Propitiation

Again, you mix the blood with redemption.

What does the Scripture state was purpose of the blood sacrifice?

 

Yep,

The single determination of eternal estate resides in a single word.

Belief.

 

If hell could “pay” the sin debt, the Papist use of purgatory would be Scriptural.

 

The sin debt obligation towards God is outstanding to all not now found in Christ!

 

God's wrath is NOT propiated towards the lost who are outside of the provisions of Christ!

 

Who stated it was?

Again, it seems you make the mistake of mitigating wrath by blood?

 

Perhaps you can offer Scripture support for this view?

For it is found in not only papist but Mormon teaching, too.

That is the termination limit of all people eventually ending up in heaven, having sufficiently satisfied God's wrath by time in the flames.

 

Ligonier Ministries

 

Iram Dei placare, meaning “to placate the wrath of God,” is a Latin phrase used by the early Reformers. It encapsulates the traditional Christian belief that Jesus satisfied God’s wrath against sinners on the cross. We find this teaching in Scripture where we read that Christ has made propitiation for His people (Rom. 3:21–25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). At Calvary, Jesus offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice, removing our guilt (expiation) and turning the Father’s wrath away from us (propitiation), enabling Him to be favorable to us again.
(Taken from: Ligonier Ministries)​

What is amazing is that EVERY reference shows a total LACK of wrath!

Yet, this would seek to transport the reader into agreement that some monstrous wrath for sin was poured out upon Christ.

There is NO proof such took place in the references given in the above quote.

I wouldn't accept this from a fifth grader, much less one that is supposedly speaking on behalf of others.

 

Then there is this:

Christians can sometimes think that the Lord is “out to get us.” Yet though our sin as believers will incur His displeasure and His discipline (Heb. 12:3–11), Jesus has made propitiation for all who trust Him alone for salvation, and therefore, God’s wrath is not upon the believer. But if you have not trusted Christ, do not imagine that the Father’s patience toward you means He is not angry with you. Believing on Jesus is your only hope to avert this anger.
(Taken from: Ligonier Ministries)
​

Again, it would be wonderful if the posted quote actually was proved by the Scripture reference!

But it is not!

From WHOM does the passage state was hostility from? God or humans?

How can the reformed be in such violation of the scriptures that they even attempt to use for support!

 

The wrath of God is NOT evil nor monstrous, but is just result of His law being broken, and he cannot tolerate any sin in His creation!

 

Just so I attempt to understand this post in light of the Scriptures. you would seem to agree that:

1) Christ is God, yes?
2) God cannot tolerate any sin?​

Therefore, Christ is either not God, or God can tolerate sin.

But more to the point, you did post from the ligoneer site, and I did show how they formulated opinion without Scripture authority and support.

Now you have the "horns of dilemma" confronting your thinking of God not tolerating sin.

 

“Kosmos” is the world, that includes all humanity that ever lived are living or will live. " - Agedman


I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which you have given me; for they are yours. - Jn. 17:9

According to you the BIBLICAL usage of the term kosmos means the world and every human being that has ever existed. So let's put it to the test. According to your theory this verse would have to read:

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world and every human being that has ever existed"

Therefore, "them" cannot be part of "every human being that has ever existed" by your definition. So are they aliens from another planet?????? Your limited definition of kosmos does not fit.

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 Jn. 2:15

According to you the BIBLICAL usage and meaning of the term kosmos means "every human being that has ever existed." So let's put it to the test. According to your theory this verse would have to read:

"love not every human being that has ever been in existence, neither the things that are in every human being that has ever been in existence. If any man love the world and every human being that has ever been in existence the Father is not in him."

So, the world in John 3:16 that the Father "so loved" cannot be the "world" here because if any man love this world the love of the Father is not in them!!!! Your limited definition of kosmos does not fit.

Ac 17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brothers to the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come here also;

According to you the Biblical usage and meaning of kosmos always means every human being that has ever existed. Let's put it to the test. If your view is right then this verse must read as follows:

"And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brothers to the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned every human being that has ever been in existence upside down are come here."

How does one turn the world and every human being that has come into existence "upside down"? Your limited definition of kosmos does not fit.

Finally, the phrase "in the land" is a geographical designation that designates the borders of the promised land given to the nation of Israel. However, not "every human being that has come into existence" lives within that geographical designated piece of real estate. So "the blood" is not unlimited in its application as it is limited to "in the land" not "in the world." Finally, "in the land" has reference to Israel and Israel is "my elect" and so the blood as far as application is equal to "my elect."

Now, if you want to talk about the potential value of the blood of Christ, it is unlimited in value but election limits its application.

 

It does, but your own bias prevents you from both understanding and recognition.

This verse does not nullify that the "world" is NEVER used in Scripture to signify just the "elect."

Perhaps that is where your focus should attend.

Again, your bias is preventing you from finding at least one verse in which the "world" is used as signifying the "elect."

Perhaps you can't so you are attempting to discredit the posts.

Fine, show that any of the posts containing the word "world" signifies the elect, or find at least ONE verse in the NT.

Again, you have not proven that the word "world" can be used as signifying the "elect."

Find some Scripture in the NT that does.

So far, of the 36 verses posted, NOT ONE can the word "world" be attributed to the elect.

So, your attempts to denigrate the validity of the thread by such attempts is short sighted at best.

The thread was to find some place in the NT in which the word "world" was assigned to indicate the "elect" - hence the title.

But so far, none has been found.

Perhaps YOU will find one.

It was assumed that you understood the picture-graphical of the OT yearly atonement.

At no time was the atonement for the "elect" only. The "elect" being the priests, as pictured by them to signify the station of the NT believers.

The atonement was for ALL in the land, INCLUDING all in the land, excluding none.

In the land, was the land controlled by Israel.

What land lays outside of God's control?

Therefore, the atonement of Christ was for ALL in the land, not just the land of Israel but all land He controls.

There was NO limit to just the elect, for God loved the "world" all of the world, all humanity of the world.

2 John 2:2 states Christ's blood was not only for the believers but the whole of humanity.

I figure you are schooled enough in the original languages that you can investigate 2 John 2:2 and find some reason to replace "the world" with "the elect."

If not, then the scheme must change in limiting atonement from blood to that granted by God - belief.

 

But that has not been the subject of my argument! The subject of my argument has been consistently that your restriction of kosmos to the world and every human being that has ever existed is wrong! I have proved it is wrong. You can't admit you are wrong so now you change the argument.

Oh, but I do and the atonement money as well. You really believe that it just the priests that are called "elect"???????? The whole nation God calls "my elect" not just the priests or don't you accept those scriptures?


Isa. 43:20 The beast of the field shall honor me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise.
22 ¶ But you have not called on me, O Jacob; but you have been weary of me, O Israel.

If you think the terms "my elect" or "my chosen" refers merely to the priests you are sadly mistaken.

If you think that all human beings who have existed have lived only "in the land" you are in la la land!

"in the Land" refers to Jews and Gentiles within that restriction just as the term Kosmos means Jews and Gentiles. But in neither case does "in the land" include all humans that have ever existed. You simply do not understand the typology.

 

Looks like our friend is having trouble accepting what world and elect really means in the Bible!

 

I relieved the rest of the post so we could look at the Scripture you posted for support of the "elect."

This chapter 43 of Isaiah is preceded by a statements concerning Christ and the estate of the people of the land in chapter 42:

1“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My soul delights.
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2“He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3“A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice....​

The passage continues with the current estate of the people:

14“I have kept silent for a long time,
I have kept still and restrained Myself.
Now like a woman in labor I will groan,
I will both gasp and pant.

15“I will lay waste the mountains and hills
And wither all their vegetation;
I will make the rivers into coast lands
And dry up the ponds....​

The chapter ends with such a sadness as reflected by the blindness Paul spoke about, that remains an attribute to the end of the gentile age.

Then the glorious statements of the next chapter:

1But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob,
And He who formed you, O Israel,
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name; you are Mine!...​

To which is found your own Scripture reference.

See, what I consider is that this is fulfilled in that glorious time of the millennium expressed as a united Israel (including believers of all ages) rejoicing in the rule of Christ over all the earth. The people of Jewishness finally recognize the suffering messiah as the fulfillment of also the King of Kings.

What you see, of course, is probably much different. That is to be expected.

But, what is at stake is the literalness of what we read, and to that point, there is no ability to read the passage in isolation and derive significant support for any statement.

Nor can the passage be secure in the desire to appoint the propitiation as only to the elect.

Believers are the elect. Believers of all ages. Christ died for the ungodly, ALL the ungodly.
Just as John said, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

 

Can you not see the contradiction in your statement? You say 'believers are the elect" (I would turn it around and say "the elect are believers"), but if believers are the elect, how can ALL the ungodly be elect? Are ALL the ungodly believers?

As I think you know, John didn't write it as you wrote it. The words I have bracketed are not in any Greek manuscript. The sins of unbelievers are not atoned for. He is the atoning sacrifice ('propitiation' is better) for our sins-- the sins of believers. There is no atonement for those who will end up in hell.

 

Recall what TCassidy said elsewhere:

I believe the Atonement is sufficient for all and efficient only for those who believe. And most Arminians will believe the same. Arminians also limit the Atonement to believers only.

 

I fail to see your point! They are still called God's elect or chosen regardless of what time period you place them. In Deuteronomy they are called his chosen and that is not the millennium:

Deut. 7:6 For you are an holy people to the LORD your God: the LORD your God has chosen you to be a special people to himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love on you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people:

To claim as you do that the 'elect' or "firstborn" are restricted to the Levites or Priests is simply not true just as it is not true that "in the land" is synomous with "all the world." This land had been sanctified (set apart) by God from the world and it is a type of the new earth and the elect of all nations - Rev. 5:9