nothing exists that God did not create. therefore He is, in a very real sense, the father of all.
there’s another issue, which i think i remember GM mentioning in TEU (apologies if that’s wrong):
if i was standing by a busy road, restricting my children from running into it, but i saw my neighbour allowing them to do it no problem…what kind of person would i be if i did not act to save them as well? even if they weren’t mine?
Different passages use the concept of “child of God” differently. As Jaxxen noted many passages use the concept of “child of God” to distinguish between those in a covenant familial relationship with God verses those who are not, whether that be spoken of in terms of birth or adoption or bond servant. On the other hand other passages affirm that all are “children of God”, a primary passage being Genesis where Adam and Eve are created in the “image of God”. “Image of” is a phrase that speaks of family relationship. If one is “of my flesh” one is part of my family. Even today we use similar terminology; my son is my “spittin’ image.”
Calvinism and Universalism both recognize these various perspectives of relationship with God. The difference comes in the purpose of the passages that draw a distinction between those who currently have a relationship with God and those who do not. Calvinism affirms that some are chosen at the exclusion of others. Universalism affirms that some are chosen for the inclusion of others. Calvinism affirms that some are chosen at the exclusion of others because it is believed that some are ultimately damned to Hell, thus some are not and never shall be “children of God”, and various passages are interpreted from that perspective.
I believe though that the chosen, the elect are not chosen at the exclusion of others but for the inclusion and blessing of all. Israel was chosen from among all nations to be a blessing to all nations. We are reconciled to God and given the ministry of reconciliation. We are chosen as priests unto God as a blessing to all peoples. The church is called out from among the nations to bless all nations. Jesus is not the Savior of “only” the elect, but of “especially” the elect, we who now believe. God sovereignly moves in some lives to be a blessing to all. God sovereignly moved in Saul’s life to be a blessing to all. Even within the elect, some are sovereignly chosen and equipped by God to equip others in the ministry of reconciliation of all. And to whom much is given, much is expected. I find it significant that most passages that warn of judgment are warnings of judgment for the children of God.
Calvinism and Universalism differ on their understanding of the purpose of judgment. Calvinism affirms that judgment is primarily for the separation of the elect vs. the non-elect, which I do not believe scripture affirms. Universalism affims that judgment is to deliver us all from evil and this judgment is based on what one does with what one is given by God whether that be talents, relationships, opportunities, spiritual gifts, etc. or even faith.
For example, in the Mt.25 passage on judgment, the kids (eriphos) are separated from the flock (probaton) based upon how they treat the less fortunate. It is not separating out believers and unbelievers, but those who see and meet the needs of others verses those who don’t. Sadly, the mistranslation as separating the “sheep” and the “goats” misses that the passage is talking about maturity and is a warning for all, especially we believers! Mistranslating it as a separation of the saved and the unsaved totally nullifies the power of this passage to call anyone to Repentance. The unsaved do not care what it says and the believers disregard it as not applicable to them because they are saved. Very sad!
Jaxxen, Bob, and everyone else.
A few years back before I became a universalist and was wrestling with the whole Arminian v. Calvinism thing I came across an amazing article on line. It gave an interpretation of the Gospel of John from an Arminian perspective, and did so by taking seriously the Jewish context in which the Gospel of John and the ministry of Jesus came from. It’s a wonderful article, and I’ve never come across this argument anywhere else. I highly recommend it. Its’ called: “The Order of Faith and Election in John’s Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep” and it deals in particular with John 8 and John 10, passages cited above.
Here is the link: evangelicalarminians.org/files/Hamilton.%20The%20Order%20of%20Faith%20and%20Election%20in%20John’s%20Gospel…pdf
I very much appreciate the civility of the discussion so far in this thread, and I hope it continues!
Still working on the exegetical reply (now with additions I guess), but since Jaxxen replied to something I wrote (while replying to BobW)…
What exactly is Paul qualifying “offspring” by appealing to the utter, total scope of the fatherhood of God in regard to everyone, which you acknowledge was common ground between him and the philosophers?
Because it doesn’t look to me like he is limiting anything to do with “offspring” by appealing to a phrase he himself commonly uses to affirm the maximal authority and ontological superior uniqueness of God. Limiting the number of deities we should be worshiping, yes; limiting who counts as “offspring”, no.
But Paul then connects that scope of offspring to his rationale for evangelism. Shouldn’t he be limiting who counts as offspring for evangelism?
Hi Matt,
Thanks. I’m familiar with the Order of Salvation, but you invited my take on OP, and I’m afraid I’m not sure what that means. But yes, I’m quite familiar with “common grace” and your general understanding of election. You and I, as well as Jason, Sherman, etc, seem to agree that whether we are all now God’s ‘children’ depends on the definition. We appear to agree that Paul sees all as God’s ‘offspring,’ but not in the sense of already being in covenantal relationship. Thus I sense that besides traditional Calvinist exclusivism, our pivotal difference here is your belief that “God does not love everyone.”
There has been much discussion of this especially in Tom Talbott’s dialogue with the Calvinist, Glenn Peoples. In 1972, I took a class on diagramming and exegeting Romans 9-11, and could not make sense out of Paul’s use of “hate” and election. It was Talbott’s interpretation of this passage that most led to my universalism. It has since led me to believe that the Bible is full of the suggestion that God loves everyone, even his enemies. Are you familiar with Talbott’s book or understanding of what Paul is saying about Israel in Romans 9-11? I assume that you think God’s love for the “world,” etc only means common grace, and is consistent with offering them no real chance at salvation, since “love” in any full sense would include saving love. But perhaps you can clarify your understanding of the nature of God’s love.
Everything from being a Trinitarian or not, purgatory or not, innerrancy or not, soul sleep or not, homosexuality pro or con, miracles in Scripture being real or symbloic… For being the truth of God, supposedly having a majority of schools in the early church, heavy hitters such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, William Barclay, all the way through the present, I’d kind of expect a bit more unity. Now, granted Calvinists also have their disagreements. Infra / supralapsarianism, paedo / credo baptism / immersion /sprinkling, premil / amil. But in light of what I posted above, our disagreements seems somewhat minor. I’m sure that all of this contributes to my having misunderstood at least one important component of UR. I look forward to you and Bob clarifying some things.
Hi there, I have to admit, the above makes me question…*So what if we get things misunderstood/wrong? *
As long as ALL of us pick up our crosses, and love others as our Heavenly Father loves us I don’t see a problem with making a mistake in Christian doctrine. The pharisees in Jesus day were “united”, does that make them *right? *
I don’t see why tradition and doctrine has to be a safety blanket for people, why must we insist on having the full truth? I don’t have the full truth, in fact I believe no one does. When I realized this, I could let go of my constant worry of getting things wrong.
The reason why I think Christian’s that believe in universal salvation differ in opinion between themselves is because many come from different denominations of Christianity, Is this a problem? Maybe for us, but surely not to God.
I think all Christians need to realize that it is OK to differ in opinion, let’s be humble and admit we don’t know the full truth. You say that many people are in fact not his children, my heart tells me different. The mouth speaks of folly, and the heart can deceive…So who is right? Regardless who is right and who is wrong I feel we are missing the point, The only right thing is Jesus, wouldn’t it be a glorious moment if we praised his name together? 
Hi Matt,
My views include Arminian resistible grace, conditional election, and synergism. I consider a possible eventual irresistible divine revelation. Many universalists are monergists, but I am not one of them. I agree with you that since the fall, humans need divine adoption for salvation. And we disagree on the quantity or percent of people who will eventually accept salvation.
Earlier in this thread, Caleb Fogg referred to an article by the Arminian Robert Hamilton on John’s Gospel. I also found an article on Romans 9 by him and it had this interesting comment on the “children of God” in the end notes.
evangelicalarminians.org/files/H … 20Nine.pdf p56
Thanks Caleb.
Your welcome, Craig. Yeah, Hamilton’s written some good stuff.
Sorry for the delay in finishing out my comments, guys; tax weekend at Casa Pratta. 
Disclaimer: I don’t have time right now to read the whole thread and might not have time to read after this for a while – but in case it hasn’t been mentioned, what about Hosea? In the place where it was said of you, ‘you are not my children,’ I shall call you 'children of a living God." (A very loose quotation from memory.) While the text immediately refers to Israel, God is not a respecter of persons. Clearly He has brought the nations into the fold. Those who WERE ‘not my children’ have BECOME the children of the living God. How is this possible of those who were NOT to BECOME if God has predestined them for NOT? Doesn’t He know what He will do? Doesn’t He know who IS and who IS NOT predestined to be among His children? And if they have been pre-selected, have they not ALWAYS been His?
Although God is talking in Hosea, about rebel Israel being restored after being eschatologically punished, when St. Paul quotes it he gives it the full scope of the Gentiles, too.
However, Jaxxen allows that no sinner starts off as God’s people from our side of things; God chooses to make those who are not His people His people (Israel herself, starting with Abraham, being a prime example).
The problem is that in Hosea, it is God Who says that various rebels are not His people. So from God’s side of things He declared those people not His people.
Jaxxen could (and I expect would) reply that God can declare a group not His people and then save members of their people who come later into being His people. But then the “two separate people” still isn’t as wholly distinct as required.
Hmm . . . yes, I suppose he could. Still the point for me would be that God reserves the right to move a person from this category to that as He pleases . . . and why would He choose to move Joe from X to Y? I’ve just been studying Rom 11 (the middle part – will get to the last bit tomorrow probably).
It’s beastly hard to type with your index finger swathed in a huge wad of gauze, btw – just smashed it in the wood splitter and now have 7 stitches. 
There (in Ro11) it looks to me like God is breaking out and grafting in branches as He pleases; now one, now another. He can break them out and He can graft them in. It all depends on whether they’re putting trust in Him for righteousness or in their ability to keep the law. And if they stop trusting themselves and believe Him, He grafts them back in . . . It doesn’t say so directly, but it looks like it’s an ongoing process – or can go on as long as He likes. Why would He be required to stop? He doesn’t say He’s going to stop at any particular time.
Going to go paint now. That only takes one hand. 
Ouch Cindy - look after your fingers
Just one last thing about this debate –
I think that our new kid Miss Zoolander made some really good points here and that it’s a shame these haven’t been commented on because the conversation was so fast and furious. And I’d like to add something to her observations about unity among Christian Universalists. It’s just that if an Evangelical ECT site existed along the lines of the Evangelical Universalist site that – and it did not ask contributors to subscribe to any rigid dogmatic statement - there would not be sweetness and light all of the time. For starters the Calvinists and Armenians would be bitterly opposed. And if any people from the Orthodox ECT tradition joined up they’d be making very inflammatory comments about it begin a blasphemous notion that their God of love would create a special fire in which to torture his creatures for eternity. Perhaps the Calvinists would stick together against the ‘world’ – but I doubt it. Calvinism that breaks off from the wider Church is notorious for splitting into smaller and smaller groups very acrimoniously over finer and finer points of doctrine and/or epistemology (I know this is true of Scottish and Dutch Calvinism for example); and some of these splits would be reflected on the site. Perhaps there might be a valiant stand from the soft ECT faction adamant that damnation is self chosen rather than due to God’s action – and perhaps these might be accused of creeping universalism.
Also with threads on moral and political issues I would not expect any unanimity – and I guess Theonmist drones might cause much excitement with views others could not endorse because of their extremism. In all honesty I actually cannot imagine such a site existing in this or any parallel world. So I reckon this site is pretty good regarding charitableness in difference – I really do.
Phew! Sorry for the delay–I had most of this composed already a week or so ago, but got distracted doing other things.
I’ll be going through Matt (Jaxxen)'s list of examples supposedly testifying to two separate people in the Calvinist sense that God never even had any intention of saving one of those groups (the non-elect) from their sins. Thus Jaxxen offers these as testimony “that not all human beings are His children, only the Elect–and that through adoption. The whole of Scripture reveals two separate peoples with two different destinies; those who are foreknown, predestined and called of YHWH to be His people in His Kingdom and those who are not.”
This is going to take a while, so I’ll break it up into groups of posts.
Both of whom are the offspring of God. And the same “bronze serpent” (same term from Gen 3:15) shows up eating dust and playing with children on the Holy Mountain of God, as revealed through Isaiah (64:25), along with other ravening animals who attacked God’s people, so he and/or his offspring end up reconciled to God and to other persons later. Not the best examples for two separate people in the sense required.
Both of whom are the offspring of God, also both of whom are the offspring of the woman by the way (one of whom, Cain, she thought would be YHWH, in the Hebrew!); Cain is cared for and provided for and protected by God against the hatred from descendants of the other side of the family. Not the best examples for two separate people in the sense required. (Aside from the question of who exactly Cain married and had children with east of Eden!–but whoever they were, they were part of the Adamic family one way or another, if only by virtue of relation to Cain. If they had rational spirits, and so were actual persons, they got those from God the Father of Spirits or else supernaturalistic theism isn’t true, thus neither is Calvinist Christianity per se.)
Genesis 5 has exactly nothing to do with the line of Cain, unless the Enoch/Methuselah/Lamech/Noah line refers to intermarriage back into the line of Cain from Genesis 4:16-24 somehow. One way or another Genesis 5 doesn’t support two separate people in the sense required.
The unnamed ones destroyed in the flood explicitly included rebel “sons of God” and their offspring the Nephilim (whatever that may mean). The line of Cain is not mentioned; all the explicitly mentioned trouble comes from “sons of God”. Very far from being two separate people in the sense required. (And not even counting whether 1 Peter discusses their post-mortem salvation after all.)
If you’re going to include Noah on one side of the separate people category, then that includes his sons. Trouble certainly came from them, but still not two separate people in the sense required.
Hagar’s son was also a son of Abraham, and God went very far in promising protection and blessings for him. Paul, in the middle of talking about (and grieving over) those descended from Abraham who are not spiritual Israel, reiterates that those who are not currently spiritual Israel still have the promises, the covenants, and the blessings (up to and including the Christ) given to the patriarchs. (Rom 10-11) They may have stumbled and are currently stumbling over the stumbling stone, but not so as to fall.
Paul’s reference to Hagar in Galatians 4 uses her as a metaphor for the covenant of Mount Sinai, being under the Law, which covenant Israel broke and was punished for, but which will be replaced in those who broke it with a superior covenant; Sarah represents the covenant of promise, which only God made, not Abraham (by God’s gracious provenance), so which cannot be invalidated by the misdeeds of Abraham’s descendants. (Similarly the “everlasting” priesthood of Aaron, from the Sinai covenant, is abolished in favor of the priesthood of the Messiah Who is established “not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life”. (Heb 7:12-18)) Thus Paul’s comparison and complaint to the Galatians, about them going back to the covenant of Sinai rather than the covenant of Abraham (through Isaac). Hagar represents the present Jerusalem currently under slavery (Gal 4:25), but those people are not inherently non-elect in the Calvinist sense or no one could be called out of Hagar into the promises of Sarah, the free mother!–yet Paul says this has happened with his audience (and with him as well). It is even more suggestive that Paul reckons Ishamael, the child of Hagar, into the covenant of Sinai and the present Jerusalem, out of whom we are converted into the promises to Sarah. So there is no absolutely utter distinction in Galatians 4 between “the son of the bondswoman and the son of the free woman”: Christ sets us free with the freedom of the free woman, the freedom of the heavenly Jerusalem. But we are set free from the slavery of being immature heirs.
It is in this context that Paul quotes Isaiah 54 at Gal 4:27; which (from back at least as far as Isaiah 49, maybe even Isaiah 47 insofar as Babylon is often mystically identified with rebel Israel) about Israel being a faithless and treacherous wife who slew her husband (the classic Suffering Servant prophecy from Isaiah 53), and who was punished by God for a moment but who shall be saved everlastingly by Him. There is simply no two separate people in this example, in the sense required.
I will also observe that one chapter earlier (Gal 3:6-8), St. Paul argues that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham, but says this in direct citational context of Genesis 18:18 which prophecies that God shall justify the nations by faith: all the nations cannot be blessed in Abraham, the believer, unless all the nations come to have faith in God. By the same token of proportion, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them”–and in fact no one is justified by the Law before God. All nations have sinned: corporately, individually and universally. All nations means everyone in relation to the same context when talking about sin; the prophecy indicates (unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise) all nations means everyone when talking about being saved into faith and becoming sons of Abraham.
Even more importantly, the promise of blessing to all nations is really being offered to Christ, the seed of Abraham (verse 16). Nor can the Law, which came 430 years later, nullify that promise nor invalidate a covenant (actually made with the Son by the Father through Abraham) previously ratified by God. For God grants it to Abraham (and thus to Christ) by means of a promise. Consequently, the failure of both Jews and Gentiles to keep the Law (and Paul recognizes that even Gentiles who do not have the Torah still have a conscience inspired by God to act as Torah within them so that no one has excuse but all are shut up under the Law), does not supercede the promise made to the Son by the Father to bless all nations: a blessing that Paul explicitly identifies as salvation from sin and the reception of the Holy Spirit through faith.
Calvinists would quickly agree and insist that the Father would be shamed by giving up or (worse) being incompetent to fulfill that promise to the Son: that is a standard counter-Arminian argument. But if the promise is given to Christ by the Father, and fulfilled for Christ by the Father, then how would the Father not also be shamed by promising to the Son less than what was achieved through sin: the corruption of all humanity?!
Not a good example; the Calv non-elect have no birthright to even sell, and Esau reconciled with Jacob in one of the most beautiful stories of the OT. While he didn’t get his birthright back (thus found no chance to repent though he wept), he did repent of his murderous hatred of Jacob (just as Jacob repented of being in effect a Satan to Esau!–a comparison explicitly made by God through one of the OT prophets, btw, when criticizing Israel later.)
Isaac also prophetically promised that Esau would be blessed in Jacob and would serve Jacob–promises explicitly called out and referred to by St. Paul in Romans 9, but which would fail in any meaningful way if Esau was never saved from his sins. (The Hebraist in chapter 11:20 also reminds readers that by faith Isaac blessed Esau as well as Jacob!)
The same is true of Esau’s descendants, Edom: as the land of Edom will eventually be healed (after being nuked by God in Isaiah 34) and even become a highway for the righteous to pass through on the way to Jerusalem, while those who have been stricken with blindness, deafness and dumbness shall be healed (Isaiah 35); and as Esau eventually reconciled with Jacob; so Esau’s descendants shall eventually reconcile with Jacob’s descendants, and be blessed thanks to the blessing of Jacob (specifically that Jacob not Esau should be the line of descent to the Messiah), thanks to God.
A Calvinist could admittedly still work with all this and also a “two separate people” soteriology, but not by using Esau (or even Edom) as an example.
And yet Egypt is still slated to be brought into the fold later. One example is Psalm 68, loaded with imagery of God bringing His people out from captivity while only the rebellious remain in parched lands; but this is done so that even the rebellious will (eventually) bring gifts to God so that God will dwell with them, too. (v.18; which Paul in Ephesians 4:8 compares in principle to the descent of Christ for the purpose of leading captive captivity itself!) Egypt and Ethiopia, both pagan nations at the time (and apparently slated to become so again, largely accomplished already in Egypt), shall quickly stretch out their hands and send envoys to God, bringing gifts to His Temple after He scatters them. (vv.28-31)
Relatedly God promises Pharaoh that He will not destroy him, but rather preserve him (despite Pharaoh’s own willing hardening of the heart when he has a choice about it) to give glory to God. The phraseology in Hebrew can refer to God bringing Pharaoh back to life (which is why Paul renders it in Greek as “raise you up”); and rabbis in the day of Paul (and afterward) made that the centerpiece of their theories about how Pharaoh could have given glory to God if he died in the Reed Sea: either God raised him on the Egypt side of the sea and he went back to become the pharaoh who led the monotheistic rebellion soon after Moses’ day; or God raised him on the Sinai side of the sea and he followed the people through the wilderness anonymously, went up the Jordan into Mesopotamia, and became the ruler of Ninevah! “So then [salvation, as of Ninevah] does not depend on the man who wills * or on the man who runs *, but on God Who has mercy.” It was in regard to the obstinate people who did not enter the rest of the Promised Land, that God revealed Himself to Moses not only as one who would by no means leave the guilty unpunished but also “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”, promising to continue sending His presence to them despite the incident with the golden calf (and despite none but Joshua and one other, not even Moses, being allowed into the rest of the Promised Land after all. But no one thinks Moses was one of the non-elected people!–nor Aaron nor Miriam, etc.)
Again, a Calvinist could accept all this and also* a “two separate people” soteriology, but Egypt ends up not being an example of that principle. The relevant practical distinction between Israel and Egypt is that everyone currently in Egypt (both Gentile and Jew) ought to go into Israel (first the Jew and then the Gentile), whereas in the day of Egypt’s first humiliation they had thought it ought to be the other way around.
Since that isn’t a specific example, I will answer generally that you yourself acknowledge that the righteous start off among the wicked; so again there are not two separate people in the Calvinistic sense required.
(Also, I routinely find it amusing that the term “reprobate” is used of people whom the users don’t expect to be re-probated at all! Strictly speaking it ought to be the elect who are re-probated, and re-tributed, out of the wicked, thus made righteous. If “reprobate” was used of backsliders out of the righteous, that could make sense; but then we are all reprobate in that sense to some extent, and Calv soteriology cannot functionally recognize such a fall from true righteousness in the first place. Come to think of it, if Calv persistence of the elect is true, the only people who should fall are those whom God never intends to save from sin after falling!–and so much for Adam and Eve, whom God promises salvation to, and of whom no Calvinist I have ever heard of thinks are among the hopelessly non-elected.)
God calls false prophets, too, sometimes, like Baalam, to be true prophets. (Abraham himself might count in principle, as a former idolmaker!) Not two separate categories again in the sense required.*
If that parable really illustrated two separate people in the Calvinistic sense required, the apostles and disciples would not have misunderstood the parable so as to need explanation. “Whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it”, they are like the ones on whom seed is sown by the road. All the apostles and disciples ended up having no firm root and fell away immediately (though to various degrees) when persecution arose–and this was after having the parable explained to them! So they were ones on whom the seed was sown in rocky places.
Again, Peter routinely had problems realizing he was supposed to be evangelizing Gentiles not only Jews, and wasn’t called to make converts to Judaism per se. St. Paul had some sharp things to say about him being afraid of the opinion of others!–and that was all well into the post-resurrection ministry! He (if not the others) counts as one on whom the seed was sown among the thorns.
Moreover, Jesus shifted over to parables (as GosMatt makes clearer than the other Synoptics) the afternoon after the Pharisees of Capernaum had charged Him with serving and healing by the power of the devil, when He had healed a man from whom (as Matthew also somewhat clarifies) He had already cast out one demon and who had come back with his latter state worse than his first: the Pharisees are condemned for being willing to contradict their own principles in order to put limits on God’s salvation of people from sin, so I’m loath to interpret Jesus’ parables (and His interpretation of parables) with limits on His salvation of people from sin!
The parable of the wheat and the tares speaks of “sons of the kingdom” being in the group that Calvs would regard as the elect, thus the other group as the non-elect; but the previous time in GosMatt (8:12) Jesus had spoken of “the sons of the kingdom”, He was warning them that they would be wailing and gnashing their teeth about being thrown outside and seeing people they weren’t expecting to be saved entering into the kingdom to dine with the patriarchs at the table of the Lord!
So again, there isn’t two separate people in the sense required by Calvinism. “The sons of the kingdom” may be “sons of the evil one” and punished thereby.
(To which could be added that the parable portrays God being caught by surprise and the tares being something God can do nothing about. So even Calvs must acknowledge the details shouldn’t be held to rigorously: it isn’t as though God graciously transforms the tares into wheat.)
In regard to the wheat and chaff (which comes from Matt 3, not Matt 13, paralleled at Luke 3:9,16-17): Jesus isn’t simply dividing completely separate items from each other, wheat and chaff, but is removing each kernal of wheat from its own chaff by scouring with the winnowing fan. This tends to imply salvation of a person from sin, not separation of different kinds of person.
John the Baptist, in teaching this parable, connects it to Malachi 4:1-3, which features similar imagery attributed as part of the message of the coming Elijah, including burning of the tree (per Luke 3:9 and Matt 3:10). However, God (via Malachi) says this is coming to all sinners on the Day of YHWH to come; but all sinners must include the rebel Israelites (particularly the rebel religious leaders–who are specifically whom JohnBapt is admonishing in GosMatt and GosLuke) from back in Malachi 3, who are set to be purged with fire in the same Day of YHWH to come. This is very far from hopeless for them, as God both intends to save them from their sins thereby (in refining imagery) and prophetically expects full success! This lends great strength to the interpretation of the chaff as being salvation of sinners from sin: the Synoptic saying, in its referential contexts, testifies at least to the salvation of rebel Israel in the Day of YHWH to come, with the implication that this applies to all sinners via Mal 4.
Actually, in the parable the good fish are slated to be thrown into the fire after being stored in containers; the bad fish are thrown away, presumably back in the lake!
Jesus reverses the actual imagery somewhat, with the explanation being that the bad fish are thrown in the fire (where, per Matt 8:12, the sons of the kingdom will also be thrown if they don’t cooperate with God bringing in people whom the sons aren’t expecting to be brought in!) If the lake == hades/Gehenna, which would be typical Jewish poetic imagery, that means the good fish as being saved out of the spirit prison but others thrown back in. That would run rather counter to the notion that the good fish don’t go to spirit prison in the first place, and tends to suggest salvation of penitent post-mortem spirits. Which (as I noted earlier in another thread) could work with Calvinism, too, so long as the Calvinist allows post-mortem salvation of the elect. But the details of the parable subtly undermine any notion of two absolutely separate people in the Calvinistic sense required. Unless Calvinists are saying that God only saves people who are already good enough to be saved to begin with (which Calvs strongly argue against vs. the implications of Arm soteriology).
The most that can be said for sure of the parable is that it teaches punishment of the wicked eventually in fire and with weeping and gnashing of teeth, which is a belief Arms and (purgatorial) Kaths share with Calvs. What it means for them to be so punished has to be established elsewhere. (But mustn’t involve denying that God is able and willing to save those whose latter states are worse than their former.)
The baby-goats are explicitly described as being part of the flock of the shepherd, and so are literally the least of Christ’s flock (although they didn’t think so and weren’t interested in saving who they thought were the least of Christ’s flock).
Any interpretation that involves a hopeless fate for the goats requires that the Good Shepherd and the good flock (since the term there can include goats as well as sheep) will proceed to treat the least of Christ’s flock the way the least of Christ’s flock treated the least of Christ’s flock for which the least of Christ’s flock are being sent into the eonian fire and kolasis prepared for the devil; which is an interpretation of the sort a baby-goat would make! (The baby-goats are explicitly the ones who think in terms of people to be saved and people not to be saved.)
Considering that this parable caps a trio of warnings where the other two parables involve lazy and/or uncharitable servants of Christ (the foolish virgins are not part of some separate group who don’t belong to the bridegroom; the lazy investor who tries to get out of his duty by flattering his master as a chief of brigands isn’t some separate group of person), and considering that Christ counts those among His mature flock who didn’t even know they were serving Christ (while the baby-goats are surprised to hear they weren’t serving Christ), I take that judgment parable very, very seriously: on the basis of that judgment alone, I would be extremely leery about interpreting anything else Christ said to involve hopeless punishment of anyone, on pain of being judged by Christ myself to be only a baby-goat. (Although fortunately the problem appears to be an attitude of the heart on the part of the baby-goats, not a technical misunderstanding. )
Jesus promises those people they shall certainly die in their sins, and that they will die in their sins if they do not recognize Him as “I AM”, but also (v.28) that they shall come to know He is “I AM” after (or when) they lift Him up.
Added up, He’s saying that some of them shall certainly die in their sins (after lifting Him on the cross) without believing He is “I AM” and not go where He is going, but shall come to know He is “I AM” later (after lifting Him up as the Son of Man somehow).
Those who come to believe in Him while He is saying such things (v.30) are the ones who end up being rebuked by Him as children of the devil–much as Peter is rebuked like Satan in the Synoptics, and who doesn’t abide in or keep His word! If these are thus taken as examples thereby of a separate group of non-elect, by the same evidence Peter must be of the non-elect, and no Calvinist could ever have true assurance that they are of the elect.
Either way, not an example of two separate classes of people in the Calvinist sense required.
John 8:34-36, by the way, probably refers to the ‘paterfamilias’ concept of ‘son-placement’ (or adoption as it’s translated) mentioned by St. Paul in Galatians 4, where the children of the father are slaves in regard to authority until the father judges they are mature enough to be given the authority and responsibilities of the family name, thus coming into their inheritance. (The original Greek probably didn’t read “slave of sin” at verse 34.) The slave wouldn’t remain in the house forever, because as the child grows older but not more mature the father would put him or her out of the house until when-if-ever the child repented of his or her behavior.
Well, if they aren’t His flock (and the term there is generic and could be translated “goat” just as well as “sheep”), then neither are they the baby-goats of the Matt 25 judgment, who explicitly are His flock!–how many separate groups of non-elect does Calvinism require?!
(Incidentally, this is also the chapter where Jesus contrasts Himself to the bandit who comes to kill and sacrifice the flock for himself: an interpretation that any hopeless punishment of the baby-goats necessarily requires, and for which attempt to flatter his master the lazy servant in Matt 25 gets thrown with the baby-goats, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Be that as it may.)
Notably, some early manuscripts of 10:29 read “What My Father has given Me is greater than all”; which would void the absolute limit of Calvinistic scope being appealed to in this section. While that reading most likely isn’t original, it does fit with what Jesus says later in GosJohn about everything being given into His hand.
If you mean John 17:9, “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me”, you had better hope the scope is wider than that, because Jesus was talking from verses 6-8, and from verses 9-26, about the current disciples and apostles! Only the men (and maybe a few women) present at the Last Supper after Judas left are the chosen elect of God, and all the rest of us are among the non-elect, yourself included?!? The disciples and apostles are only supposed to go out into the world afterward to demonstrate that they are of the elect and no one else is?!? Preposterous! At the very least the scope also includes “those who believe in Me through their word” (v.20), for whom Jesus also prays (“I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but also for those…”)
But the scope is explicitly wider even than that, at the start of this same climactic High Priestly prayer, 17:1-2: “Glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You; just as You gave Him authority over every flesh, so that He may give eonian life to everything You have given Him.”
By those explicit terms, the only way that the Son and the Father may glorify each other is if the Father gives all authority to the Son so that the Son may give eonian life to everything over which He has authority. That’s the context in which Jesus says He isn’t praying for the world but for His immediate disciples: He’s asking that they should be preserved as witnesses to the world, but it’s still the same principle because everything the Father gives the Son belongs to both Persons and must not be finally lost.
By the same token, this means that although the “son of perdition” given to the Son to be guarded will perish, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled, he still was also given to the Son and so shall not be finally lost; Judas just isn’t among those whom Christ is praying will stay true for evangelizing the world.