WHY DOES 1 JOHN 2:2 Not Support Universal Reconciliation (i.e., Universal Salvation)?

[Michie]

There is one passage more than any other which is I appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition.

“And he is the propitiation[3] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This is the passage which, apparently, most favor the view of those who believe in universal salvation, yet if it is considered attentively it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated [atoned] God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with “and” necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from the Updated American Standard Version (UASV): “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not commit a sin.[2] But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.” It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the holy ones of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God’s children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of verse 1 and throughout verse 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an “Advocate with the Father;” second, that this Advocate is “the propitiation [atonement; covering over] for our sins” Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an “Advocate,” for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation (“and”) with “the Advocate!”

Continued below.

WHY DOES 1 JOHN 2:2 Not Support Universal Reconciliation (i.e., Universal Salvation)? - Christian Publishing House Blog

There is one passage more than any other which is I appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition. “And he is the...

christianpublishinghouse.co

 

[FireDragon76]

That sounds like they are leaning into a Calvinist "particular atonement" argument.

You must know that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans reject the notion that Christ's sacrifice was particular, only for a select few?

 

[Michie]

That sounds like they are leaning into a Calvinist "particular atonement" argument.

You must know that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans reject the notion that Christ's sacrifice was particular, only for a select few?

He died for the whole world. There are those that accept this gift and those that knowingly reject it.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There is one passage more than any other which is I appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition.

“And he is the propitiation[3] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This is the passage which, apparently, most favor the view of those who believe in universal salvation, yet if it is considered attentively it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated [atoned] God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with “and” necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from the Updated American Standard Version (UASV): “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not commit a sin.[2] But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.” It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the holy ones of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God’s children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of verse 1 and throughout verse 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an “Advocate with the Father;” second, that this Advocate is “the propitiation [atonement; covering over] for our sins” Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an “Advocate,” for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation (“and”) with “the Advocate!”

Continued below.

WHY DOES 1 JOHN 2:2 Not Support Universal Reconciliation (i.e., Universal Salvation)? - Christian Publishing House Blog

There is one passage more than any other which is I appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition. “And he is the...

christianpublishinghouse.co

From Paul a similar thought, with a more complete understanding.

2 Corinthians 5:19-20 KJV
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

There is the statement that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, but the next verse includes the exhortation to "be ye reconciled" implying He has done the work, now you trust Him and have that work applied to your life.

 

[Blade]

I love the fact He left heaven became His own creation and died for every human for God so loved the world. Everyone gets a choice. I praise God I believe as Christ said if you were blind you would have no sin. You say you see your sin remains. I believe most are blind. I mean to know in Rev John was told all those people no one could count in heaven were just from the great tribulation. Yeah.. He does not sorry for me leave this with man. No one sees in His books no one sees the heart only Him (Samuel.)

HAHA bless you SO MUCH SIS! I guess I could have just said I agree no "Universal Reconciliation". Our free choice oh means so much to Him.. has to be a free choice.

 

[Light of the East]

He died for the whole world. There are those that accept this gift and those that knowingly reject it.

And there are those who never even heard of it, even unto this day. You and your hellist friends are all too happy to condemn them to the fires of eternal torment for the problem of being born in the wrong time or wrong place. Augustine said that unbaptized babies go to hell and your church accepted this horrific idea and taught it for centuries until they realized that it wasn't sitting well with people, so they invented (out of thin air and with no biblical support whatsoever) the idea of limbus infantium. Sheeeesh!!

 

[Michie]

And there are those who never even heard of it, even unto this day. You and your hellist friends are all too happy to condemn them to the fires of eternal torment for the problem of being born in the wrong time or wrong place. Augustine said that unbaptized babies go to hell and your church accepted this horrific idea and taught it for centuries until they realized that it wasn't sitting well with people, so they invented (out of thin air and with no biblical support whatsoever) the idea of limbus infantium. Sheeeesh!!

No the Church did not teach all unborn children go to hell. You obviously do not know the teachings of the Church. You call me a hellist and those I associate with hellist. That should get you reported right there. It’s God’s job to judge eternal destination. Not you, me, or anyone else. There is a narrow road Scripture warns us about. I would think it would be wise to keep that in mind. And if you want to discuss Scripture and Salvation history, it does not support universalism. Limbo, etc, were thoughts those in history had. They were never infallible teachings. It’s obvious you have no clue what you are talking about. Sheesh! Lol!

 

[FireDragon76]

And there are those who never even heard of it, even unto this day. You and your hellist friends are all too happy to condemn them to the fires of eternal torment for the problem of being born in the wrong time or wrong place. Augustine said that unbaptized babies go to hell and your church accepted this horrific idea and taught it for centuries until they realized that it wasn't sitting well with people, so they invented (out of thin air and with no biblical support whatsoever) the idea of limbus infantium. Sheeeesh!!

It does offer possible illumination on something like this: the unearthing of mass graves of babies at Tuum, in Ireland, at a house for single mothers, and how the nuns there used to call the babies of the poor, single-mothers, "devils".

John Calvin was the first western theologian that suggested unbaptized babies don't go to Hell, BTW. He said they were predestined by God for salvation.

What attracted people to such harsh religious views is not hard to understand once you understand developmental psychology. Child abuse and other cruelties were fairly endemic and casual at one time. Luther himself admitted to being beaten by family and caretakers so hard that he routinely bled. When children are abused, they tend to accept cruelty as casually as a fish accepts water. And children tend to model their relationship with God off the relationships with parents and other authority figures.

 

[Light of the East]

No the Church did not teach all unborn children go to hell. You obviously do not know the teachings of the Church. You call me a hellist and those I associate with hellist. That should get you reported right there. It’s God’s job to judge eternal destination. Not you, me, or anyone else. There is a narrow road Scripture warns us about. I would think it would be wise to keep that in mind. And if you want to discuss Scripture and Salvation history, it does not support universalism. Limbo, etc, were thoughts those in history had. They were never infallible teachings. It’s obvious you have no clue what you are talking about. Sheesh! Lol!

From a ROMAN CATHOLIC website (Is that good enough for you???)_


St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98). The originator of this “infant-salvation” heresy was an Irish monk named Morgan, known to posterity as Pelagius — one of St. Augustine’s greatest enemies. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475). St. Augusitine and many early fathers held that unbaptized infants go to Hell (the doctrine of limbo will be discussed further down). Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464). The notion of “Baptism of Blood,” itself a mere fallible and undefined speculation, cannot apply in this case, since aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor even for virtue. Indeed, they are dying precisely for the lack of virtue on the part of their parents, for loss of Faith on the part of their murderers, and against the precepts of Jesus Christ; and the infants involved have no will either to accept or reject this, morally or otherwise. Furthermore, the principal Ecclesia supplet (‘The Church Supplies’) would never function in this case, for the aborted child is not a member of the Church. The Church cannot hope to supply eternal life to those outside her membership.

 

[Michie]

From a ROMAN CATHOLIC website (Is that good enough for you???)_


St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98). The originator of this “infant-salvation” heresy was an Irish monk named Morgan, known to posterity as Pelagius — one of St. Augustine’s greatest enemies. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475). St. Augusitine and many early fathers held that unbaptized infants go to Hell (the doctrine of limbo will be discussed further down). Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464). The notion of “Baptism of Blood,” itself a mere fallible and undefined speculation, cannot apply in this case, since aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor even for virtue. Indeed, they are dying precisely for the lack of virtue on the part of their parents, for loss of Faith on the part of their murderers, and against the precepts of Jesus Christ; and the infants involved have no will either to accept or reject this, morally or otherwise. Furthermore, the principal Ecclesia supplet (‘The Church Supplies’) would never function in this case, for the aborted child is not a member of the Church. The Church cannot hope to supply eternal life to those outside her membership.

Never infallible teaching. Never. I mean this stuff is discussed in RCIA.

 

[Valletta]

From a ROMAN CATHOLIC website (Is that good enough for you???)_


St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98). The originator of this “infant-salvation” heresy was an Irish monk named Morgan, known to posterity as Pelagius — one of St. Augustine’s greatest enemies. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475). St. Augusitine and many early fathers held that unbaptized infants go to Hell (the doctrine of limbo will be discussed further down). Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464). The notion of “Baptism of Blood,” itself a mere fallible and undefined speculation, cannot apply in this case, since aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor even for virtue. Indeed, they are dying precisely for the lack of virtue on the part of their parents, for loss of Faith on the part of their murderers, and against the precepts of Jesus Christ; and the infants involved have no will either to accept or reject this, morally or otherwise. Furthermore, the principal Ecclesia supplet (‘The Church Supplies’) would never function in this case, for the aborted child is not a member of the Church. The Church cannot hope to supply eternal life to those outside her membership.

I have always urged people to go to the Catholic Catechism for true Catholic teaching. There are billions of people over the last almost 2000 years who identified as Catholic. Most today are not practicing Catholics. In this case you may have found your information on a website supporting the ideas of Father Feeney, who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Remember anyone can create a website. Understand too that many theological ideas have been proposed, theologians speculate based upon what is known. That's what they do. Even the Church Fathers disagree on a number of ideas. As Michie correctly pointed out, it was never infallible Catholic teaching.