Featured Unbelief....or All Sin?

You have "issues" with a number of passages in God's Holy Word as has been demonstrated in the last decade or so.

You are wrong --as usual.

I am not speculating. I trust the Word of God. You ignore the import of Romans 1 and 2.

You sure are.

On a regular basis you have gone far beyond just inferring that.

Yeah, like you believe that your ability and keen perception gave you faith. Your "free-will" has empowered you to become saved. All of that bunk does not come from the Word of God, yet you not only believe it --but propagate it with tenacity.

It was all due to the sovereign will of God. That's something you need to come to grips with. God chooses --that's biblical election. People are depraved and spiritually impotent. Unless God does a wonder-work and intervenes in their lives --they are lost. No one can brag of the merits. It is all of God that anyone is brought to saving union with Christ.

That's a shame because the first step in your recovery is an acknowledgement that you have a problem.

 

Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus when he was in Corinth in A.D. 58. That is well before 65 A.D.
He wrote:
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
--Paul takes up much space in this epistle emphasizing how both Gentiles and Jews are one in Christ. This is the mystery that was unknown from the past--how both Jew and Gentile could make one body.

In 55 A.D. Paul wrote to the Corinthians. The church at Corinth was primarily a Gentile church.
When did Pentecost happen ca.30-33? That is when the church was primarily Jewish. But after the gospel reached the house of Cornelius, and especially after Saul was saved it began to spread rapidly among the Gentiles. You used the date 65 A.D. That is only 2 to 4 years before Paul died.

(KJV) And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Perhaps it has a meaning more accurately expressed in the ISV:
(ISV) People from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were flocking to him, being baptized by him while they confessed their sins.
--People from the entire countryside, etc. were flocking to him. Certainly it was not literally "all the land of Judea," that flocked to him. That is a figure of speech which is more accurately said in the ISV and also somewhat better in the YLT.

 

It seems Bro. Cassidy, you have chosen to follow a pick and choose theology. Many here do. They pick at random whatever meaning fits their theology best--usually whatever fits the schematics of Calvinism best.
It is true that there are figures of speech in which we can recognize that "all Judea" means most of those living in Judea." We have many similar figures of speech in English, not the least of which is a child's excuse: "Why not, everyone's doing it." And the parent wisely replies: "No, everyone is not doing it."

Consider the Book of Romans:
In chapter one Paul describes how ALL the Gentiles are under sin.
In chapter two he describes how ALL the Jews are under sin.
In chapter three he describes how ALL the world--both Jews and Gentiles are ALL under sin.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--Who is the all here?
Is it just the elect of God?
Is it just the Gentiles?
Is it just those of the first century?
Or does "all" refer to ALL of all ages--everyone?

If it has no limitations, then why should the "all" in 1John 2:2?

It becomes more a matter of perspective.
Almost "pick and choose" according to the bias of your own theology.

 

The OP ask these two questions (among others):

There is a difference in the words used in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 than in those of other places in the NT. It is a significant difference, that (imo) sets the words of John about the matter more focused upon the actual shed blood.


As one who DOES consider that John (in 1 John) is NOT using hyperbole, but is speaking from the stand point of being a Jew and that the propitiation was ALSO for the gentile, then it applies world wide.


As such, then the meaning must include every person ever born - all inclusive. Just as John was all inclusive of Jews, he was stating propitiation was all inclusive for the Gentiles.


For those Calvinistic thinkers who want to place the "world" into the light of a subset of the whole, this verse does present a problem when taken in the most literal way considering the view of the author.


This is also why the final judgment is not a matter of what man has done in the books that chronicled the living of each person - showing the good, bad, and ugly.


It shows that there was but ONE way to heaven. Not by work, not by sacrifice, but by belief.


Folks in the lake of fire are certainly punished for sin(s) which is the judgment resulting from unbelief. The punishment is eternal flames. (John 3 - condemned already).

Again, the judgment of "Unbeliever" condemns the person to eternal separation in the lake of fire in which the brimstones of human sinfilled work are set aflame. But what of that worm that dies not?

What greater punishment than knowing one scorned rather than believed!


One may grimace at pain, and cry out in agony, for the flames are real and do not deminish in intensity or time.


But the weeping of the tortured soul and the gnashing of the teeth are not just from the flames; rather, that worm is the awareness, the understanding realization that the scorn, the jesting, the ungodly, the sinful existence, the ridicule of righteousness, the blasphemy of delusion, and the pride of excess which brought false gain and happiness in this living are nothing to be compared to belief and the joys of the blessed in eternity.

 

T.
I often think that your posts are well worth the read.

I also often consider that your readers can find much to consider in your wisdom.

Is it not true that there are times when everyone does "pick and choose" (using DHK's words) the meaning of words that would fit someone's theological thinking?

You were given specific example of how "all" means "all" in Romans.

It is understood that writers use "all" or "whole" in a non-literal sense, too in some other areas of Scriptures as has been pointed out in other posts.

I see three scenarios in which John 2:2 can be taken:

If taken that John is stating that "not only us" (meaning those of us who are Jews) but "the whole world" (meaning all the Gentiles) then there is just no other group to select.

If, one is to take that John is stating that "not only us" (meaning all the saved) but "the whole world" (meaning the unsaved) then there is no other group to select.

The only option is to consider John writing in some hyperbole. ​

As one who does hold to the doctrines of Grace, I don't see a conflict with taking 1 John as literal as possible - especially that found in 2:2.

 

But, the fact is that it is done. I have witnessed the lengths most members of the BB go to hold on to some "truth" based upon their own theological persuasion, no matter the amount of Scriptures presented. I dare say, you have also.

I agree, as is the way John uses it (imo) in 1 John 2:2 - not just my folks (Jews) but also all your folks (Gentiles).


So, the actual blood (what the word propitiation means in the use by John here in 2:2 and also in 4:2 being sprinkled in heaven is for all Jews and Gentiles.

Not knowing what emotional attachment DHK has, and also acknowledging the use of the Jews (as all ethnic folks do, do) to make a grand statement of non-literal in making a point, it never the less falls that because John did NOT use the same form of the word, but a word specific to Blood and it is literal, the "all" must also be found as literal.



Certainly the rulers did, and like many evangelists do to this day, tend to use hyperbole, but I don't know of a time when John spoke that he ever used exaggeration.


It would not follow logically to present such an important truth by John in which he obviously chose a specific use or form of a word, and then travel into the realms of the non-literal when applying that truth. I don't see that as fitting the character of John's writing.

 

The commandments were reduced by Jesus, to only two. You seem to be stretching your faith in the OT over to the New. Granted sins listed by Paul fall somewhere into the genre of each commandment, there was a reason Jesus spoke of bringing only two, and it was to signify a new age; the age of Grace. So I not only disagree with your attempt to legalize the freedom Jesus birthed us into under Grace, I resent your implying that we are still under the control of the same laws the Jews were under. Selah!

However, as vehemently as I believe differently from you, you are still my brother, and I look forward to having a heavenly latte in eternity with you, while we both sit at His feet and discover how out of touch our doctrines were, and how He looked beyond our ego's and loved us enough to still let us pass through the narrow gate. Shalom!

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
First I believe that John wrote all of his work in the 90's.
Second, I believe, that by that time he didn't have a "Jewish" perspective, but a "Christian" one.
Third, I believe this can be ascertained very easily by his gospel.

John sets out in his gospel to present Jesus, the divine Son of God, to the world.
Thus,
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is not the world of the elect, but the world of all men everywhere, and coincides with 1Jn.2:2, IMO.

The theme of the Gospel of John is well summarized in John 20:31,
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Why would this be written just to the elect? He is writing to the world in general. If John wrote in the 90's why would he still have a Jewish perspective about him? He had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos. He apparently lived out the rest of his days in Ephesus where a good many of the members were Gentiles.
It would be an understandable viewpoint if you were talking about Matthew, who wrote specifically with the Jews in mind, but John didn't. He wrote with the "world" in mind.

 

In doing so, from the first to the last of John's account of the life of Christ, his main theme is that of contrast. For instance, in what you posted of John 3:16:

As one reads the following verses of John 3 they come across the typical use of John in contrasting those that believe against those who do not believe.


One of the remarkable points that separates (imo) all the writing that we have of John, is the very specific almost tediousness in which he is presenting his thinking; thinking that carries not only through the life of Christ account that he wrote, but also, through the three letters and the Revelation.


This is why I mentioned above, that the character of his writing does not allow for less than the most literal rendering of the reading, unless there is significant reason to mark that portion as metaphorical, simile, hyperbole,... In most cases, John actually brings the reader into the use by indicating the "like" or "as" and in descriptions of characters. However, I question whether he ever used such techniques when describing events.



Events such as the 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 are not exaggerations, and certainly not metaphors.

In these statements, I would agree.


What we do know of the Ephesus church was that it was a hub of activity, primarily Gentile, and the focal point for the churches of all Asia Minor to look to as an example. Even well into the 100 years following the death of the Apostle John, the Ephesian church remained remarkable in attending to the right doctrines (although many deceitful would come in the assembly to teach heretical things), the personal commitment to Christ and the ministry, and yet there was the drifting away from the "first love." A love of (imo) the brethren, and the love that expresses itself when one confronts a brother in error while guarding their own souls from error. That first love, in which is able to overlook the blunders of others, acknowledging that we all blunder, and must be ready to be accountably supportive of each other.


Therefore, John writing (imo) the last three letters, as the only apostle left yet living at the time, is not going to take time to be "evangelistically speaking." He is not into trifles, has witnessed persecution first hand, has rebuked wrong, and the letters show that he has little patience with erroneous teaching.


Rather, he is writing to "my dear children," and in short calling upon them to know their estate as saved, know why they are saved, and know what is expected of their life and living because they are saved. As a father, he is most certainly going to be leaving behind some of the most important writing of any in the Scriptures - therefore, John is very precise choosing words and thoughts most carefully.

 

When John uses what the translators put as "propitiation" it is not just "real atonement," not the act of sprinkling blood, but the very blood itself. This is a different form of the word found in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 than elsewhere in the NT. John was most specific in the writing.


Therefore, I do not look upon John's writing (in 1 John) as "potential;" rather, I take it as that which is already accomplished, finished, never to be repeated.


There is no conflict when taking the most literal reading of 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 (without the use of manipulating world to mean other than the whole of the gentiles) and the doctrines of Grace.


For, the blood is not offered over and over, but once, for all, that all might be saved (as the Scripture's teach).


That "all" are not saved, is not the problem of the blood not being applied, but the fact that such who are not saved purposely turn from the truth, turn from the light, and make grand effort to shut out even the source of the light.


What is it that marks that which is not condemned from the condemned? Is it lack of sin or the abundance of sin, or belief in contrast to unbelief? It is unbelief.


Certainly, one is punished in the lake of fire and the punishment is apportioned upon the sinfulness of sin. That is a given. There is no escape, no reprieve, and no forgiveness found in that place.


The question resolves to what is the determiner of the final estate of all humankind?


Belief in contrast to unbelief.


When one establishes that as the true basis of resolve, then one can also take 1 John in the most literal way with not a smidgen of conflict with the doctrines of Grace.