World vs. Elect

[OldRegular]

Joh_6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Did Christ give life to the whole world? Does everyone in the world have eternal life?

Jesus Christ does not give life to the whole world, therefore, He did not die for the whole world! At least that is what I believe and what Scripture shows.

John 10:11-16
10. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree with you. Because of what He did in removing the sin of the world every person has enough light to get saved.

So the cross itself...saved no one???? it just gave some light????

 

[freeatlast]

Where did he take the sin?

I can tell that you are still thinking individual sin. That is not what the passage is talking about.

 

[freeatlast]

[/B]
So the cross itself...saved no one???? it just gave some light????

The taking away the sin of the world saved no one. It is not speaking about an individuals sin. That takes grace through faith to save. The cross made possible for grace to be offered and faith to complete the transaction.
The taking away the sin of the world had to be for all to allow for some.

 

[mandym]

Jesus Christ does not give life to the whole world, therefore, He did not die for the whole world!

This is called begging the question and is not correct or reasonable.

 

[Iconoclast]

The taking away the sin of the world saved no one. It is not speaking about an individuals sin. That takes grace through faith to save. The cross made possible for grace to be offered and faith to complete the transaction.
The taking away the sin of the world had to be for all to allow for some.

Well Fal,
You have offered your view here. We are saved by grace through faith.

We differ on what actually happened at the cross.

I believe salvation was accomplished at the cross and then given as a gift,

You express that it was made possible.............but man adds faith to it or it does not become effectual...

It seems like you are trying to have it both ways, yet I see only one way in scripture.

 

[freeatlast]

Jesus Christ does not give life to the whole world, therefore, He did not die for the whole world! At least that is what I believe and what Scripture shows.

John 10:11-16
10. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

We know He took away the sin of the world and that too is what scripture teaches.

 

[freeatlast]

Well Fal,
You have offered your view here. We are saved by grace through faith.

We differ on what actually happened at the cross.

I believe salvation was accomplished at the cross and then given as a gift,

You express that it was made possible.............but man adds faith to it or it does not become effectual...

It seems like you are trying to have it both ways, yet I see only one way in scripture.

You are correct I do hold it both ways. Election and free will. I would remind you that in the OT when the blood was sprinkled it covered all Israel,( (Leviticus 16:19) took away the sin, not just some yet not all was saved. Tell me this. In the OT on the day of attonement what did the sprinkling of the blood do (Leviticus 16:6-20)?

 

[psalms109:31]

Man has to work the field not God it is man's job,his curse. We plant we water we work the field and God makes it grow. God as a man started it off with a chosen group of people the ones waiting for what was promised. God grafted them into the Holy Spirit, the branches, the elect, the remnant without them no one would be spreading the message and no one would be saved. They are to be making more disciple's to be crafted in to continue to spread the gospel until the end of the age.God is including with them those that hear the Gospel of their salvation having believed and they are right about those who are being included if they don't drink His blood and eat His flesh they don't have no life. There is no life in us apart from Christ. He has the words of eternal life listen and learn from Christ and leave nothing left over

 

[OldRegular]

This is called begging the question and is not correct or reasonable.

Every time someone makes a post for which there is no adequate response it is called: "begging the question". :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

Every time someone makes a post for which there is no adequate response it is called: "begging the question". :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

of course it is...lol

 

[mandym]

Every time someone makes a post for which there is no adequate response it is called: "begging the question". :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ok more childish sarcasm from you which I asked to not have in this thread. This post proves the very thing about you that you keep calling slanderous. If you cannot behave then move on.

 

[The Archangel]

You are correct I do hold it both ways. Election and free will. I would remind you that in the OT when the blood was sprinkled it covered all Israel,( (Leviticus 16:19) took away the sin, not just some yet not all was saved. Tell me this. In the OT on the day of attonement what did the sprinkling of the blood do (Leviticus 16:6-20)?

It's interesting you mention the High Priest and Israel.

On the Day of Atonement, it must be pointed out, the High Priest performed his function for the people of Israel only, not for all nations.

Israel is the elect subset of all nations just as the church is the elect subset of all people. Christ as the Great High Priest interceded and atoned for His own--only--just as Israel's High Priest performed the work of atonment for only Israel.

The Archangel

 

[Tom Butler]

The word "world" in the scriptures means different things in different contexts, and many of them do not mean every person without exception. In a later post, I'll try to provide some examples.

Here, I want to throw out one scripture for discussion.
II Corinthians 5:19

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES UNTO THEM...

At first glance, one might say "see there, Christ died for the world, the whole world, for everybody."

But here, Paul says that God, in Christ Jesus, does not impute their trespasses to those for whom he died.

So, if one holds to world as all without exception, then he must also hold that all were and will be saved, since their trespasses are not imputed.

To put it another way, God is not charging or reckoning those trespasses to those for whom Christ died.

So pick your poison. If world means all without exception, then we have universalism.

If all are not saved, then world must mean something less than all without exception.

 

[The Archangel]

The word "world" in the scriptures means different things in different contexts, and many of them do not mean every person without exception. In a later post, I'll try to provide some examples.

Here, I want to throw out one scripture for discussion.
II Corinthians 5:19


At first glance, one might say "see there, Christ died for the world, the whole world, for everybody."

But here, Paul says that God, in Christ Jesus, does not impute their trespasses to those for whom he died.

So, if one holds to world as all without exception, then he must also hold that all were and will be saved, since their trespasses are not imputed.

To put it another way, God is not charging or reckoning those trespasses to those for whom Christ died.

So pick your poison. If world means all without exception, then we have universalism.

If all are not saved, then world must mean something less than all without exception.

Excellent point.

The Archangel

 

[Tom Butler]

Excellent point.

The Archangel

Thank you, Archangel. And let me return the compliment by pointing folks to your blog article about abortion. I won't give away your point, but it's well worth the read.

 

[mandym]

The word "world" in the scriptures means different things in different contexts, and many of them do not mean every person without exception. In a later post, I'll try to provide some examples.

Here, I want to throw out one scripture for discussion.
II Corinthians 5:19


At first glance, one might say "see there, Christ died for the world, the whole world, for everybody."

But here, Paul says that God, in Christ Jesus, does not impute their trespasses to those for whom he died.

So, if one holds to world as all without exception, then he must also hold that all were and will be saved, since their trespasses are not imputed.

To put it another way, God is not charging or reckoning those trespasses to those for whom Christ died.

So pick your poison. If world means all without exception, then we have universalism.

If all are not saved, then world must mean something less than all without exception.

I keep seeing this argument but I don't know anyone who argues that it always means everyone. But the fact that is doesn't mean everyone in some passages does not speak securely to the passages I listed. And this does not respond to why Jesus used "elect" for those we know was already saved and 'world' to those who were not. This I believe shows that His death encompassed more than just the elect or He would have used "elect".

 

[percho]

I keep seeing this argument but I don't know anyone who argues that it always means everyone. But the fact that is doesn't mean everyone in some passages does not speak securely to the passages I listed. And this does not respond to why Jesus used "elect" for those we know was already saved and 'world' to those who were not. This I believe shows that His death encompassed more than just the elect or He would have used "elect".

Maybe the elect are elect to rule with Christ in the governing and education of the world (kosmos), in the world (oikoumenē) to come.

Then at that time:
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world (kosmos) are become of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world (kosmos) unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[Alive in Christ]

At first glance, one might say "see there, Christ died for the world, the whole world, for everybody."

But here, Paul says that God, in Christ Jesus, does not impute their trespasses to those for whom he died.

So, if one holds to world as all without exception, then he must also hold that all were and will be saved, since their trespasses are not imputed.

To put it another way, God is not charging or reckoning those trespasses to those for whom Christ died.

So pick your poison. If world means all without exception, then we have universalism.

If all are not saved, then world must mean something less than all without exception.

It does .

Those who are drawn...all people...are given the oportunity to place their faith in Christ. Those who choose wisely will be saved. Those who turn away will be lost, as that is what they chose.

 

[percho]

Thank you, Archangel. And let me return the compliment by pointing folks to your blog article about abortion. I won't give away your point, but it's well worth the read.

Thank you for pointing.

Amen to the Archangel