1 John 2:2

You are right, it is a "stretch" to assume this applies to only the elect because the verse itself separates the elect from the "whole world" with one little phrase that says "and not for OURS ONLY, but ALSO for the whole world".

The Calvinist will attempt to accuse those who read this verse literally the way it was written, as being universalists, which means they have to redefine "propitiation" as being saved, when that's not what propitiation means. Propitiation (hilasterion) means that the payment necessary to appease God for sin was satisfied in Christ. The 'getting' of that propitiation is through faith:

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" Romans 3:25

John Calvin commented that the latter half of verse 1 John 2:2 was to the "dispersed of the elect" throughout the whole world, but that is in direct conflict with what the verse actually says. This would have the effect of making every single verse in the NT have a limited application to ONLY those people to whom it was written to, and only having an effect toward future readers if there were a qualifier (such as "and also the whole world") and thus there would never be any objective determination as to who the audience is.

If the audience intended by John were all elect, then it can not be assumed that the latter half of verse 2 is some kind of different elect that has not yet been gathered because John himself does not make that kind of distinction. Such a distinction must be deliberately eisegeted into the text when the plain reading of the verse shows that the "US ONLY" and "ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" are a different class of people, the latter of which are clearly ALL unsaved prospects without limitation.

 

Jon, I don't feel it is a stretch as you say. Looking at scripture as a whole and not looking at individual verses to make or break a doctrine is how we should approach our study.

I have MacArthurs commentary and feel he states this as well. I also have Gill's commentary and he says the whole world is referring to the Gentiles as John's readers were mostly Jews.

I will have to side with Johnny Mac, for I feel there is more evidence of limited atonement than there is unlimited. Anyway, have you ever read John Owen's "the Death of the death of Christ". He gives a good argument for limited atonement in that if Christ did die for all mankind, then it must have been an inferior atonement since we know not all are saved. It places the most emphasis one man's choosing than on Christ's payment. It makes Christ out to be less than all powerful. That isn't the God I read of in scripture, is it for you? I pray we all are revealed the truth on this and leave our presuppositions at the door. Amen

 

JonC,

John's audience in 1 John is believers (2:1 "little children"). That fact becomes important when understanding who the "whole world" is in 2:2.

John writes that Jesus Christ is the satisfaction (propitiation) for "our sins" (himself and the believers he is writing to). He does not state that Jesus Christ is a possible satisfaction, but the (definite article) satisfaction. That means the object of Christ's satisfaction has most definitely had his sins atoned for. The object of Christ's satisfaction in 2:2 is "the whole world". If we take this passage in its plain normative meaning then we should conclude that the whole world has had its sins atoned for (satisfied). Well, unless a person has a bent towards Universalism we know that is not true. How could we say that a person who dies in their sins has had their sins atoned for apart from being born again?

John MacArthur believes what the vast majority of Reformed theologians have taught; that "the whole world" is a reference to a sub group - the elect. They would support this interpretation by pointing out that nowhere in this, or preceding passages, does John reference unbelievers. In verse 3 John goes right back to addressing believers only, "By this we know that we have come to know Him...".

 

As I usually say after going back and forth on these type of debates, we must leave this at the feet of the throne of God for it truly is a mystery. God elects only some and man must respond in faith.

 

John Owen is real hard to read, unless you are accustomed to reading the Puritans. He was definitely one of the most revered theologians from 400-500 years ago. Check out Monergism website.

 

JonC,

I can see the criticism against a Reformed hermeneutic being that it reads into the text what is not there. I would counter that the ramification of satisfaction being made for the sins of all men would, indeed, lead to a Universalist view. That said, I generally take from John 2:2 the efficacy of Christ's atonement for those who believe. I have never argued definite atonement from that verse, although my theological presupposition certainly leads me there.

Peace.

 

Here's an online copy of the book in pdf format: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.pdf

Now most readers who have the printed version enjoy the forward by J I Packer for it is very well written and easy to understand. I did a search and found it as well:

http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html

I would read this first--enjoy and God bless.

 

JonC, fair enough. It certainly is an important doctrine and it deserves serious, prayerful consideration.

Blessings.

 

It is just nice to have a civil discussion and not what we usually see in here.

 

Brother, you have no problems with that passage as that is exactly what is saying. Propitiation is the appeasement of God's wrath against sin, it is not automatic salvation for the elect. In the same way the Passover lambs slaughter appeased the requirement for the death Angel to pass over, its blood had to be applied to the door post in order to fulfill it happening.