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 (short): Whole world or not? |
Question (full): Greetings Sam! I agree that dealing with one verse is stacking the deck in my favor! However, it is my thread and if you don't want to play by my rules, I will take my thread and go home! :-) Seriously though, I did try to limit the discussion for a reason. The debate between Calvanism and Armnianism deals with many issues: The sovereignty of God, freewill, the order of decrees, human nature, original sin, grace, and a host of other theological issues. The problem I have is that many times we never deal with a particular point, but only throw around a bunch of "yeah, but what about this verse"'s. So, my goal was not to eliminate debate, but simply focus it. Now concerning the meat of your post! 1) You asked, "Did Christ die for the sins of all humans or for all humans who sin?" I'm not sure I see a huge difference since we all sin, but I understand where you are going. Can the phrase "the sins of the whole world" not mean every inividual? I say no! The term sin is modifed by a plural personal pronoun. It is not just sin, but our sin for which Christ died. Then, John goes on, not just our sin, but the sin of the whole world. If John is speaking of individuals in the first phrase, he must still be speaking of individuals in the second phrase. 2) How about John 10:11? First of all, each passage must be interpreted based upon it's own context. If in fact 1 John 2:2 refers to the whold world, that fact does not automatically mandate that "sheep" in John 10:11 must also refer to the whole world. John 10:11 and 1 John 2:2 are different books, and in different contexts. The sheep "parable" in John 10 is a story told to make a point. It was not intended to be a theological textbook for or against either Calvanism or Arminianism (though it may speak for or against either). In the sheep passage, Jesus makes several statements about His sheep. However, He does not say how one becomes (if possible) one of His sheep. He does not say why some are and some are not His sheep. And, if I understand your point correctly, the fact that Christ died for His sheep, in no way is a statement that Christ did not die for those who aren't His sheep. For instance, if I said that God loves Christians, does that mean that God hates non-Christians? There isn't any statment in John 10 that Christ did not die for anyone other than His sheep, while 1 John 2:2 specifically says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Aside: There are several issues that must be addressed in John 10 if we are to understand the theology of it. a) Who are the sheep? Elect as opposed to non-elect? Christians as opposed to non-Christians? Jews as opposed to non-Jews? b) Why does John 10:15 say that Christ died for "the sheep" and not "my sheep?" c) Who are the other sheep of John 10:16? I am more than happy to discuss other verses, post a thread with a verse or passage that you want to discuss and I'll respond. However, no one has yet given me a contextual reason why "the sins of the whole world" does not really mean the "whole world." The reason I chose this particual verse for debate was beause the phrase "whole world" cannot mean anything else. Either Christ was the propitation for the sins of the whole world or He wasn't. Which is it? In Christ, Tim Moran |