I John 2:2

[BobRyan]

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
(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!

</font>[/QUOTE]Here we have your delimma spelled out in triplicate.

#1. I already show (and will show again in my next post - how unworkable it is to insert the Calvinists much-neded "elect jews" edit into the text of 1John 1 and 1John 2. You provide no repsonse to that devastating case against the Calvinist POV here - so I assume you are looking for a foothold or something.

#2. In your post above - you argue that the ONLY ones John can be writing to are those Jews that actually saw and touched Christ - i.e HIS OWN DISCIPLES!!

Using that horrendous edit of the text - you now are in the silly position of having to characterize "SOME of the elect Jews" as those he writes to and the REST of the elect JEws from all regions in all ages as being among "THE WHOLE WORLD" that He is not writing to.

How sad that you find yourself in such a predicament.

However - it is obvious to all that the "WE WHO HAVE SEEN AND HANDELED" is the disciples, the group from which John writes - and he writes TO YOU - the whole Christian Church. But BEYOND that He argues that the WHOLE WORLD is the one that Christ died for - NOT just those Christians that had ALREADY chosen Christ as of the writing of the letter.

The wooden restrictions Calvinism needs to place on the text in order to save itself - have never been workable in all of time.

The next post will illustrate the problem "again".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A Calvinist argues that we should insert the limitation of “elect Jews only” into the primary audience John writes to – so that Calvinism can survive the devastating statements John makes against it – in his letters to the entire NT Christian church.

Note: The Calvinist argument

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1210/3.html#000030

Originally posted by Southern:
,
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)

.
==========================================================================
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" and "World" can be redefined at will to mean "The arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7" or in this case "The few Elect Jews and Elect Gentiles"

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you (elect JEWS ONLY) so that you (elect JEWS ONLY) may not sin. And if anyone (elect JEWS AND GENTILE ONLY) sins, we (elect JEWS ONLY) have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Already the text is so compromised by using the redefinition for the person of the 2nd part to mean - elect JEWS ONLY -- as Calvinism "needs it". IT makes general salvation principles (those that apply to both Gentile and Jewish Christians) needlessly restricted to "elect Jews only" - simply because "Calvinism needs it" - such that only "Elect Jews" have an ADVOCATE when ANYONE sins.

2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our (elect JEWS ONLY) sins; and not for ours (ELECT JEWS ONLY) only, but also for those of the whole world (elect JEWS and Gentiles) .

3 By this we (ELECT JEWS ONLY) know that we (ELECT JEWS ONLY) have come to know Him, if we (ELECT JEWS ONLY) keep His commandments.

The universal salvation principle that applies to both Gentile and Jewish Christians alike - is restricted to "elect Jews Only" when the redefintion for "We/Us/Our" is allowed to be "redefined" in the way that Calvinism "needs" it.

5 but whoever (elect Jew and Gentile ONLY) keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we (elect JEWs only) know that we (elect JEWS only) are in Him:

The redefinition required by the model of Calvinsm in 1John is unworkable since it takes unniversal concepts of salvation and deliberately restricts it "to elect Jews only". As if John had started his book with -- "Now to the elect Jews scattered throughout the world -- I write.."

15 Do not love the world (of elect Jews and Gentiles only) nor the things in the world (of elect Jews and Gentiles only). If anyone (elect Jews and Gentiles) loves the world (of elect Jews and Gentiles), the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world (of elect Jews and Gentiles).
17 The world (of elect Jews and Gentiles) is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we (elect JEWS ONLY) know that it is the last hour.

28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we (elect Jews ONLY) may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

The attempt to redefine "WE/US/OUR" such that it refers to "elect Jews only" and "WORLD" refers to "ELECT JEWS and GENTILES ONLY" in 1John 2 - is problematic, and is not demanded by the wording in the text but is simply "needed" in Calvinism to support its model.

Of course in the 5 point Calvinist model - it is not I that have chosen to highlight these points - but God has sovereignly caused me to do it - in any case, redefining the person of the 2nd part to mean "elect Jews only" in the book of 1 John causes more problems than it solved.

1John 1:9 "If we (elect Jews) confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive (the elect Jews only) and cleans (elect Jews only) from all unrighteousness"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The other thing to remember is that at the time of the writing of 1John - there was NO CHURCH in all of Europe or the middle east composed of "just elect Jews".

There was no mailing system that had the ability to seek out and find "just elect Jews".

John never indicates that his letter is not intended for the people of God in all ages.

The wooden restrictions "needed" by Calvinism to avoid the devastating case against it that is made by John - will never work as a reliable form of exegesis.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,
The large majority of your last post was just a repeat of your former one. You made statements that are irrelevant such as the following:

There was no mailing system that had the ability to seek out and find "just elect Jews".
John never indicates that his letter is not intended for the people of God in all ages.

This totally misses my point and since you keep doing this I hope that it is not intentional. I clearly stated the following by pointing out a quote:
(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.)

Who ever said that it has no application to the church at large? Most would agree that the book of Hebrews was written to a Jewish audience, but does that mean it has "no" relevance to us? Surely not. The book of I Timothy was written to an elder, does that mean it has no relevance to us since we are not elders? No. This only muddies the water and does not address my position.

I provided plenty of proof for my position. There is a difference between proof and persuasion. All the evidence that I provided and the parallel verse are sufficient to show what John means in I John.

Let me restate the quote from the website:

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.

Who can deny this?...

Those bound by tradition.

 

[Wes Outwest]

The book of I Timothy was written to an elder, does that mean it has no relevance to us since we are not elders? No. This only muddies the water and does not address my position.

Well let's just see who Paul says he's writing 1 Timothy to.

Timothy 1
1. PAUL, AN apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
2. To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Timothy was not an "elder", because to be an elder one would have to be at that time one of the earliest persons of the church and Timothy certainly was not of the first group of the church. It truth he was quite young when Paul first noticed him. He was one of Paul's students.

Of course, looking back from now, Timothy was truly one of the first century Church's leaders.

Guess what, Southern, I am an elder of The Christian Faith, having been a Christian for over 50 years. There are many that are my seniors, but many multiples more who are my juniors.

It makes no difference that Paul was writing the letters of Timothy to a junior, what He had to say in them is just as applicable today as when He wrote them to Timothy.

 

[Wes Outwest]

The Jewish leaders decide on the death of Jesus

[John 11:45-50] Many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees to tell them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting. `Here is this man working all these signs,' they said, `and what action are we taking? 48 If we let him go on in this way everybody will believe in him, and the Romans will come and suppress the Holy Place and our nation.' 49 One of them, Caiaphas, the high priest that year, said, `You do not seem to have grasped the situation at all; 50 you fail to see that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish.'

That provides the context,

[John 11:51-54] He (Caiaphas) did not speak in his own person, but as high priest of that year he was prophesying that Jesus was to die for the nation 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather together into one the scattered children of God. 53 From that day onwards they were determined to kill him. 54 So Jesus no longer went about openly among the Jews, but left the district for a town called Ephraim, in the country bordering on the desert, and stayed there with his disciples.

John is quoting what was spoken by the high priest Caiaphas, before the Death of Christ! Unbeknownst to Caiaphas, He was describing what the atonement would do. "If I be lifted up I'll draw all men to me." It is implied that ALL men are just that, ALL, and not just the nation of the Jews, or Jews that have roamed the world, but, rather ALL mankind. Especially since Peter introduced the Gospel to the Gentiles at Caesaria courtesy of a Roman Centurion.

[1 John 2:1,2] My children, I am writing this to prevent you from sinning; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the upright. 2 He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins, and not only ours, but also those of the whole world.

Written after the ascention of Christ. John is saying to his CHRISTIAN readers, do not fear your sins, confess them and Jesus who has already paid the penalty of sin for you, the nation, and indeed the world, will forgive you your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.

 

[Ray Berrian]

One of the Doctrines of Grace is that Jesus ' . . . by the grace of God tasted death for every man/person.' [Hebrews 2:9] Jesus paid the debt and penalty for the sins of every created human being. This fact will make all sinners responsible to Almighty God when they stand before Jesus at His Great White Throne Judgment at the end of time. [Revelation 20:11]

Those who believe are and will be His elect; those who remain neutral or neglect Christ will be separated from God forever in the flames of His literal Hell. [Matthew 5:22, 29, 30]

 

[Wes Outwest]

Yes sir, Ray, that's the way I see it, and the separator is FAITH ALONE! God will use no other measurement to determine our salvation.

 

[mprivett]

Ray,

The context of Hebrews 2:9 is that of the Seocnd Person of the Trinity condenscending to earth and taking of flesh so that He could be the perfect substitute of those He would save. If He tasted death for every single person, then what right does God have to punish? The penalty was paid at the cross!

If Christ really did taste death for every single individual person, then why, in verse 10, does He only bring many sons to glory? Is the cross of no effect to those He did not bring? Certainly not! He did not go to the cross to save every individual person.

And those who believe are and will be His elect? You are saying, in effect, that we elect ourselves, or at the very least cause God to elect us? That's man-centered salvation. Romans 3:24 says that we are justified freely by His grace. The word freely is also rendered "without a cause". I was justified without a cause in me. I did nothing, nada, zilch, to bring it about. However, there was a cause... in God!

And the fact that Jesus paid a debt is not what makes sinners responsible to God. First, its clear from Romans 1 that general revelation, that which is available to everyone to see (i.e. creation) is enough to damn someone for eternity. Second, those who are given more light (i.e. the Jews, given the oracles of God - Rom. 3:2) store up more wrath for themselves in the day of wrath, because they, and we (who know and discuss the Scriptures on these boards) should know better.

Now, in this age, apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE; for there is no distinction (Rom. 3:21-22)

If Christ died for all, why did God have to add THOSE WHO BELIEVE all over the NT?

 

[Wes Outwest]

MPrivett,

The context of Hebrews 2:9 is that of the Seocnd Person of the Trinity condenscending to earth and taking of flesh so that He could be the perfect substitute of those He would save. If He tasted death for every single person, then what right does God have to punish? The penalty was paid at the cross!

Jesus did not taste death for "every single person", Fact is, He died to atone for SIN, NOT FOR SINNERS. Do you see the distinction? He died to pay the penalty for sin, so that penalty for sin is not charged against the sinner, thus, the sinner can have everlasting life because he no longer faces the death penalty. From the time of Christ to now, No man has died to pay for his own sins, Jesus paid for ALL sins in ALL times. As for Rights? The giver of all Rights is the one who's "rights" you are questioning. Besides, Jesus, the SON OF GOD, said in John 3:18 Whoever believes is not judged, but whoever does not believe is judged by his own unbelief. So it is not God who does the judging!

 

[Wes Outwest]

If Christ died for all, why did God have to add THOSE WHO BELIEVE all over the NT?

Because:
1. Salvation is not of works, so you can't earn your salvation.
2. Sins are not a factor in human salvation, because Jesus removed the penalty for sin from man.

Thus, with works not a factor and Sins not a factor, that leaves "For by grace, ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH..." Thus SALVATION IS through FAITH ALONE! God does the saving, but he only saves those who believe!

 

[Ray Berrian]

mprivett,

The context of Hebrews 2:9 is that of the Seocnd Person of the Trinity
condenscending to earth and taking of flesh so that He could be the
perfect substitute of those He would save. If He tasted death for every
single person, then what right does God have to punish? The penalty
was paid at the cross!

God is sovereign and can and does punish all who reject the Son. While God knows the exact number of His elect, He does not determine their destiny autocratically. He has predestined all who believe, [John 3:16 & Romans 8:29 & I Peter 1:2] thereby preserving the integrity of God's justice and the viability of a human response to the calling of God to salvation and eternal life. [Revelation 22:17f]

If Christ really did taste death for every single individual person, then
why, in verse 10, does He only bring many sons to glory? Is the cross
of no effect to those He did not bring? Certainly not! He did not go to
the cross to save every individual person.

It is a Biblical fact that God desires all sinners to be saved. [I Timothy 2:6] The only reason He cannot bring all the sons and daughters of Adam is because Jesus has no conscripts in His Heavenly Kingdom. Contrary, to what you said, the Cross of Christ will have no effect on those who neglect or deny Jesus' reality and ability to accomplish salvation by His grace alone in the unbelievers. This is the greatest tragedy of the ages; many who could have opened their lives to Jesus will have an eternity to figure out why they pushed Him aside.

And those who believe are and will be His elect? You are saying, in
effect, that we elect ourselves, or at the very least cause God to elect
us? That's man-centered salvation. Romans 3:24 says that we are
justified freely by His grace. The word freely is also rendered "without
a cause". I was justified without a cause in me. I did nothing, nada,
zilch, to bring it about. However, there was a cause... in God!

If sinner have to wait around until God elects them, then the human sinner has no reason to believe in Jesus. After all, Jesus will do it all by His decree. For those who believe that Jesus does it all, they probably are still religious but not saved. God requires a human response; without a rejoinder there can be no regeneration/salvation. [John 3:18] Try not to ignore Jesus words to Nicodemus.

And the fact that Jesus paid a debt is not what makes sinners responsible to God. First, its clear from Romans 1 that general revelation, that which is available to everyone to see (i.e. creation) is enough to damn someone for eternity. Second, those who are given more light (i.e. the Jews, given the oracles of God - Rom. 3:2) store up more wrath for themselves in the day of wrath, because they, and we (who know and discuss the Scriptures on these boards) should know better.

'God demands repentance of everyone because of His perfect plan of salvation paid in His own blood. [Acts 17:30-31] Jesus has risen from the dead and has given assurance to everyone that they must believe to be saved. It's a command!' Your quote above is merely wandering in the wilderness of a confused theology by trying to plaster up the holes in Calvinism.'

Now, in this age, apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE; for there is no distinction (Rom. 3:21-22)

Read verse 22-His righteousness is ' . . . unto all' (sinners) . . . . 'and on all those who believe . . . '{saints/elect}

If Christ died for all, why did God have to add THOSE WHO BELIEVE all
over the NT?

God through His Son did die for all lost sinners. [I John 2:2] He had to add the words, 'those who believe' so we understand that we must respond to His Gospel in order to be saved. God has sovereignly ordained the free agency of the human being [John 3:16] because He never planned to elect a people by forcing His all powerful will on a sinner. This would not be calling out a human response to His loving call by the Holy Spirit. If the Calvinist's view of grace were true and God gives faith to who He wants to elect, then the words 'But without faith it is impossible to please Him,' [Hebrews 11:6] would be a foolish statement coming from God through the writer of the Book of Hebrews. The statement would be redundant. This being said, faith is the sinners response to the calling of the Spirit of God to eternal life.

Now, Ephesians 2:8-9 makes sense. We are saved only by Jesus'grace and this experience of being one with Him, comes about because of the sinners faith/trust in His perfect plan accomplished on the Cross. Grace is not of ourselves it is God's free gift. No good works before salvation can better prepare the sinner to receive His grace. We all come as beggars and He makes us sons and daughters of the living God, who are greatly, humbled at the fact that He love us at all.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Southern:
[QB] Bob,
The large majority of your last post was just a repeat of your former one. You made statements that are irrelevant such as the following:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There was no mailing system that had the ability to seek out and find "just elect Jews".
John never indicates that his letter is not intended for the people of God in all ages.

</font>[/QUOTE]This speaks to the point of who John is writing to and the fact that he is writing to the entire NT church - those living in his day and all who would come after him.

It is the Calvinist narrow interpretation that insist that he had some selective way to only address that portion of the elect Jews that so happened to be alive and following Christ while He was living on earth.

A contrived wooden interpretation that did not fit the text as I showed in detail.

This totally misses my point and since you keep doing this I hope that it is not intentional. I clearly stated the following by pointing out a quote:
(It is true that many things in John's Epistle apply equally to believing Jews and believing Gentiles.

Note. My reponse did not say "these truths could also apply to non-elect Jews". Rather I pointed out that the intended audience - the who that this was given TO - COULD not be just that portion of the elect Jews who happened to be alive at the time of Christ (as you so need it to be).

Christ is the Advocate of the one, as much as of the other.)

Who ever said that it has no application to the church at large?

The problem is that you "attempt" to redefine "WE" and "OUR" as though this can ONLY means "Elect Jews alive at the time of Christ before the Cross" - since they must have seen and handled Him in the flesh.

A Contrived restrictive approach designed to save Calvinism in 1John 2:2 but doing create harm to the text of 1John overall when applied equally as Calvinists hope to apply it in 1John 2:2 -- the big problem verse for Calvinism in 1John.

Most would agree that the book of Hebrews was written to a Jewish audience, but does that mean it has "no" relevance to us? Surely not.

The point remains - when Paul says "you" and "we" in Hebrews - WHO is he talking about? ONCE you pick a scope/definition THEN you test it in the book by inserting it into each case of the "You" and "WE" mentioned, if it works - you may be right.

Clearly your wooden definition for "we" and "our" did not work in the book of 1John 2 as you "needed" it in 1John 2:2.

The book of I Timothy was written to an elder, does that mean it has no relevance to us since we are not elders? No.

Indeed. It is fully applicable to the entire church just as 1John 2. So when John says "NOT for OUR SINS only" he speaks of the entire church.

When he says "but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" - then he speaks of the Whole World.

Pretty easy if you are not bent on "saving Calvinism" as you read the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bob Ryan,

I agree with your post.

You said,

Indeed. It is fully applicable to the entire church just as 1John 2. So when John says "NOT for OUR SINS only" he speaks of the entire church.

Who would disagree with your quote above except perhaps a novice in the Word.

I always got so much out of the Book of Hebrews because of its depth of truth. I guess Calvinists do not want Christians to be edified by studying this book because it was originally written to correct Israelite/Christian thinking.

Interesting.

 

[dattgog]

Hey Bob ...

What does propitiation mean?

 

[Ray Berrian]

So it is not God who does the judging!

God the Son will do all the judging as to salvation or eternal Hell. Take time to read John 5:22b. It sure looks like the above statement in the quote is really wrong.

The great sin of John 3:18 is not believing in Jesus as to personal salvation.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So it is not God who does the judging!

God the Son will do all the judging as to salvation or eternal Hell. Take time to read John 5:22b. It sure looks like the above statement in the quote is really wrong.

The great sin of John 3:18 is not believing in Jesus as to personal salvation. </font>[/QUOTE]In John 3:18 JESUS, the son of God, the Christ, says that we judge ourselves through unbelief. Meaning the standard for Judgement is that if we do not believe in the Christ, we condemn ourselves. The Christ established the standard, We are commanded to believe, therefore John 5:22b is correct, the Son of God IS the Judge because the one who sets the standard established the judgment...you either measure up or you don't, and the measurement is belief in Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by dattgog:
Hey Bob ...

What does propitiation mean?

The question is what does the greek term mean that is translated as "Atoning Sacrifice". I accept that it means Atoning Sacrifice showing that the Hebrew writer John is referencing the BIBLE as he had it and drew on Biblical truth to make his point.

Some here have argued that he is arguing from the pagan notion of appeasing evil deities to draw his point and translate it as "propitiation".

If you think John's use of the Greek term was to illustrate the Biblical teaching on the sacrifice of the Messiah - then clearly - "Atoning Sacrifice" is the correct translation and NIV is correct.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

'God the Son will do all the judging as to salvation or
eternal Hell. Take time to read John 5:22b. It sure looks
like the above statement in the quote is really wrong.

The great sin of John 3:18 is not believing in Jesus as to
personal salvation.'

In John 3:18 JESUS, the son of God, the Christ, says that we judge
ourselves through unbelief. Meaning the standard for Judgement is
that if we do not believe in the Christ, we condemn ourselves. The
Christ established the standard, We are commanded to believe,
therefore John 5:22b is correct, the Son of God IS the Judge because
the one who sets the standard established the judgment...you either
measure up or you don't, and the measurement is belief in Jesus.

In my book---Perfect!!

 

[dattgog]

Thanks Bob ...

So 'Hilasmos' should be translated "atoning sacrifice."

One more. What is "atonement?"