Featured 1 John 2:1-2

Do you not believe what the bible says?

 

I don't understand how so many calvinist can not or rather will not accept what the bible says? You are just being willfully blind. Just read the English or perhaps the Greek. I laid it out in post # 14.

Since you do not agree with what the text says show why you do not agree. Point out the error in what the text says as you see it. Dave I agree that John was speaking to "My little children" but that does not alter what he said in vs 2. If John had only wanted to address their sin he would have only written "the propitiation for our sins" and stopped. But he didn't did he. He then added that the propitiation was also made for the "whole world". How does that equate to your "what to do if they sin" argument?

Yes we have a advocate and He stands for us when we sin and the second verse says that that advocate propitiates our sins but also those of the whole world.

 

I don't think there is any error in the text. I just think the teaching there is about the priestly work of Jesus as an advocate for all of us that believe and John is reminding the believers that our advocate IS the propitiation for our sins. My personal belief is that this passage is universal if you were to say that ALL believers in the world, if they sin have Jesus as our advocate - and he is not just a priest ministering over a sacrifice but he himself is the sacrifice. This passage is teaching us about the priestly work and the capability of Christ for believers. It is not written to be a statement on the extent of the atonement.

So I don't think you should use this passage a a proof that everyone in the world has already had a propitiation accomplished for their sins. I also don't think that there are any scriptures that say that there is some type of limiting or restricting of the atonement so that it would be even theoretically possible for someone to come in repentance and faith and be turned away because the atonement does not apply to them. If some of the high Calvinists on here have a verse I would like to see it.

 

You sound like a Lutheran. "Mystery."

 

What I do not understand is how you can read that verse 1Jn 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." and not see the extended propitiation in it.

Do you agree that He is our propitiation? If yes then how do you explain the words "not for ours only but also for". That is where the confusion about what you say comes in. How can you miss the inclusion of the whole world?

 

The world could be the world Jesus mentioned when He said, "love not the world", right?

Wrong.

Can't pull a word out and say it automatically means this and so.

The rest of the New Testament and Greek literature speaks of "the world" of the Gentiles.

"The whole world" is simply including the Gentiles and not speaking of salvation as exclusively for the Jews.

Unless someone is lost, then there is never any idea what their personal flesh Degrees and Determines, in rebellion against God.

 

THE ATONEMENT FURNISHES THE ACID TEST OF THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

By their attitude toward the atonement, theological systems classify themselves as pagan or Christian.

Their position on the atonement also reflects their idea of the nature of God, of His law, and of sin.
...

(c) Nor was it necessary that Christ die for the whole Adamic race in order to make God's general call sincere. It is the notion of some that God's general call requires men to believe that Christ died for them. This is not true. The twenty-eight chapters of Acts, "though replete with information about apostolic dealing with souls, record no precedent whatever for that now popular address to the unconverted- Christ died for you" (Sanger, The Redeemed). "All men are called on in Scripture to believe the gospel, but there is no instance in Scripture in which men are called upon to believe that Christ died for them" (Carson, The Doctrine of the Atonement and Other Treatises, P. 146).
...
We have intimated that God is as much under obligation to remove man's spiritual inability to come to Christ as He is to provide an atonement for Him. In other words, man's perversity of nature makes his salvation as impossible from a human standpoint as does the absence of an atonement.


But some may take exception to this by saying that whereas man's perversity of nature creates a moral impossibility, the lack of atonement furnishes a natural impossibility. We reply that this is correct; but the moral impossibility is primary and is absolute. Therefore the natural impossibility can furnish no added hindrance.
...
"All those for whom Christ gave His life a ransom are either ransomed by it, or they are not, that all are not ransomed or redeemed from sin, the law, Satan, and the second death is evident . . . Now, if some for whom Christ gave His life a ransom, are not ransomed then that shocking absurdity . . . follows . . . namely, that Christ is dead in vain, or that so far He gave His life a ransom in vain; wherefore it will be rightly concluded that He did not give His life a ransom for every individual man" (John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, p. 98).


"The so-called Scripture proofs of Universal Redemption depend upon human assumption, not upon the simple Word; Thus, as regards 'propitiation for the sins of the whole world', we are told that the 'world' must mean every worldling. But why must it mean this? That is the unanswered question. The word world means many different things in Holy Scripture, on which see Crudens Concordance. Connection alone is its true interpreter. To rule that it must mean this or that is but to indulge in rash and idle talk" (Sanger, The Redeemed, p. 7).

...

"Were the whole of mankind equally loved of God and promiscuously redeemed by Christ, the song which believers are directed to sing would hardly run in them admiring strains, 'To Him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God,' etc., Rev. 1:5,6). A hymn of praise like this seems evidently to proceed on the hypothesis of peculiar election on the part of God, and of a limited redemption on the part of Christ which we find more explicitly declared (Rev. v. 9), where we have a transcript of that song which the spirits of just men made perfect are now singing before the throne and before the Lamb: 'Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us unto God by Thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.' Whence the elect are said to have been redeemed from among men. (Rev. 14:4)" (Augustus M. Toplady, author of "Rock of Ages," in preface to Absolute Predestination, by Zanchius).

 

Bump

 

This is exactly right. And what I have seen in myself and others is an absolute human inability to understand these two things at the same time. So we go back and forth.

 

That's a good point. I have always wondered about the fact that if you're a moderate Calvinist then you believe you are not saved until the time when YOU come to Christ and believe. Therefore you believe that the atonement was not actually applied to you until that time. That's why I believe it is valid to claim to be a 4 point Calvinist. Or, maybe the Hypers are right after all.

 

Lets look at how John uses the Greek word translated "world."

John 13:1 (NASB)
Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that His hour had come that He would depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.​

According to the above bogus claim, Christ's own were in the earth, which is bogus. But consider Jesus knew He would depart from being with humanity, having loved His own who were part of humanity.

John 12:31 (NASB)
“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. ​

A more literal translation would read, Now judgement is of this fallen humanity, now the leader of fallen humanity will be cast out, Here we see fallen humanity has been judged, but when Christ was crucified (lifted up verse 32) He provided an opportunity (drawing) for all who believe. Thus while we have the Light, we are to believe the Light. Satan is cast outside of those placed within Christ's spiritual body and indwelt.

1John 5:19 (NASB)
We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.​

A more literal translation would read, "We are aware that we are from God, and the whole of fallen humanity is lying in wickedness. Obviously those who have been born anew and are in Christ are outside of wickedness.

John 15:18 (NASB)
“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. ​

Obviously fallen humanity is in view.

John 1:29
The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! ​

Finally, and once more John is using "world" to refer to fallen humanity.

Bottom line: The literal translation of 1 John 2:2 in post #28 is obviously correct.

 

By their attitude toward the atonement, theological systems classify themselves as pagan or Christian.
Their position on the atonement also reflects their idea of the nature of God, of His law, and of sin.


And he is the propitiation for our sins
The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable. ... There are certain things which do not enter into the idea of propitiation. They are such as these: It does not change the fact that the wrong was done. ...It does not change God...It prepares the way for it on the part of God, but whether they for whom it is made will be disposed to accept it is another question.


And not for our’s only
Not only the sins of those who are Christians. It is sufficient for us; sufficient for all the world.

But also for the sins of the whole world
This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, “the whole world,” is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition.


This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:

(1) That the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;
(2) That it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;
(3) That it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one easier than that of another.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

xxx

Also for the sins of the whole world. Christ's advocacy is limited to believers (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin: note, 2Pe_2:1, "the whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion (cf. 1Jn_4:14 and 1Jn_5:19). 'Thou, too, art part of the world: thine heart cannot think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me' (Luther).
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

xxx

So adequate is Jesus Christ as God’s atoning Sacrifice that the efficacy of His work extends not merely to the sins of Christians themselves, but also to the sins of the whole world. In saying this, John was clearly affirming the view that Christ genuinely died for everyone (cf. 2Co_5:14-15, 2Co_5:19; Heb_2:9). This does not mean, of course, that everyone will be saved. It means rather that anyone who hears the gospel can be saved if he so desires (Rev_22:17).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary

xxx

For the whole world (peri holou tou kosmou). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of tōn hamartiōn (the sins of) as we have it in Heb_7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard “the whole world” as a mass of sin (1Jn_5:19). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all (Heb_2:9) if they will only be reconciled with God (2Co_5:19-21).
Word Pictures in the New Testament (A. T. Robertson)

xxx

For the sins of the whole world (περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου)
The sins of (A. V., italicized) should be omitted; as in Revelation, for the whole world. Compare 1Jo_4:14; Joh_4:42; Joh_7:32. “The propitiation is as wide as the sin” (Bengel). If men do not experience its benefit, the fault is not in its efficacy. Düsterdieck (cited by Huther) says, “The propitiation has its real efficacy for the whole world; to believers it brings life, to unbelievers death.” Luther: “It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world; so that thine heart cannot deceive itself, and think, the Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me.”
Vincent's Word Studies

xxx

Ours only… whole world—The heart of our apostle is too expansive to limit the grace of the Redeemer to a select number. Christ is a race Redeemer, a world-Saviour. The interpretation that strives against language so rich to force a limit upon it, dishonours Christ and dishonours itself. ...In fact, the very purpose of John here is, to deny and repudiate a limited atonement. Beautiful and true are the words of Bengel: “So wide as sin extends does the propitiation extend.”
Daniel Whedon's Commentary

 

Martin I do not think anyone disputes that the word world can mean different things depending upon the context. But there in lays the problem, you have tried import a meaning of world into 1Jn 2:2 that is not there and have denied what the text actually says.

 

That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness-our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice, and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification" (Article 7 of the Confession of Faith adopted in 1120 by the Waldenses, the most outstanding group of Baptist progenitors. See Jones' Church History, p. 322).


"The doctrine of the atonement has been differently understood. The old churches pretty uniformly held that it was particular; that is, that Christ died for the elect only, and that in His stupendous suffering no respect was had to, nor any provision made for, any others of Adam's ruined race" (Benedict, General History of the Baptist Denomination, p. 456).


"If there is anything plainly taught in the Scripture, it is that the sacrifice of Christ was made for those only who shall eventually be saved by it (Alexander Carson, The Doctrine of the Atonement and Other Treatises, p. 196).


"It cannot be, that one soul for whom He (Christ) gave His life and spilled His blood; whose sins He bore and whose curse He sustained, should ever finally perish.

For if that were the case, divine justice, after having exacted and received satisfaction at the hand of the Surety, would make a demand on the principal; in other words, would require double payment" (Booth, The Reign of Grace, p. 235).


"Can a God of infinite ethical perfection, who with His own hand laid the awful burden of the sinner's guilt upon the adorable Surety, repudiate His own covenant engagements and withhold from Him the reward purchased at the cost of His most precious blood? To say so, is tantamount to an impeachment of the truth and justice of our covenant-keeping God" (Prof. Robert Watts, Sovereignty of God, comprising articles of Pres. C. W. Northrup, published in the Standard of Chicago, and those of Prof. Watts in reply, which latter articles were written at the suggestion of T. T. Eaton and published in the Western Recorder during Eaton's editorship).

 

This is me, too, from SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

"I believe that election elected the elect; that foreknowledge foreknew them; that they 'were ordained to eternal life,' and 'foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son;' that redemption redeemed them; that regeneration regenerated them; that sanctification sanctifies them; that justification justifies them; that preservation preserves them; that providence provides for them, and so on to glorification. Hence those to be glorified are those foreknown and redeemed. I don't believe in a general redemption and a special glorification (J. B. Moody, Sin, Salvation, and Service, p. 40).


"Here are the five points of Calvinism: unconditional election or predestination, limited atonement or particular redemption, total depravity necessitating prevenient grace, effectual calling or irresistible grace, and preservation or perseverance of the saints. And the writer does not hesitate to subscribe to all five points" (C. D. Cole, Definitions of Doctrines, Vol. 1, p. 131).


The author gives an enthusiastic "Amen" to all of these. He is not ashamed to be found in their company and in the company of many other eminent saints of God who have held the same sentiments. He is willing to be found contending for the historic faith of Baptists, the faith of ancient churches; the faith of the Waldenses, "those eminent and honored witnesses for the truth during the long period when the church and the world were overrun with gross error and immorality (Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free).

 

*Gill's fitness to speak on this matter is cited by Cramp, as follows: "In the diploma (from Marischal College, Aberdeen, awarding the degree of Doctor of Divinity) special mention was made of Dr. Gill's proficiency in sacred literature, in the Oriental languages, and in Jewish antiquities... Dr. Gill was a profound scholar.

He was familiar with the whole circle of Jewish literature.

None could compete with him on this his own ground" (Baptist History, p. 508).

From SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

(d) Finally, the word "world," by no means, alludes to all men without exception in every case in the Scripture, and, therefore, it remains to be proved that it means this in these passages.

"World" is used of unbelievers in distinction from believers (John 7:7; 12:31; 14:17; 15:18,19; 16:20; 17:14; 1 Cor. 4:9; 11:32 Eph. 2:2; Heb. 11:7; 1 John 3:1; 3:13; 5:19).

It is used of Gentiles in distinction from the Jews (Rom. 11:12,15).

It is used of the generality of known people (John 12:19).

We believe in the two passages under consideration the word alludes not to all men without exception, but to all men without distinction; that is, to men of all nations, tribes, and tongues (a cross-section of which we see in Rev. 7:9); revealing that Christ did not die for the Jews alone, but for Gentiles also, even to the uttermost parts of the earth.


The logical reason for the employment of the word "world" in this sense is given by John Gill as follows:

"It was a controversy agitated among the Jewish doctors, whether when the Messiah came, the Gentiles, the world, should have any benefit by him; the majority was exceeding large on the negative of the question, and determined they should not . . . that the most severe judgments and dreadful calamities would befall them; yea, that they should be cast into Hell in the room of the Israelites.

This notion the Baptist, Christ, and His apostles oppose, and is the trite reason of the use of this phrase in the Scriptures which speak of Christ's redemption" (The Cause of God and Truth, p. 66).*

"As a typical Jew, Nicodemus thought God loved nobody but Jews, but our Lord told him that God so loved the world (Gentile as well as Jew), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever (Gentile or Jew) believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (Cole, Definitions of Doctrines, Vol. 1, p. 120).

Note again the use of "world" in 2 Cor. 5:19, where the "world" for whom Christ died were potentially reconciled by His death and are not to have their trespasses imputed to them.

In other words, they must receive the forgiveness He purchased for them.

 

I think a statement like this is good but what happens is that the Arminians will say "yup and it's based on foreknowledge of what we choose to do" and the hard Calvinists will say they will not accept that for the very same reason. They will insist that you put such an emphasis on the particular nature of the atonement that you are not allowed to even make the logical conclusion that the atonement was for everyone who will eventually believe. They will not even allow that even if you agree that salvation is monergistic if you put the selection process at the point where not everyone is effectually called. No. It has to be that the sole and determinate reason is that Christ's atonement is over and it has not covered everyone. This may work for a theologian but it is a disaster for many average people.

 

He's saying that, in the first place:
"the moral impossibility is primary and is absolute.

Then, secondly, and made null and void, Therefore the natural impossibility can furnish no added hindrance.

 

So what you are saying is that all these people deny the scriptures.