World or elect

[Calminian]

Then those for whom He atoned are going to hell. What must be added to Christ's work?

Yes, it appears so. And I'll flat out admit I don't know how this all comes together. I see the tension. I see a similar picture when Moses covered the Israelites in blood after they crossed the Red Sea, only to see that entire generation die in the wilderness. And I'm not advocating for loss of salvation either. I believe in eternal security. In the case of the Israelites (and those who fall away from the faith), I believe they never truly believed. The that generation, the writer of the Hebrews writes:

Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.​

In their case, the missing ingredient was faith.

 

[agedman]

Not quite sure what you mean here. 1 John 2:2 does not mention blood, but propitiation. A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. God is propitiated by the atonement offered by the Lord Jesus Christ, but He is not propitiated in respect of the sins of unbelievers (John 3:18 etc.). Therefore our Lord did not offer propitiation in respect of all men QED.

Propitiation pertains to the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat and the blood itself. The blood without the mercy seat and the act of delivery is of no effect.

Therefore, 2 John 2:2 does infact pertain to the blood, and as such the verse does apply to all humanity.

So what does kosmos mean in 1 John 2:2? I believe it refers to the physical world.

In Genesis 3:17, God says to Adam, "Cursed is the ground [ Heb. Adamah: 'earth,' 'land'] for your sake." There is a curse on the physical world in which we live (c.f. Genesis 5:29). Paul picks up on this in Romans 8:18-23. 'For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope.' It is God's righteous judgement that sinful men are not going to live in a perfect world; it is subject to random events ('futility') like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, epidemics etc., but there is hope!

It seems quite a stretch for John to completely change from humans to ground mid sentence.

There is no reason for John to even be considering the ground.

What’s more Paul’s statement of Romans 8 states that the world continues to this day under judgement.

Therefore, for these two reasons, consistency of John and Paul’s statement in Romans, this part of your post is lacking support.

If one goes into a maternity ward in a hospital, one hears terrible cries of pain and sees nurses and doctors running to and fro, and one might think that someone is dying, but no! Someone's coming to birth. So it is in the world. 'The whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs until now.' There is a new creation coming to birth! For Christ has redeemed the world on the cross, and so, 'even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly awaiting for the adoption, the redemption of our bodies.' For when the Lord Jesus returns, we shall rise to meet Him with new resurrection bodies ( 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 15:52), and not only shall we be changed, but this old tired earth shall be changed also (Revelation 21:1) and the curse will be removed forever (Revelation 22:3).

How can this be done? How can God be just and remove His curse upon the world? Jesus Christ is the propitiation, not only for our sins, but for the whole world.

The Revelation shows what becomes of this earthly estate and the heaven, both of which Satan has polluted by his presence.

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

The curse is never removed, but is done away with the passing of both heaven and earth.

So the credibility of the thinking does not withstand the scrutiny of the Scriptures.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxcxxxxxxx

All that said, the use of the world to suggest it signifies the elect is still lacking the support of Scripture.

 

[agedman]

Yes, it appears so. And I'll flat out admit I don't know how this all comes together. I see the tension. I see a similar picture when Moses covered the Israelites in blood after they crossed the Red Sea, only to see that entire generation die in the wilderness. And I'm not advocating for loss of salvation either. I believe in eternal security. In the case of the Israelites (and those who fall away from the faith), I believe they never truly believed. The that generation, the writer of the Hebrews writes:

Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.​

In their case, the missing ingredient was faith.

The question Aaron ask was answered in post #70.

Salvation in all times, ages, dispensations... resides in one word:

Belief

 

[The Biblicist]

So, what you are claiming is that Go

2) The redeemed are redeemed because God chose them to be redeemed. God selected for redemption all that He desired, He willed to believe. It is a separate and particular act on God’s part.
.

So what you are claiming is that God's Love and blood are universal in their scope, thus God's purpose of redemption is universal in its scope but God's love, blood and purpose simply failed to achieve its scope! Is this an accurate summation of your view on the blood, the world and God's love?

 

[The Biblicist]

“...takes away the sin of the world” does not conform to being restricted to the elect, anymore than “God so loved the world” can be restricted.

That carries through in every verse you offered as support.

To narrow the word “world” to a subset of the whole is in violation of “not us only but the whole world”. 1 John 2:2

Now you used 5 verses from John, do you not consider this man whole stood before the Cross, with the mother of Christ, would not have greatly desired the justice upon the savages by restricting the word “world” to be just the elect?

But consistency demands, 1 John 2:2 be taken as all others - as inclusive not exclusive.

Then you use Paul, who also uses “world” as a point of contrast to believers, but never as the “elect.” For example, the both verses you used from 2 Corinthians.

Your missing his point!! The term "world" in each of these texts includes ALL that God actually does save. It includes MORE than the elect, but the redemption of this physical world(Rom.8:20-26). So you are right the term "world" in redemptive passages is generally never just restricted to the elect but it is restricted to all that God actually does ultimately save.

Secondly, you are missing the cultural and New Testament background for the usage of kosmos. The Jews did not believe that salvation existed outside of Judaism:

Jn. 4:9 Then said the woman of Samaria to him, How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.....22 You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

No, Christ was not suggesting salvation is restricted to Judaism but the Samaritan woman understood the Jews to suggest that since salvation is of the Jews and they boasted in being God's elect. The early Jewish Christians also thought like that as that is the whole point behind Acts 15 and circumcision. Even though the commission was universal in its scope Jewish Christians refused to extend their mission beyond Judaism in Acts 1-7. God used:Gentile proselytes to extend the gospel into Samaria and Antioch and beyond (Acts 8-11). Even after three repeated visions Peter told the Gentile Cornelius that it was not lawful for him to enter a house or have relationships with a Gentile (Acts 10:26) and then the church at Jerusalem called him in on the red carpet to explain why he even went to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18). God had to call another apostle to go to the Gentiles (Acts 9) as Peter, James and John told Paul they would go to the circumcision while he went to the uncircumicsion (Gal. 2:9).

Hence, the gospel of John, and 1, 2, 3rd John were written to Jewish Christians and the big obstacle in their thinking was that Christianity was restricted to Jews. This was the same obstacle in the mind of Nicodemus, a Jewish theologian (Jn. 3:1-22). When Jesus used the term "world" in John 3:16 he conveyed to this Jewish theologian that salvation was not restricted to Jews but included all other nationalites as well. When John said he was not the propitiation for us only (Jews) but for the "whole world" he was speaking of all other ethnic groups in addition to Jews. Hence, Revelation 5:9 does give an accurate meaning of "world" when speaking of the human element of redemption. However, in most redemptive uses it exceeds the elect as it includes ALL that God will eventually save but never includes anything that God will never save.

 

[Aaron]

It is simple, Aaron, give an account of the Scripture stating the blood was NOT for all the world.

I did. More than once.

Find me Egypt's stone on the breastplate. The stones for the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and Jebusites.

You can't. Because the high priest did not represent them on the Day of Atonement. The blood is not applied.

It should be easy. . .

It was. You just need to take your blinders off.

But, ultimately, one either believes the Scripture or clings to a human scheme.

Exactly.

The Scripture uses the word “world” (meaning every human that has, is, and ever will live) as having the blood applied.

It doesn't mean that at all.

You, like the Judaizers of old, are saying we must add something to Christ's work. You're also saying the law of the offerings had little to do with the work of Christ. But I suspect you've not given the priesthood and the offerings much thought. And that's the sad thing, because it's there that we're presented the pictures of Christ and His work.

Perhaps in your exuberant desire, you forget that the picture of the one worthy is that of the slain Lamb.

Yes, a spotless lamb, which made His slaying effectual, and judged spotless by the law.

 

[agedman]

So, what you are claiming is that Go


So what you are claiming is that God's Love and blood are universal in their scope, thus God's purpose of redemption is universal in its scope but God's love, blood and purpose simply failed to achieve its scope! Is this an accurate summation of your view on the blood, the world and God's love?

Nope

 

[Aaron]

The question Aaron ask was answered in post #70.

Salvation in all times, ages, dispensations... resides in one word:

Belief

Who are Christ's people?

 

[agedman]

Your missing his point!! The term "world" in each of these texts includes ALL that God actually does save. It includes MORE than the elect, but the redemption of this physical world(Rom.8:20-26). So you are right the term "world" in redemptive passages is generally never just restricted to the elect but it is restricted to all that God actually does ultimately save.

One of the facts is that there is NEVER a time that the word "world" is used as signifying the elect.

NEVER does God save the "world" in the "physical" but does away with it, and the heaven.

There is no reason to argue differently unless one can show that the words "world" and "elect" are in fact interchangeable in some verse.

In the 36 verses posted, it would be a violation of Scripture to even suggest any elect and world exchange ability.

Secondly, you are missing the cultural and New Testament background for the usage of kosmos. The Jews did not believe that salvation existed outside of Judaism:

1) The ONLY book that is culturally specific to the Jews is Matthew. Beginning bible classes teach that.
Mark, Luke, Acts were all written by none Jews.
By the time the letters of the apostles the book of John and Revelation were written, the Gentile believers were the focus.

2) It is actually irrelevant, anyway. There is not a single time the word "world" is used for the "elect." Surely by now had there been, it would have been trumpeted in rebuke of the view of the thread.

3) Because it seems you disagree, then certainly you can find at least a single verse of the NT that uses the word "world" and "elect" interchangeably.

Jn. 4:9 Then said the woman of Samaria to him, How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.....22 You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

No, Christ was not suggesting salvation is restricted to Judaism but the Samaritan woman understood the Jews to suggest that since salvation is of the Jews and they boasted in being God's elect. The early Jewish Christians also thought like that as that is the whole point behind Acts 15 and circumcision. Even though the commission was universal in its scope Jewish Christians refused to extend their mission beyond Judaism in Acts 1-7. God used:Gentile proselytes to extend the gospel into Samaria and Antioch and beyond (Acts 8-11). Even after three repeated visions Peter told the Gentile Cornelius that it was not lawful for him to enter a house or have relationships with a Gentile (Acts 10:26) and then the church at Jerusalem called him in on the red carpet to explain why he even went to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18). God had to call another apostle to go to the Gentiles (Acts 9) as Peter, James and John told Paul they would go to the circumcision while he went to the uncircumicsion (Gal. 2:9).

Hence, the gospel of John, and 1, 2, 3rd John were written to Jewish Christians and the big obstacle in their thinking was that Christianity was restricted to Jews. This was the same obstacle in the mind of Nicodemus, a Jewish theologian (Jn. 3:1-22). When Jesus used the term "world" in John 3:16 he conveyed to this Jewish theologian that salvation was not restricted to Jews but included all other nationalites as well. When John said he was not the propitiation for us only (Jews) but for the "whole world" he was speaking of all other ethnic groups in addition to Jews. Hence, Revelation 5:9 does give an accurate meaning of "world" when speaking of the human element of redemption. However, in most redemptive uses it exceeds the elect as it includes ALL that God will eventually save but never includes anything that God will never save.

1) the writings of John were written to GENTILE believers!

How did you miss this in Bible School???

Therefore the rest of your paragraphs really are not respond-able.

2) I will add for authority of the audience of Revelation the opening addresses given.

Which of the 7 were NOT found in the lands of the Gentiles?

 

[agedman]

I did. More than once.

Find me Egypt's stone on the breastplate. The stones for the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and Jebusites.

You can't. Because the high priest did not represent them on the Day of Atonement. The blood is not applied.

It was. You just need to take your blinders off.

Exactly.

It doesn't mean that at all.

You, like the Judaizers of old, are saying we must add something to Christ's work. You're also saying the law of the offerings had little to do with the work of Christ. But I suspect you've not given the priesthood and the offerings much thought. And that's the sad thing, because it's there that we're presented the pictures of Christ and His work.

Yes, a spotless lamb, which made His slaying effectual, and judged spotless by the law.

Actually, nothing here offered but the trappings and vestments which the high priest wore in service. As if that were the indication of a limit of the atonement sacrifice.

The LAMB is the focus, not the priests.

Yet, you are distracted by that which the flesh wore?

Look at the Scriptures, Aaron, The LAMB blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat was for ALL in the land. That would include all and exclude none.

If you are going to use what the high priest wore, as an indication, then it just doesn't fit the statements of application the blood covered found in the Scriptures.

But more, Aaron, where is the NT exchange of words for "elect" and "world?"

There aren't any.

Believers are from the world. Selected from among all the world. But, are never considered the "world." Yet, Christ (as did the atonement lamb) shed His blood for ALL ungodly in the creation, just as the blood was shed on the mercy seat for all the ungodly in the land God gave to Israel.

 

[agedman]

Who are Christ's people?

Are you asking out of ignorance, or are you attempting to make a statement by asking a rhetorical question?

Are you desiring to show that Christ ONLY died for the believers, but suggestion or that you have actually found a verse in which the word "elect" and "world" are interchangeable?

 

[The Biblicist]

One of the facts is that there is NEVER a time that the word "world" is used as signifying the elect.

NEVER does God save the "world" in the "physical" but does away with it, and the heaven.

Your argument is with Paul in Romans 8

For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

The word translated "save" simply means deliverance and Paul says it "shall be delivered" from "the bondage of corruption" and most likely by fire. You are wrong.

There is no reason to argue differently unless one can show that the words "world" and "elect" are in fact interchangeable in some verse.

In the 36 verses posted, it would be a violation of Scripture to even suggest any elect and world exchange ability.

You are setting up a straw man argument! The term "world" does not need to be interchangable with "elect" to include the elect and exclude the non-elect. The natural world "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Hence, in redemptive terms "world" includes all in this present creation that will actually be saved and excludes everything that will not eventually be saved. You are wrong again!

1) The ONLY book that is culturally specific to the Jews is Matthew. Beginning bible classes teach that.

What school did you attend. Every gospel CONVEYS Jewish culture as Jesus was a Jew, raised in a Jewish culture and his life cannot be conveyed apart from conveying the cultural background!! You are wrong again!

Mark, Luke, Acts were all written by none Jews.

But none of them cut out the Jewish cultural background inherent in the very roots of what they conveyed. You are wrong again!

1) the writings of John were written to GENTILE believers!

Nearly all the congregations of the first century were first composed of Jewish believers FIRST as even Paul went to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles in that order. Peter, James and John explicitly state their ministry was primarily to the "circumcision" (Gal. 3:9). The first epistle of John was written to those who had already received "an old commandment" which they now received as a "new" commandment. That demonstrates John had Jewish Christians at least as part of his focus in writing this letter although without doubt there were Gentiles within this same audience.

What cannot be refuted is that these are all Jewish writers (Peter James, John) raised in a Jewish culture.

 

[Van]

1) Would you please post a verse that states “a person is transferred into Christ?” I can’t seem to locate that Scripture.

Folks, Agedman now denies God puts us in Christ. He wants evidence. He is not aware of Romans 6. Apparently he is claiming he was not transferred from the realm of darkness into Christ's kingdom. He either says he is not "in Christ" or got there by his own power. As I said, nonsense and absurdity is all they have.

2) Would you please post just how circumcision brought about removal of the “sin burden?”

Here is the NIV footnote: Colossians 2:11 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, Not to mention the KJV family of translations which add (perhaps a variant)" putting off the body of the sins of the flesh..."

 

[agedman]

Your argument is with Paul in Romans 8

For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

The word translated "save" simply means deliverance and Paul says it "shall be delivered" from "the bondage of corruption" and most likely by fire. You are wrong.



You are setting up a straw man argument! The term "world" does not need to be interchangable with "elect" to include the elect and exclude the non-elect. The natural world "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Hence, in redemptive terms "world" includes all in this present creation that will actually be saved and excludes everything that will not eventually be saved. You are wrong again!




What school did you attend. Every gospel CONVEYS Jewish culture as Jesus was a Jew, raised in a Jewish culture and his life cannot be conveyed apart from conveying the cultural background!! You are wrong again!


But none of them cut out the Jewish cultural background inherent in the very roots of what they conveyed. You are wrong again!





Nearly all the congregations of the first century were first composed of Jewish believers FIRST as even Paul went to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles in that order. Peter, James and John explicitly state their ministry was primarily to the "circumcision" (Gal. 3:9). The first epistle of John was written to those who had already received "an old commandment" which they now received as a "new" commandment. That demonstrates John had Jewish Christians at least as part of his focus in writing this letter although without doubt there were Gentiles within this same audience.

What cannot be refuted is that these are all Jewish writers (Peter James, John) raised in a Jewish culture.

Far too much wrong to deal with in a single post.

But briefly, you apparently would not see the heaven and earth completely dissolved but in some manner cleansed.

This is not the statement of what happens to them as revealed by John in the Revelation. So, there isn’t much reason to journey down this distraction.

The rest is reactionary and doesn’t attend to the thread.

I am not avoiding talking about NT audiences, and such, just want to keep the thread on topic after allowing myself to be sucked into distraction. Of course, your view would hold both Luke and Mark as Jews, and that the letters were written to Jews, and John’s writing was to the Jews. All in violation of who the actual audiences.

But returning to the purpose of the thread which is to discover in at least one verse of Scripture the use of the word “world” as signifying or indicating or even hinting that it is really the “elect.”


So, Bibleman, can you find a single verse that uses “world” as indicating the “elect?”

 

[Calminian]

Let us address being sure of an understanding of scripture. I am sure the view I presented is consistent with all scripture, and thus far more likely to be nearer the truth, than the views that conflict with scripture after scripture.

Does the bible say Christ "took away the sins of the world?" Nope. It says Christ "takes away" the sin of the world." How does He do this? When a sinner is transferred into Christ, and his or her specific sin burden is removed, the sin of the world, not all of it, but part of it is removed. Thus Christ is taking away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time.

I think the operative word here is "world" not "took" or "takes." Does Christ take away the sins of the world or just the elect?

 

[agedman]

Folks, Agedman now denies God puts us in Christ. He wants evidence. He is not aware of Romans 6. Apparently he is claiming he was not transferred from the realm of darkness into Christ's kingdom. He either says he is not "in Christ" or got there by his own power. As I said, nonsense and absurdity is all they have.

Here is the NIV footnote: Colossians 2:11 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, Not to mention the KJV family of translations which add (perhaps a variant)" putting off the body of the sins of the flesh..."

No, van, I ask three questions. You can’t even answer the first. But it doesn’t matter, you will assume the light of your own desires.

Ok Van, back to the topic of the thread, please.

Can you find a single verse that uses the word “world” as indicating the elect?

 

[TCassidy]

Does Christ take away the sins of the world or just the elect?

Excellent question which goes right to the heart of the issue.

 

[The Biblicist]

Far too much wrong to deal with in a single post.

Yeah, far too much truth that exposes your error.

But briefly, you apparently would not see the heaven and earth completely dissolved but in some manner cleansed.

Your argument is with Paul not me. He literally and explicitly states that this present creation "shall be delivered from the corruption" apparently you deny that. Instead, you take a book highly satuarted with symbolism over the literalism of Paul's statement.

The rest is reactionary and doesn’t attend to the thread.'

interpretation - Meaning you can't deal with it!

Of course, your view would hold both Luke and Mark as Jews, and that the letters were written to Jews, and John’s writing was to the Jews. All in violation of who the actual audiences.

First, I never said that Luke and Mark were Jews. I specifically mention only three writers - Peter, James and John. I provided evidence that 1st John had Jewish believers particularly in his focus ("old" versus "new" commandment) but as usual you ignore the text. Second, I did not deny the Gentile composition of the churches but correctly pointed out they were first constituted with Jews as charter members.

But returning to the purpose of the thread which is to discover in at least one verse of Scripture the use of the word “world” as signifying or indicating or even hinting that it is really the “elect.”


So, Bibleman, can you find a single verse that uses “world” as indicating the “elect?”

This is like the JW repeatedly saying in false triumph "show me a text where the word "trinity" is found in the Bible. Now, I am not calling you a JW nor am I implying such. I am simply conveying a similar tactic.

 

[TCassidy]

Can you find a single verse that uses the word “world” as indicating the elect?

I posted 7, which you ignored or twisted.

If you believe, as I do, that the elect are all believers, and all believers are the elect then these verses refer to elect believers only.

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

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:17 For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.

John 12:47 If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn’t believe, I don’t judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

1 Corinthians 4:9 For, I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last of all, like men sentenced to death. For we are made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men.

2 Corinthians 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation.

 

[TCassidy]

First, I never said that Luke and Mark were Jews.

You never said it, but they were. Mark's full name was John Mark. "John" is a Jewish name. He was given a Roman name just like Matthew/Levi, Saul/Paul, etc.

Mark's family, like Paul's, were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and it is not without significance that in both verses (Act_13:5, Act_13:13) he is given only his Hebrew name. ISBE

Luke was likely a Hellenized Jew.

Was Luke a Gentile?