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 propitiation 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. This statement should be viewed by “who” wrote it. 2.)We find this type of statement other places in Johns writings and is consistent with not only Johns usage but a Calvinistic understanding of the atonement. Notice the following passage 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. Here we have John (the same author) recording the same exact thing we find in I John. That Jesus would die for the nation (the Jews) and not for that nation “only” but he would gather together in one the children of God (Christians, preferably gentiles not of the Jews). This is what the term “World” signified to a Jewish mind. An extension “from” Israel to the Gentiles. Notice another time John uses this same terminology: Rev. 5:9 “...for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” Here again while speaking about the death of Christ, John says that He redeemed men from “every” tongue, tribe, and nation (the World). In other words, not “just the Jews”. In I John, this is consistent with Johns usage. We have John speaking as a Jew and saying that Christ’s sacrifice is not for “us” Jews only (John 11:50ff;Rev. 5:9) but for the whole world (Jew/Gentile). This same usage of the word “world” to speak “generically” of gentiles is also used by other writers (Rom. 11:15). This term simply means an extension of privileges outside of Israel. This was a big deal to those used to God dealing primarily and exclusively through Israel. Question: How would you refute the above presentation of Johns usage (John 11:50ff; Rev. 5:9) of the “us” (Jews) and “them” (gentiles) being spoken of in this passage? I pray that we can look at this verse closely due to the many times it is quoted in passing by Arminians. (I may not respond til next week.) Looking forward to the discussion.