing the point.

We have a saying that translates as: "Because of the trees don't see the forest."
Is there a similar saying in English? It very well applie sto this discussion.

[Seth]

On 1 Tim 2:4, I recently saw this "rebuttle".  The usual "all" doesn't mean "all" and can mean "all kinds" stuff - based on the greek word their "pas".  Then they quote this verse:

1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

The word there for "all kinds" is the greek "pas" - same word in 1 Tim 2:4.  The only problem I can see is the translators didn't translate 1 Tim 2:4 as "all kinds", only as "all".  But it does make the issue more difficult.

It seems "pas" can legitimately mean "all kinds" or only "all".

Comments?

Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.

Therefore, if all are dead, and Christ died for all the dead, that means God sent Christ to die for ALL men, and that means God wants all men saved....unless the Calvinist wants to admit that not all men were dead in which case they have a major problem with their own depravity doctrine.

[WhiteWings]

Pas always means "each and every, all" It only means otherwise according to how the context limits "pas." The word "pas" is not self-limiting. The context defines whether or not it speaks of absolutely everything or just what the context speaks of. So then if the Bible says that all were dead, and that one died for all, then the "all" that he died for applies to the "all" that were dead.

And in wider context it means only the elect/believers/etc... :dontknow:

[legoman]

Most of the time, when an ETer sees this reasoning, they will obfuscate, try to change the subject, or bring other scriptures in to stall you out (by trying to make scriptures compete against themselves.)

Isn't that pure blasphemy? They accuse God of lies, mistakes or changing His mind. A divided kingdom shall not stand. Verses are the pilars of Gods kingdom. And the way they put it the pilars are divided...

YUP!

I find with the Calvinists (at CARM at least), is that they have this "superior" attitude and assume you don't know what you are talking about.  The whole Calvinist system is relatively stable if you assume God doesn't love everyone, which is what the hardcore's believe.  Any verse that says "world" is simply redefined to mean "some people throughout the world".  ie. God so loved the world...

For evidence they will use an expression like "I am travelling the world" -> does that mean you will travel to every country and to every individual's house?  NO.

Of course the rational response is that world must be understood "in context", and when there is nothing to limit the use of the word "world", it should not be limited.  But of course the Calvinist counter is: obviously it is limited because many people go to hell.

So then you have to try to disprove "hell" (the hades/sheol/gehenna/lake of fire obfuscation) and also disprove "aion" = "eternity" (which most people rarely accept). 

Its all so circular, and there is no way you are getting out of that mindset if you want to believe there is an eternal hell.  Logically, Calvinists have the holes plugged up.  It all fits, but they end up with a "god" who only loves some people.



What are the best verses that say God loves all?  I present Psalm 145:9 and 17 alot myself.  But people find excuses to not believe those too.  "It can't really mean all, because how is sending someone to hell 'loving'?" etc. circular reasoning again.

Psalm 145
9 The LORD is good to all;
       he has compassion on all he has made.
17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways
       and loving toward all he has made.