"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

[The Archangel]

The facts still remain. We are arguing interpretations. The Greek is indeed translated "world." And the transliteration has come to mean the known universe. The usage in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2, "whole world" in reference to mankind is a common understanding. The fact remains that mankind is a subset in the universe. So as the term is used in the NT, one can get away with the argument that none of the usages disallow the meaning of that Greek term in the NT to mean mankind. Because mankind is a subset of the universe. Understand? So you are likely very correct. It is commonly translated "world." But that argument, that it must always mean "mankind" in the NT, even being wrong, cannot be shown to be impossible, if being understood to be mankind as used in the NT.

Several things...

1. A transliteration and a translation are two different things. A translation is κόσμος = world; a transliteration is κόσμος = kosmos.

2. As you will remember I made this argument: "I would suggest that the word κόσμος in John 3:16 refers to all of the created order that is groaning under the curse of sin (Romans 8:18-25), which includes mankind. Of course a general reference to mankind does not mean all without exception because in John 3:16, those who do not perish are the ones who are believing." (post #7 in this thread)

Having said that, just because a word is used in the New Testament one way at one time does not mean it must be understood that way every time. In English, a good example of this would be "Run." Is it used as a noun or a verb? Is it an imperative? Fortunately, Greek answers those questions by the form of the word. However, meaning is not always assigned by the form, and here "Run" would be similar. Do I mean "the car doesn't run" or do I mean "I'm going for a run." Perhaps I mean "we need to score one more run to win the game" or perhaps I'm intending to command my child to flee an approaching car. On the other hand, I might just mean to say "we were late because my wife got a run in her stocking and had to change them." And so it is with Greek words, it is the context and construction that matters as much or more than the lexical definition.

3. To think yourself right because "Mankind is a subset of the universe" is troubling. Ants are a subset of the universe as are angels and demons. Does the usage extend to them too? Did Jesus die to save the ants?

4. You are welcome and free to persist in your ignorance.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Why wouldn't they be saved if Christ paid for everyone's sin, including the sin of rejecting him?

Perhaps the Cross was less a business transaction and man's crime more than accumulated actions.

The reason they would not be saved is they do not belueve in Christ. All judgement is given to Christ.

Again...why would they be saved if Christ were to have "paid" for the sin of mankind (the human race in toto).

 

[1689Dave]

Perhaps the Cross was less a business transaction and man's crime more than accumulated actions.

The reason they would not be saved is they do not belueve in Christ. All judgement is given to Christ.

Again...why would they be saved if Christ were to have "paid" for the sin of mankind (the human race in toto).

“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:29 (KJV 1900)

Unholy = κοινός, ή, όν (s. the numerous cognates that follow this entry; Hes.+) prim. ‘common’ (opp. ἴδιος)

① pert. to being of mutual interest or shared collectively, communal, common (so gener. Gk. lit., also LXX; EpArist, Philo, Joseph., SibOr).

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 551). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

[HankD]

It's not a spoiler to Calvinism. That is only the case if you take it out of context of the whole of Scripture.

Not scripture but The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Are you a Baptist or a Presbyterian?

He was confused about something as simplistic as baptism then perhaps you should reconsider his other theories.

If you have children have you sprinkled them?

 

[JonC]

“Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:29 (KJV 1900)

Unholy = κοινός, ή, όν (s. the numerous cognates that follow this entry; Hes.+) prim. ‘common’ (opp. ἴδιος)

① pert. to being of mutual interest or shared collectively, communal, common (so gener. Gk. lit., also LXX; EpArist, Philo, Joseph., SibOr).

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 551). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I agree with the passage. Those who shared in God's work...who were led by God, saw the sea part, listened to the prophets proclamation...are under a greater condemnation for to whom much is given much is required.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your assumption that Christ "paying" for the sin of mankind in toto equates to universal salvation. The claim is a bit silly as by your own admission those who hold to universal Atonement are not claiming universal salvation.

So again, why do you think that Jesus "paying the price" to rederm all mankind in toto equates to universal salvation?

 

[Van]

But he did not pay for anyone's sin. If his death extends to all, and all are not saved, he didn't pay for sin at all.

Apparently you did not read my post. I said Christ died for all mankind, providing the means of salvation for all mankind. Please try to address this concept.

BTW, none of your off the shelf arguments are applicable.

 

[1689Dave]

I agree with the passage. Those who shared in God's work...who were led by God, saw the sea part, listened to the prophets proclamation...are under a greater condemnation for to whom much is given much is required.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your assumption that Christ "paying" for the sin of mankind in toto equates to universal salvation. The claim is a bit silly as by your own admission those who hold to universal Atonement are not claiming universal salvation.

So again, why do you think that Jesus "paying the price" to rederm all mankind in toto equates to universal salvation?

If Christ paid for the sins of all as you say, and all are not saved, then his death didn't pay for any sin.

Apparently you did not read my post. I said Christ died for all mankind, providing the means of salvation for all mankind. Please try to address this concept.

BTW, none of your off the shelf arguments are applicable.

If he died for all and most are lost, he did not pay for sin. That's why they are lost.

 

[JonC]

If Christ paid for the sins of all as you say, and all are not saved, then his death didn't pay for any sin.

If he died for all and most are lost, he did not pay for sin. That's why they are lost.

Again, how do you come up with these conclusions???

I asked why you thought that Christ dying for the sin of mankind in toto equated to universal salvation.

Instead of explaining you offered several more unfounded assertions. You say "If this" "then that" but thus far have not even tried to explain how you get from point A to point B.

All judgment (per Scripture) is given the Son because of the Cross (more percisely because of Christ's faithfulness).

It seems you are holding only half a gospel.

Are you viewing the Cross as some sort of business transaction? If so, then perhaps poor theology is the reason you feel Christ "paying the price" for mankind (in toto) too great a doctrine to believe.

 

[HankD]

Christ was/is a propitiation for the sin of the world, the lamb which taketh away the sin of the world.

We then are His via purchase with His blood to then do with as He pleases as he possesses not only the keys to His kingdom but the keys to hell and death as well.

Revelation 1 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

What a wonderful confidence He gives us in exchange for the fear of death.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not scripture but The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin was not the originator.

Are you a Baptist or a Presbyterian?

Baptist.

He was confused about something as simplistic as baptism then perhaps you should reconsider his other theories.

Again, Calvinism DIDN'T start with Calvin. So this is a red herring.

If you have children have you sprinkled them?

No and that is a red herring.

If you have to focus on the man John Calvin we know you have lost the argument.

 

[1689Dave]

Again, how do you come up with these conclusions???

I asked why you thought that Christ dying for the sin of mankind in toto equated to universal salvation.

Instead of explaining you offered several more unfounded assertions. You say "If this" "then that" but thus far have not even tried to explain how you get from point A to point B.

All judgment (per Scripture) is given the Son because of the Cross (more percisely because of Christ's faithfulness).

It seems you are holding only half a gospel.

Are you viewing the Cross as some sort of business transaction? If so, then perhaps poor theology is the reason you feel Christ "paying the price" for mankind (in toto) too great a doctrine to believe.

The sin of rejecting Christ seems to be excluded = he didn't pay for any sin.

 

[Reformed1689]

The sin of rejecting Christ seems to be excluded = he didn't pay for any sin.

I'm not sure in their logic you can say he didn't pay for any sin, but they cannot say he paid for all sin when there are clearly some that are excluded.

 

[JonC]

The sin of rejecting Christ seems to be excluded = he didn't pay for any sin.

Can you please show where I claimed any sin (to include the rejection of God or Christ) is a sin unaddressed by the Cross?

There was a time when I lived in a state of rejecting Christ (Paul says this was true of everyone). It is a sin (perhaps the root of all sin) for which I am forgiven.

But why the deflection?

 

[Van]

If he died for all and most are lost, he did not pay for sin. That's why they are lost.

To repeat, Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind. We were all made sinners, condemned for unbelief, and Christ's sacrifice provides mankind's means of salvation. We are not lost because Christ did not provide for our salvation, those who are lost are those whose faith has not been credited as righteousness.

2 Peter 2:1-2? If Christ did not provide the means of salvation when He "bought" the denier, what did He buy? No answer will be forthcoming,

 

[Reformed1689]

those who are lost are those whose faith has not been credited as righteousness.

We are not saved by works.

 

[1689Dave]

Can you please show where I claimed any sin (to include the rejection of God or Christ) is a sin unaddressed by the Cross?

There was a time when I lived in a state of rejecting Christ (Paul says this was true of everyone). It is a sin (perhaps the root of all sin) for which I am forgiven.

But why the deflection?

Just sayin' if Christ died for all sin as you say, and all are not saved, he didn't die for sin.

 

[Van]

We are not saved by works.

Very true, but with no applicability to God graciously crediting our faith as righteousness. Scripture explicitly teaches faith is not works.

 

[37818]

To think yourself right because "Mankind is a subset of the universe" is troubling. Ants are a subset of the universe as are angels and demons. Does the usage extend to them too? Did Jesus die to save the ants?

Moronic. Christ died only for mankind, and is understood to have only done such.

 

[HankD]

Calvin was not the originator.

He preceded himself!?

Again, Calvinism DIDN'T start with Calvin. So this is a red herring.

Hmm, Calvinism didn't start with Calvin!? How can this be?

No and that is a red herring.

If you have to focus on the man John Calvin we know you have lost the argument.

We do? I don't, know any such thing first - I am not a calvinist. nor do I focus upon him nor have I ever focused upon him.
Again what is the argument?

red herring; plural noun: red herrings

1. 1.
   a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.
   synonyms: bluff, blind, ruse, feint, deception, subterfuge, hoax, trick, ploy, device, wile, sham, pretense, artifice, cover, smokescreen, distraction, expedient, contrivance, machination; More
   informal dodge, put-on, put-up job
2. "it's more of a red herring than a legitimate plot element"
3. 2.
   something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
   "the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings"

IMO, Your claim to a "red herring" defense is itself a "red herring"

Why not just drop the name since two calvinist can rarely do justice to him and disagree anyway.

Are you infralapsarian or supralapsarian?
Again he was wrong about baptism and its meaning which is the first reason to not trust anything else he teaches.

 

[JonC]

Just sayin' if Christ died for all sin as you say, and all are not saved, he didn't die for sin.

I know that is what you are saying. I am saying that you are wrong to ask others to even consider your conclusion if you cannot prove the assumption.

It is a fallacy. You say "IF Christ died for all sin AND all are not saved THEN Christ did not die fir sin."

In a way you are correct because Christ died for man, NOT sin. But you are just making unsubstantiated and unconnected assumptions.

If Christ died for sin and all are not saved then I am at Disneyworld. You can't just say stuff and if it sounds good treat it as fact.