Originally Posted by Casper
Does NOT LETTING anyone perish imply an absolute the same as FORBIDDING it, just as the moon is forbidden from falling to the earth? Obviously not, what with that free will requirement; it is a matter of making a life raft available to everyone at least once. I guess it comes down to seeing the justice in condemning a child for the sins of a long dead ancestor somehow being evidence that this same entity considers an individual child separate and solely responsible for their own salvation. I don't see why a second chance doctrine would be explicitly excluded, so we agree on that, but I think Philly is asking for a reason that it should be included.
You are kind of straying into the "all dogs go to heaven" realm, just being constructively critical (or trying to be).
No no..not at all...
My big point seems to be being over looked here... There will be BILLIONS of people that go to hell.......
All I am saying is.......the ONLY point I am making, is that for God to be consistent with the two items in scripture I keep quoting..
He cannot send someone to hell if they have never had the chance to receive Christ or reject Christ. Atheists always ask the "tribesman on an island" question. My answer simply is this:
No, no man will be condemned without first having the opportunity to accept Christ... he died for the sins of ALL man, not for the majority that CAN hear about Him...but for ALL..
This is key right here:
If one sin can eternally condemn ALL.......ALL mankind forever, then we have to find it impossible to believe that Christ's gift is not sufficient for ALL. Even though a newborn has never heard of sin, they are still born guilty of it..
I almost feel like I am not getting my point across very well...