1 John 2:2 and Calvinism
- Thread starter dreamaccount2000
- Start date
- Status
I am a non Calvinist. Here is my view of the subject. To be a Calvinist, you must be a 5 point Calvinist. While we use the terms 4 point, or 3 point or 2 point or 1 point Calvinists, these folks are not really Calvinists, they simply share some Calvinist views. I am a one point Calvinist. But it would be a flame if someone called me a Calvinist.
Similarly, to be an Arminian, you must hold to all 5 articles of Remonstrance. I do not believe in total depravity or previent grace as defined by the Arminians, and I do not believe anyone born again can lose their salvation. So while I share some Arminian views, I am not an Arminian.
Similarly, to be an Arminian, you must hold to all 5 articles of Remonstrance. I do not believe in total depravity or previent grace as defined by the Arminians, and I do not believe anyone born again can lose their salvation. So while I share some Arminian views, I am not an Arminian.
Upvote
0
Van--I have just begun my critique of your coomments on Ps. 103:17. Reformed people don't like to just slap dash parts of the Bible and then go on. We dwell on texts.
You call people's attention to your post #118. I also invite their attention to it. In your comment, your ask, "Is David trying to say [in verse 17] God loved us as individuals before time began? Nope. See verse 11."
Okay, here is verse 11:"For as high as the heavens are above the earth so great is His
lovingkindness to those who fear Him."
This is the verse you called upon to prove God did not love certain individuals before time began. Read each word carefully. Does it say anywhere that God did not love certain individuals before time began? Grammatically, literally, it does NOT say that. If it did, it would be contrary to scriptures which clearly state that He did. For example, Ps 25:6 says, "Remember, O LORD, your compassion and your lovingkindness for they have been from of old." (NASB) The margin note concerning "from of old" says "from everlasting.
This is not the only time Bible text has been translated "from of old." In Micah 5:2, the Bible speaks of Christ, who would be born in Bethlehem, "Whose goings forth have been "from of old, from everlasting."
Therefore, Van, consider the possibility that your error may be in the fact that you are failing to differentiate between the love which God had for those whom He chose in Christ BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD (Eph. 1:4), and the application of His love in time toward them. BOTH are Bible truths, and BOTH are spoken of in Ps. 103.
Those spoken of in verse 11 are those who have entered the world, been converted, and are living in awe of Him. Verse 13 likewise speaks of the compassion God has toward those to whom God has applied His love in time, and they, consequently, are actively living in awe of Him.
The FACT that God's compassion continues upon those who have been born and converted and that there are verses which speak of that love He has toward them in time does not in anyway deny the FACT that He ALSO loved them from everlasting.
Again, BOTH are spoken of in Ps. 103. If you reject these points, I remeind you that I have called Ps. 25:6 to you attention which states His lovingkindness toward His people being from evelasting just as clearly as does Ps. 103:17.
If He did not love them before time, why was Christ, the personification of wisdom, delighting in them before the foundation of the world?? (see Prov. 8); Why does Paul say that God has "from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, whereunto He called you...to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Th. 2:13,14 ?? Why does He say through Jeremiah, "I HAVE loved you with an everlasting love. Therefore, "WITH LOVINGKINDNESS" I have drawn you.
REMEMBER: His lovingkindness is "FROM" everlasting "TO" everlasting. His love from everlasting is a Bible truth, and His application of that love in time, and the reverential awe it inspires in His people after He has coonverted them is ALSO a Bible truth, neither of which is to be denied.
You call people's attention to your post #118. I also invite their attention to it. In your comment, your ask, "Is David trying to say [in verse 17] God loved us as individuals before time began? Nope. See verse 11."
Okay, here is verse 11:"For as high as the heavens are above the earth so great is His
lovingkindness to those who fear Him."
This is the verse you called upon to prove God did not love certain individuals before time began. Read each word carefully. Does it say anywhere that God did not love certain individuals before time began? Grammatically, literally, it does NOT say that. If it did, it would be contrary to scriptures which clearly state that He did. For example, Ps 25:6 says, "Remember, O LORD, your compassion and your lovingkindness for they have been from of old." (NASB) The margin note concerning "from of old" says "from everlasting.
This is not the only time Bible text has been translated "from of old." In Micah 5:2, the Bible speaks of Christ, who would be born in Bethlehem, "Whose goings forth have been "from of old, from everlasting."
Therefore, Van, consider the possibility that your error may be in the fact that you are failing to differentiate between the love which God had for those whom He chose in Christ BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD (Eph. 1:4), and the application of His love in time toward them. BOTH are Bible truths, and BOTH are spoken of in Ps. 103.
Those spoken of in verse 11 are those who have entered the world, been converted, and are living in awe of Him. Verse 13 likewise speaks of the compassion God has toward those to whom God has applied His love in time, and they, consequently, are actively living in awe of Him.
The FACT that God's compassion continues upon those who have been born and converted and that there are verses which speak of that love He has toward them in time does not in anyway deny the FACT that He ALSO loved them from everlasting.
Again, BOTH are spoken of in Ps. 103. If you reject these points, I remeind you that I have called Ps. 25:6 to you attention which states His lovingkindness toward His people being from evelasting just as clearly as does Ps. 103:17.
If He did not love them before time, why was Christ, the personification of wisdom, delighting in them before the foundation of the world?? (see Prov. 8); Why does Paul say that God has "from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, whereunto He called you...to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Th. 2:13,14 ?? Why does He say through Jeremiah, "I HAVE loved you with an everlasting love. Therefore, "WITH LOVINGKINDNESS" I have drawn you.
REMEMBER: His lovingkindness is "FROM" everlasting "TO" everlasting. His love from everlasting is a Bible truth, and His application of that love in time, and the reverential awe it inspires in His people after He has coonverted them is ALSO a Bible truth, neither of which is to be denied.
Upvote
0
Concerning 1 John 2:2--"And He is the propitiation not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world."
If you read Gal.2:9, you will see where Paul states that he was sent to preach to the gentiles and Peter, James, and John were sent to proclaim the message to the Jewish people. Therefore, we must read and understand John's letter as one in which he is addressing Jewish believers.
No one who has read the NewTestament can deny that there was a maelstrom of wondering, questioning, and even conflict over the new thing that God was doing in sending the good news to gentiles as well as to jews. There was conflict between the disciples in their understanding of the Jew/gentile issue as they discussed the issue between themselves. There was great enmity stirred up against the disciples by the jewish people who had rejected Christ, and there was some opposition and doubting against Paul by some of the gentiles who disbelieved that the God of the Hebrews was now calling to them also. Remember that Paul was ministering to gentiles whose fealty was supposed to be toward Caesar, and that caesar claimed the right to be worshipped by them as a god. Christian believers in that era were martyred because they refused to acknowledge any reign over them other than the reign of Christ. In other words, this was a matter of life and death.
Why, then, should anyone believe that this roiling maelstrom would not be seen in the history of the Acts of the apostles, and in the letters they wrote to their people? In the circumstances of that period, it would be virtually impossible that there not be, in those letters, a mention and indication of what was going on around them as they lived and wrote--including some necessary instruction to their people in order to restore peace and establish the truth concerning the Jewish/gentile issue. They were busy tearing down the wall which had earlier divided the Jewish nation and the nations of the gentiles. Does anyone believe the apostles could do that without including in their letters some instructions in regard to that momentous change?
Where is that instruction? Where are the words in New Testament letters which reflect that maelstrom? 1 John 2:2 is one of several places which reflects that maelstrom. There John sees it necessary to inform his Jewish brothers that Christ is the propitiation not for "our [the Jewish people's] sins only, but for the sins of the whole world."; i.e., for "all men" (see Paul's letter to Timothy, 1 Tim 2:1-8)
John's contrast is NOT between "some individuals" as opposed to "each and every individual." His contrast is between Christ being a propitiation for men of every nation versus being a propitiation only for the Jewish people.
To interpret 1 Jn.2:2 as teaching Christ as a propitiation for "each and every individual of mankind" rather than a propitiation for men of all nations (as opposed to being only for the jewish people) is to teach that which the Bible clearly denies because "the LORD has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens."
However much men revile the truth to heap judgement against themselves, they cannot change the truth: "The elect obtained it, but THE REST WERE HARDENED." Rom. 11:7 Throughout the Bible this truth is stated in multiple ways. In the discipline of hermeneutics it is clearly understood that the greater be the number of ways in which a certain truth is taught, the greater should be our acknowledgement of it,and the greater should be our shame and quietness if our understanding has not been enlightened to the point that we can say joyfully with Christ, "even so Father, for so it seemed good in thine eyes."
If you read Gal.2:9, you will see where Paul states that he was sent to preach to the gentiles and Peter, James, and John were sent to proclaim the message to the Jewish people. Therefore, we must read and understand John's letter as one in which he is addressing Jewish believers.
No one who has read the NewTestament can deny that there was a maelstrom of wondering, questioning, and even conflict over the new thing that God was doing in sending the good news to gentiles as well as to jews. There was conflict between the disciples in their understanding of the Jew/gentile issue as they discussed the issue between themselves. There was great enmity stirred up against the disciples by the jewish people who had rejected Christ, and there was some opposition and doubting against Paul by some of the gentiles who disbelieved that the God of the Hebrews was now calling to them also. Remember that Paul was ministering to gentiles whose fealty was supposed to be toward Caesar, and that caesar claimed the right to be worshipped by them as a god. Christian believers in that era were martyred because they refused to acknowledge any reign over them other than the reign of Christ. In other words, this was a matter of life and death.
Why, then, should anyone believe that this roiling maelstrom would not be seen in the history of the Acts of the apostles, and in the letters they wrote to their people? In the circumstances of that period, it would be virtually impossible that there not be, in those letters, a mention and indication of what was going on around them as they lived and wrote--including some necessary instruction to their people in order to restore peace and establish the truth concerning the Jewish/gentile issue. They were busy tearing down the wall which had earlier divided the Jewish nation and the nations of the gentiles. Does anyone believe the apostles could do that without including in their letters some instructions in regard to that momentous change?
Where is that instruction? Where are the words in New Testament letters which reflect that maelstrom? 1 John 2:2 is one of several places which reflects that maelstrom. There John sees it necessary to inform his Jewish brothers that Christ is the propitiation not for "our [the Jewish people's] sins only, but for the sins of the whole world."; i.e., for "all men" (see Paul's letter to Timothy, 1 Tim 2:1-8)
John's contrast is NOT between "some individuals" as opposed to "each and every individual." His contrast is between Christ being a propitiation for men of every nation versus being a propitiation only for the Jewish people.
To interpret 1 Jn.2:2 as teaching Christ as a propitiation for "each and every individual of mankind" rather than a propitiation for men of all nations (as opposed to being only for the jewish people) is to teach that which the Bible clearly denies because "the LORD has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens."
However much men revile the truth to heap judgement against themselves, they cannot change the truth: "The elect obtained it, but THE REST WERE HARDENED." Rom. 11:7 Throughout the Bible this truth is stated in multiple ways. In the discipline of hermeneutics it is clearly understood that the greater be the number of ways in which a certain truth is taught, the greater should be our acknowledgement of it,and the greater should be our shame and quietness if our understanding has not been enlightened to the point that we can say joyfully with Christ, "even so Father, for so it seemed good in thine eyes."
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
