Jesus' meaning of "world" in Jn 6:51 and 7:7

[EmSw]

So you used to sin, but not now?

Do you hate anyone? If so, stick to the wood in your eye.

 

[EmSw]

No assumptions. You forget about progressive revelation. There were, of course, Israelites by birth. But that's not what made them God's chosen, as Paul points out in Romans (and Galatians). God did, although, always preserve a remnant.

You keep dodging the fact it was the house of Israel on whom God poured out His wrath. Stick with me here, you will see it sooner or later.

 

[EmSw]

Man doesn't punish himself.

Good thing your aren't a bow hunter; your arrows would never fly straight.

Do you not believe sin has its own punishment?

 

[Hammster]

How does this sound for REDUNDANCY:
God loved believers only so much that He sent His Son to die for believers only.

That's why I reject that understanding.

The problem of not making any sense is when one simply accepts the non-biblical idea that Christ died ONLY for believers. The Bible has cleary stated that fact, yet Calvinists simply can't comprehend that truth. Because it threatens their theology.

Calvinists don't believe that Christ died only for believers.

Here's what Paul says about who Christ died for:

Romans 5:6
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

While one may argue that Paul was only referring to his audience of believers, there is every reason to understand that he was speaking as a human, not specifically as a believer. How so?

The reason one believes that Paul was referring to his audience of believers is because he was writing to believers, and used things called personal pronouns.

For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sickAre just the elect “sick”?

No, but the elect are sick. And will be the only ones to seek a doctor.

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Yes. Unless you want to believe that Jesus is an incompetent Savior.

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

No, but this certainly doesn't address atonement.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Again, if you are correct in your understanding, then you are a universalist. Unless you start to add to the verse, that is, which you will need to do to avoid the charge.

Rom 5:6
You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Of course not. But again, you are avoiding context.

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

already answered.

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Have you forgotten Isaiah's audience? I think you have.

If Christ died for just the elect, then his theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

No, it's just that your theology is devoid of context.

If one can prove from each of those passages that the verse is clearly limited to ONLY BELIEVERS/ELECT/etc, then I must believe your view.

That's obviously not true.

Otherwise, I will continue to reject RT theology and know that Christ died for everyone.

You know incorrectly, then.

 

[Hammster]

Since my view hasn't been refuted by any Scripture, and your view hasn't been proven by Scripture, there is no reason to believe your view.

You just continue to dodge the argument.

 

[Hammster]

Do you hate anyone? If so, stick to the wood in your eye.

I still sin. Do you?

 

[Hammster]

Good thing your aren't a bow hunter; your arrows would never fly straight.

Do you not believe sin has its own punishment?

Sin is punished by God.

 

[sdowney717]

Do you really believe this? Have you not read Jeremiah 15? Do you believe the house of Israel was the elect of God? God Himself called them 'My people'.

Jeremiah 15 -
5 “Indeed, who will have pity on you, O Jerusalem, or who will mourn for you, or who will turn aside to ask about your welfare?
6 “You who have forsaken Me,” declares the Lord, “You keep going backward. So I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am tired of relenting!
7 “I will winnow them with a winnowing fork at the gates of the land; I will bereave them of children, I will destroy My people; they did not repent of their ways."

Your stuck in Old Covenant thinking all the time.
The New Covenant has better promises because He lives inside His people now, the Holy Spirit guides and teaches the human regenerated spirit.
In the OT, that type of help and communication was only for a few such as the prophets and those who wrote the scriptures such as David, etc.... Those who found favor with God as Noah did and some of Israel according to the promise of God to Abraham being children of the promise.
The OC was flawed and has been violently done away with. God destroyed Jerusalem and the OC ways of the priests and sacrifices.

 

[EmSw]

Your stuck in Old Covenant thinking all the time.
The New Covenant has better promises because He lives inside His people now, the Holy Spirit guides and teaches the human regenerated spirit.

Is not the whole Bible the inspired word of God?
Does God's truth ever grow old and become irrelevant?
What's a better promise than receiving life from God?
Can a man not be taught by God from the OT?
How does a person live inside another?
Does God's truth not guide and teach us?

In the OT, that type of help and communication was only for a few such as the prophets and those who wrote the scriptures such as David, etc.... Those who found favor with God as Noah did and some of Israel according to the promise of God to Abraham being children of the promise.

I'm guessing you believe OT saints were not regenerated either. Is this correct?

The OC was flawed and has been violently done away with. God destroyed Jerusalem and the OC ways of the priests and sacrifices.

What a negative thing to say about our sovereign God.
Do you really believe God's truth is flawed?
Where did Jesus say the OC was violently done away with?
Do you only pull passages from the OT which delight your heart and do away with the rest?

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's why I reject that understanding.
Calvinists don't believe that Christ died only for believers.

What does a 5 point Calvinist mean, then??

When did Calvinists begin to believe that Christ died for everyone?

The reason one believes that Paul was referring to his audience of believers is because he was writing to believers, and used things called personal pronouns.

How does the use of a personal pronoun discount the meaning of a human being? Please explain that.

No, but the elect are sick. And will be the only ones to seek a doctor.

Convenient to miss the very clear point. The verse didn't limit the sick to being just the "elect" ones.

Yes. Unless you want to believe that Jesus is an incompetent Savior.

Well, that's my point. If only the elect are lost, then the non-elect are NOT lost, and not in need of being saved. That view makes one a universalist.

Again, if you are correct in your understanding, then you are a universalist. Unless you start to add to the verse, that is, which you will need to do to avoid the charge.

So, basically, your view is universalism since the verse says that Christ, the righteous, died for the unrighteous. If He didn't die for all the unrighteous, then all the non-elect cannot be called "unrighteous". That means there is some 'splaining to do.

Of course not. But again, you are avoiding context.

This response, minus the irrelevant snip about avoiding context demonstrates that Christ died for ALL the ungodly, not just some of them.

already answered.

Wrong answer as well. Not all the sick seek doctors.

Have you forgotten Isaiah's audience? I think you have.

His audience has nothing to do with what he wrote. His point what who Christ came for. Nothing about the elect or anything close.

No, it's just that your theology is devoid of context.

Easy claim to make, but how would it be backed up with evidence. That claim could just as easily be made toward all Calvinists.

That's obviously not true.

So, are you admitting finally that Christ died for more than the elect???

 

[FreeGrace2]

You just continue to dodge the argument.

OK, lay out the argument, and present Scriptural support for your side. We'll see who's dodging what.

 

[heymikey80]

Do you not know man brings damnation and punishment upon himself for remaining in his sins?

'Do you not know' ... (!) God judges and carries out sentence upon men? And God declares the punishment? What is the punishment absent God?

 

[EmSw]

'Do you not know' ... (!) God judges and carries out sentence upon men? And God declares the punishment? What is the punishment absent God?

What punishment would there be if man would repent of his sins, turn from them, and cast them away?

 

[heymikey80]

What punishment would there be if man would repent of his sins, turn from them, and cast them away?

What punishment would there be if God were not imposing it?

 

[Hammster]

What does a 5 point Calvinist mean, then??

When did Calvinists begin to believe that Christ died for everyone?


How does the use of a personal pronoun discount the meaning of a human being? Please explain that.


Convenient to miss the very clear point. The verse didn't limit the sick to being just the "elect" ones.


Well, that's my point. If only the elect are lost, then the non-elect are NOT lost, and not in need of being saved. That view makes one a universalist.


So, basically, your view is universalism since the verse says that Christ, the righteous, died for the unrighteous. If He didn't die for all the unrighteous, then all the non-elect cannot be called "unrighteous". That means there is some 'splaining to do.


This response, minus the irrelevant snip about avoiding context demonstrates that Christ died for ALL the ungodly, not just some of them.


Wrong answer as well. Not all the sick seek doctors.


His audience has nothing to do with what he wrote. His point what who Christ came for. Nothing about the elect or anything close.


Easy claim to make, but how would it be backed up with evidence. That claim could just as easily be made toward all Calvinists.


So, are you admitting finally that Christ died for more than the elect???

1. Jesus explains elsewhere who the lost are. They are the lost sheep of Israel. And he also explains that He has other sheep that He will being in. That should deal with your misunderstanding of "lost".

2. If someone says that they are going to feed the poor, and they only feed some of them, are they lying?

 

[Hammster]

OK, lay out the argument, and present Scriptural support for your side. We'll see who's dodging what.

Just another dodge.

 

[FreeGrace2]

1. Jesus explains elsewhere who the lost are. They are the lost sheep of Israel. And he also explains that He has other sheep that He will being in. That should deal with your misunderstanding of "lost".

2. If someone says that they are going to feed the poor, and they only feed some of them, are they lying?

Your posts are really confusing and conflicted. First the denial that your view is that "world" in Jn 3:16 refers to only believers, or the elect, or "people of God" or any other way to describe, and now your posts indicate that Christ came only for some, not everyone.

Please make up your mind before posting such confusion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
OK, lay out the argument, and present Scriptural support for your side. We'll see who's dodging what.

Just another dodge.

Where is the dodge, but with your post? I laid out a challenge, not a dodge, and your response clearly indicates that you'd rather dodge my challenge than face it.

So, I got it. There is no Scriptural support for your side.

 

[Hammster]

Your posts are really confusing and conflicted. First the denial that your view is that "world" in Jn 3:16 refers to only believers, or the elect, or "people of God" or any other way to describe, and now your posts indicate that Christ came only for some, not everyone.

Please make up your mind before posting such confusion.

It's probably confusing because you have a straw man view of what I believe (hence your response to post 7), and you will not accept what I say. So you try to force what I say onto your false view, and that leads to confusion.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:
OK, lay out the argument, and present Scriptural support for your side. We'll see who's dodging what.

Where is the dodge, but with your post? I laid out a challenge, not a dodge, and your response clearly indicates that you'd rather dodge my challenge than face it.

So, I got it. There is no Scriptural support for your side.

The dodge is, instead of defending a view in your OP, you want to flip it and put me on the defensive. Your challenge is your avoidance of the implication of your position.