Is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical?

[ForestGreenCook]

The problem I have with unitedwithchrist, he appears to be a narcissistic person and you can see it in the way he responds, he is always right and loves to belittle others, calling them names, fabricating lies and I can witness to that, not to mention, he spoke something he should not have about his own brother.

I understand your position, but we must remember to love the sinner, but not the sin.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

The problem I have with unitedwithchrist, he appears to be a narcissistic person and you can see it in the way he responds, he is always right and loves to belittle others, calling them names, fabricating lies and I can witness to that, not to mention, he spoke something he should not have about his own brother.

I do understand that he is determined for you to see it his way. He refuses to continue his conversations with me, because he thinks the way that I interpret the scriptures is absurd, and too hard for him to understand.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

The problem I have with unitedwithchrist, he appears to be a narcissistic person and you can see it in the way he responds, he is always right and loves to belittle others, calling them names, fabricating lies and I can witness to that, not to mention, he spoke something he should not have about his own brother.

My complete list of faults and sins is much longer.

He who thinks he's immune from pride and a lack of humility is foolish.

The question is, what does the bible say? And, it does say that God elects (marks out for salvation) certain individuals, and not others.

Ignoring this biblical fact simply proves one is worshiping a false god.

Regarding my brother, no one knows him here, and no one knows me. Therefore, using him as an example is not gossiping about him. I think it's inconsistent to be a drunk and a womanizer, and to harp on someone else regarding the Sabbath and elements of the Mosaic Law. Unfortunately, he was affected by his upbringing in a Judaizer church, and even though he is not a believer, he still continues to be affected by them.

Here's the main point: there are a bunch of "Torah observers" who don't observe the other plainer commands of Scripture, while being meticulous about a particular day or a particular food item that one chooses to eat. Christianity is not about days and diet.

Like I said, though, I'm not interested in continuing discourse. If you want to worship a god who doesn't elect, then do it. I believe the Bible (all of it) and I believe in an omnipotent God who elects certain individuals for salvation, infallibly applies that salvation to them, and causes them to persevere to the end. My view doesn't compromise any spiritual principles, and I can read Scripture in a comprehensive manner.

This God removes their heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, and as a result, faith and repentance emerge from their new nature. The idea that one must manufacture faith and repentance from a heart of stone, to receive a heart of flesh, is ludicrous.

I know that this God elected pitiful specimens of humanity to salvation, and ensures their salvation. I don't have to gloss over sections like 1 Cor 1:26ff which plainly teaches that God chose pitiful human beings, who were poor specimens from a human perspective, in order to demonstrate his glory in their salvation.

Additionally, I don't bow down to some "Torah observer" who learns a dozen Hebrew words and subscribes to Mosaic observances as being the spiritual ones who demand my adherence to their unbiblical positions.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

First, get a dictionary and see what it means to be "quickened". It means to be made alive, which is the same thing as being regenerated. If you are claiming that to be quickened is some in-between state between death and life, you are mistaken. That's the common free-willer claim.

To be quickened means to be made alive, which is the same thing as being regenerated.

And, yes, my position is that God has marked out certain individuals for salvation. This is what election means. Furthermore, this election was not based on any merits that they possessed beforehand.

If someone isn't elected, they will suffer eternal damnation because they will choose, in accordance to their fallen nature and their slavery to sin, to pursue wickedness and not a relationship with God.

This is simply what Scripture teaches.

Well, the free-willer cries, that ain't right! My response is, you aren't God and aren't capable of deciding right from wrong, and are not the judge. God is the judge, and you do not judge him.

The biggest problem with the free-willer isn't a lack of clarity of Scriptures; it is the fact that they reject what Scripture says, and twist it around to their own theology. They decide what is right and wrong, and declare that God must decide things in according to their carnal way of thinking. They create an idol-god that conforms to their expectations.

I suggest carefully reading Romans 9 without your free-willer glasses on. Same with John 6, 8, 10, Ephesians 1, and the entire Bible.

God drown all of mankind at the time of Noah, including children. God commanded the Israelites to wipe out entire nations, including the children. God punished entire families for the the decision of their head (Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Achan).

Mankind is already under condemnation due to Adam's sin. Free-willers often claim that they are a fresh Adam, and they decide their own fate, because "this ain't fair". This is just one more exhibition of the play-doh theology that I mention in my signature.

Regarding your testimony statement, it sounds legit to me but you weren't so clear in the past. You made a remark like you were "leaning toward Jesus" as if you were still in the process of deciding whether to place your faith in him or not.

Saying the testimony statement sounds legit isn't the same as saying you understand Scripture well enough to be instructing others though. It sounds like a typical free-willer testimony.

----------------------

You have a problem with reading comprehension, I brought up regeneration to point out something to you in the way you view elect, nothing to do with definition.

I know exactly what you believe with the word election, but out fell to respond to the question I ask... If God saves those who he marked as elect, what you are saying is that he damns those who he did not mark as elect. Is that the God you serve who damns to eternal damnation without allowing a person to decide when he is ministered to? There is no other way to put it. You are teaching a distorted doctrine, making God an ugly God.

You'r comment... If someone isn't elected, they will suffer eternal damnation because they will choose is preposterous. How can you use the word choose when your God will not let them to choose since they are not elected? What a disgusting statement you made.

I decided not to respond to the rest, you are all distorted in your view and you need a whack in the head (figure of speech) maybe that will wake you up.

Keep your words, don't respond to me.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

I do understand that he is determined for you to see it his way. He refuses to continue his conversations with me, because he thinks the way that I interpret the scriptures is absurd, and too hard for him to understand.

He said he will stop responding to me, but continues and as I stated, he has a narcissistic disorder behavior and he should do a reseach on it.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

My complete list of faults and sins is much longer.

He who thinks he's immune from pride and a lack of humility is foolish.

The question is, what does the bible say? And, it does say that God elects (marks out for salvation) certain individuals, and not others.

Ignoring this biblical fact simply proves one is worshiping a false god.

Regarding my brother, no one knows him here, and no one knows me. Therefore, using him as an example is not gossiping about him. I think it's inconsistent to be a drunk and a womanizer, and to harp on someone else regarding the Sabbath and elements of the Mosaic Law. Unfortunately, he was affected by his upbringing in a Judaizer church, and even though he is not a believer, he still continues to be affected by them.

Here's the main point: there are a bunch of "Torah observers" who don't observe the other plainer commands of Scripture, while being meticulous about a particular day or a particular food item that one chooses to eat. Christianity is not about days and diet.

Like I said, though, I'm not interested in continuing discourse. If you want to worship a god who doesn't elect, then do it. I believe the Bible (all of it) and I believe in an omnipotent God who elects certain individuals for salvation, infallibly applies that salvation to them, and causes them to persevere to the end. My view doesn't compromise any spiritual principles, and I can read Scripture in a comprehensive manner.

This God removes their heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, and as a result, faith and repentance emerge from their new nature. The idea that one must manufacture faith and repentance from a heart of stone, to receive a heart of flesh, is ludicrous.

I know that this God elected pitiful specimens of humanity to salvation, and ensures their salvation. I don't have to gloss over sections like 1 Cor 1:26ff which plainly teaches that God chose pitiful human beings, who were poor specimens from a human perspective, in order to demonstrate his glory in their salvation.

Additionally, I don't bow down to some "Torah observer" who learns a dozen Hebrew words and subscribes to Mosaic observances as being the spiritual ones who demand my adherence to their unbiblical positions.

-----------------

You are wasting your time, I decided not to even read anything you say and if anyone mentions you, I will address you as the liar who fabricated lies convincing himself that I stated it when I never did, and he cannot substantiate himself, not to mention, that you talk about your own brother, that alone is shameful of you.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

God is not willing that any 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance ..
Jesus died on the cross once for some or once for all ? Is God a respecter of persons ?

And those spoiled brats I've heard say over and over ''I didn't ask to be born'' can slit their wrists any time they want is what I tell those who throw it up in my face, 100% bluff so far ..

"once for all" means "one for all time".

It does not mean once for all people...otherwise his death was not effective for those who are lost.

If you carefully study the context each time it is used, you will see that these references in Hebrews are comparing the temporary nature of the animal sacrifices, which never really atoned for sin anyways, with the once for all time sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Read the verses surrounding these references, and you will see that this comparison is being made.

I am going to post this reply there as well.

So, if you adopt the free-willer view of the atonement, you are basically saying Jesus didn't atone for any person's sin, but he simply made atonement for their sin possible. It was not an actual atonement.

The Reformed view would be that Jesus actually atoned for all the sins of the elect, and earned for them every spiritual blessing that comes through union with Him.

 

[Dave-L]

If Jesus paid for all sin except the sin of unbelief, then he didn't pay for any sin. Because all sin stems from unbelief.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Keep your words, don't respond to me.

He's been trolling for Five Point Calvinism. There are no takers.

 

[bojack]

"once for all" means "one for all time".

It does not mean once for all people...otherwise his death was not effective for those who are lost.

If you carefully study the context each time it is used, you will see that these references in Hebrews are comparing the temporary nature of the animal sacrifices, which never really atoned for sin anyways, with the once for all time sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Read the verses surrounding these references, and you will see that this comparison is being made.

I am going to post this reply there as well.

So, if you adopt the free-willer view of the atonement, you are basically saying Jesus didn't atone for any person's sin, but he simply made atonement for their sin possible. It was not an actual atonement.

The Reformed view would be that Jesus actually atoned for all the sins of the elect, and earned for them every spiritual blessing that comes through union with Him.

Ha, You can't be saying Jesus work on the cross there was just a limited amount of grace could go around and you just happened to be near the front of the line before it run out ? That is sick perversion .. And how many people did John Calvin murder ? Hell was created for the devil and his angels, not initially for man .. But some choose hell and self vanity, they get thrown in too .. Some will have their blood on our hands where we neglected to minister and witness according to our calling .. Those in hell had a calling they neglected too ..

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Ha, You can't be saying Jesus work on the cross there was just a limited amount of grace could go around and you just happened to be near the front of the line before it run out ? That is sick perversion .. And how many people did John Calvin murder ? Hell was created for the devil and his angels, not initially for man .. But some choose hell and self vanity, they get thrown in too .. Some will have their blood on our hands where we neglected to minister and witness according to our calling .. Those in hell had a calling they neglected too ..

Firstly, Jesus' atonement was adequate for all mankind, however it does not apply to all mankind. Otherwise, it is an ineffective atonement, because there are individuals who suffer eternal punishment that it applied to.

See, the difference is that you believe in a failure god. I don't. I believe God accomplishes every single salvation that he sets out to accomplish. I believe God is sovereign over all things. I believe God knows the end from the beginning, so he's not out there trying to save people who won't be saved, and he knows they won't be saved. Otherwise, he's a failure.

Some claim God doesn't even know the future, and that's why he is fervently trying to save folks that will never be saved. These folks are called open theists.

No, the reality is that it was an actual atonement that secured the salvation of his elect, whom he chose before the foundation of the world. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant. And, this choice was due to no merit those individuals possessed. I posted my line of reasoning on the first set of posts, starting with the original posts, giving Scriptural proofs. Your argument is with God, and not me.

By the way, the non-elect don't even want salvation. Their hearts need to be changed in order for them to desire God. The free-willer position is that the man, with his heart of stone, must somehow dredge up faith and repentance from his stony heart, to receive a heart of flesh. This is absurd. Instead, God gives the elect individual a heart of flesh, to replace his heart of stone, and faith and repentance usher forth from this.

Regarding John Calvin, there are all kinds of ignorant stories about the Servetus affair. And, a lot of them come from ignorant men like Dave Hunt (now deceased). Dave Hunt might be credible to someone who doesn't know church history, except for the little bit that he hears from Dave Hunt fans. I suggest that you study that affair if you really want to sound like you know what you're talking about...otherwise keep hanging out with Dave Hunt fans. Hint: Calvin didn't kill Servetus..the Council of Geneva killed him..of course, it would take a little knowledge to understand that Calvin wasn't a dictator over Geneva; he was only a religious authority. He was consulted, and he actually tried to get a more merciful form of execution for Servetus, and maybe even exile. By the way, Servetus seemed to have a sexual obsession with Calvin or something..he kept writing him letters over many years which Calvin mostly ignored.

Regarding evangelism, all believers have an obligation to further the cause of the gospel in some way. Reformed theology doesn't teach anything different. They do spend a lot more effort on teaching Christians, though, so their church services are more learning-oriented, unlike groups which fall on the floor, flopping like a fish, or yelling and screaming...rampant emotionalism. So, when someone gets converted to Christ in a Reformed environment, they learn solid doctrine.

I was in various free-willer churches for about two decades, and learned practically nothing there...not so with Reformed churches...they make a great effort to learn Scripture.

 

[oyster67]

So, is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical? If not, why not?

No. Because it is not in the Bible. Jesus died for all men. Jesus is not willing that any should perish. Lets stop listening to Calvin and start listening to Jesus.

 

[bojack]

Firstly, Jesus' atonement was adequate for all mankind, however it does not apply to all mankind. Otherwise, it is an ineffective atonement, because there are individuals who suffer eternal punishment that it applied to.

See, the difference is that you believe in a failure god. I don't. I believe God accomplishes every single salvation that he sets out to accomplish. I believe God is sovereign over all things. I believe God knows the end from the beginning, so he's not out there trying to save people who won't be saved, and he knows they won't be saved. Otherwise, he's a failure.

Some claim God doesn't even know the future, and that's why he is fervently trying to save folks that will never be saved. These folks are called open theists.

No, the reality is that it was an actual atonement that secured the salvation of his elect, whom he chose before the foundation of the world. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant. And, this choice was due to no merit those individuals possessed. I posted my line of reasoning on the first set of posts, starting with the original posts, giving Scriptural proofs. Your argument is with God, and not me.

By the way, the non-elect don't even want salvation. Their hearts need to be changed in order for them to desire God. The free-willer position is that the man, with his heart of stone, must somehow dredge up faith and repentance from his stony heart, to receive a heart of flesh. This is absurd. Instead, God gives the elect individual a heart of flesh, to replace his heart of stone, and faith and repentance usher forth from this.

Regarding John Calvin, there are all kinds of ignorant stories about the Servetus affair. And, a lot of them come from ignorant men like Dave Hunt (now deceased). Dave Hunt might be credible to someone who doesn't know church history, except for the little bit that he hears from Dave Hunt fans. I suggest that you study that affair if you really want to sound like you know what you're talking about...otherwise keep hanging out with Dave Hunt fans. Hint: Calvin didn't kill Servetus..the Council of Geneva killed him..of course, it would take a little knowledge to understand that Calvin wasn't a dictator over Geneva; he was only a religious authority. He was consulted, and he actually tried to get a more merciful form of execution for Servetus, and maybe even exile. By the way, Servetus seemed to have a sexual obsession with Calvin or something..he kept writing him letters over many years which Calvin mostly ignored.

Regarding evangelism, all believers have an obligation to further the cause of the gospel in some way. Reformed theology doesn't teach anything different. They do spend a lot more effort on teaching Christians, though, so their church services are more learning-oriented, unlike groups which fall on the floor, flopping like a fish, or yelling and screaming...rampant emotionalism. So, when someone gets converted to Christ in a Reformed environment, they learn solid doctrine.

I was in various free-willer churches for about two decades, and learned practically nothing there...not so with Reformed churches...they make a great effort to learn Scripture.

I agree , you have no clue .. Two decades ? Maybe they had something to get excited about for Jesus .. What makes you think you know anything now ? The murdering John Calvin ?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

-----------------

You are wasting your time, I decided not to even read anything you say and if anyone mentions you, I will address you as the liar who fabricated lies convincing himself that I stated it when I never did, and he cannot substantiate himself, not to mention, that you talk about your own brother, that alone is shameful of you.

just use the ignore option

that is why it is there

 

[7seasrekeyed]

"UnitedWithChrist, post: 4149221, member: 287917"]Firstly, Jesus' atonement was adequate for all mankind, however it does not apply to all mankind. Otherwise, it is an ineffective atonement, because there are individuals who suffer eternal punishment that it applied to.

Jesus atonement was adequate for all mankind but does not apply to all mankind. anyone else see the conflict there? first he says the atonement was adequate, then, he states it is ineffective because of his confusion over the fact God does not create some people to go to hell. Calvinists have to make things up to serve their heretical doctrine

See, the difference is that you believe in a failure god. I don't. I believe God accomplishes every single salvation that he sets out to accomplish. I believe God is sovereign over all things. I believe God knows the end from the beginning, so he's not out there trying to save people who won't be saved, and he knows they won't be saved. Otherwise, he's a failure.

actually, you do not know what we believe. otherwise you would not make such ignorant statements. as the atonement was enough for all mankind, as you state in your first paragraph of this post, God would not have to be 'out there' as the sacrifice of Christ was once and for all enough and does not need for God to be out there. we have the Holy Spirit and each one of us are able to witness for Christ so that people may hear and accept Him

Some claim God doesn't even know the future, and that's why he is fervently trying to save folks that will never be saved. These folks are called open theists.

who? anyone can state 'some', but if you state that, surely you can back it up?


No, the reality is that it was an actual atonement that secured the salvation of his elect, whom he chose before the foundation of the world. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant. And, this choice was due to no merit those individuals possessed. I posted my line of reasoning on the first set of posts, starting with the original posts, giving Scriptural proofs. Your argument is with God, and not me.

if someone states otherwise they are ignorant? now tell us how you do not think of yourself as superior

By the way, the non-elect don't even want salvation. Their hearts need to be changed in order for them to desire God. The free-willer position is that the man, with his heart of stone, must somehow dredge up faith and repentance from his stony heart, to receive a heart of flesh. This is absurd. Instead, God gives the elect individual a heart of flesh, to replace his heart of stone, and faith and repentance usher forth from this.

again with the backwards salvation theory. the absurdity is all Calvins and apparently you chose it

Regarding John Calvin, there are all kinds of ignorant stories about the Servetus affair. And, a lot of them come from ignorant men like Dave Hunt (now deceased). Dave Hunt might be credible to someone who doesn't know church history, except for the little bit that he hears from Dave Hunt fans. I suggest that you study that affair if you really want to sound like you know what you're talking about...otherwise keep hanging out with Dave Hunt fans. Hint: Calvin didn't kill Servetus..the Council of Geneva killed him..of course, it would take a little knowledge to understand that Calvin wasn't a dictator over Geneva; he was only a religious authority. He was consulted, and he actually tried to get a more merciful form of execution for Servetus, and maybe even exile. By the way, Servetus seemed to have a sexual obsession with Calvin or something..he kept writing him letters over many years which Calvin mostly ignored.

there were far more than one man named Servetus who was judged to be put to death by Calvin. I guess you soothe your conscientious by continually trying to hide that fact. it has been stated, along with factual historical documents that Calvin was a little dictator...even called a pope in jest by some. he hardly exhibited any Christlike behavior at all

Regarding evangelism, all believers have an obligation to further the cause of the gospel in some way. Reformed theology doesn't teach anything different. They do spend a lot more effort on teaching Christians, though, so their church services are more learning-oriented, unlike groups which fall on the floor, flopping like a fish, or yelling and screaming...rampant emotionalism. So, when someone gets converted to Christ in a Reformed environment, they learn solid doctrine.

brainwashing would be a more appropriate word for what is taught by hyper Calvinists

I was in various free-willer churches for about two decades, and learned practically nothing there...not so with Reformed churches...they make a great effort to learn Scripture.

you must have not exercised discernment then because trying to state you learn nothing in a non-Calvinist church is pure bias on your part


again not expecting a reply (which I do not mind) as he is of the opinion, as was Calvin, that women are not capable of understanding these deep (lacking in Biblical) truths. presented from the mind of Calvin who may not have actually known the God of scripture since his ideas are so far removed from same. no doubt excavated from the nether regions of the spiritual world

one thing is certain, another Jesus is presented through Calvin's misappropriations of scripture

 

[garee]

Jesus atonement was adequate for all mankind but does not apply to all mankind. anyone else see the conflict there? first he says the atonement was adequate, then, he states it is ineffective because of his confusion over the fact God does not create some people to go to hell. Calvinists have to make things up to serve their heretical doctrine

No confusion .God did not create any to go to hell. If you are looking for something to blame death according to the letter of the law. It was not God choice that mankind experience the commandment of another voice . "You shall not surely die". Blame the spirit of error .the accuser of the brethren .Why blame God for fulfilling his promise?

No conflict at all .As many as the father gave the son they alone will come. Not one more or one less can come unless the father moves them to do His will as informed in Philippians 2:13-13 . He works in us to both will and do his good pleasure. He does the willful picking and breathing into new life. Why murmur ?


It would be like pickles in many pickle jars of various color. I will take all in blue jars .Not all the jars of every color . The key is the word as many as.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

"once for all" means "one for all time".

It does not mean once for all people...otherwise his death was not effective for those who are lost.

If you carefully study the context each time it is used, you will see that these references in Hebrews are comparing the temporary nature of the animal sacrifices, which never really atoned for sin anyways, with the once for all time sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Read the verses surrounding these references, and you will see that this comparison is being made.

I am going to post this reply there as well.

So, if you adopt the free-willer view of the atonement, you are basically saying Jesus didn't atone for any person's sin, but he simply made atonement for their sin possible. It was not an actual atonement.

The Reformed view would be that Jesus actually atoned for all the sins of the elect, and earned for them every spiritual blessing that comes through union with Him.

-----------------

Galatians 3:13 tells us that Yeshua came to redeemed us from the curse of the law, then in Galatians 4:5 we are told that he came to redeem them that were under the law to receive the adoption of sons. If you believe that he atone for the sins of the elects, then you cannot be one of them because according to the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle Paul tells us that he came to redeem them who were under the law, unless you were one of them and living during that time (logical statement).

In John 1:29, John the Baptist makes it clear that as Yeshua was approaching him he said, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world and if you cross reference it with Romans 3:23 which says all have sinned it would absolutely without a doubt, without hesitation that salvation is available for everyone and not just some. It appears you do not have an understanding of the passage of scriptures that refers to elect or unless you are interpreting it the way you want to to fit your view or you have been impressed with a distorted view. God was clear when he first spoke, but men deliberately distort the word of God, what he made clear when he first spoke.

By the way, you cannot be one of the elects, you would not under the law prior to Yeshua's death, which is a logic statement to debunk and expose the ridiculous statement you made.

Most likely you would not respond for two reasons, most likely for the reason that I told you that you are a liar, fabricating and accusing me of saying something that I never said and when I asked you to show me you couldn't because you know that you fabricated a lie to not respond to my questions.

According your you view, God created to send to hell, that is a diabolical statement and view you hold.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

just use the ignore option

that is why it is there

----------------------

I decided to continue to respond to his post to show that he is distorted in his view, he God appear not to be the God of the Scriptures.

 

[oyster67]

I believe God accomplishes every single salvation that he sets out to accomplish. I believe God is sovereign over all things.

You seem to lack understanding about what God wants. God wants men to choose Him. God does not want to force His Way down men's throats like you do. You need to find a way to clear up your mental blockage. I will pray that you see the Light before it is too late.

Acts 17
17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Jesus wants all men to seek Him today.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

You seem to lack understanding about what God wants. God wants men to choose Him. God does not want to force His Way down men's throats like you do. You need to find a way to clear up your mental blockage. I will pray that you see the Light before it is too late.

Acts 17
17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Jesus wants all men to seek Him today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

He will not take the scriptures you provided at heart because he cannot escape or deliberately wants to lean on the distorted teaching of men, he allowed himself to be impressed with that false teaching. His God sends people to eternal damnation without allowing them to choose and that is a diabolical teaching.