John 1: verse 12...alone? or does 1:13 explain it?

[Iconoclast]

Lost sheep? How did they get Lost? When Christ said ;
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Scripture clearly says Christ came to save the Lost. Not lost sheep. Sheep are who belongs to Christ.
Sheep are already saved.



Could you be good enough to show me just where in scripture it says this.



Are you saying that they have no chance to be saved. even if they were to believe in Christ, because they were not elect?



I could not ever believe such a thing simply based on one thing. None of what you have told me is in scripture.

God's terms for His free gift of Salvation are simple They are to Believe in Christ. Nothing else is required.
MB

All men are lost ,lost sheep, lost goats.
The sheep that belong to Jesus will be saved. God is not willing that they perish....mb read ezk 34 underline who the sheep are, who seeks them and who finds them.keep in mind Jesus is the good shepherd

Everything I have said is in scripture. My wording is not in scripture, as I have not been called upon to write scripture as the Apostles were.
You should be careful when you say you could not believe these truths that are found in scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Done with talking to you. Enjoy your false equivalency phrase, "born dead in Adam."

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Do not run and hide ITL...are you suggesting the federal headship of Adam is not biblical?
You cannot run away from 1 cor15:22 so easily trying to pawn it off as just physical death. Why does it link us to Adam? Did Adam only die physically?
Did Adam die that very day physically? When did spiritual death occur?
Trying to avoid the teaching by denying the link in Roman's to a theological system is weak.

 

[Iconoclast]

Maybe this will help:

Imagine God is rowing a boat in a sea of corpses....

Jon are you implying we are born alive in Adam? You are supporting the error ITL is putting forth? Maybe I am not understanding the semantic games being played here.

 

[SovereignGrace]

All men are lost ,lost sheep, lost goats.
The sheep that belong to Jesus will be saved. God is not willing that they perish....mb read ezk 34 underline who the sheep are, who seeks them and who finds them.keep in mind Jesus is the good shepherd

Everything I have said is in scripture. My wording is not in scripture, as I have not been called upon to write scripture as the Apostles were.
You should be careful when you say you could not believe these truths that are found in scripture.

That which I bolded gets mishandled all the time. Look at another passage the Christ spoke concerning saving His sheep, the elect...

The Parable of the Lost Sheep

10 "See that you don't look down on one of these little ones, because I tell you that in heaven their angels continually view the face of My Father in heaven.
[11 For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.]
12 What do you think? If a man has 100 sheep, and one of them goes astray, won't he leave the 99 on the hillside and go and search for the stray?
13 And if he finds it, I assure you: He rejoices over that sheep more than over the 99 that did not go astray.
14 In the same way, it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

 

[JonC]

Jon are you implying we are born alive in Adam? You are supporting the error ITL is putting forth? Maybe I am not understanding the semantic games being played here.

No. I am not implying anything. I meant the comment "tongue in cheek".

As for my view, I do believe often times some build hard theology on biblical analogy. We are dead in our sin - not stillborn in Adam. I believe we have to stay as close to actual Scripture as possible because the further we get the more prone our understandings are for error.

 

[JonC]

Well, they get hung up on the word 'world'. To them, that word means 'everybody whoever lived, all w/o exception'. Yet, I can only find one place(not saying there aren't other places, I just haven't found them yet) that 'world' means everybody w/o exception, all whoever lived.

He was in the world,
and the world was created through Him,
yet the world did not recognize Him.[John 1:10]

Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω[John 1:10 SBLGNT]

kosmo is used once and kosmos is used twice, which does mean 'world'. Now, let's break this verse down...

He was in the world...

So, this is referring to His time here on earth, during His earthly ministry. So, by using their logic, He was with all whoever lived, all w/o exception, while He was living here on earth. But that is not the case, so kosmo here can not mean all whoever lived, all w/o exception.

and the world was created through Him,

Here is the one place where I think 'world' means all whoever lived, all w/o exception, seeing that everything created, including us, He created[John 1:3].

yet the world did not recognize Him.

Again, by using their logic, all whoever lived, all w/o exception, did not recognize Him...even those of us who were born after He ascended to the Father. Even those who walked with Him, served, worshipped and praised Him, did not recognize Him, if 'world' means all whoever lived, all w/o exception.

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.[John 3:16]

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν "υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλὰ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Kosmon is used here which is another form of kosmos and it means world as well.

Now, if 'world' means all whoever lived, all w/o exception, then we see the Christ going rogue at Gethsamane. He prays "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world but for those You have given Me, because they are Yours."[John 17:9]


ἐγὼ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐρωτῶ· οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι σοί εἰσιν,

Kosmou is another form of kosmos and it also means world. With God, we have a triune Godhead, a Trinity, that is in complete agreement, absolute harmony with each other, with no discord whatsoever. But here Jesus is not praying for the world. By using their logic, He is not praying for all whoever lived, all w/o exception, and is not praying for those the Father loves, if He loves the world and world means all whoever lived, all w/o exception.

So, they are advocating a Trinity that is at odds with each other.

This is, perhaps, a "tightrope" of theology. You've chosen different means for the same word (once anyway) based on your theology. Others, like Calvin, who would probably agree with your theology did not come to the same conclusions as you when it comes to "world". So I don't think either of your positions rest on this passage.

You have to be careful when you decide to compare ITL's view to a heresy because yours can also be compared to the "serpent seed" theology that resulted from hyper-Calvinism. It is not an honest practice to nudge another's position in the direction you think it may lean.

 

[SovereignGrace]

This is, perhaps, a "tightrope" of theology. You've chosen different means for the same word (once anyway) based on your theology. Others, like Calvin, who would probably agree with your theology did not come to the same conclusions as you when it comes to "world". So I don't think either of your positions rest on this passage.

You have to be careful when you decide to compare ITL's view to a heresy because yours can also be compared to the "serpent seed" theology that resulted from hyper-Calvinism. It is not an honest practice to nudge another's position in the direction you think it may lean.

World rarely means everybody whoever existed, all w/o exception, just as all does not mean all without exception but all w/o distinction.

 

[JonC]

World rarely means everybody whoever existed, all w/o exception, just as all does not mean all without exception but all w/o distinction.

My point is that you are making the decision when it means one thing and when it means another (you are deciding based on your belief what the word means in the passage rather than deciding on what to believe based on the passage itself).

Typically it refers to mankind. "For God so loved the world", for example, does not mean "For God so loved the elect". It means "For God loved mankind in this way" (as qualified by "whosoever"). Your handing of "all without exception" is nonsense (you are turning a disagreement into a straw-man argument by your handing of @InTheLight 's comments).

I'm not sure if you can see this, but you are fighting windmills and claiming victory.

 

[JonC]

What's with you and the "funny" rating, @SovereignGrace ?

Is this how you "engage" other people who disagree with you?

I suspect this may serve as an example of the "tribal" mentality I've spoken of previously. Many Calvinists cannot honestly engage opposing views and merely seek an echo chamber. I have seen them dismiss these positions by reprated insults, straw-men arguments, and absurd ratings ("funny" or "praying" on sincere posts).

My experience is they just want their opponent to go away without anyone realizing they cannot legitimately defend their Calvinism. I don't know if this is you, but your actions are akin to theirs.

It doesn't offend me (it only speaks to the "tribe" as they gaze upon the windmill "conquered"). But it something I find interesting.

I always think of 2001 and the monolith at the beginning. A tribe circling something they do not understand.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What's with you and the "funny" rating, @SovereignGrace ?

Is this how you "engage" other people who disagree with you?

I suspect this may serve as an example of the "tribal" mentality I've spoken of previously. Many Calvinists cannot honestly engage opposing views and merely seek an echo chamber. I have seen them dismiss these positions by reprated insults, straw-men arguments, and absurd ratings ("funny" or "praying" on sincere posts).

My experience is they just want their opponent go away without anyone realizing they cannot legitimately defend their theories. I don't know if this is you, but your actions are akin to theirs.

It doesn't offend me (it only speaks to the "tribe" as they gaze upon the windmill "conquered"). But it something I find interesting.

Since they took the ‘x’ off, I either use that or the ‘prayers’ emoji.

Look, I showed you world means many things, as you can look it up on biblegateway.com

κόσμος (kosmos)

(1) pr. order, regular disposition; ornament, decoration, embellishment, 1 Pet. 3:3; (2) the world, the material universe, Mt. 13:35; the world, the aggregate of sensitive existence, 1 Cor. 4:9; the lower world, the earth, Mk. 16:15; the world, the aggregate of mankind, Mt. 5:14; the world, the public, Jn. 7:4; in NT the present order of things, the secular world, Jn. 18:36; the human race external to the Jewish nation, the heathen world, Rom. 11:12, 15; the world external to the Christian body, 1 Jn. 3:1, 13; the world or material system of the Mosaic covenant, Gal. 4:3; Col. 2:8, 20

World in the Bible is not a monolithic word, as it means different things in different contexts.

God loves the world yes, but He also hates the wicked. So He either loves everybody w/o exception and hates them at the same time, or world in John 3:16 does not mean all w/o exception.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What's with you and the "funny" rating, @SovereignGrace ?

Is this how you "engage" other people who disagree with you?

I suspect this may serve as an example of the "tribal" mentality I've spoken of previously. Many Calvinists cannot honestly engage opposing views and merely seek an echo chamber. I have seen them dismiss these positions by reprated insults, straw-men arguments, and absurd ratings ("funny" or "praying" on sincere posts).

My experience is they just want their opponent to go away without anyone realizing they cannot legitimately defend their Calvinism. I don't know if this is you, but your actions are akin to theirs.

It doesn't offend me (it only speaks to the "tribe" as they gaze upon the windmill "conquered"). But it something I find interesting.

I always think of 2001 and the monolith at the beginning. A tribe circling something they do not understand.

Also, God is immutable. If He loves everybody w/o exception, then He loves those He casts into hell. Or, He becomes mutable, turns from loving them to hating them, and then punishes them.

Which is it?

 

[JonC]

Since they took the ‘x’ off, I either use that or the ‘prayers’ emoji.

Look, I showed you world means many things, as you can look it up on biblegateway.com

κόσμος (kosmos)

(1) pr. order, regular disposition; ornament, decoration, embellishment, 1 Pet. 3:3; (2) the world, the material universe, Mt. 13:35; the world, the aggregate of sensitive existence, 1 Cor. 4:9; the lower world, the earth, Mk. 16:15; the world, the aggregate of mankind, Mt. 5:14; the world, the public, Jn. 7:4; in NT the present order of things, the secular world, Jn. 18:36; the human race external to the Jewish nation, the heathen world, Rom. 11:12, 15; the world external to the Christian body, 1 Jn. 3:1, 13; the world or material system of the Mosaic covenant, Gal. 4:3; Col. 2:8, 20

World in the Bible is not a monolithic word, as it means different things in different contexts.

God loves the world yes, but He also hates the wicked. So He either loves everybody w/o exception and hates them at the same time, or world in John 3:16 does not mean all w/o exception.

You are echoing what I said. The word can mean different things. You are choosing a meaning based on your theories and not Scripture itself.

You seem to be confined to a specific mindset, one that is based on your theology. In John 3:16 "world" has to mean mankind as a whole or the last part of the verse is meaningless.

John Calvin was right on many points, to include this one. Read his commentary for an example of soneone you may appreciate even though you disagree.

"Word" does not mean "all men without distinction". It also does not mean "the elect".

 

[SovereignGrace]

You are echoing what I said. The word can mean different things. You are choosing a meaning based on your theories and not Scripture itself.

You seem to be confined to a specific mindset, one that is based on your theology. In John 3:16 "world" has to mean mankind as a whole or the last part of the verse is meaningless.

John Calvin was right on many points, to include this one. Read his commentary for an example of soneone you may appreciate even though you disagree.

Again, if God loves everybody w/o exception, He either punishes those He loves...which makes Him cruel, or He becomes mutable and hates those He once loved.

 

[JonC]

Also, God is immutable. If He loves everybody w/o exception, then He loves those He casts into hell. Or, He becomes mutable, turns from loving them to hating them, and then punishes them.

Which is it?

Again, you are presenting a false dichotomy based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Again, you are presenting a false dichotomy based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Again, does God change? Does He go from loving someone to hating them? Please answer. Thanks.

 

[JonC]

Again, does God change? Does He go from loving someone to hating them? Please answer. Thanks.

God goes from "love to hate" BECAUSE He does not change.

You are confusing ontological immutability with static immobility.

 

[kyredneck]

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself. Jn 12

I believe this speaks of God having His children scattered abroad, not only in Israel. So jew and gentile. It cannot mean all men ever born are drawn...

Exactly. 'All anthropos', not just the Jews:

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring [read DRAW], and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

 

[kyredneck]

Lost sheep?

Yea. Educate yourself:

Ezekiel 34

John 10

 

[kyredneck]

World rarely means everybody whoever existed, all w/o exception, just as all does not mean all without exception but all w/o distinction.

Zactly:

20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18

[add]

30 I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me; Jn 14

Who 'came'? How was he made manifest?:

3 Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jn 18

 

[MB]

All men are lost ,lost sheep, lost goats.
The sheep that belong to Jesus will be saved. God is not willing that they perish....mb read ezk 34 underline who the sheep are, who seeks them and who finds them.keep in mind Jesus is the good shepherd

The sheep in this case are the Jews and David their Shepard. He tends the sheep feeding them and taking care of all of them. Actually the Good shepherd in this case is David.

Everything I have said is in scripture. My wording is not in scripture, as I have not been called upon to write scripture as the Apostles were.

Then why did you say to keep in mind that Jesus is the shepherd, When it clearly says David is?

You should be careful when you say you could not believe these truths that are found in scripture.

Scripture is absolutely true, How ever The only link to Jesus I see is that His ancestor is David. The owner of the flock is God Himself, not the Shepherd. Jesus is not the Shepherd in this case even though he might be in your belief.
MB