Saved By Fear?

[GodsGrace]

I believe it because it is in the bible but missed by most - it is at Matt 25:41 and goes like this "there will be a division into two lots - the one to the right will be for the children of God saved by the saviour of the world and the one to the left will be for the goats and tares and the children of the devil - He will say only to those on His left "depart into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels imho - there will only be devils in hell, there will be no Christians in hell imho - twinc

Well, of course there won't be any Christians in hell !
I thought you were saying that only the devil and his angels will be in the lake of fire.
anyway, I don't really care to discuss this.

 

[Stranger]

Yes. It IS too difficult. You contradict yourself.

In paragraph one you say we have free will.
In paragraph two you say we do NOT have free will.

In paragraph one you say we get to choose God.
In paragraph two you say God must FIRST draw us to Him.
God draw ALL MEN to Him.
Romans 1:19-20
And, as @"ByGrace" posted,
John 12:32

Acts 13:48
There is no doubt that God calls everyone.
There is no doubt that God desires all to be saved.
There is no doubt that Jesus died for the whole world and for those who would believe in Him. You cannot take a few verses that seem to be on your "side".
In Acts all those who would honor God were presdestined to honor God sthrough Jesus, just like the Jews (Gentiles were being addressed here). It takes two to be saved, God's calling (to ALL men) and man's choice.

No, I never said in paragraph one that we have free will. You are saying I said that.
As to paragraph two, I have always said we don't have free will. God chooses. Then man chooses. (2 Thess. 2:13)

In paragraph one I acknowledge the invitation to all. And that we who are elect will choose. But as I have said, God chooses first. (2 Thess 2:13)
In paragraph two I acknowledge that God chooses first. That God ordains who is to believe.
(Rom. 1:19-20) declares all men accountable and have sufficient truth to find them guilty before God.
(John 12:32) Jesus was still in the area of possibility of not going to the cross. Thus He said, " 'if' I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Till then He is not drawing all men. Salvation is going only to the Jews or those who identify with the Jews. It is the same as (John 1:9) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." It doesn't mean everyman in the world will receive that Light. But Christ is the Light to everyman.

As far as only a few verses, you are correct. I have given only a few. There are a multitude more. Yes, it takes two to be saved. But God's calling and mans choice is not being addressed in (Acts 13:48). God's ordaining some to eternal life is what is being addressed. Then they in turn believe. God's choosing. Man's faith as a result.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

One of the common characteristics of the religious spirit is always trying to correct people and straighten out their theology. Jesus told the pharisees that they strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel, meaning you've missed the point.

Maybe this forum would be a nicer place if we all allowed people to believe what ever they wanted, instead of always trying to straighten people out with pages of Bible verses. No wonder those who dont know God want knowing to do with religious people.

evotell,

J. C. Ryle, the godly nineteenth century evangelical Anglican bishop - first bishop of Liverpool - wrote in his book, Warnings to the Churches (The Banner of Truth Trust 1967/1858, pp. 110-111),

Controversy in religion is a hateful thing. It is hard enough to fight the devil, the world and the flesh, without private differences in our own camp. But there is one thing which is worse than controversy—and that is false doctrine tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest …. Three things there are which men never ought to trifle with—a little poison, a little false doctrine, and a little sin.​

Could he have gotten this emphasis from Scripture?

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping (2 Peter 2:1-3 NIV).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure I know what a seeker sensitive church is. A church that caters to any belief system? Here where I live there's only the Catholic church, and yes, you're right, there's no teaching and it's full of immature Christians who don't know their faith at all. This does not mean some of them are not saved. (I'm Protestant now).

I also agree that some look upon God as the good papa, but forget that He is also the God who created all things. A God who loves us and wants us to obey Him as good children should, who helps us along the way by giving us the Holy Spirit, and when we do disappoint, we ask forgiveness and continue on our road.

I find that some believe that they feel behavior is of no consequence since Jesus covers all our sins.

GodsGrace,

Seeker-sensitive churches are following the models of Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church. The leaders of this church have admitted (after research) that "we made a mistake" with their brand of church/Christianity.

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, CA, is another prominent leader in this movement of a Purpose Driven Church. See:Pastor Rick Warren Is Well Prepared For A Purpose Driven Retirement

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

No, I never said in paragraph one that we have free will. You are saying I said that.
As to paragraph two, I have always said we don't have free will. God chooses. Then man chooses. (2 Thess. 2:13)

In paragraph one I acknowledge the invitation to all. And that we who are elect will choose. But as I have said, God chooses first. (2 Thess 2:13)
In paragraph two I acknowledge that God chooses first. That God ordains who is to believe.
(Rom. 1:19-20) declares all men accountable and have sufficient truth to find them guilty before God.
(John 12:32) Jesus was still in the area of possibility of not going to the cross. Thus He said, " 'if' I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Till then He is not drawing all men. Salvation is going only to the Jews or those who identify with the Jews. It is the same as (John 1:9) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." It doesn't mean everyman in the world will receive that Light. But Christ is the Light to everyman.

As far as only a few verses, you are correct. I have given only a few. There are a multitude more. Yes, it takes two to be saved. But God's calling and mans choice is not being addressed in (Acts 13:48). God's ordaining some to eternal life is what is being addressed. Then they in turn believe. God's choosing. Man's faith as a result.

Stranger

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Although I've enjoyed this exchange with you, we'll have to agree to disagree on the question of free will and on the question of unconditional election.

You believe God first chooses who will be saved and that person is then free to respond.
I believe God reaches out to everyone, and everyone is free to respond.

I disagree with you because your belief changes the nature of a loving God who wishes all to be saved.
You say He's a loving God because we all deserve hell and He does save some of us.

We'll have to leave it at that.

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

Seeker-sensitive churches are following the models of Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church. The leaders of this church have admitted (after research) that "we made a mistake" with their brand of church/Christianity.

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, CA, is another prominent leader in this movement of a Purpose Driven Church. See:Pastor Rick Warren Is Well Prepared For A Purpose Driven Retirement

Oz

Yes. I'd say it's a mistake!
Not only are we wandering from traditionally held Christian beliefs, but now some churches don't even have specific doctrine!
The church will lose all cohesiveness if this continues.

 

[OzSpen]

Kind of like how I said earlier that every time predestination is mentioned, it's speaking in plurality, and not as individuals? ;)

You're parsing verses to mean what you want them to mean. God wants everyone to be saved. I can't believe that there are individuals out there that God does not want to be saved. If God micromanages everyone's lives and destinies, then why doesn't He just make everyone elect?

Why doesn't God elect everyone to salvation? The answer is simple for those like me who understand that human beings have free will. People choose to serve God or they reject him. People are not robots / automatons.

I use free will / the freedom of human beings in the biblical sense of God having the highest regard for freedom. He could have made us to be robots who jumped to his beck and call. He didn't and that started in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve given the choice to eat of the fruit or not eat of the fruit. Freedom was built into human beings from the beginning.

I speak of free will in two senses:

1. Freedom to carry out the choices of the sinful nature;
2. Freedom to act contrary to one's sinful nature.

Since the fall into sin (Gen 3), we lost the ability not to sin (see Gen 6:5; Job 13:10; Jer 13:23; 17:9; Rom 3:10-18; 8:5-8).

However, for all human beings, God has taken the initiative in salvation and by his common grace he has given human beings sufficient grace to respond positively to God's offer of salvation or to reject.

This is made clear in Titus 2:11 (NIV): 'For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people'.

My exposition of this verse is in: How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11

A further explanation of the free will choices in regard to salvation is expounded in:
Salvation by grace but not by force: A person chooses to believe

Oz

 

[Stranger]

No Stranger. This is the problem with Calvinistic beliefs.
ALL means ALL. It does NOT mean "all" something else.
It means ALL MEN on earth.

I meant, of course, that there is no such thing as elect, so there is no such thing as no elect. Another way to say this is that all are elected by God, but they must respond YES, to His calling.

Many are called, but few are chosen. Why? Because God's choosing has to do with the response to the calling. God chooses those that by their own free will choose to love Him and follow Him.

Romans 9:11
God's purpose was to save all nations through Abraham and Jacob. He foreknew that Esau would not pick to love and serve God. We've been through this and are repeating. Check Malachai 3:7. God says "return to me and I will return to you".
Romans 9 to 11 is speaking to the Jews and showing how the history of the Jews is to save the Gentiles. These chapters are NOT about individual salvation on a person per person basis.

Well, I said all means all. It means all classes of men everywhere. (1 Tim. 2:1) Do you pray for everyman on the earth? Of course not. You don't know everyman on the earth. All in authority are to be prayed for. Do you pray for all in authority. Of course not. You don't know everyone in authoritative positions. Because of Christ, all men everywhere can be saved, but only in Christ. (2:4-5) The salvation of Christ is provided for all. But none of the 'all' will come unless God chooses them and opens their eyes and influences their spirit by His Spirit.

Again, (Rom. 9:11) is clear that there is an election from God.

You say God's choosing has to do with the response of man to the call. But, Scripture doesn't say that. (2 Thess. 2:13) (Acts 13:48) (Rom. 9:11) (Eph. 1:4)

It doesn't say God foreknew that Esau would not chose to love God. It says that the purpose of God according to election might stand, God hated Esau and loved Jacob. See, you are presenting God's will just like mans will. In your thinking, Esau rejected God first. So, God rejected him. But that is just opposite of what is being said. "That the purpose of God according to election might stand", is what is being said. And God elects for this decision was made before they were born.

Concerning (Mal. 3:7), this is speaking to a nation Israel who are already the people of God but have turned away. It doesn't speak to elect or non-elect for salvation.

Well, the individuals who are elect in Israel are certainly addressed in (Rom. 9:6-8). Yes you have a nation that is elect of God. But within that nation you have individuals who are elect to salvation. They are the 'children of promise'. They are the real Israelites. And it is these children of promise that are being addressed when we are told of God's rejection of Esau and acceptance of Jacob. (Rom. 9:10-13)

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

No, you haven't given many Scriptures, and I have explained the Scriptures you have given to show your err.

Why do you and GodsGrace avoid my question concerning the elect angels? Why does God not provide salvation for the fallen angels. Isn't He a monster for not doing that? What do you say? Is God just or unjust for not giving them a chance to be saved? What do you say?

Stranger

The answer is simple:

The Bible does not specifically address the issue of fallen angels having an opportunity to repent, but we can gain some insight from what the Bible does say. First, Satan (Lucifer) was one of the highest angels, perhaps the highest (Ezekiel 28:14). Lucifer—and all the angels—were continually in God’s presence and had knowledge of the glory of God. Therefore, they had no excuse for rebelling against God and turning away from Him. They were not tempted. Lucifer and the other angels rebelling against God despite what they knew was the utmost evil.

Second, God did not provide a plan of redemption for the angels as He did for mankind. The fall of the human race necessitated an atoning sacrifice for sin, and God provided that sacrifice in Jesus Christ. In His grace, God redeemed the human race and brought glory to Himself.

No such sacrifice was planned for the angels. In addition, God referred to those angels who remain faithful to Him as His “elect angels” (1 Timothy 5:21)
[Why doesn't God give the fallen angels a chance to repent? Got Questions].
​

Oz

 

[Stranger]

2. Homiletical outline: Joshua 24:14-28

This is designed to summarise what the text is saying and grab the attention of the congregation or readers with relevant information that comes directly out of the text. This is the outline for a sermon that I will preach (not prepared yet) on this text. It may take 2 sermons of 30 minutes each to cover this material.

a. God does not deceive you: A command means you can do it (v. 14)

• Fear the Lord
• Serve him
• Put away the other gods.

source: Truth Challenge » Free will

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
If determinism is true we are all essentially uncontrolled, noise-making puppets with our strings pulled mindlessly by the physical universe. Because we always remain part of the universe we can never cut our strings and step outside the universe in order to objectively evaluate anything, including our own words. We effectively communicate nothing and know nothing.

Clearly then, Harris's thesis of determinism being true is self-defeating. If one asserts that there are valid, comprehensible reasons for believing that determinism is true, as Harris does, then in doing so he shows that determinism must necessarily be false.

Everything in our experience of life shouts at us that human beings do have free will. Even Harris, despite his denial of free will, repeatedly contradicts himself in the book, even within the one sentence: "Dispensing with the illusion of free will allows us to focus on the things that matter", p. 53. No Sam, if we have no free will, no control over our minds, we cannot choose to dispense with, or focus on, anything. "Where people can change, we can demand that they do so", p. 62. But don't you remember Sam, you said on p. 29 that "the future is set"?

Our whole lives are based on the premise that humans are genuine free agents yet most philosophers strongly deny that such agency exists. Nevertheless, we hold each other largely accountable for our actions (philosophy professors still mark their students' papers!). Indeed, critics of this article may deride me for rejecting determinism but then their derision can only truly make sense if determinism is false.

source: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17152&page=2

I would rather you answer my questions than give me someone else to argue with. I asked you questions concerning the nature of your will and God's will. Do you see them as the same.

Your article does not address the 'will' and 'free will'. He only addresses what he calls 'free will' and determinism.

My position is that man has a will, but it is not free. Only God has free will. Unless you see the nature of our will as the same as God's will then you must agree.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The answer is simple:

The Bible does not specifically address the issue of fallen angels having an opportunity to repent, but we can gain some insight from what the Bible does say. First, Satan (Lucifer) was one of the highest angels, perhaps the highest (Ezekiel 28:14). Lucifer—and all the angels—were continually in God’s presence and had knowledge of the glory of God. Therefore, they had no excuse for rebelling against God and turning away from Him. They were not tempted. Lucifer and the other angels rebelling against God despite what they knew was the utmost evil.

Second, God did not provide a plan of redemption for the angels as He did for mankind. The fall of the human race necessitated an atoning sacrifice for sin, and God provided that sacrifice in Jesus Christ. In His grace, God redeemed the human race and brought glory to Himself.

No such sacrifice was planned for the angels. In addition, God referred to those angels who remain faithful to Him as His “elect angels” (1 Timothy 5:21)
[Why doesn't God give the fallen angels a chance to repent? Got Questions].
​

Oz

Understand, the questions I was asking were to provoke a response concerning the justness of God in electing some men to salvation and not electing others. If one says the doctrine of election of men makes God a monster, then what about the angels. He would equally have to be a monster for not providing any salvation for them who fell. As the ones who did not fall, were the elect. So, angels were elect before they did or did not fall.

And, you say that the fall of the human race necessitated an atoning sacrifice for sin. Why? It didn't necessitate an atoning sacrifice any more than the angels did. It was the grace of God to provide any sort of salvation at all. It was His grace to provide it for man instead of the angels. It was His grace to choose some men when all rejected Him. The plan of salvation for man would depend on God. If He wanted to. And the type it was. God chose a plan of salvation that 'could' save all, but would only save some. And those 'some' would be those He chose. Is that just? Of course it is just. What God does is just.

God could have let the whole bunch, angels and men, go to hell. But He didn't. Their security would only be found in the election of God.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

Understand, the questions I was asking were to provoke a response concerning the justness of God in electing some men to salvation and not electing others. If one says the doctrine of election of men makes God a monster, then what about the angels. He would equally have to be a monster for not providing any salvation for them who fell. As the ones who did not fall, were the elect. So, angels were elect before they did or did not fall.

For whom is salvation through Christ's blood sacrifice designed? Human beings or angels?

What process is involved in making angels elect? What kind of initiative would God have to take to make 'salvation' possible for angels? What kind of propitiatory sacrifice would be needed to make demons elect angels?

I think you are wanting to deal with 2 different realms when there is only one realm of salvation by blood sacrifice and that is for human beings.

There is the additional factor that it's easy to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence in regard to angels because we don't have many details in Scripture and it's easy to move into conjecture.

What could be unjust in God's making angels who cannot be redeemed by blood sacrifice and human beings who are open to redemption through Christ's shed blood?

Oz

 

[twinc]

For whom is salvation through Christ's blood sacrifice designed? Human beings or angels?

What process is involved in making angels elect? What kind of initiative would God have to take to make 'salvation' possible for angels? What kind of propitiatory sacrifice would be needed to make demons elect angels?

I think you are wanting to deal with 2 different realms when there is only one realm of salvation by blood sacrifice and that is for human beings.

There is the additional factor that it's easy to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence in regard to angels because we don't have many details in Scripture and it's easy to move into conjecture.

What could be unjust in God's making angels who cannot be redeemed by blood sacrifice and human beings who are open to redemption through Christ's shed blood?

Oz

For whom is salvation through Christ's blood sacrifice designed? Human beings or angels?

What process is involved in making angels elect? What kind of initiative would God have to take to make 'salvation' possible for angels? What kind of propitiatory sacrifice would be needed to make demons elect angels?

I think you are wanting to deal with 2 different realms when there is only one realm of salvation by blood sacrifice and that is for human beings.

There is the additional factor that it's easy to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence in regard to angels because we don't have many details in Scripture and it's easy to move into conjecture.

What could be unjust in God's making angels who cannot be redeemed by blood sacrifice and human beings who are open to redemption through Christ's shed blood?

Oz

come now - let us like Paul realise
and plead 'not guilty'[Rmns 7:14-24] - if we had/have free will then we are guilty but it is exactly because we are not guilty that so to speak a good God was obliged to exonerate/save us imho - btw lets see were you or I consulted as to how or where or when we were born, skin colour, eyes, hair, male or female , our parents, relatives, friends, shape, size, brainy or dumb, able or disabled etc - come on - surrender for in Him we move and live and have our being imho - twinc

 

[Stranger]

For whom is salvation through Christ's blood sacrifice designed? Human beings or angels?

What process is involved in making angels elect? What kind of initiative would God have to take to make 'salvation' possible for angels? What kind of propitiatory sacrifice would be needed to make demons elect angels?

I think you are wanting to deal with 2 different realms when there is only one realm of salvation by blood sacrifice and that is for human beings.

There is the additional factor that it's easy to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence in regard to angels because we don't have many details in Scripture and it's easy to move into conjecture.

What could be unjust in God's making angels who cannot be redeemed by blood sacrifice and human beings who are open to redemption through Christ's shed blood?

Oz

God declaring is what makes one elect be it angel or man. It would take the same initiative from God to save angels that it took for Him to save man. But, He chose instead to save man.

Yes, there is only one realm of salvation and that is for man. But, that is my point. God could just as easily chosen to provide salvation for angels instead of man. Is He a monster for not doing so? If He is a monster for choosing some men to be saved and not choosing others, then He should be a monster for providing for fallen man but not providing for fallen angels.

We have sufficient Scripture to show that salvation is not given to the fallen angels. And, that only the elect angels did not fall. So, not only did God provide salvation only to fallen man, but He also chose some angels over others to remain in Heaven with Him. Which is another reason He should be called a monster by those who find fault with Him electing some men but not electing others to salvation.

As far as I am concerned there is no unjustness with what God does with man or the angels. My point is that if one is going to call God unjust in electing some men and not electing others then you must also call God unjust in His electing some angels and not electing others. Or call Him unjust for providing salvation to fallen man and not providing it to the fallen angels.

The only reason fallen angels cannot be redeemed is because God chose not to redeem them. Had He chosen to, He would have created a salvation for them. God's choice.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

The only reason fallen angels cannot be redeemed is because God chose not to redeem them. Had He chosen to, He would have created a salvation for them. God's choice.

So, what does 'elect' mean in 'elect angels' in 1 Tim 5:21?

Are they elected to their heavenly position in the same way that human beings are elected?

Are there elect demons?

 

[Dcopymope]

So, what does 'elect' mean in 'elect angels' in 1 Tim 5:21?

Are they elected to their heavenly position in the same way that human beings are elected?

Are there elect demons?

I don't think demons and angels are even the same thing, two different entities.

 

[forrestcupp]

Twinc can answer for himself.
I believe ( and I may be wrong...I will wait and see) but, I believe in The Fire..God Himself.
I believe we all came from Him...all life comes from God...without Him there is no life..and I believe we will all return to Him who gave...

God being a Consuming Fire...( Heb 12 ) I believe we will all ( as with the bonds on the Hebrew young men in the furnace) be set free from all thing that are not "of God". The Cleansing Fire. As found in Isaiah 43:2-3....
"..when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour..."
God is Love, God is a consuming fire...consuming all which is not...leaving what first came from Him, His life....
No persons will be in hell with the devil an
d his angels...REV tells us that is who hell was prepared for. I don't believe that somewhere along the way, God said to Himself... "Oh I have an idea...I'll send man into the hell I have prepared for the devil and his angels. "

What is hell? We all know the answer...it means "the unseen"...
Separation from God, is hell. I do not find in the Hebrew or Greek that it means forever and ever and ever etc........ only God and all that is within Him...is forever. You have probably also done the study on - eons , ages, forever, eternal, age lasting, etc..

I used to write in my bible all the original Greek and Hebrew words for ages, eternal , hell, etc etc...but that was many moons ago. Bibles are not "forever" unfortunately...so that one fell apart. Now I am many bibles hence... :)

So, that's just me...but how do you see things..?
( please, not just the usual pat, stock, mainline answer :) )
Just from your heart.

Bless you...H

What if there is a difference between Hell and the Lake of Fire, and we've just all been erroneously calling it hell?

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

The way I currently understand it is that God may predetermine for all to believe in Jesus and be saved as it is not his wish that any should perish, but not all are chosen, or justified. According to the parable of the marriage feast Jesus Christ gave, there is a difference between being called and being chosen. God has to choose you before you can choose him. God chooses you which enables you to choose him, which is where our free will becomes relevant. It goes both ways, once God draws your heart to him, its up to you if you choose or reject him.

Just think through that parable, though. He invited the first group of people, who were his close friends and relatives, and all of them made excuses. That represents that Jesus began with the Jews, but they rejected Him. Then he eventually ended up going out and inviting everyone he could find. The ones who were chosen to be a part of the feast were the ones who chose to come. God calls everyone, and the chosen ones are made up of everyone who answers the call.

Well, I said all means all. It means all classes of men everywhere. (1 Tim. 2:1) Do you pray for everyman on the earth? Of course not. You don't know everyman on the earth. All in authority are to be prayed for. Do you pray for all in authority. Of course not. You don't know everyone in authoritative positions. Because of Christ, all men everywhere can be saved, but only in Christ. (2:4-5) The salvation of Christ is provided for all. But none of the 'all' will come unless God chooses them and opens their eyes and influences their spirit by His Spirit...

This is the biggest cop-out "interpretation" I have ever seen. We could give you a hundred scriptures that prove that God wants everyone to be saved, and you'll just throw out your cop-out answer that "all" doesn't really mean the kind of "all" you think it means; it means the kind of "all" that I want it to mean to help support what I believe. For some reason with you, "all" in this context isn't speaking of all individuals, but in the context of predestination speaking in plurality, it does mean individuals.

And then you fiercely argue semantics of the difference between "will" and "free will." I have no idea what your point is there. You say we have a will, but not a free will. Of course there are things that are out of the realm of possibility in our human nature to accomplish. But that doesn't mean we can't want those things. Your will is just what you want. Sometimes we don't get what we want, but when it comes to salvation, God did give us a will to choose. That's why there are so many scriptures that talk about what we have to do to receive the salvation that Jesus paid for.

You, yourself, have stated that the "elect" still have to choose, and not only that, but salvation is even available to the non-elect to receive, if they so choose. So I have three questions about that. Is it possible for someone who is elect to not choose to be saved? Do you believe there are any non-elect people who have chosen to be saved. If so, does this mean that God tries harder with some people than others?

 

[bbyrd009]

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death.

 

[Dcopymope]

What if there is a difference between Hell and the Lake of Fire, and we've just all been erroneously calling it hell?

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

The curse of death itself and the abode that the dead resided in were cast into the lake of fire, fulfilling the overarching purpose of Jesus Christ's atonement, to destroy sin, and the death that came with it.

Just think through that parable, though. He invited the first group of people, who were his close friends and relatives, and all of them made excuses. That represents that Jesus began with the Jews, but they rejected Him. Then he eventually ended up going out and inviting everyone he could find. The ones who were chosen to be a part of the feast were the ones who chose to come. God calls everyone, and the chosen ones are made up of everyone who answers the call.

Yeah, that's basically what I said was it not? He calls everyone, and whether or not they actually choose him is up to the individual. Scripture is clear that no one comes to Jesus but by the Father, and vice versa, as they are both one. God knew the Jews were going to reject him, it was apart of his overall plan, so its not saying much in of itself.

 

[GodsGrace]

The curse of death itself and the abode that the dead resided in were cast into the lake of fire, fulfilling the overarching purpose of Jesus Christ's atonement, to destroy sin, and the death that came with it.



Yeah, that's basically what I said was it not? He calls everyone, and whether or not they actually choose him is up to the individual. Scripture is clear that no one comes to Jesus but by the Father, and vice versa, as they are both one. God knew the Jews were going to reject him, it was apart of his overall plan, so its not saying much in of itself.

How do people come to Jesus by the father?