Evidence for God from Science

Turgonian wrote:No; He is not 'foolishly wasting His time', but giving them enough warning so that they can't complain 'We never heard that'. People have responsibility and are called upon to do good. Even if they can't, the more they hear what they have to do, the more culpable they are for not doing it.

Honestly, doesn't this sound contradictory to God's nature to you? Where is the love in offering something to someone that you know can't accept it and then justify damning them to hell because you gave the offer. This is outlandish by any standard.

Turgonian wrote:If Jesus died without accomplishing anyone's salvation (only opening up a possibility), He might be very disappointed that so many people would refuse Him, right?

Yes, but at least He would be loving and kind and merciful in providing the "offer" to everyone without strings attached... regardless of their response.

Turgonian wrote: First, the NIV omits this passage, so it might not have been in God's Word in the first place. Second, it doesn't mean that at all: the text says 'God came to save that which is lost', not 'God came to save everything that is lost'. Sinners are lost; God came to save sinners (but not all); God came to save that which is lost (but not everything).

Youngs literal translation does not translate it with "that which is lost". The last three words in the original Greek for both mat 18:11 and Luke 19:10 are "save the lost". (And Luke 19:10 is in the NIV) There is no phrase the says "that which is". But even if it were, It does not say he came to save some of the lost.

Who did He come to save? The lost.

There are 2 types of people in the world. Saved and lost.

All that have been saved were at one point lost as well.

I do not see why you say that "the lost" does not mean everything that was lost. Can show where "the lost" is used elsewhere or other Greek reasoning that would indicate that "the lost" means only part of the lost?

Realize you cannot use Calvinistic thinking to support you argument, because that would be circular reasoning, and defeats the purpose. But I am all for analyzing the Greek to see where I may be incorrect in my understanding.

You mentioned Greek

You are right, the last three words are sosai to anololos. "to analolos" is "the lost." There is no relative pronoun here. The article "to" CAN be used as a weak relative pronoun . . . the NIV isn't out of step with the other major translations here. That said, I don't know why they just don't translate it, "save the lost." Regardless, it would be extremely, extremely ill-advised to base an arguement on "which." If the pronoun was that important, Luke could have used it. He didn't. The "normal" usage would be as the YLT has it. I'm pretty sure everyone is just following in the KJV tradition. This is a popular verse. You try not to change those too much . . .