Earth is 9,000 years old, says Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on House Science Committee (start

[erowe1]

Actually....that's not quite accurate. Remember that Arminianists began as Calvinists. So while they denied the ability of man to do anything good without the power of God (as do I), they recognized that Jesus died to give grace to all men.

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” [3]
Article 3

So, here's the catch. Unless you want to jump through Calvinistic hoops to say "all" means something other than "all", or unless you're going to take the unilateralist approach and teach that all men are eventually saved, there has to be some other mechanism for men to be lost. Hence...free will. Without Jesus death on the cross and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, there would be no possibility of salvation, or even men truly desiring salvation. But with Christ all things are possible. The only question is, does all things being possible mean all things are inevitable. Calvinists say yes (irresistible grace), Armininists say no (resistible grace).

The meaning of "all" depends on the context.

No, I don't believe in universal salvation.

But I also don't think that what Christ accomplished on the cross needs to be simplified to one single thing. He paid a price that was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. But he also effectually saved some people and not others.

While there are the verses that talk about Christ accomplishing something for all (indeed, not just people, but the entire universe). There are also verses like Romans 8:32, which says, "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" In the context, "all things" must include ultimate glorification. So, by the logic of this verse, everyone for whom Jesus died will go to Heaven. This can't be talking about something Jesus did for all people, as the context makes clear in v. 9 and other places. Some statements the Bible makes about the cross are talking about one thing, some are talking about something else.

 

[moostraks]

I have never asked a Mennonite about this issue. But I have talked to them about other beliefs. My general impression is that they're generally not into systematic theology, and when they highlight what distinguishes them as Mennonites, it's not this issue.

that sounds about right...I don't think systemic theology is something most of their believers are into, but a new convert seeking them out would question the issue. So if you were seeking the answer then the response would be in practice they are Arminian. Generally they tend to be more on discussing practical issues of day to day living. More salt of the earth than esoteric like the Eastern Orthodox tend to be (again just my experience). I believe each group has its purpose in the big picture. Tie me to a post for being a heretic because most all the groups seem to believe they are the group.

 

[jmdrake]

The meaning of "all" depends on the context.

No, I don't believe in universal salvation.

But I also don't think that what Christ accomplished on the cross needs to be simplified to one single thing. He paid a price that was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. But he also effectually saved some people and not others.

While there are the verses that talk about Christ accomplishing something for all (indeed, not just people, but the entire universe). There are also verses like Romans 8:32, which says, "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" In the context, "all things" must include ultimate glorification. So, by the logic of this verse, everyone for whom Jesus died will go to Heaven. This can't be talking about something Jesus did for all people, as the context makes clear in v. 9 and other places. Some statements the Bible makes about the cross are talking about one thing, some are talking about something else.

No. You're twisting the verse and the logic. Romans 8:32 does not say "how will he not also, along with him, graciously give all all things."

Here's the "belief decision" tree. There's monergism verses synergism. Under monergism you have universalism and Calvinism. Once you go to the synergism view, there is no universalism. Under synergism there is the belief that salvation depends on your relationship with God (Armininism) and that salvation depends on your relationship to the church (Catholicism). So an Arminianist believes that the "us" in Romans 8:32 refers to those who have not resisted grace that is offered to all.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No. You're twisting the verse and the logic. Romans 8:32 does not say "how will he not also, along with him, graciously give all all things."

Here's the "belief decision" tree. There's monergism verses synergism. Under monergism you have universalism and Calvinism. Once you go to the synergism view, there is no universalism. Under synergism there is the belief that salvation depends on your relationship with God (Armininism) and that salvation depends on your relationship to the church (Catholicism). So an Arminianist believes that the "us" in Romans 8:32 refers to those who have not resisted grace that is offered to all.

Romans 8:32 in context:

Romans 8:31-35 NASB

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Romans chapter 8 explicitly teaches election. There is no question at all.

 

[erowe1]

No. You're twisting the verse and the logic. Romans 8:32 does not say "how will he not also, along with him, graciously give all all things."

Right. He won't give all all things. He will only give all things to the people he gave His son up for. Therefore, He did not give Jesus up for all, in the sense of "give up for" used in this verse.

So an Arminianist believes that the "us" in Romans 8:32 refers to those who have not resisted grace that is offered to all.

The problem is, the syllogism of the verse is this: Jesus died for us, therefore, we will go to Heaven. So even by your explanation, you're left saying that the only people Jesus died for in the sense intended in this verse are those who have not resisted the grace that is offered to all. So you, just as much as any Calvinist, are saying that Jesus did not die for everyone, at least not in the sense mentioned in Romans 8:32.

 

[jmdrake]

Romans 8:32 in context:


Romans chapter 8 explicitly teaches election. There is no question at all.

A) You really haven't refuted the point that I was making to erowe1 in the slightest.

B) And how does one become part of the elect? Jesus answers that question Himself.

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

No question about that at all.

 

[jmdrake]

Right. He won't give all all things. He will only give all things to the people Jesus died for. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all, in the sense of "dying for" used in this verse.

The problem is, the syllogism of the verse is this: Jesus died for us, therefore, we will go to Heaven. So even by your explanation, you're left saying that the only people Jesus died for in the sense intended in this verse are those who have not resisted the grace that is offered to all.

Except the Bible doesn't say that everyone that Jesus died for will go to heaven. That's your (false IMO) interpretation. The Bible says Jesus died for all. You have to change the meaning of the word "all" and jump through a lot of other hoops to get the result you believe.

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

The sins of the whole world! John made it clear, for anyone willing to listen, that Jesus didn't just pay for the sins of believers. He paid for all sins. But only those who accept His death are saved. The doctrine of limited atonement is unbiblical.

 

[erowe1]

Except the Bible doesn't say that everyone that Jesus died for will go to heaven.

Romans 8:32 does.

 

[Sola_Fide]

A) You really haven't refuted the point that I was making to erowe1 in the slightest.

B) And how does one become part of the elect? Jesus answers that question Himself.

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

No question about that at all.

The book of Revelation is written to the church. That verse has nothing to do with how one is saved. It was written to people who were already professing faith in Christ.

. Revelation3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

 

[jmdrake]

Romans 8:32 does.

No. It doesn't. And 1 John 2:2 says Jesus died for the entire world.

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

There is no qualifier in 1 John 2:2. In fact, quite the opposite. John goes out of his way to reject the idea that Jesus died only for the sins of the saved (our sins).

 

[erowe1]

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

Even 1 John 2:2 puts you in the same position you say it puts Calvinists in. The word for "atoning sacrifice" is hilasterion, or "propitiation," meaning he satisfies God's wrath. But God's wrath is still on the unsaved. Whatever Christ accomplished for them it wasn't to free them from God's wrath, as this verse says. You're left jumping through a hoop as much as a Calvinist is.

What I would say is that Christ's death is the propitiation for all who have any propitiation at all. But those who do not believe in Jesus, i.e. the nonelect, are still not propitiated.

 

[jmdrake]

The book of Revelation is written to the church. That verse has nothing to do with how one is saved. It was written to people who were already professing faith in Christ.

The Church is always described in the Bible as a woman. So when Jesus said If any MAN hear my voice and open it, I will come into HIM and will eat with HIM and HE with Me, Jesus could only have been talking about individual salvation. Also 1 John 2:2 clearly refutes the idea of limited atonement.

 

[jmdrake]

Even 1 John 2:2 puts you in the same position you say it puts Calvinists in. The word for "atoning sacrifice" is hilasterion, or "propitiation," meaning he satisfies God's wrath. But God's wrath is still on the unsaved. Whatever Christ accomplished for them it wasn't to free them from God's wrath, as this verse says. You're left jumping through a hoop as much as a Calvinist is.

What I would say is that Christ's death is the propitiation for all who have any propitiation at all. But those who do not believe in Jesus, i.e. the nonelect, are still not propitiated.

Not at all. The escape from God's wrath is right there for any who choose to accept it. There's no hoop at all. When Moses lifted the bronze serpent up in the wilderness, the means to escape death was available to all. Some chose to look up and live. Others resisted that offer of grace and died.

 

[erowe1]

No. It doesn't. And 1 John 2:2 says Jesus died for the entire world.

But Romans 8:32 does say that. There's no way around it.

1 John 2:2 is a different verse in a different context. But let's say that "the whole world" in that verse does mean everyone without exception, including nonbelievers. Then we would merely be forced to say that the sense in which Jesus is a propitiation in 1 John 2:2 has to be different than the sense in which he was said to be "given up" in Romans 8:32, since the former would then apply to people who do not go to Heaven, while the latter explicitly applies only to those who do go to Heaven. And this is what I said earlier. Some verses about the cross can be talking about one thing that it accomplished, while other verses talk about another thing it accomplished.

1 John 2:2 doesn't wipe Romans 8:32 out of the Bible, as if you can say "Romans 8:32 can't say what it says because 1 John 2:2 says this."

 

[erowe1]

Not at all. The escape from God's wrath is right there for any who choose to accept it.

Right. So only those who choose to accept it escape from God's wrath, rather than everyone in the whole world without exception or condition, like the verse taken woodenly literally says.

That's what I believe too.

Like I said, you have to jump through the same hoop I do.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Also 1 John 2:2 clearly refutes the idea of limited atonement.

Who was the book of 1st John written to?:

1 John 5:13 NIV

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

The book of 1st John was written to a congregation of believers. When he says that Christ's atonement was "not ours alone, but for the whole world", he is speaking of atonement being not just for the congregation he was writing to, but every congregation of believers in the world. In no way does that teach universal atonement.

 

[jmdrake]

But Romans 8:32 does say that. There's no way around it.

No it doesn't. Not in the least. You, as usual, are reading into the text what is not there.

Edit: Again Romans 8


Romans 8:32

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

The words "Everyone that Jesus actually died for will be saved" is not in the text.

A more natural reading is, Jesus death is for the salvation of all. And it is for the salvation of all. The serpent lifted up in the wilderness was for the salvation of all who had been snake bitten. There was no "limited brass serpent" such that it would "run out". Jesus compared Himself to that same brass serpent.

1 John 2:2 is a different verse in a different context.

So? I never said it was the same verse or the same context. And in the context that it's in it's clearly talking about the whole world.

1 John 2:2 doesn't wipe Romans 8:32 out of the Bible, as if you can say "Romans 8:32 can't say what it says because 1 John 2:2 says this."

I never said it wiped anything out. But Romans 8:32 doesn't say what you claim it says. It doesn't say that everyone Jesus died for will be saved. It says that all who are saved are saved because of Jesus death and that they will receive all of the blessings of heaven. 1 John 2:2 explains that Jesus died not just for "our sins" (those who are saved) but the sins of the entire world. And that's not just "other saved people in the world" because that would be part of the "our".

 

[TheTexan]

9000 years old? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.



Everyone knows it's 6500 years old

 

[jmdrake]

Who was the book of 1st John written to?:

All believers who would read the letter.

The book of 1st John was written to a congregation of believers. When he says that Christ's atonement was "not ours alone, but for the whole world", he is speaking of atonement being not just for the congregation he was writing to, but every congregation of believers in the world. In no way does that teach universal atonement.

That's an incredulous exegesis of the text. John was a general epistle meaning that it was not written to a single congregation but to all believers. It's an epistle meant to be shared with every known congregation of believers in the then known world. So "our" by itself meant all believers. The only logical conclusion is that the phrase "the whole world" included non believers. The hoops Calvinists have to jump through to support their belief system is astounding.

 

[jmdrake]

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/4whom11.htm


An Analysis Of Key Scripture Passages

1 John 2:2


Read this verse to a child and he will tell you that Christ died for all men. He would assume that "the whole world" means just that. Read this verse to an extreme Calvinist and he will tell you that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the elect Jews, and not for the sins of the elect Jews only, but also for the sins of the elect Gentiles. We are reminded of Matthew 11:25.

John Murray, who denies that Christ died for all, says this about 1 John 2:2--"No text in Scripture presents more plausible support to the doctrine of universal atonement....It must be said that the language John uses here would fit in perfectly with the doctrine of universal atonement if Scripture elsewhere demonstrated that to be the biblical doctrine" (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, page 72). Because 1 John 2:2 does not fit in with Murray’s theological system, he tries to make the passage mean something other than what it so obviously says.

To determine the meaning of the pronoun "our" in 1 John 2:2 we must ask who John was writing to. John Owen, strong defender of a limited atonement, believed that 1 John was written about 46 AD and was sent to Jewish Christians. However, most Bible scholars today agree that the letter was probably written towards the end of John’s life and was intended for believers living in Asia Minor, which is where John ministered toward the close of his life. Obviously the churches in Asia Minor toward the close of the first century were composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers, with the Gentiles being in the majority.

Actually John tells us who he is writing to. In 1 John 5:13 he says, "These things have I written UNTO YOU THAT BELIEVE ON THE NAME OF THE SON OF GOD." He wrote this letter to BELIEVERS. Thus, in 1 John 2:2 Christ is the propitiation for our sins (that is, believers), and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world (that is, unbelievers). That the term "world" is used elsewhere to refer to unbelievers (in contrast to believers) is clear from John 14:22; 16:8-9; 17:9,21.

When John uses the word "our" he is referring to all Christian believers, not just Jewish believers. See 1 John 1:9 – "our sins" (it was not just the Jewish believers who were to confess their sins). See also 1 John 1:10 – "we," "us," (it was not just the Jewish believers that were in danger of saying that they had not sinned). See 1 John 2:1 – "we have an advocate" (it was not just the Jewish Christians who had an Advocate, but all believers). There is no reason to say that John wrote this epistle strictly to Jewish believers. The terms "our" and "the whole world" are definitely contrasts between believers and those who are not.

If there is any question about this, let the Bible define its own terms. One should consider the usage of the term "world" in the book of 1 John (see 1 John 3:1; 3:13; 4:5; 4:9; 4:14; and especially 5:19). This word is certainly not used when referring to elect Gentiles. Especially significant is the usage of this term in 1 John 5:19. John used the expression "the whole world" in only two places: in 1 John 2:2 and 5:19. In 1 John 5:19 we read this: "And we [Christians] know that we [Christians] are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD [non-Christians] lieth in wickedness [in the wicked one]." This is the same meaning that the expression has in 1 John 2:2, though certain Calvinists are forced to deny this because of their theology which tells them that Christ could not have paid the death penalty for any of the non-elect.

To summarize this point, in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 5:19 the terms that are used both mean the same thing:

"our" "we"


refers to Christians, those to whom John was writing (including both Jewish and Gentile believers)

"whole world"


refers to all the unbelievers who are part of Satan’s world system (this would include both the non-elect and those unsaved who would at some later time respond to the gospel, believe on Christ and be delivered from Satan’s world system).

Thus, 1 John 2:2 teaches that Christ by His death on the cross satisfied the demands of divine justice not only for the sins of believers but for the sins of all the unbelievers who were part of Satan’s kingdom of darkness (the majority of which were non-elect). Thus, saved people are not a part of "the whole world." Some who are included in "the whole world" could eventually believe the gospel and be saved. The term "world" here in 1 John 2:2 does not mean "all humanity" as in John 3:16. Rather, it means "all humanity" in contrast to "saved humanity." This is a common usage of the word "world" (see John 17:9,21 – Christ prayed for believers, not for the world; however, some who are in the world will believe through the Church’s testimony).

Those who deny the fact that Christ died for all (believers and unbelievers) sometimes try to argue on the basis of a comparison between 1 John 2:2 and John 11:51-52 (see the argument in Gary Long’s book, Definite Atonement, p.95). However, John 11:51-52 is actually a strong argument that Christ died for all men and not just for the elect! In verse 50, the high priest Caiaphas (himself unregenerate) made mention of one dying for the people (the Jewish people), so that the WHOLE NATION perish not! Certainly he was thinking of all the Jewish people without exception! If the Romans were to invade Palestine they would seek to destroy all the Jews without exception! Without knowing it, the high priest actually gave a prophecy that Jesus should die for that nation (verse 51). In other words, Jesus died for the whole Jewish nation! Not only did He die for all Jews, but the death of Christ was for the sins of the whole world with the result that God would be able to gather children from the uttermost parts of the earth. John 11:51-52 teaches that Christ died for the whole Jewish nation and 1 John 2:2 teaches that Christ died for the whole world!