Yes, it appears so. And I'll flat out admit I don't know how this all comes together. I see the tension. I see a similar picture when Moses covered the Israelites in blood after they crossed the Red Sea, only to see that entire generation die in the wilderness. And I'm not advocating for loss of salvation either. I believe in eternal security. In the case of the Israelites (and those who fall away from the faith), I believe they never truly believed. The that generation, the writer of the Hebrews writes:
Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
In their case, the missing ingredient was faith.
World or elect
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, Nov 14, 2017.
Page 6 of 8
-
Therefore, 2 John 2:2 does infact pertain to the blood, and as such the verse does apply to all humanity.
There is no reason for John to even be considering the ground.
What’s more Paul’s statement of Romans 8 states that the world continues to this day under judgement.
Therefore, for these two reasons, consistency of John and Paul’s statement in Romans, this part of your post is lacking support.
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
The curse is never removed, but is done away with the passing of both heaven and earth.
So the credibility of the thinking does not withstand the scrutiny of the Scriptures.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxcxxxxxxx
All that said, the use of the world to suggest it signifies the elect is still lacking the support of Scripture. -
Salvation in all times, ages, dispensations... resides in one word:
Belief -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So, what you are claiming is that Go
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Secondly, you are missing the cultural and New Testament background for the usage of kosmos. The Jews did not believe that salvation existed outside of Judaism:
Jn. 4:9 Then said the woman of Samaria to him, How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.....22 You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
No, Christ was not suggesting salvation is restricted to Judaism but the Samaritan woman understood the Jews to suggest that since salvation is of the Jews and they boasted in being God's elect. The early Jewish Christians also thought like that as that is the whole point behind Acts 15 and circumcision. Even though the commission was universal in its scope Jewish Christians refused to extend their mission beyond Judaism in Acts 1-7. God used:Gentile proselytes to extend the gospel into Samaria and Antioch and beyond (Acts 8-11). Even after three repeated visions Peter told the Gentile Cornelius that it was not lawful for him to enter a house or have relationships with a Gentile (Acts 10:26) and then the church at Jerusalem called him in on the red carpet to explain why he even went to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18). God had to call another apostle to go to the Gentiles (Acts 9) as Peter, James and John told Paul they would go to the circumcision while he went to the uncircumicsion (Gal. 2:9).
Hence, the gospel of John, and 1, 2, 3rd John were written to Jewish Christians and the big obstacle in their thinking was that Christianity was restricted to Jews. This was the same obstacle in the mind of Nicodemus, a Jewish theologian (Jn. 3:1-22). When Jesus used the term "world" in John 3:16 he conveyed to this Jewish theologian that salvation was not restricted to Jews but included all other nationalites as well. When John said he was not the propitiation for us only (Jews) but for the "whole world" he was speaking of all other ethnic groups in addition to Jews. Hence, Revelation 5:9 does give an accurate meaning of "world" when speaking of the human element of redemption. However, in most redemptive uses it exceeds the elect as it includes ALL that God will eventually save but never includes anything that God will never save. -
Find me Egypt's stone on the breastplate. The stones for the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and Jebusites.
You can't. Because the high priest did not represent them on the Day of Atonement. The blood is not applied.
You, like the Judaizers of old, are saying we must add something to Christ's work. You're also saying the law of the offerings had little to do with the work of Christ. But I suspect you've not given the priesthood and the offerings much thought. And that's the sad thing, because it's there that we're presented the pictures of Christ and His work.
-
-
-
NEVER does God save the "world" in the "physical" but does away with it, and the heaven.
There is no reason to argue differently unless one can show that the words "world" and "elect" are in fact interchangeable in some verse.
In the 36 verses posted, it would be a violation of Scripture to even suggest any elect and world exchange ability.
Mark, Luke, Acts were all written by none Jews.
By the time the letters of the apostles the book of John and Revelation were written, the Gentile believers were the focus.
2) It is actually irrelevant, anyway. There is not a single time the word "world" is used for the "elect." Surely by now had there been, it would have been trumpeted in rebuke of the view of the thread.
3) Because it seems you disagree, then certainly you can find at least a single verse of the NT that uses the word "world" and "elect" interchangeably.
How did you miss this in Bible School???
Therefore the rest of your paragraphs really are not respond-able.
2) I will add for authority of the audience of Revelation the opening addresses given.
Which of the 7 were NOT found in the lands of the Gentiles? -
The LAMB is the focus, not the priests.
Yet, you are distracted by that which the flesh wore?
Look at the Scriptures, Aaron, The LAMB blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat was for ALL in the land. That would include all and exclude none.
If you are going to use what the high priest wore, as an indication, then it just doesn't fit the statements of application the blood covered found in the Scriptures.
But more, Aaron, where is the NT exchange of words for "elect" and "world?"
There aren't any.
Believers are from the world. Selected from among all the world. But, are never considered the "world." Yet, Christ (as did the atonement lamb) shed His blood for ALL ungodly in the creation, just as the blood was shed on the mercy seat for all the ungodly in the land God gave to Israel. -
Are you desiring to show that Christ ONLY died for the believers, but suggestion or that you have actually found a verse in which the word "elect" and "world" are interchangeable? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
The word translated "save" simply means deliverance and Paul says it "shall be delivered" from "the bondage of corruption" and most likely by fire. You are wrong.
What cannot be refuted is that these are all Jewish writers (Peter James, John) raised in a Jewish culture. -
-
But briefly, you apparently would not see the heaven and earth completely dissolved but in some manner cleansed.
This is not the statement of what happens to them as revealed by John in the Revelation. So, there isn’t much reason to journey down this distraction.
The rest is reactionary and doesn’t attend to the thread.
I am not avoiding talking about NT audiences, and such, just want to keep the thread on topic after allowing myself to be sucked into distraction. Of course, your view would hold both Luke and Mark as Jews, and that the letters were written to Jews, and John’s writing was to the Jews. All in violation of who the actual audiences.
But returning to the purpose of the thread which is to discover in at least one verse of Scripture the use of the word “world” as signifying or indicating or even hinting that it is really the “elect.”
So, Bibleman, can you find a single verse that uses “world” as indicating the “elect?” -
-
Ok Van, back to the topic of the thread, please.
Can you find a single verse that uses the word “world” as indicating the elect? -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Was Luke a Gentile?
Page 6 of 8