Do you believe that Jesus will saves all men?
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.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Do you believe that Jesus will saves all men?
11 For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says,
‘The stone that you builders rejected
has now become the cornerstone.'
12 There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.
If i examine the scriptures below, i come to the conclution that not all men have equal chance to be saved.Do you believe that Jesus will saves all men?
salvation which depend on choice can't be said as grace instead of achievement .Jesus Christ will not save all men because not all men will accept and obey him. However some teach that everyone eventually gets saved, but this is false doctrine. Salvation comes through a choice and when we make the choice to accept and acknowledge Christ as the only way and obey the word, we are saved.
salvation which depend on choice can't be said as grace instead of achievement .
In the premise : salvation is only by God's grace there should be no will that men can depend on , men just like corpses in the eye of God / men entirely spiritually dead / men only have negative will (how to reach the eternal death as soon as possible/how to actualize their death as soon as possible Rom3:10-12), that need to be resurrected / need to be saved .
If men still have the positive will ( can choose and can obey God ) they did not need to be driven out from Eden just only to keep them not eating the fruit of the tree of life intentionally , if in that state actually they still have the positive will and in fact they are driven out from Eden , so the commander to driven out should be not God ,or we should argue if the commander is worthy to be God.
reason: men that stand on courthouse will say " of course i can't fulfill Your so many and complicated laws ,but actually the case is You know that i surely can obey You, i surely can seek You why not You let me be in Eden with the very simple law " not eating the fruit of the tree of life intentionally " that You know i surely can fulfill it .
What answer will God launch ?.
In my reply #3 , the scriptures showed there are two kinds of men in the world , one is God's people ( born of God/listed in the book of life before the creation of the world) and the other is born of flesh.I'm not sure I understand your reply. I'm stating that Jesus Christ saves those who choose to accept and obey him.
NO. The death of Jesus propitiated the sin of only those who Jesus is willing to apply his blood - Grace - to.Do you believe that Jesus will saves all men?
The death of our Lord and Saviour was indeed sufficient to save all men but the Word of God is very clear that all men will not be saved.Do you believe that Jesus will saves all men?
Jesus Christ will not save all men because not all men will accept and obey him. However some teach that everyone eventually gets saved, but this is false doctrine. Salvation comes through a choice and when we make the choice to accept and acknowledge Christ as the only way and obey the word, we are saved.
You are putting the cart before the horse. People only choose to accept and obey him because Christ has already turned their hearts and drawn them to himself. Christ came to save all those whom the Father had given to him. It was God who chose us to save, not us to be saved.I'm not sure I understand your reply. I'm stating that Jesus Christ saves those who choose to accept and obey him.
Has God chosen all men, called all mankind to be saved, yet saving only those who respond? My thought is that this is so. I think there's been a time in everyone's life where God is accepted or rejected. God having given them to Jesus tho almost creates another scenerio .. I think of the many recorded instances of Jesus appearing to Muslims. The bible states that Jesus is the only way and for some this means a step into respectability, others a life threatening event, but to all who accept Him it is a changed life.You are putting the cart before the horse. People only choose to accept and obey him because Christ has already turned their hearts and drawn them to himself. Christ came to save all those whom the Father had given to him. It was God who chose us to save, not us to be saved.
You are putting the cart before the horse. People only choose to accept and obey him because Christ has already turned their hearts and drawn them to himself. Christ came to save all those whom the Father had given to him. It was God who chose us to save, not us to be saved.
Christ didn't say that he would draw all people. The word "people" is not in the text. He simply said that he would draw "all." The word "all" does NOT refer to every individual and neither did his disciples take it that way. He meant that he would draw all nations unto himself and not just Jews only. "Go ye into all the world and make disciples from all nations" (not every individual).That's not what John 12:32 (NIV) states and the words come from Jesus: 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.’
Oz
Judas Iscariot was present when our Lord told the disciples, "My blood...is shed for you" (Luke 22:20,21).NO. The death of Jesus propitiated the sin of only those who Jesus is willing to apply his blood - Grace - to.
As both High Priest and Lamb, his death was not Grace, but was a free act of love. The salvation of men is only by God's favor (grace) which is not given to all men, for only faith brings God's favour. (Eph 2:8)
The blood of CHrist must be APPLIED, which symbolically speaking, is displayed by the First Exodus, where the house is painted with blood. The house is a symbol used by Christ many times in his teaching, and is also the place where his final supper took place. His prayer on Passover eve, at the time of the lamb slaughter, and while Judas betrayed him, is the explicit application of the blood of Jesus over the earth. For this reason Jesus prayed over the elect, and also shed his blood through sweat that touched the earth and cleansed creation.
The suffering death of Jesus on the cross was also necessary, so that he could end the sacrificial system of Moses, but that is not the point in time when atonement took place. Atonement is an ongoing process whereby the living priest applies the blood to the altar, and sends the sin away to be forgotten (Leviticus 16)
Christ didn't say that he would draw all people. The word "people" is not in the text. He simply said that he would draw "all." The word "all" does NOT refer to every individual and neither did his disciples take it that way. He meant that he would draw all nations unto himself and not just Jews only. "Go ye into all the world and make disciples from all nations" (not every individual).
You have committed yourself to the conclusion that every individual from Christ until now has heard the gospel and has been drawn by Christ. But we know that this is an absurd conclusion.
I agree that pantas needs a noun to complete it. That noun should be "ethnos" (nations). You ask where it explicitly says "nations." But that question goes to you too. Where does it say "people." It doesn't. It is from the Great Commission that we know that it is nations that are in view.You make several false assumptions about my post:
I urge you to engage in accurate interpretation of what I wrote. You have not done that here.
- pantas in John 12:32 is an accusative, plural masculine adjective of pas. It requires a noun to complete its meaning. This often happens in Greek where the adjective is treated as a substantive with a noun assumed. The noun assumed is most certainly not crocodiles or pyramids.
- The drawing of God does not mean all will respond to that drawing. However, we know from Rom 1:20 that at the end of time all people will stand before God and will be 'without excuse'. What have they done with the evidence in creation that God provided?
- Where in the context of John 12:32 does it state that this is referring to all nations and not all people?
- Matt 28:18-20, which you quoted, does not explain how John 12:32 refers to nations. You have penny picked a verse to serve your purpose.
- I have never claimed that every individual from Christ to now has heard the Gospel. That's a straw man and a bad allegation against me.
- Of course your conclusion about me and everyone hearing the Gospel is absurd because you invented that absurdity. I didn't say it or infer it.
Oz
I agree that pantas needs a noun to complete it. That noun should be "ethnos" (nations). You ask where it explicitly says "nations." But that question goes to you too. Where does it say "people." It doesn't. It is from the Great Commission that we know that it is nations that are in view.
I did NOT say that you claimed that every individual from Christ until now has heard the gospel. I said that you are forced to accept that conclusion. If Christ draws every individual, then every individual will hear the gospel. You are illogical.
John 12:32 πάντας ἑλκύσω {D} Since the reading πάντα, supported by p66 aleph* D it vg syr.s.p.pal, cop.sa.bo.ach.2, goth, eth, geo.1, al, is ambiguous ("everyone," "all things," "all"), it is possible that copyists, desiring to remove the ambiguity, added a sigma. A majority of the Committee, however, favored the reading πάντας because of the weight of its external attestation and because it appears to be more congruent with Johannine theology. The reading πάντα, which suggests ideas of a cosmic redemption, may have arisen under the influence of Col. 1.16-17 and/or Gnostic speculation. [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1971. Corrected edition, 1975.), p. 238.)