Statistics do not Support Selective Salvation
As I mentioned earlier, statistics are not consistent with the doctrine of selective salvation. Instead of being a random mix of believers all around the world, there are vast areas with high concentrations of believers and other areas with very low concentrations of believers.
This is totally inconsistent with what you would expect with selective salvation. This is, however, what you would expect from open salvation. In fact, if open salvation is true, you would expect areas that have a high concentration of strong believers will have a high growth of new believers and areas with few or no believers will have little or no growth of new believers. This is exactly what we find.
For example, there have been some tribes in the heart of Africa that have not had any Christians for thousands of years. Yet, after missionaries have been there for about 10 years, 80% of the population had accepted Christ as their Savior. (Of course, many tribes respond to the gospel slower because of their religious and cultural background.) Although a sovereign God can do whatever He wants, it just seems unlikely He would not have "elected" anyone from a tribe for thousands of years and then "suddenly" elect 80% of them. These statistics are consistent with what you would expect to find with open salvation.
The Bible must always be our final authority. Therefore, these statistics do not disprove selective salvation. Yet, if our observations clearly contradict a doctrinal position, we need to reevaluate the legitimacy of the doctrine.
Copyright © 1987 -2004 Michael Bronson | Site Design by Imagination 2 Reality