|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 30, 2006 15:46:10 GMT -5
I have another limited vs unlimited atonement question. John 1:29 reads, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Who's "the world" in this passage and why do you think this?
|
|
|
Post by J R Price on Apr 1, 2006 6:57:10 GMT -5
The word "world" in John 1:29 is the Greek word "kosmou." This is the same word used when Satan took Jesus up to the high place and showed him all the kingdoms of the "world" and offered them to him. (Matt. 4:80
It's the same word used when Jesus said that he speaks parables and utters with his mouth things that had been kept secret since the creation of the "world." (Matt. 13:35)
It is used in Scripture to designate the earth, the universe and mankind in general. There is no place in Scripture to assume that this word means anything less than all manking when John the Baptist said Jesus takes away the sins of the world.
However, that taking away is dependant upon repentance and trust in Jesus. Just as the blood of Passover lamb was shed to have the destroyer pass over the homes of the Israelites, they still had to apply the blood for it to become efficacious.
|
|
|
Post by J R Price on Apr 1, 2006 6:58:30 GMT -5
The word "world" in John 1:29 is the Greek word "kosmou." This is the same word used when Satan took Jesus up to the high place and showed him all the kingdoms of the "world" and offered them to him. (Matt. 4:80
It's the same word used when Jesus said that he speaks parables and utters with his mouth things that had been kept secret since the creation of the "world." (Matt. 13:35)
It is used in Scripture to designate the earth, the universe and mankind in general. There is no place in Scripture to assume that this word means anything less than all mankind when John the Baptist said Jesus takes away the sins of the world.
However, that taking away is dependant upon repentance and trust in Jesus. Just as the blood of Passover lamb was shed to have the destroyer pass over the homes of the Israelites, they still had to apply the blood for it to become efficacious.
|
|
|
Post by J R Price on Apr 1, 2006 6:59:42 GMT -5
oops, sorry. I tried to correct a spelling error then when I went back it posted it twice instead of just correcting the error. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 8:12:56 GMT -5
I don't believe you can edit a post unless you are a member and signed in.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 4, 2006 12:16:08 GMT -5
Who's "the world" in this passage and why do you think this? I know who you think it is I'll admit, this verse appears to deny the Calvinist's view of limited atonement. By the way, I don't know if you realized this, but it appears that Arminians also limit the application of the atonement; just like the Calvinist, the Arminian appears to say that God still chooses not to save everyone, but instead of limiting it to a group of people unconditionally, He limits it conditionally to a group of people who choose Him. In both cases, God chooses not to save everyone, but the conditions are different -- the Arminians say it is to protect God's justice, we say it is by God's good pleasure and freedom and glory. Did I misrepresent you? I think that was fair. Only the universalists do not limit the atonement. Calvinists and Arminians are both "limited atonement" people. The Calvinist says that Christ also purchased the ability to choose God -- His sacrifice was sufficient for salvation! The classic Calvinist (not the hyper-Calvinist) also agrees with the Arminian that there is a universal call of the gospel. See this thread. Recognize there is a difference between ability and responsibility; I can explain if necessary. Anyway, I promise I'll meditate upon it and consider whether it expressly denies the Calvinist's limited atonement or just appears on the surface to deny it. Many scriptures appear to deny the Calvinist's doctrines but on further meditation do not (for example, 1 John 2:2, see this thread.) Hope to get back to you soon.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Apr 11, 2006 8:46:47 GMT -5
Update: Still not certain, although my leaning is to interpret it in the same way as 1 John 2:2. I may not get back to you on it. I've been thinking about the role of repentance in salvation (attached to the Lordship controversy) for the past year and am still sorting it out. I'm a slow thinker, but I take comfort in knowing that so was Einstein ;D Rest assured I won't throw it away or twist it, but let it say what it says. I've been trying to glean John the Baptist's mind to see if the 1 John 2:2 interpretation could also fit here. Likely I will interpret this passing comment with other, more clear scripture. As James White said: "We must (...) insist that the Scriptures must be taken as a whole -- when we find in the direct, clear statements of Scripture truths that are contradictory to assumptions based upon passing comments, we must take the clear statements over the assumptions." Thanks for the challenge, Steve! A good one. CD
|
|