Do you REALLY understand 1 John 2:2?

What is your point from this story?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Diane, that is precisely why we cannot say that "the whole world" or "world" in Scripture means "all men without exception." There are times when "whole world" doesn't mean all men without exception, and these two passage you have put side by side indicate that.

 

Larry, you say:

"Diane, that is precisely why we cannot say that "the whole world" or "world" in Scripture means "all men without exception." There are times when "whole world" doesn't mean all men without exception, and these two passage you have put side by side indicate that."

It is evident from 1 John 2:2, that there is a clear distinction to be made between "our sins", and "the whole world". Who does the "our sins" refer to?. Its cannot be restricted to Jewish believers. John says: "I write to you little children, because your sins are forgiven for His Name's sake" (verse 12). Is this also meant to be just for Jewish believers? Is there any evidence from this Epistle, that John distinguished between Jewish and Gentile believers? When John says in 4:5-6, "they are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God..."

Does John mean by "they are of the world", the Gentile believers; and by "we are of God", the Jewish believers? From this we must then conclude, that the Jewish believers "alone" are "of God", whereas the Gentile belivers are "of the world"?

The ONLY was that all this can make Biblical sense, is, when we apply "the whole world" in 2:2, and "world" in 4:5, to mean the unsaved, in contrast with believers. Anything else if forcing the Scriptures to say something that it really does not. We must not be guilty of making Scriptures support our doctrines. Rather, we must be guided by Scripture which must be able to "correct" our doctrines, when they are in clear contradiction with the Word of God

 

I am just listing the details in the text - and admitting to them.

 

Quoting that to show that like the use of Hilasmos in Lev 16 and Ezek 44 as "sin offering" - I would be happy with EITHER "Atoning Sacrifice" OR "Sin offering" in 1John 2:2.

Take your pick.

</font>[/QUOTE]I don't remember if I added Ezek 44 to this topic - but just in case..

NASB translates Hilasmos as “Sin offering” –

 

I realize that many on these boards are KJO, but this might be intersting in this discussion.

The NIV translators went back to the original and oldest manuscripts of the biblical texts in the original languages. They were united i ntheir commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's word, they made accuracy their first concern. They read, and re-read, and then sent passages on to others to proof and edit. They were theologians, historians, and experts in ancient languages.

This team of men stated, regarding 1 John 2:2 and the phrase "For the sins of the whole world," "Forgiveness through Christ's atoning sacrifice is not limited to one particular group only; it has worldwide application. It must, however, be received by faith (See John 3:16),. Thus this verse does not teach universalism (that all people ultimately will be saved), but that God is an impartial God.

 

#1. It presents Christ's work in the (Hebrew) Scriptural POV of an "atoning sacrirfice". This is the background that John would have had for the framework into which the death of Christ is centered. It is the explanation of that event - rather than the pagan Greek concept of "appeasing a pagan deity for favor" - i.e. "Propitiation".

So I appreciate their work in translating Hilasmos consistently here.

#2. "and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD" does NOT translate to "universalism" because the ACT - is the "atoning sacrifice" and NOT "currying God's favor" or "sacrificing to GET God's favor".

This means that although the scope of the sacrific (the atoning sacrifice) is unlimited it is not the entire work of acceptance and forgiveness that is accomplished at the cross - but rather the "SIN OFFERING" which forms the BASIS for acceptance and forgiveness.

The result is that the Work of Christ in heaven "still has meaning" in that "Atonement framework" and the act of the individual in accpeting/claiming that sacrifice still has meaning.

#3. Conversely - arguing that rather than the "Atoning Sacrifice" being completed - it is actually the entire Lev 16 atonement process INCLUDING the High Priestly work of Christ that ENDS at the cross -- would mean that the unlimited scope explicitly stated there - results in "universalism".

Hence my insistance that we not get sloppy with that pesky detail about "sin offering" and "atoning sacrifice" rather than "propitiation" and "completed atonement".

In Christ,

Bob

 

As the previous post shows -- Calvinism mixes one part error with one part truth to get its "motivation" for revising the text of 1John 2:2 so it can "avoid universalism".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Christ's atonement does not need to be received by man at all for it to be 100% effective.

The atonement is similar in nature to say the state of Texas removing from it laws the death penalty. Those who were convicted and awaiting their execution suddenly by the signing of the bill, changed status from condemned to death for the crime to condemned to life imprisonment. By the stroke of a pen, their status changed.

The same thing happened to mankind. Before the Atonement all men were under the death penalty. Because of the atonement, the death penalty has been removed from man for his crimes. It had nothing to do with man persay but was a "mandated law of God" that was applied to all men, then arbitrarily changed by God, the same God who established the death penalty.

God removed completely the requirement for Works righteousness, obedience to all the law, as the requirement for man's salvation, and substituted the death of His only begotten Son as payment in full of that penalty for all mankind in all times.

The new unilateral covenant of God with man then is one of FAITH, not works. Both covenants required Obedience, Both covenants required FAITH! but this new covenant requires nothing but FAITH, because FAITH spawns repentance from sin, FAITH produces the fruits of the spirit in man. FAITH is what God seeks from man, nothing more!

Do men continue to die? Yes, but for lack of FAITH, not because of sin! ONLY those with FAITH in God, especially God the Son, receive Everlasting life through their faith. That is the message from Jesus in John 3:16 and many other scriptures.

Can one have FAITH and continue sinning? Yes! But if one does not have a contrite, repentant spirit, there is no evidence of FAITH! If man can see that in another, most assuredly God also sees that.

The Christ's atonement set all condemned men FREE from the death penalty, and placed the cause of death (the second death) squarely on Lack of FAITH.

Atonement removed the death penalty of sin from ALL mankind!

 

Two contradictory statements. Either the atonement set me free from the death penalty or it did not. You can't have it both ways. Continuing with your wrong idea of atonement leads you to continually contradict yourself.

 

Larry,
Before Christ, men died from the natural life without the benefit of ever seeing Him. They were under the covenant of law where if one sins' one is condemned to death. The atonement for sin SET THEM FREE from the death penalty. Jesus went to them upon his death and preached the Gospel to them, and those who believed were saved. Now virtually all should have believed, but we have no record of that so it would be pure speculation to say that it is true.

After Christ, with the Atonement a finished work of God, man is not under the penalty of sin, because Jesus paid that penalty ONCE, for ALL.

There is no contradiction whatever in what I posted. Sin no longer results in the second death! Those who died before Christ and those who die after Christ are equals, but because we, after Christ, have all of the truth we have no excuse for not believing! Therefore any who die without faith, die the second death for that reason, not for the cause of sin!

 

You are repeating yourself, and we have shown how your position is a contradiction of Scripture before. Your repetition of it doesn't change that.

If Jesus paid for all sins, then unbelief must have been paid for. Therefore, no one can go to hell for unbelief if Jesus paid for all sins. The fact that you say Jesus paid for all sins and people go to hell for unbelief is a contradiction.

If people go to hell for unbelief, then Jesus did not pay for that sin.

Scripture tells us clearly that people go to hell for sins, not only for the sin of unbelief, but for other sins as well.

To say any who die without faith, die the second death for that reason, not for the cause of sin! is a nonsensical statement. It is absurd to say that people who die without faith (which is a sin) don't die for their sin. It is an absolute and clear contradiction.

 

Perhaps God does not count unbelief as a sin.

I don't see unbelief as a sin. Unbelief is a condition of one's spirit! Not something that one does! Unbelief is quite simply stated "lacking belief", Not having belief as a possession or part of one's make-up.

No one goes around committing either "belief", or "Unbelief". Not having belief is not a crime! It is a terminal condition, if not changed to belief, but not a crime (sin).

 

Please be careful when you quote me. Your post indicates that I posted that men do not need to receive Christ. I did not post that, nor do I believe that. I believe, with all my heart, that Christ died for each of us, but that we must choose to receive the pardon He offers us.

 

As I read this thread, it occurred to me that, whether you mean it to or not, a great number of you are coming across as if to say:

"It doesn't matter whether you have a relationship with Christ or not, He died for everyone, so everyone is saved."

Now, I'm 99.9% sure none of you really mean to say that, but I can't help wondering if you've ever read what you're writing from the eyes of an unbeliever. You see, that's kind of a common agnostic viewpoint. "Doesn't matter what you do or say, if God exists he won't punish anyone in the end."


Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father, except by me."

Christ also said that there will be men who say, "I taught in your name," and that Christ will say, "I never knew you."

Christ Himself clearly states that you must have a relationship with Christ.

So, how do you folks think that relationship comes about? Whether you believe in predestination or not? Where do you fit the words of Christ into this debate?

 

Simply pointing out the error of the text you quoted, which declares that the Atonement must be received by faith...

Atonement does not require man's interplay whatever, it is a finished work of God.

Jesus is who must be received by faith, not what he did. We do not have Jesus walking among us and haven't for 2000 years, so the only way that we have Jesus is by faith!

Furthermore, the Atonement is not forgiveness for sin! Atonement is the removal of the death penalty for sin from man, so that man can through faith have everlasting life.

The wage of sin is death? Not since Jesus atoned for ALL sin in ALL Times. However, if you do not have faith in Jesus, you will be cast into the lake of fire IN YOUR SIN CONDITION! Our sins are not forgiven by the Atonement of Christ! Sins can only be forgiven through confession and repentance!

 

He has already commented on that, and affirmed that unbelief is sin.

That is irrelevant, since your opinion doesn't matter. God has spoken and ended all discussion about it.

 

This sounds like the Calvinist argument for limited atonement since the choice is either limited or universal.

In 1John 2 the "Atoning sacrifice" is unlimited in scope. Using your defintion above - all mankind is fully atoned for - and in that case Calvinism is right it is either universalism or you need to rework 1Johhn 2 to make it "limited in scope".

Fortunately the "Atoning sacrifice" is not where God's Lev 16 teaching on "Atonement" ends the story of Atonement.

In God's Word the High Priestly ministry of Christ is ALSO part of that "Atonement process" not just the "atoning sacrifice".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Simply not true! I presume you are speaking of

As you can see in verse two, John scares away any notion that the Christ's atonement is limited by anything except the totality of mankind.

 

He has already commented on that, and affirmed that unbelief is sin.

That is irrelevant, since your opinion doesn't matter. God has spoken and ended all discussion about it. </font>[/QUOTE]You have not been very convincing! Show me how one commits "unbelief" so that it can be seen as a sin.