How do Calvinists interpret 1 John 2:2 in light of Limited Atonement?
score:6
Calvinists see the "whole world" in this passage as referring to the elect throughout the world, particularly emphasizing that Christ died for Gentiles as well as Jews.
Examples
Examples of this approach abound. John Gill:
that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also (source)
Similarly, Matthew Poole writes:
i.e. for all that truly believe in him, all the world over. (source)
John MacArthur more thoroughly explains his view of John's intention here:
In the Jewish context, they understood Day of Atonement, they understood the language of propitiation. John is telling them that the sacrifice that Jesus offered is not just for the nation Israel, it's now for the world because the Lord is calling out a people for His name from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (source; emphasis added)
Many other Reformed theologians take similar approaches, including John Frame (Systematic Theology, 907), the Reformed Study Bible, Louis Berkhof (3.3.6.B.4.a), and John Piper (source).
Exposition
We can dive a bit deeper into the analysis of one Reformed theologian to get a better understanding of the rationale for this view. Simon Kistemaker (Exposition, 253–255), referring to the oft-cited "sufficient for the whole world but efficient for the elect" language, agrees with Calvin that while this is true, it is not in view here (see Calvin's commentary). He argues:
The phrase the whole world relates not to every creature God has made, for then the fallen angels also would share in Christ's redemption. The word whole describes the world in its totality, not necessarily in its individuality.
In defense of this idea, Kistemaker points to 1 John 3:16, where he sees John, after making a distinction between the "children of God" and the "children of the devil," saying that "Jesus Christ laid down his life for us" (emphasis added). He also argues, citing A. T. Robertson, that a different Greek word could have been used if John meant to say that Christ died for every individual:
John chooses the adjective ολος (whole) instead of πας (every, all) to communicate the idea of universality. The word ολος has "an indefinite meaning which πας does not have."
Upvote:-1
They would say that although Jesus died for everyone in the whole world, nevertheless to be saved, people have to "accept" him. Those who accept Jesus and follow him were predestined from the beginning of the world to do so -- and the others were not. Furthermore, they were not just predestined but in fact pulled by an irresistible grace to be saved.
In other words, they would say Jesus did "part 1" for everyone, but "part 2" is done by God only with the Elect, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
How the "acceptance" and "following" happens is understood differently in different denominations of Christianity:
For example, many Christians consider water baptism to be essential to salvation. Some Protestants rely on (a version of) the "baptism of desire" doctrine to say that it's not essential.
Also, some people say the Holy Spirit will work inside the saved person to make them sin less and less, and there will be unmistakable outward signs that someone is saved. Whereas other Christians say you can never really tell who is saved and who is not.
Some Christians believe "once saved, always saved" like Calvinists, and others believe that you can lose your salvation. Calvinists believe that if you fall away, it will only be for a time and then you'll come back, which logically implies a guarantee of immortality during those times when you fall away.
Finally, regarding "following Jesus", some Christians believe that one should literally do what Jesus said (i.e. keep the 10 commandments, follow those in the seat of Moses but don't do as they do, give away possessions) and other Christians believe like Paul said, that Jesus already paid for everyone's sins so the Law isn't relevant anymore, and we just have to follow our conscience. They say the Law is divided into "ritual law" and "moral law" and different Churches may have different opinions on whether a particular action is moral and immoral. Some Christians believe you should belong to an organized Church, and others believe all the Churches have become corrupt and Jesus taught against organized religion.
In short, while the words "accept Jesus" and "follow Jesus" can (and have) take on various meanings in various times and communities, but the idea of Calvinists is that anything that happens is up to God anyway, so at the end of the day, while Jesus paid the price, whoever "accepts Jesus" and "follows Jesus" is completely up to God the whole time. Grace, but not of ourselves.
More post
- 📝 What is the King James only movement?
- 📝 Is there a possible compatibility between immutability and God's mercy?
- 📝 Meaning of the Parable of the Talents
- 📝 What is the origin and development of the calender of the Western Church?
- 📝 How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe
- 📝 Can one be Catholic while believing in the past Catholic Church, but not the present?
- 📝 If it is better that we have free will than not, then why suggest it is preferable to not?
- 📝 What is the purpose of the Tree of Life according to YEC?
- 📝 Was Jesus Christ a refugee?
- 📝 Were the islands/countries discovered by Hispanic explorers named after Mozarabic feast days?
- 📝 Why is there no pagan historical evidence written by authors who were alive during the life of Jesus?
- 📝 Scriptural basis for a Christian Congregation to vow to “guide and nurture” an infant being baptized
- 📝 Can a practicing Catholic who joined a Protestant church still receive communion in the Catholic church?
- 📝 Can a human coherently claim to be "God the father"?
- 📝 What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus?
- 📝 How to Choose a Doctoral Program in Theology?
- 📝 Wilhelm Gesenius' vowel pointing of the tetragrammaton YHWH
- 📝 What is the Catholic Church's position on neglecting works of the law?
- 📝 What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing?
- 📝 Who uses the term "God-talk", and what do they mean?
- 📝 Are there any writings that support the belief that Judas might be in Heaven now?
- 📝 What was earlier the Earth or the Solar System?
- 📝 Has any Christian philosopher ever argued that naturalism can be shown to be false?
- 📝 Why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence?
- 📝 Why did Jesus change Peter's name, according to non-Catholic theology?
- 📝 Did John Calvin believe that the grandchildren of a believer are entitled to infant baptism?
- 📝 What is the difference between the "burning in the bosom" of Mormonism and the more general "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" of Christianity?
- 📝 Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other?
- 📝 Are there any denominations that defend their doctrines by appealing to extra-biblical evidence from the 1st/2nd century of the early Church?
- 📝 Does God still create everything
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 How do Calvinists interpret 1 John 2:2 in light of Limited Atonement?
- 📝 How do Calvinists interpret Acts 7:51 in light of the doctrine of 'irresistible grace?'
- 📝 How do Calvinists interpret "Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path" and "He shall direct your paths"?
- 📝 How do Calvinists argue that limited atonement is just and merciful?
- 📝 How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 1:10?
- 📝 How do Modalists interpret John 14:28?
- 📝 Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work?
- 📝 How do Unitarians interpret John 1:1?
- 📝 How do Trinitarians interpret John 3:35?
- 📝 How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins"?
- 📝 How do those who interpret John 10:30 as a claim to full divine equality by Jesus also interpret John 10:29, which says the Father is greater?
- 📝 How do trinitarians interpret John 8:58?
- 📝 How do deniers of the personal pre-incarnate existence of the Son of God interpret John 3:31-32?
- 📝 How do Reformed Calvinists interpret 1 Corinthians 10:13?
- 📝 How do Trinitarians interpret John 14:10?
- 📝 How do deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence interpret John 17:5?
- 📝 How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:1?
- 📝 Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints in Light of 1 Corinthians 8:11 (Calvinism)
- 📝 How do Cessationists interpret John 14:8-14, especially verses 11 and 12?
- 📝 How do non-trinitarians interpret John 14:26?
- 📝 If "God is spirit" then how can the incarnation be possible? How does Nicene theology interpret John 4:24?
- 📝 How do Christians who believe that salvation can be lost interpret John 6:37-44 and John 10:11-30?
- 📝 How do Lutherans interpret John 5:24?
- 📝 How does the Catholic Church interpret "you are gods" in John 10:34?
- 📝 How does reformed theology reconcile the universal resurrection with limited atonement
- 📝 How do believers in modern-day miracles interpret John 20:29 & 2 Corinthians 5:7 (faith without sight)?
- 📝 For those who hold that John 1:1 is about a Genesis beginning, how do they explain the light coming after life?
- 📝 How do Christian denominations interpret scriptures where Jesus said John is Elijah as anything other than indicating reincarnation?
- 📝 How do holders of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 interpret the word "rule" in verse 16 in light of its apparent contradiction to observation?
- 📝 How is Jesus not lying in John 7?