- Jul 2, 2018
- 18,580
- 11,393
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Everyone seems to forget that mercy is a possible outcome for a verdict.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Everyone seems to forget that mercy is a possible outcome for a verdict.so what happens to those who have never heard the gospel or about Jesus and die ?
its appointed once to die then comes Judgment. No 2nd chances
Are you saved when you're
Called
Called and Chosen
Called, Chosen and Faithful
Some believe once saved always saved, with some scripture to suggest this. Some believe they can lose salvation, with some scripture to suggests this. I do not wish to argue, debate over this, just your thoughts on the above question, whichever side you're on.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him
We no longer look to be served. We look to serve and give our lives for others. No longer fight for privilege, influence and status. We esteem others better than ourselves and put their interests above our own.
Peace be with all those in the body of Christ
Really? As many times as this has been explained and you still insist? I'm thinking you don't even read the responses anymore, at least not until you find something to contradict.Many people who did receive an invitation weren’t interested in coming. (So much for irresistible grace)
You know, you really ought to do something about that attitude. It does not become you. And it will hurt that much more to change your tune when you find out you are wrong.Was the man who was turned away not invited? Was anyone not invited? Why was the man turned away? Because he was not properly dressed for the occasion. So what was the determining factor for being able to attend the feast? The invitation was sent to everyone and anyone who wanted to attend would be allowed if they properly prepared themselves. Yes I know this often comes as such a shock to Calvinists that we actually do have to do something to be saved. We have to cooperate with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to receive salvation. Pssst... It’s called walking in the Spirit, it’s what people who are born again do. I’m sure you’ve heard of it before.
You mean, other than the fact God himself says so?Was Esau actually hated by God? What evidence of this do you see in his story?
You mean, other than the fact God himself says so?Esau had to move to another location because he so blessed by God that his livestock was to plentiful for the land to sustain. There’s no evidence that God hated Esau
So the point stands: God hates some, or at least loves some more than others, no?Esau had to move to another location because he so blessed by God that his livestock was to plentiful for the land to sustain. There’s no evidence that God hated Esau, however there is evidence that God hatred the Edomites who were Esau’s descendants because they were constantly plotting against “Israel” (Formerly known as Jacob).
I don't mind you saying that, as long as you understand that God is the source / maybe even the meaning of the true things, and not a subject under compulsion of living up to our notions of what those things mean. God does not do love because it is good or loving to do so; Love is what it is because GOD is Love. God's emotions are not anthropomorphism, but we seem to think they are to be defined by us.God created man in His image. Maybe you don't want me to say this, but God has emotions (anthropomorphism?), feels sorrow, anger, compassion, love, desire etc. God wants as desires everyone to be saved.
To avoid spending time proving you wrong that it's just not in there, I will mention that there doesn't need to be a statement to the contrary in order to prove a point wrong. The lack of a positive statement is sufficient.You make this conclusion: God chooses some, and therefore He loves people differently and therefore His will is to not save some people. The fact is that the Bible never says that God isn't willing a person's salvation or even more important, the Bible never says that Jesus didn't bear someone's sins on the cross. We can assume it, but it's just not in there.
The word in the Greek translated "so" in English, only means "so". You can take it to mean "so much", but there is no more evidence it means "so much" than that it means "thus". "For God thus loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that those believing in him should not perish...."Now to my favorite text. Yeah, you might have guessed it. John 3:16. Look at the parallells.
Jesus loved the world of sinners so much that God let Jesus die on the cross for everyone (gave His son for the world of sinners), that anyone that believes in him will be saved. Jesus didn't come to judge those in the world that deny him, but to save those in the world that actually receive him.
Not so sure I like the way you put it, or maybe the reasons, but I agree that God did not create in order to punish some of his creatures. His reason has to do with his glory as seen by the rest of his creatures --the Bride of Christ.Jesus didn't come to judge those in the world that deny him, but to save those in the world that actually receive him.
You see even they who deny Jesus are included in the word world (see the green text), as you know is the word "kosmos", which Jesus came to save.
....The lack of a positive statement is sufficient. If you wish to prove your point, you must demonstrate proof, not demonstrate that there is no statement to the contrary.
I don't think the lack of positive statement is suffcient to prove your stance. Atheists say there is no God, and they say the burden of proof is on the believer, since you can't prove what doesn't exist, right? Wrong! You are saying there is no fish in the lake, because you haven't seen a fish. Who do you think have the burden of proof in that case? I that say there are fish in the lake or you that say there are none? Whether our statement is positive or negative we need to prove it.
In this case I need to prove Jesus died for everyone, and you need to prove that Jesus didn't. I say we got the same burden of showing proof. Of course the abstance of text saying Jesus didn't die for someone, doesn't prove he did. And the same goes with "just because there is text saying Jesus died for some, doesn't prove he didn't die for others."
In the generic sense, yes yes yes Jesus died for the sin of the whole world. But the obstacle for you is to prove that everyone has a chance. I don`t think it can be done. If you think you can I`m certainly interested in considering the argument.
I don't think I can prove everyone has a chance to be saved. I think they do, but how to prove it? I will think about it, and if I come up with something worthwhile I'll let you know.
Agreed (I think). I didn't mean for that to be my point, but to say that lack of negative statement doesn't prove yours. (If I remember right, lol). I wish there was a way to line these all up without losing the reply one has started.I don't think the lack of positive statement is suffcient to prove your stance.
Sometimes I copy the quoted post to bring it with. Like this. (select/copy/paste)Agreed (I think). I didn't mean for that to be my point, but to say that lack of negative statement doesn't prove yours. (If I remember right, lol). I wish there was a way to line these all up without losing the reply one has started.
I've done what I think you are saying, but it usually means losing (and therefore having to re-find) the reply I'm writing.Sometimes I copy the quoted post to bring it with. Like this. (select/copy/paste)
zoidar said: ↑
I don't think the lack of positive statement is suffcient to prove your stance.
I suppose if you anticipate going back and forth with someone for a bit you could bring it all with you.I've done what I think you are saying, but it usually means losing (and therefore having to re-find) the reply I'm writing.
Agreed (I think). I didn't mean for that to be my point, but to say that lack of negative statement doesn't prove yours. (If I remember right, lol). I wish there was a way to line these all up without losing the reply one has started.
Agree it doesn't prove mine.Agreed (I think). I didn't mean for that to be my point, but to say that lack of negative statement doesn't prove yours. (If I remember right, lol). I wish there was a way to line these all up without losing the reply one has started.
To your point there, no, not really. Some things are so natural to our thinking that we don't bother to say them. Even scientists often don't realize how many assumptions they make in coming to their conclusions. (For example, in what they consider to be a totally isolated science experiment, they may never even take gravity into account.)Agree it doesn't prove mine.
But is it not strange that we don't have one example in the Bible where it says "Jesus didn't die for him so he wasn't saved"? One might think Paul or some of the other writers would have said something along that line, since it's such an important question.
To avoid saying, "huh?" I'll just say "thanks". I can split the text I reply to ok, by selecting some part and replying to it, but when I try to find it again to select more, I lose the whole field in which the quoted text and my reply were written.Mark you can markthe text then using the plus sign, choosing quote. I use it to split the text I reply to in different sections.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?