Is 1 John 2:2 Really a defence of Universal Atonement?

[Jarthur001]

Bob,

James this is the twist you are trying to put on my words.

2)....God foreknows who will go to hell Yes

3)....Cain went to hell I don't know

Why did not God come back before Cain was born, if His

will was to save all men?????

So as to be fair...lets say Cain did not go to hell. Most will disagree...but lets just play this to the end, because you think I'm twisting words.

Now I will asking...

1)...."I said it was God's will that not any perish." <<<<<Bob own words

2)....God foreknows who will go to hell <<<<<Bob says yes

3)....Someone goes to hell. <<I hope you agree with this

Why did not God come back before that 1st soul was born, that God know would not believe, if His will was to save all men?????


You see Bob...No matter how you say it...it will NEVER EVER WORK. never.

Change it anyway you want....its not going to fit the Bible. Its not the Bible...its the doctrine.

We have no right to question

God on why He even made man to start with. A God that

gives all a choice and lets a man reap what he sows has

more love than a God who creates zillions, pick a few to be

saved and burn the rest. I will stay with my God James.


I would be playing God if I put myself in the position you

are asking James.

If you want to debate Scripture then I will do that James but I don't care for this supposing game, I think it makes a

mockery of God's word. We can't change anything that God has ordained and I don't want to try. peace,

I mock only the freewill doctrine. I have said nothing bad about you. I have said nothing bad about God. I place the freewill doctrine to the test. I lined up all of its points and it falls short.

There is another doctrine..and it is the one of the Bible. It stands true till the end. But...one will never see it, unless they give up their will. The will of man is the sin problem that the devil has used from the begining. The devil has used Mans will to keep control and keep him from God, and not let God control him from the days of the garden.

I hardly pin someone to the wall, for I do not want to force anything. You must take it on your own...not jammed down your mouth. I know you can clearly see my point, for you are not stupid. So...i will back off now.


Peace Bob...


In Christ...James

 

[Brother Bob]

I mock only the freewill doctrine. I have said nothing bad about you. I have said nothing bad about God. I place the freewill doctrine to the test. I lined up all of its points and it falls short.

There is another doctrine..and it is the one of the Bible. It stands true till the end. But...one will never see it, unless they give up their will. The will of man is the sin problem that the devil has used from the begain. The devil has used Mans will to keep control and keep him from God, and not let God control him from the days of the garden.

I hardly pin someone to the wall, for I do not want to force anything. You must take it on your own...not jammed down your mouth. I know you can clearly see my point, for you are not stupid. So...i will back off now.


Peace Bob...

This is totally false James. You have pinned no one to nothing. And your claim that the doctrine I have is not true is false also. It is your doctrine that don't stand the test.
What do you think all these pages have been about. I will tell you "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER would believe on Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

You can't get around that one at all James. That is what this whole scenario has been about and you have tried over and over and over and got nowhere. You still hanging out there on a limb James and your Calvinism is losing. It is going down fast and soon it will be gone. Maybe not in our lifetime but if time last it will be gone.
You say you mock freewill doctrine. Go ahead for I am not a free will and the doctrine I use is not freewill believe me, I know. Well you should know too.
That is funny you pinning something to the wall. We been at this for months, you get mad at me and leave for a while then come back and try again, and we go around and around again and you don't do no pinning. You may get pinned but you don't do any. I figured it was time for you as you say to back off but not that you were pushing me with doctrine but with scenarios, which makes me feel dirty playing around with the scriptures in a way God didn't mean for man to do. I love to debate but not make up things.

I mock only the freewill doctrine. I have said nothing bad about you. I have said nothing bad about God. I place the freewill doctrine to the test. I lined up all of its points and it falls short.

You should tell someone then James for it is hypocritical to worship and pretend you are of a people when in fact you are not.

I hardly pin someone to the wall, for I do not want to force anything. You must take it on your own...not jammed down your mouth. I know you can clearly see my point, for you are not stupid. So...i will back off now.

Have a nice dream James.

 

[Blammo]

There is another doctrine..and it is the one of the Bible. It stands true till the end. But...one will never see it, unless they give up their will. The will of man is the sin problem that the devil has used from the begining. The devil has used Mans will to keep control and keep him from God, and not let God control him from the days of the garden.

I remember Webdog teaching you this. (I didn't think you got it)
What happened to "total depravity"?

 

[EdSutton]

Is I John 2:2 Really a defense of Limited Atonement?

Ed

I asked this question in post #143 on this thread. 140 posts later, not one comment has been offered, so I repeat the question. I do think it is a valid one.

I have one other question and one comment.

Uh- what does "Grandpa's watch" have to do with the OP question, or did I miss something in a quick reading of the entire thread??

And "Dale-c", for whomever asked, would probably be BB member 'Dale-c'. Or perhaps it could possibly stand for 'Dale Carnegie', I might guess.

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

I remember Webdog teaching you this. (I didn't think you got it)
What happened to "total depravity"?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

1st...what did Webdog say?

2nd...I need more infor on total depravity. I maybe wrong, but I think this is the 1st time anyone has said total depravity on this tread.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by EdSutton


Is I John 2:2 Really a defense of Limited Atonement?

Ed

No Ed; it is not a defense for limited Atonement. It is just the opposite, it is saying atonement for the whole world if they will believe.

A. W. Pink said, because John addresses them as "Little children, these things I write unto you" that it means just the saved

but here is the part to the saved: 1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we

have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2: And he is the propitiation for our sins:

Then, John talks to the whole world. "and not for ours (the saved) only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Grandpa's watch = humor, Ed;

Dale-C = Dale-c, Ed;

 

[Jarthur001]

I asked this question in post #143 on this thread. 140 posts later, not one comment has been offered, so I repeat the question. I do think it is a valid one.

I have one other question and one comment.

Uh- what does "Grandpa's watch" have to do with the OP question, or did I miss something in a quick reading of the entire thread??

And "Dale-c", for whomever asked, would probably be BB member 'Dale-c'. Or perhaps it could possibly stand for 'Dale Carnegie', I might guess.

Ed

I did not make those statements, but maybe I can help.

1st to address your post 143..

143..I've not had the time to digest all this thoroughly, nor get really involved in detail, but let me take a slightly different tack from the topic heading, and ask this question.

Is I John 2:2 Really a defense of Limited Atonement?

"This question assumes, of course, that there are no theological solipsisms, here." Language Cop

"Thanks, L.C.!" - Ed

Ed

Limited Atonement is used by both sides.

Freewillers say that Christ's atonement was unlimited--He died for all. He did not die for any particular group or person, but died to make salvation possible for all people. This is the opinion of the Arminians camp. They however, limit the atonement to those that believe.

Calvinists, believe Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficacious for only those whom the Father has given to Christ, the elect. In other words, Christ died for those He loves...a love act.

Christ died not to make salvation possible, but to make salvation sure for the elect.

London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) reads:

3._____ Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified; and did, by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in their behalf; yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
( Hebrews 10:14; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; Isaiah 53:5, 6; Romans 8:32; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:26; Ephesians 1:6,7; Ephesians 2:7 )

4._____ God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.
( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )

The Puritan John Owen writes:

"The death and blood shedding of Jesus Christ hath wrought, and doth effectually procure, for all those that are concerned in it, eternal redemption, consisting in grace here and glory hereafter"

In other words, Jesus Christ died for, and redeemed only, the elect. This is what Calvinists mean by limited atonement or particular redemption. I like the phrase particular redemption over limited atonement since it accurately describes the doctrine Calvinists believe.

Who is right?

Either Christ died for all men equally, securing salvation for no one in particular, but only making salvation possible for all equally, or Christ died savingly for those whom the Father gave to Him--the elect.

Where do you place the power?

Is the power in Gods hands, or mans hands? Its funny that most Baptist freewillers change to the power of God after salvation, but will not give Him the power before salvation.

*************
To Dale C...

Dale is a member on here on the BB that some people attacked on a personal level. Why? The only reason I could see, is that dale did not believe as they did. Dale would back people into corners on a debate and they didn't like it....so they would start calling names...and making fun. He has not posted for a few months that I know of, and still His name is used as mud. Dale was a good person and stood for the truth. When you take stands, people do not like it. They may have ran dale off...i do not know.

**********

Grandpa's watch

I will need to ask the one that posted this, I have my own ideas. My GUESS...is that he did not like us taking so long to post a point. It matters little, being this is a public BB. But again...ask him.


In Christ..James

 

[Brother Bob]

Dale is a member on here on the BB that some people attacked on a personal level. Why? The only reason I could see, is that dale did not believe as they did. Dale would back people into corners on a debate and they didn't like it....so they would start calling names...and making fun. He has not posted for a few months that I know of, and still His name is used as mud. Dale was a good person and stood for the truth. When you take stands, people do not like it. They may have ran dale off...i do not know.

Not really, I don't remember anyone calling him names other than he followed James around from post to post. Dale held his own with anyone. Matter of fact I think he quit posting on the Calvinist post but went on to other posts. I guess he go bored and left, who knows. He may have wanted to get away from us. I don't see anyone using his name as mud now. James has a particular way of looking at things. Its called the JAuthor doctrine.

Statements like this will cause a response though;

JAuthor: I hardly pin someone to the wall, for I do not want to force anything. You must take it on your own...not jammed down your mouth. I know you can clearly see my point, for you are not stupid. So...i will back off now.


Peace Bob...

And then say Peace......:laugh: :laugh:, Now who could ask for more than that.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Bob,

I hardly pin someone to the wall, for I do not want to force anything. You must take it on your own...not jammed down your mouth. I know you can clearly see my point, for you are not stupid. So...i will back off now.


Peace Bob...

And then say Peace......:laugh: :laugh:, Now who could ask for more than that.

What part of my statement do you not like, so that I can change it? If I need to say I'm sorry, please point to what I need to say sorry for and I will do so.

 

[Jarthur001]

Not really, I don't remember anyone calling him names other than he followed James around from post to post. Dale held his own with anyone. Matter of fact I think he quit posting on the Calvinist post but went on to other posts. I guess he go bored and left, who knows. He may have wanted to get away from us. I don't see anyone using his name as mud now. James has a particular way of looking at things. Its called the JAuthor doctrine.

What do you mean Bob?

What is jauthor doctrine?

Who followed me around?

Why do you think Ed ask about dale?

Who asked if i now had another follower?

It was to good to last to long...back to the same old ways.

That is all from me about dale. I'll let you bring it up again.

 

[Blammo]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

1st...what did Webdog say?

2nd...I need more infor on total depravity. I maybe wrong, but I think this is the 1st time anyone has said total depravity on this tread.

Nevermind. It was another time, another thread, I was wrong for bringing it here.

 

[Blammo]

Uh- what does "Grandpa's watch" have to do with the OP question, or did I miss something in a quick reading of the entire thread??

Nevermind. It was a POOR attempt at humor.

 

[Blammo]

Calvinists, believe Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficacious for only those whom the Father has given to Christ, the elect. In other words, Christ died for those He loves...a love act.

James, we agree.

Sufficient for all, but limited to those who believe.

 

[EdSutton]

No Ed; it is not a defense for limited Atonement. It is just the opposite, it is saying atonement for the whole world if they will believe.

A. W. Pink said, because John addresses them as "Little children, these things I write unto you" that it means just the saved

but here is the part to the saved: 1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we

have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2: And he is the propitiation for our sins:

Then, John talks to the whole world. "and not for ours (the saved) only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Grandpa's watch = humor, Ed;

Dale-C = Dale-c, Ed;

I do agree, but reading so many "arguments' that attempted to fit the verse into a theological system that did not believe what John wrote, prompted my question. If one were to approcach this verse with no 'theological system' in place, one would not in any form, get the idea from this passage, that this meant anything less than what seems to be said in a casual reading of the verse, itself. Hence,

2και αυτος ιλασμος εστιν περι των αμαρτιων ημων ου περι των ημετερων δε μονον αλλα και περι ολου του κοσμου [ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Α΄ 2:2 - (Scrivener - TR1894)] [with which apparently agree, W/H - 1881 (WHNU); Stephanus (TR1550) Aland/Black (UBS-1968) (UBT) and Hodges/Farstad (Nelson- 1985)(Greek NT - MT), although H/F inexplicably do not show the "moveable 'ν'" in "εστιν", as do the others!-??]

is fairly accurately rendered as

He is Himself an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. (I John 2:2 - MLB)

The twenty versions found on Bible Gateway from the 'WYC' originally 'translated' in ~ 1382, thru the TNIV (©2005), all basically agree, here. And the basic ideas conveyed and included by "`ιλασμος" are " an atoning sacrifice, paid in full, with total satisfaction", or so it appears to this dumb farm boy.
Thus yes, I agree, Bro. Bob, et al, I John 2:2 'Really IS a declaration "of Unlimited Atonement'", for it in no way can be construed on its own as any 'defense of Limited Atonement'! To get to that point, one has to read something into the text, here, that simply is not found therein.

And BTW all, Dale-c last posted on the BB two weeks ago, not several months.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Why do you think Ed ask about dale?

Ed did not "ask about dale". Someone (I do not know who, and am not wasting the time to reread a thread to find out) either asked about or mentioned the name in passing. I merely offered two possible options, first the BB member, and secondly, the "role model" for many of the BB posters, I have seen. The author of How to win Friends and Influence People. You know, as in "A sharp answer usually draws blood!" - II Calamity 4:6 :BangHead: I believe that is. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[webdog]

Dale is recently a new father, so he probably doesn't have much time to "play" with us anymore. His wife was having a hard time with the pregnancy towards the end, and he posted a prayer request in the prayer request forum.

 

[webdog]

If one were to approcach this verse with no 'theological system' in place, one would not in any form, get the idea from this passage, that this meant anything less than what seems to be said in a casual reading of the verse, itself. Hence,

Ed, this is something that I think gets overlooked amongst us brainy folk:tongue3:

Someone without any theological position reading the Bible can not come to the conclusions calvinism comes to...even those on election. A plain reading might draw some questions about election, but if compared to the numerous verses to choose, believe, etc. found doing a simple reading, even election falls into place.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, this is something that I think gets overlooked amongst us brainy folk:tongue3:

Someone without any theological position reading the Bible can not come to the conclusions calvinism comes to...even those on election. A plain reading might draw some questions about election, but if compared to the numerous verses to choose, believe, etc. found doing a simple reading, even election falls into place.

I agree, and also offer that one cannot come to many of the conclusions Arminianism comes to, either. The problem is that of 'systems', in the first place. Uh- and the adherence to Rule # 3.

"Thou shalt not allow thy Bible to interfere with thy theology!" :tear:

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

Ed, this is something that I think gets overlooked amongst us brainy folk:tongue3:

Someone without any theological position reading the Bible can not come to the conclusions calvinism comes to...even those on election. A plain reading might draw some questions about election, but if compared to the numerous verses to choose, believe, etc. found doing a simple reading, even election falls into place.

Well I would strongly disagree with your last statement. It is very clear to me and others that election is by God and by his own good pleasure. With this statement you pulled down all the good that was said before.

To ed and web...i would agree that this verse if left to its own will read unlimited atonement just as the freewillers would have it. But we are not to read the Bible that way....a verse here..and a verse there. Context is KING.


This reminds me of something that I use to ask my girls, to get them to think on their own.

I would ask....

"Is every statement in the Bible true?"

A kid will say yes. But the truth is the Bible is right, but the Bible has statements from men that said it wrong. Jobs friends is a case in point. If we were to quote Jobs friends as the truth...we would be wrong...for Jobs friends were wrong.

This happen on this thread, but I saw it to late to reply. A person on this thread used a statement that was WRONG as if it was right. The verse is in the Bible, but the book it is found in has another meaning then what was stated in this thread.

So in order to understand the Bible message we must read the whole Bible and not pick our key verses. Many want to start with a idea and find verses to support the idea. This I feel is wrong. The whole book must be looked at...the writer must be looked at....who he wrote the book to...history...slang...the list goes on. One or two verse can not be our life line.

Anyway..I agree with web and ed..(web and ed sounds like a TV show)..in that the verse on its own shows unlimited atonement. I disagree with all the other junk that was stated after this.

 

[Brother Bob]

Anyway..I agree with web and ed..(web and ed sounds like a TV show)..in that the verse on its own shows unlimited atonement. I disagree with all the other junk that was stated after this.

Junk is bringing top dollar these days, but what is junk to some is really the true Gospel to others. Scripture has been called ever name in the book like "untruthful" and "junk" all kinds of names.

Is it our job now to go through the Bible from beginning to end and determine what is truth and what is a lie?