I John 2:2

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Southern, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer in his volumes {Volume II p. 327-28 says, 'Without question, the passage sets up a vital contrast between "our sins," which could not refer to those of the mass of unregenerate human beings, and "the sins of the whole [cosmos] world," which classification as certainly includes more than the sins of the regenerated portion of humanity. unless language is strained beyond measure in the interests of a theory.'

    Dr. A.T. Robertson, the great Greek scholar says, ' . . . for the whole world' It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of {ton hamartion} (the sins of) as we have it in Hebrews 7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world" as a mass of sin (I John 5:19) 'And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.' At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all {Hebrews 2:9} if they will only be reconciled with God. (II Corinthians 5:19-21).

    Dr. Bengel says, 'The propitiation is as wide as the sin.'

    Dr. Dusterdieck (cited by Huther) says, 'The protitiation has its real efficacy for the whole world; to believers it brings life, to unbelievers, death.'

    John Calvin declared, 'Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed . . . . for the whole human race.' {as noted in Augustus H. Strong's "Systematic Theology" Judson Press, 1907, p. 778. {For proof that this is an authentic quotation, see Vance, op. citl, p. 467-68}

    David Hunt: 'God Himself has come as a man to pay the infinite penalty demanded by His infinite justice for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:2). He offers pardon to all and sends forth the Gospel of salvation to "whosoever will believe." From "What Love Is This".

    Drs. Paul Enns and Charles C. Ryrie also agree with the above theologians.

    'The opposite theory is heretical meaning not Biblical and not of God.' Dr. I. Ray Berrian
     
  3. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Ray;
    Excellent Post A men
    May God Bless You;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  4. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you have a real problem stating that John was referring to the Jews in 1 John 2:2. This is an Epistle, it was not written to Israel but to the Church. The "our sins" group is clearly the church. The "whole world" group is clearly the whole world.

    By the way, one is not a universalist who believes that Jesus died for all men. They are those who believe what the Bible clearly teaches without looking at it through a slanted theological view. That the blood of Christ is shed for all people and that salvation is offered to all people does not equate that all people will be saved, unless you throw it under the extreme calvinistic view that Jesus only died for the elect and anyone that Jesus died for will be saved, no matter what.

    Bro Tony
     
  5. firedome

    firedome
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please re-read the article you questioned. Emphasis mine. [​IMG]
     
  6. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Bro Tony;
    I agree with you. Salvation wasn't meant for just few Calvinist but the Whole world
    Amen
    May God Bless You;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  7. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you believe the atonement is unlimited, then what does the atonement accomplish? What did God intend for it to do? Did it actually pay for our sins? Is it complete or partial, actual or potential?

    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).


    If you say it was actual, e.g. that it is complete in itself and that it really does pay for all our sins and not some of them, then doesn't that mean that God is exacting the penalty for sins twice over for the unsaved? That's double jeopardy.

    If you say its intent is actual and unlimited, then what if nobody ever believed? Wouldn't that mean Jesus died in vain? In fact, it strikes me that, for those that do not believe, Jesus did in fact die in vain. Not only that, you end up with a God whose intentions are thwarted. He sends His Son here; Jesus pays for our sins actually, then, because some people don't believe, you end up with a God who is only partially satisfied with the atonement, which contradicts His intention, which is to satisfy His wrath. If God sent Jesus to pay for everyone's sins, then He must remain eternally dissatisfied with the results. Jesus may receive satisfaction from knowing that some have availed themselves of His work, His satisfaction can only be partial because so many have not. How can God, who is purely actual without any hint of potentiality in Him do this? By definition, such a being can not ever be partially satisfied.

    So, what was the design of the atonement?
     
  8. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray,
    Notice that none of the guys you quoted even mentioned John speaking as a Jew nor did they offer any explanantion as to the Jewish mindset of the day. John is consistent with this "type" of terminilogy in other passages of scripture. Jesus came to be the propitiation for not the Jewish nation "only" (John 11:50ff.) but for men from "every tongue, tribe, and nation" = World. (Rev. 5:9). This is consistent Johnine terminology because of the Jewish mindset of the day (Just us Jews). Johns shows the extension from Israel into "every tongue, tribe, and nation". This is what the original readers would have understood.

    Bro. Tony,
    I think Firdome pointed out the error in your last post.

    May God bless us...
     
  9. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question of limited atonement is the question of design. EVERYBODY limits the atonement in some way. If not, you end up with universalism. The atonement either really pays for our sins or it only makes payment possible. If it pays for our sins, it can either pay for all of them or some of them. Those are the available options.

    When we look at 1 John 2:2, some of us think that John is saying that Jesus paid for our sins, both the sins of Jews and Gentiles (the whole world), He paid for our sins (the sins of Christians of both Jewish and Gentile descent) and for the sins of everybody else there is no actual atonement.

    Now, let's plug in the options above. Jesus paid for all our sins and those of the world, in an actual sense. That's universalism. We all reject that.

    Ah, but you have to believe, some say.

    Okay, then let's try this again. Jesus paid for all our sins (both the sins of Christians and non-Christians), except for the sin of unbelief.

    The text does not say that.

    No, others say, Jesus only created a means for our sins to be forgiven, His payment was potential, not actual, it secures nothing, and this is also true for everybody else that ever existed or will exist. The atonement is unlimited, you must believe in order to have its benefits applied to you.

    Again, that stretches the text too much, because it includes a particular view of the design that simply isn't taught here. (It might be elsewhere, but not here).


    Here's another alternative that doesn't destroy the text. What is John writing about? What occasioned the letter?

    The letter seems occasioned by Gnosticism. These folks had repudiated the gospel, falling from evangelical doctrine and sought the pursuit of a special knowledge; they followed a belief system that was ascetic in nature, and repudiated the body, so they also denied the bodily, physical resurrection of Jesus and said they had no sin in them at all. All the while, they were saying that they were saved, but they did not believe in the same kind of Jesus in Whom we Christians believe. They believed in a different gospel and a different Jesus. Before 1 John 2:2, there's a verse that we can summarize by saying that if we say we have no sin, we're lying, and we are proving we are sinners by saying it, and this, we know from church history, was exactly the kind of thing that these folks were teaching about themselves. John then basically says that those that go out from "us" prove they are not really of us to start with, and those that do such things aren't Christians and were never saved at all. The fact that they are believing in a different Jesus is proof of that, as is the way they lie about their sinfulness, and the way they show disdain for God's people. Now, unless you also believe you can lose your salvation, which I don't think any of us here believe, though I may be wrong, because some Arminians do believe that, then I think we can all agree on this much.

    Now, in light of this, then, we don't have enough data to hang a doctrine of unlimited atonement. John can either be saying that Jesus completely satisfied God's wrath for us and for all those whose sins for whom wrath will ever be satisified, both Jews and Gentiles (since John was tied strongly to the Ephesian Church who, after all the struggles with the Judaizer heresy in the past would understand the inclusiveness of the term "the world" in terms of salvation to include both those of Jewish heritage and practice and those of Gentile heritage and practice as well), or, at the most; Jesus satisfied God's wrath for us, and He is the only such atoning sacrifice the anybody will ever know; there is salvation in nobody else. That's it. It is an overstatement to say anything more than that. You can't hang a doctrine of unlimited atonement on this one verse, because that's not the point of the passage as a whole. The whole can't be greater than the sum of its parts. The only way you can is if you already think that the atonement is an unlimited actual atonement (which leads to universalism) or if you think the atonement is potential. Alternatively, you might have an actual potential atonement, which is an oxymoron.

    The only thing we really know from this verse alone is that Jesus satisfied God's wrath toward all believers, and that either through the addition of faith or by virtue of the fact that Jesus is the only Son of God that actually paid for all our sins alone without such an addition (since the design question is simply not addressed in this verse, we can't say for sure which is true from this verse), He is the only Savior the world will ever know' salvation is only in Him, there is no other; so anybody that leaves us and repudiates the gospel and says they have no sin in him and acts like these Gnostics in their apostasy are in great danger indeed, because John says that if you fall into that category, you are not a Christian at all, because true Christians do not apostacize (they may backslide but they do not apostacize, which is to fall from evangelical doctrine and repudiate the gospel, to lose spiritualiity of mind, and to fall into moral decay...which is true of the Gnostics, whom we know John says were with us but no of us, thus we conclude they were never truly saved from the start) and never were and you will die in your sins, because you can find salvation in nobody but Jesus. We, however, can be assured of our salvation (unlike them for there is no assurance for those who do not have salvation at all), because the ground of it is in Jesus and we know He paid for our sins, the fact that we are not like the Gnostics is proof that we are His, and Jesus death, we know without a doubt, has paid for our sins; moreover our lives evidence this. To believe in a different Jesus is a perilous thing, because there is no salvation in anybody else, and the most we know for sure is that the sins of Christians are actually paid for in the atonement, and if you look elsewhere, you won't find any atonement at all. That's the most we can conclude from this one text.
     
  10. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Gene;
    Did you ever think that you could over reason a thing. In that you wind up reasoning it to the point where it no longer makes any sense. This is exactly what I think you may have done. It is possible to talk yourself in to any thing if you wish to.
    IMHO To redefined everything so that it will fit your doctrine is admitting your wrong but refusing to accept it.
    May God give you light to see;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  11. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Mike, I actually do take the context of Scripture into account.

    There is NOTHING in 1 John 2:2 that necessitates an unlimited atonement. If Jesus actually paid for all our sins and the sins of the whole world, then you end up with universalism, UNLESS the atonement is potential and not actual. You can't conclude one way or the other based on this one text, which you seek to conclude. I'm not the one inferring ANY doctrine other than the uniqueness of Jesus's atoning sacrifice, from this one Scripture. You're the one that keeps trying to make it fit your doctrine, not me. Once again...this verse does not teach limited or unlimited atonement on its own. The most you can say is that salvation is found in none other and that this verse is very conclusive about at least one group, Christians, for whom God's wrath has been satisfied.

    I ask you again...what did Jesus death accomplish? Is the atonement actual or potential? If it is actual, but faith must be added to it, then is unbelief paid for or not? If so, but those that disbelieve are not saved, then that is unjust of God to pour out His wrath a second time for unbelievers, after He's already poured it out on Jesus. That requires double jeopardy. Moreover, there's more wrath for them than us, because God has twice the wrath for them and only once the wrath for us.

    The question is the question of the design of the atonement. That's it. It is YOU who ignore the context of reference after reference in Scripture and assume that the word "all" always means "every person who ever existed."

    The context of this verse does not teach one thing about the design of the atonement except that it satisfies God's wrath in some way, and for Christians that satisfaction is secure in some way. 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. However, as to the intention of it, eg. the design beyond that for Christians, that's not in the text. :rolleyes:
     
  12. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you think that the reference to "the whole" world in this verse teaches unlimited atonement (or for that matter that all such references refer to everybody who's ever lived, Christians and non-Christians), then you've got big problems in 1 John.

    As a matter of fact, the identical term "whole world" is used in I John 5:19 where it cannot possibly mean all mankind absolutely. John writes: "we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (in the wicked one)." Can this be true of the believer who is in Christ? If you believe the propitiation in 2:2 is unlimited in scope, then surely Christians must also lie in the evil one too. (Note also the syntactical structure appears to be the same as 2:2). If the term "whole world" in I John 2:2 means all mankind generically, it is an exceptional usage in the epistle (objectively, only in I John 2:2 and 4:14 could it possibly refer to all mankind without exception—two times out of 23 occurrences).
     
  13. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a clarification for those that have trouble with complex-compound sentences:


    I John is addressing heresies. Heretics (Gnostics) had repudiated the gospel and left the church. That is the major occasion of the letter. The letter was probably received in the Ephesian Church, which had struggled with the Judaizer heresy. They would see the world (kosmos) either universally and certainly as referring to both Jews and Gentiles.

    The bottom line: John is issuing a definite word of assurance and n implicit word of warning in this verse. His major theme is assurance to the Christians, but I think he's also saying something about the heretics here too.

    The assurance is that our sins are paid for by Jesus. Only Jesus has ever satisfied God's wrath. God's wrath is satisfied for believers that much is certain. It is not satisfied for believers, however (either because they do not believe, as would be in the case of a theology of unlimited atonement or because atonement is particular to believers, what we would call a theology of "limited" or particular atonement). Thus, the warning is to these heretics who, if they remain in apostasy show they do not know God and thus are not saved (and never were from the start). There is no satisfaction for God's wrath for such people; there is only salvation for believers; there is no salvation for unbelievers. If they die in their sins, they will go to hell for their sins. They must turn to Christ and believe the gospel to be saved. Why? There is no salvation for anybody (Jew or Gentile) in nothing and nobody else but Jesus. Jesus and Jesus alone is the only atoning sacrifice for sins that the world will ever know. Implicitly, limited atonement is supported, but only implicitly, not directly. Unlimited atonement could be supported here too, but only if the atonement's design is potential. We do know there is an actual effect for the sins of believers that is supported here: the expiation of God's wrath. (How that is actualized isn't spelled out in this text alone, one way or the other).

    I am unwilling to draw a doctrine of limited atonement or unlimited atonement from this one verse. I will say that those that object to particular/definite do atonement try to do this. I feel that is unwarranted, because it does not provide enough information and could lead to universalism as well. You have to approach the verse with a theology of the atonement in order to exegete it in such a way that would prooftext an unlimited atonement. I am unwilling to go that way or, for that matter, for limited atonement without more in the text itself.
     
  14. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think most of us would agree that we cannot build a theology on the atonement by only studying I John 2:2. But a red flag should go up when you read two distinct phrases the first of which says that, ' . . . He is the propitiation for our sins' and then moves ahead saying that this only atonement for sin, is not only for ours . . . .' ' . . . but ALSO for the sins of the whole world.'
    The earth/kosmos does not need a covering for sins, but the wicked are more than in a dire need of redemption.

    I John was not written only to the Jews/Israelites but to all of humankind that is lost, because of the Fall.

    Dr. Fred L. Fisher, Th.D. has written a survey about I, II, and III John. He says, 'The first epistle of John was written to a Christian community.' No city is mentioned but it was written for doctrine namely the deity of Christ, plus John points us as to how to live out the Christian life. Other doctrines like the atonement are also touched on for our understanding as to extent of Jesus love offered up to the Father by way of His own shed blood.
     
  15. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Gene;
    Of course it is potential.
    It is, at the point of repentance.

    That all depends on how you perceive what scripture tells us. If it's with a Calvinist view of individual election then I can see how you might think so. Election is unconditional it's just that it can't be unconditional if it is individual. If it is individual then the random process that made it so, was used in preference. If it was used in preference this would make God a respecter of persons through the use of that random process. If the random process was used to limit how many are saved then this would be an unjust God. But the truth of the matter is God cannot be unjust and just at the same time, both Good and evil, hate and Love.
    Or can He? He did create everything with absolute foreknowledge of everything He created, but then the Bible does say there is no God!.

    Hold it: So this is what over reasoning is all about.

    I suggest that you read the bible like you would read a good novel from beginning to end without all that human oriented system of analysis and logic. Not looking for knowledge no one else has but reading with anticipation of the one and only true God to speak to your heart.
    May God Bless You;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  16. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    "If it is individual then the random process that made it so, was used in preference."

    Um, if something was done in preference, it can't be random, Mike. LOL That statement was an oxymoron. If something is done with a purpose it can't be random. If something was done in preference, it had a purpose and can't be random. (Maybe you're the one that needs to study logic). Unconditional election simply means that the ground of election is in God alone and not anchored in man.

    If that is what Scripture said and what unconditional election teaches (that it is random and done preferentially), you'd be correct. However, all that is what is taught and all Scripture says is that God elects according to his sovereign foreknowledge and will. That's not random and not favoritism. Just because God doesn't tell you what His exact reasons are is insufficient to say it is favoritism.
    If it is CONDITIONAL, Mike, that is so, because it was based on a quality foreseen in each individual. What does God foresee in each indivdual that would lead Him to send Jesus to die for them? Why should God save them? What good is in man that would do this?
    You are correct, if election is individual and based on a quality foreseen in them, it is unjust, unloving, et.al. That is exactly what your system of belief is. It would move salvation from mercy into justice. Salvation is no longer a matter of grace it is a debt paid a game of favorites. You'd have God love us the way Isaac loved Esau.

    You seek to define God as love. However, God is light, God is spirit. You've got a skewed view of God. I have asked you at least twice now to start a thread on 1 Cor. 13 and how it applies to this debate. Please do so and let us all see what you're trying to communicate. (You just say this and drop it...please explain what you are saying, and, please, do so in a separate thread, as this one is about the atonement, not election).

    So, you think the atonement is potential. Please explain this to us. Scripture teaches that the atonement paid for our sins, all of them. You have just said that we must add faith (a work) to the atonement in order for it to have any effect. You have added works to Jesus atonement, Mike. Think about it. That's an offense to God. What did the atonement accomplish? Please show me a text that says that unbelief is not paid for by the atonement. If unbelief is a sin that is not paid for, then who pays for it, Jesus or us? If we believe, then there is no unbelief to pay for, is that what you're saying? Then, that means Jesus paid for everybody's sins except for the sin of unbelief. Where is that in the Bible? When I read the Bible, I read that he paid for all my sins, including unbelief. (Oh, and I've been studying the Bible since I was six, Mike, been to seminary too, I'll thank you not to insult my faith; you've asked me not to do that regarding yours, yet you here show you are willing to insult mine. Hmmm).

    To quote dattgog, "Christ purchased the elect at the cross. He paid for all of their sins. The wrath against them has been absorbed in Christ ... every sin. Christ did not purchase a way ... He bought people. He said, in the stead of the elect ... "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" The rest of humanity will say that themselves for the rest of eternity. Why? Because Christ did not make the payment for them on the cross, God did not make them alive, and therefore they continued in their free will hatred of Him, setting up some righteousness of their own."

    The one thing this passage IS intended to teach is ASSURANCE, Mike. There is no real assurance if the atonement is not actual. I am not willing to hang a hat on the design of the scope of the atonement, but the linguistic construction here is the same as 1 John 5:19. Is the whole world really in the power of the wicked one or is that just a potentiality too? If you say that the atonement here is potential, Mike, then you must also believe this about 5:19.

    How about these:

    For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, except the sin of unbelief, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb 9:15

    He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, (except for the sin of unbelief, that wasn't included), so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21

    Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins (except the sin of unbelief) so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father. Gal 1:3-4

    The Arminians say that our view of predestination absolves sinners of the moral responsibility for their own sins.

    However, some of those same persons will say, "Yes, Jesus paid it all"...for both believers and non-believers. Effectively, the man in the gutter who is in his sins is just as redeemed already as the believer, but he will go to hell, if he does not believe unto actual salvation. (I have actually heard this very thing taught). That means that we go to hell for unbelief, not our sins, since Jesus paid for all of those, except for the sin of unbelief. What they fail to realize is that that very view absolves persons for the responsibility for all their sins (except for unbelief). They have suddenly implicitly done the very thing of which they (falsely) accuse us! Hmmm

    [ November 03, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]
     
  17. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    `Surely our griefs He Himself hypothetically bore, and our sorrows He hypothetically carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, except for our unbelief, He was crushed for our iniquities, except for our unbelief; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, except for our unbelief; and by His scourging we are potentially healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all, except for our unbelief, to fall on Him...As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be potentially satisfied, except for unbelief; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will potentially justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities, except for unbelief. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors, ; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, except for their unbelief, and interceded for the transgressors, except for their unbelief.

    :eek: :eek: :eek:

    This, brethren, is what you have turned the cross into when you say the atonement was potential.

    Which of these is correct?:

    1 Cor. 15:3. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and hat He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

    1 Cor. 15:3. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, except for unbelief, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

    I when I read this one verse, I perceive that my Lord paid for ALL my sins. I do not see the sin of unbelief is left out. The atonement is actual, not potential. It can be no other way. If I see a potential atonement there, then I must see a spiritual resurrection there too, and not a bodily one, after all, Jesus didn't pay for all our sins, so who's to say the resurrection really accomplished anything or that it was really a bodily resurrection.

    [ November 03, 2004, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]
     
  18. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray,
    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.

    In Christ...
     
  19. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have read all the posts and the articles in mention. I have read these views of the Calvinistic view point of 1 John 2: 2 before. I don't agree with them.

    I genuinely believe that the Calvinist comes to the passage and has to interpret it according to their pre-conceived theological stand rather than let the Scripture speak for itself. Certainly, John was a Jew, so what? I mean that in the context of this Epistles. One must ask who was this written to? John was not addressing Israel, he was speaking to the Church. One must really read alot into this passage to make it say what you desire it to say, there is nothing at all in 1 John that would indicate that John was speaking to the Jews rather than the Church.

    "He is the propitiation for our (Christians) sins,...but also for the whole world"

    Another point that was brought up in this thread was that if Jesus died for the sins of all men and some did not come to salvation then He died in vain. That is a common statement used to defend Calvinism. I wish you could step back and see how "man-centered" that statement is. My faith or your faith or anyone's faith does not validate or invalidate Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If no one believed He is still Lord and He still gave His life as a ransom for our sins. We need to stop espousing a "special" class of humans that Jesus died for and embrace the wonderful love of God that sent His Son to die for all the world.

    My faith and my salvation adds nothing to that love, as my lack of faith and my refusal of salvation can take nothing away from that love.

    Finally, I am offended by any inference to my faith in any way being similar to universalism. It can only be universalism from the mindset of a Calvinist who believes in irresistable grace. I don't hold that view and I do not believe in universalism in any way shape or form.

    Bro Tony
     
  20. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Gene;
    Every pedal of the tulip is linked to all the rest. Calvinism cannot be properly defined with out taking all of it's theories in to account at the same time. Your belief in one pedal determines how you define the next one.
    Why would you want me to start a thread on any subject when you are capable of doing that your self. If you want to discuss it then by all means start the thread. I'll most likely respond.
    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.
    If it is anchored in God which I agree it is then how can you account for God going against His own will?
    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.

    Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
    1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
    The whole world leaves no doubt that all Gentiles are elected as well. After all those who are not Jews are Gentiles according to the Jews.
    Salvation is come to the Gentiles because of the Jews unbelief in Jesus Christ They rejected there own messiah. They rebelled they lost there Salvation and yet they were the elect. Being chosen doesn't mean you will be saved. It only means that you can be.
    We have to make our calling and election sure;
    2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
    2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
    We do that by faith.
    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

    Neither one. This is the EMTV and the correct rendering.
    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,

    You insead look for what isn't there as proof in favor of what is according to the scriptures.
    May God Bless You with light;
    Mike [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...