> Depends on whether one is theologically sublapsarian, supralapsarian, or infralapsarian

Yes, I am familiar with the debate, but it is not one I engage in because I am nonlapsarian (not so funny joke). I reject lapsarianism in all its forms. God has not made an eternal decree of all things, and therefore it could not have happened before, after, or under the sin. I align with neither Arminius nor Calvin as both taught some form of "total depravity" which is also unbiblical.

I don't just quote scholars and expect to win the argument. I often try to keep my responses brief so I don't lose people's attention, so I'm not just writing a wall of text, and so I'm not Gish Galloping. I often have much more to say than what I write. I try to be respectful in that way.

As to your comments, agreement with what you said (and therefore other side with what I said) depends on whether one is theologically sublapsarian, supralapsarian, or infralapsarian—whether Christ died for the whole world or only for the elect. You are likely familiar with this debate, and we certainly are not going to resolve it today in our discussion, or ever until we see Jesus. I happen to believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, but his atoning sacrifice become efficacious only as someone chooses to come to Him for salvation. I am well aware there are verses to support any of the three positions, and the historic alignment of some with Arminius and some with Calvin will never subside.

I would quite strongly disagree that I have misrepresented the character of God, or that I have denied the testimony of Scripture.

I agree strongly with many things you said:

[list][*] God provided grace through faith to many who repeatedly rejected Him
[*] A sinful world has clearly rejected God, and even while we were sinners, Christ died for us
[*] God is perfect and loves perfectly—even those who reject Him.
[*] Christ is the savior of the world[/list]

I am undecided on the original question, but I am firmly decided that your point is entirely unbiblical. I realize that comes across as strong wording, but I think it severely misrepresents the character of God.

> Referencing 1 Tim. 4.10, Robertson, Kittel, and Johnson all agree in saying that Paul is making a distinction in the kinds of salvation meant.

If I point out that Allen, Lemke, and Hankins completely disagree then do I win the argument? Of course not. You have to argue the point, not state theologians who think like you do.

The clear witness of scripture throughout the whole Old Testament, is that God provided grace through faith to sinners who rejected him over and over again. The entire point of God's "hesed" (His faithfulness, lovingkindness, loyal love) is that it is provided over and over and over again to people who were faithless and disloyal. It is literally the entire point of the Old Testament most clearly illustrated in Psalm 136. When the Apostle John states that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) He is contextually speaking of a sinful world that has rejected him. When the Apostle Peter says that the Master bought even the ones who rejected him, he is pointing at the fact that Christ is literally the savior of those who rejected him (2 Peter 2:1). When Paul proclaims Christ to "everyone" he is doing it so that "everyone" will be made mature in Christ (Colossians 1:28).

Finally, when Christ says that God is perfect and loves perfectly, he is speaking a love for those who specifically reject him. Even the Pagans can love those who love them back, but God loves those who reject him. Therefore, we are called to be perfect as God is perfect, because God loves all people, and he proved that love by sacrificing himself for all people. (Matt 5:43-48)

Christ [i]is[/i] the savior of the world. Christ is the savior of every single man, woman, and child. Christ is not "potentially" the savior of all. He is literally the savior of all. Christ bought the sins of everyone. However, His forgiveness is not applied to everyone. This means that every single person has the chance to respond to his saving grace or reject it. Those who reject the act of salvation that is for everyone have rejected him. This is Christ's atonement provided for all, not applied to all.

I think what is described there is more the concept of the virtuous pagan and not baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is better exemplified by the thief on the cross, who recognizing Jesus for who is, and in doing so recognizes his own sinful nature and pleads for mercy. He has a desire to be saved without an understanding or knowledge of what that means; he realizes only that he has no hope of salvation apart from himself.

I struggle with one the contentions in the post: that one cannot have faith with credited to them without belief or even in willful ignorance. This seems to go against the very definition of faith and salvation:

"1 Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen."

"6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him." Hebrews 11:1, 6

The idea that one can do good in the eyes of the Lord, apart from the Spirit, or that one's own righteousness would be counted as equal to Christ's imputed righteousness, conflicts with the idea of grace. One cannot be saved apart from grace. The individual described in the example, while being virtuous and laudable are graceless, and therefore have no hope of heaven because they can boast only in their works.

The passage in 1 Timothy actually doesn't support the views within that post, as it is actually encouraging discipline as an informed choice. Faith and godliness being born out of a willful and determined effort towards serving Christ, not out of rejection (see "falling away" in the opening of the chapter) or by happenstance.

Just to throw in my two cents, I do NOT believe that non-Christians can receive baptism of desire without converting. Referencing 1 Tim. 4.10, Robertson, Kittel, and Johnson all agree in saying that Paul is making a distinction in the kinds of salvation meant. While God is potentially savior of all, He is actually only savior of those who believe (in v. 8 it is godliness that has a promise both for this life and the life to come, and in 2.4 we learn that God wants all to be saved). So Jesus is termed “Savior of the world” (Jn. 4.42; cf. Gal. 6.10). Erdman adds, "Salvation is possible for all, but it is conditioned upon faith in Christ."

Do you believe that non Christians can receive baptism of desire without converting? Now that may seem strange, but let me explain. Essentially what this concept teaches, is that those who are not Christian (even if they heard of Christianity but rejected it) will receive baptism of desire and be saved due to the fact that they strive to do good and it was simply ignorance that caused them to not become Christian. Despite the fact that they might not be Christian, this idea states that they still would inadvertently have faith and thus be saved. A good supporting scripture is 1 Timothy 4:10. Thoughts?

(Btw this is somewhat of a similar idea to one of Aquinas’s teachings, but this is somewhat different in a couple areas)