World or elect

[Calminian]

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.

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you 100% on this but appreciate the breakdown.

 

[agedman]

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you 100% on this but appreciate the breakdown.

That's fine, let me know if you desire help.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

Well there's the whole sheep thing in John 10 to which you seem to have such an aversion. Does the Good Shepherd lay down His life for the goats? Yes or no. Also:
'Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end [or 'to the uttermost']' (John 13:1). God has compassion for all He has made, He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and unjust; He is kind to the unthankful and evil, He endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction; but He loves His own. He has loved them from eternity (Jeremiah 31:3 etc.), chosen them in love before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blame before Him (Ephesians 1:4), and He loves them to the nth degree.

But can you find me a 'direct statement' that Jesus Christ shed His blood for people who would end up in hell?

 

[Mr. Davis]

God intended the death of Jesus to either save all sinners, or to save out His elected ones.

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.

 

[Aaron]

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 Spirit expressly said, that He shall save His people from their sins.

There you go. His people. Those are the ones HE saves.

HE saves.

They don't save themselves.

Oh, but wait, there's this word "world" that changes all that! LOL.

I'm done. If your screen name is any indication, you're old and set in your ways. If you won't yield to the Scriptures, all that's left for me to do is to jeer and mock, and that's against the rules.

 

[Calminian]

The Spirit expressly said, that He shall save His people from their sins.

There you go. His people. Those are the ones HE saves.

HE saves.

They don't save themselves.

Oh, but wait, there's this word "world" that changes all that! LOL.

I'm done. If your screen name is any indication, you're old and set in your ways. If you won't yield to the Scriptures, all that's left for me to do is to jeer and mock, and that's against the rules.

I've been listening to the various responses. Remarkably, I think all here agree on limited salvation. I don't think there are any universalists here. I believe all here would believe Christ's death was sufficient for all, but only beneficial for the elect. And in the next 50 years or so, we're all going to know for sure what the details are and who on this thread had the best understanding of them. But I have these funny feeling no one's going to care. I think we might also find out in the next life, many of the details were beyond our ability to understand and we spent way too much time trying to hammer them out.

 

[Van]

I'm trying to understand this but am failing. I still don't see the difference between takes and took. And you still haven't addressed the use of the word "world." Seems you're replacing it with the term believers. I can see why you do it, and I can see the logic from from an arminian perspective, but the same problem occurs. John used the term world.

I think there is an arminian form of limited atonement also, much like what you describe. I just struggle with limiting the word world.

1) The difference between takes - what the Bible says, and took -what the bible does not say is the difference between truth and falsehood. If you claim you cannot comprehend that distinction, no further discuss will be fruitful. Took refers to a past action, as if Christ had already taken away the sin of the world, but takes refers to an ongoing action with Christ taking the sins of the lost one sinner at a time, from His death to the end of the age, in our future.

2) I have addressed the meaning of "world" twice. Here is a quote from post #137:

In 1 John 2:2, John uses world to mean all of fallen mankind. In John 3:16, John uses world to mean all of fallen mankind. In John 1:29, John uses world (actually the Greek word translated "world" in our English translations of all three verses, to mean all of fallen mankind.

3) The claim I am replacing "world" with "believers" is once again utterly false.

4) I share some Arminian views, (a) our election for salvation was through faith, and (b) Christ died for all mankind, the whole world.
But I am not an Arminian, or a Calvinist. My views are based on what scripture clearly teaches.

Goodbye

Van

 

[Van]

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.

Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. I note you cannot support your bogus view from scripture.
Calimian, pay no attention to how Agedman describes my views, he misrepresents them.

The word translated "sanctification" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 can mean to set apart for a purpose, or can refer to a process of making someone or something holy. In this verse, because it is describing the verb "chose" its meaning is to set apart for a purpose. This occurs when the Spirit "baptizes" the individual into Christ, Romans 6:3.

When we are baptized into Christ, our sin burden is removed by the circumcision of Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

A propitiation is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. If you were to upset Mrs Agedman in some way (I'm sure you never do), you might buy her a bunch of flowers or a box of chocs in order to assuage her righteous anger against you. That would be a propitiation.

Now Hebrews 9:22 states that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission.' But the blood without the death of the creature is likewise of no effect. There is a lot of blood in a sheep, and even more in a bull. But the offerer could not simply open a vein in the sacrifice, flick some blood on the altar, seal up the wound and put the beast back in the field. No! 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood' (Leviticus 17:11). As I have said before, 'blood' is a synechdoche, a figure of speech where the part stands for the whole. The creature had to die; this pointed to the Lord Jesus Christ who suffered and died as a propitiation for our sins.

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

I don't see why. John says that Christ is the propitiation, not only for our sins but for something else. He is making a contrast. Not only is it this, but it's something else as well.

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

It's the earth, planet earth, and if it's true, then there's every reason for the Holy Spirit to be teaching it.

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.

I don't think so. We ourselves have been redeemed by Christ, but we still continue in our sickly aging bodies, Paul compares our bodies with the 'creation' in Romans 8:23-24. We shall have new bodies when Christ returns, and they will be new-- it won't just be a facelift and a bit of liposuction! Bodies that have been mouldering to dust for centuries and eaten by worms won't be repaired-- we shall have new bodies. So it is with this old world which is wearing out like a garment. There will be a new one. It will be recognizable, but infinitely better.



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.[/QUOTE]

 

[agedman]

Well there's the whole sheep thing in John 10 to which you seem to have such an aversion. Does the Good Shepherd lay down His life for the goats? Yes or no.

Most certainly.

Also:
'Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end [or 'to the uttermost']' (John 13:1). God has compassion for all He has made, He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and unjust; He is kind to the unthankful and evil, He endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction; but He loves His own. He has loved them from eternity (Jeremiah 31:3 etc.), chosen them in love before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blame before Him (Ephesians 1:4), and He loves them to the nth degree.

But can you find me a 'direct statement' that Jesus Christ shed His blood for people who would end up in hell?

Using the "His own" thinking, would you not be able to show that His own included those who John said, did not receive Him? "He came to His own and His own did not receive Him." (John 1)

Did the lack of receiving, oblige no blood shed for them by Christ? I am not certain the Scriptures bear the weight of that thinking.

Or, is there statements of prophetic value that provide assurance that "His own" will by the authority of God be drawn as a fish with a hook in its mouth to Him?

Therefore, is it then that the Blood was restricted from "His own" for a period of time, only to be applied at a later date?

Were the High Priests Joseph Caiaphas or Annas "His own" yet rejected Him, and the blood not shed for them, yet they remained "His own?"

Was the blood indeed shed for all, that even those that reject, and for millennia continue to reject, will at an appointed time in the future actually be redeemed?

Isaiah 53 is good to remember.

All that was done to the Christ was considered by "His own" (the "we") to be the righteous affliction brought on by God. Those that rejected Him, considered the rejection as God approved.

But what does it continue to state?

He was wounded for our ("the we")...
He was bruised for our ("the we")...
With His stripe we ...
All we have gone astray
God laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL.

At no point is the "we" restricted to only the elect in that passage, but inclusive of all (the "we").

So it is understandable to see both the redemption of the elect from the All just as a subset of the All is inclusive of all who are redeemed.

 

[agedman]

Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. I note you cannot support your bogus view from scripture.
Calimian, pay no attention to how Agedman describes my views, he misrepresents them.

1 John 2:2 does not in any manner indicate "means," but states that the blood "is" the propitiation.

Now, you reject this thinking, and that is your right.

But what you do not have is the ability to change what the Scriptures state, which by using "means" is exactly what is being done.

The word translated "sanctification" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 can mean to set apart for a purpose, or can refer to a process of making someone or something holy. In this verse, because it is describing the verb "chose" its meaning is to set apart for a purpose. This occurs when the Spirit "baptizes" the individual into Christ, Romans 6:3.

When we are baptized into Christ, our sin burden is removed by the circumcision of Christ.

"Set apart for a purpose" can certainly be used as a definition, IF being set apart does not include movement such as one might move money from a savings account into a checking account. Sanctification is a point of DESIGNATION not of movement.

"Sanctify" can mean a process, such as that done by ritual cleansing during the days of purification at the temple would under the law sanctify the people. Why they did not desire the bodies on the crosses to remain into the Sabbath.

However, Van, "sanctification" is synonymous with HOLY.
There is no "process" or the making of, or means, when "sanctification" is used. It is as already accomplished or not accomplished. Example: the light is on or off, not dimmed or flickering.

When the Lord prayed, "Sanctify them in your truth" (John 17:17) that is a process, the KJV actually indicates it as such using the phrase "through your truth."

When Paul writes, "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,..." (1 Corinthians 1:30) Christ did not come partially or as a process or half full of sanctification.

Romans 6:22 "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." Sanctification is not a process, a means, or making, it is A RESULT.

Not certain why you think "baptism into His death" (Romans 6:3) has anything to do with believer sanctification.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Most certainly

So you believe that our Lord laid down His life for those who were not His sheep. OK.
But the Lord Jesus says specifically that the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He does not say that He lays it down for anybody else.
But follow through the 'sheep talk.' The sheep are given to Christ by the Father (John 10:29), and He will lose not even one of them (John 8:39; 10:28; 17:2). He tells the Jewish leaders, "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). So one does not become a sheep by believing; one believes because one is a sheep.
How are the Lord's sheep identified? Well, they are a special breed. They are identified by their ears and their feet. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me" (John 10:27; cf. also v.4). So those who do not hear the Shepherd's voice and do not follow Him are not His sheep QED, and He did not lay down His life for them. In fact, so far is He from laying down His life for them, He doesn't even know them (compare John 10:14 with Matthew 7:23).

I'll look at the rest of your post tomorrow; it's past bed-time in the UK.

 

[agedman]

So you believe that our Lord laid down His life for those who were not His sheep. OK.
But the Lord Jesus says specifically that the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He does not say that He lays it down for anybody else.
But follow through the 'sheep talk.' The sheep are given to Christ by the Father (John 10:29), and He will lose not even one of them (John 8:39; 10:28; 17:2). He tells the Jewish leaders, "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). So one does not become a sheep by believing; one believes because one is a sheep.
How are the Lord's sheep identified? Well, they are a special breed. They are identified by their ears and their feet. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me" (John 10:27; cf. also v.4). So those who do not hear the Shepherd's voice and do not follow Him are not His sheep QED, and He did not lay down His life for them. In fact, so far is He from laying down His life for them, He doesn't even know them (compare John 10:14 with Matthew 7:23).

I'll look at the rest of your post tomorrow; it's past bed-time in the UK.

Did God love the "world" or just the "elect?"

If God (Christ) only love the elect, why would He weep over those not of His sheep?

Why would He even be concerned with them?

Ultimately that is the test question.

For those who would attend to the blood being only for the elect, they find proof not in use of the word "world" but in attempting (as in this post) to limit the blood by statements of whom God gave the Son - the elect ones.

But such do not pertain to the blood as forgiveness of sin(s), but to the redemption granted by God's endowment of hearing ears.

That is attempting to prove something by using the results rather than the formation of that which produces the results.

It is like saying water as a characteristic of wet. To which all can agree.

Yet, that does not prove the basic form comes from two elements.

One must have both elements and the number of elements in proper order to achieve "wet."

Both the blood and the belief are what brings salvation. One without the other is useless. Both are gifts of God. One for all the world, the other for those in specific that God would redeem.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3 AM Pacific.

 

[Calminian]

....But I am not an Arminian, or a Calvinist. My views are based on what scripture clearly teaches....

If you feel like you have it all worked out, I an only say congratulations. I'm not there yet.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Did God love the "world" or just the "elect?"

If God (Christ) only love the elect, why would He weep over those not of His sheep?

Why would He even be concerned with them?

Ultimately that is the test question.

Once again, it will depend on how you define world. John 3:16 does not mean that God loved all the people in the world sooooo much that He gave His only-begotten Son for them, because He didn't. He gave Him for the 'whosoever believes.' In fact, as has been pointed out many times, John 3:16 means, 'This is how God loved the world......'

As I wrote above, God has compassion for all He has made; He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and unjust; He is kind to the unthankful and evil, He endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction; but He loves His own. He has loved them from eternity (Jeremiah 31:3 etc.), chosen them in love before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blame before Him (Ephesians 1:4), and He loves them to the nth degree.

I have to go off the church now and the thread may be closed by the time I get back, so my apologies for not having replied more fully.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3 AM Pacific.