Jimmy, I didn't interpret those passages.  I simply pasted them.

I'm not so sure it's as cut and dry easy as you make it out to be Jimmy.   Let's be honest and deal with actual, real life facts.

If God wants all to be saved, why does God not make sure that 100% of the people that ever live at some point hear the gospel?  Millions of people live full lives and die without ever hearing the name of Jesus.  Much less a full, accurate gospel presentation that explains that we are guilty under God's law and that Christ Jesus's work on the cross is the only satisfactory atonement for sins in God's sight.

Why does God not paint the gospel in the clouds for all to see?  Remember, general revelation (ie, seeing the creation) is not sufficient for saving souls.  The gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation. 

Next, if God wants all to be saved, some of His actions are very curious.  For example, Christ tells us in Matthew 11 that Chorazin and Bethsaida were in trouble for not repenting.  But then Jesus tells us that the "mighty works" done in those cities, if they had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they most assuredly would have repented.  He also tells us if those mighty works would have been done in Sodom, it wouldn't have been destroyed:



The question is this: If it was a certainty that Tyre and Sidon and Sodom would have repented if certain works had been done - by God - in them, why did God not do them? 

While you ponder that question, Jesus continues with an answer from the perspective of God's sovereignty and how He dispenses His grace in whatever way He wants to, hiding some things from some men and revealing some things to other men:


While you may accuse me of being "disgusting" for believing in Sovereign grace and that God gives or withholds his grace whenever He wants, however He wants, Jesus in fact finds this fact a reason to stop in his tracks and worship. For some reason I just don't think you would have followed suit Jimmy.  Then he puts the nail in the coffin of the debate and outright says that nobody can know the Father unless the Son chooses to reveal the Father to that person. 

Curious that Jesus does not reveal the Father to every single person in human history, being that he wants them all to be saved. Curious that God does not do "mighty works" in certain places when He knows full well that it would result in repentance and salvation.

Next you should consider, oh, lets say, the entire course of human history in the old testament.  God revealed himself to Israel alone, and set his love upon them, and rescued them from paganism.  God handpicked Abraham alone, for no good reason other than a reason in God Himself, and gave him blessings and promises.  There were millions of people on earth at that time, and Abram was hand picked.

God left the other nations of the earth in total darkness and ignorance, never revealing himself to them.  He did not give them the laws, nor the prophets, nor promises, nor the sacrificial system.  I thought He wanted them all to be saved?  No, it sounds like God sovereignly dispensed his undeserved grace in whatever way he found fit.

Next consider that God says to Pharaoh:

"For this reason I raised you up, to show my power in you.."

So Pharaoh was raised to a position of authority and power for a reason.  "For this reason" I did this. Therefore you cannot say that God raised Pharaoh up with the plan of offering salvation to Pharaoh, but Pharaoh was in a position of pride and power such that he would not bow the knee to God. No, God says "For this reason I raised you up".  Pharaoh was in the position he was in on purpose. It was God's doing.  Could Pharaoh have suddenly repented, thwarting God's eternal plan to do what he wanted? God says "I raised you up on purpose to show my power in you" Tell me, at what point did God plan on saving Pharaoh and giving him grace and mercy?  If Pharaoh could have suddenly repented, does that mean God's plan of "raising him up on purpose to show his power in him" would have been thwarted? Would God have then said "I raised you up on purpose to show my power in you, but then you threw a wrench in my plans by repenting and believing!"

Then, consider this passage:


It is interesting that God would actually give people eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear, when in fact he is desperately trying to save them all, and he wants them all to come to their senses and "be saved". Or maybe He isn't.  /shrug

Next we learn that Christ speaks in parables on purpose to hide the truth from some and reveal it to others.


It is curious that the Old Testament example used by Jesus is one where God tells Isaiah that he will make people's hearts dull and blind their eyes so that they cannot see or hear or understand, so that they will not turn and be healed.  Isaiah asks "How long Lord?" And God answers "Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste.." (Isa 6:9-11)

Jesus speaks parables for the exact same reason that the event in Isa 6 happened: Because God was shutting eyes and ears, hiding the truth from some, a form of justice and punishment, because it pleased him to do that rather than giving mercy which is never owed.  But for some reason, I just don't think you would agree with God's decision here Jimmy.  You would protest to Jesus saying "that's disgusting! My god would never do that!" as you have so lovingly told me several times at my mention of believing in a God who sovereignly extends or withholds grace whenever He wants. ;)

Remember, these are not the opinions of a Calvinist Jimmy. These are facts that you and I must deal with.  These are facts that literally actually happened in the course of human history.  God does not makes sure the gospel reaches every single person that is alive.  Millions live and die without ever hearing the gospel.

Is that because God put all of his eggs in the basket of evangelists and missionaries and now it's not working out how he wanted?  Or is it because he has not determined to reveal Himself to and save 100% of all people in both Old and New Testaments?

A very interesting study nonetheless.

Your analogy of the starving villagers woefully misses the mark.

When we are talking about sinners, we are not talking about innocent people that need and deserve some help from fellow human beings. We are talking about guilty lawbreakers, enemies of God, deserving of eternal torture in hell, deserving of God's eternal hatred.  We are talking about people who deserve the kind of thing God Himself describes as justice in his own words:


When we speak of fallen man, sinners, we are speaking of people that God is storing up wrath against so that he can crush them so much that their blood splatters and stains his clothes.

Now, if God were to give mercy to some of those people, then that is amazing grace indeed.  But he is not required to give any mercy.  None deserve salvation so it cannot possibly be unjust to withhold it from them.  But this is what you are arguing. Which means your presupposition can't be anything other than this: "All men deserve salvation."

Your analogy fails. Your presupposition (that men deserve salvation) is not Biblical.  You ignored the majority of the scriptural proofs/evidence that God does in fact withhold mercy.  He has every right to do so as it is undeserved to begin with. Stomping your feet saying "I don't like that!" and "That's gross!" doesn't do anything to advance your argument.  It's the very Bible that is saying these things.  It's not as if I wandered over to this board and wrote a bunch of fictional bible passages.  I copied those verses right out of the Bible itself.  It's the Bible you find "Gross".

We're not talking about what John Calvin believed.  It is irrelevant.  When have I ever referenced or copy/pasted any of his writings or commentaries? Never.  I've only been using the Bible.

Not a single scripturally based argument in this massive block of text!

I made a mess of cut and pasting with the above post, but skalas and my reply should be easily discerned, my apoligies.   Marcus