A verse for Calvinist

[Shortandy]

I am curious how a Calvinist views 1 John 2:2. For that matter how does the non-calvinist see this verse?

 

[donnA]

The bible is made up not of one verse, but as a whole, and thats how each verse must be read, as a whole with the rest of the bible. we call it context.

 

[Havensdad]

I am curious how a Calvinist views 1 John 2:2. For that matter how does the non-calvinist see this verse?

Hey, thanks for the question.

First, I would just like to show you another verse that uses the same language...(by the same author, I might add)

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Now I must ask you a question. Are you a universalist? Do you believe every single person that has ever lived will go to heaven?

Secondly, there are translation issues with this verse. First, the Greek word for "whole", can ALSO mean "throughout". (As in "the cancer was spread throughout his body" for example). And the word "ours" can be "yours". So this verse could just as well read, and be translated:

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins throughout the world.

or

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for your sins, and not for your sins only, but also for the sins throughout the world.

So one possibility (and the more likely one) is that He is speaking of believers around the world, whose sins will be forgiven. One thing we know He is NOT saying, is that everyones sins are paid for. If they were, scripture would be contradictory, for states that God punishes sin. Yet if Christ had already taken that punishment, God would not be punishing sin, but simply exhibiting wrath for no reason.

 

[Grasshopper]

John Gill:

1Jo 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins,.... For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews:

and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:

but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world"


Geneva Study Bible:

1Jo 2:2 - And he is the (b) propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the (c) whole world.

(b) Reconciliation and intercession go together, to give us to understand that he is both advocate and high priest.

(c) For men of all sorts, of all ages, and all places, so that this benefit being not to the Jews only, of whom he speaks as appears in (1Jo_2:7) but also to other nations.






How could Jesus appease the wrath of God for every man yet some men still have to pay the penalty? It doesn't say "made propitiation possible".

Propitiation means satisfaction or appeasment, specifically towards God. Propitiation is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross by which He appeases the wrath of God who would otherwise be offended by our sin and demand that we pay the penalty for it. The concept of propitiation is often associated with the idea of a substitutionary atonement.

 

[jdlongmire]

Better yet, let's see what John Calvin has to say about it:

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Sucha monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ [63] suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

From his commentaries

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon, on what some Calvinists do when Scripture doesn't fit their "grand theory" [I Tim. 2:4]:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

 

[TCGreek]

I just take the verse within its context, immediate and remote. :thumbs:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Spurgeon, on what some Calvinists do when Scripture doesn't fit their "grand theory" [I Tim. 2:4]:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

Unfortunately, Spurgeon is dead and therefore we cannot ask him to comment on the following Scripture:

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:18

So, according to Paul, the gospel, or the preaching of it, have reached all the earth, even unto the ends of the world.

Does this mean including Southeast Asia, and the islands thereof, all of the Eastern Hemisphere and all of the Western Hemisphere, and all the islands and nations of the world, at the time that Paul wrote and the times that he refers to ?

In other words, just as Arminians and semi-Pelagians and Mr. Spurgeon says "all" men means all of mankind and not just classes of mankind, then the phrase "all the earth", and the phrase "ends of the world" means that there is not one island, not one nation, and not one race or tribe that the gospel has not been heard or made known. Right ?

 

[skypair]

I am curious how a Calvinist views 1 John 2:2. For that matter how does the non-calvinist see this verse?

Non-Cal, here. :wavey:

Christ paid the price for every sin of the spirit (mind, emotions, and will) and of the flesh of every man, woman, and child who are accountable. What He did not die for is unbelief of the soul -- your "eternal" determinant.

How do we know this? Because EVERYONE who ever lived will be resurrected from death and the grave to bow before God in a resurrection body, released from hell if that was their "path." Now tell me -- why wouldn't they just be cast into the lake of fire like Satan, the beast, the fp, etc. without a hearing if that hearing was not to show them justly that they had not availed themselves of the 'book of life?'

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hey, thanks for the question.

First, I would just like to show you another verse that uses the same language...(by the same author, I might add)

Need I remind you of 2Tim 2:14 -- "... charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."

Use common sense, Hdad (which I realize is not very common among Calvies and "Christian" academia today). Was God saying what He wanted to say or was John mistaken?

So one possibility (and the more likely one) is that He is speaking of believers around the world, whose sins will be forgiven.

"When the plain sense make good sense, seek no other sense." It's a reliable saying, Hdad. You ought to try it sometime. :laugh: It reduces the "possibilities" enormously!

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

Heeeelllllloooooo!!!!

Any of the "all" means "all" and nothing more care to explain if "all the earth" means "all the earth" and nothing more ?

Third time I've posted that on threads on this board, and conveniently ignored.

 

[readmore]

Heeeelllllloooooo!!!!

Any of the "all" means "all" and nothing more care to explain if "all the earth" means "all the earth" and nothing more ?

Third time I've posted that on threads on this board, and conveniently ignored.

So "all" means "all"? Or "all the earth"--these mean something more?
Though thrice he had inquired this upon the Baptist Board,
Each time he found that he had been conveniently ignored.
So the claim continues on, that "all" means "all" in Bible lore...
Merely this and nothing more.

 

[pinoybaptist]

So "all" means "all"? Or "all the earth"--these mean something more?
Though thrice he had inquired this upon the Baptist Board,
Each time he found that he had been conveniently ignored.
So the claim continues on, that "all" means "all" in Bible lore...
Merely this and nothing more.

A bard !
Now I've seen everything on this heah boahd !
:laugh::wavey: :thumbs:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Oh, precious Lord;
How fast the posts fly on this board;
so that the "all" means all and nothing means more"-er;
conveniently forgets to reply to this question-er;
pointing perhaps to the fact;
that they saw the post and was about to act;
but, lo, and behold the next time they looked;
another post came up that tickled their fancy and they got hooked.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Unfortunately, Spurgeon is dead and therefore we cannot ask him to comment on the following Scripture:

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:18


So, according to Paul, the gospel, or the preaching of it, have reached all the earth, even unto the ends of the world.

Does this mean including Southeast Asia, and the islands thereof, all of the Eastern Hemisphere and all of the Western Hemisphere, and all the islands and nations of the world, at the time that Paul wrote and the times that he refers to ?

In other words, just as Arminians and semi-Pelagians and Mr. Spurgeon says "all" men means all of mankind and not just classes of mankind, then the phrase "all the earth", and the phrase "ends of the world" means that there is not one island, not one nation, and not one race or tribe that the gospel has not been heard or made known. Right ?

Oh, Lord, Here I go again:
Copying and pasting my own posting;
So that wisdom I may gain;
From the "all means all" crowd who are aherm-ing and a-hem-ing;
Trying to figure out how to properly explain;
Within their definition of "all means all" Paul's own posting.
(why am I sounding like a bard ? It's readmore's fault.)



Takers, please ?
According to Paul, even before our friend John of Japan had gone to Japan, and even before the great "heroes" like Carey and company left heart and hearth to obey the "great commission", the preachers of the gospel had been heard by the Burmese, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Incas, the Africans, the Indians, and all the ends of the earth.

 

[readmore]

(why am I sounding like a bard ? It's readmore's fault.)

Sorry, I didn't realize what I was getting into.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Sorry, I didn't realize what I was getting into.

Not to worry, my friend readmore;
truth to tell, you have brought out a lot in me, and more;
didn't know that I had in memory a store;
of ways to rhyme, bard, and play with words galore;
although a true bard like you will probably get earsore.

heeehaaawww !!!

 

[JerryL]

Here's another worthy verse. Who is doing the granting here?

Php 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Php 1:30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

 

[Rippon]

Here's another worthy verse. Who is doing the granting here?

Php 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Php 1:30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

I just read this last night. In Phil. 1:29 granted means God gives "graciously and freely".This passage really nails the fact that the Lord does in fact give saving faith.

 

[JerryL]

Why did it get so deathly quiet on this thread? Is this verse sounding an alarm in some ears?