Interpretation of 1 Jn 2:1-2

[webdog]

The Atonement of the OT was not able to pay for sin and was a shadow of Jesus ultimate atonement that was the authentic atonement for all time.

Completely wrong. The OT atonement sets the stage for Christ's atonement and made one clean before the Lord.
"On this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord" (Lev 16:30)

I think that is an awesome observation question yet, to me, it holds no weight because it is an assumption that God meant that to be a direct similarity with Jesus atonement for the whole world (meaning every person).

It was a direct similarity. The nation of Israel consisted of believer and unbeliever alike, yet the atonement was made for both. Limited Atonement doesn't allow for any atonement to be made on behalf of an unbeliever.

Further I still haven't had a good response to how God laid the sins of a person in hell on Jesus and also on the person in hell. It is a contradiction to God's righteous judgment and throws off the scales.

Normally in a criminal case there is a criminal and civil action brought against the defendant where the person will have to make restitution to the plaintiff AND spend time in prison.. The atonement appeased God's wrath against sin, not against the sinner rejecting the atonement.

 

[zrs6v4]

Completely wrong. The OT atonement sets the stage for Christ's atonement and made one clean before the Lord.

I'm pretty sure the OT atonements didn't do anything as far as sin removal. I say this because of Hebrews 10:1-10. I see the shadow as a mere sign pointing to Christ as the atonement. Let me know what you get from Hebrews 10:1-10.

First question, so did Christ's atonement only make payment for the sins that Israel didn't atone for by the blood of animals? It just doesn't seem to fit IMHO. I think Christ's atonement was the one and only payment that actually took away sins from Old Covenant Saints.

It was a direct similarity. The nation of Israel consisted of believer and unbeliever alike, yet the atonement was made for both. Limited Atonement doesn't allow for any atonement to be made on behalf of an unbeliever.

I understand this part, but it doesn't mean that the particular universal atonement for Israel applies to the universal atonement for salvation through Christ. If so then why does it have to? It is mere speculation, although I admit that it sounds pretty. It is possible to make all kinds of these conclusions from Old to New Covenant, but it just isn't safe to lock onto without any further evidence.

Normally in a criminal case there is a criminal and civil action brought against the defendant where the person will have to make restitution to the plaintiff AND spend time in prison.. The atonement appeased God's wrath against sin, not against the sinner rejecting the atonement.

I understand that God's wrath was poured out onto Christ in place of the sinner. Yet why does a sinner go to hell? Is it for his sin? if it is for his own sins then how could God pour His wrath out 2 times, once onto Christ and the second onto the actual sinner (who dies without belief)? That would be Double Jeopardy I think the smart guys call it . Most non-cals say that people ultimately go to hell for rejecting Christ. I can't think of any other option for universal atonement. Im not trying to be rude, just can't think of any other viewpoints.

 

[Allan]

I understand this part, but it doesn't mean that the particular universal atonement for Israel applies to the universal atonement for salvation through Christ.

Sorry.. I'm short on time but I wanted to address this portion.

Christ had to fulfill the whole LAW.. and that includes fulfilling the Law of Atonement. If He did not fulfill this Law then God is not appeased, and Christ died a sinner making him a false prophet.

He could not more redefine whom the atonement was made for than He could redefine what sin is.

I agree there is some symbolism here in that there was no animal and the atonement was to be made with the lamb.. ect.. however the principles for it being made and for whom, as well as the actions and perfections required were to heart of the matter.

 

[zrs6v4]

Sorry.. I'm short on time but I wanted to address this portion.

Christ had to fulfill the whole LAW.. and that includes fulfilling the Law of Atonement. If He did not fulfill this Law then God is not appeased, and Christ died a sinner making him a false prophet.

He could not more redefine whom the atonement was made for than He could redefine what sin is.

I agree there is some symbolism here in that there was no animal and the atonement was to be made with the lamb.. ect.. however the principles for it being made and for whom, as well as the actions and perfections required were to heart of the matter.

I agree 100% that Christ fulfilled the Law. You must ask the question, what does that mean?

- Perfect Obedience
- No transgression
- He fulfilled the sacrificial system as "the" Sacrifice for sin
- etc...

Although He fulfilled the Law as the sacrifice for sin and He did it perfectly, I do not think that means for everyone. It does not have to apply to every single human being as the Old sacrificial system did every human under Israel. It very well could be the perfect sufficient sacrifice for all of those who God has forgiven. Not one more or one less. I don't want to take away from your point, and would like to hear much more input and debate on it as it is a good point to ponder. The reason I am rejecting it now isn't just to defend my view, I admit that is part of my skepticism, but because of the scope of the atonement in the New Testament. I see the New Testament atonement for a specific group, the sheep, perfectly, to pay for their sin. I do not see extra sins being paid for on the end of unbelievers.

I could easily twist the view proposed that the atonement was made for Israel, say Israel represents the universal church, and say the atonement was made for the church. (just a side thought)

 

[webdog]

I could easily twist the view proposed that the atonement was made for Israel, say Israel represents the universal church, and say the atonement was made for the church. (just a side thought)

...only if you can prove there are unbelievers that make up the universal church. There were unbelievers in the nation of Israel.

 

[zrs6v4]

...only if you can prove there are unbelievers that make up the universal church. There were unbelievers in the nation of Israel.

The catholic (universal) church is the actual children of God from every tribe, tongue people and nation. I did not mean the universal church stood for unbelievers, in fact only the true believers. I totally agree that there were unbelievers in Israel. I also agree that the atonement was general and for everyone, in Israel. I also know that not every single aspect of the atonement must perfectly point to Christ. This is because it is only supposed to shadow what God wants it to shadow, and in our finite minds we add things. Furthermore I do not think that it is a solid foundation to base our theology on.

I will make a similar observance, just to make my point, I hope :

In the NEw Testament the New Israel is composed of all believers, the Spiritual Israel those circumcised in heart.... So why not argue that the atonement is for the spiritual body of Christ, God's people. As we know, God's true children are those who he paid for... all of them. It is a mute point to say that unbelievers must be included because the scope of the OT atonement was for Israel.

 

[ituttut]

No...from Scripture...show me each time John uses "whole world" and the context of THAT phrase, and then reconcile that with your use of "whole world" in this passage.

Webdog, what I see John saying in context of each reference using Whole World, evidently meaning ALL of the World. Really don't know at this time how else to put it. Regret if not acceptable.

If you can give me your take on each refrence, or one, I'll try to responde, hopefully intelligently with biblical understandig.

 

[percho]

There is a whole lot more that takes place on the day of atonement than the sacrificing of the goat for the sins of the people.

Let me ask has judgment for the people and or souls that are in hell already been made or are they waiting in hell for the judgment? What do you think it is like?

What about these angels? 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Are they presently being in torments? Matt. 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Are these the angels that the church will judge?

We might should leave who gets the atonement and when to God.

This could almost be worked into the soul of Jesus thread.

 

[Iconoclast]

...only if you can prove there are unbelievers that make up the universal church. There were unbelievers in the nation of Israel.

Hello Webdog
This is another important question.
What is the biblical view of the church?
Were the unbelievers who died in unbelief ever a part of the True Israel?
In what sense were their sins removed,if they perish in hell for those sins?

Is your view......Baptist? or Presbyterian?

Is the church believers only ? or a mix?

 

[webdog]

What is the biblical view of the church?

Scripture speaks of the body of believers as well as local churches.

Were the unbelievers who died in unbelief ever a part of the True Israel?

"Not all Israel is Israel".

In what sense were their sins removed,if they perish in hell for those sins?

We don't pay for our sins in Hell. A finite man cannot ever repay an infinite God for an infinite crime committed against Him. If the person in Hell is paying for their sins, God will be eternally unpaid and justice will eternally be open ended.

Is your view......Baptist? or Presbyterian?

Whichever aligns with Scripture

Is the church believers only ? or a mix?

The Body of Christ is believers only...the local church can be composed of both.

 

[Allan]

I agree 100% that Christ fulfilled the Law. You must ask the question, what does that mean?

- Perfect Obedience
- No transgression
- He fulfilled the sacrificial system as "the" Sacrifice for sin
- etc...

We must not only ask.. what does it mean, but does it do, AND for whom was it made. Scripture points out in no uncertain terms that the atonement was made on behalf of All in Israel.. both believer AND unbelievers. Please note that scripture does not state, allude to, or infer the unbelievers are or will be those who will eventually be saved. (I know you aren't saying this but bringing this out for consideration)

Although He fulfilled the Law as the sacrifice for sin and He did it perfectly, I do not think that means for everyone.

Ok.. but regardless of what we might 'think' or presume we must go with what scripture states. The Law establishes certain things and they had to be done in accordance with the commands and intent of the Father laid out in that same Law.
And while we both agree on what it does (as the Law establishes) but just as importantly and significantly for 'whom' it was made to begin with.
The WHOLE issue revolves around whom God stated the sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf of - All Israel, both the believing and unbelieving alike without partiality - not just what is does but whom it was made on behalf of. This is established in the Law and is a primary part of the sacrifice of Atonement. We can not pick and choose what like about an issue and drop the rest when scripture is plain and straight forward on the issue.

An issue that you that I would encourage you to consider is that you state you agree the OT Sacrifice of Atonement (or SoA) was made for all Israel, both believers and unbelievers alike. NOW... the questions that needs to be answered is 3 fold - 1. (since the SoA is symbolic of Christs death) why did 'GOD' command the OT SoA to made for those who will not believe; and 2. (since it is symbolic of Christ's blood) what does that do with/to the blood that was shed on behalf of that group who will not believe; and lastly 3. (since it is symbolic of Christ's work) Is their sin paid for under the OT Law since we know it was made on the behalf of even of those who are not and/or will not believe?

It does not have to apply to every single human being as the Old sacrificial system did every human under Israel. It very well could be the perfect sufficient sacrifice for all of those who God has forgiven.

1. Yes it does in order to fulfill the Law.
2. That is not whom God commanded the SoA is to cover. It was for that Nation - believers and unbelievers alike. There is no distinction by God for whom it was made.

but because of the scope of the atonement in the New Testament.

The scope of the atonement is defined under the Law as it was the Law to had to be fulfilled and it's scope is defined therein.

I see the New Testament atonement for a specific group, the sheep, perfectly, to pay for their sin. I do not see extra sins being paid for on the end of unbelievers.

And yet many, including those who hold to a reformed view (4 pointers) will tell you otherwise and can give many scriptures to the contrary.

I could easily twist the view proposed that the atonement was made for Israel, say Israel represents the universal church, and say the atonement was made for the church. (just a side thought)

Not without changing the meaning and composition of the Church of Christ.
Remember, according to Law the SoA was for both groups, not just one.

 

[percho]

Allan?

(since the SoA is symbolic of Christs death) And paid the penalty for both believers and unbelievers doesn't the real blood of Christ pay for the believers and unbelievers? As in 1 John 2:2? Why does one believe and another not. Why in a moment was a man going down the road in unbelief and in the next moment he believes? The atonement has to be made for there to be a relationship.

Give me your thoughts on the following. By the way I'm not sure what I am saying which is why I would like your thoughts.

Who benefited from the death of the first begotten Son of God?
Who benefited from the death of the firstborn of the children of Egypt?

In the concept of redemption are these two related?

 

[Allan]

I only have a moment or two.. I pull another 12 hour shift and have to go back out for a two hour training.. so for give me if it sounds somewhat nonsensical.. I'm very tired.

Allan?

(since the SoA is symbolic of Christs death) And paid the penalty for both believers and unbelievers doesn't the real blood of Christ pay for the believers and unbelievers?

No.. it is applied only through faith.
The sacrifice in and of itself does nothing until God applies it to us through faith (Rom 3:25)

As in 1 John 2:2? Why does one believe and another not. Why in a moment was a man going down the road in unbelief and in the next moment he believes? The atonement has to be made for there to be a relationship.

I agree the atonement has to be made in order for there to be a relationship.. and that is why scripture speaks of life (everlasting and eternal) and being the same things as being made alive and NOT two separate types of life one must have. To be alive, according to scripture is to be IN Christ, which is a relationship obtained only through the application of the atonement - known as justification.

Personally I have never heard a testimony, or read anywhere where a person one second was hating God.. and then BAM!! He suddenly loved God.

Scripture tells us plainly and simply the 'reason' one believes and the other does not is because the one chose to and the other didn't. It has NOTHING to do with who is smarter, more evil, or any other such silliness... The fact is, according to scripture, either one personally 'chooses' to believe what God has revealed, OR.. they choose to reject it for a lie. We KNOW that could have been saved if they would have believed (2 Thes 2;10-12) however because they chose to reject it, God gives them over to their lies but God keeps them in that choice (just as He keeps believers in theirs). And scripture tells us it was for that reason they are condemned, because they would not believe.

To believe or not is the same as to love or not.. it is a choice.

The reason 'some' want to say.. one did and one did not.. is not based upon scripture telling us this.. but on a theological construct that creates this opinion based on it's views.

Give me your thoughts on the following. By the way I'm not sure what I am saying which is why I would like your thoughts.

Who benefited from the death of the first begotten Son of God?
Who benefited from the death of the firstborn of the children of Egypt?

In the concept of redemption are these two related?

Because the propitiatory sacrifice is only applied by faith.
In answer to your question.. though ALL, even the Egyptians, could have sought protection only those of faith benefited.

I don't see why the two would not be considered related.

However, in a sense, everyone can be seen to benefit in one way or another from the death of Christ.. The believer with the benefits of the propitiation added to him through faith.. and the unbeliever, in sense, in that The judgment is postponed till all have come to faith that are foreknown by God. (you can take the 'foreknown' in which ever way you wish it won't change the point )

If it doesn't make much sense let me know.. I will try to find some more time to make it more plain. I apologize for it if it is out of sorts at all.

 

[zrs6v4]

Not without changing the meaning and composition of the Church of Christ.
Remember, according to Law the SoA was for both groups, not just one.

Lets focus here for a bit.

The atonement was for Israel, not the entire world. It was made for the people of God. Not the other nations.

Explain the meaning and composition of the church please so we can dig a little further. Let me explain how I see the church off the top of my head.

The church is not made up of professing Christians, but of God's true believers in Christ that are from all over the world. None of God's church includes non-believers. I am not well studied on how Israel relates to the church in all honesty, but what I can gather is that Israel were symbolically God's people. I say symbolically because as you said, all of Israel were not true believers. The church is the true people of God, and these people are all true believers. I don't know if I would say that the church is a replacement for Israel, but there are many fulfilled symbols from Israel to the Church. What I find is that no foreigners are allowed in Israel and no foreigners are allowed in the church (that is no unbelievers allowed into Christs kingdom). At this point I am still pondering on the idea that Christ died for His church, not unbelievers just as the atonement was for Israel not other nations. What say you?

 

[webdog]

The atonement was for Israel, not the entire world. It was made for the people of God. Not the other nations.

Any and all nations could become part of Israel.

 

[zrs6v4]

Any and all nations could become part of Israel.

Ok, but who was the atonement made for Israel or every nation. That was my point.

 

[Allan]

Ok, but who was the atonement made for Israel or every nation. That was my point.

You still seem to not be listening.

The point should be understood that God was working THROUGH Israel not ONLY with the Jews.. IE.. the Atonement was not only for the Jews.
Israel was the vessel used to bring forth the word, the promises of God and even eventually Christ Jesus.
It was the example of how God works toward man AND His spiritual people

You seem to be missing a crucial part entirely.. it was for a NATION men not a spiritual people and as such you still have to DEAL with the issue that God commends the atonement to be for ALL and not only for those who believe.

 

[Allan]

Lets focus here for a bit.

The atonement was for Israel, not the entire world. It was made for the people of God. Not the other nations.

Explain the meaning and composition of the church please so we can dig a little further. Let me explain how I see the church off the top of my head.

The church is not made up of professing Christians, but of God's true believers in Christ that are from all over the world. None of God's church includes non-believers. I am not well studied on how Israel relates to the church in all honesty, but what I can gather is that Israel were symbolically God's people. I say symbolically because as you said, all of Israel were not true believers. The church is the true people of God, and these people are all true believers. I don't know if I would say that the church is a replacement for Israel, but there are many fulfilled symbols from Israel to the Church. What I find is that no foreigners are allowed in Israel and no foreigners are allowed in the church (that is no unbelievers allowed into Christs kingdom). At this point I am still pondering on the idea that Christ died for His church, not unbelievers just as the atonement was for Israel not other nations. What say you?

I'll come back to this tomorrow night.. I have 2 hour drive ahead of me just yet.. and other things I need to deal with.

Good to hear from you again though, Keep the faith.

 

[ituttut]

Lets focus here for a bit.

The atonement was for Israel, not the entire world. It was made for the people of God. Not the other nations.

Truer words were never said. You here are well versed in letting the Bible interpret itself.

 

[Iconoclast]

Allan,you posted this;

Scripture tells us plainly and simply the 'reason' one believes and the other does not is because the one chose to and the other didn't

. It has NOTHING to do with who is smarter, more evil, or any other such silliness... The fact is, according to scripture, either one personally 'chooses' to believe what God has revealed, OR.. they choose to reject it for a lie.

I do not agree with what you state here as I think your view departs from scripture in this way;

you say....

Scripture tells us plainly and simply the 'reason' one believes and the other does not is because the one chose to and the other didn't

jesus said;26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.


and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.