what about 1John 2:2?

[BigChrisfilm]

What do calvinist do with verses that seem to say Jesus died for the whole world, not just the elect? Example would be 1 John 2:2.

 

[Don Maurer]

About 6 or 7 years ago, before I shifted to reformed theology, I thought this verse was an issue for Reformed people also. It was my favorite verse to quote against reformed people. I will try to tell you what changed my mind. It was the study of two words in 1 John 2:2, "propitiation" and "world." Both terms occur in 1 John 2:2.

PROPITIATION A propitiation is "a gift that turns away wrath." The question of the propitiation concerns the extent of those under that gift. In my opinion, the reformed interpretation can be consistent, but the non reformed interpretation is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

THE STRONG VIEW (PROPITIATION UNLIMITED IN POWER)----If you take an unlimited, strong view of the word propitiation, and if each and every person that ever lived at all times comes under the propitiation, then each and every person that ever lived goes to heaven. If propitiation is "the gift that turns away wrath," and ALL Gods wrath was poured out upon Christ, then what is left to pour out upon man? Thus hell would be empty and all men without exception go to heaven. This is universalism.

THE WEAK VIEW---On the other hand, most non-reformed people weaken the concept of Christ's propitiation and proclaim the insufficiency of Christs shed blood to save by itself. This is also called synergism. To do this they insert a concept into 1 John 2:2 that is not really present. They make the propitiation to be a mere hypothetical possibility of propitiation, and not actual, real, propitiation. Of course this view does not work real well with those that believe in eternal security. For then those that are saved only have a hypothetical possibility of salvation. Then if one is consistent, there can never be an actual propitiation.

I have yet to find someone consistent in this area. Most non reformed interpreters will switch back and forth between the two meanings I mentioned above. They will see the word "propitiation" in two different ways at the same time, without any exegetical basis, and even in the same verse. They will read the words "our sins" as an actual and real propitiation for the saved (a propitiation that saves to the uttermost) and then turn around and use a totally different meaning for the "world." They will subtly switch the meaning back and forth when it is convenient depending upon what is being discussed. The bottom line, to be consistent, if propitiation is merely a hypothetical possibility of salvation, then the saved are only hypothetically and possibly saved. It is one term with one meaning. The text simply cannot support two separate and different meanings in the same use.

WORLD So then.... the next question is what does the term "world" mean? Non reformed interpreters generally assume the term "WORLD" as referring to all men everywhere without exception. The meaning of a term should not be assumed, but the meaning of each term must be determined by the context. The problem is that the term "WORLD" means many different things in many different contexts. So then, the meaning can only be determined by the immediate context. The term "WORLD" could mean something completely different in another context. Even in 1 John 2, the term is going to reoccur in the text in verse 15 in a very different way. There it speaks of the santanic cosmos. In other contexts it speaks of all kinds of people in each and every tribe, tongue, and language. Once in a while, the term is used of all people everywhere without exclusion.

It seems to me that the local context is speaking of an absolute propitiation of sins, one which speaks of salvation. In Chapter 1:8-10 John speaks of forgiveness of sins, then in Chapter 2:1 he speaks of an advocate. To make any break with the preceding context and say that the propitation for the whole world is not an absolute salvation would be to isogete a meaning for the term WORLD into the context. Who then is the "WORLD?" If I remember how John Owen reads the term, he suggest it is Jews (our sins) and Gentiles (the whole world). Other interpreters read it to be the readers (our sins) and those not addressed in the original reading (the whole world). I myself feel fairly convinced of John Owens interpretation. He supports his understanding in his book "The Death of Death."

If this was an honest question, I hope what I wrote helps.

 

[hedrick]

I have suggested elsewhere that it is possible to understand this eschatologically. That is, it is God's purpose to redeem the entire world. But that redemption is not complete yet. Paul and others, however, envision a time when the entire world serve Christ. Unless you read Paul as a universalist (which I think is possible but not mandatory), those in hell would not be part of that redeemed world, although today the wheat and tares are still mixed together.

Nevertheless one can speak of Christ as having conquered the world. The victory is assured, even though there's still a mop-up operation going on.

 

[Edward65]

About 6 or 7 years ago, before I shifted to reformed theology, I thought this verse was an issue for Reformed people also. It was my favorite verse to quote against reformed people. I will try to tell you what changed my mind. It was the study of two words in 1 John 2:2, "propitiation" and "world." Both terms occur in 1 John 2:2.

PROPITIATION A propitiation is "a gift that turns away wrath." The question of the propitiation concerns the extent of those under that gift. In my opinion, the reformed interpretation can be consistent, but the non reformed interpretation is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

THE STRONG VIEW (PROPITIATION UNLIMITED IN POWER)----If you take an unlimited, strong view of the word propitiation, and if each and every person that ever lived at all times comes under the propitiation, then each and every person that ever lived goes to heaven. If propitiation is "the gift that turns away wrath," and ALL Gods wrath was poured out upon Christ, then what is left to pour out upon man? Thus hell would be empty and all men without exception go to heaven. This is universalism.

THE WEAK VIEW---On the other hand, most non-reformed people weaken the concept of Christ's propitiation and proclaim the insufficiency of Christs shed blood to save by itself. This is also called synergism. To do this they insert a concept into 1 John 2:2 that is not really present. They make the propitiation to be a mere hypothetical possibility of propitiation, and not actual, real, propitiation. Of course this view does not work real well with those that believe in eternal security. For then those that are saved only have a hypothetical possibility of salvation. Then if one is consistent, there can never be an actual propitiation.

I have yet to find someone consistent in this area. Most non reformed interpreters will switch back and forth between the two meanings I mentioned above. They will see the word "propitiation" in two different ways at the same time, without any exegetical basis, and even in the same verse. They will read the words "our sins" as an actual and real propitiation for the saved (a propitiation that saves to the uttermost) and then turn around and use a totally different meaning for the "world." They will subtly switch the meaning back and forth when it is convenient depending upon what is being discussed. The bottom line, to be consistent, if propitiation is merely a hypothetical possibility of salvation, then the saved are only hypothetically and possibly saved. It is one term with one meaning. The text simply cannot support two separate and different meanings in the same use.

WORLD So then.... the next question is what does the term "world" mean? Non reformed interpreters generally assume the term "WORLD" as referring to all men everywhere without exception. The meaning of a term should not be assumed, but the meaning of each term must be determined by the context. The problem is that the term "WORLD" means many different things in many different contexts. So then, the meaning can only be determined by the immediate context. The term "WORLD" could mean something completely different in another context. Even in 1 John 2, the term is going to reoccur in the text in verse 15 in a very different way. There it speaks of the santanic cosmos. In other contexts it speaks of all kinds of people in each and every tribe, tongue, and language. Once in a while, the term is used of all people everywhere without exclusion.

It seems to me that the local context is speaking of an absolute propitiation of sins, one which speaks of salvation. In Chapter 1:8-10 John speaks of forgiveness of sins, then in Chapter 2:1 he speaks of an advocate. To make any break with the preceding context and say that the propitation for the whole world is not an absolute salvation would be to isogete a meaning for the term WORLD into the context. Who then is the "WORLD?" If I remember how John Owen reads the term, he suggest it is Jews (our sins) and Gentiles (the whole world). Other interpreters read it to be the readers (our sins) and those not addressed in the original reading (the whole world). I myself feel fairly convinced of John Owens interpretation. He supports his understanding in his book "The Death of Death."

If this was an honest question, I hope what I wrote helps.

Unlimited atonement doesn’t lead to universalism for the simple reason that faith is necessary in order to be justified and not everyone is granted faith by God. Synergism doesn’t follow from unlimited atonement. The Father draws only those He elects to save to Christ, and gives only them the faith to believe, and this doesn’t involve any free will on man’s part.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the reason why people are damned is because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins. Rather the reason that is given why people are damned is because they don’t believe in Him. And why should they be asked to believe in Him if He hadn’t atoned for their sins? The requirement to believe in Him in order to be saved wouldn’t make any sense if in fact Christ hadn’t atoned for everyone’s sins, because logically if Christ had only atoned for the sins of the elect only they would be required to believe in Him for salvation.

If Christ only atoned for the sins of the elect then the reason why the non-elect are damned is because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins, but the Bible doesn’t say this. The Bible says: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God". (John 3:18, ESV)

 

[BigChrisfilm]

It is a genuine question. I have some friends who are Calvinist and Im trying to better understand their position. I haven't studied the matter much, so Im trying to figure it all out now. I asked then the same questiin and they basically gave me the same answer Don.

 

[Edward65]

About 6 or 7 years ago, before I shifted to reformed theology, I thought this verse was an issue for Reformed people also. It was my favorite verse to quote against reformed people. I will try to tell you what changed my mind. It was the study of two words in 1 John 2:2, "propitiation" and "world." Both terms occur in 1 John 2:2.

PROPITIATION A propitiation is "a gift that turns away wrath." The question of the propitiation concerns the extent of those under that gift. In my opinion, the reformed interpretation can be consistent, but the non reformed interpretation is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

THE STRONG VIEW (PROPITIATION UNLIMITED IN POWER)----If you take an unlimited, strong view of the word propitiation, and if each and every person that ever lived at all times comes under the propitiation, then each and every person that ever lived goes to heaven. If propitiation is "the gift that turns away wrath," and ALL Gods wrath was poured out upon Christ, then what is left to pour out upon man? Thus hell would be empty and all men without exception go to heaven. This is universalism.

THE WEAK VIEW---On the other hand, most non-reformed people weaken the concept of Christ's propitiation and proclaim the insufficiency of Christs shed blood to save by itself. This is also called synergism. To do this they insert a concept into 1 John 2:2 that is not really present. They make the propitiation to be a mere hypothetical possibility of propitiation, and not actual, real, propitiation. Of course this view does not work real well with those that believe in eternal security. For then those that are saved only have a hypothetical possibility of salvation. Then if one is consistent, there can never be an actual propitiation.

I have yet to find someone consistent in this area. Most non reformed interpreters will switch back and forth between the two meanings I mentioned above. They will see the word "propitiation" in two different ways at the same time, without any exegetical basis, and even in the same verse. They will read the words "our sins" as an actual and real propitiation for the saved (a propitiation that saves to the uttermost) and then turn around and use a totally different meaning for the "world." They will subtly switch the meaning back and forth when it is convenient depending upon what is being discussed. The bottom line, to be consistent, if propitiation is merely a hypothetical possibility of salvation, then the saved are only hypothetically and possibly saved. It is one term with one meaning. The text simply cannot support two separate and different meanings in the same use.

You detect a strong view and a weak view of propitiation in those who believe in unlimited atonement and say the strong view means that God would be propitiated for everyone and everyone would be saved, whilst a weak view means only a hypothetical propitiation and salvation, and you say most who believe in unlimited propitiation alternate between the two - however I don’t accept that you’ve correctly analysed the situation.

I don’t believe that the majority who believe in unlimited atonement (like myself) do alternate between two views of propitiation. We believe that Christ has definitely propitiated the wrath of God for everyone in the world and that this isn’t hypothetical, but that God has determined that nevertheless the essential factor in whether a person is saved or not depends on their reception of this propitiation i.e. that faith is the determining factor in salvation. This is entirely Scriptural e.g. "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—" (Philippians 3:8-9, ESV)

The difference it seems to me between your view and mine is that you don’t see faith as the determining factor in salvation, rather you see propitiation as the determining factor. You believe all whom Christ has atoned for will be saved, whereas I believe all who have faith in Christ’s unlimited atonement will be saved.

 

[Edward65]

If limited atonement was true this would mean that one would have to reinterpret those passages in Scripture which speak of belief and faith being the determinate factors in being saved and understand these passages to mean something different. Therefore when for instance Paul and Silas told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved (Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:30-31, ESV), what Paul and Silas were really meaning was that if the jailer and his family had their sins atoned for by Christ they would believe in Him. It's a subtle change but it's nevertheless destructive of the Gospel. The Gospel is that Christ has atoned for everyone's sins and if you believe in Christ you'll be saved not Christ has atoned for only the sins of the elect and if you're one of the elect you're going to believe in Him.

If it was the case that only the elect have had their sins atoned for, then unbelievers can't be held to account for not believing in Christ, because Christ was never intended for them and isn't their Saviour. But the Bible does hold unbelievers to account for not believing in Christ which can only mean that Christ atoned for their sins as well and is also their Saviour.

 

[twin1954]

If limited atonement was true this would mean that one would have to reinterpret those passages in Scripture which speak of belief and faith being the determinate factors in being saved and understand these passages to mean something different. Therefore when for instance Paul and Silas told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved (Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:30-31, ESV), what Paul and Silas were really meaning was that if the jailer and his family had their sins atoned for by Christ they would believe in Him. It's a subtle change but it's nevertheless destructive of the Gospel. The Gospel is that Christ has atoned for everyone's sins and if you believe in Christ you'll be saved not Christ has atoned for only the sins of the elect and if you're one of the elect you're going to believe in Him.

If it was the case that only the elect have had their sins atoned for, then unbelievers can't be held to account for not believing in Christ, because Christ was never intended for them and isn't their Saviour. But the Bible does hold unbelievers to account for not believing in Christ which can only mean that Christ atoned for their sins as well and is also their Saviour.

Take it to the debate a Calvinist. This room is for Calvinists to answer legitimate questions not for debate.

 

[Skala]

What do calvinist do with verses that seem to say Jesus died for the whole world, not just the elect? Example would be 1 John 2:2.

Hi Chris.

I'm a Calvinist who believes in Limited Atonement. My question to you would be this:

If "world" means every single individual, even those who ultimately end up in hell, why would John devalue his own argument by suggesting that believers have assurance in Christ when they sin because Christ died for them, by also saying that Christ died for those who end up in hell, too?

How does that give me any assurance that Christ propitiated for my sins? If Christ propitiated for "Bob"s sins too, and Bob ends up in hell, John isn't making a very good argument nor making Christ look too appealing and trustworthy, is he?

Also, in your question, you contrasted "the world" with "elect", thus you are presupposing that by "world" john meant "every single individual in the human race since Adam". Aren't you aware that "kosmos" has around 10 definitions? Why do you assume, with no argument, that he meant "every single individual"? The fact that you presupposed this shows that you are not without your traditions guiding your interpretation.

 

[Edward65]

Hi Chris.

I'm a Calvinist who believes in Limited Atonement. My question to you would be this:

If "world" means every single individual, even those who ultimately end up in hell, why would John devalue his own argument by suggesting that believers have assurance in Christ when they sin because Christ died for them, by also saying that Christ died for those who end up in hell, too?

How does that give me any assurance that Christ propitiated for my sins? If Christ propitiated for "Bob"s sins too, and Bob ends up in hell, John isn't making a very good argument nor making Christ look too appealing and trustworthy, is he?

Since I'm not allowed to debate on this forum please see my reply on the Debate with a Calvinist forum here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7806593-3/#post65087592