Jesus was victorious in that He provided atonement for ALL WHO REPENT. Nobody else. The majority will not.
Mt 7 Narrow is the way and FEW THERE BE ...
Mt 7 Narrow is the way and FEW THERE BE ...
Why Can't Everyone Come To Christ?
- Thread starter TexUs
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
Christ died for all and would want everyone to accept the free gift but some will not accept the gift. Many will follow a false gospel. All of the verses you presented were taken out of context or neglected the condition that needed to be met. Your universalist doctrine is false.
It is your right to be wrong.
Since you lack knowledge of the first age, you are ill-positioned to give a credible case otherwise.
Mercy777
New Member
- Sep 13, 2010
- 48
- 1
- 0
John 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Matthew 11:27
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Did God choose the Gentiles to be saved so the Israelites would become jealous and turn back to God and be saved also?
Who is the Word of God for? The Ones chosen to hear.
Who begins our Faith and perfects it?
JESUS- the author and perfector of our faith.
We are not the natural children-we are the children born of God. Not of a husbands will or a human descision, born by the power of God in Jesus Christ.
God Bless,
Mercy
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Come on Jiggy, what say ye about Matthew 25:46?
Mat 25:46 . . .And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Mat 25:46 . . .And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' YLT
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian." CLT
Sure. You said V22 is speaking of literally all people and then V23 switches to just those in Christ.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
This is not logical at all and you must hold that these verses contradict each other. Paul did not switch gears.
Plenty of them.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/13088-the-cross-only-for-a-few/
Ahhh, so when challenged on quoted Scripture this is your response: ad hominem logical fallacy.
Yes, quoting two obscure and terrible pre-schooler translations proves your case when the dozens of other translations doesn't fit your agenda?
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
What exactly does 'age-during' mean? What in the world is 'chastening eonian' and 'life eonian? What is the CLT? Also, the problem with the YLT is that it's a literalistic translation by a single individual which is hardly unbiased and not without controversy.
"Young tries to represent the Greek tenses with certain English tenses consistently, he tries to adhere to the word-order of the original, and he consistently translates a Greek word with the same English word in all of its occurrences. But in doing these things, he often fails to give the sense of the Greek correctly in English. It is doubtful whether the translation is really of much help to those who do not know Greek, because here the English is being forced to observe rules of the Greek language. The reader must become familiar with Greek syntax and vocabulary in order to make sense of the English! " http://www.bible-res....com/young.html
Oh did I mention that Robert Young was self-taught in Greek and Hebrew and his YLT paid no attention to context or the historical usage of the words he translated? Not very comforting, huh?
Show me a committee translated English version that translates the Greek adjective 'aionios' as 'eonian' or 'age-during.' Show me a lexicon that lists 'eonian' or 'age-during' as definitions.
Again there is no contradiction to me, I all ready posted scripture that shows who (all mankind) belongs to Christ.
Tis the opinion of one who thinks Jew and Gentile does not cover the whole human race. I don't see where I have ignored any scripture but I am certainly not going to accept any interpretations from someone who doesn't even know the definition of Gentile.
Nomad, we have covered this before and we still disagree. As far as Young's Greek and Hebrew translating abilities, I'm sure they are lacking in your eyes so why don't you do your own translation?
If I show you the lexicons your asking for you won't accept them so why should I bother?
You didn't challenge me with any 'quoted scripture'. It was your reply that was ad hominem.
I didn't expect you to reply with Scripture.
Please stop using Strawman arguments.
What do you suppose everything in my OP was? You didn't address any of it, you just entered the thread, ignored it, and posted your view.
I didn't read the OP, as it was not necessary to read it in order to answer the topic question. If you look at my first post on this topic, I wrote in answer to the topic question -- not to reply to anything therein the opening post.
You asked the question in the topic title. I simply answered it!
By the very question in the topic title, I knew that you did not know what you were writing about. For, it you understood the three ages, you would know that the purpose of this age is to save some of the 1/3 that rebelled with Satan in the first age. So, what point is there to respond to your point by point drivel when you are already clueless??
As I replied to you after you commented on my answer, you have the right to be wrong. I even explained why you would be wrong [lack of knowledge of the first age].
BTW, when I read your posts and disagree, I quote you.
If you mean I lack the "knowledge" of considering the period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as evidence for a million year gap along with flawed scientific dating, I don't, I just think it's really stupid.
I used to think the same until I knuckled down with the Hebrew to find nothing in Gen 1:1-2 was restricted to a certain time frame.
Can you show me in the Hebrew how Gen 1:1-2 is restricted to a time frame that you think isn't stupid?
Young earthers live in denial of facts. All science, which states that the earth is older than about 6,000 years, is denied without explanation or a shred of proof as to how the science in dating artifacts is "flawed".
Since denial is young earthers belief system, any Biblical proof that the earth is very old is also rejected. So, of course, a prior age is blown off -- just as we see above in the post by TexUs.
Since denial is young earthers belief system, any Biblical proof that the earth is very old is also rejected. So, of course, a prior age is blown off -- just as we see above in the post by TexUs.
Similar threads
