|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 14, 2006 18:43:31 GMT -5
For Whom Did Christ Die? Can the doctrine of limited atonement be reconciled with 1 John 2:2? This Scripture has long been a thorn in the Calvinists side. Here I will examine what I believe to be the historic Calvinist position on this verse. (If I'm wrong feel free to correct me ) 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.”The contention in this passage is over the meaning of the words “our” and “the whole world”. In order to get around the universal force of this passage Calvinists have interpreted “our” as “Jewish believers” and “the whole world” as “Gentile believers”. They therefore interpret this passage to mean that Jesus did not die for Jewish believers only, but also for Gentile believers. Thus they can still claim that the Lord died only for the elect despite the apparent contradiction of this verse. In order that it may be seen that this is a Calvinistic interpretation of this verse I will quote from Arthur Pink and Dr. Gary D. Long. Pink writes, "When John says, ‘He is the propitiation for our sin’ he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers… When John added, ‘And not for ours only, but also for the whole world he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too…” –Pink, Sovereignty, p 259- 260 Dr. Gary D. Long writes, “It is the writer’s position along with most historic Calvinists that in the first part of 1 John 2:2 the believing Jews alone are intended, of whom John was one; and the addition [last part of the verse] is not an extending of the propitiation of Christ to others than believers, but only to other believers [i.e., Gentile believers].” –Long, Propitiation in 1 John 2:2 In response to the first claim that “our (s)” in 1 John 2:2 signifies “Jewish believers” we simply need to ask if there’s any evidence that 1 John is written to Jewish Christians? The NIV Study Bible says this about the recipients of 1 John: “1 John 2:12-14, 19; 3:1; 5:13 make it clear that this letter was addressed to believers. But the letter itself does not indicate who they were or where they lived. The fact that it mentions no one by name suggests it was a circular letter sent to Christians in a number of places. Evidence from early Christian writers places the apostle John in Ephesus during most of his later years (c. A.D. 70-100). The earliest confirmed use of 1 John was in the province of Asia (in modern Turkey), where Ephesus was located. Clement of Alexandria indicates that John ministered in the various churches scattered throughout that province. It may be assumed, therefore, that 1 John was sent to the churches of the province of Asia.” Widely recognized Bible scholar Merrill Tenney says about this letter, “The exact time and place of writing are indeterminate, but the most acceptable view is that these documents (1,2,3 John) were written by John for the Asian churches in the middle of the last third of the first century.” –Tenney, New Testament Survey, p. 375 Dr. Paul Benware writes, “Since John had such a close relationship in his life with the church at Ephesus (and thus the churches of Asia Minor), it is highly likely that 1 John was written for the benefit of these Christians.” –Benware, Survey of the New Testament, p. 267 This brief survey should make it clear that there’s no reason to think that John was writing exclusively to Jewish Christians. To the contrary most scholars see the letter as addressed to the churches of Asia Minor. These churches were a mix of Jews and Gentiles. What becomes clear is that 1 John was written to Christians without regard for ethnic background. This is obvious when we look at 1 John 5:13,
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”Here it is explicitly stated that John is writing to believers. There is nothing to suggest that he means Jewish believers. Therefore, the “our (s)” in 1 John 2:2 simply refers to believers and is not limited to Jewish believers. What about the claim that “the whole world” means Gentile believers. Is this a legitimate interpretation? This can easily be proved false by a look at how John uses the word “world” in contast to believers in this letter. 1 John 3:13 “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.”This would be quite a strange statement if we take the Calvinistic interpretation here. The text would now read: “Marvel not, Jewish believers, if the Gentile believers hate you.”! 1 John 4:4-5 “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.”Once again a consistent Calvinistic interpretation mutilates the text. We now have: “Ye (Jewish believers), are of God, little children, and have overcome Gentile believers: because greater is he that is in Jewish believers, than he that is in Gentile believers.”! 1 John 5:19 “And we know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”Here we have the exact same phrase as that in 1 John 2:2 – “the whole world”. Let’s apply the Calvinistic interpretation here as well. “And we know that Jewish believers are of God and the Gentile believers lie in wickedness.”! I think the context of this letter is enough to refute the false claim that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 means Gentile believers. Dr. C. Gordon Olson says, “Why do extreme Calvinists try to limit John’s clear declaration to just Jewish believers? Only their doctrinal bias forces them to such a distortion.” –Olson, Getting the Gospel Right, p. 208 I think it’s quite clear that John meant what he said in 1 John 2:2. Jesus died for everyone. In fact John seals this truth when he testifies in 1 John 4:14:
“And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” He says Jesus is the Savior of the whole world! This is the same world mentioned just a few verses earlier, “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (verse 4-5)
|
|
|
Post by josh on Mar 14, 2006 22:29:28 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 20, 2006 17:05:55 GMT -5
Is there a viable Reformed alternative to this interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 20, 2006 18:58:41 GMT -5
Agh, come on brother Steve! I think you know in your heart-of-hearts that the Arminian theolgical view is very faulty and you're fighting to the bitter end to try and uphold it, but everywhere it falls apart. It just doesn't make sense!
Of course there is evidence that John was speaking to Jewish Christians. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Gal 2:9
"My little children, these things write I unto you" 1 John 2:1 This would indicate that John was the spiritual father (that is, he was most influencial in bringing them to Christ) of those he was writting to, and because his ministry was among the circumcision then it is not unreasonable to believe he was writting to Jews. Remember there is no FACT to say otherwise, inspite of what the 'scholars' suggest.
Anyway, to the refuting...
Neither is there anything to suggest that he ISN'T meaning Jewish believers.
Comeon brother. Just because he uses the same word, doesn't mean he's talking about the same group of people! i.e. take the word 'Day'. It can mean 24 hours, or the period of time from dawn to dusk, or an indefinate period of time: "It's going to happen one day." And they can all be used in one sentance if pushed. "One day (future indefinate time) I'm going to take a day (24hrs) to walk to the beach during the day (dawn-dusk)." So here "world" means the unbelieving world.
The same applies here.
AGAIN I say -
If Christ died for ALL the sins of ALL people, then he couldn't have died for the sin of unbelief!!
If all men's unbelief has been paid for then then all sin has been forgiven - there is nothing left to forgive and we would then have universalism (everyone goes to heaven). But 1 John 3:23 teaches "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ." To disobey this command is a sin, and the greatest sin of all I might add. A question to ask yourself is did Christ pay for this sin or not?
People who are guilty of unbelief can only be forgiven if Christ died for THEIR unbelief, hence they get saved at some point and hence the elect. If Christ died for Judas' unbelief then why didn't Judas at some point believe before death? It would be unjust of God (against His nature) to punish two people for the same sin. If Christ suffered for Judas' unbelief, then is Judas suffering for his unbelief? Of course he is, so Christ must not have suffered for his unbelief and so Christ never died for this sin and it would make sense therefore to conclude that if Christ didn't die for Judas' unbelief, he never died for ANY of his sins.
For a text which backs up the view of Limited Atonement -
Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it"
From the two verbs "loved" and "it" it may be clearly seen that the church enjoyed a special existence and a standing before Christ such that he "loved" it PRIOR to his "giving" of himself for it, and that his love for his church was the motivating power behind his "giving" himself for it.
The "church" must represent a certain people, otherwise a husband is to love every woman the same, rather than having a special love for his wife. Because of the particular and special love a man ought to have for one woman (his bride), so Christ has a particular love for HIS bride (the church). If Christ loves everyone the same, and gave himself for them (everybody), Paul couldn't draw the similarity between husband and wife or else the husband must love every woman the same!
Remember, this text is God inspired, when God draws an analogy like He does here, there are no holes in it. To say that all Paul means is that husbands are to have a sacrificial love for their wives, doesn't hold. God makes no mistakes, nor leaves no holes.
The Arminian view of salvation just doesn't hold -
God HAS to have Unconditionally elected us, because:
1) Eph 2:1 - We are DEAD in sins. Dead means dead, there is NO spark of God pleasing, God given spiritual life in us. 2) Jer 31:3 - God loves us with an everlasting or eternal (before the foundations of the world) love and BECAUSE of that love HE (nothing to do with us) has drawn us. God brings us BY himself, TO himself. 3) By the convicting work of the Spirit, showing sin and applying the Word, GOD gives TWO graces i) repentance Acts 11:18, 2 Tim 2:25, and ii) faith Rom 10:17, Eph 2:8. This soverign, ALL-of-God salvation is highlighted in the conversion of Saul/Paul Acts 9 and Lydia Acts 16.
As I said before, to say that someone is 'elected' as a result of his own choice just doesn't make sense. It goes against the basic meaning of the word. Think about it brother. You say (as the bible teaches) you're 'elected' in Christ. But in the same breath you could say, "I chose to come to Christ"...it's a contradiction. If election is only pronounced upon a man AFTER he chooses Christ, then he was NEVER elected at all, he just chose it himself. If there were a selection of children up for adoption, with your theology you have the child picking the parents and then saying that he was 'elected'. It just doesn't make sense! God is our Father, we have been adopted into His family and it is all because HE chose us, WAY before we knew anything of it; yea, from "before the foundation of the world" Eph 1:4
There are so many ways salvation is expressed in the Bible that makes Arminianism impossible. i.e. We are DEAD in sins. Well if we are dead, then made alive by spiritual resurrection through our regeneration, then how can we die, then be made alive again, and die, and be resurrected again....who knows how many times? Also, if we become children of God, how can this relationship be severed, then renewed, severed, renewed....it is not possible in the earthly family, why the heavenly?
God Bless!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 20, 2006 19:47:35 GMT -5
Armen,
Does Galatians 2:9 limit everything John wrote (John, 1,2,3 John, Revelation) to Jews? If so, then everything Peter and James wrote is to Jews only, and all of Paul's writings are to Gentiles alone. It's not legitimate to take Galatians 2:9 and impose it on all these writings.
You have shown that the historic Calvinist interpretation of this passage is based on shaky ground. The burden of proof lies on the Calvinist in this instance. There's really no evidence to support the view that this was written to Jewish Christians.
I agree with you that 1 John 3:13; 4:4-5; 5:19 are talking about the unbelieving world. Here the world is contrasted with the believers which makes it obvious. This is the same case in 1 John 2:2. The Calvinist interpretation cannot be consistent here. That's the point!
As for the rest of your post I'll not respond because I wanted to center the debate around this passage.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 21, 2006 3:24:03 GMT -5
There's really no evidence to support the view that this was written to Jewish Christians. This is the first time I've encountered /any/ verse that really troubles my view of limited atonement. But I think Armen was right when he said neither is there evidence to support the view that this was NOT written to Jewish Christians. Tough call, glad Steve brought it up. I'm undecided -- really the classic Calvinist view isn't all that shaky IMHO, but this Arminian view is also strong. So I will pray for wisdom. I've noticed people will go all out when challenging an opponent, opening up the context and greek and hebrew but rarely doing the same for their own texts. Let's just be good Bereans and study our own framework with as much zeal as we study our opponent's. Remember to love and respect one another; same Christ, aberrant issues.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 21, 2006 16:32:06 GMT -5
I've gotta admit, Piper's explaination really makes sense: "1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.
Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.Wow. I think he's right. From www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.htmlI appreciate Piper because like him I try not to just swallow the TULIP without biting each petal. That is, I try to test my own theology (good Berean), and I can tell Piper did, too. In fact he's still wrestling with some parts of limited (or definite) atonement. He did a free audio series on the TULIP which was simply marvellous. He presented the Arminian texts, let them sound just as they are without any twisting, and then cross-examined them with other scripture to see if they were true. From what I can tell, he did not back down from any difficult text but first let it speak for itself (even if it sounded Arminian) and then interpreted it with other scripture. My favorite quote from that series: The Arminians usually charge that we Calvinists press logic derived from the other four points into the text to support the view of limited atonement. I protest that. I heard that years ago at a seminar and that's why I wasn't a five-pointer for years.
I will not let seemingly ostensible logic drive against clear texts!Neither will I! Piper continues: I think the charge falls far heavier on the Arminian that there is a logic being pressed into the texts; I think they take the seemingly logical philosophical presupposition that one cannot have accountability unless one is self-determining. I have not found that anywhere in scripture!I agree! In fact, I have found at least two scriptures that proclaim just the opposite! Perhaps I'll add them here later, or write me Chris (AT) deVidal (DOT) tv if you're curious. If Arminianism is true, it will stand the test of scripture. My Arminian brothers, please have a listen to Piper's point-of-view and see if it lines up with scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 21, 2006 16:43:36 GMT -5
We don't have to choose one theology or the other. People are wrong all the time, what makes us think either Arminians or Calvinists are totally right?
Use their studies as tools, but don't narrow the path to truth. And that path is of a Person, not a thing. Our goal should be to know Him and not just have some theology that appeases our intellect. Dig in to understand His nature and character.
I thank the LORD for you, brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 21, 2006 17:01:25 GMT -5
We don't have to choose one theology or the other. People are wrong all the time, what makes us think either Arminians or Calvinists are totally right? Use their studies as tools, but don't narrow the path to truth. And that path is of a Person, not a thing. Our goal should be to know Him and not just have some theology that appeases our intellect. Dig in to understand His nature and character. I thank the LORD for you, brothers and sisters. That's a great reminder, and yet if doctrine is right, defend it! I thank God for men like you who aren't afraid to look their doctrine in the face and see if that's what God really had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 21, 2006 21:56:28 GMT -5
You keep bringing this up but I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you repent of your unbelief could you not be forgiven? Is the "sin of unbelief" unrepentable?
Can you be forgiven of any sins that you have not repented of?
Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 22, 2006 6:46:24 GMT -5
You keep bringing this up but I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you repent of your unbelief could you not be forgiven? I've heard this argument somewhere before, I think it's Spurgeon's. He's saying that unbelief is also a sin. If Jesus died for the sins of all mankind he also died for that sin. I'm not sure I agree (maybe I do), I'm just trying to explain what Armen is saying.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 22, 2006 7:42:49 GMT -5
Unbelief is a sin, there is no question of that.
Ultimately it is the sin of unbelief that finally d**ns a person in eternal hell. It is, if you like, the great bridge between whether we'll be in heaven or not. It doesn't matter what we've done in the past, if we repent and believe we WILL be in heaven.
Christ died in ORDER to make us believe as well as pay for our other sins. If he didn't then we all go to hell. If he did it for EVERYONE then ALL go to heaven. Neither are true so he MUST have done it for a 'select' people, hence Limited (Definate) Atonement.
Also, I say again. If Jesus died and paid the punishment for the sins of ALL people, then why should Gods justice demand that the sins of the unrepentant be paid for AGAIN?
Excellent point! This is another reason why I use the Authorized Version, I think some modern versions change this to 'expiation' which tells only half the story. It was a propitiatory work!
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 22, 2006 12:04:35 GMT -5
Armen,
I wanted to ask you about some things you posted.
You said: "People who are guilty of unbelief can only be forgiven if Christ died for THEIR unbelief, hence they get saved at some point and hence the elect."
and: "If Jesus died and paid the punishment for the sins of ALL people, then why should Gods justice demand that the sins of the unrepentant be paid for AGAIN?"
So if I understand you correctly, Jesus died for the 'elect' only, paying the price for all their sins, including their unbelief. If my understanding is correct of what you're saying, then why would the 'elect' have any need to repent and believe? Because if their sins have already been paid for, then (as you've said) how could Jesus punish them again in hell for not believing still?
Then you said: "make us believe as well as pay for our other sins"
Belief is not something forced upon someone... is it? And if it is, then why would our unbelief be a sin since its dependant on an outer force? But if belief is an act of our freewill, then yes we are guilty but then it must also be still our freewill to believe.
Help me understand you, but please hold back the proud remarks...
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 22, 2006 13:22:21 GMT -5
The point is, the elect will believe at some point in each of their lives. Not one will be lost, ever. So Christ will never have to "punish them again in hell".
The Westminster Shorter Catechism -
Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ? A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
Q. 87. What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
There is no saving value in our repentance and faith, the saving value is in the merits of Jesus Christ. All repentance and faith is, is the gateway to entering into a position where the saving value of Christ's merits can be appropriated by each of God's elect.
For a sinner to believe, it all lies in the hands of God.
1) Eph 2:1 - We are DEAD in sins. Dead means dead, there is NO spark of God pleasing, God given spiritual life in us. 2) Jer 31:3 - God loves us with an everlasting or eternal (before the foundations of the world) love and BECAUSE of that love HE (nothing to do with us) has drawn us. God brings us BY himself, TO himself. 3) By the convicting work of the Spirit, showing sin and applying the Word, GOD gives TWO graces i) repentance Acts 11:18, 2 Tim 2:25, and ii) faith Rom 10:17, Eph 2:8.
This however, does not make unbelief not a sin. It is still a sin even though to believe requires God.
Don't try and understand it bro, just believe the Word.
I hope this hasn't come across as proud. I never intend any of my posts to come across that way, but as someone else said, we can't show any vocal tone in what we're expressing here.
God bless!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 15:41:47 GMT -5
Chris, You posted, "I've gotta admit, Piper's explaination really makes sense:
"1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.
Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.
Wow. I think he's right." I want to thank you for attempting to explain this in a serious way. I love when someone brings in a point that I haven't seen before. Nevertheless, I would like to analyze Piper's interpretation here. It seems that his entire interpretation stands or falls on his statement that, "the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners" If that is the case, then there are only two possible interpretations of this verse. 1. Limited Atonement 2. Universalism This is an ingenius attempt to back the Arminian into a corner. The problem is that the statement is a philosophical statement and not a biblical or theological statement. The Arminian does not believe that propitiation means a real removal of wrath from sinners. The Arminian (and others who believe in an unlimited atonement) believe that propitiation is provided for all mankind, but the benefits of that propitiation are only applied to those who repent and believe. To interpret this passage in accord with limited atonement J. Piper makes a philosophical statement on propitiation and controls the passage through it. This does not account for the context of the way "world" is used in the book as contrasted with believers. Robert Picirili has written a strong statement for universal atonement in 1 John 2:2. He writes, "1 John 2:2 This verse is one good example of the final reason, above, for universal atonement: "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." What does John mean by "world"? He uses this word 23 times in this short letter, consistently indicating the very opposite of the people of God. Consider 2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1-5; 5:4,5, 19. The people of God and "the world" are two different peoples, hostile to each other. Surely John uses "world" in 2:2 in the same way, and not as a reference to the rest of the elect in the world. The other places in this letter where "we" or "us" stands in comparision to "the world," as here in 2:2, also make this clear. There are four such places: 3:1; 4:5,6; 5:4,5; and 5:19: "We are of God, and the whole world lies in the evil one." This seals the point beyond argument. "We" and "the world" are two different realms. But we must not be proud: Jesus died not only for us, but for those who hate us, not only for us but for those who are in the grip of the evil one. Not only for us, but for the wicked world that has rejected Him." I've posted this a couple of times, but I think it's worth posting again here. I think this is a very strong argument against interpreting the "world" as believers. "Norman F. Doutry, a 4-point Calvinist, dilligently searched out this question. He lists the following works:
1. Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament 2. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words 4. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament 5. Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament 6. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 7. Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament 8. Arndt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 9. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 10. Hastings' Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic church 11. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 12. Tasker's New Bible Dictionary 13. Everett F. Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology 14. John D. Davis in his Dictionary of the Bible
Then Doutry says,
"But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word [for world] is never said to denote 'the elect.' These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos (Gk. for world) in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29; 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31;16:8-11; 17:21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 4:14."
He then concludes,
"All of this is disastrous for the advocates of Limited Atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of our lexicons, encylopedias and dictionaries, when they have ascribed a further signification to the word kosmos, which will support their theological system." Steve
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 22, 2006 16:20:43 GMT -5
In essence then brother Steve, with Piper's view it brings us to a stalemate. It doesn't attack and prove the Arminian view wrong, but it upholds the Calvinistic view with ease.
"world" - Christ did not die for every person without exception but every person without distinction. . All kinds of people everywhere, is what is meant.
Like Mark 1:5 - "and there went out unto him all the land of Judea." Obviously it wasn't EVERYONE, but all types of people.
I was reading this the other night. Maybe you have an easy answer for it, but it seemed as clear as a whistle to me. "...I lay down my life for the sheep." John 10:15 That seems to be pretty specific to me.
|
|
|
Post by Manna on Mar 22, 2006 16:46:12 GMT -5
Chris, You posted, "I've gotta admit, Piper's explaination really makes sense:
"1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.
Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.
Wow. I think he's right." I want to thank you for attempting to explain this in a serious way. I love when someone brings in a point that I haven't seen before. Nevertheless, I would like to analyze Piper's interpretation here. It seems that his entire interpretation stands or falls on his statement that, "the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners" If that is the case, then there are only two possible interpretations of this verse. 1. Limited Atonement 2. Universalism This is an ingenius attempt to back the Arminian into a corner. The problem is that the statement is a philosophical statement and not a biblical or theological statement. The Arminian does not believe that propitiation means a real removal of wrath from sinners. The Arminian (and others who believe in an unlimited atonement) believe that propitiation is provided for all mankind, but the benefits of that propitiation are only applied to those who repent and believe. To interpret this passage in accord with limited atonement J. Piper makes a philosophical statement on propitiation and controls the passage through it. This does not account for the context of the way "world" is used in the book as contrasted with believers. Robert Picirili has written a strong statement for universal atonement in 1 John 2:2. He writes, "1 John 2:2 This verse is one good example of the final reason, above, for universal atonement: "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." What does John mean by "world"? He uses this word 23 times in this short letter, consistently indicating the very opposite of the people of God. Consider 2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1-5; 5:4,5, 19. The people of God and "the world" are two different peoples, hostile to each other. Surely John uses "world" in 2:2 in the same way, and not as a reference to the rest of the elect in the world. The other places in this letter where "we" or "us" stands in comparision to "the world," as here in 2:2, also make this clear. There are four such places: 3:1; 4:5,6; 5:4,5; and 5:19: "We are of God, and the whole world lies in the evil one." This seals the point beyond argument. "We" and "the world" are two different realms. But we must not be proud: Jesus died not only for us, but for those who hate us, not only for us but for those who are in the grip of the evil one. Not only for us, but for the wicked world that has rejected Him." I've posted this a couple of times, but I think it's worth posting again here. I think this is a very strong argument against interpreting the "world" as believers. "Norman F. Doutry, a 4-point Calvinist, dilligently searched out this question. He lists the following works:
1. Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament 2. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words 4. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament 5. Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament 6. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 7. Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament 8. Arndt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 9. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 10. Hastings' Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic church 11. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 12. Tasker's New Bible Dictionary 13. Everett F. Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology 14. John D. Davis in his Dictionary of the Bible
Then Doutry says,
"But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word [for world] is never said to denote 'the elect.' These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos (Gk. for world) in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29; 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31;16:8-11; 17:21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 4:14."
He then concludes,
"All of this is disastrous for the advocates of Limited Atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of our lexicons, encylopedias and dictionaries, when they have ascribed a further signification to the word kosmos, which will support their theological system." Steve Most interesting Steve.. Even the word " Propitiation" means that Jesus took on Himself the punisment for our sins and satisfied God's Righteous judgement aginst sin.. Forgiveness is offered to everyone throughout the world and is received by those who TURN to Christ for repentance and faith.. we don't go to Christ to give our repentance, but we get our repentance from him. It is a part of the gracious gift, of salvation... Look at the atonement... meaning At-One-ment... Is it the grace of God that makes us differ from sinners or is it our faith? Just passing through... Blessed Regards......
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 16:48:44 GMT -5
Armen,
I've already pointed out that I have no problem saying that Jesus died for his sheep. I don't think you can conclude from this that he died ONLY for his sheep. That is an argument from silence. If you applied this principle consistently, then when Paul says in Galatians 2:20 that Jesus "gave himself for me" it would mean for Paul and no one else. Is that a legitimate conclusion? Neither is it legitimate to say that because Jesus died for his sheep he died for no one else.
Concerning the use of the words "world", "all", etc... I agree that there are many places in the Scriptures that it doesn't mean literally all or everyone. We must determine the meaning by the context (as you did in Mark 1:5). I think I've made a good argument concerning "world" in 1 John. Especially when "world" is being used in contrast to believers, as in 1 John 2:2. The context makes it clear the the world being spoken of is the unregenerate world in contrast to the regenerate. Therefore, I don't believe we have a stalemate. J. Piper's interpretation doesn't account for this context. He attempts to define the meaning of "the whole world" by a philosophical statement on propitiation. This disregards all the other passages in 1 John that contradict that use of world.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 17:18:22 GMT -5
The word propitiate means - "To win or regain the favour of; appease" (Oxford English Dictionary)
Propitatation is God-ward. It makes it possible for God to be merciful and favorable to sinners. Propitiation does not secure their salvation though. Propitation is applied by repentant faith.
Christ's work of propitation removed the barrier erected by God's holy nature. It made salvation possible, but not inevitable. There's no reason to limit it to some sinners. This propitation makes salvation available to anyone who will believe and repent. It avails not at all for those who reject the gospel.
P.S. This may not be an exact definition or precise theological explanation. This is what I understand of the term at this time. If need be I'll give a more adequate explanation later.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Manna on Mar 22, 2006 17:29:26 GMT -5
The word propitiate means - "To win or regain the favour of; appease" (Oxford English Dictionary) Propitate is God-ward. It makes it possible for God to be merciful and favorable to sinners. Propitiation does not secure their salvation though. Propitation is applied by repentant faith. Christ's work of propitation removed the barrier erected by God's righteous character. It made salvation possible, but not inevitable. There's no reason to limit it to some sinners. P.S. This may not be an exact definition or precise theological explanation. This is what I understand of the term at this time. If need be I'll give a more adequate explanation later. Steve Good Evening.. Just wanted to give you all teh meaning to At-one-ment, Will the Word of God please stand up ? Once you say Blood , or At-one-ment, or reconciliation what does that mean, it means the bringing together into harmony of those who have been separated enemies. This double meaning brings back the basic biblical concept into focus. But at the same times leaves out some very crucial questions: What cause the separation? What has brought about peace? How has it been accomplished? I will attempt to write with the Grace of God and will out using the Greek root meaning or verb, but will simply say “ The OT Atonement started with the “ to Cover over”, it is mainly used as a “RAMSON Price that “Covers” an Offense, not that it has been sweep out of sight, but has been PAID IN FULL, or been actually and exactly PAID for Exod 30:12, “Ransom” Num 35:31, PS 49:7, Isa 43 :3. Thus this arises from the use of a noun, one whole section of the verb…( in Hebrew, the Piel and Pual forms, Kipper, and Kupper…( Came to be set aside to express only the idea of removing offense by equivalent payment, and so bringing the offender (us) and the Offended ( God, through Jesus Christ ) together. The Jews still celebrated today, day of atonement in 7th month, the Jews have a feast of Yom Kipper. The ritual of the Day of At-one-ment should be studied, in the particular the part played by the Two Goats ( Lev 16:15-17, 20-22)….. God wanted HIS people to know the significance of what happened in secret when the high priest sprinkled the blood on the “Atonement cover” on the Mercy Seat.. Therefore God himself commanded the ceremony of the live goat to be slain on the Mercy seat and a other one to be let go in the Wilderness so that they might actually see THEIR Sins being laid on another, through Aaron confessed over the Goat, the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all transgression and sins, put on the head of the Goat, released him in a Land inhabited: and he let go of the Goat in the Wilderness, and see their sins being borne away never to return again.… Humm, Scape goat where have we heard that before. .On the Day of Atonement , in the OT, the goat that was substituted was in some sense not as valuable as a person through the goat had never sinned. Thus making this a temporary Atonement. They did point ahead to the time when Jesus Christ Our Lord would come to take away permanently all confessed sin (Heb 9:28, 10:10-18) The TWO GOATS in the Above represent the At-ONE-ment, Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and cleansing , Only Accomplished By OUR JESUS CHRIST ALONE.,. The slain Goat represents HIS OUR JESUS substitutionary, and Sacrificial death, and his Blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, for the payment for our sins ( Romans 3:24-26,Heb 9:11-12, 24-26).. The scapegoat, sent away bearing the Sins of the Nation, typifies Our Lord Jesus sacrifice which removes SIN and Guilt from those who REPENT of there SINS ( Ps 103:12)Is 53:6,11-12, John 1:29 Heb 9:26 In the OT the Sacrifices on the Day of Atonement provided only (A COVER) of sin, not taking away of sin. Our LORD JESUS BLOOD SHED ON THE CROSS, IS GOD’S ULTIMATE ATONEMENT for humankind and takes the Sin away permanently ( Heb 10:4, 10-11) OUR LORD JESUS AS THE PERFECT SACRIFICE( Heb 9:26; 10:5-10 PAID IN FULL PENALTY FOR MINE, AND YOUR SINS, and All that REPENT their Sins To God.. The Holy Place where the high Priest entered with the Blood to make atonement in the OT, represents GOD’S Throne in HEAVEN… When OUR Lord Jesus Died on the Cross, he entered this Heavenly Holy of Holies, bearing His OWN Blood to make Atonement for the BELIEVER before the Throne of God ( Ex 30:10, Heb 9 :7-8,11-12,24-28 The MERCY SEAT on which the high priest sprinkled the blood, Emphasizes that the FORGIVENESS of SINS is possible only by God’s Grace and Mercy, not because of any work that we have done ( Eph 2:8-10). Thus Since Our Lord Jesus is the perfect Sacrifice fulfilled. (Heb 9:12-18) But God in HIS matchless GRACE provided a Substitute who was infinitely better then the sinner, the PERFECT Atonement , absolutely sinless and holy, and dearer to the FATHER than all Creation. “The Wages of SIN is Death” Romans 6:23- and “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so THAT IN HIM ( Our Lord Jesus) we MIGHT( would the word Might here, be because God wanted us reconciled to himself, ( Us come to him as a believer in Christ Jesus, or a sinner who hasnot came to Our Christ Jesus?, I would say this is after you have repented and followed by faith in Christ Jesus) with this there is the Perfect Atonement that is in Our Lord Jesus) become the righteous of GOD (2 Cor 5:18-21) 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 Reconciled us to himself( through the Atonement that would put us back into fellowship with God through Only Our LORD JESUS, God’s perfect Plan and work of redemption from the beginning.. The Sin and rebellion of the human race have resulted in hostility and alienation from God (Eph 2:3, Col 1:21), This rebellion calls forth God’s Wrath and Judgement…Romans 1:18,24-32, 1Cor 15:25-26, Eph 5:6).. So God made Our Lord Jesus the object of HIS judgement, when Our Lord Jesus became an offering for ours sins on the cross ( Is 53:10). By doing so took our punishment on the cross. .”.OUR LORD JESUS” made it possible for GOD to justly forgive us Romans 3:24-25 Thus with this Forgiveness and PRICE PAID IN FULL we can Say BOLDLY we are the Righteousness in Christ Jesus, God’s righteous is manifested for we are living, controlled by the love, a new creature now, for the Believer that Has Repented, turned from Sin, In Faith takes his Cross up with our Lord Jesus Daily. For it is the Mercy Of God and His Grace that was supplied by the Blood of Christ on the Mercy Seat, for us the Believer. So the problem was, “How can God be just and at the same time Justify the Sinner” Romans 3:26 John 3:16 tells us that God so LOVED the World that he gave- But Our Blessed LORD was not just a means to the End, he was not a martyr to a cause,. But in the Eternal counsels of the TRINITY, he offered to bear OUR sins ( Rev 13:8).He voluntarily emptied himself of the divine trappings of ominipotence, omniscience(unlimited power)., Look at the verse where he is praying in the Garden , where he says ( Father your WILL be Done) and Glory (Phil 2:5-8) that he may be truly human, became a babe at Bethlehem. For 33 years he perfected the LAW on our behalf (Mat 5:18), and then PAID IN FULL, the penalty for our sins in his DEATH for us on the cross. Our Lord Jesus work of the Atonement looks in three directions: towards Sin and Satan )1Peter 1:18-19, Toward us (Romans 5 :6-11, and towards Our Holy Father God, (1 John 2:2). Hope this helped where i am coming from, when i hear tthe word "Propitiation".. God Bless..
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 22, 2006 17:54:43 GMT -5
It seems that his entire interpretation stands or falls on his statement that, "the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners" If that is the case, then there are only two possible interpretations of this verse. 1. Limited Atonement 2. Universalism This is an ingenius attempt to back the Arminian into a corner. Whoa whoa whoa there, be careful of language that paints a picture of intended deception. Perhaps he was not aware of your definition. I wasn't. EDIT --> I know you limit the effect of the atonement, but I thought that those who had chosen Christ, only those were 'propitiated' meaning the wrath had been removed. <-- EDIT Let us make charitable judgements about others, not assuming the worst. The Arminian does not believe that propitiation means a real removal of wrath from sinners. The Arminian (and others who believe in an unlimited atonement) believe that propitiation is provided for all mankind, but the benefits of that propitiation are only applied to those who repent and believe. Fine and good, but at least this verse is far from a "Calvinist Thorn." The Calvinist does not have much difficulty based upon our (we believe) Biblical definition.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 22, 2006 18:14:40 GMT -5
I've posted this a couple of times, but I think it's worth posting again here. I think this is a very strong argument against interpreting the "world" as believers. You might be right, and yet that doesn't contradict what a person who agrees with Calvin might be saying here. We understand the pre-salvation elect to be unbelievers, too. So arguing that "world" doesn't mean believers won't get you anywhere to convince me. By the way, even though I called myself a Calvinist, I would rather be known as a Christian who agrees with Calvin. But to save time, call me a Calvinist, I won't be offended :-)
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 18:41:45 GMT -5
Chris,
I was not trying to paint a picture of intended deception. I don't think J. Piper is trying to deceive here. I think his statement on the meaning of propitiation is a philosophical judgment based on previous theological commitments, but that does not amount to deception. If he's right, then the conclusions of limited atonement or universalism are legitimate. The question is does the death of Christ guarantee salvation for the elect or does it make salvation possible for all mankind.
If you're content with Piper's interpretation, then so be it. For me this Scipture remains a "Calvinist thorn".
With regard to the "pre-salvation elect". Where do you find such a thing in the Scriptures? From what I've understood (Obviously fallible) the elect in Scripture always is in reference to those who are post-salvation.
It goes without saying that we are primarily Christians, but in this kind of discussion theological labels are helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 23, 2006 14:15:06 GMT -5
Steve, you hit the nail on the head! The elect in scripture are always post-salvation, because it is then and ONLY then you come to realize you are elect. This is not a pre-conversion topic or anything to discuss or understand beforehand. WHen you do, it results in confusion, anger, etc. Why do anything if God makes the choice? That is the logical conclusion to someone being told about election prior to conversion.
You are also right about what the question at hand is - did Christ die to guarantee the elect, or to make salvation possible for all mankind? The answer is yes to both. In ultimate APPLICATION Christ died to guarantee the salvation of the elect, but in an introductory application, Christ died to make salvation possible. (to all who believe) But who believes? Those whom the Father draws unto Himself. It is a series of steps.
Scripture teaches us: No one comes to the Father but by Christ. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them. So, it all begins with God. If God chose us simply because He knew we'd choose him (according to his foreknowledge) then the Bible is lying because we were able to come to Him apart from Him drawing us. It's like the old logic exercises where you do the power of deduction. And when that is done, you realize the only possible solution. So we don't focus on what we DON'T know or understand, but what we clearly do.
Do you remember when many disciples stopped following Christ and turned away? Right after that, Jesus turns to his disciples (the 12) and asks them - Are you going to leave me too? And Peter says to him, where would we go, you have the words of life? I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. And Jesus says to them: "Have I not chosen you?" In effect, he was saying, the REASON you are not leaving me now is BECAUSE I have chosen you. The others were unable to stay because they were not chosen. I think this is in John chapter 6, but I'd have to go look it up and post it later. It has some good deep truths in those passages though.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 23, 2006 15:47:03 GMT -5
Alright Jules,
Where do you consider yourself on the Calvinist / Arminian scale. I'm still trying to figure out if you're just wording your Calvinism in a way that seems more conducive to Arminianism or if you're not a 5-point Calvinist? Your ultimate conclusions still appear to me to be in accord with T.U.L.I.P., but I think you express it differently.
Just curious,
Steve
|
|
|
Post by bullhornbob on Mar 28, 2006 12:53:11 GMT -5
Armen said: Don't try and understand it bro, just believe the Word. BB says: Wow, Armen. Are you for real?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 28, 2006 13:25:25 GMT -5
Yes, it's like the trinity in a sense, try to understand the trinity and you'll lose your mind. But doubt the trinity and you'll lose your soul.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 4, 2006 11:06:17 GMT -5
Forgive my late reply... With regard to the "pre-salvation elect". Where do you find such a thing in the Scriptures? From what I've understood (Obviously fallible) the elect in Scripture always is in reference to those who are post-salvation. I got that from my understanding that we are elected before time began, but not saved until a certain point. I didn't immediately know of any scripture that supported that, so I opened a concordance and found 2 Timothy 2:10: "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (That's the ESV but the KJV is almost identical) Looks like Paul is referring to pre-salvation but predestined (elected) Christians. The context doesn't seem to contradict that interpretation, so without studying the greek I think I am correct. By the way, "may" does not appear to be something like, "perhaps they might, perhaps they might not." That does not appear to be the use of the word "may" here. Also, as I understand it Arminians do believe in election; classic Arminians that we are elected based upon the choice God forsaw that we would make, modern Arminians that God elects a group of people that we choose to be in. So I think you might agree with Piper's interpretation of 1 John 2:2 if you think that "the world" means people who are elected based upon either criteria listed. Thank you for your challenge. You had me briefly concerned that Calvinism was incorrect. After all, if it truly is incorrect shouldn't we abandon it at all costs? Of course! May it be damned and its books burned! I won't hold to bad doctrine that drives against clear texts, no sir! But you have not convinced me 1 John 2:2 is difficult at all. Propitiation is, from my understanding of scriptures, a real removal of wrath. Not thorny at all. In order to convince me, you'd have to demonstrate from scripture. not just logic, that the Arminian definition of propitiation is correct. And that's another discussion for another day. 1 John 2:2 may be a Calvinist thorn for you, but for me it's just another wonderful Bible verse, great for meditation and memorization for a Christian who agrees with the five points ;D Thanks and God bless you whacky Arminians ;-) CD P.S. Did I mention most of my family are Arminians? Very godly, I love to fellowship with them. I have nothin' but love for you guys, I just happen to disagree on a few points of doctrine...
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 4, 2006 11:58:26 GMT -5
More John Piper on 1 John 2:2: This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.
John 11:51-52, "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."
1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.
Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.His defense of this subject is honest and credible. I recommend you read it, even if you disagree, so you can understand where your Calvinistic bretheren are coming from: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism
|
|