I John 2:2

[Southern]

Bro. Tony,
My interpretation is consistent with how this phraseology is used by John (John 10:50ff;Rev. 5:9) and this is the way the hearers would have understood it. The "World" was a way to speak of the Gentiles "generically" (Rom. 11:12.)

This may not fit your Americanized preconcieved idea of what this should mean and you may not like this but your attempt to interpret this passage in light of what your 20th Century mindset wants it to say does nothing to those who interpret this verse in it's Grammatical and Historical context. You must insert your Arminianism into this phrase rather than ask how the original readers would have understood it to uphold your Arminian view.

In Christ...

 

[GeneMBridges]

Then you are denying that it was God's choice to use a random method to assure that He remain not a respecter of men. That sounds like Calvinism is in fact degrading to God's Sovereignty to me.

Mike,

You need to get a grip on what Calvinism teaches. The definition of arbitrary is to do something without a purpose. Ephesians clearly says that election has a purpose. No Calvinist teaches that election is random. You have done exactly nothing to support your charge that we believe election is random. If it is in God, it can not, by definition be random.


If it is anchored in God which I agree it is then how can you account for God going against His own will?

Uh, if it is true that God's wants all people to be saved the way you mean it, then all people should be saved. Some are not. Calvinists realize this, therefore, we do not teach that God actively decrees that all people are saved. When the NT says things like this, it simply means God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, echoing the words of Ezekiel. He's talking about His feelings, not His decrees. Mike, you don't believe that election is anchored in God at all. You believe that election is dependent on saving faith, that is the definition of conditional election, which you say you believe. Election that is dependent on saving faith is, by definition, election that is ultimately anchored in man, not in God, unless you also believe that the only saving faith in man that anchors election is the saving faith that God Himself arranges for and provides, which is, in fact, the Calvinist view which you seek to deny.

If election is individual then why can't you show scripture to prove it is so. I can show scripture to prove that election is general.

Do you believe that you can lose your salvation? (I've asked you this multiple times now, and you have yet to answer). If so, then you've got a problem, because Romans 8:29/30 reads "Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and those whom He presdestined, He also called; and these whom he called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Now, the verbs here are all indicating completed action. So, if election is only general, you end up with universalism, Mike. To avoid this, Arminians try to insert the idea that only some of "these" is what is meant. However, if that is so, you end up with some that are called being justified, and, of those who are justified, only some are glorified. So, Mike, do you believe a saved person will not make it to heaven and can lose their salvation? If you believe there is absolutely nothing individual about election, and it is only general, then you must either end up with universalism or with the loss of salvation in this text. Which is it, Mike?

I certainly provide Scripture about individual election, Mike, especially since the Old Testatment is littered with examples of specific persons being elected, and these same examples are the ones Paul cites in reference to God's election of individuals to this very day. However, I'd rather not hijack at thread on the atonement in order to do so. If you think that the Scriptures you have posted are about general electon then by all means do so. (No, Calvinist would deny that election is general, but we would certainly deny that God does not elect individuals). However, I would point out that your view also says that God's foreknowledge is based on foreseen faith in others. It is no less deterministic than that of Calvinism, since that faith is already a fixed event. Oh, and if you believe that God was directing Paul and Barnabas, Paul and Silas, Barnabas and Mark, etc. to go to the places that they went in Acts (and it is very clear that is the case), then you have to subscribe to some kind of individual election, because in doing so, God was chosing who would hear the gospel and who would not hear the gospel, and thus whow would believe and not believe. Now, kindly start a thread on conditional, general election, and I'll be happy to pursue this further. This thread is about the atonement. The best you can do is say that God elects generally and in groups. Groups, Mike, are composed of individuals. Not all people in all groups believe and are saved, thus some kind of individual election must be happening in order for election to be general.

I don't know where you got this from, but it is an absolute deception. There is no scripture to back it up, it's only your logic and your logic cannot open the doors of Heaven. Many try to get in heaven by other means but we all have to go through Christ to get there.

C'mon, Mike, are you so out of touch with what your view teaches that you don't realize that to say the atonement is potential means that unbelief is a sin not paid for. Tell me, Mike, did Jesus pay for the sin of unbelief or not?

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

Which does nothing to support your view of a potential atonement. It says Jesus died for OUR sins. The action is complete, it is addressed to Christians. You have just quoted a verse that supports that Jesus Himself paid for the sins of Christians, all of those sins, including the sin of unbelief.

I'm still waiting for that Scripture that says that Jesus paid for all our sins, except for the sin of unbelief.

 

[Southern]

The following is interesting and helpful to this discussion:

A. W. Pink has a good note on the "also" here:


If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody; it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for 'our' sins and 'also' for everybody." There could be no "also" if 11e is the propitiation for the entire human family.

Taken from: http://www.fivesolas.com/crenshaw.htm

Arminians, Please read this link, if you get a chance.

 

[Bro Tony]

Bro. Tony,
My interpretation is consistent with how this phraseology is used by John (John 10:50ff;Rev. 5:9) and this is the way the hearers would have understood it. The "World" was a way to speak of the Gentiles "generically" (Rom. 11:12.)

This may not fit your Americanized preconcieved idea of what this should mean and you may not like this but your attempt to interpret this passage in light of what your 20th Century mindset wants it to say does nothing to those who interpret this verse in it's Grammatical and Historical context. You must insert your Arminianism into this phrase rather than ask how the original readers would have understood it to uphold your Arminian view.

In Christ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southern,

First let me say I understand your point of view I just don't agree with it. Historically or Grammatically your interpretation does not stand. I realize that there are times when the context of the term world refers to only a select group but in this verse that is not the case. Because you choose to interpret this verse in the same context of the passages of the Gospel of John and the passage in Revelation, does not make your decision to do so the correct one. When John wrote this Epistle he was writing to the Church, that fact has nothing to do with any 20th Century mindset. I could just as easily say to you that your mindset comes from the time of Calvin and the reformation. In the first Century he was talking to the Church not to Israel. that is the historical context. I must read it that way, because that is what he did. Again, you have changed that clear fact to fit your pre-conceive calvinistic theology. If not for that you would never view this verse in that context.

Secondly, you can keep your man made theological titles to yourself. I am not an Arminian, nor am I a Calvinist. Both groups taken to their extremes make the person who advocates them reject the clear meaning of Scripture. As you have done in this passage. It is the extremist in both camps that have set the parameters and placed labels on people. I will not accept your labels, because they don't fit. I will let the Bible frame my theology not yours or anybody else's man-made theologies. If you don't agree that is fine, it is a free country, you are free to choose to follow a man-made theology or the Bible. You choose.

Bro Tony

 

[Southern]

Bro. Tony,
You simply dismiss the references but I would like to point out that any one can see the clear parallel in John 11:

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

He says and "Not for that nation 'only'" but that He should gather together in one the "children of God" scattered abroad (outside the Jewish community, not just the Jews = "Whole world").

In I John 2:2, John says and not for "our" sins "only", but for the sins of the "whole world" (an extension outside of the Hebraic mindset of the day). This may not be what your 20th century interpretation of the words mean but it is consistent with the Grammatical Historical approach to interpreting the scriptures.

John was clearly speaking to the church as a Jew. You have to dismiss the obvious to protect your Arminian interpretation. This strand of thought is found throughout (Rev. 5:9;Rom. 11:2), but if you admit this, your precious prooftext falls to the ground.

Your interpretation also makes Johns point mere tauntology:

A. W. Pink has a good note on the "also" here:


If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody; it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for 'our' sins and 'also' for everybody." There could be no "also" if 11e is the propitiation for the entire human family.

.....

Your interpretation makes this verse mere tautology. Instead of seeing John making a reference such as that in John 11:50ff, you try to put a Western culture spin on it that doesnt fit the Hebraic mindset of the day.

In Christ

 

[Ray Berrian]

'No one denies that it is written to Christians, but this is not the issue.
We must also ask "Who" wrote the letter. The answer is John. We
know that John was a Jew and find phrases like this throughout his
writings (John 10:50ff.;Rev. 5:9) to refer to "not just us Jews". This is
consistent with the Hebrew mindset of the day.

You are trying to force a meaning into the words that they were not
intended to portray. We should be concerned to understand what they
would have understood this phrase to mean to the original hearers
and not to fit our 20th Century culture influenced mindset.

The Arminian has to ignore Johns usage of this idea of "not just us
only" but outside of Israel also(John 11:50ff;Rev. 5:9= World)
phraseology found in Johns writings and the Hebrew mindset to force
his interpretation into this verse.

It is not a new insight that John was a Jew. All the Apostolate were Israelites. The only writer of the N.T. was St. Luke and his writing of the Acts of the Apostles and, of course, the Book of St. Luke.

You like John 11:50 but notice verse 48 and the serious concern of the Jewish leadership that ' . . . all will believe on Him.' The Jews were opening wide their heart's door to the miracle working Messiah, our Savior.

Your 11:50 only destroys your idea because Caiaphas was hardly a follower of Jesus, thus not saved and it was out of the Israelite tradition that this happened on this day. This took place every year. So when you say that ' . . . it is expedient for us . . . ', John is referring to the Jewish tradition and you cannot now tie this in with a Christian comment made by the beloved disciple John in I John 2:2. Nice try.

And what does Revelation 5:9 have to do with I John 2:2. Nothing. John the Revelator is merely saying that those who enter Heaven have been ' . . . redeemed (us) to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, tongue, people and nation.' We agree with you that only the saved enter Heaven and enjoy the felicity of eternal life. Your-- ' . . . for us' concept simply means that you need to find a theological seminary near your home and take a course in Hermeneutics.

In my former post I showed how many doctors of the church disagree with your stilted and awkward view because you swallowed much, if not all, the theories of Calvinism. We are not fettered by either Calvinism or Arminianism, though there is more orthodoxy in the latter man's understanding of the holy Scripture.

We expect to hear this kind of thing from men like Drs. Sproul and J.I. Packer and Mr. Harold Camping who try to 'put lipstick on the pig's face' on this Calvinistic model as she walks down the runway.

If all of Scripture were couched in the Hebrew mindset, we probably would not fully understand other passages of God's Word. The Bible was written so humble pastor's and laity can understand what God is saying to all of ' . . .us' both saint and all of the world's sinners. Now please, don't admonish me that sinners cannot understand most of the Word of God, we all know this. [I Corinthians 2:14] Sinner's do understand their need of Christ when wooed by the precious Holy Spirit, otherwise, there would be no reason for John 3:16.

Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest, the Greek scholar, offers this translation. 'My little children, these things I am writing to you in order that you may not commit an act of sin. And if anyone commits an act of sin, One who pleads our cause we constantly have facing the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One. And He Himself is a satisfaction for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the whole world.' [I John 2:1-2]

Ray

 

[Bro Tony]

Southern,

I am not ignoring your passage. I have no problem with John 11. In the context of that passage it is clear that God is dealing with the Jews and with the others outside of the household of Israel who would one day receive salvation. What I am saying is you cannot carry the context from the Gospel of John, where he is clearly dealing with the Jews and the rest of the world, to the Epistle of John where He is clearly speaking in context to the Church, not Israel. Again, no where in 1 John does he refer to Israel.

In the Gospel of John it states that Jesus would die for "that nation", ie the Jews and then for the rest of the world. In the Epistle of 1 John it states that He is the propitiation (payment) for our (the Church) sins, and not ours only but that of the whole world. It says what it says. It must be read in the context of the letter written, not taken to the Gospel in a different time, place and audience and make the context of the different time, place and audience be the same in the Epistle.

It has nothing to do with a western mindset it has to do with the audience to whom John was writing to or referring to.

Bro Tony

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Gene;

You need to get a grip on what Calvinism teaches. The definition of arbitrary is to do something without a purpose.

This is the definition of the word "Arbitrary"
Arbitrary

"ARBITRARY, a. [L. arbitrarious.]

1. Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision; an arbitrary punishment.

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

2. Despotic; absolute in power; having no external control; as, an arbitrary prince or government."

Sort of missed that definition eh !

The grip you think I should have is maybe unlearning what I know to be true then believing in deception .

Uh, if it is true that God's wants all people to be saved the way you mean it, then all people should be saved. Some are not. Calvinists realize this, therefore, we do not teach that God actively decrees that all people are saved.

So what do you do with this verse ignore it?;

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Mike, you don't believe that election is anchored in God at all.

Not true I certainly do.

You believe that election is dependent on saving faith,

Yes the faith that comes from God's word and not from my self. It is still a working of God.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
In short faith in God, is a work of God.

Election that is dependent on saving faith is, by definition, election that is ultimately anchored in man, not in God, unless you also believe that the only saving faith in man that anchors election is the saving faith that God Himself arranges for and provides, which is, in fact, the Calvinist view which you seek to deny.

Actually I do not agree with most of the Calvinist view. This is true because I believe that the Faith that comes from hearing Gods word. Faith must come before regeneration. If regeneration comes first, then there is no motivation for faith. If faith is the thing we hope for unseen then how is it, that regeneration comes first. If regeneration comes first then it would already be known, and that leaves no reason for hope in the unseen. The moment I was made new I knew I had been made new right away. My whole being changed. I was no longer that same person. This happened when I confessed Jesus Christ as my Savior.
You don't understand anything about what I believe because it is beyond your understanding to understand it. This blindness is not a curse but is there because you have rejected the truth in favor of a deception .
So far you've told me that Christ isn't the only way to Heaven
That God is Arbitrary a description you are unable to define properly.
You have assumed you know more about what I believe than I do.
You are unable to see beyond What you yourself have convinced yourself of.
I don't believe that many Calvinist would agree with you much in your interpretations of the scriptures.
I know a few very nice Calvinist here at Baptist Board. Who are saved because of there belief in Christ. I may disagree with there tulip but the basics are the same for Salvation. Everyone I have met thus far all believe that Christ is the only way...

Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?

Why yes I do and no you have never asked this from me. I have told you more than once that I disagree with every pedal of the tulip. That should just about cover it.

(I've asked you this multiple times now, and you have yet to answer). If so, then you've got a problem, because Romans 8:29/30 reads "Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and those whom He presdestined, He also called; and these whom he called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Actually I don't have a problem with it at all. From the same Author you've quoted;

Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Hebrews 6:4-6 Hebrews 10 :26-28
Scripture for scripture there is about 10 times more to support being cutoff or fallen than there is for the OSAS theory. As I said before I disagree with every pedal of the tulip.
Until I get the time
May God bless You with Light;
Mike

 

[Southern]

Ray,
John calls Ciaphas statement a "Prophecy". Whether or not you accept this is irrelevant.

About all the quotes you supplied, I could do the same. Notice the following:

Polycarp. Remember that Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John himself! Note what he said about 50 years after the death of John, apparently alluding to this passage: ". . . Christ suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved . . . ."

The above is taken from:
http://www.fivesolas.com/crenshaw.htm

Revelation 5:9 shows the same idea as found in 1 John 2:2 and John 10:50ff that God has redeemed and was a propitiation for not just the Jews only but from "every tongue, tribe, and nation". This may not mean much to you, but it meant alot to the original hearers.

Your interpretation does not take this into account and hence provides an interpretation that leads to absurdity. As I noted earlier:

A. W. Pink has a good note on the "also" here:


If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody; it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for 'our' sins and 'also' for everybody." There could be no "also" if 11e is the propitiation for the entire human family.
-----------------------------------------------

This would make no sense, but this is what you have to say to defend your position.

In Christ...

 

[Southern]

Bro. Tony,

Southern,

I am not ignoring your passage. I have no problem with John 11. In the context of that passage it is clear that God is dealing with the Jews and with the others outside of the household of Israel who would one day receive salvation. What I am saying is you cannot carry the context from the Gospel of John, where he is clearly dealing with the Jews and the rest of the world, to the Epistle of John where He is clearly speaking in context to the Church, not Israel. Again, no where in 1 John does he refer to Israel.

Your assuming that when John says "us" he is not speaking of the Jews. On what basis do you do this? You say because he is writing to a church. Is this a Gentile or Jewish church? If Gentile could not John be speaking as a Jew and be consistent and parallel to the other scriptures which speak in this type of not "us only" but the "world" (John 11:50ff;Rev. 5:9)?

I do not think that you have honestly dealt with how this terminology is used in the New Testament with "World" referring to those outside of Israel (Rom. 11:2).

In the Gospel of John it states that Jesus would die for "that nation", ie the Jews and then for the rest of the world. In the Epistle of 1 John it states that He is the propitiation (payment) for our (the Church) sins, and not ours only but that of the whole world. It says what it says. It must be read in the context of the letter written, not taken to the Gospel in a different time, place and audience and make the context of the different time, place and audience be the same in the Epistle.

I think you just brought out an interesting point. Where in the text, after it mentions that he would die not for that nation "only", does it say that He died for the rest of the world? Please answer this.
It does not say world, but the "children of God scattered abroad", obviously referring to those outside of Israel (In the Jewish mindset=world).
I think anyone reading those two scriptures together can see the parallel. I read both in their context and see the exact same idea being conveyed by the terminology. John is speaking from a Jewish Christian standpoint. I can account for this but you but your interpretation of the "whole world" leads to absurdity. Notice the following:

A. W. Pink has a good note on the "also" here:

------------------------------------------
If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody; it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for 'our' sins and 'also' for everybody." There could be no "also" if 11e is the propitiation for the entire human family.
-------------------------------------------

If I may ask, what do you believe the phrase "whole world" means. Please provide a definition.

It has nothing to do with a western mindset it has to do with the audience to whom John was writing to or referring to.

I think it has everything to do with preconcieved idea of what this "has" to mean. Your failure to consider John speaking from a Jewish Christian mindset(Which you agree that He is)and a passage that is clearly parallel in it's "not the Jewish nation only" phraseology leads you to dismiss the obvious and come up with an interpretation that is redundant and cannot account for the mindset of the day.

 

[Southern]

Bro. Tony,
Here is a reason for my interpretation from the same website I have cited:

Now I understand "our" to be the elect Jews for these reasons:

1. 1 John 1:1-3 could only refer to the Apostles, as only they heard, saw, and preached Him, and they were all Jewish (Calvin, Owen, A. W. Pink).

2. 1 John 2:7 speaks of the commandment they had from the beginning, which was true of the Jews only (see John 13:33, 34). The order of the Gospel was Jew first and then Gentile (Rom. 1:16) 9 Thus John was writing to Jews.

3. Owen argues that 1 John 2:18, 19 handles Jewish errors, since they so opposed the Gospel. 10

4. Gal. 2:9 says that Peter, James, and John were Apostles to the Jews. Thus James to the twelve tribes (James 1:1) and Peter to the Jews in dispersion (1 Peter 1:1). So it is most probable that John wrote to Jews (Owen, Pink).

5. There is no one who would doubt that 1 John reproduces much of the Gospel of John. For instance:

1 JOHN JOHN
1:1 1:1
1:2 1: 14
1:6 3:19-21
2:7, 8 13:33, 34
2:9 3:19-21
15:16-27
2:11 12:35,
36, 46
3:13 15:18-25
ETC.


Thus it seems obvious that John 11:51, 52 is parallel to 1 John 2:2, as the wording and content are the same. Note these parallels: 1 John, "He is the propitiation for our (Jewish) sins"; John, that Jesus "should die for the nation" (Jews). First John, "and not for ours only"; John, "and not for the nation only." First John, "but also for the whole world" (Gentiles); John, "but that He might gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (Gentiles). "Those who are scattered abroad" would seem to be the "other sheep" of John 10:16, who are Gentiles! Thus the "our" is Jewish Christians by all that lends evidence.
-----------------------------------
If you will please comment on the above and if I may ask: "What is your definition and defense of your interpretation of the phrase "the Whole World"?

May God bless you...

 

[Ray Berrian]

Southern,

'This would make no sense, but this is what you have to say to defend your position.'

This is not just my theological position it is all of those theologians who I have listed in previous posts; this includes two renowned Greek scholars.

Defending Limited Atonement does not require including the original language, just repeating Augustine's beliefs. Only Five Point Calvinist seminary professors defend this twisted view as to what Christ accomplished on the Cross, which demeans the true Gospel.

In reading the early church Fathers you will see that they did not have their theology too systematizes like we have had during and since the Protestant Reformation. The Fathers have been blamed for a lot of bad theology; we understand that up front. As long as we understand the Word today, that's the main thing.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Sort of missed that definition eh !

Do you really want to go there, Mike?

Apparently, you missed the rest of the dictionary definition:

existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will.

Additionally, the first definition you yourself give, ("not governed by any fixed rules") contradicts your own objection, because the doctrine of unconditional election says that the rules are fixed, not unfixed. They are fixed in God, who elects in accordance with His foreknowledge and predestines for a purpose, ultimately for His own reasons that are not fully revealed to us, but they have no dependence at all on us, particularly with regard to any intrinsic quality in us. Election is without condtion intrinsic in us. The conditions are in God ALONE, not dependent at all on anything in man. Reformed theology teaches the rule are fixed, in God, not dependent at all on anything foreseen in man at all. What, Mike, is less arbitrary than God alone?

If a decision is arbitrary it must also be RANDOM. Our view of election from Eph.2 is very clear about it being purposeful and, since God does not do random things or base election on chance at all, it can't be random. (If anything doing only general election would be by far the most random process imaginable! The first definition you gave defeats your own objection. Your charge is false.

Not true I certainly do.

No, you don't, Mike. You said you reject all the points of the acronym. That means you believe in conditional election. Conditional election means that election depends on faith. That is why it is conditional. Now, if you believe this gift comes directly from God and nothing intrinsic in the individual and that saving faith is not an exercise of that individual's intrinisic ability, then we are in agreement. However, this statement from you: "Yes the faith that comes from God's word and not from my self. It is still a working of God. Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
In short faith in God, is a work of God." Sounds a whole lot like neo-orthodoxy. Are you neo-orthodox?


2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

Read the verse, Mike. God is longsuffering to US. "Us" delimits "any" and "all." This verse is saying that God is holding back the return of Christ so that all who will ever believe will believe. It does not teach conditional election, nor does it teach universal atonement. God is longsuffering to us (the Christians living now), not willing that any (of the Christians who are to come) should perish, but that all (of the Christians) should come to repentance, before Jesus returns. None of God's elect shall be lost, all of them shall be brought in. If anything, this verse teaches individual election.


If regeneration comes first, then there is no motivation for faith. If faith is the thing we hope for unseen then how is it, that regeneration comes first. If regeneration comes first then it would already be known, and that leaves no reason for hope in the unseen. The moment I was made new I knew I had been made new right away. My whole being changed. I was no longer that same person. This happened when I confessed Jesus Christ as my Savior.
You don't understand anything about what I believe because it is beyond your understanding to understand it.

Ok, the why did you believe? Is it extrinsic mongergism or intrinsic monergism? If intrinsic, then you run into either true dualism or into an impossible self-causation. Regeneration and justification are not the same, Mike. You believe because you were regenerated. You had a heart of stone; God changed that.

a. intrinsic (from inside the individual)-intrinsic monergism

b. a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic causes (from both inside and outside the individual)-synergism

c. extrinsic (from outside the individual)-extrinsic monergism

If the ultimate cause for X is intrinsic, then it is accomplished through one or more of

the following constitutive human faculties:

a. body (somatic causation),
b. mind (cognitive causation), or
c. spirit (pneumatic causation)

We must rule out a. body because somatic processes do not give rise to rational processes, thinking, and Scripture clearly rejects in John 1 any reference to the flesh with respect to the new birth.

It might be b. mind. . "Resistless logic, however, renders such a scenario absurd, indeed unbiblical, by making salvation contingent upon one's inherent intellectual acumen." Biblically, salvation extends to the full range of human beings without respect to genetic content, congenital factors, or level of education. Christianity is not a faith for scholars only. Rather, Christ says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden" (Mat 11:28). If this option is true however, we are saying that the believer that believes has a superior mind and is intellectually superior to the unbeliever. Intellect becomes a meritorious thing.

Murray writes of the third option : "From a Biblical viewpoint, the third option, namely, that X is ultimately caused by something in the person's spirit, or pneumatically, is equally as absurd as the second option. For, in this case, the inherently possessed spirit of the one that chooses X could be said to be superior, indeed more righteous, than the one that rejects salvation. Salvation is, of course, a most glorious and holy event. Thus, we would be forced to declare that those persons who incline themselves toward salvation, thereby acting as its final, inauguratory cause, possess a spirit that is intrinsically more righteous than the spirit possessed by those who reject salvation. Such an idea is perhaps even more preposterous than the previous one in light of what the Bible teaches us that the universal state of man's fallen spiritual condition in total separation from God (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom 3:23; 5:12; 6:20; Mk 7:21-23; Jer 17:9). Moreover, the spirit, its faculties, and capabilities are all endowed to humans by their Creator, and that with complete ontological equality (Gal 3:28; Acts 10:34)."

If you believe regeneration is by faith, you believe in something that is illogical and can not be of God. God is NEVER illogical.

If you'd like to discussion regeneration by faith or faith by regeneration, then please select your prooftexts and start a thread.



So far you've told me that Christ isn't the only way to Heaven

Where have I said that? I very clear said in this very thread and everywhere else that salvation is found in noone else but Jesus. Let's see:

He is the only Savior the world will ever know' salvation is only in Him, there is no other

The most you can say here, if "the world" means what you say it means, is that propitiation for sins is found only in Jesus, there is no other Savior the world will ever know or can know

Only Jesus has ever satisfied God's wrath.

Nope, didn't say it

I don't believe that many Calvinist would agree with you much in your interpretations of the scriptures.

Funny, none of them are here, or they haven't disagreed openly if they do disagree, and I have referenced my own interpretations against many others, and they don't disagree.

I know a few very nice Calvinist here at Baptist Board. Who are saved because of there belief in Christ. I may disagree with there tulip but the basics are the same for Salvation. Everyone I have met thus far all believe that Christ is the only way...

And so do I. Again, please show me where I have said that Jesus is not the only way.

Why yes I do

Ah, I had a feeling you did, why don't you start a thread on it and let us all examine your beliefs in this matter.

The verse you've given says nothing about losing your salvation at all. It occurs in the midst of a discussion about Israel. Paul is saying that God is not done with Israel yet. He then admonishes his readers to be careful, because God might cut them off too. However, if you believe you can lose your salvation, based on that verse, then you must also believe that Israel ceased to be God's people completely. The following verses say that one can be grafted in again, which would contradict another passage, if what you say is true, that the loss of your salvation is permanent. Paul is talking here about the goodness of God, not the salvation of individuals. His point is simply this: Just as the Jews rejected Christ and were removed from the place of blessing, so also the Gentiles if they reject Christ will be likewise removed from the place of blessing. The most you can say from this verse, if individuals are involved has to do with being cut off from God's goodness and kindness. Salvation of individuals is not even in the text.

That said, this thread is about the atonement. You have thus far not discussed much about the atonement in your responses. If you think that election is general and never individual please start a thread on it ; if you have problems with perseverance of the saints/eternal security, then please start a thread on it , (I'm sure Dr. Berrien will have a few choice things to say to you if you do), instead of hijacking threads on other issues.

Now, I've asked you about 1 John 5:19 already. If the propitiation is potential in 2:2, then is the subjegation of the wicked in 5:19 also potential. Are Christians as in the power of the wicked one too? If you believe what you say you believe about 2:2, then the same things should apply to 5:19, by your own logic.

[ November 03, 2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Gene;
If I have offended you please forgive me I will quit this conversation because it has lead to angering you.
The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Conversation over

 

[GeneMBridges]

Mike,

Apology accepted. I want you to be very clear...I do not and have not ever said that there is another way to God except the Lord Jesus Christ. That, more than anything you wrote above angered me greatly, because that is a charge I take very, very seriously. Thank you, I actually did come back to this thread tonight to see if you would respond to what I wrote for that very reason. Nothing else you write or have written has ever angered me, except for that...that just, really, really made me angry.

Btw...I hope you realize that when I boldface my words, it's not done in anger; it is done to differentiate between what you have said and what I am responding; it has no other significance.

Thank you, again, Mike, for apologizing.

Good night, and God bless,

Gene

 

[Wes Outwest]

GeneMBridges said,

If you say that is is partial, it must be incomplete. Faith must be added to it for it to be effective. Okay, then isn't unbelief a sin? Why isn't unbelief paid for by the atonement. (Please support that assertion with Scripture).

Neither belief nor unbelief are sin, they are a condition of the spirit. ALL Sins are deeds that we humans do! The penalty for which is death. All deeds both good and bad will be tested as if by fire. Good deeds come through the "fire" in the manner that Gold, Silver, and precious gemstones come through fire. Remember, It is the smelting process, fire, by which gold and silver are purified. Likewise bad deeds will also be tested as if by fire, but they will be consumed in the fire like wood, hay and stubble. In the first case the one with the good deeds has pure gold, silver and precious gemstones to lay at the feet of Jesus. The feeling of joy at presenting value to Jesus. In the latter case the one who did the bad deeds is not consumed but instead is left as one who suffers loss of his worldly possessions in fire. The feeling of destitution.

Now back to belief and unbelief. When one believes in Jesus, his/her name is written in the Lambs book of life. Unbeliever's names are not written in the book of life. One's eternal fate is determined by the condition of one's spirit. Those whose names are NOT found in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire, the second death!

Being cast into the lake of fire has nothing do to with the deeds one does! It has everthing to do with what one believes. So believe in the Lamb of God and get your name written in the book of life, so that come judgment, your name WILL BE FOUND in the book of life.

 

[BobRyan]

Not wanting to burst your bubble on that "elect Jews" idea, but ...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1212/5.html#000060

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Southern:
Arminians have constantly quoted the following verse. If you believe this teaches a “universal” atonement as to its purpose, please read my comments and offer a critique and positive presentation of your view:

1 John 2:2 And he is the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1.)Most would agree that this is John making this statement. Most would also agree that John was a Jew.

Indeed. Most would agree that Paul was a Jew. Most would agree that the book of Revelation was written by John.

Most would agree that John was a Jew writing the book of revelation to the NT church - as he did all of his books.

And that is where your story seems to fall apart.

But there is one more large problem for your story. The Arminian position is that the Atoning Sacrifice is universal - all encompassing. EVEN some Calvinists here admit the SAME thing regarding that sacrifice. The payment it provides is sufficient for all sins of the WHOLE WORLD in the view of BOTH the Arminians posting here and those 3-pt Calvinists that have recently posted on these subjects.

I refer now to my recent debates on the Arminian God thread.

The Lev 16 concept of Atonement that God describes in His Word - is not completed for anyone but the Saints - those who participate in repentance and confession.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,
Here is some more from A.W. Pink in response to you "bursting my bubble":


(1) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes. . . and our hands have handled." How impossible it would have been for the apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language! (2) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning" (I John 2:7). The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ?in proof compare 1:1, 2:13, etc. Now these believers, the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers. (3) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning" (2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view. (4) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us" (2:18,19). These brethren to whom John wrote had "heard" from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matt. 24). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins," he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers. (It is true that many things in John's Epistle apply equally to believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Christ is the Advocate of the one, as much as of the other.)25

Furthermore, when John added, "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," he signified that

Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the Gentile believers too, for, . . . "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of I John 2:2 with John 11:51,52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die." Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John's: "He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins." "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." "And not for ours only." "And not for that nation only." "But also for the whole world"?that is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the earth. "He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."
------------------------------------

I sincerely thank your for your time and effore
May God bless us both

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Southern:
Bro. Tony,
Here is a reason for my interpretation from the same website I have cited:

Now I understand "our" to be the elect Jews for these reasons:

1. 1 John 1:1-3 could only refer to the Apostles, as only they heard, saw, and preached Him, and they were all Jewish (Calvin, Owen, A. W. Pink).

2. 1 John 2:7 speaks of the commandment they had from the beginning, which was true of the Jews only (see John 13:33, 34). The order of the Gospel was Jew first and then Gentile (Rom. 1:16) 9 Thus John was writing to Jews.

3. Owen argues that 1 John 2:18, 19 handles Jewish errors, since they so opposed the Gospel. 10

4. Gal. 2:9 says that Peter, James, and John were Apostles to the Jews. Thus James to the twelve tribes (James 1:1) and Peter to the Jews in dispersion (1 Peter 1:1). So it is most probable that John wrote to Jews (Owen, Pink).

5. There is no one who would doubt that 1 John reproduces much of the Gospel of John. For instance:

1 JOHN JOHN
1:1 1:1
1:2 1: 14
1:6 3:19-21
2:7, 8 13:33, 34
2:9 3:19-21
15:16-27
2:11 12:35,
36, 46
3:13 15:18-25
ETC.


Thus it seems obvious that John 11:51, 52 is parallel to 1 John 2:2, as the wording and content are the same. Note these parallels: 1 John, "He is the propitiation for our (Jewish) sins"; John, that Jesus "should die for the nation" (Jews). First John, "and not for ours only"; John, "and not for the nation only." First John, "but also for the whole world" (Gentiles); John, "but that He might gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (Gentiles). "Those who are scattered abroad" would seem to be the "other sheep" of John 10:16, who are Gentiles! Thus the "our" is Jewish Christians by all that lends evidence.
-----------------------------------
If you will please comment on the above and if I may ask: "What is your definition and defense of your interpretation of the phrase "the Whole World"?

May God bless you...

I noticed that you did not include the truth that was revealed to PETER, the Jew! So I will include it here.

[Acts 11:1] And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
[Acts 11:2] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
[Acts 11:3] Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
[Acts 11:4] But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
[Acts 11:5] I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
[Acts 11:6] Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
[Acts 11:7] And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
[Acts 11:8] But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
[Acts 11:9] But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
[Acts 11:10] And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

God revealed to Peter that the gospel message is for ALL mankind, of every kind clean and unclean! You might consider reading the whole of ACTS 10 and 11.