# 1 John 2.2



## Rufus (Apr 21, 2011)

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


Anybody have a response? I read it last night and would like to know .


----------



## jjraby (Apr 21, 2011)

Maybe that the world will be renewed by the Blood of Christ on the last day.. Through Christ's atoning work the whole world benefits that it will be remade..


----------



## sastark (Apr 21, 2011)

The whole world: every tree, blade of grass, molecule of atmosphere...wait, did someone imply that "the whole world" means each and every individual person who has ever lived, is living, and ever will live? Where did they get that idea from? (See Romans 1:8 and John 12:19 for just two examples of "the world" meaning something other than each individual person who has ever or will ever exist.)


----------



## Wayne (Apr 21, 2011)

There is a full treatment of that text by Warfield, published in the P&R edition in the back of one volume as an appendix.
Perhaps someone else with a copy at hand can supply the full citation and name of that article. Almost certain to also be on the web.


----------



## Rufus (Apr 21, 2011)

> Yeah, a full-orbed view of Scripture pertaining to subject of atonement and how one singular passage, ripped from context, cannot mean all-persons-without-exception.





> The whole world: every tree, blade of grass, molecule of atmosphere...wait, did someone imply that "the whole world" means each and every individual person who has ever lived, is living, and ever will live? Where did they get that idea from? (See Romans 1:8 and John 12:19 for just two examples of "the world" meaning something other than each individual person who has ever or will ever exist.)



Both of those helped me! A lot!


----------



## sastark (Apr 21, 2011)

Rufus said:


> > Yeah, a full-orbed view of Scripture pertaining to subject of atonement and how one singular passage, ripped from context, cannot mean all-persons-without-exception.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Glad to hear it, brother.


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2011)

Rufus said:


> > 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
> 
> 
> Anybody have a response? I read it last night and would like to know .


 
The Synod of Dort: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."


----------



## Quatchu (Apr 21, 2011)

I often find it odd that this passage is so readily used by Armenian because honestly if I'm going to take it out of context i would probable see it from a Universalist view point before a Arminian one.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 21, 2011)

Besides Rev. Winzer's apt response, that judges of the intrinsic worth of the death of Christ (with which I agree fully):
A discussion of the atonement will, inevitably I think, come down to a discussion of its "limitations," if we are to speak of efficacy over against worth.

If the atonement actually effects a work, then the person worked upon is atoned for. If the atonement is effectual for all men without exception, then all men without exception have been absolved. No one has any sins to account for, because the whole sin-debt has been paid--Hell is empty.

If hell is not empty, then the atonement isn't universal. So, what "limitation" has been imposed? Has the atonement been limited as to its _power,_ or its _extent?_ Many doctrinal positions limit the atonement's power. There are a number of explanations as to how, but it boils down to this: God has made man *savable* by virtue of Christ's propitiation, but the "powerful blood" does not atone unless some man claims it. The power-in-the-blood is potential, until a man throws the switch.

In this scenario, the propitiation of Jesus Christ saves no one by its own virtue. Statistically it saves some, but it might have saved none. The blood of Jesus was not poured out and sprinkled at the cross _*for*_ anyone in particular, even a specific number and names. It is simply precious in God's sight, and also in the sight of anyone who happens to impute high-value to it. And that human judgment, in effect, renders the atonement effectual individually for him.

The view that "limits" the atonement's extent, but not its power, reckons the death of Jesus was intentional and purposeful for a specific number and names. The blood of Christ powerfully and effectually cleanses and reconciles a man to God in the act itself. The sacrifice of Christ doesn't make men savable; it *saves* the elect. Statistically the blood saves ALL for whom it was shed; it could not have saved one less.

John's intent in speaking as broadly as he does, "...but also for the sins of the whole world," is to eliminate exclusivity from the minds of his hearers. Jesus is not only "the propitiation for OUR sins," here in this church, or in this small corner of the world. No, he turns away the wrath of God for people all over the world. Red, Yellow, Black, White; in every language, in every nation. The worth of the sacrifice is infinite, and might have satisfied for ten-thousand worlds worse than ours. The efficacy of it is for this one (and not for demons), and its sweep is fully "as far as the curse is found," yea to the earth's remotest end.

Jesus declared, Jn.3:36 ,"...he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but *the wrath of God abideth on him*." If there is no limit set to the power of Christ's propitiation (hilasmos, turning aside of wrath), then how can this statement be true, assuming Christ tasted death for every man in exactly the same sense (Heb.2:9)? Do people go to hell, yet having all their sins forgiven? On what basis, then?

If the power is limited, then salvation is only potential, and the choice is "up to us." If the power remains unlimited (able to save to the uttermost), but the scope is limited to "those who come to him by faith," who were "chosen in him before the foundation of the world," then the only question that remains is, "To what *world* is John referring?" Determining the "world" of any particular discourse is part of the responsibility of the reader/interpreter. Does it make sense to think that the "world" means every atom of creation? Does it make sense to think that the "world" refers to every living soul in all history (past, present, future), down to the zygote? Are there cogent reasons to think that John is not speaking in terms of individuals; but rather in aggregate, generalized, or comparative terms?


----------



## athanatos (Apr 22, 2011)

I posted this on another forum earlier this year, regarding whether "the whole world" meant the gentile believers (or rather, the particular elect)



> Similar to what you were saying, John Piper tries to defend it through cross referencing John 11:51-52 (link), saying that the same language is used:
> John 11:51-52,
> "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."
> 1 John 2:2,
> ...


Hope that helps


----------



## Apologist4Him (Apr 28, 2011)

Rufus said:


> 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.
> Anybody have a response? I read it last night and would like to know .



I am simply a layman, continually growing in and by the grace of God, so take my response for what it's worth, perhaps not much. I think in 1 John 2:2 "the whole world", the author's intended meaning could be referring to gentiles...in the broadest sense. In ancient Jewish thought and oral tradition there was a distinction between Jews and gentiles (the rest of us). The author is saying His atoning sacrifice is not only for (elect) Jews but for the (elect) gentiles also.


----------

