theseed said:
How do you conclude that whole world means only the surrounding community of believers?
I didn't say that. I said, "Secondly, all John is saying is that Christ's propitiation is effective for,
not only their immediate community, but for the followers of Christ throughout the world."
You site the salutation, but no verse, so I could not find what your talking about.
Keep up. I didn't cite a verse because you're the one who cited it. It was from your own post:
1 John 2:1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
This endearment makes it clear that John is speaking to his brethren, his fellow believer.
How is it do you jump form whole world to just followers of the whole world?
I spoke of followers of Christ. I mentioned nothing about "followers of the whole world."
Where in the epistle to you conclude that he means only the followers?
I don't know what is confusing about this for you. The entire book dictates who the audience is. If the intended audience is limited to those who will adhere to it then the "we" and "us" is likewise indicative of the audience. Are you honestly contending that non-believers look at Christ as their "Advocate with the Father?" If so you're deluding yourself.
You assert that because he is talking to followers of Christ, then he means only the followers of the whole world. This does not logically connect, it is based on conjecture.
Do you know what the word propitiation means? If not you should look it up. The belief that Christ, by His death, has restored the favor and goodwill of God towards all mankind is ludicrous and violates too much Scripture to even be considered.
This is Romans 5.6, lets look at it again. You ascert that because it says Christ died for the ungodly, that does not mean all the ungodly, but this is a general, unambigious statement. It does not say Christ died for some ungodly, a few ungodly, but the ungodly.
Unambiguous? Don't use words that you don't understand. Combining "general," which means "involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole," and "unambiguous," which means "clear, precise," makes no sense. It would be the same as saying, "This topic of this conversation is specific and general."
As for what I think you mean, yes, taken out of context, something you seem to be famous for, that verse would seem to mean "all ungodly people." However, when you realize that Christ's death was purposed to actually propitiate for the sins of God's elect then it is very clear that it can't be all the ungodly because God is still wrathful towards some of the ungodly. You have a choice. You can either believe that Christ successfully propitiated the wrath of God against some, or, you can believe that Christ intended to propitiate God's wrath against all people and failed for some. Logic, and a proper understanding of what it means to propitiate, dictate that it must be the former. To accept the latter interpretation is to attribute failure to Christ. If you feel comfortable doing that then your misunderstandings of Scripture are the least of your problems.
You say that Christ died for us (in Romans 5), Christ died for sinners, and the whole world is of sinners, but that does not mean Christ died for all sinners. I agree it does not necesarily mean that. But it also does not necessarily mean that Christ did not die for all.
Taken by itself, no, it does not necessarily mean that Christ did not die for all. However, if you acknowledge the possibility that Christ did die for all people then you are forced to water down His mission in dying. You see, I can honestly say that Christ is my Savior. I can honestly say that I was dead in my trespasses and sins, wholly unable to respond to God's call, and only through the efficacious grace of God am I regenerated and conformed to the image of His Son. The best you can say is that God called, you responded, and He rewarded you for your response. I was saved by the unmerited grace of God. You earned your salvation.
If you read my exegsis (of sorts) on the word "world" in John, you will see a systematic study of what it means and that John conistently used it to have the same meaning, with only the exception of 2 times.
I've read what you posted and the most ecumenical thing I can say is that everything you say must first be filtered through a distorted understanding of the Gospel. My views will stand on their own. When I read "dead in trespasses and sins" I don't change that to mean, "mostly bad" or "have difficulty putting of the sins of the flesh." I know exactly why Paul symbolized our fallen state with a dead person's physical state. When I read that God hates workers of iniquity I don't read that to mean "God hates the sin and loves the sinner." When an Apostle says "we" I take efforts to understand who "we" is. You, obviously, don't and that has worked to your detriment. Your views speak volumes about who you credit with your salvation. You, at best, can only say that Christ assisted you in saving yourself. Sure, you can dress it up differently. Regardless, unless you can say that you are saved by grace, which requires that it not be based on any condition you provide, then you deny the Gospel.
And many scholars agree that the Gospel of John uses words to have a double meaning, he uses much symbolic language. And so we see what John meant in writing, by doing a literary study.
I'm glad to hear that many scholars agree on something. What does that have to do with the Truth? Many "scholars" agreed that the earth was flat. Many believe we evolved from apes. Many believe that the world was created from some cosmic collision by freak accident. Just because someone stylizes themself a scholar doesn't make them right.
[quoteI would prefer to list this in a different order, but I don't want to retype. But I think I have shown that the world is dark, sinful, and agiast God.[/quote]
I've not disagreed with this one time.
Of cource, sin is always going against God. So I challenge you to show me were in John Christ died for some of those that went against Him, and not others.
Am I bound to John?
I have found no verse that defines the world to a certain elect, but only a general description that they go against God, are sinful and blind, and evil.
Okay. Just because you haven't "found" one doesn't mean that there isn't one.
After all, we can read that salvation is only offered to mean instead of women if we are to take every statement to mean something specific. (Titus 2.11). Then again, "men" has more than one meaning, it means people in general.
This makes no sense. You acknowledge that "men" can have more than one meaning and then you proceed to claim that it means "people in general." Either it can have more than one meaning or it means "people in general." As I said, I would rather limit the intent of God's work and acknowledge that He never fails then universalize His intent and believe that He fails.
But that would also support that Titus 2.11, that God offers salvation to all.
I have a Titus 2:11 in my Bible and I see nothing of an offer. As I said before, when read in context it is clear as to the point of that area of Scripture:
Titus 2:11-14
For the grace of God that brings salvation
has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
Read the passage in context. It says that the grace of God that brings salvation. Hmm...what could that be. Oh, I don't know. Maybe, JESUS!! Additionally, the passage says "who gave Himself
for US, that He might
redeem US from every lawless deed and purify for Himself
His own SPECIAL PEOPLE, zealous for good works."
Those for whom Christ gave Himself are the "us." Who are the "us?" They are "His own special people." This clearly shows that there are some that aren't "His own special people." Those people He did not come to redeem.
How do you explain the statement made by the Samaritans in John 4.42? Does it a general statement or specific, why should it be interpeted to mean a specific number of people?
Of all the questionable verses you could have picked I'd say that's the easiest. Ask yourself, "Is everyone saved?" If the answer is "no" then ask yourself "did Christ fail in saving everyone" or does "Savior of the world" refer to something other than "everyone?" Could it just possibly mean that Christ is the Savior of all those who will be saved? Don't you think that makes a bit more sense than saying that Christ is the Savior of all mankind, even though many will not be saved? That's a contradiction. Christ does not contradict.
