Nope, which you designed by yourself in a a vain attempt.
For I did not purposely ignore or twist your post.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
World or elect
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
For I did not purposely ignore or twist your post.
Once again, your response does not indicate an understanding of the alternate view. If Christ had "took" past tense the sin away, then the Cal view of atonement would be possible. However, since Christ "takes away" the alternate view is indicated. If all the people who are to be saved have already been chosen (the Cal view) then why didn't Christ take their sins away when he died?
But if Christ takes away the sin when a person is transferred into Christ, John 1:29 supports that view.
Since only those chosen through faith in the truth as set apart in Christ, individual election did not occur before creation. We are chosen, elected conditionally, when God credits our faith (or not) as righteousness. Thus 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose individuals for salvation through faith in the truth.
Please see if you can present the alternate view of atonement in your next post. I deal with plenty of obfuscators, but only one or two cal leaning posters were able to accurately present the alternate view.
1) When does the bible say we are reconciled, when Christ died, or when God puts us in Christ?
2) When is our sin burden removed, when Christ died, or when God puts us in Christ?
3) When are we made holy, perfect and blameless, when Christ died or when God puts us in Christ?
See what I mean? You just ignore the verses that make it plain who Christ gave His propitiatory sacrifice for.
More nonsense and absurdity, what did I say John almost always means when he used the word translated world? Please provide the quote, then ask yourself why you asked question three above? You are spewing nonsense!!!
There seems to be really strange ideas here held by some concerning what the elect and propitiation really means as per the scriptures themselves!
Your views would be much more representing what is the truth than some others hold here!
God intended the death of Jesus to either save all sinners, or to save out His elected ones.
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.
The blood did not avert the wrath of God towards lost sinners, correct?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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
No, they are condemned due to now being found in Adam, and not in Christ!
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.
Last edited:
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.
Thus Christ died for all mankind, and not for the supposedly previously chosen elect. The reason is having paid the ransom for all, then anyone God transfers into Christ has his or her sin burden removed, the circumcision of Christ, and they arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works.
Thus Christ died for all mankind, and not for the supposedly previously chosen elect. The reason is having paid the ransom for all, then anyone God transfers into Christ has his or her sin burden removed, the circumcision of Christ, and they arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works.
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.
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.
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.
- Status