World or elect

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Who are Christ's people?

 

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.

 

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..."

 

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?

 

Yeah, far too much truth that exposes your error.

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.

interpretation - Meaning you can't deal with it!

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.

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.