Search results

Since Judas was given to Jesus by the Father (John 17:9, 12) and limited atonement is for those specifically who the Father has chosen (the elect) then how does limited atonement reconcile Judas being lost?

I've been thinking about Jesus' prayer in John 17, especially verse 9, and thought of an important question that I would like your feedback on. Do you believe Judas Iscariot is of the elect? He was chosen. John 6 NKJV 70Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a...

Presumably Peter, John, Matthew, and Mark were present when Jesus prayed that. Technically that would mean we need to disregard Luke and the Pauline letters if one were to take a strictly literal approach to what Jesus prayed for.

In assuming the limited atonement mindset, I would be forced to conclude no one has been elected for the past ~2,000 years if John 17:9 is a stand-alone verse to describe who the elect are. There would just be a handful of elect. So what are we doing here. Can anyone be saved today in your belief?

Thank you. In John 17:9, when Jesus said "I ask on their behalf. I do not ask on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those You have given Me; for they are Yours." He was speaking in the perfect tense about those people. That would mean that Jesus was speaking specifically about those God had...

I understand that. However, I have shown verses that challenge the limited atonement philosophy you brought up in the OP. Do you still want to talk about this subject? You opened the thread, I replied, you haven't engaged me. It's ok if you don't have an answer. All good brother. Does anyone...

I think we basically agree as far as I can tell.

I just base my commentary on the Bible. If I have missed something regarding marriage requirements please let me know.

In light of the Jewish law concerning non-virgin brides nothing much changes from my previous comment. The only guideline regarding a wedding ceremony in the Bible is simply "becoming one flesh" which is just a euphemism for sex.

On the other hand, the things that constitute a marriage are "leaving one's parents" and "becoming one flesh" which is the same thing that people who fornicate do. The line between "pre-marital" sex and consummating a marriage actually quite gray from a Biblical standpoint.

The elect being led astray by false Christs is a Biblically viable teaching, Mark 13:21-22, 2 Thess. 2:9-12, 1 John 2:18-19, etc. I think it's not good to brush it aside with a simple "this is false" as if it doesn't deserve the attention it requires. It's obviously not false. It may be false...

The "elect" can be deceived into believing in false Christs, false prophets, taking the mark of the beast, etc. Being elect isn't about being predestined to salvation unfortunately. Matthew 24 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders...

I think it's interesting that only Matthew recorded it as being a vision while the others recorded it as something they saw. I don't find any inconsistencies with what Matthew said because visions are seen. It's just that using the word vision is more specific and nuanced than seeing something...

I work in a job where these Biblical teachings roughly translate to crowd control and psychology. I would add that, in addition to what you said, we should also be useful. Think along the lines of going the extra mile if you're asked, being a "good Samaritan," and things like that.

I think there is something about riches that God doesn't like. It's probably less about the riches themself and more about what they can do to people. When I say riches, I am talking about gold and money, that sort of thing. I believe God defines riches in a different way, but tells us not to...

Really I am not even sure what my point was. I may have been focusing on a different aspect of your previous comment, at the time, that is now somewhat escaping me. I do agree with your general reasoning behind why Yeshua became Jesus though.

The idea you have provided falls apart when the name Melchizedek is taken into consideration.

How about the parts where the made they decision to not translate it into their language? They showed awareness that their translation was merely a preference. The Hebrew words actually appear in the New Testament manuscripts. Matt 27 45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came...

I think I am leaning toward how you see this as well. Jesus and Paul spoke of eternal life as something that is received in the future.

In some cases it's probably apocalyptic language and not meant to be literal because we can verify that Sodom isn't still burning. I believe in this case the language is meant to be vivid and dramatic to convey the idea of God triumphing over evil. It is literal other times because we can surely...