Does god want everyone to be saved?

[dandbj13]

I always understood the passage in 1Ti. 2:4 to mean that god had a strong desire for everyone to be saved, past, present, and future. But the rest of the Bible does not support universalism. Jesus makes it clear that the vast majority will enter into the wrong gate.

I also thought god's will was inviolable. What god wants, god gets. Nothing can stand in the way of his will. No amount of human free will can change that. So if even one person goes unsaved, it has to be because god didn't want that person to be saved. How much more true does that have to be if most people will not be saved?

All of that is before you get to the declaration in Romans 9 that some are created to be vessels of destruction. This means the Bible offers two opposing views of god's will for salvation. One view is that god wants everyone to be saved. And the other view is that there are some created who were never intended to be saved. Which is it?

 

[columbus]

I also thought god's will was inviolable. What god wants, god gets. Nothing can stand in the way of his will. No amount of human free will can change that. So if even one person goes unsaved, it has to be because god didn't want that person to be saved. How much more true does that have to be if most people will not be saved?

To me, this is one of the most important of the illogical teachings of standard Christianity. Islam has a similar inherent logical problem.
I just cannot believe that God is such a bumbler as that. So I drew the conclusion that such revealed religions were invented by humans with agendas other than Truth.
Tom

 

[Windwalker]

All this goes to show is that the idea that the Bible is a divinely written book with no inconsistencies between its various authors is a myth. (Paul did not actually write 1 Timothy. Heck for that matter, even Paul says one thing here, then another thing later on. We do the same thing in our lives, why wouldn't he?).

 

[Brickjectivity]

I always understood the passage in 1Ti. 2:4 to mean that god had a strong desire for everyone to be saved, past, present, and future. But the rest of the Bible does not support universalism. Jesus makes it clear that the vast majority will enter into the wrong gate.

Welcome to the forum! This is something that you will find agreement and disagreement on. I have a different way of looking at it, very different, too different to really fit into your conversation. I think that for now I do not want to derail your nice thread when what you really want is to discuss whether universalism is scriptural. I just wanted to say hello, and I hope you have a fruitful and interesting debate. Remember that you can report posts that break the rules, and if you have any questions about the rules or how to do something you may just create a thread in Site Feedback, and one or more staff members will assist you.

That said my favorite Bible translation tends to be NIV, and here is your verse in NIV "who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy 2:4)

We could debate a small thing in your topic. Its up to you, but soon you will have probably 5 people replying to your main subject. In my opinion the narrow path Jesus mentions is humility and it is the eye of the needle.

I also thought god's will was inviolable. What god wants, god gets. Nothing can stand in the way of his will. No amount of human free will can change that. So if even one person goes unsaved, it has to be because god didn't want that person to be saved. How much more true does that have to be if most people will not be saved?

In a saved or unsaved world that makes sense. If its about personal salvation and about making Jesus your personal lord & savior versus going to hell, then sure I can follow your reasoning.

All of that is before you get to the declaration in Romans 9 that some are created to be vessels of destruction. This means the Bible offers two opposing views of god's will for salvation. One view is that god wants everyone to be saved. And the other view is that there are some created who were never intended to be saved. Which is it?

That scripture always weighs heavily in many minds. How can people be created to be vessels of destruction if God wants everyone to be saved? I think it indicates that Paul has a different concept of salvation. That is my take on it, so I don't see it as a question of universal salvation versus not universal salvation.

 

[Rival]

Just read the Tanach. Be a good person. Ignore the non testament.

 

[Kemosloby]

I believe the Apostles did their best to steer people to the path of salvation and away from the path of destruction. If a person isn't saved we can see by the fall of man story that God didn't want mankind to eat the forbidden fruit, but they did and suffered the consequences. I believe you should take it to mean similary a persons ablitity to choose the path to salvation or destruction, as not God's desire but willingness to let happen what may.

For instance, God also created Satan but according to scripture was very displeased when Satan tempted man. Also when Cain killed Able, God was displeased but didn't go resurrecting Able. So it seems God has sort of a hands off approach, letting man and beast do what they desire and suffer the consequences, or reap the rewards. So God wishes that all mankind choose the path to salvation. But consistent with God's nature there is the other side of the coin for those who choose that, the path to destruction.

 

[wizanda]

Which is it?

Here is the highway to Hell, and there have been many sign posts sent by God to warn us, not to go the way we're going.

Repentance means in Hebrew to turn back the right way.

Thus God Most High wants everyone to become enlightened one day, whilst mankind doesn't know where it is going...

So when Paul, John and Simon were all made up by the same Pharisaic misunderstanding, many are still heading in the wrong direction.

Just read the Tanach.

After reading the Tanakh, and not commentaries by none aware scholars, found that it repeatedly refers to Yeshua by name, and concept.

 

[MHz]

I'm going with the God of the living can and will save everybody, right down to the lamb He killed in the garden so Adam and Eve had clothes to the birds and animals that Christ invites to feed on the bodies of men on the day of return. You can use the verse below to show how much life from this eart6h will also be alive again in the new earth verses.

Lu:12:6:
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,
and not one of them is forgotten before God?
Lu:12:7:
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear not therefore:
ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Isa:60:22:
A little one shall become a thousand,
and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.

 

[dandbj13]

If a person isn't saved we can see by the fall of man story that God didn't want mankind to eat the forbidden fruit, but they did and suffered the consequences.

Emphasis mine.

God's actions suggest otherwise. First, god confined them to a garden that contained a forbidden tree with poison fruit. If I recall, it was centrally located, not where it could easily be missed. Moreover, it was attractive to the woman. God could have made it unattractive.

This pretends that god needed to magically imbue a natural object like edible fruit, with the supernatural property of imparting forbidden knowledge in the first place. If such a thing had to exist, why in the garden home of perfection? If in the home, why centrally located where it would tempt the humans who did not know the difference between good and evil? And so on...

Do these seem like actions of a god who really didn't want them to eat the fruit? Have you ever been told not to do something? That thing becomes foremost on your mind. And just in case they could resist, god seeds the garden with an evil, talking snake to seal the deal. This does not align with the idea that god didn't want them to eat of the tree. It seemed like god was pushing for exactly the outcome he got.

 

[Kapalika]

Here's a crazy idea; there is no salvation or anything to be saved from.

In Dharmic religions it's believed that we are all born with an illusionary perception of the world, and that we are bound to cycles of rebirth, but that we ultimately will all break that cycle and have real awareness. It isn't like salvation, as also unlike the Christian/Muslim view, there isn't any eternal hell. It also puts you in charge of becoming a better person instead of trying to just 'pray the bad away.'

 

[VioletVortex]

As an Pagan, I am not a universalist. Different forms of Paganism correspond to different groups of people, and thus tend to hold the most appeal to their respective groups. All forms of Indo-European Paganism are essentially different paths to the same goal. Odinism is not for everyone.

No one needs to be saved. If we **** up, we ****ed up and should rectify the mistake, and if we haven't, that's all good...

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I always understood the passage in 1Ti. 2:4 to mean that god had a strong desire for everyone to be saved, past, present, and future. But the rest of the Bible does not support universalism. Jesus makes it clear that the vast majority will enter into the wrong gate.

The problem is how do we determine which goals come from (mostly xenophobic) authors and which goals come from God?

Jesus makes it clear that the vast majority will enter into the wrong gate.

Jesus also tends to lack some creativity, which is weird for a deity. I mean, just repave the road, add some new signage, widen the door, etc. LOL ...

I mean, I get why he says it, but it also screams population control, like the poor doorman can only handle so much traffic and the angels have some sort of Maximum Occupancy rule or something.

So it seems God has sort of a hands off approach, letting man and beast do what they desire and suffer the consequences, or reap the rewards.

Yeah, but lasseiz-faire governing doesn't work as well in real life as it sounds on paper.

When, in one of the parables, some farmers complain to the landowner that the owner doesn't do squat and then takes their bounty, they ... they ... they have a point. Jesus' royalty and landowning parables show us that Jesus doesn't seem to grasp that maybe if you didn't treat your subjects/employees like crap, they'd be happier with you.

right down to the lamb He killed in the garden

Why did God have to kill an animal? He can make a man out of dirt but can't make a loincloth without butchering?

This pretends that god needed to magically imbue a natural object like edible fruit, with the supernatural property of imparting forbidden knowledge in the first place. If such a thing had to exist, why in the garden home of perfection? If in the home, why centrally located where it would tempt the humans who did not know the difference between good and evil? And so on...

In all honesty, this is probably an homage or directly borrowed from more ancient stories. Many cultures across the globe have divine gardens where the gods had magic immortality and other superpower foodstuffs growing there.

Stealing said fruit by humans is a common plot point.

 

[Vinayaka]

Here's a crazy idea; there is no salvation or anything to be saved from.

Convincing yourself of having to be saved sure seems to me like a sure way to low self-esteem. Having a messiah who does it for you just seems like the lazy way out.

 

[Kirran]

Well I think every soul is eventually liberated, which seems a related idea. So none of the options is really right to me.

 

[Kemosloby]

Emphasis mine.

God's actions suggest otherwise. First, god confined them to a garden that contained a forbidden tree with poison fruit. If I recall, it was centrally located, not where it could easily be missed. Moreover, it was attractive to the woman. God could have made it unattractive.

This pretends that god needed to magically imbue a natural object like edible fruit, with the supernatural property of imparting forbidden knowledge in the first place. If such a thing had to exist, why in the garden home of perfection? If in the home, why centrally located where it would tempt the humans who did not know the difference between good and evil? And so on...

Do these seem like actions of a god who really didn't want them to eat the fruit? Have you ever been told not to do something? That thing becomes foremost on your mind. And just in case they could resist, god seeds the garden with an evil, talking snake to seal the deal. This does not align with the idea that god didn't want them to eat of the tree. It seemed like god was pushing for exactly the outcome he got.

As attractive as the fruit was the warning not to eat it was at least as unattractive "because they would die", so it came down to who did they put their trust in, God or the Devil. And it seems to still work the same way.

 

[George-ananda]

Hi @dandbj13

As a veteran of this forum, let me suggest this discussion would probably be a better fit in the Abrahamic Religions > Christianity directory and not Religious Debates. Traditional Christians are probably a minority on this forum and the majority will be just interested in challenging the premises behind your question and not the question itself.

 

[columbus]

Why did God have to kill an animal? He can make a man out of dirt but can't make a loincloth without butchering?

Why make a loincloth at all? Why not just point out, "I didn't just change your diaper, I decided exactly how you were going to be shaped! You think I don't know what you got?!"

Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

I always understood the passage in 1Ti. 2:4 to mean that god had a strong desire for everyone to be saved, past, present, and future. But the rest of the Bible does not support universalism. Jesus makes it clear that the vast majority will enter into the wrong gate.

I also thought god's will was inviolable. What god wants, god gets. Nothing can stand in the way of his will. No amount of human free will can change that. So if even one person goes unsaved, it has to be because god didn't want that person to be saved. How much more true does that have to be if most people will not be saved?

All of that is before you get to the declaration in Romans 9 that some are created to be vessels of destruction. This means the Bible offers two opposing views of god's will for salvation. One view is that god wants everyone to be saved. And the other view is that there are some created who were never intended to be saved. Which is it?

Bizzare isn't it?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I always understood the passage in 1Ti. 2:4 to mean that god had a strong desire for everyone to be saved, past, present, and future. But the rest of the Bible does not support universalism. Jesus makes it clear that the vast majority will enter into the wrong gate.
I also thought god's will was inviolable. What god wants, god gets. Nothing can stand in the way of his will. No amount of human free will can change that. So if even one person goes unsaved, it has to be because god didn't want that person to be saved. How much more true does that have to be if most people will not be saved?
All of that is before you get to the declaration in Romans 9 that some are created to be vessels of destruction. This means the Bible offers two opposing views of god's will for salvation. One view is that god wants everyone to be saved. And the other view is that there are some created who were never intended to be saved. Which is it?

In my view, we are ALL clay in the hands of the Great Potter. When we resist being molded for a good purpose, then we can end up as a vessel ( like an inferior vase ) fit only for destruction.

To me, "ALL" to be saved who want to live by the Golden Rule and Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
To have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus had and taught at John 14:6 that Jesus is the way......

I see in the Greek Interlinear translation ( Bible not originally written in English ) which reads at 1 Timothy 2:4 'of God who all men is willing to be saved......' but Not ALL are 'willing' and that is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom overs MANY and does Not say ALL. That is in harmony with 2 Peter 3:9 that we all have two (2) choices to either ' repent ' or ' perish ' ( be destroyed ). The wicked will be destroyed forever according to Psalms 92:7.

So in my view, God does have a strong desire for everyone to be saved - 1 John 5:7. The desire of Not to live by God's standards is on our part, Not on God's part. We can corrupt oneself . Please notice Deuteronomy 4:16 B; 32:5.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well I think every soul is eventually liberated, which seems a related idea. So none of the options is really right to me.

You are Not alone in your thinking. I was just at a funeral talk and the preacher had everyone saved.
However, that is out of harmony with the teachings of Christ Jesus.

Also, according to Ezekiel 18:4,20 the soul that sins 'dies '. So, the soul is Not death proof.
Acts of the Apostles 3:23 even brings to our attention that one's soul can be destroyed.
That is also in harmony with Psalms 92:7 which says the wicked will be destroyed forever. ( annihilated )