Are 1 John 2:2 and John 3:36

[John Robie]

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:2

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36

I have heard 1 John 2:2 used as a proof text for unlimited atonement for years. So if "whole world" means every person who ever lived, then it stands to reason that God's wrath was satisfied for every person who ever lived. In other words, no wrath against mankind.

However, John 3:36 states that those who do not obey the Son have God's wrath remaining on them. It doesn't say God's wrath returns to them. It remains. Hence, it never left. That would mean that there are some people whose sins were not propitiated for.

If this is the case, then it's reasonable to believe that the whole world in first John means people from every tongue, tribe and nation, which is an acceptable definition.

 

[98cwitr]

Hebrews 10:26 says there's no sacrifice left for those that willfully continue to sin.

 

[MWood]

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:2

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36

I have heard 1 John 2:2 used as a proof text for unlimited atonement for years. So if "whole world" means every person who ever lived, then it stands to reason that God's wrath was satisfied for every person who ever lived. In other words, no wrath against mankind.

However, John 3:36 states that those who do not obey the Son have God's wrath remaining on them. It doesn't say God's wrath returns to them. It remains. Hence, it never left. That would mean that there are some people whose sins were not propitiated for.

If this is the case, then it's reasonable to believe that the whole world in first John means people from every tongue, tribe and nation, which is an acceptable definition.

Propitiation is a word used for things past. So yes, "also for the sins of the whole world."

John 3:36 is not speaking of sins, it is speaking of belief and obedience.

 

[98cwitr]

Propitiation is a word used for things past. So yes, "also for the sins of the whole world."

John 3:36 is not speaking of sins, it is speaking of belief and obedience.

Isn't the lack thereof sin?

 

[John Robie]

Propitiation is a word used for things past. So yes, "also for the sins of the whole world."

John 3:36 is not speaking of sins, it is speaking of belief and obedience.

I think it's safe to say that disobedience is sin.

 

[MWood]

Isn't the lack thereof sin?

I don't understand your question.

 

[MWood]

I think it's safe to say that disobedience is sin.

Even so, all sin was forgiven when the blood was shed.

 

[jacks]

To the OP I agree that 1 John is talking to a particular group of Christians and he meant not only that group, but believers everywhere. So God is satisfied with people everywhere it they have faith and attempt to "walk just as he walked." In John 3.36 I believe he is referring to those who are antagonistic and rebellious against God.

 

[98cwitr]

I don't understand your question.

You said it wasn't about sin, but about faith and obedience. Which in turn also addresses the lack of faith and disobedience, which is sin.

 

[John Robie]

Even so, all sin was forgiven when the blood was shed.

Was God's wrath satisfied against all sin?

 

[MWood]

Was God's wrath satisfied against all sin?

Yes, God's wrath for sin was placed on Jesus while He was on the Cross.

 

[MWood]

You said it wasn't about sin, but about faith and obedience. Which in turn also addresses the lack of faith and disobedience, which is sin.

The sin was covered by the Blood of Jesus.

 

[John Robie]

Yes, God's wrath for sin was placed on Jesus while He was on the Cross.

Then how can it remain on anyone?

 

[twin1954]

I wonder how John 3:16 and John 3:36 don't contradict each other.

(Joh 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


How is it that God loves every person in the world and yet it is clear that His wrath, not His love, abides on the unbeliever?

Can His love and His wrath both abide on a person?


I know the answer already.

 

[John Robie]

Me, too.

 

[jacks]

I wonder how John 3:16 and John 3:36 don't contradict each other.

(Joh 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


How is it that God loves every person in the world and yet it is clear that His wrath, not His love, abides on the unbeliever?

Can His love and His wrath both abide on a person?


I know the answer already.

I see a question but not contradiction in those two quotes. They both say "belief" is necessary for everlasting life. The question might be, "Why is belief necessary to be saved?" If that is what your asking, my response (which may be wrong) is that if we accept God He accept us, if we reject God He rejects us. But all are eligible to accept God.

 

[twin1954]

I see a question but not contradiction in those two quotes. They both say "belief" is necessary for everlasting life. The question might be, "Why is belief necessary to be saved?" If that is what your asking, my response (which may be wrong) is that if we accept God He accept us, if we reject God He rejects us. But all are eligible to accept God.

That would be a works salvation would it not? It would make God to wait and depend on us in order to do His will.
The question would be if God loves all people and Christ shed His precious blood for all mankind how is it that the two passages say opposite things?

 

[jacks]

That would be a works salvation would it not? It would make God to wait and depend on us in order to do His will.
The question would be if God loves all people and Christ shed His precious blood for all mankind how is it that the two passages say opposite things?

Sorry I'm still not tracking the question. "Works salvation" I usually interrupt as not having to follow Mosaic law in order to be saved. Rather we are saved by Faith not works. It is a gift from God. I apologize for still not seeing the contradiction. Could the question be stated as why isn't everyone given this gift or why even make people that in His perfect knowledge He knew all along won't receive the gift? Of course I don't know the answer to this either, but my guess is because we were truly given free will. We have the option to reject God. So even if He "knew" some would fail, we couldn't truly have free will if He forced everyone to be saved. Perhaps others can put this more clearly. And perhaps I'm completely missing the point you're trying to make.

 

[98cwitr]

The sin was covered by the Blood of Jesus.

Then why do we need to be reborn? Why repent? Why isn't universalism true? Where there is no transgression, there is no law, right? Then why are we still sinners?

 

[twin1954]

Sorry I'm still not tracking the question. "Works salvation" I usually interrupt as not having to follow Mosaic law in order to be saved. Rather we are saved by Faith not works. It is a gift from God. I apologize for still not seeing the contradiction. Could the question be stated as why isn't everyone given this gift or why even make people that in His perfect knowledge He knew all along won't receive the gift? Of course I don't know the answer to this either, but my guess is because we were truly given free will. We have the option to reject God. So even if He "knew" some would fail, we couldn't truly have free will if He forced everyone to be saved. Perhaps others can put this more clearly. And perhaps I'm completely missing the point you're trying to make.

Works salvation is when God is obligated to do something because you did something. That is why free will salvation must be a works salvation. Man obligates God to save them because they exercise their wills and believe. They do something that the lost do not do and therefore save themselves. Faith becomes a work when it is what you do by your free will that makes the difference between being saved and being lost. If, as the Scriptures teach, faith is a gift from God and not an exercise of the free will it then is not a work because we didn't muster it up on our own.
Everyone isn't given the gift of life and faith in Christ unto the salvation of their souls. It is God who makes the difference not our wills. He says that He will be merciful to whom He will be merciful and whom He wills He hardens, Rom. 9:15-18. It isn't a matter of God knowing who would receive the gift it is a matter of God giving the gift. He, in sovereign mercy, gives it to whom He will and withholds it from whom He will. It is His to give and to withhold. He is not obligated to give it to any.

God drags no one against their will He makes them willing, Psa. 115:3. He draws His elect with chords of love and brings them to the feet of the Savior begging mercy.