Bernie,
Where to begin .....
Can you elaborate please? I don't think I understand your point. If by stating that "[Scripture] evidence.....is its own entity independent of the interpretation" you're saying that absolute truth is inherent in Scripture, while man's interpretation can be wrong about the assembling of Scripture meaning, then we agree and I was guilty of loose language in my last post. From your post, it seems you may mean something different than this, yes?
I mean essentially what you restated. Scripture is inspired, inerrant and absolute truth. When we come to the Scriptures, we come as subordinate disciples, whose purpose is to draw forth from the text the truth and to understand it in such a way that our thinking is aligned with it, transformed by it, and subject to it. This is the essence of exegesis. The opposite of this is eisegesis, whereby we project upon the text that which we bring to it, and in effect make the text subject to our interpretation. This is to be avoided.
Of course I'd have to disagree wtih this assesment. If you'll walk with me here a bit, maybe we can explore the extent to which either of our formulas for authenitcating truth are able to withstand reasonable scrutiny.
OK. However, I'll tell you up front that it is not sufficient to pick and choose those verses that taken by themselves support a position, or drawn out of context from different passages to form a doctrine where no such teaching exists in substantive whole from any one passage. The entire counsel of God and all Scripture must be observed. Further, the framework or "formula" you refer to itself must be shown to originate with Scripture, not simply serve as a device in which to systematize a position which we set out to prove. That is in itself a subtle form of eisegesis. Further reason is certainly an important component, but it is not the final arbiter. God's immutable characteristics tie into a discussion of this nature and I believe that both traditional positions in this realm, Calvinism and Arminianism fail to account for an element of mystery, in my opinion and so I choose not to accept either polarity and to embrace and accept that ambiguity by faith as the natural consequence of my attempting to grasp something that is infinite by the instrument of my finite mind and perspective.
Universalism, such as you are proposing it however, I find no support for in Scripture and I will interact with your positions below to explain why.
believe with my Arminian brethren that God illumines all with prevenient grace: “There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (Jn 1:9).. I believe this is necessarily a regenerative process, re 1Co 2:14: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." One must necessarily be raised above the "natural" or carnal state to have any light in spiritual matters, and this raising is by nature spiritually regenerative.
There is a sense of common grace that is extended to all mankind in general terms based upon the goodness of God. John 1:9 clearly is part of an entire passage John 1:1-14 which introduces the Book of John that ties clearly back to the Genesis account and seeks to establish that Christ, the "Word", was tied back to the beginnings of this very world in terms of God's purpose. There is no question that the obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ is sufficient to bring salvation to every single person who is alive, has ever lived, or will yet live. That is not in question. What is in question is your proposal that based upon this premise it follows that God has independently projected that condition upon every person independent of any other factor. Note as well, that the testimony being referred to in the verse you quote is referring to the testimony of John the Baptist to Christ.
The irony is not lost on me that a good deal of the rationale for hyper-Calvinism is similarly supported in these terms by the same or similar passages. The primary difference being one of scope, more than anything else. (I'll pause here. Indignant Calvinists may insert their comments here.)
I also believe the Bible when it says that Christ Jesus died for all sin: “….He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1Jo 2:2), and that Paul spoke under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when he wrote, "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1Tim 2:3-4).
I agree God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. There is a difference, however between what God desires and what God wills to come to pass.
Are God's desires such that they always come to pass? It may surprise you to find that that is not the case. It is not a matter of power to do so. It is a matter of God's overall plan that has allowed for a measure of free will within mankind to make decisions that have implications.
What does Prov 21:3 say? "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice." Do all people do righteousness and justice? Obviously not.
Acts 17:30 states "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" Do all people repent? Obviously not. This is not the only instances of God willing limits to his actions and power. Part of the mystery of Christ's incarnation as reflected in Phil 2:5-11 demonstrates that Christ "emptied" himself of much that was His due as God, in order to dwell among us and accomplish His purpose. Christ never ceased to be who He was. He did voluntarily limit His will and not exercise His power in order to conform to the overall purpose and plan of God.
This causes a lot of confusion for people. It is one reason why non-believers construct such seemingly logical impossibilities such as "Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it." The power and ability to do something does not preclude the choice of God not to do it.
I can interact more with what you have below, but as it is based upon the flawed premise above, I have to summarily reject it as derivative of that error.
Further, there is much in Scripture that speaks directly in opposition to the premise that all are saved.
Matt. 7:13-14
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14"For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it,"
Matt. 22:14
"For many are called, but few are chosen,"
Luke 13:22-27
"And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem. 23And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.' 26"Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers,'"
Rom. 9:27
"And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly,"
Clearly, Christ and other portions of Scripture teach that not all are saved.
Universalism fails the test of the entire counsel of God.
Sorry, you are absolutely right. The spirit of stupidness came over me there. I meant to say that some believe that "eternal" could also mean "ages" which the christian universalists say is a limited stay in "hell". Thanks for catching that, august.