World or elect

[agedman]

Again back to John, the world “world” is found in John 7:

7“The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.​

Does the word “world” mean the elect or the ungodly humanity?

 

[agedman]

Revelation uses “world” in the 13th chapter:

8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.​

Does the word “world” mean the elect or the ungodly humankind?

 

[agedman]

Back to the book of John in that 3rd chapter:

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.​

Does the word “world” mean elect or all ungodly humanity?

 

[agedman]

By now the reader must certainly get the meaning of the word “world” just from the context of the use alone!

If I counted correctly, I have 36 times the use of the word “world has been found in the NT.

Remarkably, not A SINGLE ONE refers to the elect.

The thinking of the Calvinistic reformers that “world” was used for the “elect” is just extremely poor and unsupported by Scriptures.

Unless someone else has other Scriptures to offer that actually state the word “world” in reference to the elect, then it remains Scriptural that Christ’s death was for all ungodly, not merely the elect.

 

[Aaron]

The Day of Atonement: for Egypt or for Israel? Was Egypt represented by a stone on the breastplate of the high priest? Tyre? Sidon?

Who was represented? The Elect.

When the world is spoken of in regard to the Atonement, it means the elect of every nation. It is not speaking of a universal atonement.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In numerous threads, the reformed cling to the thinking that the blood was for the elect, only.

Yet, John is consistent in his statements using the world that would actually dispute such thinking.

Rather than rushing into disputation, I thought it proper to post Scriptures in which “world” is actually used, and see how the B.B. would render each use.

So here is one to begin:

1 John 4:
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
​

Does the word “world” mean elect or does it mean all ungodly humanity?

Surely, one is not going to suggest both, for that is just bias obliging some rendering that is inconsistent.

So how is “world” used in this passage, and what other passages would be supportive?

Who said the blood was for the elect only? Are you trying to start a fight?

 

[Calminian]

The Day of Atonement: for Egypt or for Israel? Was Egypt represented by a stone on the breastplate of the high priest? Tyre? Sidon?

Who was represented? The Elect.

When the world is spoken of in regard to the Atonement, it means the elect of every nation. It is not speaking of a universal atonement.

I don't believe in universal salvation, but Scripture says Christ died for the world, and John says he was the propitiation for the sins of the world.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

How is that possible? Not sure. I just know that's what Scripture says so I believe it.

 

[Van]

I don't believe in universal salvation, but Scripture says Christ died for the world, and John says he was the propitiation for the sins of the world.
1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
How is that possible? Not sure. I just know that's what Scripture says so I believe it.

Because atonement is used to mean very different things, it is hard to make any sense out of the Reformed view. They have been taught, that when Christ died on the cross 2000 ;years ago, He paid for the sins of the previously chosen elect. So if someone like myself says Christ died for all mankind per 1 John 2:2, they smear me, saying I am advocating universal atonement. So the discussion turns into a "I am not, yes you are" food fight. They do this on purpose, to obfuscate their actual bogus doctrine.

An alternate view is that Christ paid the ransom for the whole world, such that anyone God puts into Christ, their sins are taken away. So the actual atonement occurs when the sinner is united with Christ, and not when He died 2000 years ago. Two radically different views being presented with the same word, atonement.

To nullify 1 John 2:2, they redefine the meaning of world, saying it means this here, that over there, and this other thing elsewhere.
But John almost always uses the word translated "world" to refer to mankind, or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

Paying the ransom for the whole world of mankind does not save anyone, or remove the specific sins of anyone. But it does mean anyone of the world, when transferred into Christ, has his or her specific sin burden (what God holds against him or her) removed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because atonement is used to mean very different things, it is hard to make any sense out of the Reformed view. They have been taught, that when Christ died on the cross 2000 ;years ago, He paid for the sins of the previously chosen elect. So if someone like myself says Christ died for all mankind per 1 John 2:2, they smear me, saying I am advocating universal atonement. So the discussion turns into a "I am not, yes you are" food fight. They do this on purpose, to obfuscate their actual bogus doctrine.

An alternate view is that Christ paid the ransom for the whole world, such that anyone God puts into Christ, their sins are taken away. So the actual atonement occurs when the sinner is united with Christ, and not when He died 2000 years ago. Two radically different views being presented with the same word, atonement.

To nullify 1 John 2:2, they redefine the meaning of world, saying it means this here, that over there, and this other thing elsewhere.
But John almost always uses the word translated "world" to refer to mankind, or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

Paying the ransom for the whole world of mankind does not save anyone, or remove the specific sins of anyone. But it does mean anyone of the world, when transferred into Christ, has his or her specific sin burden (what God holds against him or her) removed.

The intention of the death of Jesus by God was to either have all sinners saved by it, or just to have His elect saved by it.

ALL, except for Universalists see it as saving the Elect, the real division is between those like me who see the elect as willed by God, and those who see Us choosing Jesus and thus becoming elect by our will.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe in universal salvation, but Scripture says Christ died for the world, and John says he was the propitiation for the sins of the world.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

How is that possible? Not sure. I just know that's what Scripture says so I believe it.

Jesus death made it possible for God to have just means to redeem all sinners, but God chose to redeem out for Himself his elect in Christ.

 

[Calminian]

....Paying the ransom for the whole world of mankind does not save anyone, or remove the specific sins of anyone. ....

You sure?

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!​

The Bible says not all are saved, but it also says Christ took away the sins of the world. I realize this throws a monkey wrench in all kinds of theological systems.

It also takes me back to ancient Israel when Moses covered all the Israelites with blood. But later they turned out to be a generation of unbelievers. Not easy to understand, but that's what Scripture says.

 

[Yeshua1]

You sure?

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!​

The Bible says all not are saved, but it also says Christ took away the sins of the world. I realize this throws a monkey wrench in all kinds of theological systems.

It also takes me back to ancient Israel when Moses atoned all the Israelites with blood. But later they turned out to be a generation of unbelievers. Not easy to understand.

Ina sense Jesus died for all sinners, as His death was sufficient to be able to have God save all sinners, but in the real sense, just died in the stead of the elect alone!

 

[Calminian]

Ina sense Jesus died for all sinners, as His death was sufficient to be able to have God save all sinners, but in the real sense, just died in the stead of the elect alone!

You're trying to reconcile these ideas logically. I get that. I'm just in a place where after many years of trying to reconcile these things, I've given up. They might just be too wonderful to fully understand. Still looking into explanations, but no longer need to have it all worked out. I think Jesus really died for all and really took away the sins of all, and yet not all will end up in heaven, only believers whom God elected to save. I admit I don't perfectly understand it. Maybe I'll get some good ideas from this thread.

 

[Calminian]

A thought:

What about the blasphemy of the Spirit? Could that be a puzzle piece in all this?

 

[agedman]

The Day of Atonement: for Egypt or for Israel? Was Egypt represented by a stone on the breastplate of the high priest? Tyre? Sidon?

Who was represented? The Elect.

When the world is spoken of in regard to the Atonement, it means the elect of every nation. It is not speaking of a universal atonement.

Prove by Scripture one place the word “world” is used for elect.

 

[agedman]

The intention of the death of Jesus by God was to either have all sinners saved by it, or just to have His elect saved by it.

ALL, except for Universalists see it as saving the Elect, the real division is between those like me who see the elect as willed by God, and those who see Us choosing Jesus and thus becoming elect by our will.

Why do folks demand blood be salvation when the Scriptures state BELIEF is salvation

Not a single verse uses “world” for elect.

 

[agedman]

Jesus death made it possible for God to have just means to redeem all sinners, but God chose to redeem out for Himself his elect in Christ.

So, you admit the blood was for all humanity, but God chooses whom to be saved.

 

[agedman]

Ina sense Jesus died for all sinners, as His death was sufficient to be able to have God save all sinners, but in the real sense, just died in the stead of the elect alone!

Well you almost got there.

There is no half-blood sinner.

God died for the ungodly - all ungodly.

God chooses from all ungodly those to be redeemed.

 

[agedman]

A thought:

What about the blasphemy of the Spirit? Could that be a puzzle piece in all this?

Nope.

The worst a believer can do is quench the Holy Spirit, and usually that results in their demise, such as those who did not honor the communion died.

 

[Calminian]

Nope.

The worst a believer can do is quench the Holy Spirit, and usually that results in their demise, such as those who did not honor the communion died.

I never made mention of believers.