Monsieur Calvin and UN-Limited Atonement?

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

hil-as-mos'
atonement, that is, (concretely) an expiator: - propitiation.

This is what e-Sword gave me as a translation for "hilasmos". Are you saying that the word should be translated differently?

It already is translated differently. As Tartan pointed out, "expiation" and "propitiation" are quite different concepts. Tartan correctly gave the meaning of each. Some translations have "expiation"; others have "propitiation"; still others "atoning sacrifice".

In my next post, I will tell you how I think it should be translated and why.
Of one thing I am sure: "Propitiation" is an incorrect translation.

And no, Tartan, Paidion is not in "the Christadephian Cult", although he regards some of the teachings of that cult closer to the truth than many of the teachings of Calvinism!

[Guest]

The Greek Words “hilasmos” and “hilastārion”

The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are “hilasmos” (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and “hilastārion” Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form “hilaskomai” The Hebrew word translated as "atonement" is "kippur" and is usually rendered as “exhilastārion” in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated about 250 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy. Note that it differs from the New Testament word only by the addition of the prefix “ex”. The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is "kaphar".

In the King James Version, “hilasmos” is translated as “propitiation”, that is, an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power. It is so translated also by Darby, in the Douay, in the KJV, and in Young’s Literal Translation.

The translators of the Revised Standard Version render “hilasmos” as “expiation”, that is, the act of making amends of reparation for wrongdoing. This is also the meaning of the English word “atonement.” In current English, “atone” is used in precisely the same way as “expiate.” If I accidentally run into the neighbour’s fence post and break it off, the neighbour may tell me, “You’re going to have to atone for that!” In other words, I’m going to have to “make up for it” in some way, perhaps by repairing the fence myself.

In the NIV and the NRSV “hilasmos” is translated as “atoning sacrifice.”


The translators of the KJV and the Douay also render “hilastārion” as “propitiation” in Rom 3:25, and in the RSV it is translated as “expiation.” However in Heb 9:5, the translators of the KJV render the same word as “mercy seat”! It is so rendered also in Darby, and in the RSV, the NRSV, and Young’s Literal Translation. Mercy seat! The meaning is quite different from either “propitiation” or “expiation.”

Perhaps a look at the verbal form of the words would be helpful in deciding the true meaning of the words “hilasmos” and “hilastārion” :

“hilaskomai” [Strong's 2433]

Lu 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' RSV

In this parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, every translation of which I am aware translates “hilaskomai” as "be merciful". “hilaskomai” is derived from the adjectival form “hileōs”, the meaning of which is “merciful”, and is so translated in Hebrews 8:12:

For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. RSV

Curiously, the RSV translators render the word differently in Heb 2:17:

Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. RSV

Does consistency demand that the final phrase be translated as “to be merciful concerning the sins of the people”? If the verbal form means “be merciful” and the adjectival form means “merciful”, could the nominal forms be rendered as “means of mercy”? Let’s see how the verses would read if that were done:

“hilasmos” [Strong's 2434]

1Jo 2:2 and he is the means of mercy concerning our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means of mercy concerning our sins.

“hilastārion” [Strong's 2435]

Ro 3:25 whom God put forward as a means of mercy by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;

Heb 9:5 above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

We can leave the translation in Heb 9:5 as “mercy seat,” though under Mosaic law it was indeed considered a “means of mercy.”

One may confidently affirm that the translations which render “hilastārion” and “hilasmos” as "propitiation", a word which carries the idea of appeasement and averting of wrath are not correct. Our examination of the passages quoted above would cast doubt even upon the translation of these words as “expiation” or “atonement”. I suggest “means of mercy” as an appropriate translation of these words, a translation that is correct etymologically as well as contextually.

What a mercy the grace of Christ, that divine enablement! This enablement is described in Titus 2:11, 12:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and pious lives in this world.


O gracious Yahweh! Through your son Jesus, and the words with which you have inspired your apostles, help us to understand more fully the means of mercy through the Anointed One, by which you have made available to us the process of salvation from sin. May this understanding help us to more fully appreciate your love and grace, to be better prepared, through your enabling grace, to show others the way to enter the door of salvation, to become your children, and thus to press on toward completion, to be conformed to the image of your son, and to be among the many brothers and sisters of the resurrection, of whom Jesus is the first born.

[Guest]

Quote:
The author is not saying what you guys are saying.
Here is the same author (John) with what is called a "parallel passage"

Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.

Just trying to help. John is referring to "us" as the Jews, and the "whole world" as the elect Gentiles scattered throughout the whole world.


What makes these passages parallel, Mark? Certainly not the contexts of each statement. Perhaps I am missing something.

Both passages mention the scope of the atonement, and it is often overlooked by modern Arminians that John, being a Jew, was quick to point out to his immediate Jewish hearers (our sins), that the gospel was for the whole world, not just the Jewish Nation. (whole world = children of God scattered abroad = Elect)

I can find many parallel statements in the Gospels, and many in the letters of Paul, especially Collosians and Ephesians, but why should we accept these as parallel?

There is nothing in John's epistile to lead one to the conclusion that he is speaking of Jews and Gentiles there.

Only if you interpret the passage with no regard to the audience he is addressing. It is no secret that the early Church had to deal with Jewish ideas about the scope of the death of Christ. Even Paul had to deal with the Jewish Converts, and even stood against Peter concerning these matters.

I quoted two other passages that show us what John’s consistent message was, but you seem to want to hold onto the “idea” that John is meaning "all people without exception".

Just bare in mind, that your “idea” is read into the text. I have provided the text of three scriptures from John, and the consistent reading of them establishes exactly what he intended to convey.

I will break it down once again.

1/ Our sins = Jewish Nation
2/ Whole world = Gentiles
3/ This Nation = Jewish Nation
4/ Children scattered abroad = Gentiles
Both passages above harmonise with each other and with what John says in Rev 5:9

“And they sang a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book and to open its seals, for You were slain and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.”

Same with Rev 14:6

And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and kindred and tongue and people,

There is not a hint in any of these passages that John is referring to “every person individually”.
That idea is read into the text.

Arminians will go to other passages in order to hold onto this “every individual” idea, and somewhere, somehow, claim that there is overwhelming evidence from scripture, and yet, if you sit down and go through these passages, none of them teach this “every individual” Arminian concept. None.

Even when the term “propitiation” is in the very text itself!

Propitiation, which is the meaning of the word there, is something that cannot have a “every individual” aspect to it, otherwise John would be teaching that all individuals are saved, hence Universalism.

Do you really want to hold onto your ideas that much?

I will give you another example where this implicit Universalism comes out through misreading a scripture passage.

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.

Does the “world” have sins that are against them? Yes.
Do believers have their sins taken away from them? Yes.

Does this passage teach that “every individual” is meant here by the word “world”?

If it does, then every single person does not have their sins imputed to their account, because Christ has reconciled every individual to Himself.
It’s not rocket science folks, just a tradition that many have been taught, thinking all along that they were believing the Bible.

Sola scriptura is the key.

Are we sure we are trusting in the scriptures, or do we have our pet teachers we follow and our pet traditions that overrule our commitment to God’s Word rightly exegeted?

John doesn't say that he is writing to Jews, (which would help your case),

With all due respect, the concept is not alien to Church history!
The early followers of Christ were primarily Jewish converts, hence John was addressing primarily Jewish people.

I am pretty sure your bias cannot undo this fact of history. Our traditions can be strong for sure, but not that strong, surely!

The only controversial "ours" in this whole passage (whole epistle?) is the one that clearly refutes the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.

But it doesn’t, because John is referring to “us Jewish people” not “every individual person”.

Think about this for a moment and it will make sense.

If John really wanted to say what you are saying, instead of teaching that Jews and Gentiles are in mind, he could have just stated that Christ is for everyone’s sins.

No, he does not say that, but rather presents the scope of His death as Universal in the sense that His death is not just for “us” Jews, but the whole world, meaning the Gentile Nations too!

The "our's" in 2:2 refers back to all of the other uses of we, us, and ours in the preceding verses.

Yes, these Jewish converts to Christ. That does nothing for your argument.

It is your contention that Christ died for every single person in the world, yet none of this can possibly be read from scripture on its own terms, but rather is read into scripture.

“Every individual” is a tradition of man. A popular tradition. A very powerful tradition.
But a tradition nonetheless, and it must be subject to the Word of God.

There is no tension at all between non-Calvinist understanding of this verse and John 11:52. They are both true. Jesus died not only for the Jews, but for the all the children of God everywhere. He also died not only for us who believe, but for "all men" (cf. 1 Tim 4:10).

Now I am not really wanting to say “I told you so!”, but it does not escape the careful reader that you have had to “now” go to another scripture, rather than prove your assertion from where we were at.

That is ok, no big deal. Scripture interprets scripture, right?

Let us deal openly and honestly with 1 Tim 4:10.

1Ti 4:10 For to this end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe.

The word Saviour there means “preserver”, not Saviour “as in actually saves all men”.
Especially believers makes that obvious.

The verb form of "Saviour" is used in I Timothy 4:16.
Unless salvation is by works and not by grace, it must be translated "preserve" or "deliver" in verse 16.

And this makes sense in context. For Paul is saying to Timothy:

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto thy doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt save thyself (i.e., preserve or deliver thyself from those who depart from the faith and teach false doctrine as described in the first part of the chapter), and them that hear thee." Furthermore, the term "living God" is used elsewhere in conjunction with His providence (cf. Acts 14.15).

A paraphrase of what Paul is teaching in I Timothy 4:10 is this:

"We have our hope set on the living God, and in this hope we shall not be disappointed, for not only is He a kind God, hence the Saviour (i.e., preserver or deliverer in a providential, non-soteriological sense) of all men, showering blessings upon them, but He is, in a very special sense, the Saviour (in a soteriological sense) of those who by faith embrace Him and His promise, for to them He imparts salvation, everlasting life in all its fulness.

If you do not agree with the above, then you are forced to believe that salvation is by works, (if you want to say that Saviour there depends upon how Paul uses the term in v 16, which I know no Arminian believes, right?

For further reflection, a thorough study of the term "Saviour" (in both its noun and verb forms) in the context of the chapter, the epistle, the New Testament and the Old Testament.

The final phrase "specially of those that believe" clearly Indicates that the term is here given a twofold application.

Of all men God is the Saviour, but of some men, namely, believers, He is the Saviour in a deeper, more glorious sense than He is of others.

This clearly implies that when He Is called the Saviour of all men, this cannot mean that He imparts to all everlasting life, as He does to believers.

The term "Saviour," then, must have a meaning which we today generally do not immediately attach to it.

And that is exactly the cause of the difficulty.

Often In the Old Testament, the term meant "to deliver — (verbal form) or deliverer (nominal form)" — both with reference to men and God
(Judg. 3:9; II Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27; Ps. 25:5; 106:21).

Also, in the New Testament, reference is made to the Old Testament where God delivered Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh for He had been the Saviour of all, but specially those who believed.
With the latter, and with them alone, He was "well pleased" (I Cor. 10:5).
All leave Egypt; not all enter Canaan."

POINT:

In both the Old and New Testaments the term "Saviour" is often used to speak of God's providential preservation or deliverance which extends to all men without exception.
(Ps. 36:6; 145:9; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35; Acts 17:25, 28.)

Moreover, God also causes His gospel of salvation to be earnestly proclaimed to all men without distinction; that is, to men from every race and nation (Matt. 28:19).

Truly the kindness (providence or common grace) of God extends to all.
But even the circle of those to whom the message of salvation is proclaimed is wider than those who receive it by a true saving faith.

I just want you to realize that the idea that Christ has died for “every individual” as Arminians claim is not supported by scripture when examined consistently.

It just simply cannot be maintained, without turning passages on their head, or by implicitly and sometimes “explicitly” forcing scripture to a “Universalist” conclusion as I have shown earlier.

Then there is Paul saying the following,

1Ti 2:4 who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers.
To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians.

Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.

Second, considering that "all" in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Rom 5:18 can only mean the Christians, it follows that when we approach verses like 1 Timothy 2:4-6, there is legitimacy in interpreting it in a consistent manner with the other verses; that is, the "all" is the elect.

Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:
1) The Arminian: The "all" means every individual.
2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians.

But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Rom 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.

Scripture places no small warning regarding how we interpret it.

2Ti 2:15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Regards
Mark

[Guest]

mark wrote:

Are we sure we are trusting in the scriptures, or do we have our pet teachers we follow and our pet traditions that overrule our commitment to God’s Word rightly exegeted?

why must you make statements like this, especially when you MEAN "you arminians" when you say "we?" i was reading your post with interest until I got to this line, which makes me want to gag. don't you think others here are attempting to "rightly exegete" the scriptures?

if you would simply refrain from making comments like this, your credibility, at least in my eyes, would improve dramatically.

of course, others are making comments like this as well, but yours is the last one I just noticed.

TK

[Guest]

This particular stripe of Calvinists can't help themselves. They make comments like this, and far worse, very often. They learned it from James White, you'll see.

The above post is full of so many errors, 100 pages would need to be written to address them all. But lets just demolish the whole thing with a few words, shall we:

Every individual” is a tradition of man. A popular tradition. A very powerful tradition.
But a tradition nonetheless, and it must be subject to the Word of God.

Well that's a lie.

Hebrews:

2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for
the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the
grace of God should taste death for every man.

Now what could be plainer? Christ tasted death for EVERY MAN, not just "the elect". The fact that these kinds of statements are ALL OVER the NT makes it plain that the Arminian view is assumed and then expressed in many simple statements like this, which the Calvinists must overthrow, and they do so with an appeal to Greek or hebrew to CHANGE the plain truth in the English, and also with a verbalsmog of talk to cloud the issue so they can slip in the change.

Here's another one that DESTROYS CALVINISM IN ITS ENTIRETY:

1Timothy:

4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust
in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those
that believe.
4:11 These things command and teach.

Isn't that wonderful? isn't it great to know that Christ is the savior of ALL MEN, especially of the elect??? We are told to teach this.

Only if Christ actually DIED FOR ALL, with the intent to SAVE ALL, could He possibly be called the saviour of all.

There is NO ESCAPE this time for the Calvinist, becasue the wording is airtight--Christ is the Saviour of those who believe, and those who DON'T. The two classes of men are here declared--saved and lost, and Christ is THE Savior of both! Hallelujah! God truly DOES love THE WORLD, and Christ truly did die for the WHOLE WORLD, as John said. Calvinists are wrong, and cannot admit it.

There is no debate. Calvinism is a heresy, which was invented by Augustine. We know who invented it and when. It was a falling away from the real faith, as seen in the ante-Nicene church---not a one of them ever expressed a Calvinistic sentiment. All of them believed in free-will, and that God wants to save all, and said so. Until Augustine shows up, this is THE message of the entire early church. Therefore Calvinism is false, and we know when this error showed up. These historical facts are irrefutable and unimpeachable. Calvinism was a departure from the faith, caused by a man who was very unsound on many other doctrines as well. Augustine was a doctrinal kook.

[Guest]

Super Sola Scriptura,

Perhaps you are not aware of the things you include in your posts that make us non-Calvinists cringe. I almost edited the following out of your last post, but thought I would rather call it to your attention. You wrote:

"This particular stripe of Calvinists can't help themselves. They make comments like this, and far worse, very often. They learned it from James White, you'll see. "

This is not the kind of statement that makes your case. It is not responsible (you don't have any way of knowing how many Calvinists have learned their tactics from James White), and it treats them all as predictable machines (rather than brothers—or at least humans), who cannot help but follow their programming (the charge sounds almost Calvinistic!).

It sounds as if your issue with Calvinism, or with some Calvinists, is a very personal one. Most of us here are interested in discussing issues in a reasonable, biblical manner, without letting our personal grudges color our correspondence. It is possible to make your points, if they are solid ones, in a more Christlike manner.

I know Jesus castigated the Pharisees in a severe way, and perhaps that is how you see yourself confronting Calvinists. However, Jesus knew the hearts of those he criticized. We can only speculate about the motivations of other believers. When you call them heretics, remember that they view us as heretics as well—and just as sincerely.

I, and others who have contacted me, have felt that recent discussion on these Calvinism threads has introduced a bitter tone to our forum which had, for the most part, been successfully avoided through the years we have been on-line. It may be that some of this comes from Calvinist participants, but we will not preserve the spirit of interaction that we desire to have here by responding in the flesh.

Your criticisms may be valid, with reference to certain Calvinists, but some might get the impression that similar criticisms can be made about you or other non-Calvinists. What does the vitriol prove, other than that we lack the Spirit of Christ? No points are made for "our side" when we attack individuals, rather than calmly showing the errors attaching to their ideas.

I have not been able to post on the forum much this week, because of other time-consuming commitments. However, lately, when I have visited, it has grieved me to read what appears to be venom and hostility in some of the posts. I have never been a forum moderator before I was assigned that role here, and I don't know what I am to do when the forum deteriorates. I welcome advice.

[Guest]

Steve,

This would have to be your decision, but perhaps you should place a moratorium on all Calvinism/Arminianism posts for a while. I enjoy a good, lively exchange as much as the next person, but this is getting out of hand. Much heat and precious little light is being produced from all of this friction. It is not a Biblical manner in which to sort out Biblical teaching, and I suspect that it is keeping the more dispassionate bloggers from weighing in because this has turned into a street fight.

[Guest]

Steve, you said:

This is not the kind of statement that makes your case. It is not responsible (you don't have any way of knowing how many Calvinists have learned their tactics from James White), and it treats them all as predictable machines (rather than brothers—or at least humans), who cannot help but follow their programming (the charge sounds almost Calvinistic!).

I have been dealing with James White and his followers for seven years, when I first emailed him to challenge him to debate Calvinism, after I heard his short debate with Dave Hunt, and then his micharacterizations of Hunt and the debate afterwards, and of course, the disturbing twisitng of Scripture during the debate. The responses I got from him, and his VP, and another, were very arrogant, condescending and mockful. So I began to spend MANY HOURS on his site reading his articles, and listening to other debates. I began to see his tactics--and that there was a consistent pattern. I also went to his chatrooms, that welcome debate, and THERE, you get to see how his fans are like their hero. This was demonstrated to me a number of times. The vicious mocking, sarcasm, and misrepresentation of me and what I was saying was classic James White. Other ministers have said the same things, like Dave Hunt, Ergun Caner, Dan Corner, Theodore Letis, Gail Riplinger, David Cloud, and Norman Geisler. Now that's quite a list of people who don't have a high view of his tactics, and some have absolutely no respect for him whatsoever, and even question whether what he does should be called a "ministry".

The saddest thing was when i read an article critiquing James White and his tactics, and the article hit it right on the head. What made my head drop and my heart sink was when I found out the author was a Mormon! How sad it was to see that even an unsaved cultist, had enough commonsense and human integrity to see that what White does is unChristlike. It was a well written piece, and I should have saved it. That is sad, isn't it?

Later on, when I warned some of my friends about his writings about the KJV issue, they contacted him and told him what I said. Well he didn't like that, so he contacted me via email to call in on his show. I said no thanks because he is the moderator there, and since he talks over people when they call in and begin to make good points, it would serve his purposes and not mine. I told him lets have a moderated debate. He was not interested. And so he began to argue with me via email, just like he did with Ergun Caner. He couldn't just challenge Caner, and be patient and let it be set up. No, he began to start arguing with him during the emails while trying to set up a public debate! White wanted to get into it, deep, while arranging a debate. And of course he was over the top and really irritated Caner. Classic goading and baiting from White. He was trying to do the same to me, to get me to call. You want to talk about lacking the Spirit of Christ. I KNOW what these people are really like. I can send you the entire email exchanges, unedited, if you like, and you can see for yourself.

Next, he went to another forum I regularly post on, but not before some of his cronies he sends ahead of his arrival come and goad, provoke and challenge to call his show. And of course they made false accusations. Then he comes on and trys to debate me on the KJV issue. After a few rounds, he ran away, as I was able to prove what i asserted, that his book was full of historical errors and misrepresentation of the other side, and manuscript evidence. He left, but his cronies hung around for awhile, ad homineming me the whole time, and ignoring my points.

That's how they do things. Occassionally, they'd pop into that forum and again attack me with frivilous charges. So I KNOW what I am dealing with. These are not Calvinists like Charles Spurgeon! Dr. Letis called White a partisan hack for a reason, and his debating style a travelling sideshow for a reason.

Anyway, I can send you our debate also, if you like, and you can judge for yourself if I am unreasonable, or if there is a context and history here that justifies my posture.

Also, like I said, I'll refrain from futher observations of their cheap shots, if you like, but trust me, after all is said and done, you'll see. Go on his chatroom under a name that doesn't give away your identity and try "discussing" Calvinism with him and his fan-club. You'll see what happens, you'll see the "fruit". Anyway, sorry if my posting seems like you're in the middle of a fight, and it grieves you because it comes with no context, hence it seems out of line, but I hope I provided some, and I don't want you grieved or distracted if you are actually going to do this. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Peace to all.

[_Derek]

Hi Mark,

Both passages mention the scope of the atonement, and it is often overlooked by modern Arminians that John, being a Jew, was quick to point out to his immediate Jewish hearers (our sins), that the gospel was for the whole world, not just the Jewish Nation. (whole world = children of God scattered abroad = Elect)

There is nothing in John's epistile to lead one to the conclusion that he is speaking of Jews and Gentiles there.

Only if you interpret the passage with no regard to the audience he is addressing. It is no secret that the early Church had to deal with Jewish ideas about the scope of the death of Christ. Even Paul had to deal with the Jewish Converts, and even stood against Peter concerning these matters.

I agree that all of these passages refer to the scope of the atonement, but for some reason you don't see that both can be true. If I buy a feild in order to obtain a treasure within it, is it not equally true that I bought the field as it is that I bought the treasure?

I reject that John is addressing Jews here (in 1 Jn). There is nothing , I repeat, nothing, in the text of 1 John that would lead to this conclusion. The only reason you are saying that he is, is because your predetermined soteriology leaves you no other option, so you must eisogete. At the best you are merely asserting your speculations.

The mere fact that the "early Church had to deal with Jewish ideas about the scope of the death of Christ" doesn't prove your point, as that is not John's concern in the context of this passage.

If the intended audience is not Jewish, your entire arguement about this passage falls apart, and the "ours" in the verse in question is by default "us who believe". Rather thin ice to place such a heavy assumption, in my opinion.

I quoted two other passages that show us what John’s consistent message was, but you seem to want to hold onto the “idea” that John is meaning "all people without exception".

Those other passages tell us something very true, why you feel the need interpret all others by them, regardless of their context, does not make sense however.

Just bare in mind, that your “idea” is read into the text...

Thanks for reminding me. Of course, I would say the same to you.

I will give you another example where this implicit Universalism comes out through misreading a scripture passage.

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.

Does the “world” have sins that are against them? Yes.
Do believers have their sins taken away from them? Yes.

Does this passage teach that “every individual” is meant here by the word “world”?

If it does, then every single person does not have their sins imputed to their account, because Christ has reconciled every individual to Himself.
It’s not rocket science folks, just a tradition that many have been taught, thinking all along that they were believing the Bible.

I don't have a problem seeing the Corinthians passage as being about only Christians. I need to look at that one more though.

Quote:
There is no tension at all between non-Calvinist understanding of this verse and John 11:52. They are both true. Jesus died not only for the Jews, but for the all the children of God everywhere. He also died not only for us who believe, but for "all men" (cf. 1 Tim 4:10).

Now I am not really wanting to say “I told you so!”, but it does not escape the careful reader that you have had to “now” go to another scripture, rather than prove your assertion from where we were at.

That was merely for comparison's sake. The statement stands on it's own without it.

If you do not agree with the above [interpretation of Timothy], then you are forced to believe that salvation is by works, (if you want to say that Saviour there depends upon how Paul uses the term in v 16, which I know no Arminian believes, right?

I understand "save thyself" in vs.16 to mean, "ensure your salvation", as the NASB renders it.

I take vs.10 at face value. I would rather not have the one word mean two different things in one sentence. It fits fine with my theology!

Truly the kindness (providence or common grace) of God extends to all.
But even the circle of those to whom the message of salvation is proclaimed is wider than those who receive it by a true saving faith.

You almost have the correct interpretation here in this sentence! Just take away the parenthesis.

I believe that God would not waste His time proclaiming His gracious message to those for whom it can have no effect. Of course He knows this, having destined them to this very fate!

1Ti 2:4 who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers.
To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians.

Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.

That is "the truth" that God wants all men to have knowledge of (that there is one mediator). That and the fact that Jesus gave himself a ransom for all men, of course. God desires that all men benefit from the mediation of Christ.

Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:
1) The Arminian: The "all" means every individual.
2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians.

But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Rom 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.

Or we could interpret each passage within it's own context, and realize that just because a certain kind statement (one about Christ's work on the cross), can be taken only one way in a certain context, does not dertermine, necessarily, how it is interpreted in all contexts.

Again, as with 1Jn 2:2 and John 11:52, there is no tension at all between the above verses and 1 Timothy 2:4. It is only the Calvinist that must explain away one or the other.

It is as equally true that Jesus died for "all" the elect, as it is that He died for "all" the world. There is nothing illogical about it. It is not effecacious for all, but that's another thread, I'm afraid.

So there's no need to try to force the contradictions imposed on scripture by the Calvinst system onto the Armininan position, becuase they are not there for us!

It’s not rocket science folks, just a tradition that many have been taught, thinking all along that they were believing the Bible.

Are we sure we are trusting in the scriptures, or do we have our pet teachers we follow and our pet traditions that overrule our commitment to God’s Word rightly exegeted

I am pretty sure your bias cannot undo this fact of history. Our traditions can be strong for sure, but not that strong, surely!

Why must you pepper your posts with these arrogant remarks? You always do this (I have read many of your posts elsewhere), and it servers no other purpose than to make you appear to be just kind of a jerk. You are a smart guy, and I have enjoyed many things that you have written in the past (even saved some to my computer), but always found your snide remarks to be so off-putting. Surely you don't do it to strengthen your argument? Do you think that it does this? Does it make you feel smarter, when you are condenscending to your brother? I think you're plenty smart bro. So feel free to just be a nice guy. It's ok!

I am taking into account that you may not realize that you come off the way you do, (although I have read where others have said this), so I hope I am providing you a service by letting you know. No offense.

By the way, your accusations of following a tradition are quite correct. I am not ashamed of this fact. I am following the tradition that was started by the Lord Jesus, and His apostles, 300 years before Augustine!

God bless you!

P.S. Sorry for all the edits. I kept seeing things that needed to be clarified.

[_Derek]

I have never been a forum moderator before I was assigned that role here, and I don't know what I am to do when the forum deteriorates. I welcome advice.

I think that if someone will not repent of their accusatory, and harsh treatment of those they disagree with, they should be warned, and if they still do not repent, they should be forced to leave the forum until they do so.

It's a shame that such things should have to even be discussed concerning the conversations of grown men and women. And brothers in Christ at that!