Search results

Of course it was good. So? All you're doing is claiming it exemplifies God. I actually explained and gave examples of how it doesn't.

That's irrelevant to this thread so long as the difference is NOT because God loves them while not loving the others. (And no one has yet substantiated that that is the difference.)

I've already answered that.

Once again, it's not His failure, it's the failure of the people who reject Him.

*THAT* verse is about His disciples. Ones like John 6 & 10 are NOT about His disciples, they are about saved people. "Those who are given to me" is about saved people - Judas was never a saved person, that's why he's excluded in John 17:12.

No, He wasn't talking about His disciples in that verse, He was talking about saved people.

Yes, it is His will. And I've shown how God's "will" comes in different forms. You're completely free to say you disagree all you want, but simply disagreeing doesn't constitute an actual refutation.

It's an expression of His will, plain & simple. You've tried this tactic before. You like to claim "out of context" but then don't actually explain why it doesn't apply. Do you really believe that no Scripture has any bearing whatsoever on what another Scripture means? If the statement of...

Context matters. The first three verses are about one specific group of people: saved people; the last passage is about a completely different specific group of people: Jesus' disciples. Apples & oranges.

He only “failed” if you look at it in your specific, narrow way, which is by no means the only way to look at it. Look at another verse that says God is not willing that any should perish, yet some clearly do perish. God’s will failed? No, because there are different types of “will” that God...

Sure it does. According to what you all agreed to earlier, "God is good" puts everything God does within the bounds of good, nothing God does is outside of good. Therefore, "God is love" must put everything God does within the bounds of love, nothing God does is outside of love. If "God is love"...

John 6 - it states that all who come are first drawn, and you're trying to equate that to all who are drawn also come, which does not necessarily follow. John 10 - doesn't actually say that refusing to follow & not being His sheep wasn't their own choice. You mean per your selective...

You keep missing it, so I'll point it out again: universalism is NOT the only other option. You insist that "dying for everyone" = "saves everyone". They are NOT equivalent. He didn't die to save everyone - He died to provide the chance to everyone. You've provided no justification for the...

I don't see why, other than because you say so. I don't see where that is stated in that passage. Being offered for all doesn't require all to accept that offering. False. God succeeded in what He set out to do - provide a possibility for all to be saved. The fact that some reject that way is...

Right, cuz the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are the sum total of all things that are possible in the world. Good job. You've never justified your claim to have the proper understanding. Simply repeating it doesn't actually give it more credibility. You're the one who is claiming superiority...

Dying for everyone doesn't require saving everyone. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 "For the love of Christ controls us, since we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died...

I already gave you two chances to continue responding. Thanks anyway.

You have already admitted God does, in fact, love everyone. Thanks for sharing, though.

Does nothing?? Does your Bible not have the whole Jesus part in it? Again, He *DID* do something - Jesus. Further, by your answer to the first follow up, why shouldn't we just conclude that the most plausible reason for your reaction is your flawed understanding of what love is due to man's...

We're talking about whether or not God loves everyone. God doesn't have to love everyone equally in order to love everyone. Of course. I don't see where I've denied that or ever even hinted at that not being the case. It makes complete sense if you read post #136.