Justification from everlasting !

If it doesn't mean all the world then you have no guarantee that the "world" that it is defined as includes you. Your salvation is in question. You have no assurance of salvation for that world may be entirely different. If it is not all the world, then you may be outside of that world and still in your sins.

 

First of all, you have ignored my first question. Have you never been angry with someone you love?

Secondly, my assurance of salvation is not based upon God's love for the world (whatever you conceive 'world' to mean in that context). That could only be if I became a universalist. My assurance is based on that fact that God gave His only begotten Son, 'Who loved me and gave Himself for me' (Gal 2:20).

Steve

 

If they were not LEGALLY charged against the elect then how can THE LAW condemn them as sinners or condemn them to the consequences of BREAKING THE LAW???? Is not the LAW of God the LEGAL grounds for God to act?

I believe the LEGAL CHARGES that were brought against them, thus the basis for condemning them as SINNERS was not administered in its ultimate penalty - eternal death but how can you deny the TEMPORAL administration of the law against them since they do PHYSICALLY DIE and suffer direct consequences for breaking the law - lawbreaking is a misnomer if it has no LEGAL basis.

 

The question is irrelevant. I am not God.

If Christ did not die for the world (and suppose "world" is only the world of the first century as some suppose), then it is evident that Christ did not die and atone for your sins. You have no assurance and are yet lost in your sins. Yes, it does matter what the word "world" means.

If you don't know the meaning of the world, you cannot for sure apply Gal2:20 to yourself. How do you know for sure that verse applies to you if the word "world" does not apply to you?

The fact is that you cannot know for sure that you are one of the elect if the "world" of John 3:16 does not refer to all the world of all time. That doesn't make one a universalist. Jesus himself put the requirement in the same verse. You need to read it.
"that whosoever should believe on him should have eternal life."
Eternal live is given to them that that believe. That is not universalism.

 

They were legally charged with sin and therefore legally condemned under law but Christ took their legal place in regard to the execution of the penalty. If they had not been legally charged with sin there would be no need for a substitute.

 

You are confusing the legal VERDICT of the law with the PENALTY of the Law. All have sinned is the legal verdict of the law which includes the elect. However, not all who have sinned by legal condemnation, legal verdict will suffer the ultimate legal penalty of the law.

The fact that the elect do suffer the TEMPORAL verdict of the law (pain, sickness, sufferings, physical death) proves they have been LEGALLY CONDEMNED ALREADY and under the TEMPORAL penalties of a LAW BREAKER or else God is unjust in bringing such temporal condemnations upon them.

 

Of course I can. Don't be so silly.
Christ died for 'whosoever believes.' That is better than if the verse says 'Steve Owen believes,' because there might be another Steve Owen somewhere and Christ might have died for him and not for me. But the verse says that He died for whosoever believes. I have put my trust in Christ and therefore I have assurance. I also know that the reason I have believed is because God has loved me with an everlasting love and drawn me to Himself with lovingkindness (Jer 31:3).

Steve

 

But if we were justified (and you may want to find out what 'justified' means :tongue3 from eternity, then how could He be angry with us?

I quite agree. But if all this happened in eternity past then our sins were taken away in eternity and God has no reason to be angry. That the Father covenanted with with the Son in eternity to save His chosen ones, I also agree, but we are justified by faith, and therefore not justified until we believe.

Steve

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

You are only reading into the text what you want to read into it, not what it says. That is eisigeses.
If we believe what you say then for Christ to say, "For God so loved the world" would be redundant, unnecessary, a useless fact of information. But it isn't. He died for all the world of all time. Why? Because whoever, in that vast world would choose to believe on him and his atoning work, would be saved. That is the message given.

The verse does not say: "God loved the elect and gave his son for them that they could have eternal life."
This is your belief. It is not what the Bible teaches.

 

Are you denying that God gave His Son so that the elect would have eternal life?!

Are you saying that God gave His Son for those who have never heard the Gospel?

Did Christ die for those in eternal misery before Christ came in the flesh?

Did He die for those who are in Hell now?

Did He die in the stead of those who will spend eternity separated from Christ?

Did He die in the place of the inhabitants of the earth at the time of the Great Flood?

Did Christ die a substitutionary death for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

The elect were condemned in God's eternal purpose as well as in time and space under the law. If not they cannot be condemned as "sinners" as there is no just legal basis to even accuse of sin much less being sinners.

Indeed there is no such thing as sin apart from the law.

Furthermore, if they had not been condemned under law as sinners in both God's eternal purpose and in time and space there is no such thing as redemption or salvation as neither salvation or redemption have any meaning apart from a previous condemned lost condition.

The verses you keep quoting have reference to FINAL CONDEMNATION for sin due to INITIAL CONDEMNATION as sinners. You are confusing the VERDICT with the administration of the SENTENCE.

Your position is irrational, unbiblical and pure twisting of scripture as it contradicts multitudes of not just scriptures but REALITY as all the elect experience the CONSEQUENCES of condemnation under the law to a certain extent.

 

DHK's position is mildly wrong in comparison to the author of this thread. I can agree with DHK that John 3:16 does not say "the elect" because it doess not say that. I can agree that in some senses Christ died for all mankind, at least in the sense freeing them from eternal condemnation simply for the representative action of Adam simply because all who suffer in hell are juged according to THEIR OWN works rather than for Adam's initial sin.

However, the term "world" in John 3:16 and other soteriological passages is reaction to Jewish soteriiological inclusivism and means all classes, all genders, all races of mankind without exception but never all humans without exception.

 

It is amazing how people can repudiate common sense when it comes to the interpretation of certain texts. They isolate the text from the overall context of scripture and come up with a hair brain false doctrine.

This is the case with the false doctrine that the elect were never at any time condemned or children of wrath even as others.

The scriptures plainly teach that all sinners are condemned and under the wrath of God in regard to the actual condition (Jn. 3:18; 36) and thus "children of wrath even as others" and yet those who embrace the hair brain misinterpretation of certain texts (texts that never say that but are interpreted to mean that) pit scripture against scripture.

Common sense should tell you there is no need of a Savior if there is nothing to be saved from. Common sense should tell you there is no need of justification where there is no previous condemnation. Common sense should tell you being identified as a "sinner" is based upon the LEGAL verdict of the law and thus the condemnation of the law.

Common sense should tell you that you cannot be subject to sickness, pain, suffering and death if you are not first condemned by the law and these things are the temporal evidences of condemnation under the law.

Common sense should tell you there is a difference between the VERDICT OF CONDEMNATION and the PENAL ADMINISTRATION of condemnation and a difference between TEMPORAL consequences and ETERNAL consequences.

It is on the cross that God imputed the trespasses to Christ and not to the elect in the sense of PENAL ADMINISTRATION of ETERNAL consequences. - rather than the hair brain notion that the elect were never under condemnation.

Common sense should tell you that if "peace" only comes through justification by faith in the gospel (Rom. 5:1) then prior to that "peace" there was NO PEACE DUE TO CONDEMNATION under both the law and under conscience.

Common sense should tell you that all mankind are subjects of the TEMPORAL WRATH of God found in the consequences of being JUDGED as sinners as even the elect are subject to those same consequences due to JUST CONDEMNATION by the Law.

Common sense should tell you that the only JUST or LEGAL basis for God to condemn anyone of sin, of sinning, of being a sinner is His Law and "ALL HAVE SINNED" including the elect.

Simply use some common sense and it will go a long way from perverting certain texts into saying what they do not literally say but must be FORCED to say by hair brain logic.

There is not one single solitary proof text used by SBG that says what he INTERPRETS them to mean. Not one! Every single one can be INTERPRETED to fit the common sense concepts above and the plain texts that do EXPLICITY STATE we were "children of WRATH EVEN AS OTHERS" and do EXPLICITLY STATE that all unbelievers in Christ were "CONDEMNED ALREADY" and "UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD."

This does not do away with the fact that none of the elect were actual SUBJECTS of ETERNAL WRATH or the final administration of the Law's condemnation. One truth does not need to be sacrified to satisfiy another truth!!!!!! SBG's position is due to his OWN INTEPRETATION of certain texts necessarily pit scripture against scripture and denies simple common sense.

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

I believe the Bible. I fail to see why it is so difficult for you to comprehend the meaning of one verse in the Bible.

 

I don't see a problem with God loving the world as the "love" of God is a very comprehensive as well as diversive kind of love and yet with an unchanging basic core. It is the very same kind of love we are to give to others - agape love. We are to "love" our enemies but we do not "love" enemies in the same sense we love our friends. Neither do we love our friends in the same sense we love our family, neither do we love our family in the same sense as we love our immediate family and we do not love our immediate family in the same sense we love our spouse and we do not love our spouse in the same sense we love God. In each case there is a greater love manifested in the next application and it is the final application or our love for God that makes each lower application possible. Nevertheless, there is a basic sense in which love does not change in each case love at its core always does what is RIGHT and is a committment to what is RIGHT in response to the object regardless of what the object may or may not merit.

God loves his enemies but not in the same sense he loves his elect family. He has a benevolent love for all His creation whether good or evil but he has a special redemptive love for his elect that is distinct and different from his love of all other creatures. God did not love Esau in the sense of this redemptive love but rather hated Esau in that regard. God did not love Jacob because of any merit found in him over Esau but rather his love was based upon his redemptive purpose "according to the purpose of election." God "never knew" those in Matthew 7:21-23 in this redemptive knowledge or love by divine eternal purpose of election.

 

There is not one single text of scripture that teaches the elect were already justified any more than they were already glorified before the world began.

You cannot provide a single text that EXPLICITLY states your heresy without that text being FORCED by YOUR INTERPRETATION to mean that! Every single text can be interpreted to mean they were justified in eternity IN THE VERY SAME SENSE they were glorified in eternity and both are explicitly stated in Romans 8:28-30 but you have no eyes to see, no heart to percieve and no ability to understand the word of God (1 Cor. 2:14). All you can do is act like a Parrot and repeat your error hoping someone will simply dismiss all contrary Biblical evidence to your error, dismiss all common sense and just drink your koolaide only because YOU SAY it is right to do so. You would make a good bosom buddy with the likes of Jim Jones as your method of ascertaining the truth was his method also - just keep repeating it long enough until someone believes it.