World or elect

Nope, which you designed by yourself in a a vain attempt.

For I did not purposely ignore or twist your post.

 

Perhaps, but it can just as well be suggested that John Mark was named after a Roman or Greek family. Remember Mark Anthony, Alexander, John Martyr, ... The name itself can be (as I take it) Gentile.

You ASSUME Luke was a "Hellenized Jew." It is just as correct to view him as a Greek convert with Greek friends of which one was written the accounts of the the Christ and the apostles.

The article that you link has some areas in which may be a bit weak. (Mary, temple knowledge...)

Not to take the time to go through the whole, but to highlight one.

The oracles (visions) by God were certainly given and held in trust by the Jews, however, that they were ONLY given to the Jews may not be fully accurate. Perhaps one could consider that the "Macedonian" was given the message by God, and there is no reason to suspect he was a Jew. Certainly the "writing on the wall," and the dreams of both Pilot's wife and Nebuchadnezzar could be considered oracles (visions) by God.

Basically, the article rests on supposition, and as such can not be considered factual other than acknowledging Luke new Mary, was familiar with the Temple, had contact with disciples and apostles, ...

What is certain is that God gave us the Scriptures as He designed them to be.

 

This is true.

Blood as the propitiation?

That can't be accurate!

 

What???

I thought you held that the blood was "sufficient for all and efficient for some?"

Now, that I Don't consider it as merely sufficient, but is complete as a single sacrifice for all, I am a twister and ignore posts?

Tell me, that you do not now endorse the typical limited atonement view of the Calvinist who spouts the blood is ONLY for the elect!

 

The wrath of God towards lost sinners is because such are "condemned already" from lack of belief, not from lack of blood.

 

Sorry you feel that way, Van.

 

Friends,

So far, the thread has bounced around as a soda can in the truck bed, but that is good.

Yet, the main intent of the thread was to find a Scripture that places the word "world" to signify the "elect."

For that is a common cry, especially held by the group of the reformed thinking.

As much as I really would like to have seen such an alignment (as one that does hold to the doctrines of Grace but obliged to modify one part), admittedly, nothing satisfactory has been offered.

What has been more confirmed to me is that from the "all," God has redeemed the elect, selected by Him according to His good pleasure and purpose.

Is there no direct statement saying, that God loved the elect and only, sent His Son to bleed for the elect only, that the elect by the blood irregardless of belief be saved?

None that has been found.

Just so you would not mistake the above as an absurdity, consider those that would have Christ's blood held in some manner until they are transferred into Christ, or those that appoint the blood as itself completed redemption and regards belief as not the central statement of eternal destiny.

The blood is vital. Without the blood there is no forgiveness.

The belief is vital. Without belief there is no heavenly estate.

 

John 3

17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
​

Why one does not believe is of no importance.

The estate of ALL were found in Adam. Even the Son of God was made in the likeness (appearance) of Adam.

All have sinned - even the Son of God who took all sin of all humanity upon Himself (not taken on to corrupt, but to redeem), for as the Scripture says, "He, who knew no sin, BECAME SIN for us..."


So, what is the ONLY factor in which eternity is based? Belief

Did not even Christ believe the Scriptures and His Father?

Unbelievers are already condemned because they do not believe.

 

opps, double posted.

 

Good, this is agreeable.

Too bad you didn't stop at that point.

Van, if Christ died (specifically, the blood shed, sprinkled about on the altar of the cross, splashed upon the mercy seat,...) then there is no "sin burden removed, some the circumcision of Christ" related directly to the Cross.

These may be cute statements but unfounded when it comes to Scriptures (unless someone can point to specific statements I no longer recall).

The burden of one being saved should be the Godly quickening that brings conviction and drives the believer to repentance, compelling that one to express belief as Paul did, the centurion did, the thief did, ...

The believer is not a new creature because of some removal of foreskin, but because God sanctified that person - re-titled that person - established that person from all those not His to His own tender adopted child.

God does that for purpose and plan of His own design.

 

Van does not see that the statement of John the Baptist (John 1:29) was BEFORE the cross. So he is kind of stuck that the ongoing application of blood theme.

Van also sees "sanctification" (2 Thessolonians 2:13) as some sort of physical movement or "transfer" rather than a re-titling.

He and I spent hours on this one verse some time ago, and he could never come to the understanding that sanctification did not involve God moving someone.

A quick illustration might help, one that I used from that long ago discussion with Van.

There are many vehicles on the road. What is the single specific item that establishes that vehicle as belonging to you? The paint, the tires, the engine, the make, the model, the cleanliness, the ...? Only a small but important piece of paper. The title. That is sanctification.

Another quick illustration: As an electrician, I would run conduit throughout a building to provide service to the specifically needed area. The conduit didn't jump around, it wasn't moving from place to place. It was in place in the specific area of need by the designer architect. Again, that is sanctification.

Just to let you know, there is no "progressive" to sanctification. One is sanctified or not - sanctification synonym is "holy." Where some call "progressive sanctification" is actually moving from immaturity to maturity. That is progressive maturity.