1 John 2:2 and Limited Atonement

Do you also have one for Calvin claiming that we "we seem to have an arminian text" when it comes to scripture?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that one would be historically impossible....

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Let us look at 1John 2 with the redefinition that Calvinism "needs" for the person of the 2nd part (We/Us/Our) and redefine that to mean "elect Jews only" so that "World" can be redefined to mean "Elect GEntiles and Elect Jews Only" or more precisely "The arbitrarily elect few of Matt 7" .

Click to expand...

As I previously said, this is irrelevant. The Jew/Gentile distinction is not made in this passage and has nothing to do with it. Your post is a waste of space because it doesn't address any relevant issue.

russell55,

I agree with you that in this century Catholics are Pelagian. My point was that Augustine believed in what Calvin wrote down in Calvin's Institutes. Calvin got his theology vicariously. It is my understanding that Catholics believe today, in the free will of human beings and that we have a responsibility toward God to choose Christ as our Savior. Roman Catholic theology has evolved over the vast centuries.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Scott,

Those were good quotes - what were the references?

Do you also have one for Calvin claiming that we "we seem to have an arminian text" when it comes to scripture?

In Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

In Calbin's Commentary to on the Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, 1979), 64-65, Calvin writes concerning John 1:29:

"And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hense we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteiousness before God, they need to be reconsciled to him. JOhn the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy."

Also in his commentary to Galatians and Ephesians, (Grand Rapids, 1979) he writes about Galatians 5:12

"Would that they were cut off. His indignation proceeds still further, and he prays for destruction on the imposters by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word "cut off" appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. 'They tear the Church for the sake of circumcision: with they were cut entirely off." Chrysosum favours this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who out to wish that all should be saved and therefore that not one should perish. So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.

Othere refereneces that the atonement of Christ as for the sins of the whole human race are found in Institutes 3.1.1; Eternal Predestination of God, 9.5, and his commentaries on Isaiah 53:12, Romans 5:15, and Collosians 1:15.

In Institutes 3.24.16, Calvin states that Paul "assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of me: that on the contrary, he had manifested his mercy in such a way, that he would have none debarred from it."

Does this help?

Scott - very helpful, thank you.

But "In Calbin's Commentary to "?

In Christ,

Bob

Pastor Larry
As I previously said, this is irrelevant. The Jew/Gentile distinction is not made in this passage and has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

I fully agree that the Elect Jew vs Elect Gentile is not what John is conrasting in the book of 1John - but some Calvinists do respond with that argument for 1John 2 trying to redefine "Whole World" down to "just - the Elect Gentiles".

In is just one turn in the never ending process of having to redefine the scope of "World" and "whole World" and "all mankind" down to something that will fit Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

Brother Bob,

Just curious, have you read The Potter's Freedom by Dr. James White. It is his reply to Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free. If you haven't, it might help you to see how Calvinism is Biblically coherent as a systematic theology. Now, you may not agree with Calvinism, but it is coherent as it interprets the Bible.

Are there problems with certain verses for Calvinists - yes sirree. Are there problems with certain verses for non-Calvinists - yes sirree. Otherwise, this forum wouldn't exist to butt heads over these verses.

Ken

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Scott - very helpful, thank you.

But "In Calbin's Commentary to "?

In Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

Sorry - only using nine fingers now. Tragic blender accident.

Ken, I have not read James White's book but will look into it. For the record, I have no doubt that there are good rational arguments for Calvinism and I observe that some of them have been presented on this forum.

But as I have tried to show - I think that in the larger picture the salient points of the true distinctives of Calvinism do not stand whereas the salient points in the true distinctives of the Arminian view are found explicitly (rather than by implication only).

Scott,

I was not meaning to complain - just wanted to be sure there was not a new commentary out there.

Bob

Originally posted by BobRyan:
some Calvinists do respond with that argument for 1John 2 trying to redefine "Whole World" down to "just - the Elect Gentiles".

Click to expand...

Who?? I have never scene any one argue this. Can you direct me to a source for it?

The reality is that there is no one trying to redefine the scope of the world. The world is clearly not always in reference to all men without distinction. That is simply a narrowminded reading of the text and there is no way to make it stand up. The question is, what connotation does "world" have in 1 John 2:1. It is not about redefinition. It is about proper understanding. To chase that redefinition idea is to chase a straw man. A word has meaning only in context ... its relationship with the other words in the sentence.

Pastor Larry,

Using the Jews/Gentile model to redefine "Whole World" down to the level of "elect Gentiles" is a common practice outside of this board.

However a recent example ON this board may be found..

Grateful4Grace
Limited Atonement - Unanswerable Question Pg 4
posted August 31, 2002 03:20 PM

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000249;p=4

Grateful4Grace to Bob:

Without going too deep into it, I would remark that your passage in IJn. for instance was written to a Jewish colony in Parthia by the apostle John. The Jews LONG had a problem with assimilating with Gentiles, and Peter is certainly a choice example of that in being amazed that God would even SAVE a gentile... It is my persuasion that the verse you mention is speaking to this problem... that Jesus was not a sacrifice for US... the JEWS only, but for those of other nations as well.. the whole world.

Click to expand...

(John 11:51-52 NKJV) Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, {52} and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

(John 12:19-20 NKJV) The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!" {20} Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast.

(John 14:22 NKJV) Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"

Ken

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Pastor Larry,

Using the Jews/Gentile model to redefine "Whole World" down to the level of "elect Gentiles" is a common practice outside of this board.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. I was misunderstanding you.

But my point is still that we are not redefining the "whole world" down to anything. YOu are assuming your definition is right, something which we do not accept without you dealing with the obviously problems involved in it, like "If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men without exception, then how can God send anyone to hell for sins that have been paid for?"