Jesus, The Sin-Offering for the Whole World.

[atpollard]

Van has been on here many times making claims of both theology and Greek and posts stuff that is way off

True.
Unfortunately, arguing with Van is like screaming at the TV. It might make you feel better, but it won’t actually change anything.

• everyone is an obfuscating Calvinist
  
• every post to Van is a “you, you, you” personal attack
  
• every point by Van, however off-topic, is repeated verbatim until you accept it or quit responding to him.

 

[Van]

Van has been on here many times making claims of both theology and Greek and posts stuff that is way off

Non-specific disparagement is the stock and trade of false teachers. Not one example of anything posted that is not spot on.

The folks unable to defend their bogus view try to hide their failure by attacking the messengers of truth.

 

[Van]

True.
Unfortunately, arguing with Van is like screaming at the TV. It might make you feel better, but it won’t actually change anything.

• everyone is an obfuscating Calvinist
  
• every post to Van is a “you, you, you” personal attack
  
• every point by Van, however off-topic, is repeated verbatim until you accept it or quit responding to him.

Yet another non-stop you, you, you post disparaging Van and having nothing to do with the thread topic. Folks, pay no attention to these Calvinists who change the subject to their opponents character to hide (obfuscate) the fact their doctrine is unbiblical.

 

[Van]

Returning to the actual topic:
1 John 2:2 NASB
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

He Himself refers to our Lord Jesus.
Is the propitiation refers to Jesus being the means of salvation.
For our sins refers to John's intended audience of born anew believers.
Jesus is also the means of salvation for the whole world, all humankind. Everyone God places into Christ spiritually is saved, and everyone not placed into Christ remains unsaved.

 

[AustinC]

Returning to the actual topic:
1 John 2:2 NASB
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

He Himself refers to our Lord Jesus.
Is the propitiation refers to Jesus being the means of salvation.
For our sins refers to John's intended audience of born anew believers.
Jesus is also the means of salvation for the whole world, all humankind. Everyone God places into Christ spiritually is saved, and everyone not placed into Christ remains unsaved.

The bolded is universalism.

The italics is an assertion not expressed in 1 John 2:2.

1 John 2:1-3
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

In looking at this passage there are two choices.
1) Jesus is an advocate and propitiation for John's readers, who are Christians, and for all Christians in the world.
2) Jesus is an advocate and propitiation for all humans throughout the entire world.

"Everyone God places into Christ spiritually is saved, and everyone not placed into Christ remains unsaved" is not expressed anywhere in this passage, therefore if we are only addressing this passage, that statement is not supported in the text.

 

[Reformed1689]

how does this even deal with the OP? JM is a Calvinist and can only respond like one. His words quoted are his "theology", and then taking the Scriptures to force them to agree with this!

So you automatically write him off because he is a Calvinist? Who really has the bias here?

 

[SavedByGrace]

So you automatically write him off because he is a Calvinist? Who really has the bias here?

like you and some others on here, JM is viewing salvation as a Calvinist first. There is no way that any honest Christian, without any theological bias, can take the OP, with 5:18-19, to mean anything other than the fact, that Jesus Christ IS the sin offering for every single human being. I have already shown from Luke 22, that Jesus told Judas, that He was going to the cross for his sins also. Yet again, personal theology insists that this is not true!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Asked and answered. The word is a noun, thus we are chosen for salvation through or by reason of faith in the truth, a conditional election. I am not trying to prove this, I am just pointing to the verse and reading it. But I am not reading the NIV, ESV, or NLT as they mistranslate the verse to hide the fact that our election to salvation is conditional.

Did you click on the link and see that that source says the word is a noun? Just give me a yes or no.

you don't even understand what this verse is teaching! I have also shown that this reading is faulty!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Non-specific disparagement is the stock and trade of false teachers. Not one example of anything posted that is not spot on.

The folks unable to defend their bogus view try to hide their failure by attacking the messengers of truth.

 

[AustinC]

like you and some others on here, JM is viewing salvation as a Calvinist first. There is no way that any honest Christian, without any theological bias, can take the OP, with 5:18-19, to mean anything other than the fact, that Jesus Christ IS the sin offering for every single human being. I have already shown from Luke 22, that Jesus told Judas, that He was going to the cross for his sins also. Yet again, personal theology insists that this is not true!

Just for the record, your interpretation makes you a universalist.

 

[atpollard]

I have already shown from Luke 22, that Jesus told Judas, that He was going to the cross for his sins also.

I just reread Luke 22 and while Luke clearly recorded the events of the day, he was not careful to record them in chronological order. It seems like he grouped them in a logical thematic order. For example, Judas never left the feast, yet somehow returns later with a group of people. Also they are arguing both “who is greatest” and “who will betray him” after the feast (after the ‘body and blood’ which occurred at the end of the feast).

I do not think that a strong case can be made for Judas taking communion from Luke 22 alone.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I just reread Luke 22 and while Luke clearly recorded the events of the day, he was not careful to record them in chronological order. It seems like he grouped them in a logical thematic order. For example, Judas never left the feast, yet somehow returns later with a group of people. Also they are arguing both “who is greatest” and “who will betray him” after the feast (after the ‘body and blood’ which occurred at the end of the feast).

I do not think that a strong case can be made for Judas taking communion from Luke 22 alone.

Two leading reformed commentators Matthew Henry and John Gill admit that Judas did take the Lord's Supper. Check them out

 

[atpollard]

Two leading reformed commentators Matthew Henry and John Gill admit that Judas did take the Lord's Supper. Check them out

He may have.
I was just pointing out that Luke is a non-chronological report of the events, so it needs to be reconciled with other accounts in scripture. (Henry and Gill will not change that.)

 

[SavedByGrace]

He may have.
I was just pointing out that Luke is a non-chronological report of the events, so it needs to be reconciled with other accounts in scripture. (Henry and Gill will not change that.)

Luke was an historian and there is no contradiction with any of the other Gospels. The fact remains that Jesus gave Judas the bread and wine and told him that He was dying for his sins

 

[Van]

The bolded is universalism.
.

Here the Calvinist repeats the bogus claim being the means of salvation for the whole world, all of humankind results is the salvation of all humankind. Of course this is just another absurd claim to hide the truth.

 

[Van]

you don't even understand what this verse is teaching! I have also shown that this reading is faulty!

If "this teaching" refers to salvation being a noun in the Greek grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, then the above post is "faulty."

Why so many "professing Christians" that post on this board lack the fortitude to answer questions forthrightly is puzzling to me. The word is a noun in the Greek, thus SBG should have said yes.

And then we get the claim that somewhere in the unreferenced past a compelling presentation was made that 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not teach individuals are chosen through or by reason of faith in the truth. Give all the weight to these bogus claims they deserve.

 

[SavedByGrace]

If "this teaching" refers to salvation being a noun in the Greek grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, then the above post is "faulty."

Why so many "professing Christians" that post on this board lack the fortitude to answer questions forthrightly is puzzling to me. The word is a noun in the Greek, thus SBG should have said yes.

And then we get the claim that somewhere in the unreferenced past a compelling presentation was made that 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not teach individuals are chosen through or by reason of faith in the truth. Give all the weight to these bogus claims they deserve.

you should not consider using this verse the way that you are, because as I have said before, the textual evidence has two very distinct readings, as can be seen from these English versions, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe.

 

[Van]

you should not consider using this verse the way that you are, because as I have said before, the textual evidence has two very distinct readings, as can be seen from these English versions, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe.

I use the NASB version of 2 (Second, number two) Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I use the NASB version of 2 (Second, number two) Thessalonians 2:13.

my mistake, it should be 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always thank God for you, brothers who are loved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning to be saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and by faith in the truth.

"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" (ESV), etc

 

[Van]

my mistake, it should be 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always thank God for you, brothers who are loved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning to be saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and by faith in the truth.

"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" (ESV), etc

Here you have revealed your willingness to alter the text (using to be saved when the Greek reads salvation). And the two variants (first fruits or from the beginning) are irrelevant to the issue.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches conditional election by reason of faith in the truth. Anyone who denies this, no matter how vaguely is a false teacher.