Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6540 | ||
Greetings Y'all: There have been several threads deaing with the extent of the atonment. Rather than rehasing all of those discussions, I would like to propose something different. A limited discussion on 1 John 2:2. Personally, I think the best way to debate an issue like this is to deal with a limited number of verses. Since I proposed this, I will start first. Here is my take on 1 John 2:2. The question concerning the extent of the atonement is simply this: Did Christ atone for all or only the elect? Many verses, which seem to indicate that Christ died for all, can be interpreted in such a way as to limit the extent of the word 'all.' However, 1 John 2:2 seems to be perfectly clear. There is a contrast here between believers (our sins) and unbelievers (the whole world). Christ is the propitation for all sin. Now, what does it mean that Christ is the propitation for all sin? The word 'hilasmos' is only used twice in the New Testament (Here and in 1 John 4:10). It signifies a turning a way of God's wrath by an offering. The entire ministry of Christ is signified by this word in 1 John 4:10. The gift of salvation in Romans 3:25 is described using a related word 'hilasterion.' This same word ('hilasterion') is used in Heb. 2:17 to refer to the priestly ministry of Christ. In my opinion, this verse is decisive. Christ died for the sins of everyone. The Cross is the one and only act of atonement for all men and for all sin. I don't see anyway, in light of this verse, that one can argue that Christ only died for the elect. p.s. - A note for all those who respond. Unless one is dealing with heresy, I view debate as an opportunity to sharpen our understanding of Scripture. By interacting with one another, we can see how others view Scripture, consider other points of view, and sharpen our ability to deal with objections to our viewpoints. We may never agree with each other, but I can live with that! God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6558 | ||
I think that limiting discussion to a few verses is a decidely bad way to go about this. The Gospel cannot be condensed to a few sentences. It took God a very large book, so why should we try and abridge it? I think it is hinging far too much on far too little to say that 1John 2:2 is decisive. First of all, "the world" does not have to entail every single individual in the world. To me, this looks synonymous with "the nations" which simply means "the Gentiles." Second, if the first is not the case, Scripture often uses hyperbole. Calvinists can say that Christ died for the world. But again, this does not necessitate that he died for everyone in the world. Since people are not actually mentioned, "the world" is decidedly vague. Third, you are still left with the problem that if Christ died for something, then it is paid for and nothing bars that person from heaven. Yet not all go to heaven. Problem. Finally, there is the matter of the unforgivable sin. To me, this is a blatant statement that Christ did not die for all sins. THe only way to get around this is to say that Christ's death is not actual forgiveness, but possible forgiveness. This is not an option. Anyone have a solution? |
||||||
3 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6564 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I have to disagree with your first point. Theology and doctrine should be based upon sound exegesis of Scripture. While you definitely need to look at all of Scripture to formulate doctrine, you must understand the individual verses first. I think this is where so many people go wrong. They start quoting a bunch of verses without ever really dealing with what the verses are actuall saying. In terms of the extent of the atonement, I do believe that this is a decisive verse. It does not deal with everything relating to the atonement, but it does deal with the extent of the atonement. Allow me to briefly touch upon your points. 1) Does "world" refer to every individal? There is a comparison here. John is comparing the sins of us (obviously the Christians to who he is writing) and the sins of the whole world (the sins of everyone else). He doesn't say all Christians everywhere. He specifically says the sins of the world and then qualifies that further with the word 'whole.' If you are going to interpret this phrase in some other way, you must provide a rational to do so. There is no mention in 1 John of Jews and Gentiles, so that won't work either. Other than your doctrine, do you have contextual reasons to interpret the 'sins of the whole world' to mean something other than the sins of the whole world? 2) Hyperbole? Vague? It sounds clear to me! Hyperbole would definitely be a legitimate linguistic device, but what evidence is there that hyperbole is being used here? Simply listing three or four possible options without providing any evidence does not eliminate the plain reading (the most natural reading) of the text. 3) Your third point is only a problem if you hold to a Calvanistic viewpoint of Sovereignty and free will. From my standpoint, the atonement is an accompished fact for every individual. However, only those who receive the gift of salvation partake in the benefits of it. From a Calvanistic standpoint, Christ cannot have died for everyone, or everyone would be 'saved' simply because Calvin never allowed for any human freedom. 4) The unforgivable sin is more a problem for Calvanist than for Arminians. This is a good illustration of why we need to deal with individual passages. If Christ died for the 'sins of the whole world,' then the doctrine of the limited atonement cannot be Biblical. So, this key verse must be dealt with. |
||||||
4 | When is the World not the World? | 1 John 2:2 | orthodoxy | 6574 | ||
You cannot understand individual verses apart from the whole of Scripture. 1) Your original assertion was that there is no other way to read "world" than "every individual person in the world," even though that isn't actually what the text says. I suggested a few viable options, which would render your original assertion, that there is only one way to read this verse, invalid. 2) It sounds clear to me, and it clearly doesn't mean that everyone is atoned for. How? Other passages in Scripture. You can't just pick out a single verse and say that it is decisive. And there really isn't a "plain meaning of the text" any more than there are brute facts. _Everything_ is interpretation, the trick is to make sure that your interpretation is Biblical. 3) If the atonement is an accomplished fact for every individual, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Because they didn't receive the gift of salvation? Is refusing the gift sin? Wouldn't that sin be atoned for? 4) I don't think that the unforgivable sin is a problem for me it all. It clearly states that God does not forgive everyone. If the atonement is an accomplished fact, something you have already admitted, this means that he did not die for everyone. Actually, this is a good illustration of why individual verses _cannot_ be allowed to define our doctrine. Your reading of this verse is in direct contradiction with the following verses: Rom. 9:12-15 Jude 4 Eph. 1:11-12 Rev. 20:15 and many others as well. Your interpretation also stands in direct contradiction to God's pattern of election in all of history. God chose Abel, not Cain. Noah, not the rest of the people. Abraham, and no one else. Isaac, not Ishmael. Jacob, not Esau. Judah, not Reuben, Simeon, Levi, or Joseph (or any other of the brothers). Moses, not Aaron. David, not Saul. And the elect, not everyone. It is also in stark contrast to God's covenantal language. It is _he_ that placed emnity between the serpent and the women; it is _he_ that provided the lamb in place of Isaac; it was _he_ who brought the Israelites out of Egypt; it is _he_ who was struck that the Israelites might drink; it is _he_ who is both the promise and the keeper of the promise. There is absolutely nothing left for us to do. Plus, you still have to come up with a way of making the atonement both an accomplished fact and somehow conditional upon something other than God. |
||||||
5 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6575 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't expecting such a quick reply! My counter reply is: You cannot understand the whole unless you understand the parts. An appeal to the whole, to me, means I can't explain the verse! :-) 1) I don't believe I said there was only one way to read it. What I recall saying was that the natural reading is that the whole world refers to the whole world, not just part. For instance, if I said that I ate a whole apple pie today, the natural reading would be that 'whole' refered to the entire pie and not just a part of it. 1 John 2:2 says that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)" So, did He or did He not atone for the sins of the whole world? This is the natural reading. If you are going to read it otherwise, you must provide reason for understanding "whole world" in some other way than "whole world." 2) I'll deal briefly with the individual verses that you list later in your post. a) Romans 9:12-15: Is the election refered to here one of salvation or purpose? No where in this passage does it say that Isaac was saved and Esau was lost. In fact, Romans 9:11-12 states that God's purpose in election, which was not based upon works, was that the older would serve the younger. How does this contradict 1 John 2:2? b) Jude 4: You lost me on this one! God long ago, wrote about certain godless men who would deny Christ. How does this relate to 1 John 2:2? c) Eph. 1:11-12: This one deserves much more discussion (maybe a new thread!) My short response is this: The purpose of election in Eph. 1 is to bring Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. The Jews (the we of vs. 11) were the first to respond to the Gospel, but the Gentiles, (the you also of vs. 13) were also included among the elect when they responded to and believed the Gospel. My understanding of election is corporate in nature, not individual (per Robert Shank). Note however, that these verses no where state that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world. Where is the contradiction to 1 John 2:2? d) Rev. 20:15: Whose names are written in the book of life? How do they get there? Does this verse say that He did not die for those who are not in the book of life? 3 and 4) From my perspective, you are confusing he offer of the gift with the acceptance of the gift. Atonement has been made once and for all for all sin by Christ on the cross. However, the gift must be received or it does not save. In essence, Christ paid for our sins and now says, "Are you with me or against me?" If we reject His offer, we are lost. 5) Election history: Did God choose to save the indiduals you listed first and choose to condemn the ones listed second? Or did He choose to work through the first and not the second? This is one reason why Calvanist's (in my opinion) prefer to look at the whole and not individual verses, because there is not a single verse that says Christ died only for the elect or only for some. The fact that God choose to make David king over Saul does not mean that some are elected to salvation and others are not. 6) Plus: I can't come up with something to make the atonement conditional upon something other than God. It isn't conditional, it is an accomplished fact that we can choose to accept or reject. Thanks for you reply! Might I suggest that we narrow the focus in the future. These posts are getting long. You might pick one passage or one area that we could focus on for discussion. I'll go with the flow. Suggestion: Things like T.U.L.I.P. are helpful in distguishing between Calvanism and Arminianism. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | kalos | 6590 | ||
Is election unconditional? Morant61: I sincerely appreciate your splendid attitude, the fact that your question is marked by neither belligerence nor an adversarial tone. I mean what I say: in the midst of the verbal warfare on this Forum, your courtesy is refreshing. I think narrowing the focus of one posting is an excellent idea. Therefore, I would like to focus on your point number 6): "Plus: I can't come up with something to make the atonement conditional upon something other than God. It isn't conditional, it is an accomplished fact that we can choose to accept or reject. " I preface my remarks by saying: 1) I reply with all respect. 2) Neither Calvanism nor Arminianism fits the definition of heresy. 3) I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I merely believe in the *Bible doctrine of Election*. 4) It is not my intention to put you down or insult you. Regarding your point 6) "It isn't conditional...", may I say: Election, by definition, is unconditional. If it were conditional, then it would not be election. "Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. *Election is unconditional*, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God" (www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/). See this website for more information on the Bible doctrine of election. |
||||||
7 | Election to Salvation or of Purpose? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6604 | ||
Greetings JVHO212! Thank you for the kind words! I always enjoy reading your posts. I noticed that you quoted from John MacArthur. You might be surprised to find out that he is one of my favorite preachers (and me an Arminian!!!). A few years back, I had the chance to attend a pastor's conference and breakfast with Dr. MacArthur in Lima, OH. I'm breaking my own rule here, by getting away from 1 John 2:2 on this thread, but here goes. Allow me to define a few terms from my perspective in order to answer your question. I have been heavily influenced by the writings of Robert Shank ('Life in the Son' and 'Elect in the Son'.) Hence, my understanding of election is that it is primarily corporate and only secondarily inidvidual. The cross is the one electing act of God in history. In the cross, all men find atonement (objectively). However, they only experience atonement (subjectively) in Christ. When someone responds to the gift of salvation, it is at that point that they become part of the Elect body. Predestination refers to the circumstances of election (adoption in Eph.1 and the image of Christ in Rom. 8) and not to the eternal destiny of individuals. So my short answer would be: The atonement is unconditional, but election is conditioned upon acceptance of the atonement. The best Scripture for this view would be 2 Cor. 5:18 "18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" Note that v. 19 says that Christ was reconciling he world to Himself (unlimited atonement), but v. 20 calls for men to be reconciled to God (conditional election). The result is that 'in Him,' we become the righteousness of Christ. I look forward to your response. I love debate, not for arguments sake, but for the opportunity to sharpen my faith. It is through the questions and challenges of others that I am forced to examine my beliefs (I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong.) When you reach the point that you can explain your view in a logical and understandable manner to someone who disagrees with you, then you have begun to understand the subject. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran p.s. - Just call me Tim! |
||||||