How many Gentiles and Samaritans could have been saved if Jesus would have sent some disciples there?

[John Mullally]

You aren’t addressing the argument.

Still not addressing the argument. If you aren’t going to, that’s fine. But I really wish that you would.

Well here is your argument:

But your post was concerned with God waiting and getting big numbers saved. There was no concern in the way you presented it that He had love for anyone in particular. Just as long as He got a crowd.

I stated that God works differently with men before and after the cross and that has nothing to do with God's love as I re-iterate 1 Timothy 2:4. You put words in my mouth and expect me to answer as if it was not a loaded observation/question.

put words in/into someone's mouth​

idiom​

​

: to suggest that someone said or meant something that he or she did not actually say or mean​

 

[Hammster]

Well here is your argument:

I stated that God works differently with men before and after the cross and that has nothing to do with God's love as I re-iterate 1 Timothy 2:4. You put words in my mouth and expect me to answer as if it was not a loaded observation/question.

put words in/into someone's mouth​

idiom​

​

: to suggest that someone said or meant something that he or she did not actually say or mean​

This argument about putting words in your mouth is getting tiresome. I’m not suggesting that you said something. I’m pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument. And your argument is that God loves everyone and wants everyone saved, yet even you point out that it isn’t how He’s acted in your post concerning Acts 2. Your view is largely inconsistent, and I don’t see how you can fix it.

 

[Hammster]

Preaching to get people saved on a large-scale started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 where Peter promised salvation (remission of sins & receipt of the Holy Spirit) to those who would repent and be baptized in response to His preaching. That day started as a believers meeting with just 120 (in the Upper room) and added 3000 new believers.

I’ll address this again, and perhaps I can be more clear. The OP is about Jesus directing the disciples away from groups and only focusing on the Jews. It appeared that you weren’t addressing that, so when I challenged you, you said

It addresses the OP because Jesus was not striving to get many people (Jews or Gentiles) saved during His ministry.

So during His ministry, your go-to verses don’t apply. But after Pentecost, you posted about the 3000 believers. So it comes across as Jesus not being concerned for any one person, but as long as He could get many saved, that’s okay. Even then, your go-to verses don’t apply because it was a few years later before the Gentiles came into view. So there’s no way you can use 1 Timothy 2:4 to support your position in any meaningful and consistent manner.

 

[bling]

Biblically. God saves His people.

God works through Christians to help Non-Christians to have the very best opportunity to accept His Love. The Jews were best prepared from their moral training and knowledge of God/Messiah to allowing the Spirit to work through them.

 

[Hammster]

God works through Christians to help Non-Christians to have the very best opportunity to accept His Love. The Jews were best prepared from their moral training and knowledge of God/Messiah to allowing the Spirit to work through them.

Read the OP. If this is true, He kinda dropped the ball.

 

[IoanC]

Maybe Christ did not want to save those. God has no obligation towards those He doesn't like.

 

[Hammster]

Maybe Christ did not want to save those. God has no obligation towards those He doesn't like.

I agree.

 

[John Mullally]

So during His ministry, your go-to verses don’t apply.

I don't agree. Ezekiel 18:30-31 written in the OT agrees with 1 Timothy 2:4.

But after Pentecost, you posted about the 3000 believers. So it comes across as Jesus not being concerned for any one person, but as long as He could get many saved, that’s okay.

You are putting words (in red above) in my mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

God works with men differently after the cross. The eleven did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or even know about the Church age until after the cross. Five weeks later, Peter is promising that gift of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and are baptized in Acts 2.

Even then, your go-to verses don’t apply because it was a few years later before the Gentiles came into view. So there’s no way you can use 1 Timothy 2:4 to support your position in any meaningful and consistent manner.

The only part of the above I agree with is that Gentiles were fiirst evangelized about 7 years after Acts 2.

 

[Hammster]

I don't agree. Ezekiel 18:30-31 written in the OT agrees with 1 Timothy 2:4.

Yet that doesn’t agree with the many verses where Jesus actively didn’t try to save anyone.

You are putting words (in red above) in my mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nope. I said it is how your posts comes across. If you mean something different, you need to be more clear.

God works with men differently after the cross. The eleven did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or even know about the Church age until after the cross. Five weeks later, Peter is promising that gift of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and are baptized in Acts 2.

So in what was was God desiring all men to be saved? Don’t forget this:

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’
— Matthew 13:13-15

The only part of the above I agree with is that Gentiles were fiirst evangelized about 7 years after Acts 2.

And how does this align with this?

who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
— 1 Timothy 2:4

Why were the Gentiles ignored for so long if God desired everyone to be saved?

 

[bling]

Read the OP. If this is true, He kinda dropped the ball.

Do not blame God for my failures.
I am not following Christ's method.

 

[John Mullally]

Yet that doesn’t agree with the many verses where Jesus actively didn’t try to save anyone.

God's method of dealing with men changed after the cross - which is where we are now and should be our focus. Jesus did not hold any "Altar calls" like Acts 2. I am not going to hazard to guess on God's methods.

Nope. I said it is how your posts comes across. If you mean something different, you need to be more clear.

You did not use the caveat "how your posts come across" in earlier responses when you words in my mouth. You need to stop making observations and asking questions that presume upon the messed up words you put in other's mouth.

So in what was was God desiring all men to be saved? Don’t forget this:

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’
— Matthew 13:13-15

And how does this align with this?

who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
— 1 Timothy 2:4

I responded to that in Post 104.

Why were the Gentiles ignored for so long if God desired everyone to be saved?

Generally God is not the one causing delays. Why did the Israelites wander in the desert for 40 years when they could have entered within 2 weeks?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I did. And based on what you said, my response will have to stand.

But your response had nothing to do with what I said! You said death then judgement...it was time I was referring to...

 

[Hammster]

Do not blame God for my failures.
I am not following Christ's method.

My post had nothing to do with you.

 

[Hammster]

God's method of dealing with men changed after the cross - which is where we are now and should be our focus. Jesus did not hold any "Altar calls" like Acts 2. I could hazard to guess why God's method changed - but then I would be doing what you are doing.

Okay. But that still means that He can’t desire all men to be saved, at least not in the way you use the verse.

You did not use the caveat "how your posts come across" in earlier responses when you words in my mouth. You need to stop putting words in other people's mouth. And you need to stop asking questions that presume upon the words you put in other people's mouth instead of what they actually said.

My posts are based on what you say. Perhaps you aren’t liking the logical conclusions of your posts. That’s not my fault.

I responded to that in Post 104.

Right. You said “It was not in God's timing that the Jews in Jesus's time receive him, as He had to be crucified. But after His resurrection, we see the following stated also in John 12.”

So at the very least, based on statements you’ve made, Christ wasn’t desiring all men to be saved until at the very earliest, 3 years after the resurrection.

God is not the one causing delays. Why did the Israelites wander in the desert for 40 years when they could have entered within 2 weeks?

I never said anything about a delay. I asked why they were ignored.

 

[Hammster]

But your response had nothing to do with what I said! You said death then judgement...it was time I was referring to...

Maybe. But I already admitted that I must have misunderstood your post, and gave you a chance to clarify. You refused. So I’m moving on.

 

[John Mullally]

Okay. But that still means that He can’t desire all men to be saved, at least not in the way you use the verse.

1 Timothy 2:4 could not be more plain. I do not share your Calvinist presuppositions - the major one being that everything that occurs is God's will. This presupposition is especially nasty as it makes Calvinism unfalsifiable.

My posts are based on what you say. Perhaps you aren’t liking the logical conclusions of your posts. That’s not my fault.

I have corrected you several times on other threads for putting words in my mouth. As I said in the past, you make matters worse by asking loaded questions based upon a faulty premise (i.e. those words you put in my mouth). And then you cry foul because you don't accept my answer - which comes down to my not accepting the words you put in my mouth. It is all circular and very dishonest.

It is more like you are jumping to conclusions than using logic. You corrupt what other's say and what the Bible says with your Calvinist presuppositions. Let the Bible and other's speak for themselves.

So at the very least, based on statements you’ve made, Christ wasn’t desiring all men to be saved until at the very earliest, 3 years after the resurrection.

I accept 1 Timothy 2:4 - you do not.

I never said anything about a delay. I asked why they were ignored.

You said they were ignored for years - that is termed a delay.

 

[Hammster]

1 Timothy 2:4 could not be more plain. I do not share your Calvinist presuppositions - the major one being that everything that occurs is God's will. This presupposition is especially nasty as it makes Calvinism unfalsifiable.

I don’t know why you keep ignoring the argument. But you do.

I have corrected you several times on other threads for putting words in my mouth. As I said in the past, you make matters worse by asking loaded questions based upon a faulty premise (i.e. those words you put in my mouth). And then you cry foul because you don't accept my answer - which comes down to my not accepting the words you put in my mouth. It is all circular and very dishonest.

I’m not being dishonest. That’s an awful accusation, though.

It is more like you are jumping to conclusions than using logic. You corrupt what other's say and what the Bible says with your Calvinist presuppositions. Let the Bible and other's speak for themselves.

Nope. I haven’t corrupted anything.

I accept 1 Timothy 2:4 - you do not.

I do. Just not in the way that you do. My way is actually consistent throughout. I can show how it fits with the OP, and the John 12 and Matthew 13 passages.

You said they were ignored for years - that is termed a delay.

The author determines the intent. And my intent was ignored, not delayed. So maybe you can address the question without the confusion over my intent.

 

[John Mullally]

I don’t know why you keep ignoring the argument. But you do.

I did not ignore. I responded to your argument.

I’m not being dishonest. That’s an awful accusation, though.

It is what you do repeatedly to me. COME CLEAN AND STOP!!!​

1. I respond to what you said.
2. You respond by putting words in my mouth instead of having the decency of quoting me! I take no responsibility over the seemingly random things that you attribute to me which seems to be taken by mixing what I say with your Calvinist presuppositions.
3. You ask a question or make an observation with a premise that includes the words you put in my mouth.
4. I try to answer with statements that contradict the words you put in my mouth - hoping you can figure it out without my having to confront you.
5. But then you complain that I am not answering your loaded question or observation - which is technically true only in the sense that I don't accept the premise you constructed from thin air (which consists of the words you put in my mouth).
6. So then I must confront you over the detestable thing you are doing!
7. You apologize or act shocked, but don't learn from the experience as it repeats with regularity! God sees all.

Nope. I haven’t corrupted anything.

You definitly corrupt my words and are now questioning the word of God in 1 Timothy 2:3-4. What's next?

I do. Just not in the way that you do. My way is actually consistent throughout. I can show how it fits with the OP, and the John 12 and Matthew 13 passages.

I agree in the sense that Jesus was not there and then trying to convert everyone He met like Paul. I would not attribute that to God not desiring all to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:3-4. I believe the reason that Paul was more direct than Jesus is that He had the luxury of operating under the New Covenant.

The author determines the intent. And my intent was ignored, not delayed. So maybe you can address the question without the confusion over my intent.

Pick your battles wisely. You said "Gentiles ignored for so long" that is also termed as being delayed in Websters.

delay
2 of 2

verb​

delayed; delaying; delays
transitive verb
1
: PUT OFF, POSTPONE
delay a departure
They're delaying marriage or, increasingly, not getting married at all …—Irin Carmon
2
: to stop, detain, or hinder for a time
the mails were delayed by heavy snows
… issued executive orders delaying the release of records from Ronald Reagan's administration …—Editor & Publisher
3
: to cause to be slower or to occur more slowly than normal
delay a child's development
… a drug that not only can extend life by delaying the onset of aging-related diseases …—Bill Gifford

 

[Hammster]

I did not ignore. I responded to your argument.

You responded to the post. You ignored the argument. I can quote it for you if you’d like, and demonstrate how your response doesn’t match up.

You definitly corrupt the words I say and are now questioning the word of God in 1 Timothy 2:3-4. What's next?

I’m not questioning the word of God. Quote, “My way is actually consistent throughout. I can show how it fits with the OP, and the John 12 and Matthew 13 passages.” See? No questioning.

I agree in the sense that Jesus was not there and then trying to convert everyone He met like Paul. I would not attribute that to God not desiring all to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4. I believe the reason that Paul was more direct is that He had the luxury of operating under the New Covenant.

Okay, then explain why we have at least three places in the gospels where Jesus was clearly not only not trying to save everyone, but doing just the opposite.

Pick your battles wisely. You said "Gentiles ignored for so long" that is also termed delay in Websters.

1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing:

That’s how I used it. The author determines the intent. This looks like you are doing everything you can to not address the question. Care to address the question?

 

[zoidar]

Okay, then explain why we have at least three places in the gospels where Jesus was clearly not only not trying to save everyone, but doing just the opposite.

Of course God doesn't try to save everyone or anyone for that matter. God wants everyone to repent and be saved. It's up to us to respond to the gospel.