Calvinism Refuted

[Benefactor]

you still haven't grasped your dilema , you just continue ignoring the absolute CERTAINTY of individuals who shall without question be damned rules OUT all possibility of the SAME being saved ... is this too hard for you !!

!

First, from your perspective your statement fits your theology. It is what it is. That is OK. Most of my professors were Calvinist and I love every one of them, many gone on to be with the Lord.

Second, from my perspective of my theology all who die and go to hell do so because they did not accept the revelation God gave them.

My reasoning is as follows: Because God has absolute knowledge - we call it foreknowledge - then God knows all who will believe and won't. The peoples in the remotest parts of the world that many point to as not having a chance to hear the gospel regardless of dispensations God knows if they would in fact receive the gospel and believe or not. In a given time and place God already knows what men and women will do given the circumstances. God in this knowledge predetermines things to take place using both the lost crowd and the saved crowd. The complete history of Israel is replete with this type of providentially managed plan, God’s plan.

I can see situations where in the divine providence of God based upon his absolute knowledge that He would not send a missionary to a given place knowing they would not believe. As well I believe that God is just, fare, loving and will do His Most Holy will, and that is "he is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth.”

For me to see God orchestrating His predetermined plan in accordance with foreknowledge of humans concerning salvation does not in any way cause me conflict, nor do I see it forcing God to be out of control. God is not bound by JC or JA or me or anyone for that matter. Our spin on words, concepts, etc are not from God and He is not bound by inability of any kind and planning on the basis does not in any way violate God’s nature or attributes. The primary thing I focus on is that God can not lie, He can not violate His holiness and He can not violate His sovereign will which are not in conflict with his absolute knowledge. They are completely coexistent and one can not be separate from the other in order to accomplish His plan. Knowledge without power or Power with out knowledge can not function independently of each other. God determined to let man freely accept the offer of Grace. God has the right to determine this and JA or JC can change that, there again that is how I see it. I am not threatened by anyone’s view. That is a fact, but again I love to read reasonable arguments on all sides.

Every time I think about what God did for me, forget the theology, it humbles me beyond description. There are people in all faiths that have a deep abiding love for God and we are all different and see it differently.

I have said it before but will do so here again, The U-Tube song and video speaks volumes to me and I hope it does for others. It may not for some but that is OK. God has different ways of getting to the hearts of those He foreknew would believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYPQl93zro

 

[heymikey80]

First, from your perspective your statement fits your theology. It is what it is. That is OK. Most of my professors were Calvinist and I love every one of them, many gone on to be with the Lord.

Second, from my perspective of my theology all who die and go to hell do so because they did not accept the revelation God gave them.

My reasoning is as follows: Because God has absolute knowledge - we call it foreknowledge - then God knows all who will believe and won't. The peoples in the remotest parts of the world that many point to as not having a chance to hear the gospel regardless of dispensations God knows if they would in fact receive the gospel and believe or not. In a given time and place God already knows what men and women will do given the circumstances. God in this knowledge predetermines things to take place using both the lost crowd and the saved crowd. The complete history of Israel is replete with this type of providentially managed plan, God’s plan.

I can see situations where in the divine providence of God based upon his absolute knowledge that He would not send a missionary to a given place knowing they would not believe. As well I believe that God is just, fare, loving and will do His Most Holy will, and that is "he is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth.”

For me to see God orchestrating His predetermined plan in accordance with foreknowledge of humans concerning salvation does not in any way cause me conflict, nor do I see it forcing God to be out of control. God is not bound by JC or JA or me or anyone for that matter. Our spin on words, concepts, etc are not from God and He is not bound by inability of any kind and planning on the basis does not in any way violate God’s nature or attributes. The primary thing I focus on is that God can not lie, He can not violate His holiness and He can not violate His sovereign will which are not in conflict with his absolute knowledge. They are completely coexistent and one can not be separate from the other in order to accomplish His plan. Knowledge without power or Power with out knowledge can not function independently of each other. God determined to let man freely accept the offer of Grace. God has the right to determine this and JA or JC can change that, there again that is how I see it. I am not threatened by anyone’s view. That is a fact, but again I love to read reasonable arguments on all sides.

Every time I think about what God did for me, forget the theology, it humbles me beyond description. There are people in all faiths that have a deep abiding love for God and we are all different and see it differently.

I have said it before but will do so here again, The U-Tube song and video speaks volumes to me and I hope it does for others. It may not for some but that is OK. God has different ways of getting to the hearts of those He foreknew would believe.

Well, as you know the first question would be to know where this is coming from. Human understanding is not necessarily going to be consistent with Scriptural understanding.

There's a distinction here, Benefactor. If God has all the determination and all the power, and all the will, to save people, and God predetermined all the circumstances, all the creation, all the reality that could bring anyone to faith, then how is it "free" that God would change this, send missionaries, and essentially change the circumstances for some -- and not others?

If human will is free and also freely changeable by such things as missionaries and circumstances and times, then God isn't under constraints in this area. He could convert everyone, given the right missionary at the right time in the right environment.

Yet He doesn't convert everyone.

Are people He foresees are beyond His ability to save? Would He would never be targeting them? If so His Atonement would be limited.

 

[cygnusx1]

First, from your perspective your statement fits your theology. It is what it is. That is OK. Most of my professors were Calvinist and I love every one of them, many gone on to be with the Lord.

Second, from my perspective of my theology all who die and go to hell do so because they did not accept the revelation God gave them.

My reasoning is as follows: Because God has absolute knowledge - we call it foreknowledge - then God knows all who will believe and won't. The peoples in the remotest parts of the world that many point to as not having a chance to hear the gospel regardless of dispensations God knows if they would in fact receive the gospel and believe or not. In a given time and place God already knows what men and women will do given the circumstances. God in this knowledge predetermines things to take place using both the lost crowd and the saved crowd. The complete history of Israel is replete with this type of providentially managed plan, God’s plan.

I can see situations where in the divine providence of God based upon his absolute knowledge that He would not send a missionary to a given place knowing they would not believe. As well I believe that God is just, fare, loving and will do His Most Holy will, and that is "he is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth.”

For me to see God orchestrating His predetermined plan in accordance with foreknowledge of humans concerning salvation does not in any way cause me conflict, nor do I see it forcing God to be out of control. God is not bound by JC or JA or me or anyone for that matter. Our spin on words, concepts, etc are not from God and He is not bound by inability of any kind and planning on the basis does not in any way violate God’s nature or attributes. The primary thing I focus on is that God can not lie, He can not violate His holiness and He can not violate His sovereign will which are not in conflict with his absolute knowledge. They are completely coexistent and one can not be separate from the other in order to accomplish His plan. Knowledge without power or Power with out knowledge can not function independently of each other. God determined to let man freely accept the offer of Grace. God has the right to determine this and JA or JC can change that, there again that is how I see it. I am not threatened by anyone’s view. That is a fact, but again I love to read reasonable arguments on all sides.

Every time I think about what God did for me, forget the theology, it humbles me beyond description. There are people in all faiths that have a deep abiding love for God and we are all different and see it differently.

I have said it before but will do so here again, The U-Tube song and video speaks volumes to me and I hope it does for others. It may not for some but that is OK. God has different ways of getting to the hearts of those He foreknew would believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYPQl93zro

So far you have staked your argument on an area that we can agree on , The Gospel Invitation/Call , we both agree God knows who will accept and who will reject the Gospel , this is quite different from the original objection I placed before you several times now.

What I placed before you , and you have done an amazing job of avoiding it , is the Atonement not the Gospel message , in relation to God's absolute foreknowledge .

Is there a difference ? You bet there is !

It is one thing for the Lord to command the Gospel preached to even those He knows will reject it , because the Gospel serves a DUAL PURPOSE in the Divine plan ;

2 Cor 2

[15] For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
[16] To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.



, such cannot be said of the design of the atonement !

What exactly would be the point in Christ dying for a sinner he knew would NEVER be saved , but would remain a child of Satan , blinded and destined for hell ? Surely there would be no point , so you are left with an atonement that is largely pointless. mmmm

conclusion ;

there are very good reasons why God commands the Gospel to be preached/offered even to the reprobate , there is no good logical reason why Christ would attempt to remove the sins of those who will NEVER believe .

 

[Robert Pate]

So far you have staked your argument on an area that we can agree on , The Gospel Invitation/Call , we both agree God knows who will accept and who will reject the Gospel , this is quite different from the original objection I placed before you several times now.

What I placed before you , and you have done an amazing job of avoiding it , is the Atonement not the Gospel message , in relation to God's absolute foreknowledge .

Is there a difference ? You bet there is !

It is one thing for the Lord to command the Gospel preached to even those He knows will reject it , because the Gospel serves a DUAL PURPOSE in the Divine plan ;

2 Cor 2

[15] For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
[16] To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.



, such cannot be said of the design of the atonement !

What exactly would be the point in Christ dying for a sinner he knew would NEVER be saved , but would remain a child of Satan , blinded and destined for hell ? Surely there would be no point , so you are left with an atonement that is largely pointless. mmmm

conclusion ;

there are very good reasons why God commands the Gospel to be preached/offered even to the reprobate , there is no good logical reason why Christ would attempt to remove the sins of those who will NEVER believe .

No one will be able to accuse the Lord of not providing salvation for them in the judgment. This is why you are wrong. All sin has been dealt with. Christ is the savior of the world. Christ has bought all of humanity free and clear, he now has the right to judge all as he sees fit. If there had been one sin not atoned for Christ would not have been accepted back into heaven.

Christ acceptance into heaven is our acceptance. Christ is victorious over sin, death and the devil. He is at the right hand of God presenting his righteousness on our behalf. This doctrine gives the glory to Christ. There is no limited atonement.

 

[Benefactor]

Well, as you know the first question would be to know where this is coming from. Human understanding is not necessarily going to be consistent with Scriptural understanding

.

I have the mind of Christ. Scripture is my source for correct living, actions, thinking and fellowship II Tim 3:16

There's a distinction here, Benefactor. If God has all the determination and all the power, and all the will, to save people, and God predetermined all the circumstances, all the creation, all the reality that could bring anyone to faith, then how is it "free" that God would change this, send missionaries, and essentially change the circumstances for some -- and not others?

· All the determination to save: Christ was the result of that determination that is final.
· All the power: Yes He does
· All the determination to predetermine circumstances - He did? That is news to me. (1) The natural events of life, weather, night, day, hot, cold etc. is a one time act which was altered to a certain extent at the flood. The procreation of man with his sin nature and the corruption of the gene pool are on going products of the fall. God does choose to intervene here and there to cure, heal, and change to answer prayers. Also, if the natural process of a man's life needs to be altered to accomplish a given purpose God not only can but will when necessary as this too is foreknown. And all this is known and because it is know it is also determined. In the sense you may be suggesting all things are robotically determined, that is not true. The primary cause which permits limited free choice and the natural outcome of life cycles are set by determination but we all know that within this predetermine life cycle certain freedoms exist.
· Now how is man free? Man is limited to his environment. His freedoms are within his predetermined realm of existence. You decide to get up and drive you car, eat at noon or 1 pm etc and on and on. God knows all events, actions, decisions, because He is God and His plane uses all of man’s limited free will to accomplish his plan which by the way includes man’s limited freedom too. Man’s free acts are not determined individually but his ability and realm of freedom are. Man was created to function within an environment. This environment is determined.
· God predetermined all the circumstances, all the creation, all the reality that could bring anyone to faith, then how is it "free" that God would change this, send missionaries, and essentially change the circumstances for some -- and not others?
· There is no freedom if man is not free to decide. God’s plan allows for the freedom to decide and this predetermined freedom is part of God sovereign predetermined plan. That which he permits is neither outside his power nor his will to plan it. That is the great thing about God, He can do it. Election based on foreknowledge is simple.

Kindly, but frankly, it behoves me that you don't understand things as I do. God's hands are not tied by my perception of Him or His ability to carry out His will. What you say to me and others makes no logical sense at all. Don't take that as a put down, because I know you don't see it that way.

If human will is free and also freely changeable by such things as missionaries and circumstances and times, then God isn't under constraints in this area. He could convert everyone, given the right missionary at the right time in the right environment.

.
That is a very odd way of stating whatever it is you are trying to express. I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. But I will try: The free acts of missionaries to follow the will of God to evangelize does not constrain God, it fulfills God's purpose. The reason God can't convert everyone is because he has decided to make it a free choice for man. This is the beauty of salvation. That is why election is on the basis of foreknowledge. God elected persons to salvation on the basis of His foreknowledge that he would in fact receive the free gift of Grace in Christ from the foundation of the world, In God’s Eternal Now. And again God, because he has this absolute knowledge and within all the real and possible possibilities God absolutely knows and as such these things are absolutely determine because they will come to pass, all within the purpose, and will of God. God is in total control. God's hands are never tied by our arguments and words.

 

[Hammster]

No one will be able to accuse the Lord of not providing salvation for them in the judgment. This is why you are wrong. All sin has been dealt with. Christ is the savior of the world. Christ has bought all of humanity free and clear, he now has the right to judge all as he sees fit. If there had been one sin not atoned for Christ would not have been accepted back into heaven.



Christ acceptance into heaven is our acceptance. Christ is victorious over sin, death and the devil. He is at the right hand of God presenting his righteousness on our behalf. This doctrine gives the glory to Christ. There is no limited atonement.

Romans states that He is just and the justifier. Which means that He must punish sin because of justice. So if what you say is true, then all sin, even the sin of rejecting Christ, has been paid for. Then who goes to hell? It can't be those who rejected Him since those sins, too, have been paid for.

 

[chestertonrules]

Romans states that He is just and the justifier. Which means that He must punish sin because of justice. So if what you say is true, then all sin, even the sin of rejecting Christ, has been paid for. Then who goes to hell? It can't be those who rejected Him since those sins, too, have been paid for.

Jesus made it possible for man to seek and follow God.

If we choose to reject this gift of grace, we won't be saved.

 

[Benefactor]

Romans states that He is just and the justifier. Which means that He must punish sin because of justice. So if what you say is true, then all sin, even the sin of rejecting Christ, has been paid for. Then who goes to hell? It can't be those who rejected Him since those sins, too, have been paid for.

There again a major difference in understanding of atonement. Atonement, the Grace of God - God's work - Christ Death, Burial, and Resurrection are of no value unless the person it is for repents and believes. There in lies the difference.

 

[Benefactor]

So far you have staked your argument on an area that we can agree on , The Gospel Invitation/Call , we both agree God knows who will accept and who will reject the Gospel , this is quite different from the original objection I placed before you several times now.

What I placed before you , and you have done an amazing job of avoiding it , is the Atonement not the Gospel message , in relation to God's absolute foreknowledge .

Is there a difference ? You bet there is !

It is one thing for the Lord to command the Gospel preached to even those He knows will reject it , because the Gospel serves a DUAL PURPOSE in the Divine plan ;

2 Cor 2

[15] For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
[16] To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.



, such cannot be said of the design of the atonement !

What exactly would be the point in Christ dying for a sinner he knew would NEVER be saved , but would remain a child of Satan , blinded and destined for hell ? Surely there would be no point , so you are left with an atonement that is largely pointless. mmmm

conclusion ;

there are very good reasons why God commands the Gospel to be preached/offered even to the reprobate , there is no good logical reason why Christ would attempt to remove the sins of those who will NEVER believe .

2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Benefactor]

Romans states that He is just and the justifier. Which means that He must punish sin because of justice. So if what you say is true, then all sin, even the sin of rejecting Christ, has been paid for. Then who goes to hell? It can't be those who rejected Him since those sins, too, have been paid for.

2. And he is the propitiation for our sins (heaven bound) and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (hell bound) if they don't accept the truth they have received.

Based upon this verse the ones in the first part of the verse go to heaven and the ones represented in the last part go to hell.

 

[cygnusx1]

No one will be able to accuse the Lord of not providing salvation for them in the judgment. This is why you are wrong. All sin has been dealt with. Christ is the savior of the world. Christ has bought all of humanity free and clear, he now has the right to judge all as he sees fit. If there had been one sin not atoned for Christ would not have been accepted back into heaven.

Christ acceptance into heaven is our acceptance. Christ is victorious over sin, death and the devil. He is at the right hand of God presenting his righteousness on our behalf. This doctrine gives the glory to Christ. There is no limited atonement.

God is under no obligation to provide redemption for anyone , the world is condemned as it stands without added condemnation , if the Lord had not come to save His people from sin they would still be without excuse ..... you are mixing up the ground of condemnation with the ground of Grace , man is condemned not by Christ's Atonement but by the knowledge of God in creation (Rom 1-2) .

The atonement you believe in saved nobody , atoned for nobody and is MOSTLY pointless , more people perish than are saved.. ... IT IS YOU that limit the Atonement !

All sin has not been dealt with , you ae preaching universalism , if all sin has been dealt with , shall I kill you with impunity!

 

[JDS]

God is under no obligation to provide redemption for anyone , the world is condemned as it stands without added condemnation , if the Lord had not come to save His people from sin they would still be without excuse ..... you are mixing up the ground of condemnation with the ground of Grace , man is condemned not by Christ's Atonement but by the knowledge of God in creation (Rom 1-2) .

you need to rethink your theology! God is under obligation to save his people from their sins The false view of Calvinism says he elected some to be saved before he ever created the world. If he did, then he is under obligation to save them. However he did not!

What he did was to bind himself under covenant promises to save them. It is called the covenants of promise. The new covenant promises Israel that God will give his Holy Spirit to indwell them. This is an obligation because he swore it with an oath, invoking his own name and character because he could sware by no higher authority.

11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The gentiles have by grace what was promised to the Jews in the covenants. Salvation through Christ! God surely had sworn to no covenants with us, but he said he would save us all if we would just receive his son. This is the crumbs which fell from the master's table.

This is glory ground and Calvinism has it wrong on almost every major doctrine in scripture, especially concerning his person. I ask you to reconsider that he is under obligation to save whosoever will believe in Jesus Christ because he said he would. His word is his bond! He cannot lie!

 

[Hammster]

There again a major difference in understanding of atonement. Atonement, the Grace of God - God's work - Christ Death, Burial, and Resurrection are of no value unless the person it is for repents and believes. There in lies the difference.

So then you are saying that unbelief isn't a sin?

 

[Hammster]

2. And he is the propitiation for our sins (heaven bound) and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (hell bound) if they don't accept the truth they have received.



Based upon this verse the ones in the first part of the verse go to heaven and the ones represented in the last part go to hell.

To quote the great Ronaldus Maximus, "There you go again." It is easy to make your point when you pull out a single verse. But you need to look at 2 things. One, who is he writing to? His church of fellow believers. So it would make sense to them, as a Jewish church, or even as a local church, that John would use the term "the whole world". He is just making them think outside their local, or Jewish, views.

And more importantly, number two is that if you are going to hold to the whole world issue, then based on the proceeding verses, you have to make Jesus an advocate for the whole world. Is He advocating for the lost as well as the saved? No.

And a bonus: what version are you using that adds "if they don't accept the truth they have received"?

 

[Hammster]

you need to rethink your theology! God is under obligation to save his people from their sins The false view of Calvinism says he elected some to be saved before he ever created the world. If he did, then he is under obligation to save them. However he did not!



What he did was to bind himself under covenant promises to save them. It is called the covenants of promise. The new covenant promises Israel that God will give his Holy Spirit to indwell them. This is an obligation because he swore it with an oath, invoking his own name and character because he could sware by no higher authority.



11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.



The gentiles have by grace what was promised to the Jews in the covenants. Salvation through Christ! God surely had sworn to no covenants with us, but he said he would save us all if we would just receive his son. This is the crumbs which fell from the master's table.



This is glory ground and Calvinism has it wrong on almost every major doctrine in scripture, especially concerning his person. I ask you to reconsider that he is under obligation to save whosoever will believe in Jesus Christ because he said he would. His word is his bond! He cannot lie!

For us Calvinists who may be a little slow, can you exegete that passage and show where it says that God saves only those that believe and choose to accept Him? I'm not seeing it.

I see where He promises to save the heirs of the promise, and Paul explain who those are in Romans. But I don't see where He promises to save everybody if only they believe.

 

[Robert Pate]

For us Calvinists who may be a little slow, can you exegete that passage and show where it says that God saves only those that believe and choose to accept Him? I'm not seeing it.

I see where He promises to save the heirs of the promise, and Paul explain who those are in Romans. But I don't see where He promises to save everybody if only they believe.

Thats an easy one. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

[nobdysfool]

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Please explain to us how this verse implies ability on the part of "whosoever".

 

[Hammster]

Thats an easy one. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life."

For one, that doesn't address the verse that was quoted. And two, you can't just keep throwing out John 3:16 and think that solves everything. What about the previous 15 verses? What about John 3:3 where Jesus says that before you can even see the kingdom of God, you must be born again?

 

[Benefactor]

To quote the great Ronaldus Maximus, "There you go again." It is easy to make your point when you pull out a single verse. But you need to look at 2 things. One, who is he writing to? His church of fellow believers. So it would make sense to them, as a Jewish church, or even as a local church, that John would use the term "the whole world". He is just making them think outside their local, or Jewish, views.

And more importantly, number two is that if you are going to hold to the whole world issue, then based on the proceeding verses, you have to make Jesus an advocate for the whole world. Is He advocating for the lost as well as the saved? No.

And a bonus: what version are you using that adds "if they don't accept the truth they have received"?

To quote the great Ronaldus Maximus, "There you go again." It is easy to make your point when you pull out a single verse.

{Glad you agree the verse communites what it says}

But you need to look at 2 things. One, who is he writing to?

{FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
RECIPIENTS: The lack of personal references in this letter indicates that it was written in sermonic style to Christians all over Asia Minor. It was probably a circular letter, much like Ephesians. PURPOSE: The purpose of this letter was to tell believers how they might know they have eternal life. This epistle deals with the same heresy that Paul confronted in his Epistle to the Colossians: Gnosticism. .....The readers were preoccupied with a secret "knowledge" which is evident by how many times John uses the word "know" in this letter. He writes to strengthen their faith and fellowship and warn them about thefalse teachers with their "secret" knowledge. }

Wil Pounds (c) 2006; (quoting from: Merrill Tenney); http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/1jnintro.html ; 3//8/09

So the recipients of the letter by the brighist minds on these matters tell us the letter is to all believers in Asia Minor, which include Jews and Gentiles in Christ.



His church of fellow believers. So it would make sense to them, as a Jewish church, {this does not fit the generally accepted scope of the letter but does not exclude them}

or even as a local church, {no evidence that the letter is to a specific local church but if it were it would not exclude both Jews and Gentiles in Christ}

that John would use the term "the whole world". He is just making them think outside their local, or Jewish, views. {First, the audience he was writing to is not exclusively Jews so on that statement your premise as underlined in bold black is wrong} {Second, you agree that the writer is outside their local church, not true but correct in understanding that the scope was all of Asia not just the local church}

And more importantly, number two is that if you are going to hold to the whole world issue, then based on the proceeding verses; you have to make Jesus an advocate for the whole world. Is He advocating for the lost as well as the saved? No

{if we take your position then we must remove the verse from the Bible because it can not say otherwise. Therefore, any answer that posits NO is not in agreement with the plain normal reading of the language in Greek, English, German, French, Spanish, or any language in the World.}


And a bonus: what version are you using that adds "if they don't accept the truth they have received"? {Any statement that is the same or similar such as "as many as beloved" can not be stated unless there is an opposite. To believe means one also can not believe. That is sound pure unadulterated factual logic, no frill, side stepping, fancy talk, just common sense}

 

[Hammster]

I guess, then, that Jesus does advocate for the whole world, lost and saved, and is a mediator for the whole world, lost and saved.

Not to mention, He is also a propitiation for all. So now that God has been satisfied, let's demand the closure of Hell.