Actually it is those whom the Father gives to Him who will be not lost. It does not say, as you say here, "those he died for He shall lose none".
"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that
of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39
This is no small point since this is the very issue we are debating.
The Word of God says that He died for the sins of the entire world and out of that world those whom the Father gives to the Son will never come into judgment.
Limited Atonement proponents change that to say that He died for some of the world and the Father gives all of those to the Son.
That's a huge distinction.
Part of that sentence is exactly what the Word of God teaches unless misquoted as you did earlier.
And no - He will not lose any the Father gives to Him. No one says that He will lose of few.
What's your point?
No one disputes that - even out and out Arminians.
Exactly!
"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:1, 2).
"......God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation". 2 Corinthians 5:19
That word of reconciliation is to be preached to the whole world not just to the elect (as if we could know before preaching who the elect are).
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." 1 Timothy 4:10
It would not be necessary to say "especially of believers" unless He is indeed the "Savior of all men".
If limited atonement proponents had their way they would like it to say, "the Savior of some men, namely only the elect".
I've already given you an example of a way that it could be.
He will lose no one to Hell whom the Father gives to Him.
No one has said that.
Yes it can and I have given you an example where all things could be reconciled to God in Christ and include the eternal judgment of God for some in that reconciled state and the glorified state before God for others.
No one has said otherwise.
You are equating unconditional election and irresitible grace with limited atonement. They are not the same doctrines as you should understand if you subscribe to TULIP as you apparently do.
Me too. We have no differences there.
But - as I have laid out before - you and I were both redeem by God some 2000 years ago and yet we spent many years as enemies of God and abided under His judgment. The same is true for all men IMO.
The difference is, of course, that you and I (among others whom the Father has given and will give to the Son) were effectively drawn to the Son and will be kept by the Son - our being (by grace alone) among the elect.
There is absolutely no scriptural reason why a person could not remain for eternity in the condtion you and I were in for many years. To say that woud be an arbitrary assumption which goes beyond what the scripture teaches - as does the doctrine of limited atonement, it being based on the same false so-called logic.
