Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 John 2:2 And He [that same Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins [the atoning sacrifice that holds back the wrath of God that would otherwise be directed at us because of our sinful nature--our worldliness, our lifestyle]; and not for ours alone, but also for [the sins of all believers throughout] the whole world. |
Bible Question:
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 |
Bible Answer: 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. |