Who is redeemed?

[Clare73]

The passage says "behold he who takes away the sin of the world"
it does not say "whole world". Accuracy matters.

Indeed it does matter. . .and it puts us in agreement. . .Christ takes away the sin only of those who believe.

Not interested in any further gaming of the holy word of God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Indeed it does matter. . .and it puts us in agreement. . .Christ takes away the sin only of those who believe.

Not interested in any further gaming of the holy word of God.

"WORLD" does not mean "only those who believe". The claim that it does is gaming the holy scriptures.

 

[Clare73]

"WORLD" does not mean "only those who believe".
The claim that it does is gaming the holy scriptures.

" 'World' does not say 'whole world.' Accuracy matters. "

" 'WORLD' does not mean 'only those who believe.'
The claim that it does is gaming the holy scriptures."

So it doesn't say "whole world," and it doesn't say "only those who believe."
So it's not the "whole world," and it's also not "only those who believe."

So just who are the unbelieving ones included and excluded. . .and how do you know this?
It is not found in NT apostolic teaching.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So just who are

The who is "the world".
The world is "people".
The "people" are "whoever God calls".
"Whoever God calls" is "everyone who receives God's grace".

And who exactly receives grace; some are infants, some are mentally impaired, some hear the gospel and believe it, some never hear the gospel yet desire God more than anything in creation, and some are of kinds I cannot name because I am not God nor am I clever enough to name them.

In short, who is saved is God's gift to whomever he wishes to give it and the gift is not ours to dispense.

Yet still, God, who is rich in mercy, for the sake of his exceedingly great charity with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our sins, has enlivened us together in Christ, by whose grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:4-5
​

 

[Clare73]

The who is "the world".
The world is "people".
The "people" are "whoever God calls".
"Whoever God calls" is "everyone who receives God's grace".
And who exactly receives grace; some are infants, some are mentally impaired, some hear the gospel and believe it, some never hear the gospel yet desire God more than anything in creation, and some are of kinds I cannot name because I am not God nor am I clever enough to name them.

In short, who is saved is God's gift to whomever he wishes to give it and the gift is not ours to dispense.

Yet still, God, who is rich in mercy, for the sake of his exceedingly great charity with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our sins, has enlivened us together in Christ, by whose grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:4-5
​

So the Lamb of God doesn't take away the sins of all in the world.
He takes away the sins of those in the world who believe.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So the Lamb of God doesn't take away the sins of all in the world.
He takes away the sins of those in the world who believe.

Both conclusions are flawed in logic.

 

[Clare73]

The who is "the world".
The world is "people".
The "people" are "whoever God calls".
"Whoever God calls" is "everyone who receives God's grace".
And who exactly receives grace; some are infants, some are mentally impaired, some hear the gospel and believe it, some never hear the gospel yet desire God more than anything in creation, and some are of kinds I cannot name because I am not God nor am I clever enough to name them.

In short, who is saved is God's gift to whomever he wishes to give it and the gift is not ours to dispense.

Yet still, God, who is rich in mercy, for the sake of his exceedingly great charity with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our sins, has enlivened us together in Christ, by whose grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:4-5​

So the Lamb of God doesn't take away the sins of all in the world.
He takes away the sins of those in the world who believe.

Both conclusions are flawed in logic.

Which makes yours above flawed in logic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Both conclusions are flawed in logic.

demonstrate

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

demonstrate

why? Can't you figure it out for yourself?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So the Lamb of God doesn't take away the sins of all in the world.

This was never a claim made in any of my posts, but it is something present in your posts. "All in the world" looks similar to "the whole world" which was an earlier phrase used by you but not by me. I remind you once more, the passage says "behold he who takes away the sin of the world" it does not say "the whole world" nor does it say "all in the world"; both of those are your words. The flaw in the logic here is that your post is knocking down a straw man that you created and that bears no resemblance to anything that I wrote.

He takes away the sins of those in the world who believe.

Again "those in the world who believe" is not a phrase I used. One may argue that "those who believe the gospel" are a proper subset of those whose sins are taken away. Is that your intended meaning here? Specifically, do you intend to claim that a subset of those whose sins are taken away are "those who believe the gospel"?

 

[Servus]

I'd say all mankind as summed up in Romans 5.

esp. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:18-19

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'd say all mankind as summed up in Romans 5.

esp. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:18-19

Agreed, the gift is for all men [and women]. Despite some eschewing it. Just as the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world, even though some refuse to receive it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

why? Can't you figure it out for yourself?

That's what I thought.

 

[Clare73]

This was never a claim made in any of my posts, but it is something present in your posts. "All in the world" looks similar to "the whole world" which was an earlier phrase used by you but not by me. I remind you once more, the passage says "behold he who takes away the sin of the world" it does not say "the whole world" nor does it say "all in the world"; both of those are your words. The flaw in the logic here is that your post is knocking down a straw man that you created and that bears no resemblance to anything that I wrote.

Again "those in the world who believe" is not a phrase I used. One may argue that "those who believe the gospel" are a proper subset of those whose sins are taken away. Is that your intended meaning here? Specifically, do you intend to claim that a subset of those whose sins are taken away are "those who believe the gospel"?

So should I reply as you do; i.e., can't you figure it out for yourself?

In the light of John 3:18?
In the light of Romans 8:7-8?
In the light of 1 Corinthians 2:14?
In the light of John 3:3-8?
In the light of John 6:65?
In the light of John 6:37?
In the light of John 6:39?
In the light of John 6:40?
In the light of Ephesians 2:8-9?
In the light of Romans 3:25?
Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So should I reply as you do; i.e., can't you figure it out for yourself?

In the light of John 3:18?
In the light of Romans 8:7-8?
In the light of 1 Corinthians 2:14?
In the light of John 3:3-8?
In the light of John 6:65?
In the light of John 6:37?
In the light of John 6:39?
In the light of John 6:40?
In the light of Ephesians 2:8-9?
In the light of Romans 3:25?
Etc., etc., etc.

I did, it is all explained in a number of my earlier posts. But the post from which you quoted was answering another interlocutor. That post explains the errors in logic present in one of your previous posts; specifically

1. Straw man fallacy
2. Bifurcation fallacy

and returning to the words of Saint John the Baptist - behold the lamb of God, behold he who takes away the sin of the world.

 

[Clare73]

I did, it is all explained in a number of my earlier posts. But the post from which you quoted was answering another interlocutor. That post explains the errors in logic present in one of your previous posts; specifically

1. Straw man fallacy
2. Bifurcation

You do. . .and you'll clean it up!

fallacy

and returning to the words of Saint John the Baptist -
behold the lamb of God, behold he who takes away the sin of the world.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[ViaCrucis]

In your view, there's no requirement for a man to do anything. He just has to live his life the way he sees fit; if he's into drugs, hookers or whatever takes his fancy, it's OK. He doesn't even have to believe in the gospel because God's "reckless love" covers all.

If that were my view, then I'd be saying Jesus never rescued the person at all, but left them in their squalor. So, no, that isn't my view.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hawkins]

The question is moot. Jesus is to fulfill the Law such that a covenant can be in place of Law as Law saves no one, not a single one. For that matter, whoever subject to that covenant will be saved. After this it's more or less like a bonding of marriage, the OP question become is it the husband choosing the wife or the wife choosing the husband. Such a question is moot, it stands only when they choose each other mutually (though God, by His very fore-knowledge knows beforehand who will choose what).

 

[Servus]

Your understanding of God's love reminds me of a hilarious incident a few years ago. A young woman desperately wanted her lazy boyfriend with shall we say, a robust stomach, to get a six-pack (flat stomach). Since the boyfriend couldn't be bothered with dieting, going to the gym or engaging in any form of bodily exercise, she bought him one of those expensive "electric abdominal belts" you are supposed to wear on tommy and let it do the job. It is supposed to tighten the stomach muscles and give one the desired flat stomach.

What's hilarious is the young woman visits her boyfriend a week after she dropped off the abdominal belt and what she saw was so hilarious she filmed it and sent it off to her contacts on WhatsApp. She had a spare key and on entering the house, she found her boyfriend sitting on his favourite armchair, dutifully wearing the belt with a can of beer in hand and about 8 empty consumed cans scattered at his feet and a large box of pizza and chicken half eaten!

You see, for the abdominal belt to work, the man is required to play his part by cutting down on excessive booze, watching what he eats, etc.

The above scenario is exactly what you described, and it would have been laughable if it were not so serious given it's about a man's eternal fate. It is people like you that harden lost souls that are struggling to repent and turn away from sin by giving them false hope that God's reckless love will ignore sin and welcome everyone into heaven. There is nothing in your theology that suggests that a man has a little part to play - by expressing faith and belief in Christ, i.e., accepting the offer of salvation.

In your view, there's no requirement for a man to do anything. He just has to live his life the way he sees fit; if he's into drugs, hookers or whatever takes his fancy, it's OK. He doesn't even have to believe in the gospel because God's "reckless love" covers all.

What if the man had been provided with a live-in personal trainer?

I'm speaking of the Holy Spirit of course.