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.
No! God does not save everyone. Everyone is not saved.
One denies the truths of scripture at one’s own peril.
- Sheep and goats
- Wheat and tares
- Wide road and narrow path.
Certainly but not will power
Only one answer. . .Eve was deceived, and Adam chose not to lose her.
It does not specifically tell us why Adam transgressed (perhaps for the same reason as Eve, or perhaps for another - that is empty speculation), but God told us why Eve transgressed:Hm, why then did they transgress?
Baloney. . .not until I state such.That's the "God is sovereign" answer.
It does not specifically tell us why Adam transgressed (perhaps for the same reason as Eve, or perhaps for another - that is empty speculation), but God told us why Eve transgressed:
Genesis 3:6 [NASB95] 6
“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make [one] wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
Baloney. . .not until I state such.
I'll decide when to give the "God is sovereign" answer. . .and you'll know it is such when I state such, and not until.
He said I was wrong to claim that God did not love everyone enough to save everyone. If God did not save everyone, then it was either because God “could not” (which violates the definition of God - omnipotent) or because God willed/chose not to save everyone (supporting the Sovereignty of God).He didn't say everyone will be saved.
And that's spelled "provoking."
The Bible is my source, not human logic.It's just that it's fine to be logical up to a point. And when you can't logically consistent with your view, it's "the Bible says this", changing the terms of the argument.
As a married man, I would suggest that he did it for the same reason that most married men do most things … because your wife told you to.Aha, we don't know how. And the Bible doesn't say how.
I never said He saved or saves everyone .No! God does not save everyone. Everyone is not saved.
One denies the truths of scripture at one’s own peril.
- Sheep and goats
- Wheat and tares
- Wide road and narrow path.
I do Bible, not logic.
My faith is in the Bible, not logic.
It’s the old loaded question fallacyHe said I was wrong to claim that God did not love everyone enough to save everyone. If God did not save everyone, then it was either because God “could not” (which violates the definition of God - omnipotent) or because willed/chose not to save everyone (supporting the Sovereignty of God).
So …
You tell me.
- Did God try to save everyone and fail?
- Did God try to save everyone and succeed?
- Did God succeed in saving all that God tried to save?
Good luck with that. . .Please then don't answer a post about logical arguments.
Good luck with that. . .
I will address what is contrary to the word of God, logical or not.
Let’s find out …It’s the old loaded question fallacy
God desires all to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4.
… but not enough to actually save everyone.
Sure He does since God is love and does not use coercion , manipulation, predetermining, forcing others to love Him but gives them the freedom to love Him in return . That is how love operates. A god who meticulously predetermined certain men to hell and others to heaven while giving them no choice to do otherwise is not a loving God.
hope this helps !!!
I never said He saved or saves everyone .
Not sure why you are considering that, but...
In God's order of things, there had to be a fall from innocence, and the way of it points at the origin of sin (per the devil), and the symbolism, (if not the reality), of the two trees and nakedness, and of several other things.
It had to happen the way it happened, for God to accomplish his purposes. But I expect you already know that. So I can only guess why you bring up the notion.
I don't see any relevance of the idea to imputation, except to force out the notion of imputation. I.e., if it was not Adam, and Adam was already sinful, God would still have had a point of imputation through someone else earlier, I should think. The argument becomes circular. The fact that it WAS Adam, was a purposeful act of God upon humankind.
Christ's righteousness given —referring to practical righteousness, and therefore judged pure? Do you suppose any of us to have practical righteousness meriting that judgement?
It was for a pattern (Romans 5:14) for the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Romans 4:1-11).The question I'm raising is why would it be necessary to impute Adam's sin at all to us if we already had a sinful nature? We would sin plenty on our own anyway.
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?