Does 1 John 2:2 Teach Unlimited Atonement?


Points of Disconcurrance

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.  

 •        What does propitiation mean?

•        Dan/Arminian

•        Propitiation relates most directly to Christ’s death on which is the basis of the application of blood to those who repent and believe.

•        Propitiation is that which can propitiate.

•        Turretinfan/Calvinist

•        Propitiation relates most directly to the application of Christ’s blood to the believer, which actually cleanses from sin.

•        Propitiation is that which actually has propitiated.

•        Who do the pronouns refer to? - “our” (and “you” and “we” in the inbound context).

•        Dan/Arminian

•        The “our” is John and his audience, which is basically believers or the church.

•        Turretinfan/Calvinist

•        The “our” is John and other apostles or church leaders with John at the time of writing, as it is in the prolog (1 John 1:1-5)

•        Can forgiveness be offered to the reprobate if Christ did not die for them?

•        Dan/Arminian

•        Forgiveness is only available based on Christ’s blood, and as far as the reprobate are concerned, it’s as if Christ didn’t die at all, so no.

•        Turretinfan/Calvinist

•        We have no way of know who the reprobate are or filtering the gospel only to the elect.

•        What in the world does world mean?

•        Dan/Arminian

•        World is contrasted with believers and means everyone who isn’t a believer, like in 1 John 5:19.

•        The concept “world” as related to people is developed from and relates back to specific individuals.

•        Turretinfan/Calvinist

•        World doesn’t always everyone - it just means a broad group.  It means something like believers here and other places, or Jews/Gentiles or present vs. future believers.

 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more