Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

[ClementofA]

This thread is only for discussing Mt.7:13-14 as an alleged "proof text" refuting universalism. No other Scripture passages or arguments allegedly opposing universalism will be considered relevant to this topic or answered herein. Not by me, anyway. Please stay on topic or refrain from posting. Thank you.

Clement,

Jesus was clear in Matt 7:14 (NIV): 'But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it'.

I'm sticking with Jesus and not ClementofA.

I'll stick with the inspired Word of God through the apostle Paul, rather than your erroneous opinion of Jesus' words:

1. Jesus says "FEW" were finding it
2. Paul says "MANY" will be saved (Rom.5:18-19)

Actually both are right.

Jesus was referring to the situation at His time in the first century, not final destiny.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

Bible versions don't say "few will EVER find it". This Greek Interliner says "finding":

Matthew 7:14 Interlinear: how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

Young's Literal Translation
how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!


Matthew 7:14 is in the present tense, few "finding" it, speaking of that particular time, not of final destiny. Earlier in Matthew final destiny was already revealed re salvation:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.


"Pay attention to the Greek verb tenses.
“Enter (eiselthate | εἰσέλθατε | aor act imperative 2 pl) through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and easy the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter
(eiserchomenoi | εἰσερχόμενοι | pres mid ptcp nom pl masc) through it. Matt 7:13"

"How narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and few are those who find (heuriskontes | εὑρίσκοντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) it! Matt 7:14"

"In v.13 the word for 'enter' is the Greek word 'eiserchomenoi' which as noted is a present tense participle more accurately translated as 'entering.' Thus all this verse is saying is that there are many who are presently entering the wide gate. This verse does not refer at all to sometime in the future where people may or may not be resurrected out of the lake of fire. If it did, this verse would employ the future tense of the verb - but it doesn't. We can only say what this verse states - simply that when Jesus spoke these words, many are entering the broad gate/road."

"Same thing with v.14. The word for 'find' is 'heuriskontes' which is a present tense participle. Thus few people are currently 'finding' the narrow gate. No reference at all to the future."

Hell is Payback


*********************************************


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

YHWH throughout all Scripture warns that without repentance there is no salvation,
AND without the BLOOD OF JESUS THE LAMB there is no atonement for sin,
AND if anyone tramples underfoot the BLOOD OF THE LAMB/ the GRACE of YHWH and puts to shame the GOSPEL of JESUS
then
THERE NO LONGER remains ANY sacrifice for their sin. (no more, no sacrifice, no payment for their sins, ever).... (JESUS is not going to die again for them - JESUS (and no one else either) can shed BLOOD AGAIN for their sins... they are lost forever without end, NEVER to enter heaven, ever, not even for a second.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I'll stick with the inspired Word of God through the apostle Paul, rather than your erroneous opinion of Jesus' words:

1. Jesus says "FEW" were finding it
2. Paul says "MANY" will be saved (Rom.5:18-19)

Actually both are right.

Jesus was referring to the situation at His time in the first century, not final destiny.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

Bible versions don't say "few will EVER find it". This Greek Interliner says "finding":

Matthew 7:14 Interlinear: how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

Young's Literal Translation
how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!


Matthew 7:14 is in the present tense, few "finding" it, speaking of that particular time, not of final destiny. Earlier in Matthew final destiny was already revealed re salvation:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.


"Pay attention to the Greek verb tenses.
“Enter (eiselthate | εἰσέλθατε | aor act imperative 2 pl) through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and easy the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter
(eiserchomenoi | εἰσερχόμενοι | pres mid ptcp nom pl masc) through it. Matt 7:13"

"How narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and few are those who find (heuriskontes | εὑρίσκοντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) it! Matt 7:14"

"In v.13 the word for 'enter' is the Greek word 'eiserchomenoi' which as noted is a present tense participle more accurately translated as 'entering.' Thus all this verse is saying is that there are many who are presently entering the wide gate. This verse does not refer at all to sometime in the future where people may or may not be resurrected out of the lake of fire. If it did, this verse would employ the future tense of the verb - but it doesn't. We can only say what this verse states - simply that when Jesus spoke these words, many are entering the broad gate/road."

"Same thing with v.14. The word for 'find' is 'heuriskontes' which is a present tense participle. Thus few people are currently 'finding' the narrow gate. No reference at all to the future."

Hell is Payback


*********************************************


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

what does reprobate mean

 

[ClementofA]

...

I'm ignoring your comments because they are off topic.

Do you have anything to say about the topic?

The topic is:

Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

 

[ClementofA]

...

Do you have anything to say about the topic?

The topic is:

Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Do you have anything to say about the topic?

The topic is:

Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

So is the OP restricting the discussion to one section of scripture?

 

[ClementofA]

So is the OP restricting the discussion to one section of scripture?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

If other scriptures refute universalism how is that not on topic?

The bible doesn't contradict itself...so if something refutes universalism then we can conclude matthew 7:13-14 doesn't support it.

 

[ClementofA]

If other scriptures refute universalism how is that not on topic?

The topic is in the title of this thread.

Why not start your own topic if you want to talk about something else?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

Doing otherwise is poor etiquette & wastes people's time who are interested in the topic of the thread, not your off topic comments.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

The topic is in the title of this thread.

Why not start your own topic if you want to talk about something else?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

but if the scripture I was going to quote refutes universalism then how is it not on topic?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

The topic is in the title of this thread.

Why not start your own topic if you want to talk about something else?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

it's an unfair burden to force someone to prove a point with just one scripture tbh. why can't I utilize mat 7:13-14 along with support?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

If you just want the topic to focus on matthew 7:13-14 so be it i'll just leave....but don't be surprised if others come in just as I and the other person did...and bring up other scriptures or points as well.


Usually a discussion or debate involves pieces of evidence not just one piece of evidence. I competed in debate for years and I minister and in both scenarios it takes multiple references to emphasize or prove a point.


If you're not interested in discussing the topic as a whole and just want to focus on this verse alone so be it. All i'm saying is that's not a good way to understand an ideal. Pulling one scripture and proclaiming something isn't very convincing.

 

[ClementofA]

but if the scripture I was going to quote refutes universalism then how is it not on topic?

You said "what does reprobate mean"? What does that have to do with Mt.7:13-14?

The topic is in the title of this thread.

Why not start your own topic if you want to talk about something else?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

Doing otherwise is poor etiquette & wastes people's time who are interested in the topic of the thread, not your off topic comments.

I see people posting off topic comments often in threads here.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

You said "what does reprobate mean"? What does that have to do with Mt.7:13-14?

The topic is in the title of this thread.

Why not start your own topic if you want to talk about something else?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

Doing otherwise is poor etiquette & wastes people's time who are interested in the topic of the thread, not your off topic comments.

the term reprobate refutes universalism though does it not?

And I was going to quote the scripture as well and relate it back to mat 7:13-14

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

You said "what does reprobate mean"? What does that have to do with Mt.7:13-14?

The topic is in the title of this thread.

Why not start your own topic if you want to talk about something else?

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

Doing otherwise is poor etiquette & wastes people's time who are interested in the topic of the thread, not your off topic comments.

also as far as I can tell the one other person who replied wasn't interested in just focusing on one scripture either tbh so to suggest others are interested in focusing on one scripture is false at least as of now.

I mean in order to prove if one scripture refutes this or says this...it involves cross referencing with other scriptures...idk why it's so hard for you to understand that.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

but anyway clearly you're trying to limit this debate to one scripture....I disagree with studying the bible like that...it's wrong but if that's your choice...again i'll leave just was trying to understand if the scope of the discussion was really as limited as you've made it. And it turns out it is.

I think in order to refute an ideology or support true theology it takes multiple scriptures but meh whatever.


God bless

 

[ClementofA]

but anyway clearly you're trying to limit this debate to one scripture....I disagree with studying the bible like that...

It's called studying the Bible...in context. As opposed to cherry picking one verse here & another far away in another book or testament etc.

Of course if the same type of passage is repeated in all three
synoptic gospels, then there would be justification in considering one text in light of the other two.

So if there were a parallel passage to Mt.7:13-14 elsewhere in the 4 gospels, for example...

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

It's called studying the Bible...in context. As opposed to cherry picking one verse here & another far away in another book or testament etc.

Of course if the same type of passage is repeated in all three
synoptic gospels, then there would be justification in considering one text in light of the other two.

So if there were a parallel passage to Mt.7:13-14 elsewhere in the 4 gospels, for example.

But what i'm saying is if verses elsewhere refute an ideoligy...that helps you better understand the context of matthew 7:13-14 it helps you eliminate a possible meaning of the text. Since the bible makes it clear here..and there... that so and so ideoligy is false I can conclude that matthew 7:13-14 wouldn't contradict those other verses and continue on from there.

Like If I find 7 verses that clearly clearly without question go against something that one verse seems to support...I must be reading that one verse wrong. That's all i'm saying.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So is the OP restricting the discussion to one section of scripture?

He has to.
All Scripture rejects universal salvation,
so he has to limit (or try to) what is posted so people can't see the truth.
It is a heresy many centuries old. (even since the first or second century).

 

[ClementofA]

But what i'm saying is if verses elsewhere refute an ideoligy...that helps you better understand the context of matthew 7:13-14 it helps you eliminate a possible meaning of the text. Since the bible makes it clear here..and there... that so and so ideoligy is false I can conclude that matthew 7:13-14 wouldn't contradict those other verses and continue on from there.

Like If I find 7 verses that clearly clearly without question go against something that one verse seems to support...I must be reading that one verse wrong. That's all i'm saying.

That's not the point of this thread. The point is there are those who claim Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. On its own. As a "proof text". Do you care to discuss that?

What i'm sensing from you is that it is not enough. So then you'ld be disagreeing with the many - indeed VERY MANY - who think it is a "proof text" against universalism.

If i had wanted another thread where everyone was posting anything for or against UR, i'd have titled this thread something like "Is Universalism True?"

If you think "reprobate" disproves universalism on its own as a "proof text", why don't you start your own thread titled "universalism proven wrong: reprobate" & find out how wrong you are. Consider that a friendly challenge.