How in the World does World mean the Elect?

One of the clearest passages in scripture teaching Christ came to save each and every person is John 12:46-48:

I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.  And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.  He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Notice a few things about world.  First, Christ comes "into" the world. You go into a place, in this case Christ went into the planet earth. And who on earth will be judged one day?  Each and every person who ever lived on earth.  So who did Christ come to save?  Every person who has ever lived on the earth,  including those who rejected Him and will be judged on the last day.  One of the key issues in the limited/unlimited atonement debate is God's intention, plan and design in sending Christ into the world and  according to Christ, He came to save the world.  This isn't some overly simple all means all folks- we have strong reason to believe in unlimited atonement.




Comments

Mr. Mcgranor said…
I think that, there is a third side to the story.
January 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Mr. Mcgranor,

What did you have in mind? Some third category besides limited/unlimited atonement?

God be with you,
Dan
January 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM
Robert said…
Hello Dan,

Good post I appreciate your observations here. The text says that Jesus did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. This is a succinct description of the two comings of Christ. The first coming primarily to judge, the second coming to primarily judge. In both instances "world" has to have a larger referent than just the elect/believers. When Jesus returns he does not come back and merely judge the believers. The biblical texts are clear that when he returns he judges all people. As the same term is used in the verse the judging of the world at the second coming must be matched by the coming to save the world in the first coming. This is really a strong argument against both limited atonement and the calvinist system.

Robert
January 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Robert!

God be with you,
Dan
January 31, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Russ said…
Excellent post Dan!

Russ
February 8, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Glad you enjoyed it, Russ!

God be with you,
Dan
February 8, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Isaac H said…
So are you arguing for a potential judgment as well? I mean, if Jesus came to save the world in the exact same way he is coming to judge it, why should we think the first is potential and the second in definite? Obviously I am being facetious, but I think it reveals the inherent problem with your eisegesis here. We shouldn't appeal to passages like this to understand either the nature or extent of the atonement when it's clearly not in view.

Also, if Jesus came into the world as a light (and world means all people in all times), then how can men still live in darkness?
February 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM
Anonymous said…
In fact we are all in a potential judgement! Or, like Pink, do you maybe think that the 'elect individuals before foundation' were always sons of God?

The `Potential Judgement' you are saying in fact is occurring just now :)

Also, if Jesus came into the world as a light (and world means all people in all times), then how can men still live in darkness?

Freedom of Choice. maybe? :)
As always, the old canard: 'Saviour saves effectually, never potentially'...
February 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more