tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post5921154934573548455..comments2024-02-14T11:24:47.692-08:00Comments on Just and Sinner: 1 John 2:2 and limited atonementAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-38532696822449437592010-02-15T02:55:44.300-08:002010-02-15T02:55:44.300-08:00Tom Wells' "A Price For A People - The Me...Tom Wells' "A Price For A People - The Meaning of Christ's Death" (Banner of Truth) is the kindest, fairest and most convincing modern explanation and argument in favor of definite atonement for the average reader that I have read. Here's a sampling of Wells' writing: http://theresurgence.com/user/122.<br /><br />For the more studious reader, Gary Long's "Definite Atonement" (New Covenant Media) provides more meat. Dr. Long presents four interpretations typically offered for this passage: http://www.the-highway.com/1Jh2.2.html.<br /><br />Tom Wells allows for the ethnic (Jew/Gentile) view in explaining "our sins" and "the sins of the whole world" in 1 John 2:2, but favors another view: Christ is the exclusive propitiation, not only for the sins of we who now believe, but also for the sins of the whole world (for whomever else might ever believe).<br /><br />Keep in mind John also writes in 1 John 5:19, "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." The "whole world" here obviously does not include those who were believers when John wrote this (hence, it does not include all people without exception), only unbelievers, some of whom undoubtedly would believe in the future but, nevertheless, until they believed, were under the power of the devil.<br /><br />Hope this helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-45800794422072833042010-01-27T12:04:36.603-08:002010-01-27T12:04:36.603-08:00I also don't think you can use that one text i...I also don't think you can use that one text in Revelation to interpret every universal text. Revelation is dealing with the eschaton; who is ultimately saved at the end. It doesn't really deal with the issue I am discussing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-52216601445282468832010-01-27T11:58:22.694-08:002010-01-27T11:58:22.694-08:00Calvinists I have talked to usually try to argue t...Calvinists I have talked to usually try to argue that this verse is about a Jew/Gentile distinction. A.W. Pink argues at length for the idea that this epistle is written to Jews to defend this interpretation. In my view, 1 John, being a Catholic epistle is not written to one specific congregation, thus he cannot be saying "not only this congregation, but also the elect around the world". He is writing to Christians in general, thus the "whole world" must be someone other than the church.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-39122731693389160592010-01-27T11:27:06.465-08:002010-01-27T11:27:06.465-08:00I do not see a reason why this text must be speaki...I do not see a reason why this text must be speaking of a Jew/Gentile distinction. John is writing pastorally (i.e. little children, children; e.g. 1 Jn. 2:1, 12-14, 18, 28; 3:7; etc) to a particular group of people. There does not seem to be any reason to exclude the possibility that he is making a statement about the forgiveness ‘he and they’ have received through their advocate Jesus Christ, and not only them (he and this group of believers), but those throughout the whole world (Rev. 5:9). Though John is pastorally focused, he is still kingdom focused. Living as long as he did, he saw the advance of the Gospel marching throughout the whole world as Christ promised (Acts 1:8).sirdude108https://www.blogger.com/profile/03840398276451028904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-90988091867556210432010-01-26T23:59:50.835-08:002010-01-26T23:59:50.835-08:00So then who is the "our" and who is the ...So then who is the "our" and who is the "world"? If this means Jew and Gentile relations, show me how it is at all in the context.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07355003765385878787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925308476543851194.post-26717252905294215212010-01-26T19:15:29.755-08:002010-01-26T19:15:29.755-08:00I'm going to have to disagree with your interp...I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation here Jordan. Your equating of the term "world" in 1 Jn. 2:2, with the term "world" in 2:15-17 cannot be maintained. <br /> <br />The "world" referred to in 2:15-17 is that of the overarching system of rebellion which exerts itself against the dominion of God. Such a corrupt world is passing away (v. 17). John reminds his readers who they are in verses 12-14, and then tells them how to live in 15-17. This is much like Paul's admonition in Romans 12:2. <br />The term "world" in 1 Jn. 2:15-17 does not refer to "sinful humanity" for whom Christ died, as you have inferred from 2:2; for if that were the case, why then would John exhort us NOT to love the world (v. 15).<br />I appreciate your desire to compare the usages of the word "world" by John. This is certainly a proper rule of exegesis, yet in this instance, it seems evident that he is using the two terms in different ways.<br />It would seem better to equate John's usage of "world" with another text of his which deals with a similar subject (i.e. the work of Christ), which is what Rev. 5:9 discusses. Both letters were written by John, both were composed around the same time, and the texts in question both reflect the same theme. Reading 1 Jn. 2:2 in light of Rev. 5:9, yields a good interpretation of the text, that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of men <i>from</i> every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and not for every man <i>in</i> every tribe and tongue and people and nation.sirdude108https://www.blogger.com/profile/03840398276451028904noreply@blogger.com