Featured The Vain Fool, Child of Pride, Son of Folly Who Replies Against God's Sovereignty

If God through Christ is propitiiated in respect of every single person in the world, then there can be no condemnation for anyone in the whole world. So you need to ak yourself what 'world' (kosmos) means in this particular context. Have a think about it.

 

Metonymically, the world meaning the inhabitants of the earth, men, mankind (Mat_5:14; Mat_13:38; Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Rom_3:6, Rom_3:19; 1Co_4:13; 2Co_5:19; Heb_11:7; 2Pe_2:5; 1Jn_2:2).
{The Complete Word Study Dictionary Spiros Zodhiates}

The prima facie reading of this text seems unequivocal:
Jesus is the propitiation G2434 for the sins of believers, many of whom John is addressing (“for our sins”); and furthermore, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of “the whole world,” meaning unbelievers to whom John is not directly writing to.
Succinctly put, it does not follow that John is saying that only some Jews and only some Gentiles are atoned for. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus has a universal scope
Xref 1Jn_4:14; 1Jn_4:10; 1Pe_2:24; Joh_1:29; Joh_12:32; Rom_3:25-26
If the limited atonement advocate is to defend his position, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence as to why this one example in 1Jn_2:2 is the sole exception of John’s undeviating meaning of world.

 

I have made up my mind you just do not like what I say or for that matter what the bible says. Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved.

It is your errant theology that has only the sins of the elect covered so you need to do a rethink of your theology.

 

John Gill makes said claim.
But doesn't really show a simple clear case that must be applied to 1 John 2:2.

1 Timothy 2:3-6, ". . . For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ."

 

Why would I listen to Gill? You should just trust what the bible says but you seem to place more trust in these men than the bible. Why is that?

 

Did you not read my answer to this question? If you think asking it again will change the answer you are wrong.

But to save you time here is the same answer as before

I have made up my mind you just do not like what I say or for that matter what the bible says. Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved.

It is your errant theology that has only the sins of the elect covered so you need to do a rethink of your theology.

 

The prima facie reading of this text seems unequivocal:
Jesus is the propitiation G2434 for the sins of believers, many of whom John is addressing (“for our sins”); and furthermore, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of “the whole world,” meaning unbelievers to whom John is not directly writing to.
Succinctly put, it does not follow that John is saying that only some Jews and only some Gentiles are atoned for. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus has a universal scope
Xref 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10; 1 Peter 2:24; John 1:29; John 12:32; Romans 3:25-26
If the limited atonement advocate is to defend his position, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence as to why this one example in 1 John 2:2 is the sole exception of John’s undeviating meaning of world.

Can you provide such proof from scripture or are you just going to keep quoting these men in the vain hope that we will believe them?

 

I have Gill's commontary on my Android divices. I have been doing my own studies since 1968 and is on going to this day.

John Gill reinterprets 1 Timothy 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved,...." To mean "Who will have all {sorts of} men to be saved,...."

 

The teaching of sin debt can easily be seen from the teaching of the kinsman redeemer. Redemption is not necessary when there is no debt to be paid. Romans 5:13, Hebrews 10:18 Redemption, defined as the action of regaining or gaining possession of something for payment or CLEARING OF A DEBT, clearly shows the necessity that a sin debt must exist before payment is required.

The kinsman redeemer also illustrates the principle of the ransom that was necessary to be paid. One definition of ransom is a sum of money or other payment (death of the testator) demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner or to obtain the release of a prisoner by making a payment demanded. The wages of sin results in a sin debt, that if unpaid or unredeemed, results in death. Christ is our kinsman redeemer. Psalms 49:7, Mark 10:45 We were prisoners because we had sinned and could not pay the demanded payment. We could not restore ourselves to righteousness nor fellowship. It is easy to see that a ransom was required, because of a sin debt that occurred from the wages or works of sin.

If a ransom is demanded, then it is necessary that payment must be made for the debt and resulting demand that exists. A payment must be made and therefore a debt exists because of sin. You rightly say that the wages of sin is death. This is saying that the end result of sin is to be cast out of the presence of God i.e. death. (Luke 13:28) It was necessary with the fall of Adam that the debt be paid in the sacrifice of the ram representing the sacrifice of Christ, where we are restored to fellowship or the knowledge of the most high God (John 17:3) Wages of sin in most context is an action resulting in a condition whereas sin debt is a condition resulting from an action and while related, are not the same.

Since the wages of sin is death, then what is the remedy or solution? The wages of sin result in a sin debt being owed, a debt only the kinsman redeemer can pay.

Can you give me some historical evidence that the concept of a sin debt is a recent occurence, especially among Baptists?

 

If there were no sin debt there would be fellowship with God. If there were no sin debt, we would not die. As I said, sin debt is a condition resulting FROM the wages of sin and wages of sin result in the sin debt. They are not the same but are related.

Please expound on how there can be death without a righteous commandment being broken and if broken then a debt is incurred and a payment required. If the wages of sin is death, then what is the remedy other than the payment by the kinsman redeemer, Christ. If a payment is required to prevent death from sin, then there is a sin offering that satisfies the sin debt. Otherwise, why did Christ have to die for our sins. Payment or ransom is not required where there is no debt.

The example of the kinsman redeemer, like all scripture, point toward the work of Christ, as does all scripture. The principle of the kinsman redeemer cannot be simply explained as one brother being a ransom for another without seeing the work of Christ for his people.

I believe that the question should rather be phrased, how did we get from a sin debt to the wages of sin being unrelated.

Why did Christ die if something was not required by the Father. If the Father required something, then is that not a debt.

What documents other than catholic can you show me that the sin debt is relatively recent teaching. I would like to study them out so that I may be able to see your point more clearly.

 

You just do not like the answer or perhaps you do not have the necessary comprehension skills.

Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved. What are you not understanding?