Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

Lamentations 3:32-33

In my opinion, Yes. Conviction of SIN (God's WORD TO YOU) is the basis/foundation for saving FAITH, and the method by which God DRAWS people to Christ. No Conviction = no conversion.

No! Wanting them to live and actually dying for them are two very different things. You just proved what I said earlier: You're reading your theological presupposition into the text, which is tantamount to ADDING to God's Word, and this is strictly forbidden in scripture. So beware!

Also, the fact that God is commanding the wicked to repent (because that is their moral responsibility) does not imply they have the ability to do so. The only way the spiritually dead wicked will ever turn away from their sins is when they come to the actual realization that they don't innately have that power and they cry out to God to save them because they also realize he's the only one that does have that power.

Exactly right, sir! The largest stumbling block to the Cross of Christ by far is for an unbeliever to first accept the very, very bad news aspect of the gospel that pertains to him -- as a sinner! Unbelievers, because of their pride, self-love, self-centered and self-aggrandizing nature, naturally have a much higher and biased moral opinion of themselves than is warranted by scripture. Until they come to their senses and accept the bad news about themselves, they will never see their desperate need for a Savior.

Christ did not die for those people whose names were not written in the Lambs Book of life, their destiny has always been to be deceived into perdition with the devil

Rev 13 8

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17 8

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Rev 20 15

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Thats not even speaking of Salvation, and the Death is National Death, the physical house of Israel. But that poster will never see that. I wouldnt waste my time with him. Ezk 33 11

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

So, according to you, no Christian has pride, self-love, is self-centered or has a self-aggrandizing nature? I guess you haven't been on this forum very long, or you're not paying attention.

Ultimately it is referring to the ULTIMATE death, i.e. spiritual death. This is the death that God takes no pleasure in because it never ends! Have you never read:

Ps 116:15
15 Precious in the sight of the LORD
is the death of his saints?
NIV

And their physical death is precious to God precisely because He and his chosen ones will, for all eternity, mutually delight and rejoice and take great pleasure in each other's company. But this will never be the case with the wicked. Also, read v.12 very carefully. It is about salvation.

You could not be saved without the death of Jesus. You are alive because Jesus died. So that verse is implying the same thing. For them to live is through the death of Jesus.

What verse is "implying the same thing"?

You also don't understand the distinction between God's desires and his decrees. With only one exception, there's no text in scripture that says that God is not willing that anyone in this world perish. The exception is in regard to small children (the "innocents" who I wrote about some time back) who have not come to sufficient knowledge of good and evil (Mat 18:2-14). And the Gr. term that is rendered "willing" is strong.

Before diving into a few Johannine passages, I think it would be good to lay a little bit of ground work to justify a hermeneutical principle I faithfully use when exegeting scripture. One of my objectives is that I not only want to know what any given speaker is saying, but I also want to know how his original audience would have understood him. Far too often we tend to approach the scriptures in the bubble of our our modern culture -- by what we've been taught, how we've been raised, by the dominate political-social narrative of the day, etc.. And in so doing, we unwittingly misinterpret the scriptures that we're seeking to understand. Instead, we should be seeking understand biblical passages the same way any given writer's original audience would have. We have to put ourselves into their shoes; and not them into ours!

For example, when John penned Jn 3:16, how would his original audience (primarily Jews) have understood the term "world"? Would the original audience of Jews have understood the Gr. term "kosmos" in the wide or narrow sense, i.e. universal or limited sense, respectively? Of course, in many cases the immediate context answers this important question, which does happen to be the case with this particular text, by the way. (We'll explore this later in a separate post.) But in other cases, it might not. So, it would be incumbent upon any honest interpreter to try to find out what the Old Covenant people of God thought about the rest of the nations in the world. Acts 10 and 11, among other passages, provide us with some very useful insights to this question, especially Peter's vision of the sheet from heaven.

The typical first century Jew believed there were only two kinds of people in this world: The chosen covenant nation of God and the rest of the nations -- all of which were pagan, profane, unclean, uncircumcised, impure and unprivileged. The Jews had the proverbial "us" and "them" attitude. In one sense, they were justified in having this attitude because the Law of Moses itself set up the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles to some extent. The Law did not treat the Gentiles as equal with the Jews, especially in the area of temple worship. Nor were the Jews permitted to enter into political treaties with Gentile nations. And the mere fact that God required his chosen people to be holy as he was holy, spoke volumes of His attitude toward the pagan nations, as well. Of course, the elite Jewish leaders over time were fully disposed to making their own traditions and those traditions built that "dividing wall" between Jews and Gentiles much higher than what God intended. In fact, the wall became so high, that the Jews did not consider themselves to be part of the world! How could they!? How could they associate and identify with the unclean, uncircumcised, immoral, impure pagan nations? The Jews, for the most part, thought of themselves as God's "holy" people -- separate from the world. The "world" to their mind consisted of only the other nations ("them", the Gentiles), and I will prove this from scripture later -- from a text wherein John makes a distinction between Jews and the world.

As stated in the Introduction, the typical Jew from youth, in both the Old and New Covenant economies, had ingrained in them the "us v. "them" mentality. In other words in most Jews' minds they believed there were only two kinds of people in the world: Themselves, as the particular chosen holy nation of God and the profane, unclean, uncircumcised pagan nations which comprised the world. The Jews never thought of themselves as being part of those Gentile nations -- that world -- the world of pagan Gentiles! And there are passages in the NT that bear this truth out, two of which we'll take into consideration. The first one in this post will be 1Jn 2:2 which reads:

1 John 2:2
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
NIV

John very clearly in this passage is speaking of two distinct groups of people and he makes a makes a contrast between them. But at the same time he draws a comparative parallel between the two groups, which which must be preserved. The contrast is between Jews and Gentiles ("whole world" of which the Jews are not a part); yet at the same time Christ atoned for the elect Jews to whom John was primarily writing and also for the elect Gentiles ("whole world"). Therefore, John could say that Christ atoned equally for the sins of both elect groups. Otherwise, John would be saying that Christ atoned for the sins of the elect and non-elect alike!

Secondly, John tells these elect, believing Jews that Jesus didn't only atone for the sins of elect Jews only...BUT (denoting a contrast, betraying John's mindset of the "us" and "them" mentality), Jesus also atoned for the sins of "the whole world". But is John telling his original Jewish audience that Jesus' death on the Cross actually atoned for each and every person's sins in the world, as NR people would have us believe? If Jesus did atone for the sins of John and his audience of believers, meaning obstensibly that they were all saved, then how is it that the sins that Christ atoned for on behalf of each and every person in the world cannot also mean universal salvation for this group of people!? If all John's original audience is presumed saved by that atonement, then it follows logically from this particular text that this entire second group should be presumed saved, as well! But NR folks want it both ways! They'll tell us the first group is saved, but they'll equivocate about the second group and tell us that THEY have to apply the atonement of Christ to their own souls by their faith. Consider this Sticky Problem Number 1 for NR interpreation.

But for us Reformed folks, the text itself -- on a stand-alone basis -- presents no such problem when it is properly exegeted. What I mean by this is we don't have to appeal to any other text outside of it, as NR folks do when they try justify that the atonement really is limited, for it only "applies) to those who apply it to themselves by faith. You see how the doublespeak works: Christ atoned for all...but not really...there's a caveat...there's a condition? Allow me to prove my point by seeing what the text itself is actually saying. But before we do that, let's make sure we understand what the text isn't saying!

1. The text is not saying that Christ atoned for the sins of John, his original audience of elect Jewish believers and the rest of the world.

2. Nor is the text saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, including the sins of elect, believing Jews.

3. Nor is the text saying that Jesus made his atonement possible for the whole world.

4. Nor is the text saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world if they apply his atoning work to themselves by faith.

5. Nor is the text saying that Jesus potentially atoned for sins of John and his Jewish audience and the "whole world".

But the text is very clearly saying that Jesus [actually] atoned for the sins of the whole world -- PERIOD! Therefore, it logically follows that the "whole world" (each and every Gentile) is every bit as saved as John and his original recipients of his epistle were. So, we have universal atonement clearly taught in this text IF "the whole world" means each and every person. But of course, it doesn't and here's why: That little three letter word "but", which denotes "contrary to, in contrast to", etc. The elect Jewish believers (represented by "our sins") are excluded from the whole world, excluded from the sins of the "whole [Gentile] world". Therefore, this inescapable fact proves that the phrase "whole world" is logically used in a limited sense. So yes, from our modern perspective, our modern culture we tend to naturally think that the "whole world" consists of Jews and Gentiles. But that isn't what the ancient Jews believed, and in fact many Jews today still don't! Again, if John intended to include the Jews in with the "whole world", he could have worded the text differently to clearly convey that idea,and he certainly wouldn't have contrasted both groups.

Finally, this proper interpretation does not present the sticky problem by NR interpretation of "whole world". Since the phrase "whole world" is being used in the limited sense, then we should logically infer that just as Christ actually atoned for only for the sins of elect Jews, e.g. John's sins and the sins of his original believing, Jewish audience, so too He actually atoned for the sins of the "whole world" (i.e elect Gentiles) in the limited sense, since we now know that the "whole world" cannot mean everyone in the distributive sense by virtue of the fact of the Jews' exclusion from the "whole world". John was not thinking inclusively but exclusively -- he thought in terms two distinct groups. Yet, at the same time the Gentiles shared in Christ's atonement in exactly the same way elect Jews did in that the sins of the Gentiles were really and truly atoned for and not merely potentially or made possible.

Since God's elect are scattered throughout the entire [Gentile] world, John could write of those elect as being the "whole world" because the world to a Jew would have meant Gentile nations. Jesus, therefore, atoned for the sins of elect Jews to whom John was primarily addressing and for elect Gentiles. John wrote from a very Jewish perspective to his fellow Jewish believers (2:1). Since they are elect, then so is the "whole world" i.e. elect Gentiles throughout that world. This is how both the contrast between the two groups and the comparative parallel for both are preserved, which is how the text should be understood.

And finally, the Gr. term "kosmos" (Strong's 2889) has many shades of meaning and very often, has a strong moral/spiritual component to it. Context, of course being king, determines proper usage. Here's how BLB Classic defines "kosmos".

https://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=KJV

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3. the world, the universe

4. the circle of the earth, the earth

5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

Notice the very last definition. And you can now add to the Rom 11:12 example cited above 1Jn 2:2! This proves conclusively what I stated in my Introduction to this series of posts: The ancient Jews never considered themselves to be part of the world; for they always thought of themselves as being separate from the Gentile nations. Therefore, it's incumbent upon all honest interpreters to adopt the same mindset of the original audience so that we may arrive at the same understanding they had.

In my next post, we'll look at the second passage in which Christ himself drew a sharp distinction between the elect and the world.

Let's just jump in to a few select, key verses in John 17 which is Jesus' High Priestly prayer to his Father. This particular prayer is extremely problematic for NR people; for I have never in my entire life received a rational, coherent answer as to why Jesus would make it a point to explicitly omit the "world" from his prayer when NR folks insist that he loves everyone in the world and, therefore, died for each and every person in the world. No NR person has ever been able to resolve this contradiction that their unbiblical theology presents with this passage.

John 17:6-8, 9; 14-16; 20-21a
6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them... 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours...14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it...20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
NIV

Can there be any doubt that Jesus very clearly contrasted himself and all his elect with the world!?

Can there be any question that Jesus distanced himself and all his elect from the world?

Can there be any question that Jesus excluded himself and all his elect from the world?

Can there be any question that in Jesus' mind he obviously thought of the "world" in terms of BLB's 6th definition which I posted in Pt. 1, and which read: "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ"?

And finally given all the above facts, can there be any question that the term "world" in this passage is used in the limited sense?

Now...in all fairness and honesty I do have a slight issue with BLB's 8th definition because it's a little too narrow. It's limited to the ungodly, which is true for the most part. The vast majority of times when there is a moral implication or component to any given text with the term "world" in, it is used in that particular sense. But as we have just seen from Pt 1, John viewed the sins of the "whole world" (i.e. Gentiles) as having been atoned for. In other words, Jesus atoned for the sins of Jews and Gentiles, just not for each and every Jew and Gentile in the distributive sense! (Don't forget: John limited the atonement of Christ to himself and to the Jewish believers ("our sins) to whom he was primarily writing; therefore, to preserve the integrity of the parallel the atonement for the sins of the "whole world" (Gentiles) must also be limited to elect, believing Gentiles.)

Returning to John 17 now, we can actually see a paradox in Jesus' prayer if we look closely. In a real sense, Jesus did pray for "the world" because God's elect are scattered over the world, as we saw in 1Jn 2:2.. They are IN the world, but not OF it; and Jesus even admits this fact in his prayer and makes this very distinction for himself and his elect. So, in one sense Jesus omitted the world on a quantitative basis, but in another prayed for the world in a qualitative sense, since all the elect are truly scattered throughout the world (cp. Rev 5:9).

I'm beaming up the Introduction and the first two parts to this series so that everyone can read and comment if so led. Constructive criticism is always welcomed because I'm far from perfect. I'm sure I will get the usual automatic, knee-jerk negative feedback from NR folks, but I welcome thoughtful input from my reformed brethren and sisteren . Meanwhile, I will start work on Jn 3:16. I always like to save the best for the last; for we will unearth another very pernicious problem with NR interpretation.

51 I am the living bread, that came down from heaven: if any one eat of my bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also that I will give for the life of the world, is my flesh.

@Rufus

I dont see that.

Thanks for proving that the "world" is being used in the limited sense here, since Jesus imposed a condition for obtaining future "life" forever. Unless of course Jesus didn't know that only a remnant of mankind will be saved.

You don't see what? What is the larger context of my remark?

I dont see Ezk 33 going beyond National Death. Thats the Death God had no pleasure in. He was going to preserve that Nation for a while longer for the sake of the Messiah who was ordained to come out of that nation.

Curious, what condition did Jesus impose ?

"IF any one eat of my bread..." This is a conditional statement.