John Calvin and Calvinism.
- Thread starter Lifelong_sinner
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Johann
Well-Known Member
Johann
Well-Known Member
Read Banner of Truth publication by Iain H. Murray: "Wesley and the men that followed"
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I understand Calvinism just fine. In fact, it's odd because this is a common catch phrase used by Calvinists all the time. I know. I have had others tell me this before. They usually say “you don't know Calvinism” (See Google search here about it) when in reality we do understand the false teaching of Calvinism by quoting the 5 points of Calvinism or by quoting the words of Calvin himself or by quoting the beliefs of popular Calvinists. In other words, I think sometimes Calvinists are embarrassed at their own beliefs because they know it sounds silly.
Besides, you are not offering any counter explanation to the verses I put forth to you that demolishes Calvinism and a sin and still be saved type belief. Until you do, you are only making the Bible say what you want it to say to fit your own ends of what you want to be true (that plays on the darker side of things). God is good, and He does not force save people, and or allow them to justify sin. It doesn't work like that.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-Known Member
Calvinism and 1 Timothy 4:10?
Friend, read..the great debate on 1Tim 4.10
If Christ is the Savior of all men, why is every single person not getting saved?
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between God providing a way of escape (Which is what the Provisional Atonement is) vs. people wanting to play ball on God's terms in regards to having the proper faith so as to be saved by God.
1 Timothy 4:10 is the Savior of all men especially to those who believe. This is a good verse, but it is not a solid case all on it's own. I prefer 1 John 2:2 because you could twist 1 Timothy 4:10 to explain how God saves unbeliever's lives from like fires or something silly. However, you cannot make up such an excuse with 1 John 2:2. You really cannot skate around that one. Jesus is not only the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world (See: 1 John 2:2). The Calvinist interpretation would have me believe that the whole world is in reference to the Elect and not the world in general. What is dumb about this interpretation is that John is referring to himself and his writers including in them being a part of Christ being their atoning sacrifice (propitiation). Why would John and the believers he was writing to be excluded from the rest of the Elect or chosen by God? It makes no sense. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that John is referring to the whole world as simply meaning exactly that (without any spin on those words).
Then there is 2 Peter 2:1.
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1).
Here we see Peter talk about false teachers and how they even deny that the Lord had bought them. Obviously false teachers are not saved and yet here we see that the Lord has bought them. This is clearly showing the Provisional Atonement of the Majority of Men. You can deny it, run from it, and or change what it says, but you will have to face God one day and there is no escaping that. You may be able to pretend that Calvinism is true, but there is no fooling the one true GOD. The god of Calvinism (created by Calvinists) is just a myth. The god of Calvinism cannot be found in the Bible (even as many of adherents try hard to defend such a god).
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Their debates are controlled and they are not going to stream a debate where they lost (if they have not displayed one). They also may not debate regular believers (Which means that they are afraid of their beliefs not standing up to scrutiny by all believers).
Give me the best part of their debate along with the verses they use (in written form), and I will be happy to refute their nonsense by just using the Bible. The issue is that they don't believe all of the Bible. They believe only in parts of the Bible. They don't believe 2 Thessalonians 2:10, or Jonah 3:10. Right now. No Calvinist was able to explain these verses in what they plainly say. These verses clearly speak against Calvinism. Also, a debate that is controlled to only looking at certain verses of the Bible and not others is also not a good debate. One has to look at the whole counsel of God's Word and not leave any stone unturned.
Meaning, they don't know how to explain 2 Thessalonians 2:10, and or Jonah 3:10.
They are not able to do it unless they twist the Scriptures.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
This makes absolutely no sense.
You say you are not a Calvinist and yet you believe in the 5 points of Calvinism?
Just believing in the five points of Calvinism makes you a Calvinist even if you reject the name Calvinism.
For the theology was invented by John Calvin.
I don't believe you are employing exegesis properly because you are reading Calvinism into the text when it does not clearly read that way at all. Again, 2 Thessalonians 2:10. You did not really explain that in light of Calvinism properly. Let's get to that verse. Those who are perishing are perishing because THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. Again, there is no MIGHT be saved in the 5 points of Calvinism that you claim to believe in as being biblical. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 does not say that the reason they are perishing is because GOD did not Elect them. The blame falls not on God but on them for not receiving the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. It says MIGHT be saved. There is no MIGHT be saved in the five points of Calvinism. In Calvinism: They are either Elect (hand picked by God), or Non-Elect (not chosen by God). But you fail to realize that many are called and few are chosen. Why would God call those who are not chosen? Think.
You said:
You are the second person in this thread to misspell Arminianism.
You said:
Every time you see a verse that sounds even remotely like the 5 points of Calvinism you must assume it is talking about Calvinism and not something else. If you were to read the overall theme and get a feel for most of Paul's letters to the churches, his thrust was not Calvinism or Determinism, but it was being saved by God's grace through faith and the gospel message.
The natural man receives not the things of God in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is best understood if you reread the whole chapter and the chapter after it with an open mind in what the text is saying without any 5 point Calvinistic bias.
1 Corinthians 2:2
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
This is at the heart of what others are not receiving. They are not living crucified lives in their belief in the gospel message that saves (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). They are justifying sin. In the very next chapter, Paul says:
1 Corinthians 3:3-4
“For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”
“For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”
Paul says that they are carnal and they are basically justifying the sins of envying and strife.
Paul says to another church that those who commit the sins of envying and strife will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
You said:
It's looking at the bigger context of what Paul was talking about to make his point.
The carnal mind in Romans 8:6-9 would ultimately be directed towards those believers who wanted to go back to the Old Law or the 613 Laws of the Old Testament Law of Moses (given to Israel and not the church) so as to be justified before God instead of being saved initially by God's grace and then living holy afterwards by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Paul was fighting against a heresy of which I call: "Circumcision Salvationism" (Which is Law Alone Salvationism without God's grace); A certain sect of Jews were trying to deceive some Christians into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be saved. This was a heresy that was clearly addressed at the Jerusalem council (See Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, Acts of the Apostles 15:24). Paul also addressed this problem; Paul said to the Galatians that if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2), and then Paul mentions how if you seek to be justified by the Law, you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). This "law" is the Torah because circumcision is not a part of the commands given to us by Jesus and His followers.
(Continued in my next post to you).
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Romans 8:6-9
6 “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
Let's look at a theme of some of Paul's words.
- Galatians 2:3 says, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:”
- Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
- Galatians 5:6 says, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
- Galatians 6:15 (NLT) says, “It doesn't matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation.”
- 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 says, 18 For instance, a man who was circumcised before he became a believer should not try to reverse it. And the man who was uncircumcised when he became a believer should not be circumcised now. (NLT) 19 “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (NASB)
- Romans 2:28-29 says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
- Romans 3:1 says, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?”
- Romans 4:9-12 says, ”9 “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
The Jewish believing elders said this of Paul when he returned:
Acts of the Apostles 21:21 says, “And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”
Now, the Jerusalem Council of believers we read about how they describe how certain Jews desired Gentile Christians to be circumcised to be initially saved and to keep the Law of Moses:
- Acts of the Apostles 15:1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
- Acts of the Apostles 15:5 says, But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
- Acts of the Apostles 15:24 says, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”
In the book of Romans, Paul alludes to the heresy of “Circumcision Salvationism” three times. For if a person thought they had to first be circumcised to be initially saved, they would be making a work or Law the basis for their salvation (Instead of having faith in God's grace in Jesus Christ).
So when we read Romans 8:6-9, we are reading about the carnal mind (or carnal person) who believes they have to be circumcised in order to be initially saved and that they have to keep the Old Law (the 613 Laws of Moses). But by their trying to keep the Old Law (Which is no longer required), they end up becoming slaves to their own sin (Romans 7:14-24). This kind of person (who is trapped in the Old Law) is thinking in carnal terms. They want to obey God, but they cannot because they don't have Jesus Christ in their life to obey because they are not playing ball on God's terms in being first saved by God's grace (Which is an aspect of salvation that is without the deeds of the Law because they are being initially saved by God’s grace and mercy).
Romans 8:2
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
The Law of sin and death is the Law of Moses because you could be stoned for not keeping the Old Law.
So keeping the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (a New Covenant Law) makes us free from the Old Law.
We fulfill the law of righteousness (the righteous aspect of the Old Law) by loving our neighbor; For to love your neighbor is the New Covenant way (Romans 13:8-10). However, believers are technically not under the Old Law (Romans 6:14). Believers cannot be justified by the Law of Moses (Acts of the Apostles 13:39). Paul says, “To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” So Paul is under the laws of Christ and not the Law of Moses.
So they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; as mentioned in Romans 8:5 is in reference to those who believe they must be circumcised (See: Romans 2:28-29, Romans 3:1, Romans 4:9-12). So this is the context. This is what it is talking about. It's not talking about how people are not understanding Calvinism. That's just non-existent in the context and that is you enforcing that opinion into the text where it does not belong.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Well said. Thank you for explaining it. I would partially agree with this interpretation. I believe that God's wrath abides on those who do not believe and that they are at at war with God. But this would only be in part that they would be at war and abiding on God's wrath. Why? Well, I also believe that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, too (2 Peter 3:9). God holds out his hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, as well (Romans 10:21). Jesus said to the Father, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34). So God's love and mercy also knows no bounds. God can equally be wrathful at them but yet love them equally in such a way to desire the best outcome for them so that they might be saved. Oh, there is those words again. Might be saved. That's what 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says. Yet, Might be saved does not fit into 5 point Calvinism. God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. God is good. Some folks tend to play on the darker side of God and de-emphasize the love of God. This is kind of how see the tenets of 5 point Calvinism. No offense of course. This is just how I see it when I read the Bible, and examine Calvinism. For Calvinism does not align with basic morality (or life moral lessons or real world examples). Basic morality is taught in the Bible just in case somebody broke their moral compass.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
No. I am telling you that Paul is saying that in Ephesians 2 that they (the believers) were once dead in trespasses and sins in their old life of sin before they accepted Jesus and His grace. This proves conditional salvation and not election. For if God elected them from the foundation of the world to be saved, then they would still be saved even in their unbelief before coming to Christ. But in Calvinism, regeneration prior to believing the gospel or repenting is salvation. But the Scriptures say repent and be converted (See: Acts of the Apostles 3:19). According to the Bible, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who will believe it.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; ” (Romans 1:16).
Believing the gospel is what first saves us (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). But in Calvinism, it is your regeneration that first saves you. So Calvinism is teaching another way of salvation that the Bible does not talk about.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Your a non-Calvinist who believes in the 5 points of Calvinism. Right. So how is that not a contradiction?
You said:
I am sure the King James translators know more about the Greek than we do.
Besides, even with this English rendering it does not help you. In Calvinism there is no such thing as a person's choice involved in determining whether or not they are saved. In Calvinism: Their personal choice, or actions makes no difference to God because God does not determine if they are saved if they receive or don't receive the love of the truth. In Calvinism: God saves based on Election.
You said:
I would agree that God knows the future of who will be saved and not be saved. But there is a big difference between Biblical foreknowledge vs. Calvin's Unconditional Election. There are possibilities that they could be saved. For even Jesus said to Capernaum that if the mighty works (miracles) which have done were also done in Sodom, then it would have remained unto this day.
“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (Matthew 11:23).
Meaning that city of Sodom would have been saved unto the day of Christ's earthly ministry if the miracles done in Capernaum were done in Sodom. This means that God is aware of possibilities of things happening. This is why there was a chance for those who received not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. God gave them a chance but they blew it and not because God did not Elect them to salvation.
In Matthew 11:21 it says, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”
This shows that if the miracles were done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. So this shows that there are possibilities of one being saved (even in God’s book).
You said:
You seen what you wanted to see to fit a certain viewpoint about God that is appealing to a particular wrong mindset that people have about God. There are people who think God is not a Trinity and they did not learn about that from a church, too. That does not mean they are correct for reading the Bible in a wrong way. You have to ignore a whole ton of free will verses in order to fit your viewpoint about God to work involving your belief in 5 point Calvinism.
You said:
It does not matter. All five points of Calvinism are not biblical in the slightest sense. I used to believe in Total Depravity, but I have come to find that even that point is unbiblical after a deeper examination of the Scriptures. Men are not totally depraved whereby they cannot respond to God. God actually holds men accountable for not obeying Him and or believing in Him. Yes, God must draw a person, but Christ draws all men unto Himself as the Scriptures say. I mean ask yourself. Why is God angry at the wicked every day according to Psalms 7:11? Cannot God just snap his fingers to do His will and not be angry anymore? In other words, Calvinism does not make any sense. In the world of Calvinism: God should never be angry because He decrees all things to happen.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I agree, and gifts are usually received by a person, and they not enforced upon another.
For people can refuse a gift.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Question
Doesn't 1 John 2:2 disprove limited atonement?
Answer
Thanks for our question. Since, I briefly discuss the definition of the biblical doctrine of limited atonement under "Calvinism and 1 Timothy 2:4, 6?" and "Calvinism and Titus 2:11?" (see below), I'm not going to repeat it again here. I will simply defer to John Owen's brief argument in, For Who Did Christ Die?:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- 1. All the sins of all men.
- 2. All the sins of some men, or
- 3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
- 1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
- 2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- 3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
"I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
Of course unbelief is a sin for which Christ died! If he didn't, none could be saved. Limited atonement is a biblical doctrine.
The text is question is:
1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Seeing that limited atonement is a biblical doctrine what is John actually saying? After all, the Bible does not contradict itself. All Scripture is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), so what remains is for us to "rightly divide" it (2 Tim. 2:15). As we know, in rightly dividing any text, we need to look at not only at the immediate and the book's overall context, but the author, audience, word meanings, historical setting, grammar, syntax, textual issues, the type of literature, the author's and the over all biblical context. When this is not properly done we may end up with error, division, and even different denominations, etc.
So, what is John talking about? John is the author. He was a Jew, a Hebrew. "Jews" (Ioudaioi) is used 71 times in his Gospel, as compared to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which only mention the word 16 times. So, comparably where was John's emphasis? Who was his primary audience? The Jews, or the Hebrews.
So, John is simply saying in 1 John 2:2, that Jesus Christ is the "the propitiation for our [the Hebrews] sins; and not for ours [the Hebrews] only, but also for the whole world [the Gentiles]. This is consistent with what John wrote in his gospel in John 11:51-52. Let's briefly compare them:
1 John 2:1-2 John 11:51-52
these things write I unto you he prophesied
Jesus Christ the righteous Jesus
he is the propitiation for would die for
our sins the nation
and not for ours only and not for the nation only
but also but also
for the whole world the children of God who are scattered abroad
It is clear that John is speaking of the same idea in each set of verses. "The whole world" (1 John 2:2) refers to only the children of God scattered throughout the whole world (John 11:52; 17:6, 9, 19; Rev. 5:9; 7:9), the "many" of Hebrews 9:28, but not each person in the human race (John 5:29). Logic also must dictate here. If God desires all men to be saved without exception, then why are any lost? Was Judas lost? Yes, he was (John 17:12; cf. Matt 26:24). It is impossible to give the words ransom, substitute, reconcile, and propitiate their biblical meaning and still hold to universal atonement without also accepting universal salvation. If these terms hold to their rightful meanings, then Christ died only for the elect.
As George Smeaton in his book, The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement (Banner of Truth, 1991) so eloquently put it:
The words plainly allude to the atonement as offered and applied - that is, to the actual expiation, which does not go beyond the number of believing recipients. It is a perversion of the language when this is made to teach the dogma of universal propitiation; or that atonement was equally offered for all, whether they receive it or not, whether they acknowledge its adaptation to their case or not. The passage does not teach that Christ's propitiation has removed the divine anger in such a sense from all and every man. Nothing betokens that the apostle had others in his eye than believers out of every tribe and nation.
So, 1 John 2:2 does not disprove limited atonement, rather it affirms it.
How can you, or anyone else, possibly know this to be true? Not all their debates are documented.
Besides, Calvinism is nothing more than a fabricated theology to promote one person over another. In Jesus Christ, all human beings are equal.
"Savior of all men" is a reference to position of Jesus Christ. He ALONE is the solution for the sin of humanity. He either saves or He condemns. There is no other.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Guess you just affirmed Divine election...
pas
- Definition:
1. individually
a. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
a. some of all types ... the whole world has gone after him... Did all the world go after Christ?
Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.
Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
Ye are of God,little children, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one. Does
the whole world there mean everybody?
The words world and all are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the all means all persons, taken individually.
Get a GRAMCORD...
The words are
generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world" (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that אין להן כפרה, "there is no propitiation for them" (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),
"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''
which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere (o) it is said,
"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''
which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place (p),
"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''
where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said (q), when
"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''
that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added (r),
"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''
i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent (s); כולי עלמא סברי, "the whole world" are of opinion (t), are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" (u), only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk_2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jn_5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jn_2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh_17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation; The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say (w) repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous (x); sometimes incense (y); sometimes the priests' garments (z); sometimes it is the day of atonement (a); and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers (b), that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them;
Blessings
J.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
First, there is no phrase in the Bible that says that the WHOLE WORLD is in reference to the Gentiles only. The WHOLE WORLD would include both the Jews and Gentiles or it would be talking about our planet.
So the Calvinistic explain away on 1 John 2:2 is not really reading it in a way that sounds like the WHOLE world. The Calvinist is taking the WHOLE world to refer to just the Gentiles and it is not literally the WHOLE world. So one is reading this phrase as being more metaphorical to fit one's own personal pet belief they want to be true (that paints a picture of God that is dark, and wrong and to live a life that is without any responsibility).
Second, if Calvinism was true, and it wanted to refer to the Gentiles, it would either say Gentiles, or it would refer to the sins of every nation, etcetera. John would not say that Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world if he was referring to the Gentiles because the whole world is made up more than the Gentiles but it also includes the Jews. Besides, how do they explain away 2 Peter 2:1? It says the false teachers deny the Lord who have bought them. Obviously false teachers are not saved, and yet the verse says that the Lord has bought them.
Similar threads
