I gotta ask, Darius,
What was wrong about what my dad said? hmmmm??????

Steph, try this: "As to the rest of the posts by Darius, I must agree with others, he has stedfastly refused to answer a direct question with a direct answer."

I agree with Bro Darius that this is an unconditional guarantee of salvation. For this verse, I prefer the KJV rendering of "He shall save..." It shows that Jesus shall save, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

But I'm not so sure about the interpretation of who constitutes "His people" in the verse. In a sense, all creatures are included. But God has set a precedent of limiting the scope of His promises to those who are called by His name, and then putting conditions on top of that. The meaning of the phrase may change.

In this case, the verse itself defines who "His people" are that it's talking about. They are those who are saved "from their sins."

God's promise will come to pass, and His people shall be saved from their sins.

Steph, that is because no one seems to want to accept what the text says. Jesus came to save his people. He did not come to save people so they could become His people. They were his people before they were saved. Your conclusions that not everyone will be saved disregards the rest of Scripture. If seems to be supported by the NT. The problem is that using that analysis we hvae to say that Nineveh was to be destroyed in 40 days. We know that it was not even though the prophet said it would. Hence, we should ask ourselves why the NT gives the impression than not all will be saved instead of using the NT to discount God's clear statement that He saved everybody.

Darius,
Let me know if I am understanding what you are saying.
Salvation is available to all, and God gave His only begotten Son to save us, so basically all are saved?
If that is the case then with salvation available to all, only some people will choose to accept it?
God Bless,
Will

Will, that is not what I am saying nor is it what reality indicates. You should find it interesting that the one essential piece of information that is omitted in any discussion of salvation is why did the human race need to be saved. Adam and Eve did not ask to be saved, so on what authority did YHWH decide to save them. Salvation must be understood in that context. We either rebelled and joined the ranks of Lucifer which would make us ineligible for salvation or we were captured by Lucifer in which case we would need to play no part in our salvation unless we could escape on our own. Think of it this way. It would be unethical for a firefighter to refuse to rescue a victim from a burning fire because the individual was unable to accept the rescue.

Darius,

This seems like a false dichotomy. Who says those are the only choices? Eve may have been deceived, but she disobeyed. She was enticed to disobey, but she chose to disobey God. That is rebellion. Same with Adam, same with me, same with you. If we continue to disobey, that is continued rebellion.

Also, I hope you don’t mind if I revisit an early part of the conversation since I missed it. Earlier you said this:

---

Quote: posted by Darius

If we are born lost then all infants are born lost and must go to hell as long as they are considered to be infants. This would mean that EGW was wrong to suggest that infants will be in the kingdom. We can't have it both ways. It is more likely that we are born safe until we choose to opt out of the kingdom of God.

---

If it is logical that if infants are born lost they must go to hell, (notwithstanding the truth about what “hell” is) where does that leave the Cross and Jesus’ right to apply his righteousness to whomever He will? To say what you’re saying it seems that your version of “saved” infants would not need the blood of Christ. Now if you are saying that Christ’s blood covers all, so all people are saved, that’s not true either (John 3:16).

Jeff