Steve,
I think there are fatal problems to your post that is supposedly ‘hazardous to our theology.”
Have you taken a look at the article that Daniel linked to on the first page of this thread? It’s quite good.
Anyway, what you are doing is creating a ‘straw-man’ argument. In fact I agreed with many of your observations regarding the word 'world'. But you aren’t arguing against reformed theology. Our point is precisely that the term world is used in different ways throughout scripture.
You’re arguing this:
1.Reformed theology says that in 1 John 2:2, the term whole world means ‘Gentile Christians’.
2.But the term world is used many different ways in 1 John.
3.Therefore, if the term world cannot be used as ‘Gentile Christians’ in every case in 1 John, their position must be false.
Your argument is based on the presupposition that, if the Calvinist view is to be supported, every time the word ‘world’ is used in 1 John, it needs to mean ‘Gentile Christians’. Put frankly, we don’t believe that at all. You’re right in stating that ‘No one reads 1 John this way’ I would add, “Yes! Not even Calvinists!”
You're also assuming Calvinists read 'world' AS Gentile Christian, which is false. The term 'world' being used here is what is explained in Revelation 5:9, which talks about Christ redeeming people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. That sounds like world to me.
I could even use your reasoning and argue against your position. (Assuming you’re an Arminian.)
1.Arminian theology says that in 1 John 2:2, the term ‘whole world’ means ‘all people who have ever lived without exception.’
2.But the term world is used many different ways in 1 John.
3.Therefore if that term cannot be used for world in every case, it must be wrong.
Ex.: 1 John 3:1 “The reason why the world (Every person who has ever lived without exception) does not know us is that it did not know him."
From what I’ve seen, Arminian arguments rarely ever deal with what reformed theology actually teaches. It is ironic that you mentioned Dr. James White, as this is one of his biggest complaints toward the Arminian attitude.
Let’s go through your post:
I agree with the statements you made about 1 John 2:15-17, 3:1, and 3:13.
One point with your statement concerning 1 John 3:17. You say “This is simply a neutral reference to earthly goods.”
Now it is clear that you are NOT arguing that the term world must be used the same way in every situation. But neither is the reformed position. Here it is being used geographically.
In 1 John 4:1-5 the term ‘world’ is used a number of times, like you say. I don’t initially have any objections, unless I’m overlooking something. Verse 5 is interesting in that there seem to be 3 different uses of the term ‘world’ in the same sentence: 1st – geographically, 2nd – possibly worldly culture, 3rd – unconverted people
I agree with the statements made about 1 John 4:9 and 5:4-3.
I don’t agree about what you said regarding 1 John 5:19 not supporting reformed theology.
Verses 19-20 say “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”
1.The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (Total Inability)
2.We know we are from God, the Son of God gives us understanding so that we may know Him. (Election)
I think those verses support Reformed Theology very nicely.
As for your objections to the use of ‘Jewish Christians’ in John 1:7, 1:9, and 3:1-2.
There is nothing wrong with having ‘Jewish Christians’ standing for ‘us’ in that sentence. Is it not true of them, as it would be true if addressed to American Christians? Our position is NOT arguing that only Jewish Christians would be saved by the Blood. Neither is it forced to. John is writing to Jewish Christians concerning truths about Christans.
1 John 1:9 - "If we [ANY Christians] confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [ANY Christians] our sins and to cleanse us [ANY Christians] from all unrighteousness."
Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. And you don’t give any support as to why we should assume ‘world’ in 1 John 2:2 should be taken as (the whole world without exception). In fact, taking the passage like that inevitably arrives at universalism, which is the case with many favorite Arminian texts. (If they are ever read in context)
And I would be interested in a clear defense of ‘propitiation’ in this usage, that would still be salvific and would not end up having to yield to Universalism. You would have to claim a general, ineffectual atonement that is unbiblical.
Anyway Brother, hopefully this was helpful. And next time, if you want to be 'hazardous', I would suggest taking on the passages where reformed theology is taught. (See Eph. 1&2, John 6:26-65, John 10:14-31, Romans 8:29-32, Romans 9:8-24 for starters.)
Grace and Peace.