Featured 1 John 2:1-2

I don't think there is any way you can say that Jesus died for the sins of a planet. The Planet earth has no sins. It is subject to the curse, but it cannot be redeemed. It does not have the faculty that allows is to make responsible choices.

 

.

Well, it will be with the new earth.

 

It describes the One and Only, True and Living God of the Universe. Of course the flesh hates Him.

 

I hate doing this, but I have no recourse other than this.

I struggled for years with the idea of Limited Atonement. I was basically a 4 point Calvinist. Then I got Owen on "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." I am not a proponent of Particular Redemption, or Limited Atonement. Owen spends quite a bit of time on this verse, 1 John 2:2, and it convinced me. I cannot, off the top of my head, reproduce his argument, so I will say, please do yourself the lifelong favor of reading him.

I started reading it in 2001, then started again in 2005. I finally complete it in 2019.

 

Not redeemed in the sense of having its sins paid for. It will be new. Romans 8:18-23.

 

It is worth reading. To The Reader he poses this question, ". . . To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned? . . ." Matthew 25:41. Notice that the lost get the Devil's Hell.

 

Of course.
Romans 8:34, ". . . Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, . . ." 2 Peter 2:1 and its cross reference Jude 1:4.

 

Yes. Agreed. But he does start from the premise that Christ died specifically atoning for each and every sin that each and every elect person will ever do or did. And so I think he draws the conclusion that if one single person were to be lost and were one of the one's Christ paid for their sins then there would be a kind of double payment in operation in that case. He's right. And if you are as camped on the absolute sovereignty of God as hard Calvinists are that's the end of the argument.

But did Owen believe that you were actually justified and saved before you come to Christ? If not, then somehow the atonement was actually applied at a later date. So when someone notices that we have a scriptural warrant to come to Christ and be saved the the only limitation God is putting on them is that they won't come - not that there is a possibility that they are already outside the atonement which has already been done. So then, they say the atonement is not limited - at least not at our level as humans. What we need to do is come, and if we do we will find, on the promise of scripture, that the atonement covers us. Lastly, if we believe that we will not come on our own, but that we will only have saving faith as a gift from God, then we are monergists and 4 pointers in the sense that we don't believe that Christ not dying for someone was the reason they were lost.

 

The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2, and all 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9

 

Martin the fact that you continue to deny clear scripture says a lot. I have shown both the Greek and the English but you still cling to your errant view. Why is that?

You continue to limit what God can and does do so that it fits your philosophy. If you can or rather will not see the inclusive language in that verse it is only because you are being willfully blind to the truth.

Please explain to me how Christ being the propitiation for our sins and ALSO for the whole world, as 1 John 2:2 states, supports you case that He is not the propitiation for the whole world.

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

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 1Joh_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

 

We take up here the passages taken by some to teach a general atonement.

A. John 3:16; 1 John 2:2.

In both passages the word "world" is used
in connection with the saving work of Christ.

One speaks of God as loving the "world,"
and the other speaks of Christ
as being a propitiation for the sins of the whole "world."

Against the interpretation given of these passages
by the advocates of a general atonement we reply:

(a) A love that would cause God to give Christ
to die for each individual man of Adam's race
would also cause Him to save all.*

*(first there must be an understanding of sin, in Total Depravity,
then, a genuine, Spiritual, experience of Salvation,
thirdly, an understanding of Election,
THEN, a study of the Limited Atonement can be fruitful.)

Why should God discriminate between men in saving them
if He loved all of them with the greatest of all love?
See Rom 8:32.

(b) There would be no real expression of love
in sending a Saviour to die vainly for men.

What kind of love is it that performs an act
that cannot really benefit?

Would there be any real love shown by a father
in buying a beautiful picture for a son that is totally blind?

(c) That God does not love all men without exception is proved,
as already stated, by the declaration:

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13).

Did God love Pharaoh? (Rom. 10:17).

Did He love the Amalekites? (Ex. 17:14).

Did He love the Canaanites,
whom He commanded to be extirpated without mercy?
(Deut. 18:3).

Does He love the workers of iniquity? (Psa. 5:5).

Does He love the vessels or wrath fitted for destruction,
whom He endures with much long-suffering? (Rom. 9:22)"
(Haldane, Atonement, p. 113).

(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.

It is the only theory that is compatible with the justice of God.

God's justice demanded that Christ pay
the exact penalty of the sins of those who are saved.

His justice also demands
that He save all whose penalty Christ paid.

This is an axiomatic proposition.

It is also a scriptural proposition.

What is the meaning of 1 John 1:9,
in stating that God is "just to forgive our sins,"
if it does not mean that the forgiveness of our sins
is an act of justice toward Christ?

The theory of a limited atonement alone
leaves any just reason for the condemnation
of unrepentant sinners.

If a general atonement has been made,
then there is no justice in sending any sinner to hell.

If it is sufficient for all men, then it demands the acquittal of all.

Since the atonement was demanded
as a satisfaction of God's justice,
its efficiency must equal its sufficiency.

The same justice
that demands that the penalty of sin be paid,

just as emphatically
demands that the sinner be liberated

when the payment has been made.

There is absolutely no ground either in Scripture or reason
for making a distinction between the atonement
and the application of it,
or between atonement and redemption or reconciliation,
as to their extent or value.

Atonement, redemption, and reconciliation
all apply to the objective basis of pardon,
and they all alike apply to actual pardon.

"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).

"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, (= peculiar election on the part of God)
and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
( = limited redemption on the part of Christ
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).

"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).



from: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

 

I'm saying that they and I are saying that your position of God Sentencing Christ to die for those who would wind up in Hell, is not only the flesh, but Blasphemous Double Jeopardy, against the Nature and Justise of God.

That is sin, for those who know what sin is
and sin to be repented of, for those who know what repentance is.

For those who have their Bible explode Blasphemy against God, into their face ever time they "just read the Bible", I suggest they get a new one and, also, to get rid of their heart of flesh, if they get the chance.

 

Alan that was a nice long article that you copy pasted but it does not deal with 1Jn 2:2. To deny what the text clearly says in favour of your philosophy does not do you well. I know how the word "world" is used in the bible but what you are forgetting is context. As long as you or the ones you copy paste ignore context they will not understand the text correctly.

 

Alan I can understand your reluctance to hear the truth as you have committed yourself to a man made philosophy. You have been locked into a deterministic theology and have come to trust it rather than the bible.

The fact that you will not accept what the bible teaches is to say the least hard to understand.
The bible tells us God desires all to be saved 1Ti_2:3-4 but you disagree.
The bible says Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all 1Ti_2:6 and you say nope did not happen.
We are told that Christ died for all us ungodly, sinners Rom 5.6-10 you say it was only for the "elect"

So who do you think I should trust, you or the bible?

 

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.

________


*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).

 

Me. Throw "your Bible"

away.

 

Have you ever heard of,
"comparing scripture with scripture?

I know you hadn't heard that
there is Only One Way that Salvation is Accomplished.

"It is observed that Christ is said, in ver. 6 (of 1 Tim. 2), to give Himself a ransom for all, which is understood of all men in particular;

but it should be observed also, that this ransom is 'antilutron huper panton,' a vicarious ransom substituted in the room and stead of all whereby a full price was paid for all, and a plenary satisfaction made for the sins of all which cannot be true of every individual man for then no man could be justly condemned and punished . . .

It is better by 'all men' to understand some of all sorts . . ." (John Gill, Cause of God and Truth, p. 51).

1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:11. The word "all" appears in both of these passages. But this word is used in the Scripture in a variety of senses. By no means is it always used in the absolute.

Note a few of its limited uses:

(1) A great number (Matt. 3:5; 4:24; 14:35).

(2) All kinds and classes (Matt. 23:47; Luke 2:10; John 12:32; Acts 13:10; Rom. 1:29; 15:14. 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim 6:10).

(3) All with manifest exceptions (Mark 11:30; Acts 2:46,47; 1 Cor. 6:18; 8:32; 9:22; 10:33; Titus 1:15).

(4) All or every one of a certain class (Luke 3:21; Rom. 5:18-last part; 1 Cor. 8:2 compared with vs. 7 and 11; 15:22-last part; Col. 1:28).

Thus we can easily see that the meaning of "pas" must be determined according to the context and according to the teaching of Scripture in general.

Therefore, in view of what has been said about the unscriptural implications of the idea that Christ died for all men without exception, we affirm that "pas" in the foregoing passages is used in the second sense listed above, and that the meaning is men of "every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues," a cross section of which we find depicted in Rev. 7:9.

"comparing scripture with scripture?

The "all" for which Christ died is exactly coterminous with the "all" He draws to Him (John 12:31).

It is all without distinction rather than all without exception.

"comparing scripture with scripture?

"'Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time' (1 Tim. 2:6),

should be interpreted by Christ's own words:

"comparing scripture with scripture?

'Even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.' (Matt. 20:28).

And when Christ said, 'If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me' (John 12:32), He certainly did not mean every sinner of Adam's race;

for it would be notoriously untrue;

but He meant all conditions and races of men, and, savingly, only all men given Him by the Father" (The Seven Dispensations, P. 102)

"comparing scripture with scripture?

 

For someone who likes to use the term "Comparing Scripture with Scripture," you sure do use a lot of extra-biblical sources. UGH! Typical of the Calvinist set. Also, the interpretation of Scripture that you seem to draw isn't necessarily the same one that others come to COMPARING SCRIPTURE with Scripture. We all are aware that not ALL will come Christ, yet, if Christ didn't die for ALL, then the Bible is a lie, and his death is of none effect.