Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I was drawn over the course of many years before I became convinced and converted...
It was only after the fear of God was firmly established in me that I became more pliable.
God planted that fear in me through revelation of Himself.
Revelation which as much as I wanted to I could not deny.
It was not something I just decided one day. Oh, God is scary. LOL
No! I fell into the hands of the living Lord.
See what Paul has to say about that...
It is what it took for him, as well.
It was only after the fear of God was firmly established in me that I became more pliable.
God planted that fear in me through revelation of Himself.
Revelation which as much as I wanted to I could not deny.
It was not something I just decided one day. Oh, God is scary. LOL
No! I fell into the hands of the living Lord.
See what Paul has to say about that...
It is what it took for him, as well.
-
1
- Show all
It is difficult for us all to part with things we hold to be true of God; even those things we can be shown are demonstrably wrong. I understand personally how difficult this can be as we think that in admitting to the truth would in some way lessen God. But the opposite has always been my experience. Far from lessening God,truth always reveals more of the knowledge of His glory.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
1 John 2:2
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours BUT also for the sins of the whole world.
NIV
John very clearly in this passage is speaking of two distinct groups of people and he makes a makes a contrast between them. But at the same time he draws a comparative parallel between the two groups, which which must be preserved. The contrast is between Jews and Gentiles ("whole world" of which the Jews are not a part); yet at the same time Christ atoned for the elect Jews to whom John was primarily writing and also for the elect Gentiles ("whole world"). Therefore, John could say that Christ atoned equally for the sins of both elect groups. Otherwise, John would be saying that Christ atoned for the sins of the elect and non-elect alike, which is precisely what freewillers say! Freewillers unabashedly speak out of both sides of their mouth with respect to this text. They'll concede that God actually propitiated the sins of John's messianic audience in one breath, but then immediately in the next exhale state that God will potentially propitiate the sin of the "whole world", after "whole world" does its part by effectuating the atonement for itself.
Secondly, John tells these elect, believing Jews that Jesus didn't only atone for the sins of elect Jews only...BUT (denoting a contrast, betraying John's mindset of the "us" and "them" mentality), Jesus also atoned for the sins of "the whole world". But is John telling his original Jewish audience that Jesus' death on the Cross actually atoned for each and every person's sins in the world, as freewillers would have us believe? If Jesus did atone for the sins of John and his audience of believers, meaning ostensibly that they were all saved, then how is it that the sins that Christ atoned for on behalf of each and every person in the world cannot also mean universal salvation for this group of people!? If all John's original audience is presumed saved by that atonement, then it follows logically from this particular text that this entire second group should be presumed saved, as well! But NR folks want it both ways! They'll tell us the first group is saved, but they'll equivocate about the second group and tell us that THEY have to apply the atonement of Christ to their own souls by their faith. Consider this Sticky Problem Number 1 for FWT interpretation.
But for us Reformed folks, the text itself -- on a stand-alone basis -- presents no such problem when it is properly exegeted. What I mean by this is that we don't have to appeal to any other text outside of it, as freewillers do when they try justify that the atonement really is limited, for it only "applies" or becomes effectual by those who apply it to themselves by faith. You see how the doublespeak works: Christ atoned for all...but not really...there's a caveat...there's a condition? Allow me to prove my point by seeing what the text itself is actually saying. But before we do that, let's make sure we understand what the text isn't saying!
1. The text is not saying that Christ atoned for the sins of John, his original audience of elect Jewish believers and the rest of the world.
2. Nor is the text saying that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world, including John and his original audience.
3. Nor is the text saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, including the sins of elect, believing Jews.
4. Nor is the text saying that Jesus made his atonement merely possible for the whole world.
5. Nor is the text saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world if they apply his atoning work to themselves by faith.
6. Nor is the text saying that Jesus potentially atoned for sins of John, his Jewish audience and the "whole world".
But the text is very clearly saying that Jesus [actually] atoned for the sins of the whole world -- PERIOD! Therefore, it logically follows that the "whole world" (each and every Gentile) is every bit as saved as John and his original recipients of his epistle were. So, we have universal atonement clearly taught in this text IF "the whole world" is used in the distributive sense. But of course, it isn't and here's why: That little three letter word "but", which denotes "contrary to, in contrast to", etc. The elect Jewish believers (represented by the phrase"our sins") are excluded from the whole world, excluded from the sins of the "whole [Gentile] world". Therefore, this inescapable fact proves that the phrase "whole world" is logically used in a limited sense and is referring to only believers in Gentile nations. So yes, from our modern perspective, our modern culture we tend to naturally think that the "whole world" consists of Jews and Gentiles. But that isn't what the ancient Jews believed, and in fact many Jews today still don't! Again, if John intended to include the Jews in with the "whole world", he could have worded the text differently to clearly convey that idea, and he certainly wouldn't have contrasted both groups and make any distinction between them.
Finally, this proper interpretation does not present the sticky problem of FWT interpretation of "whole world". Since the phrase "whole world" is being used in the limited sense, then we should logically infer that just as Christ actually atoned for only for the sins of elect Jews, ie. John's sins and the sins of his original believing, Jewish audience, so too He actually atoned for the sins of the "whole world" (i.e. elect Gentiles) in the limited sense, since we now know that the "whole world" cannot mean everyone in the distributive sense by virtue of the fact of the Jews' exclusion from the "whole world". John was not thinking inclusively but exclusively -- he thought in terms of two distinct groups of believers. The elect Gentiles shared in Christ's atonement in exactly the same way elect Jews did in that the sins of the Gentiles were really and truly and effectually atoned for and not merely potentially or made possible.
Since God's elect are scattered throughout the entire [Gentile] world, John could write of those elect as being the "whole world" because the world to a Jew would have meant Gentile nations. Jesus, therefore, atoned for the sins of elect Jews to whom John was primarily addressing and for elect Gentiles. Since they are elect, then so is the "whole world" i.e. the elect Gentiles throughout that world. This is how both the contrast between the two groups and the comparative parallel are both preserved, which is how the text should be understood.
And finally, the Gr. term "kosmos" (Strong's 2889) has many shades of meaning and very often, has a strong moral/spiritual component to it. Context, of course being king, determines proper usage. Here's how BLB Classic defines "kosmos".
https://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=KJV
1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
Notice the very last definition. And we can now add to 1Jn 2:2 the Rom 11:12 example cited above. IOW, if Paul had written in Rom 11:12 "and their loss means riches for the "world" instead of "Gentiles", it would not change the meaning of the passage. This proves conclusively what I stated in my introduction to this series of posts: The ancient Jews never considered themselves to be part of the profane, pagan world; for they always thought of themselves as being separate, sanctified, set apart from the Gentile nations. Therefore, it's incumbent upon all honest interpreters to adopt the same mindset of the original audience so that we may arrive at the same understanding they had.
It's also noteworthy, that out of all the above definitions, only #5 can readily be taken in the distributive sense, whereas numbers 6 and 8 can only be understood in the limited sense.
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours BUT also for the sins of the whole world.
NIV
John very clearly in this passage is speaking of two distinct groups of people and he makes a makes a contrast between them. But at the same time he draws a comparative parallel between the two groups, which which must be preserved. The contrast is between Jews and Gentiles ("whole world" of which the Jews are not a part); yet at the same time Christ atoned for the elect Jews to whom John was primarily writing and also for the elect Gentiles ("whole world"). Therefore, John could say that Christ atoned equally for the sins of both elect groups. Otherwise, John would be saying that Christ atoned for the sins of the elect and non-elect alike, which is precisely what freewillers say! Freewillers unabashedly speak out of both sides of their mouth with respect to this text. They'll concede that God actually propitiated the sins of John's messianic audience in one breath, but then immediately in the next exhale state that God will potentially propitiate the sin of the "whole world", after "whole world" does its part by effectuating the atonement for itself.
Secondly, John tells these elect, believing Jews that Jesus didn't only atone for the sins of elect Jews only...BUT (denoting a contrast, betraying John's mindset of the "us" and "them" mentality), Jesus also atoned for the sins of "the whole world". But is John telling his original Jewish audience that Jesus' death on the Cross actually atoned for each and every person's sins in the world, as freewillers would have us believe? If Jesus did atone for the sins of John and his audience of believers, meaning ostensibly that they were all saved, then how is it that the sins that Christ atoned for on behalf of each and every person in the world cannot also mean universal salvation for this group of people!? If all John's original audience is presumed saved by that atonement, then it follows logically from this particular text that this entire second group should be presumed saved, as well! But NR folks want it both ways! They'll tell us the first group is saved, but they'll equivocate about the second group and tell us that THEY have to apply the atonement of Christ to their own souls by their faith. Consider this Sticky Problem Number 1 for FWT interpretation.
But for us Reformed folks, the text itself -- on a stand-alone basis -- presents no such problem when it is properly exegeted. What I mean by this is that we don't have to appeal to any other text outside of it, as freewillers do when they try justify that the atonement really is limited, for it only "applies" or becomes effectual by those who apply it to themselves by faith. You see how the doublespeak works: Christ atoned for all...but not really...there's a caveat...there's a condition? Allow me to prove my point by seeing what the text itself is actually saying. But before we do that, let's make sure we understand what the text isn't saying!
1. The text is not saying that Christ atoned for the sins of John, his original audience of elect Jewish believers and the rest of the world.
2. Nor is the text saying that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world, including John and his original audience.
3. Nor is the text saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, including the sins of elect, believing Jews.
4. Nor is the text saying that Jesus made his atonement merely possible for the whole world.
5. Nor is the text saying that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world if they apply his atoning work to themselves by faith.
6. Nor is the text saying that Jesus potentially atoned for sins of John, his Jewish audience and the "whole world".
But the text is very clearly saying that Jesus [actually] atoned for the sins of the whole world -- PERIOD! Therefore, it logically follows that the "whole world" (each and every Gentile) is every bit as saved as John and his original recipients of his epistle were. So, we have universal atonement clearly taught in this text IF "the whole world" is used in the distributive sense. But of course, it isn't and here's why: That little three letter word "but", which denotes "contrary to, in contrast to", etc. The elect Jewish believers (represented by the phrase"our sins") are excluded from the whole world, excluded from the sins of the "whole [Gentile] world". Therefore, this inescapable fact proves that the phrase "whole world" is logically used in a limited sense and is referring to only believers in Gentile nations. So yes, from our modern perspective, our modern culture we tend to naturally think that the "whole world" consists of Jews and Gentiles. But that isn't what the ancient Jews believed, and in fact many Jews today still don't! Again, if John intended to include the Jews in with the "whole world", he could have worded the text differently to clearly convey that idea, and he certainly wouldn't have contrasted both groups and make any distinction between them.
Finally, this proper interpretation does not present the sticky problem of FWT interpretation of "whole world". Since the phrase "whole world" is being used in the limited sense, then we should logically infer that just as Christ actually atoned for only for the sins of elect Jews, ie. John's sins and the sins of his original believing, Jewish audience, so too He actually atoned for the sins of the "whole world" (i.e. elect Gentiles) in the limited sense, since we now know that the "whole world" cannot mean everyone in the distributive sense by virtue of the fact of the Jews' exclusion from the "whole world". John was not thinking inclusively but exclusively -- he thought in terms of two distinct groups of believers. The elect Gentiles shared in Christ's atonement in exactly the same way elect Jews did in that the sins of the Gentiles were really and truly and effectually atoned for and not merely potentially or made possible.
Since God's elect are scattered throughout the entire [Gentile] world, John could write of those elect as being the "whole world" because the world to a Jew would have meant Gentile nations. Jesus, therefore, atoned for the sins of elect Jews to whom John was primarily addressing and for elect Gentiles. Since they are elect, then so is the "whole world" i.e. the elect Gentiles throughout that world. This is how both the contrast between the two groups and the comparative parallel are both preserved, which is how the text should be understood.
And finally, the Gr. term "kosmos" (Strong's 2889) has many shades of meaning and very often, has a strong moral/spiritual component to it. Context, of course being king, determines proper usage. Here's how BLB Classic defines "kosmos".
https://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=KJV
1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
Notice the very last definition. And we can now add to 1Jn 2:2 the Rom 11:12 example cited above. IOW, if Paul had written in Rom 11:12 "and their loss means riches for the "world" instead of "Gentiles", it would not change the meaning of the passage. This proves conclusively what I stated in my introduction to this series of posts: The ancient Jews never considered themselves to be part of the profane, pagan world; for they always thought of themselves as being separate, sanctified, set apart from the Gentile nations. Therefore, it's incumbent upon all honest interpreters to adopt the same mindset of the original audience so that we may arrive at the same understanding they had.
It's also noteworthy, that out of all the above definitions, only #5 can readily be taken in the distributive sense, whereas numbers 6 and 8 can only be understood in the limited sense.
I will quote the verse (Romans 5:18) again, Cameron.
Romans 5:18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one
act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
If one believes in Jesus then they receive that justification because it is available to all men.
This verse (Romans 5:18) is definitely saying to all men.
Romans 5:18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one
act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
If one believes in Jesus then they receive that justification because it is available to all men.
This verse (Romans 5:18) is definitely saying to all men.
-
1
- Show all
But the Scriptures I posted says he can!! Listen to yourself. You're saying commands men to believe who cannot believe?? Would you tell your child to do something impossible to do then punish them for not doing it? No, a loving parent wouldn't. And God is love and He loves the sinner. There is no sense in what you're saying.
God obligated Himself!! He could have left man in a fallen state! He didn't! He said believe and be saved, it's that simple!! He made the promise, not me.
I don't have to!! God said it!! He said that it was His mercy and grace that saved us from the bondage of sin. You're asking for a square hole, or a heavy feather. You're making up a dogma that doesn't exist. God is bound to His Word !! He will keep His promises. He said he loves the sinner, He died for the sinner and He does not want to see them perish in hell. Those are straight from the horses mouth.
God obligated Himself!! He could have left man in a fallen state! He didn't! He said believe and be saved, it's that simple!! He made the promise, not me.
I don't have to!! God said it!! He said that it was His mercy and grace that saved us from the bondage of sin. You're asking for a square hole, or a heavy feather. You're making up a dogma that doesn't exist. God is bound to His Word !! He will keep His promises. He said he loves the sinner, He died for the sinner and He does not want to see them perish in hell. Those are straight from the horses mouth.