World or elect

Just a small correction, perhaps.

John’s use of propitiation is not a “means” to salvation, rather John is stating that the actual blood is the propitiation.

There is a difference in the consideration if one uses “means of” rather than “is.”

Of course, the scholars would point out that a more literal translation of 1 John 2:2 is “He propitiated sin, ours, and all humanity.”

Which is directly contrary to the typical view of some on the B.B.

 

Then you must show that meaning is to be found in the Scriptures.

In particular, that the meaning is found that pertains to the ELECT.

In the 36 uses posted on this thread, not a single time is such meaning to be found, and when it pertains to the humanity, it DOES mean ALL humanity.

That such rubs contrary to a certain scheme does not invalidate the whole scheme, but obliges a modification to bring that scheme into agreement with the Scriptures.

1) But those who attended the Feast of Tabernacles were not generally considered believers, the elect, the redeemed....

So, even in that use, the world "world" cannot be assigned to be "only believers."

2) It is the view of some, that the blood is limited to a select of the "world," yet the ONLY Scripture in which the word "world" is used in relation to the blood declares just the opposite.

Perhaps it would help if folks took the time to investigate the most literal translation of 1 John 2:2 and see that there is can be no limit to the blood as applied to all humanity.

 

True. And I have long ago slipped from the realms of scholar.

Taking the meaning of κοσμος to be the elect, so far has not been found in the Scriptures.

I was hoping that someone could find at least one verse!

However, there are verses in which κοσμος would be in contrast to the elect.

 

Martin, did you not know that κοσμος means: universe, all humanity, world, earth, circle of the earth, all humanity of the earth, world affairs ...

But, at NO time has there been a Scripture found to support that the context indicates "world" to be taken as the elect.

Which is the point of this thread.

For some to claim that Christ's blood is ONLY for the elect is not supported by the Scripture statements of his blood being for the world. (1 John 2:2).

 

Condemnation is not tied to blood, but to belief.

Sin can be resolved by blood, but that does not warrant salvation.

Salvation is the gift of God.

 

“...takes away the sin of the world” does not conform to being restricted to the elect, anymore than “God so loved the world” can be restricted.

That carries through in every verse you offered as support.

To narrow the word “world” to a subset of the whole is in violation of “not us only but the whole world”. 1 John 2:2

Now you used 5 verses from John, do you not consider this man whole stood before the Cross, with the mother of Christ, would not have greatly desired the justice upon the savages by restricting the word “world” to be just the elect?

But consistency demands, 1 John 2:2 be taken as all others - as inclusive not exclusive.

Then you use Paul, who also uses “world” as a point of contrast to believers, but never as the “elect.” For example, the both verses you used from 2 Corinthians.

 

Disappointing!

Revelation 5:9 is no way the use of the word “world” as John, Paul, or any other NT writer uses it.

Believers taken from all parts and cultures of the ungodly world is not the same as assigning the elect as being the world.

 

And so, out of the world of sinners Christ shed His blood, there is the elect. The elect are not of the world, but taken from among the world that Christ propitiated.

1 John 2:2.

“...Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”. ​

 

Van you posted:

Then you attempted to explore how Christ does this one sinner at a time.

I ignored this, because I figured that a small correction would bring you enough light to self correct your thinking.

But such kindness was only met with “more misrepresentation and absurdity.”

So, lest you be misinformed, let us agree on the following points:

1) Christ died once, for all sinners of all time, not multiple times as “for each sinner” would indicate.

2) John does state Christ is the propitiation, and John is specifically indicating the blood and not the furniture as Paul uses the word. Two different concepts.

3) You present a conflict when you state “one sinner at a time” as if Christ has some great bucket in which to dip the hyssop branch, and then embrace “Christ died for all.”

 

Perception that you, alone, would present as correct, may or may not be correct.

It is not “misrepresenting” to show the frailty of a view.

1) Would you please post a verse that states “a person is transferred into Christ?” I can’t seem to locate that Scripture.

2) Would you please post just how circumcision brought about removal of the “sin burden?”