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 Orthodoxy! Thanks for narrowing the focus! Is or can the gift be accepted? Let me stick with one of the passages that we have been dealing with - Romans 5:17 says, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." I don't think that you would diagree that contextually the gift in Romans is salvation. In this passage, Paul is making a lengthy comparison and contrast of the act and subseqent effects of Adam's sin and the act and subsequent effect of Christ's death. To summarize Paul's point, death reigned upon all because of Adam's sin, but life regins in those who, according to v. 17, receive God's abundant provision of grace. The word receive is a Present Active, Participle. They did the receiving. To me, when he Bible says that someone received something, it's pretty clear. Concerning hermeneutics: I have been kind of joking around with you, but I do think this is an important point. Obviously, you need to look at all of Scripture to shape and accurate understanding of doctrine. We would agree on that point. However, you must deal with Scripture. Doctrine is not built by simply adding up the verses (558 say election vs. 400 say free will, therefore, election wins.) If you have a clear statement in even one verse that disagrees with your understading (or mine) of a doctrine, we must reexamine our presuppositions, not simply ignore the verse because it doesn't agree with our theology. (I'm not implying that you are doing this. I'm simply making the statement because I am concerned that appealing to the whole of Scripture without dealing with Scripture will lead to that problem.) p.s. - If I eat a whole pie, did I or did I not eat every part of the pie? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran. |
Bible Answer: Treat the examples of Christ and Adam as parallel. You didn't act to receive Adam's sin. In exactly the same way, you do not act to receive Christ's righteousness. Of course we still do receive Christ's righteousness, but it's like receiving, say, a swift kick to the head, or how the earth receives rain. No action on our part is required. Let me put it this way: Does Christ's death all alone, by itself, bring about justification? Or is some action in receiving it required? I want to say that the blood of Christ is sufficient by itself with no action on our part. Do you? Reprobation is not spelled out very clearly in Scripture. It is simply the flip side of election. You can't have one without the other, for if God chooses some people to save, that means that he chooses other people not to save. If I can prove election, reprobation follows. |