Does John 2:2 contradict Limited Atonement?

[Steve Noel]

W A R N I N G : TO ALL CALVINISTS, READING THIS POST MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR THEOLOGY!!!

Don't say I didn't warn you

Let me start with John's use of the word "world (Gk: kosmos)" in 1 John. It occurs 23 times. I contend that none of these support the Reformed understanding of "world" in 1 John 2:2. The usage in 1 Jn 2:2 and 4:14 I think are the same. I will list the others here:

1 John 2:15-17 (6 occurrences of "world")

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever."

Obviously "world" here does not denote "Gentile Christians". It is used here negatively and impersonally to speak of the "culture" of the ungodly.


1 John 3:1

"See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him."

Is John here saying that the reason that the [Gentile Christians] do not know the [Jewish Christians] is because they do not know the Father? Obviously not! The "world" here is clearly a reference to the unconverted world who do not know the Father or His children.

1 John 3:13

"Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you."

Are we to understand that John is writing to the Jewish Christians that they shouldn't be surprised if the Gentile Christians hate them? Of course not! The "world" here again is speaking of the unconverted world in opposition to the believers.

1 John 3:17

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

Again, this is clearly not a reference to Gentile Christians. This is simply a neutral reference to earthly goods.

1 John 4:1-5 (6 occurrences of "world")

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them."

Here "world" is used a few different ways, but again it's obvious that none of them are a reference to Gentile Christians. For he who is in [Jewish Christians] is greater than he who is in the [Gentile Christians]

1 John 4:9

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."

This again seems to be a neutral reference to the earth or to mankind in general. Definitely not Gentile Christians.

1 John 4:17

"By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world."

Another neutral reference to this temporal world I think. No support here for Gentile Christians.

1 John 5:4-5 (3 occurrences of "world")

"For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Again this appears to be a negative reference to the impersonal "culture" of the ungodly. Again, no support for Gentile Christians.

1 John 5:19

"We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Last one! And still no support for the Reformed understanding of "world" in 2:2. Let's be silly just one more time here: We [Jewish Christians] know that we are from God, and the [Gentile Christians] lie in the power of the evil one.

Here it can be plainly seen that there's no support for interpreting the "world" in 1 John 2:2 or 4:14 as the Gentile believers.

If the context here isn't convincing enough how about the Lexicons? Norman F. Douty, a so-called 4-point Calvinist (If you cringed just now look out because you may just find yourself in his camp soon!!! ) dilligently searched the Lexicons for the Reformed interpretation of "world" in this and other passages. He lists:

1. Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament
2. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
4. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
5. Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament
6. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
7. Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament
8. Arndt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
9. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
10. Hastings' Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic church
11. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
12. Tasker's New Bible Dictionary
13. Everett F. Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology
14. John D. Davis in his Dictionary of the Bible

Then Doutry says,

"But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word [for world] is never said to denote 'the elect.' These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos (Gk. for world) in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29; 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31;16:8-11; 17:21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 4:14."

He then concludes,

"All of this is disastrous for the advocates of Limited Atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of our lexicons, encylopedias and dictionaries, when they have ascribed a further signification to the word kosmos, which will support their theological system." (The Death of Christ: Did Christ Die Only for the Elect?, pp. 41-45 quoted in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, pp. 77-78)

You still with me? Let's move on to the use of the first person plural in 1 John (we, us, our). You say that this entire letter including 2:2 is adressed to Jewish Christians. I seriously doubt that you have ever read it that way! Consider a few texts w/o comment (the 1st person plural is too numerous to list them all):

1 John 1:7

"But if we [Jewish Christians] walk in the light, as he is in the light, we [Jewish Christians] have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us [Jewish Christians] from all sin."

1 John 1:9

"If we [Jewish Christians] confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [Jewish Christians] our sins and to cleanse us [Jewish Christians] from all unrighteousness."

1 John 3:1-2

"See what kind of love the Father has given to us [Jewish Christians], that we should be called children of God; and so we [Jewish Christians] are. The reason why the world does not know us [Jewish Christians] is that it did not know him. Beloved, we [Jewish Christians] are God's children now, and what we [Jewish Christians] will be has not yet appeared; but we [Jewish Christians] know that when he appears we [Jewish Christians] shall be like him, because we [Jewish Christians] shall see him as he is."

I could go on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one reads 1 John this way. There's a reason. John, himself, tells us who he was writing to in 1 John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." John was writing to believers. Most scholars say it was likely addressed to the church / churches of Asia Minor. These are not strictly Jewish churches. Let me lay out one more text that culminates with 1 John 4:14 which calls Jesus the Saviour of the world. You tell me if this is really what John meant.

1 John 4:7-14

"Beloved, let us [Jewish Christians] love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us [Jewish Christians], that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we [Jewish Christians] might live through him. In this is love, not that we [Jewish Christians] have loved God but that he loved us [Jewish Christians] and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our [Jewish Christians] sins. Beloved, if God so loved us [Jewish Christians], we [Jewish Christians] also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we [Jewish Christians] love one another, God abides in us [Jewish Christians] and his love is perfected in us [Jewish Christians]. By this we [Jewish Christians] know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us [Jewish Christians] of his Spirit. And we [Jewish Christians] have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world [Gentile Christians]."

In all honesty, do you really believe this?

It seems evident to me that the entire weight of the context of 1 John is against the Reformed interpretation of 2:2. The use of "world" for Gentile Christians is unsupported. The 1st person plural reads w/o problem as encompassing all believers while restricting it to Jewish believers really doesn't work. The contrasts between our / we / us and world in the letter (3:1; 4:5-6; 5:4-5, 19) without exception are contrasts between Christians and Non-Christians.

As for the theological argument based on "propitiation" I believe this understanding of the atonement can be held w/o the Reformed distinctives. If you want we can get into that as well.

I urge those who disagree with these conclusions to consider this with a fair mind. Sola Scriptura right?

P.S. I think I just saw Batman hyper-ventilating in front of his computer! ;D

[Paul A. Kaiser]

P.S. I think I just saw Batman hyper-ventilating in front of his computer! ;D

Oh Batman is coming!

[j3frea]

WARNING, arminians should not read this but maintain their ignorance by only reading the post above (And I don't mean the batman one).

I must admit I have not been following this discussion and further that I am by no means a theologian.

I find it incumbent, however, to respond because the advocates of the intellectually honest interpretation of scripture as a whole are not doing their job of defending the faith (okay, there, I've had my jab at you ).


In contradistinction to your argument that if one link breaks the whole system falls, I can argue - you must destroy the whole system because all points support the other points. For example, if grace is irresistible and election is unconditional then atonement is limited.

However let me respond to the text you have presented.
First let us suppose that this verse refers to all the people of the world when John uses the word "world" then the following reference that you used:
1 John 2:15-17 (6 occurrences of "world")

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever."

must then teach, "Do not love anyone in the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves anyone in the world, the love of the father is not in him. For all the people in the world - the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride and possessions - is not from the Father but is from everyone in the world. And the people of the world are passing away along with their desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Obviously this is a ridiculous interpretation. If we take your line of reasoning then this is what we reach though.

As you even state:

"world" is used a few different ways

and this must be recongnised.

Nevertheless, let us continue with your understanding of this text:
If indeed the 1 John 2:2 talks of all the people in the world,
"and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

Then surely everyone is saved... "He Himself is the propitiation..." (propitiation meaning atonement or conciliation) "...for the whole world." So then, are you a Universalist? Surely not. Therefore you would have to limit the power of the atonement rather than the extent of it. I, as Spurgeon, would say "I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it."

Accepting an unlimited atonement would also beg the question of why it is ever referred to in a limited sense.
For example in Isaiah 53:11-12
"As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors."

Note the use of the word many; the word "many" is vastly different in meaning from the word "all".

However, we all use universal terms without meaning them all the time. See, I used two in the last sentence simply as a figure of speech. The inspired writers did the same. I must say that I agree with Dan on this one.

[Steve Noel]

j3frea,

I must say I appreciate your zeal in defending the so-called "doctrines of grace".

It appears that I will have to deal with the nature of the atonement as well as it's extent since the argument of universalism keeps coming up. I'm not going to have time right now to do this but I will soon.

I agree that the word "world" can be used in several different ways. In the text you've listed above (1 John 2:15-17) it seems to be used in an impersonal way. The text in 1 John 2:2 is clearly personal so the comparison doesn't really fit. I find it revealing that you did not interact with all the exegesis of the context of 1 John that I offered. You use a theological point (universalism) and Isaiah 53 (which I would argue makes a case against limited atonement) to interpret 1 John. Is that good exegesis? (James White would be proud of me ;D)

Steve

[j3frea]

I find it revealing that you did not interact with all the exegesis of the context of 1 John that I offered.

Well, I didn't do a theological exegesis of 1 John 2 because I mentioned that I'm with Dan on this one and he essentially did that, I got the impression that he was going to expand and respond to your response and so I figured I'd leave that to him. If you wish I will oblige you with my attempt at an exegesis but I will remind you that I am by no stretch a theologian.

You use a theological point (universalism)

Because scripture cannot contradict itself and universalism is clearly not taught by scripture therefore if your interpretation contradicts other clear teachings then your interpretation is wrong. I'll say that I am familiar with arguments on both the nature and the extent of the atonement from an Arminian perspective though admittedly not in detail and so I would honestly welcome a gain in knowledge of your arguments.

I agree that the word "world" can be used in several different ways. In the text you've listed above (1 John 2:15-17) it seems to be used in an impersonal way. The text in 1 John 2:2 is clearly personal so the comparison doesn't really fit.

This is my point - you cannot argue that because it means everyone in one passage it has the same meaning in a different context in another passage. I also notice that you say that 1 John 2:2 is clearly personal and then claim that "world" in the text is impersonal and refers to everyone... I'm sure that you will elaborate in your much anticipated response though.

and Isaiah 53(which I would argue makes a case against limited atonement)/quote]
Whereas I would argue that none of scripture makes a case against Limited Atonement when examined with care.

(James White would be proud of me ;D)

Unlikely, isn't James White a calvinist?

Oh yes, I haven't taken a proper jab at you yet and since you're an arminian I think I'm allowed to it's one of the rules in the rule book on this forum you know... So here goes,
Recant! Heathen!
Okay, I'm done.

[Steve Noel]

Okay,

I'll try to keep it concise. First let me clear up my point about "world" being personal or impersonal. By personal I mean it is referring to persons and by impersonal I mean it's not referring to persons. "World" in 1 Jn 2:2 is clearly personal. The fact that I take it to refer to all people does not make it impersonal.

Now concerning the nature of the atonement consider this: If 1 John 2:2 is teaching that there is a general atonement for all people, then the Reformed understanding on the nature of the atonement is wrong. It won't do to say that this text cannot be teaching a general atonement because that would contradict texts that teach a particular atonement. Doesn't that door swing both ways? Those texts cannot teach a particular atonement because that would contradict the texts that teach a general atonement. As best as we're able we must try not to read our theological presuppositions into the text (eisegesis). Rather, we must try to draw our theology from the text (exegesis). Of course, that's easier said than practiced and I don't think any of us can say we read the text with total objectivity. That said, it would have to be proved rather than assumed that the Reformed understanding of the atonement is the biblical view.

All that to say that since I understand John here to be saying that the extent of the atonement encompasses all people I naturally conclude that the atonement is provisional. If you want to go into further detail that's fine, but for now that's all I feel like typing.

Steve

[Daniel Yeager]

Hey Steve ... Just wanted you to know that I haven't bailed out of our conversation (yet at least ;D). I had some internet issues earlier in the week and am just recently up and running again. Tomorrow I am off to visit with family for the weekend so it will be a couple more days til I can continue. Looking forward to it though. This is a great conversation so far!

Dan

[Steve Noel]

I'm renaming this message board: No Reactions to the Truth!

What's up? Batmobile lost a wheel?

[Steve Noel]

Is anyone still around?

[Paul A. Kaiser]

Oh No....!

Mr. Noel you are so very humorous... My family has revolted and stated that I have been spending much to much time on MB's and Chat so I had to back off and focus my efforts elsewhere for a while but you definately have provoked me to enter into this engagement.

Preparing for the podcast tonight but will jump in head first after that!

[Steve Noel]

Are there any Calvinists left?

Here's a suggestion: Just yield to the Word of God and throw away that limited atonement stuff. ;D

[drakim]

Hah, it seems that we non-Calvinists are going to have to throw a party or something to tempt them back.

[Steve Noel]

Well, that settles it. The Atheist is a non-Calvinist as well! Is this really what it's come to? Do I have to discuss limited atonement with an atheist?

[drakim]

Well, we could always talk about the weather :D

[Paul A. Kaiser]

Maybe you should look at the big picture.... Your watered down doctrine of the atonement has you siding with the world!

"That little itch should be telling you something.."

I haven't forgotten you... "Pagandays" opps... "Holidays" has me focused on the family but still kicking around a response to you...

Maybe in the interim you would like to share your particular view of the atonement as this will be one of my first questions anyways?

I'm sure it is not substitutionary... Thus your comment:

As for the theological argument based on "propitiation" I believe this understanding of the atonement can be held w/o the Reformed distinctives. If you want we can get into that as well.

Thanks for checking in....