Nothing explicitly in this Epistle, but Church history affirms this. Are you disagreeing here with Church History? Read F.F Bruce regarding the audience argument I am making.Quote:
2/ It cannot be denied that John “is” addressing a Jewish audience.
You said this, and said it was "obvious". How is that? What in this epistle leads you to this obvious conclusion?
The term “Messianic communities” will come up a lot in the early Church including this Epistle of John.
Not so. That is half an answer, but the logical implications of your interpretations need to be defended, and those implications end up contradicting scripture.Quote:
4/ By making it mean “every individual” other scriptures are contradicting themself.
It only contradicts Calvinist interpretations of other passages.
Not so fast brother. All of them address in context the recipients of the atonement, whether it be “ours”, “whole world”, “Jewish Nation”, “Children scattered abroad”, “Every nation, tribe and tongue”.Quote:
I have shown you 3 other passages used by the same author, that clearly has this idea of “Jews and Gentiles” in his mind, and yet you think I am on thin ice!
Actually brother, you have shown one passage, which in it's context is talking about Jews and Gentiles, (John 11:51ff) and two that have people praising God for saving "all kinds" of people (Rev. 5:9; 14:6).
The combined weight of such passages from the same author, would not lead us to believe that Jesus died for everyone without exception. That idea is read into the text.
In the face of all that, you are taking “whole world” to mean every individual. That is eisogesis.
Even if we take “ours” to mean “us believers” rather than “us Jews”, you still read “every individual” into “whole world!”
Actually there is. If I am not wrong there are Jewish ways of expression found throughout John’s writings when addressing a Jewish audience, that theologians have pointed out, I just do not have that info at hand. It is no new thing I am here saying.I really would like to hear why you think 1Jn was written to a Jewish audience. Is there any internal evidence?
It is perfectly valid to understand John as saying “our sins” meaning “us Jews” and for “the whole world” to mean exactly that without implying “every individual” who ever lived.
It is refreshing to hear a Non Calvinist with such honesty.Quote:
Then of course there is that word “propitiation” in this verse, which you do not touch at all!
What results from not touching that word is quite straight forward. It amounts to saying that Jesus propitiates for every individual in the world! That is what you are saying, unless you deny the meaning of the term for propitiation there.
Is that your position?
If you believe in substitutionary atonement (a Calvinist doctrine mind you) then you have no way out of your dilemma.
You would need to reject substitutionary atonement, the meaning of the word propitiation, and all for what? To hold onto what exactly?
A Saviour who potentially can save everyone, if they will just believe?
I didn't think that would slip by! Very Happy
Well, I don't think I can do this justice at this point, to be honest.
Yeah, but just maybe the Calvinist was exegeting scripture and getting his theology from scripture.At one point I was very persueded to accept limited atonement, because the logic behind the Calvinistic understanding of "penal substitution" leads to only one of two conclusions. Namely, Universalism, or Limited Atonement. At one point, I was very much leaning toward Calvinism.
However, I realized that I was coming to that conclusion, because I was presupposing the Calvinist understanding of the atonement. I no longer do.
I think that Jesus took the punishment sufficient to save all who will place their faith in Him.
Actually, we Calvinists go further than that.
We say the sufficiency or merit in the one who is sacrificing Himself, is of such worth, it could not only save the elect, but every man, and a thousand other worlds had that been God’s intention.
There is nothing lacking in the sufficiency of the sacrifice.
Calvinism teaches that Jesus would have suffered the exact same death for one sinner if that had been God’s plan.In other words, Jesus was punished, so that all who are "in Him" will be justified. I don't think that Jesus took a specific amount of punishment, but was punished in general, to make propitiation for all who are "in Him".
Perhaps when you were formerly looking into Calvinism, you were not quite understanding it.I do not believe that x-amount of people sinned x-amount, so God exacted x-amount of punishment on Jesus. (If I am misrepresenting your atonement theory please let me know).
We do say that Jesus shed his blood for all whom were intended to be saved by it, but that does not mean that there is some relationship between blood shed and how many it was shed for, in the sense that this was some kind of mathematical equation or something, no not at all.
We teach that “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins”.
Unbelievers shall pay for their own sins in Hell, for there was no blood shed for them by the plan and purpose of God.
I know this upsets many people, but scripture explicitly teaches this doctrine.
Isaiah, speaking of Christ plainly says,
Isa 53:4 Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
The “our” and “we” and “all” here is quite plainly understood in the context.
Isa 53:8 For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people He was stricken.
Isa 53:11 He shall see the fruit of the travail of His soul. He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify for many; and He shall bear their iniquities.
Contrast Isa 53:6 with (Psa_119:176; 1Pe_2:25 ,Eze_34:5, Eze_34:6; Zec_10:2, Zec_10:6; Eze_34:23, Eze_34:24; Jer_23:4, Jer_23:5; also Mat_9:36).
Then read Jesus in John Ch 10.
Joh 10:26 But you did not believe because you are not of My sheep. As I said to you,
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
Joh 10:28 And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.
See Joh 6:39 And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day.
And,
Joh 10:11 I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
There are sheep and there are goats. Jesus does not die for every individual as Non Calvinists teach.
But scripture “is not” silent on these matters.That is how I understand it. But when it comes down to it, the Bible doesn't tell us just how it works, and I am content to take the scripture at face value, and remain silent where God does.
To quote my position from another thread:
Quote:
At this point, I am content to believe that Christ died for the whole world, (1Jn2:2),
Assumption 1
Whole world = Every individual
God desires that all men come to repentance, (2Pet. 3:9),
Assumption 2
All men = Every Individual
He doesn't want anyone to perish, (Ez. 33:11),
Assumption 3
Anyone = Every Individual
and that all who believe in Him will be saved.
Correct biblical conclusion.
All of these points are biblical, which cannot be denied (for they are simply using the language of those verses).
No, there are assumptions going into these interpretations.
The texts themselves have the necessary language/context within themselves to support what Calvinism teaches, not even having to go to other texts for support, but the option to do so is still open to the Calvinist.
Glad to hear. I have done serious battle with these texts for a long time now.How that works out in a particular atonement theory or soteriology...I don't know. I am not convinced by Calvinist arguments on any of these points. So far anyway, I am certainly not done studying this subject!!
That last sentence still holds true by the way, so don't give up! Very Happy
I am not desiring that you become a “Calvinist”, just a more diligent expositor of scripture, that’s all.
Quote:
A Saviour who potentially can save everyone, if they will just believe?
Calvinists always say this, as if it proves something.
It suggests that Christ did not actually accomplish anything on the cross.
It suggests that Jesus work upon the cross theoretically at least, might have saved no one, meaning that no one might have exercised their free will to believe it.
Such a thought exposes the bankruptcy of such a potential atonement, which is a serious blight upon the God of scripture.
Well, if it sits well with you, what more can I say at this time?Frankly it doesn't bother me at all to say that Christ died to make salvation possible. That seems to be what the bible teaches.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out.
The text is declaring that God shall not impute sins against all for whom the atonement covers.Most Non Calvinists interpret “world” there to be “every individual”, that is why I mentioned it.
I said that I didn't have a problem with it, because even if it can be shown to mean "only the elect", I don't think that it makes the case for limitied atonment.
Upon further consideration, however, I do think that it means the "whole world". Let me explain.
To put it another way, "not reconciling their sins to them" is not what happens for all for whom He died (which is every individual-IMO), but is the way by which He saves all who make the choice to "be reconciled". If it is a given that their "sins are not imputed to them" upon Chirst's death, (the elect that is), why does Paul go on to "beseech" and "implore" those to whom this word will be preached to "be reconciled"?
According to your interpretation he is saying "you're already reconciled, I beg you be reconciled", which doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks for the dialogue! More later I'm sure!
It is not addressing “choices” we make or any other “conditional” statement.
2Co 5:19 whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us.
All of the actions are proceeding from God, not man.
He is doing the reconciling
He is not imputing sin
He is putting “in us” the word of reconciliation etc
For scripture tells us to do so. God has an “elect” people, and we as “Ambassadors” go out and preach the Gospel to all.why does Paul go on to "beseech" and "implore" those to whom this word will be preached to "be reconciled"?
God works through means, and those means are scriptural preaching.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without preaching?
How so?According to your interpretation he is saying "you're already reconciled, I beg you be reconciled", which doesn't make sense to me.
Hey, don’t turn into a Calvinist on me mid sentence! Stick to your own side of the fence!Why is the argument against this usually aimed at the depravity of man being too great? Why not place the focus on the power of God coming through the Gospel? Isn't it at least possible that the Potter can have this affect on the clay?
You are reading Calvinism here through your flawed but sincere grid.
Huh? Once a mans eyes are opened, he sees.And once a man's eyes are opened he can turn his back on God and reject Him (just as Adam and Eve essentially did)?
There is a Hymn about it called Amazing grace!
Prove that God saves the sinner?Quote:
Salvation is the work of God upon a sinner. It is a “revelation” by God to “the sinner”. It is monergistic not synergistic, and therefore things like intelligence, bias, knowledge of Greek etc, are irrelevant.
Don't you have to prove this first?
I wish that when discussing these matters with fellow believers, I did not have to do such a thing.
I am trying my best to prove such a thing, but if you want to argue for a synergistic salvation, there is little I can do to persuade you.
That is why I am quoting scripture to you.
Calvinists affirm that sanctification is synergistic, but regeneration is monergistic.Anyway, just as above I believe this is a misunderstanding of what non-Calvinist believe. In scripture I see the command to repent and believe. I see Abraham used as an example of our justification, being justified not by what works he did but by his faith, his unfailing belief that God could do what He had promised. This is synergistic.
God had already called Abraham before his faith proved his justification.
That is why James teaches that true saving faith will show itself, and why the same James says,
Jam 1:18 Of His own will He brought us forth with the Word of truth, for us to be a certain firstfruit of His creatures.
The order of slavation (Ordo salutis)
In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is
1) election,
2) predestination,
3) gospel call
4) inward call
5) regeneration,
6) conversion (faith & repentance),
7) justification,
8) sanctification, and
9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is
1) outward call
2) faith/election,
3) repentance,
4) regeneration,
5) justification,
6) perseverance,
7) glorification.
No we understand exactly where you are coming from on this matter.I believe the misunderstanding is that Calvinist believe that non-Calvinist are saying that we are saved by believing, repenting, responding to God, etc. Salvation has already been procured by Christ and offered to those who believe. Do you see the difference? It's not believing that saves us, it's God who saves us. Believing is how we access procured salvation. As Paul says in Romans 5:2 We have access by faith into this Grace...
Sometimes the truth is found in the details. The list above helps a little bit I believe.
We both agree that a man is justified by faith, right?
We both believe that faith is “our” faith and not God believing for us, right?
We both believe that we are saved by God’s grace, right?
The question simply becomes,
Do we believe in order to be born again
or
Do we believe because we are born again?
What do you say to this simple question?
So is not believing then also something which God grants?Again, the example Paul uses in Romans 4 is telling. Abraham believed God. Now stop and think about that. So what! What does that get Abraham? Nothing. Believing God does not do anything in and of itself. The rest of the sentence tells us who does the work: and it was credited as righteousness. His faith, his belief was credited by God. You know the passage ...it is God who justifies. God does this, not us. Believing does not earn justification. Justification is granted by God, on God's terms.
So is believing then also something which God grants?So when you say: "Salvation is the work of God upon a sinner. It is a “revelation” by God to “the sinner”." I agree completely!
So is faith and repentance also something granted by God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they were silent and glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted repentance to life to the nations.
Phi 1:29 For to you it is given on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Let me ask you this.But when you say: "It is monergistic not synergistic". I don't quite understand, since Abraham was used as an example by Paul for our justification and said that "it was credited as righteousness". The "it" refers to Abraham's faith.
Does Abraham fit with the Ordo salutis above from the reformed camp, and if not, can you demonstrate from the text/life of Abraham how it does not fit, and then show how it fits the Non Calvinist ordo salutis.
Yes, but how to you reconcile that with the Lord when He explicitly said that for man, salvation not only seems impossible, but in actual fact is impossible,Paul goes on in the passage of Romans 4 to explain what faith is. It's believing God when it seems impossible.
Mar 10:26 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying to themselves, And who can be saved?
Mar 10:27 And Jesus looking on them said, With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.
But scripture teaches,And when you remain faithful God then does 100% of the work.
1Co 1:9 God is faithful, by whom you were called to the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Phi 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,
Phi 2:13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
I could provide one if you wish.So while I could even argue that I believe salvation is monergistic (looking at it one way), It still seems that it's synergistic as Paul presented it, at least in the sense that Abraham had to believe before God acted and justified him. All this from Paul, who said this was something Abraham "did" (believe) but was not considered something God "owed" since it was not "work". Interesting way he put it. I would very much like to hear a Calvinistic explanation of Romans 4.
Quote:
God originally created humans upright, perfect, sinless but certainly not free from God, hence capable of sinning.
God has the only “free” will in the universe.
...
Does that mean that God made them evil?
Certainly not, but He did create them with the absolute guarantee that they would fall and become captives to the nature we now possess through disobedience.
As long as you maintain, as scripture does, that Man in every point, pre and post fall, has a real will that functions and acts according to it’s nature, and is not some kind of robot, as is so often ignorantly suggested, you will not stray too far from understanding these issues.
I don't understand. If people only act according to their nature, and God made Adam and Eve perfect and sinless and God is the only "free" will in the universe, then how were they able to sin?
Simple, they were not free from God, His plans and purposes for them.
In Heaven, you will not be able to sin. I do hope you will not complain at not having this free will that is so free, it cannot sin!
There nature was originally created perfect and righteous, unlike ours, but post fall, that all changed for them. Scripture does not teach that they were “unable” to sin.Certainly they couldn't overcome or change their own nature, could they? If Adam and Eve couldn't hold off one temptation then why would we think their "nature" is any different from ours?
Even God said, “In the day you eat”, knowing exactly that they would indeed sin. Gen 2:17
Mark
