John 6:37

Ray:The Father can only give to the Son those who have received and love His Son. [John 3:17]

Me:Ray, Your interpretation turns the verse on its head. The giving precedes the coming and you say that He can only give those who come.
Ray:Yes, God knows the number of His elect and always has but He has not driven the non-elect away from the covenant of grace.

Me:He does not "drive" them away. They don't wan't the light(John 3:18ff), neither do they desire to come to Him (1 Cor. 2:14) and therefore cannot (John 6:44).

Ray:Why? Because 'All who cometh to Him He will in no wise cast out.' It's not a Divine mystery. God tells us all this information up front. [I John 5:12]]

Me: All who come to Him will not be cast out, but who are the ones that come? John 6:37 tells us that the ones the Father give to the Son are the ones that "come".

Ray:In Ezekiel thirty-three you must follow the word, 'wicked'. Is there any reason why a holy God would want the wicked to not turn from their way and live now so they can enjoy the future life with Him?

Me:If they would turn, they would have eternal life.

Ray: As Ezekiel was called, 'O son of man' and the 'watchman' we too are to preach and witness all the time for Jesus, when prompted by the Holy Spirit. [33:8 & Mark 16:15] Jesus, our Lord, will hold us accountable at the Judgment Seat of Christ, if we neglect our witnessing to Jesus Christ.

Me:We have to preach the gospel (Rom. 10:9ff.)
While Ezekiel may be speaking about 'physical death' in vs. 11 and in this chapter, I still don't think that anyone believes that the wicked end up in Heaven. So if God finds ' . . . no pleasure in the death of the wicked . . . ' you go and figure it out.
Ray: Thanks for showing that this has nothing to do with eternal life. You showed no effort to comment on where it clearly says God did desire the death of the "wicked".

Ray:Either He at times finds pleasure in the death of the wicked, or the other side of the coin is that He never finds pleasure in the death of those sorry lost souls.

Me: When you explain the text on Eli's Son's, you will answer your question. I would recommend looking at the stories of Joseph's life and the crucifixion of the Son to see how both of these can be true and the difference between God's revealed will and His decretive will as displayed in these texts.

 

Baptist Vine,
If you think that Calvinist's reinterpret these verses, I would encourage you to start a post on one of these verses so that we can see who is twisting it.

In Christ

 

Southern,

God knows the number of His elect and always has but He has not driven the non-elect away from the covenant of grace.

The whole point of John 6:44 is not to limit the number of who can come to Jesus, but He is rather saying that not one sinner would come to Christ except for the drawing of Father/God. The call to eternal life goes out to all sinners. [John 12:32 & I John 2:2] The Apostle of love-John does not contradict his earlier reference in John 12. 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto Me.' Any other view is John Calvin's spin on the holy Scripture.

If he does not drive them away, Calvinists say that He passes them by, or outright damns the non-elect for His own purposes and glory. The verse they use is Ephesians 1:4-6.

'All who cometh to Him He will in no wise cast out.' It's not a Divine mystery. God tells us all this information up front. [I John 5:12]]

In Ezekiel thirty-three you must follow the word, 'wicked'. Is there
any reason why a holy God would want the wicked to not turn from
their way and live now so they can enjoy the future life with Him?

Some sinners do turn while others do not flee to Him for eternal refuge. Jesus in John 5:40 makes sinners responsible for their eternal welfare, not some unjust pick and choose format set up by the Lord. Our Lord said, 'Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.' Especially in our day people don't like to take human responsibility for their actions or lack thereof; at the judgment they will find a just, Judge, meaning the Lord of Heaven and earth.

I do not know of one verse that tells us that God has determined to deny any wicked soul from His grace. But He rather says, 'And Him who cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.' This is from your own verse, John 6:35.

Either He at times finds pleasure in the death of the wicked, or the
other side of the coin is that He never finds pleasure in the death of
those sorry lost souls.

You derailed the train to Eli and decretive and revealed wills. Stay on subject. In the former passage in Ezekiel and in this one, in 3:18-19 God speaks of those who ' . . . die in their (own) iniquity.' Please, tell us where sinners go at the time of their death who die in their sins? The whole point in God speaking to the 'Son of man/Ezekiel' is that he would preach to all the wicked so they might not get caught in the jaws of Hell fire.

I don't find Eli in Ezekiel 33:11 or in the immediate chapters before or after chapter thirty-three.


Berrian, Th.D.

 

Therein lies the Arminian mistake. They place the emphasis on "all" and not the grammatical structures themselves and sometimes ignore the context of certain passages. Take Romans 5:18 for example. The Arminian view sounds right, until you put it against the background of Romans 5:1 and, even more particularly 5:15 -17.

The only way that "all" can mean "all men" and avoid universalism is to posit a potential atonement. In other words, it necessitates positing that Jesus' atonement only makes justification possible. However, the way the grammatical structure is set up, it is set so that the condemnation is actual. It is inconsistent grammatically to say that the condemnation in Adam actually happened (which nobody disputes) and then say that justification is Christ is potential. In other words, in Adam, all persons are actually condemned, Through the actions of one man, all actually fell. They did not just "potentially" fall. So, then, through the actions of the second Adam, Jesus, all men are actually justified. If all men are actually, justified, their sins are actually paid for, not potentially paid for. It would be unjust for God to require payment for sins that have already been paid. Unless "all" is qualified in some manner, then you must end up with universalism. The issue isn't "all," Sularis, the issue is the intent of the atonement and the ground for justification. That's where Arminians fail. They fail to account for the literal structure of the Greek itself.

Romans 5:18

"So, as through one offense, there resulted condemnation to all men, so also, through one righteous deed, there resulted justification of life to all men."

The literal, word for word, translation of Romans 5:18 is:

so therefore as through one offense into all men into condemnation, so also through one righteous deed into all men into justification of life"

So, therefore, as through one offense, into all men into condemnation,
so, also, through one righteous deed, into all men into justification of life.

Because there is no verb in this verse (it is not unusual in Greek for there to be no verb in a sentence), a verb must be borrowed or implied. Since there isn't a verb close enough in the previous verses to borrow and that would fit appropriately, one from the context must be derived. A smoothed out version would be:

So, as through one offense, there resulted condemnation to all men,
so also, through one righteous deed, there resulted justification of life to all men.

We know that inserting the words "there resulted" into the text is correct by simple logic. The offense of Adam resulted in condemnation to all men--no one disputes that. Adam represented all his people (everybody) in the garden. When he sinned, we fell with him. There was a result, an actual result to his sin: condemnation. It follows that "there resulted" should be in the second part of the sentence as well because the second part has the same syntax as the first and says "also." That is, Paul is implying a parallel between the actions of Adam and the actions of Jesus. Adam represented his people; Jesus represented His.
1) The structure of the first and the second parts of the verse are the same: adverb(s), preposition, noun, (verb place), noun, and object.

Paul is trying to make it clear in this verse that the deeds of the respective persons had definite results upon those whom they represented. That is why the verse is really two sentences of identical structure.
Adam's sin resulted in condemnation to all
Jesus' sacrifice resulted in justification to all

Where the first Adam brought condemnation to all, the second Adam (Jesus is called the second Adam in 1 Cor. 15:45) brought justification to all--that is what the text says, despite the apparent problem of "all people being justified."
Justification is being declared legally righteous before God. If someone is declared legally righteous before God, then he is saved. Only the saved are justified: "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him " (Rom. 5:9). Since the Scriptures clearly teach that not all men are saved (Matt 25:31-33), we know that the "all" in this verse can't refer to every individual. It must refer to something other than everyone who ever lived. I conclude that the "all" can only mean the Christians. God was so sure of His predestination that to Him, the elect are the "all" He wishes to save.
The NASB gives the best translation: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."
The NIV does not translate it as literally. It says, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." The NIV is right in adding the word "result." The NIV is an excellent translation but in this verse it sacrifices the literalness needed to draw out this aspect of biblical teaching.
Furthermore, if the verb phrase "that brings" is in the second part, it should then be in the first part of the verse because the verse is two identical thoughts. If that were done, then "that brings" would take on the meaning of result, because condemnation is exactly what resulted to all men when Adam sinned. Since the verse is in two identical parts, what is done to one should be done to the other. The NIV is not consistent in its translation at this point.
The KJV translates it thus: "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The words "free gift" are not in the Greek. The translators have drawn conclusions, though accurate ones, but I believe this too does injustice to the text by not letting it say what it says. Also, if the free gift simply came upon all people, then it does not mean that it resulted, and the apparent problem of all people being justified is taken care of. Unfortunately, that isn't what the Greek says.
I believe some translators of the Bible, when coming across this verse, realize the problem of saying the atonement resulted in justification to all men. They assume the "all" means every individual and then translate the scripture in light of their theology to allow harmony with their interpretations of the rest of the scriptures. I think that is a mistake. Translators should translate the text as accurately as possible, even if it conflicts with their theology. (MSlick)
The context of Romans 5 dictates who this second "all" is. It is the Christians, because we see over and over in Romans 5 that Paul talks of "we" (he and the Christians) who have peace with God (v.1), and references to those who have received the abundance of grace and righteousness (v.17). Even if you believe in an unlimited atonement, it is clear from the context of these references that Paul is talking about the Christians, those who have actually received the free gift. Thus the terms for "all men" take on a different meaning for v.18. The first one must refer to all men everywhere and when, because the text says the gift is not like the justification. It is unlike the justification in that all men fell in Adam but only some were justified in Christ. The "all men" refers" to "all of us, the Christians, because verse 17 says very clearly speaks of those who receive the gift of eternal life. So, you see, "all men" in v.18's second reference parallels the structure of v.17 which juxtaposes the universal condemnation of all in Adam with the justification of those that receive the gift of grace and righteousness in Christ. Notice also v.15 speaks of "the many," and not "all." Again, we have Paul using the actual structure of the language to illustrate his points, in the same way that chapter one's structure uses a play on the terms "natural" and "unnatural" to show that man is created naturally to worship God but his choice to worship himself and the creation is "unnatural," but man, in his sin reasons that his actions are what is "natural," and thus considers the worship of God "unnatural," which is what stands to condemn him before God. Paul uses a similar structural diagram with regard to the man is condemned and justified. I say this because you have to actually look at the Greek and understand how picturesque the language is. Greek language freely plays on its structure this way to use different meanings to qualify the same or similar words. (This was in fact the way many Greek dramas were presented). Here the unfolding "drama" is the drama of human history, and the language picture is playing on "all men" and "many." In the same way that man calls his actions in sin "natural," and God calls them "unnatural," now we have God getting the last laugh, so to speak, by showing how all men are condemned in Adam and the many are justified in Christ, and are now the only all men that really matter. The "all men" in Christ are the many who receive the gift, not all people everywhere. See, its a linguistic play on word usage, and all the clues are in the context of chapter 5 to tell us who the "all men" in Adam are and the "all men" in Christ are by the time you get to v.18.
It is clear that God has used the word "all" differently than what would normally be expected. This is an indication that God has intended for the "all" to be saved, and they are. When God is thinking of the "all" He is thinking of a specific group. These verses bare that out.

 

Gene M. Bridges,

Put this verse through your 'spin machine.' I John 2:2 says, 'And He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our only, but also for the sins of the whole world.' And John continues later in chapter five saying, 'And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness.' [vs. 19] In other words, "All sinners in the world are under the curse of sin."

We will not let this one slide. The writer of the Book of Hebrews says, 'But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.' (2:9)

Question. Why would Jesus die and taste death for every man and woman if they unable to believe in Jesus for everlasting life? [John 3:16]

Berrian, Th.D.

 

The New Century Version says, 'He is the way our sins are taken away, and not only our sins but the sins of all people.'

The New International Version suggests that 'He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.' [I John 2:2]

"The Wycliffe Bible Commenary" says through Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Th.D. & Ph.D., of Dallas Seminary, ' . . . but for the sins of the whole world,' means, 'There is no limitation on the satisfaction which Christ is---concerning sin. "World" Kosmos in this case, as in John 3:16, means the human race.'

It's time to inhale some Biblical Christian theology.

 

Sure, Ray...That's easy.

Jesus is the propititation for the sins of the whole world. In other words, salvation is found in no other. Jesus is the only Savior the world will ever know. In I John in particular, John is writing about the Gnostics who, by leaving the church have proven themselves not be of the church and therefore not Christians (e.g. unsaved). The entire intention of the letter is revolves around the validity of the gospel and that this Jesus is a real Savior, fully God and fully man, "whom our eyes have seen and our hands have touched," not the spiritual ghostly Jesus of the Gnostics. To say this teaches unlimited atonement doesn't account for the purpose or content of the entire letter. John is simply saying, paraphrased, "These Gnostics believe in a different Jesus, and they think that they have the right gospel, but, in reality, it is our Jesus that is the right Jesus, there is no salvation in their Jesus. Ours is the gospel, ours in the Savior, not theirs. There is no 'special' gospel, like they teach. There is only one Savior for the world. Jesus is that Savior. Jesus is the only Savior anybody will ever know. He is 'the' way, 'the' truth, 'the life.'" I noticed you referred to the NCV. Thanks, because notice where it's emphasis is placed on Jesus being 'the' way. This verse isn't saying Jesus died for all people in the sense that he paid for their sins. That is the wrong emphasis and and overstatement of the verse. The emphasis is on who Jesus is. It is on the IDENTITY of the one making the atonement not the people affected directly by it for whom the atonement accomplished something. It IS time for Biblical theology, Ray. You're right, and that's the problem with Arminianism. Biblical theology is God-centered, not man-centered .

The question isn't "for whom did Jesus die," Ray. The question is "What did the atonement accomplish?" "What did God intend to accomplish through the atonement?" The emphasis you Arminians have is the "all" of these verses. Wrong emphasis. The issue is "who is the all, in light of the intention of the atonement?"

Did it actually pay for anybody's sins or did it merely create a potential atonement? If the atonement is actual, as the texts seem to indicate, because you have to posit something the Greek structures don't indicate, (eg. they indicate a definitive quality, e.g. actuality not potentiality), and the "all" is "everybody" and not qualified in some manner, then you end up with a God Who's intentions in the atonement are violated. He sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all and He accomplished that, if we take "all" to always mean "everybody" and do not qualify it. If that is case, then God is unjust in sending people to hell, because their sins are paid for and His purposes are further frustrated because His intention is not accomplished.

THe only way around that is to qualify the meaning of "all," in some manner, or you end up with universalism.

In other words, to posit unlimited atonement is fine. However, it is not supported by Scriptures when you look at the proof texts in their appropriate context.

Nobody says that Jesus' atonement is limited in the sense of what it is capable of accomplishing. What Reformed belief, unlike your caricature of it would allege, limits it in terms of its effectiveness and its intent. Jesus atonement is infinite in that it infinitely satisfies the infinite justice of an infinite God. However, it is limited in the intent of it and for whom it accomplished it.

 

To do something for a person does not require that they have the ability to believe. It is a testimony against them them that they do not believe.

Jesus tasted death for every man. This verse simply shows that Jesus is the only Savior for the world. Again, the theme of Hebrews is "faith" and the "Better way." This doesn't teach unlimited atonement, Ray. It only shows Jesus is the only Savior the world will know.

Hebrews 2:9: "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. " This verse can be interpreted in both the Arminian and Calvinistic camps. The Arminian and the Calvinist say that Christ tasted death for everyone. To the Calvinist, the death of Christ actually removes the wrath of God upon the ungodly (the elect). To the Arminian the death of Christ was for all and doesn't actually remove the wrath; it makes it possible for the wrath to be removed based upon a human condition: belief. Therefore, the choice of God depends upon the choice of the person man.

This dependence on "self-actualization" on the part of man and the necessity of making God's choice a contingent choice (Which is logically impossible for a Necessary, Non-contingent, Purely Actual Being like God, in whom contingency can not exist, because God is purely actual, by definition, and what is purely actual can not have contingency in its being nor act in a contingent manner, e.g. dependent on something other than itself in order to accomplish anything it sets out to do) rules out your interpretation.

 

Gene M. Bridges,

Exactly, God's purpose in saving all sinners is thwarted, because He did not ordain universalism. It has eternally been His purpose to give His created beings free will [Revelation 22:17f to either accept or reject Christ. John 3:16-17 & Acts 7:51 & John 5:40 assure us that not all sinners are going to be united to Christ savingly.

I offered to you two translations of I John 2:2 plus a doctor of the church, Dr. Ryrie who clearly disagrees with you and other people who think more like Catholic Calvin did during Reformation times.

At Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia every year they have speakers in who celebrate Reformation Theology, and apparently are proud of it. In some teachings they truly are Reformation and cling to the old Roman Catholic theological thinking. Thankfully, Roman Catholicism has evolved away from Augustinian/Calvinism.

The only other concept of 'the whole world' is found in I John 5:19. The earth is not under wickedness, but John surely meant that all sinners in the world were under the blindness of estrangement against Almighty God.

Please, be succinct in your interpretation of I John 2:2 and then we won't be lost in your verbiage.

So you think Dr. Ryrie is off the wall?

 

Hey All (and I mean "all" in the sense of all who are reading this post ... not in the sense of every single individual who ever will live) ...

I'm new to the forum, but it's great to see Baptists who care to know God as He's revealed Himself. I'm humbled to be part of the discussion. Southern, I think the context of Ezekiel 33 may bolster your position. This is not a statement concerning God's indiscriminate "heart" toward all the wicked of all time. This is clearly a reference to His heart toward Israel.

v. 2: "Speak to the sons of YOUR PEOPLE, and say to THEM ..."

v. 7: "As for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the HOUSE OF ISRAEL... give THEM warning for Me ..."

v. 10: "Now as for you, son of man, say to the HOUSE OF ISRAEL 'Thus you have spoken, saying, "Surely OUR transgressions and OUR sins are upon US, and WE are rotting away in them; how then can WE survive?'" 11 "Say to THEM, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL?'

This really sounds corporate to me. I'm not sure it is a legitimate verse to assert that God does not unconditionally select some to save, and leave others in their sin. Any thoughts are welcome!

 

Ray Berrian wrote ...

Please, be succinct in your interpretation of I John 2:2 and then we won't be lost in your verbiage.
_________________________________________________

"Propitiation" - in laymans terms: the "wrath-absorber" - the one who received the wrath of God in the place of those who would believe.

Notice Mr. Berrian, it does not say that Jesus is the POTENTIAL wrath absorber, conditioned upon the belief of an individual. It says that He in fact absorbed the wrath of God (propitiated) the Father for the whole world.

Now, same author ...

John 11:49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." 51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the NATION, 52 AND NOT FOR THE NATION ONLY, but in order that He might ALSO gather together into one the children of God WHO ARE SCATTERED ABROAD.

Mr. Berrian, this is almost the same verbiage as 1 John 2:2 ... so to simplify ...


... and He Himself is the propitiation (not potentially, but actually the wrath absorber) for our (the Jews) sins; and not for ours (the Jews) only, but also for those of the whole world (the Gentiles as well).

Responses are welcome ...

 

Ray, I gave you my interpretation of it and the reasons for it. I would have thought a man with a Th.D. able to sort through the verbiage.

(By the way, maybe if you could put aside this strange chip on your shoulder you have against Presbyterians, you could at least articulate Reformed theology correctly. Your last post was just a long ad hom on them and, frankly just one big non sequitar).

That said, dattgog, thanks for that further explanation. I think what Arminians forget is the entire context of John's audience. John is associated consistently with the Ephesian church. This is the church that we know from Paul's letters that was beset for many years with the Judaizer heresy and then the incorporation of Gnosticism into it. Any time "the world" is used in connection with anything written to them, we need to account for that fact in our exegesis and the derivative theology.

To the Ephesian during Paul's first letter's reception and then those written to Timothy, we know that world would certainly refer to "both Jews and Gentiles," because of the contrariness of the teaching of the Judaizers that salvation was only for Jews and those that became Jews via circumcision. Then Gnosicism added to the mix by claiming salvation for a very special few, those that had access to "special knowledge." John here is saying that Jesus is the only Savior the world will ever know, and he is using a term that his readers would interpret as "Jews and Gentiles alike," not just Jews, not just those with special knowledge. He is the only Savior the world will ever know.

It is an overextension to posit anything more than that. It is the Arminian that reads unlimited atonement into the text. It simply says that Jesus is the only atoning sacrifice. The emphasis is on the identity of the sacrifice and the "isness" of the sacrifice, e.g. its actuality, not its potentiality.

Perhaps unlimited atonement is taught in Scripture, Ray...but, frankly, it ain't here...

 

dattgog,

I agree with you that the passage in Ezekiel God is speaking to the Israelites. He does not want one Jew to be lost and damned in Hell, plus He wants them to enjoy life here and now.
The Lord did not have pleasure in the death of one wicked person. [33:11]

Move this now into the New Covenant. The Lord does not change His mind since the Cross and have pleasure in the death of some wicked persons. He desire that all come into the faith. And this is why God spoke throught the Apostle Paul saying, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek {Gentile} there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.' [Galatians 3:28-29] The heirs of promise have come into relationship to God through the Son, [John 3:16 & I John 5:10-12] and thus we have become the seed or lineage of Abraham. The election that God has always known becomes real in time when the sinner believes. Jesus atonement is sufficient for all sinners, but only efficient or useful to those who become the elect. [I John 2:2] In this way God can hold all sinners accountable to Himself at the final judgment. The Lord will be totally free from the least bit of coercion and thus sustain His Attribute of Divine Justice.

The Spirit of God calls all sinners who hear the Gospel. [Revelation 22:17] He does not coach or minister to some and ignore the remaining lost souls.

 

Brother Gene M. Bridges,

I understood very well all that you said but I am concerned that you tried to bury the truth with your words. If you are going to give us 'spin' it does not take so many words.

The Lord loves Presbyterians as well as more Arminian types like us. We just get tired of some people's refusal to let the Scripture stand as it is without offering up an unclear eisogesis of the Word of God. A mild protest does not make us bigots any more than it makes you one. Many theologians disagree with your Augustinian/Calvinism.

Nevertheless, blessing on you and yours.

Do you find it difficult to explain away the findings of great men of God like Dr. Ryrie who has both a Th.D. and a Ph.D.?

 

I understood very well all that you said but I am concerned that you tried to bury the truth with your words. If you are going to give us 'spin' it does not take so many words.

The Lord loves Presbyterians as well as more Arminian types like us. We just get tired of some people's refusal to let the Scripture stand as it is without offering up an unclear eisogesis of the Word of God. A mild protest does not make us bigots any more than it makes you one. Many theologians disagree with your Augustinian/Calvinism.

Nevertheless, blessing on you and yours.

Do you find it difficult to explain away the findings of great men of God like Dr. Ryrie who has both a Th.D. and a Ph.D.? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, Ray, but I simply am offering the reasons on which I make my statements.

The statements of Dr. Ryrie are not the issue. I'm not going to say Ryrie is wrong because he's a dispensationalist, etc., unlike you, who make comments about Sproul and Boice like "they see the world through their Presbyterian eyes," I'll refrain from non-sequitars .

The text says what the text says. The text does not support unlimited atonement unless you make an a priori assumption that the atonement is potential and not actual. It is the Arminians that eisegete the passage and divorce it from its context.

The entire context of 1 John 2:1-2 has to do with there being a ground for the assurance of the believer. The ground must be a sure ground or else there is no assurance our sins are forgiven. John does not ground this assurance in faith plus the atonement. He says that we lie if we say we have no sin (like the Gnostics were doing), but if we do sin, if we confess our sins, they are forgiven.

You see, if you posit a potential propitiation, then you have a real problem, because that means we must lose our salvation every time we sin, that we must be actually forgiven by God each time we sin, that Jesus work is recredited to us. A potential atonement in 2:2 renders a necessary understanding of 1 John 1:9 that way. Arminian Baptists deny that kind of interpretation, showing they are logically inconsistent.

The ground of the forgiveness and the assurance we have of it must be sure. Therefore the propitiation spoken of must be ACTUAL, not potential. That is, by definition, what Reformed theology calls "limited atonement." If the propitiation is actual, which is what the text truly supports, and Arminians are correct and "the world" is all people, then the only logical conclusion is that Jesus actually paid for the sins of everybody, which is universalism.
John does not mean that all God's wrath against the sins of every person in the world has been propitiated, because then every person in the world would be saved. "He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (John 3:36). The wrath of God is propitiated only for those who obey the Son of God. (Cf. Romans 3:25)

From Piper:

What John means can best be seen when we compare the closest parallel to this verse in his writings, namely, John 11:52. Caiaphas predicts the death of Jesus like this: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." Or as Jesus says in John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold; I must bring them also."


In other words there are children of God, or sheep, scattered through the whole world. As John says in Revelation 5:9, Christ was slain and by his blood didst ransom men for God from every tongue and tribe and people and nation." He did not ransom everybody. He gave his life a ransom for many (Mark l0:45). He did not propitiate the wrath of God against everybody. But he laid down his life for the sheep. They are scattered throughout the world in every tongue and tribe and people and nation.


No one who enjoys the forgiveness of Jesus can be content to hog it for himself. He is not the propitiation for our sins only. There are other sheep that are scattered throughout the whole world. Their sins to are covered. And the last commandment of Jesus was, Go make disciples out of them from every people.


In other words, the text says that Jesus' propitation is actual, not potential. Unless "the world" is limited, you have to end up with universalism. Thus, the only way to interpret the passage in question can be that John is saying he died for our sins (his and his readers) and the sins of the elect from all nations, Jews and Gentiles alike, and, sin is serious, so the the Gnostics who were mistakenly thinking that they would be saved, even if they l left the Ephesian church, were in serious straits because there is no other atoning sacrifice, Jesus is the only propitiation the world will ever know. Salvation is in none other.

 

Since the price has been paid for the sins of the world, [I John 2:2] Christ now sits on the mercy seat and welcomes all sinners to come to Him. [John 5:24] According to John 6:37b Jesus will not cast out any sinner.

According to Augustus H. Strong in his "Systematic Theology" Judson Press, 1907, p. 778 said about I John 2:2 this statement. 'On I John 2:2 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."

Christ died for all human fallen creatures, meaning human beings. Jesus came into the world to save sinners. [I Timothy 1:5] No one has ever found qualifying words, such as only for some sinners/the elect.

II Peter 3:9 indicates that Jesus died for all sinners paying the infinite penalty demanded by His infinite justice for the sin of everyone in the world. [I John 2:2]

Propitiation means the placating of the personal wrath of God toward all sinners. The atonement and payment was made in full at the Cross. Now to get rid of the anger of God all one has to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins, and your slate becomes unmarked, and Jesus will never again lay your sins to your account. [Romans 8:1 & Romans 4:5] 'But to him who worketh not, but believeth on Him Who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. The one who finds Christ or is found of Him, that person has imputed to his own life the righteousness of Christ, because the blood has cleansed away his sins.

 

Dr. Berrian wrote:

Propitiation means the placating of the personal wrath of God toward all sinners.
-------------------------------------------------
Excellent definition except for the last 3 words. "Toward all sinners" is not inherent in the definition of "propitiation."


-------------------------------------------------
The atonement and payment was made in full at the Cross.
-------------------------------------------------
Correct: He gave Himself as a ransom for many. This was the cup of the new covenant in His blood poured out for the remission of sins for the many. This was the point at which Christ justified the many for whom He died.

-------------------------------------------------
Now to get rid of the anger of God all one has to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins, and your slate becomes unmarked, and Jesus will never again lay your sins to your account.
-------------------------------------------------

That is not what the text says. It does not say that Christ POTENTIALLY propitiated the Father, conditioned upon belief. It says that He is the propitiation for ... the sins of the world. HE IS the propitiation. Not potentially, not waiting for man's decisions. He IS the propitation.

-----------------------------------------------
[Romans 8:1 & Romans 4:5] 'But to him who worketh not, but believeth on Him Who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
------------------------------------------------

Now I think every biblical Calvinist will tell you that a rational man must believe to be saved. That is not a question. The question is this 1) who will believe, and 2) why?

_______________________________________________
The one who finds Christ or is found of Him, that person has imputed to his own life the righteousness of Christ, because the blood has cleansed away his sins.
________________________________________________

No doubt. But I guess that you'd affirm that "dead in trespasses and sins" does not mean incapable of aiding in your new birth. And I guess you'd affirm that faith is the act of the spiritually dead man by which he makes Himself alive?

 

Dr. Berrian wrote:

Since the price has been paid for the sins of the world, [I John 2:2]
----------------------------------------------
Sort of ...

-------------------------------------------------
Christ now sits on the mercy seat and welcomes all sinners to come to Him. [John 5:24]
-------------------------------------------------
Absolutely ...

-------------------------------------------------
According to John 6:37b Jesus will not cast out any sinner.
-------------------------------------------------
Any sinner that is given to Him by the Father.

I heard Al Mohler (Southern Seminary) preach a message recently on the "Gospel Bookends of John 6."

One side: (Jn. 6:37) ALL that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son. (Notice the order, they are given and so they come. Same as with Nicodemous ... born from above first, then see the Kingdom).

Other side: (Jn. 6:44) NNE can come to the Son, unless the Father draws him. (Notice the same "him" that is drawn to the Father is the same "him" that will be raised up on the last day.)

As for those who use John 12:32 ("And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.") to show that God draws everyone, the text literally says "all peoples." This fits the context. You have steadily growing apostles standing there with some Greeks who came to see Jesus.

Any thoughts?

 

Actually, the text literally says "all", period. The context implies "all peoples". It could also mean "draw all" as in how controversy draws both critics and defenders toward the subject (in this case, Jesus will end up drawing both His enemies and His elect with Jesus as the center of the controversy). I stil think it means "all peoples" but I certainly don't see how anyone can say it means "all men whoever lived, live, or will live" and harmonize it with other scriptures.

 

Dattgog,

In your enthusiastic support for the idea "God so loved the FEW that He gave His only Son" - how do account for WHICH FEW God chose to "so love"?

Is it their looks?

Their Family connections?

Their talents?

Their ability to live for God?

In Christ,

Bob