quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I maintain, based on my experience, that the Eucharist, combined with other Catholic doctrine/dogma may serve to dilute the gospel message and potentially delay someone's honest initiation of a relationship with Christ in faith. This is my personal perspective on the matter.

Of course, I disagree. We've had this disagreement since the Protestant reformation, before any of us was born. If you want to go there, I'd say it was the Protestant reformation which dilutes the gospel message.

But I don't want that to be perceived as a condemnation. Any honest belief, even if incomplete, is an attempt to reunite with Christ. That's what we all strive for.

Amen, brother.

Would the first portion of your reply be more in line with your intent if it instead implied that you think the Protestant Reformation over-distilled (instead of "dilutes") the Gospel message?

I ask because your second portion implies the Protestant belief is "incomplete".

Also, BlackTalon, in the interest of integrity and proper comprehension, can you point out the point at which Cous implied participation in the Eucharistic sacrament is a prerequisite to eternal life?

I understand that portions of John 6 that Cous takes literally are phrased in a way that would imply it is a prerequisite, but I don't believe Cous has expressed that he thinks they overrule the ample scripture (in John 6 and elsewhere) which supports belief (faith) only.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Would the first portion of your reply be more in line with your intent if it instead implied that you think the Protestant Reformation over-distilled (instead of "dilutes") the Gospel message?

I ask because your second portion implies the Protestant belief is "incomplete".

Well, I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make between "over-distilled" and "dilutes" but I don't think it matters.

There were some things within the Church that needed reformation. Some of that was truly reform. But I don't think Martin Luther wanted to start a separate Church. The resulting shift in understanding of the Eucharist is unfortunate, IMO.

I think we have more in common with our Protestant brothers and sisters than we have difference, but I don't think there will be a re-unification of Christian religion because each sect has it's own worldly bureaucracy which worldly men don't easily surrender.

quote:

I think we have more in common with our Protestant brothers and sisters than we have difference

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Also, BlackTalon, in the interest of integrity and proper comprehension, can you point out the point at which Cous implied participation in the Eucharistic sacrament is a prerequisite to eternal life?

I understand that portions of John 6 that Cous takes literally are phrased in a way that would imply it is a prerequisite, but I don't believe Cous has expressed that he thinks they overrule the ample scripture (in John 6 and elsewhere) which supports belief (faith) only.

I can. Using Cous' literal hermeneutic, Jesus would be saying that we must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life in verse 53

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Is this not what Cous has been arguing this whole time? It seemed to me to be so, but he'll have to clarify.

Hopefully my position is clear that anytime Jesus says he gives his body and blood for us or that his body is broken for the forgiveness of sins, it doesn't mean we need to eat his literal body. He's talking about his body being broken on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. We receive remission for our sins by simply believing in him. (John 6:28-29)

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Also, BlackTalon, in the interest of integrity and proper comprehension, can you point out the point at which Cous implied participation in the Eucharistic sacrament is a prerequisite to eternal life?

I understand that portions of John 6 that Cous takes literally are phrased in a way that would imply it is a prerequisite, but I don't believe Cous has expressed that he thinks they overrule the ample scripture (in John 6 and elsewhere) which supports belief (faith) only.

I can. Using Cous' literal hermeneutic, Jesus would be saying that we must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life in verse 53

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Is this not what Cous has been arguing this whole time? It seemed to me to be so, but he'll have to clarify.

Hopefully my position is clear that anytime Jesus says he gives his body and blood for us or that his body is broken for the forgiveness of sins, it doesn't mean we need to eat his literal body. He's talking about his body being broken on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. We receive remission for our sins by simply believing in him. (John 6:28-29)

My position is exactly, to the letter, what Jesus said in the above quote. My interpretation is in agreement with the early Church Fathers, the first Christians, and 2000 years of Catholics. So my position is that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Now, do I think that all protestants are doomed to hell? Not necessarily. I think that protestants have been lead astray by heretics for generations. So the culpability of their error may be limited. I also wouldn't dare presume an individual to be damned because that is the decision of God, not me.

I believe that the preponderance of evidence affirms the Catholic view of the Eucharist and that it takes more faith to dismiss the real presence than to believe in it.

I dont believe this has been brough up on this thread, but another affirming point would be the wedding at Cana. Did Jesus turn water into wine metaphorically? Was the wedding steward just pretending that the wine was, "the good wine"? How does this relate to the Eucharist? I believe it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who quipped, "keep an eye on that wine."

In Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, he writes, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." How do you square that with your position? Why in the world would believing a metaphor in an unworthy manner make your guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord?

Let us also look at the Passover, or Old Covenant again. If participation in the Old Covenant Passover required more than just intellectual belief in the lamb, why would participation in the New Covenant Passover require less than receiving the Lamb whom God Himself provided? In the original Passover, it was not enough for the Israelites to merely believe in God or mentally acknowledge the lamb. God commanded specific participation:

The lamb had to be slain.
Its blood had to be applied to the doorposts.
The lamb had to be eaten.

In Exodus, God did not say, “As long as you believe in the lamb, judgment will pass over you.” He gave a concrete covenant act that required obedience and participation. If an Israelite had said, “I believe God” and “I trust the lamb” and “Applying blood and eating the lamb are unnecessary rituals,” yet refused to place the blood on the doorpost or refused to eat the Passover meal, would his household have been spared? The obvious implication is no. Faith was not separated from covenant participation. That becomes the template for Christ. Christ calls the bread and wine the New Covenant, for crying out loud. How much more direct can He be?

In John 6, Jesus does not reduce this to a mere symbol or metaphor. When people object (this is a hard saying), He does not soften or reinterpret it. Many disciples leave Him over it. Many disciples still leave Him over it today. The beauty of this whole thing is that I am sure that some of the disciples who walked away in John 6, came back when the news of the Risen Christ spread. Its not too late to take that hard saying and believe and receive the Risen Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, just as He invited us to, and just as people have done for 2000 years.

Cous2492, just wanted to say that I very much appreciate and enjoy your posts in this thread. I only wish I was half as good as you are at apologetics. I hope you continue advocating "our side".

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Cous2492, just wanted to say that I very much appreciate and enjoy your posts in this thread. I only wish I was half as good as you are at apologetics. I hope you continue advocating "our side".

Much appreciated, Gustofer! All of the participants in this thread have taught me something or sparked a thought that had never crossed my mind. Sometimes it feels more like bickering than apologetics, but I know that everyone here is after the truth, has an interest in each other's eternal souls, and loves God. How cool is that?!?

Nice to be able to discuss such an important topic among friends. Certainly Catholics and Protestants have some theological differences, but as others have pointed out, we have more in common than we have in conflict. One of my favorite Christian apologists, Frank Turek had this quip - “People ask me if Catholics can be saved to which I reply: I even believe some Baptists can be saved”.

Turek also mentions a book by Norman Geisler (a coauthor on one of Turek’s books) in which he compares and contrasts Catholicism and Protestant beliefs. Here’s a link: Geisler overview

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

Let's look at John 3 together. John 3:16-17 says:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

I think it's helpful to backup to at least verse 12 where Jesus says "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Jesus mentions the world in verse 16 because he's been talking just prior about earthly (world) and heavenly things. He's simply saying that God loves his creation and sent Jesus from heaven to the world.

In verse 16, the text says that God gave the Son to whoever believes in Christ and they will have eternal life. The literal translation from Greek says "every believing one". So I don't understand how the mention of God loving the world (kosmos) and God giving the Son to everyone who believes equates to Jesus dying for everyone. It seems clear from the text that the Father gave the Son to those who believe in him and not each and every person who has ever lived.

Putting John 3 aside for a moment, there are several places that mention Jesus paying the sins of only some people and not the whole world.

John 10 Several times Jesus says he gives his life for his sheep

Isaiah 53:12
"yet he bore the sin of many"

Matthew 26:28
"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:28
"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Perhaps the best parallel to John 3:16 is 1 John 4:9 which mentions the Son entering the world but being the propitiation for our sins (not the sins of every person who ever lived)

"In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

My post is pretty long so I'll end here but I'm happy to try and cover any question I missed.

Thank you for engaging with the John 3 passage. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your understanding.

The core issue between us is Limited Atonement — the view that Jesus’ sacrifice only covers the sins of those who will believe, and not the sins of the rest of humanity. You did not deny that this is your position, so I’ll respond on that basis.

You mentioned verse 12 and the context of “earthly things” versus “heavenly things.” I don’t see how that supports Limited Atonement, but I’m happy to hear you flesh that out further.

You also noted that the Greek literally says “every believing one.” I agree with the translation, but that doesn’t actually prove Limited Atonement. The verse still says God “so loved the world” and gave His Son so that “whoever believes” would have eternal life. The word “world” (kosmos) includes both believers and unbelievers — the same world that hated Jesus, crucified Him, and still opposes Him (John 15:18-19).

If “world” only meant “the elect who will believe,” then God’s love would be expressed in two completely opposite ways: for some, it leads to the cross and eternal life; for others, it leads to the cross but still results in eternal judgment. That makes the word “love” mean something very different depending on the person, which seems inconsistent with how Scripture speaks of God’s love -- especially since the elect are such only by God's sovereign will.

This is why 1 John 2:2 is so important. John, writing to believers, says:
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

A few verses later he warns those same believers, “Do not love the world or the things in the world” (1 John 2:15-17). Clearly “the world” in 1 John 2:2 cannot mean the church — otherwise John would be telling the church not to love itself. It refers to all humanity.

Accepting that Jesus’ blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world does not mean I believe everyone will be saved. John 3:16 is still clear: “whoever believes” is the condition. People remain fully accountable to repent and trust in Christ.

Just as believing there is only one God does not mean I deny that Jesus is fully God, and believing the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God does not mean I believe in three gods — the Bible teaches both truths together — likewise, believing Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world does not mean having to believe all will be saved. The Bible teaches both the full sufficiency of Christ’s blood for everyone and the necessity of personal faith.

I’d be glad to hear how you see the “love” of God working in John 3 under Limited Atonement and how you understand 1 John 2:2 as referring only to believers rather than the whole world.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

My position is exactly, to the letter, what Jesus said in the above quote. My interpretation is in agreement with the early Church Fathers, the first Christians, and 2000 years of Catholics. So my position is that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Now, do I think that all protestants are doomed to hell? Not necessarily. I think that protestants have been lead astray by heretics for generations. So the culpability of their error may be limited. I also wouldn't dare presume an individual to be damned because that is the decision of God, not me.

I understand you believe the Eucharist (with transubstantiation) is essential — that unless a person literally eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ in the Catholic sense, they have no life in them. You also said you’re not certain that all Protestants are doomed, which I appreciate. But that uncertainty actually undermines your position that the Eucharist is the linchpin of Christianity. If you can’t be certain that Protestants who reject transubstantiation are lost, then how central can this doctrine really be?

The Bible teaches something different. Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Colossians 1:27 calls this “the mystery… which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” I take that literally — Christ actually lives in every believer through the Holy Spirit the moment we trust in Him.

That reality is far more profound to me than the idea that Christ enters me for a short time through a piece of bread that I later digest and passes out of my body. The Bible presents the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 11:24-26), not as the ongoing mechanism by which we receive Christ inside us.

I respect that you see the Real Presence as the clear teaching of the early Church and Scripture. I simply don’t see the New Testament requiring a literal, physical eating of Christ’s body and blood in order to have eternal life. The same Jesus who said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53) also said, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63) just a few verses later. Jesus even added, “the flesh provides no benefit.” If the flesh provides no benefit, then the “eating and drinking” Jesus mentioned was not about the literal physical act of consuming transformed bread and wine.

ETA:

The Passover that you cite is true — the Israelites did have to physically apply the blood of the lamb to the doorposts and lintel and eat the unleavened bread and the Passover lamb. But that event was to commemorate their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. For Christians, the Lord’s Supper is to commemorate our deliverance from slavery to sin and death. Neither serves to atone for sin.

Forgiveness or atonement for sin was a separate Holy Day — Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. On that day one bull, one ram, seven male year-old lambs, and two goats (one as a sin offering and the other as the scapegoat) were sacrificed. None of those sacrifices were eaten by the people.

The New Testament teaches that we no longer need earthly priests because Jesus, our High Priest, offered Himself once for all as a superior sacrifice. Hebrews 7:27 says: “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day… He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered up himself.” (See also Hebrews 9:25-28 and 10:10-14.)

You say you believe the Bible literally when it says "you must eat the body and blood of Jesus to have life in you," do you also believe the Bible literally when it says priests are not needed now since we have a High Priest in the Son who is perfect forever? (Hebrews 7:28)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rey HRH,

quote:

You mentioned verse 12 and the context of “earthly things” versus “heavenly things.” I don’t see how that supports Limited Atonement, but I’m happy to hear you flesh that out further.

I mentioned starting in verse 12 because it provides some context to the word “world” in verse 16. Jesus mentions in verse 13 that he came down from heaven to Earth and in verse 15 says that everyone who believes will have eternal life. Then in verse 16 says that God loves the world (kosmos, God’s creation) and repeats that everyone who believes will have eternal life. Again in verse 17, Jesus said that he was sent to Earth (the world) and whoever believes (verse 18) is not condemned. He’s mentioning the world many times here to show that he’s not merely a good teacher of God that Nicodemus thought he was, but that he’s the eternal Son of God who entered into this world from heaven. (world here means Earth, not all people) I think the reason he is so repetitive when speaking to Nicodemus is because Nicodemus is clearly having a hard time understanding who Jesus is.
I don’t see anywhere in this chapter that Jesus is teaching unlimited atonement or making a statement that he will sacrifice himself to make people savable. When I see in scripture is Jesus sacrificing himself only to accomplish salvation for his people (believers, the elect, the church, etc) (Matthew 1, John 1, John 3, John 6, Hebrews 9, etc)

quote:

You also noted that the Greek literally says “every believing one.” I agree with the translation, but that doesn’t actually prove Limited Atonement. The verse still says God “so loved the world” and gave His Son so that “whoever believes” would have eternal life. The word “world” (kosmos) includes both believers and unbelievers — the same world that hated Jesus, crucified Him, and still opposes Him (John 15:18-19).

Correct, the text says God loved the world, it doesn’t say Jesus died for the world. It doesn’t say that he died for both believers and unbelievers. It says “everyone who believes”. Jesus even says later on in John chapter 10 that he lays his life down for his sheep, not for believers and unbelievers.

quote:

This is why 1 John 2:2 is so important. John, writing to believers, says:
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Could you explain why it's so important?
Propitiation is appeasement for the wrath of God against sin. If you are arguing that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for each and every person who ever lived, you are saying that the unbeliever won’t pay the penalty for their own sins, which is universalism. It seems your interpretation of this verse is that “ours” is believers and “world” is believers and unbelievers. If John wanted to say that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, he could have said so. The “ours” here is referring to John’s “little children” (the people he’s addressing in 1 John 2:1) along with himself and the “world” here is all believers across the world. And no, I’m not saying that “world” refers to believers in vv. 15-16 because John is using the same word in a different way, which happens often in scripture.

quote:

I’d be glad to hear how you see the “love” of God working in John 3 under Limited Atonement and how you understand 1 John 2:2 as referring only to believers rather than the whole world.

You don’t believe in universalism so it follows that you believe in the wrath and judgement of God against the unbeliever as much as I do. Do you believe in a benefit of God’s love for the unbeliever that I’m unaware of? Please explain.


Hopefully I’ve covered all your points/questions. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

I mentioned starting in verse 12 because it provides some context to the word “world” in verse 16. Jesus mentions in verse 13 that he came down from heaven to Earth and in verse 15 says that everyone who believes will have eternal life. Then in verse 16 says that God loves the world (kosmos, God’s creation) and repeats that everyone who believes will have eternal life. Again in verse 17, Jesus said that he was sent to Earth (the world) and whoever believes (verse 18) is not condemned. He’s mentioning the world many times here to show that he’s not merely a good teacher of God that Nicodemus thought he was, but that he’s the eternal Son of God who entered into this world from heaven. (world here means Earth, not all people) I think the reason he is so repetitive when speaking to Nicodemus is because Nicodemus is clearly having a hard time understanding who Jesus is.
I don’t see anywhere in this chapter that Jesus is teaching unlimited atonement or making a statement that he will sacrifice himself to make people savable. When I see in scripture is Jesus sacrificing himself only to accomplish salvation for his people (believers, the elect, the church, etc) (Matthew 1, John 1, John 3, John 6, Hebrews 9, etc)

quote:

You also noted that the Greek literally says “every believing one.” I agree with the translation, but that doesn’t actually prove Limited Atonement. The verse still says God “so loved the world” and gave His Son so that “whoever believes” would have eternal life. The word “world” (kosmos) includes both believers and unbelievers — the same world that hated Jesus, crucified Him, and still opposes Him (John 15:18-19).

Correct, the text says God loved the world, it doesn’t say Jesus died for the world. It doesn’t say that he died for both believers and unbelievers. It says “everyone who believes”. Jesus even says later on in John chapter 10 that he lays his life down for his sheep, not for believers and unbelievers.

quote:

This is why 1 John 2:2 is so important. John, writing to believers, says:
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Could you explain why it's so important?
Propitiation is appeasement for the wrath of God against sin. If you are arguing that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for each and every person who ever lived, you are saying that the unbeliever won’t pay the penalty for their own sins, which is universalism. It seems your interpretation of this verse is that “ours” is believers and “world” is believers and unbelievers. If John wanted to say that Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, he could have said so. The “ours” here is referring to John’s “little children” (the people he’s addressing in 1 John 2:1) along with himself and the “world” here is all believers across the world. And no, I’m not saying that “world” refers to believers in vv. 15-16 because John is using the same word in a different way, which happens often in scripture.

You don’t believe in universalism so it follows that you believe in the wrath and judgement of God against the unbeliever as much as I do. Do you believe in a benefit of God’s love for the unbeliever that I’m unaware of? Please explain.


Hopefully I’ve covered all your points/questions. God bless you.

You say it doesn’t say Jesus died for both believers and unbelievers. That’s exactly the issue I raised: the same love that God has for the world (which includes both believers and unbelievers) results in Jesus dying for some but not for others. Since that love is applied to the entire world, you’re going to have to explain how not dying for unbelievers is still an expression of that same love. You also say, “It says ‘everyone who believes.’” Correct — but it does NOT say “God gave His only Son for those who believe.” It says God gave His only Son because He so loved the world.

Just because John 10 says Jesus lays His life down for His sheep does not negate that Jesus died for the sins of the world — any more than citing verses that say the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God negates that there is only one true God. That’s what I’ve been repeating all along.

You asked why 1 John 2:2 is so important. Let me answer that directly using your own definition of propitiation.

You said: “Propitiation is appeasement for the wrath of God against sin.” R.C. Sproul (a leading Reformed theologian) put it this way: “Propitiation brings about a change in God’s attitude, so that He moves from being at enmity with us to being for us.” (See: What Do Expiation and Propitiation Mean? by R.C. Sproul )

1 John 2:2 says plainly: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” According to your own definition, that means Jesus fully appeased God’s wrath against the sins of the whole world — not just against the sins of believers. The key point you seem to be missing is that Jesus appeased God’s wrath against everyone’s sin so that God is now able to righteously forgive whoever believes in Jesus.

I can agree with your definition of propitiation, but that doesn’t make 1 John 2:2 say what you want it to say. You’re reading “the whole world” as “all believers everywhere,” but John could have easily written “the whole church” if that’s what he meant.

You keep accusing me of universalism every time I say Jesus’ death was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. I’ve never said everyone will be saved. I’ve been saying the Bible teaches both truths at the same time — just like it teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is only one true God. It’s not either/or. It’s both.

The Bible teaches that Jesus appeased God’s wrath against the sins of the whole world so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. That’s not universalism — that’s the gospel.

I’d still be glad to hear how you see the “love” of God in John 3 working under Limited Atonement and how 1 John 2:2 doesn't say what it is saying especially with your definition in place.

God bless you too.

quote:

You say it doesn’t say Jesus died for both believers and unbelievers.

That’s correct, it doesn’t say that. Show me where it says Jesus died for both believers and unbelievers. It doesn’t say that in John 3 or anywhere else. I’ve given you multiple verses to support my position that Jesus died for his people but you don’t want to engage with those verses. Romans 5 does say that Jesus died for us while we were still sinners but the “us” is believers.

quote:

but it does NOT say “God gave His only Son for those who believe.” It says God gave His only Son because He so loved the world.

It plainly says that God gave the Son “so that” (for) “everyone who believes” should have eternal life. It doesn’t say God gave the Son “so that” the world should have eternal life. It's quite clear.

quote:

I’d still be glad to hear how you see the “love” of God in John 3 working under Limited Atonement and how 1 John 2:2 doesn't say what it is saying especially with your definition in place.

quote:

You keep accusing me of universalism

I’ve addressed 1 John 2:2 and explained what it says. I would appreciate it if you would likewise address the questions in my post, namely about God’s love for the unbeliever. I’m not sure if you read my entire post because you said I accused you of believing universalism when I did the opposite.

“You don’t believe in universalism so it follows that you believe in the wrath and judgement of God against the unbeliever as much as I do. Do you believe in a benefit of God’s love for the unbeliever that I’m unaware of? Please explain.”

Maybe I've listed too many verses that teach limited atonement so I’ll post just one short verse and see if you will explain how it matches your view that Christ died for unbelievers.
Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”

God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

I’ve addressed 1 John 2:2 and explained what it says. I would appreciate it if you would likewise address the questions in my post, namely about God’s love for the unbeliever. I’m not sure if you read my entire post because you said I accused you of believing universalism when I did the opposite.

“You don’t believe in universalism so it follows that you believe in the wrath and judgement of God against the unbeliever as much as I do. Do you believe in a benefit of God’s love for the unbeliever that I’m unaware of? Please explain.”

Maybe I've listed too many verses that teach limited atonement so I’ll post just one short verse and see if you will explain how it matches your view that Christ died for unbelievers.
Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”

God bless you.

Actually, while you think you addressed 1 John 2:2, you have not engaged with any part of my actual argument — even though I have directly responded to every point you raised.

From the beginning I laid out my position and answered your points. You have simply restated your own view without interacting with the specific points I made. That’s not how a real discussion works. The verses say what they say. We each explain why our understanding is correct and show where the other view falls short. I’ve done that with your points; you haven’t done it with mine — especially my arguments on 1 John 2:2.

You post Ephesians 5:25 (“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her”) and want me to explain how it fits my view that Christ died for unbelievers. I will gladly do so, but only after you first address one equally short verse: 1 Timothy 2:5 (“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”). Will you explain how that matches your belief that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God?

Christians believe Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, yet because the Bible teaches there is only one God, we don’t rationalize it by favoring one truth and negating the other. In the same way, the Bible teaches that Jesus died for believers without negating the teaching that He also appeased God’s wrath against sin for the whole world — which includes unbelievers — as 1 John 2:2 plainly says.

quote:

Actually, while you think you addressed 1 John 2:2, you have not engaged with any part of my actual argument — even though I have directly responded to every point you raised. From the beginning I laid out my position and answered your points. You have simply restated your own view without interacting with the specific points I made. That’s not how a real discussion works. The verses say what they say.

I think it’s pretty uncharitable to say that I haven’t engaged with your argument and that you’ve responded to every point I’ve raised. I certainly engaged with your argument that the word “world” should be interpreted as “believers and unbelievers” I showed that the word “world” means different things according to the context. Sometimes it means Earth like in John 3 when it says the son was sent into the world from heaven. Sometimes it means a part of the world like in Luke 2 when it says “all the world” should be registered under Caesar Augustus.

We disagree on what John means when he says “world”, which is why I directly addressed this word. You cited 1 John 2:15 to make your point, but it says not to love the “world”. So if “world” means all humanity as you said then John would be saying not to love everyone, which makes no sense. Christ says to love everyone, even our enemies.

As far as the term propitiation is concerned you said you agree with the definition I gave so I didn’t address it any further. If your disagreement is about propitiation then we can talk about that, I’m happy to.

quote:

Will you explain how that matches your belief that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God?

I’m happy to discuss the triune nature of God at some point but I think discussing it now would only exacerbate any miscommunication we are having. Of course I can’t force you to give your interpretation of Ephesians 5:25, but I was informed that interaction with specific points I make is part of having a ‘real discussion’. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

I think it’s pretty uncharitable to say that I haven’t engaged with your argument and that you’ve responded to every point I’ve raised.

Would you mind tagging me in your response to me like I tag you? Tagging is having the other person’s name up top like your name is in all my responses to you.

It’s not uncharitable to point out that, from my perspective, you are not addressing the points I raised. For example, you noted that I agreed with your definition of propitiation and therefore didn’t address it further. But my agreement was only one small step in my argument, and you did not engage with the rest of it.

You don’t seem to be grasping what I’m saying. I wrote: “You posted Ephesians 5:25 and want me to explain how it fits my view that Christ died for unbelievers. I will gladly do so, but only after you first address one equally short verse: 1 Timothy 2:5 (‘For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’). Will you explain how that matches your belief that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God?”

You replied that you’re happy to discuss the Trinity later but think it would only cause more miscommunication. But that was never my point. I was using the Trinity as an analogy: we both accept two biblical truths that appear to contradict human logic — there is only one God, yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God. We don’t solve the tension by denying one truth to protect the other. We accept both.

In the same way, the Bible teaches that Jesus died for the whole world (which includes unbelievers) without negating that He also died specifically for believers. Asking you to reconcile 1 Timothy 2:5 with the deity of Christ is the same kind of challenge you are giving me with Ephesians 5:25 — except your verse is weaker because it never says Christ did *not* die for unbelievers.

Allow me to restate my argument clearly and number the points so you can address them directly:

John 1:29 — “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
1 John 2:2 — “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 2:15 — “Do not love the world or the things in the world…”

Point 1: Both John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 state that Jesus takes away the sin of the world and is the propitiation not only for believers but for the sins of the whole world.

Point 2: The word “world” in these verses cannot be limited to “believers only.” Only people have sin that needs to be taken away or propitiated for.

Point 3: In John 3:16-17, “world” cannot mean just the physical earth. “For God so loved the earth… that the earth might be saved through Him” makes no sense. It clearly refers to people — sinners — in the world. For God so loved sinners, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world of sinners to judge sinners but that sinners might be saved through Him.

Conclusion: Christ died and paid the penalty for all sinners, and to be saved one must exercise believing faith in Jesus.

I invite you to respond directly to these three points and prove my conclusion wrong without circular reasoning (i.e., “it can’t mean Christ died for the whole world because Christ only died for believers”). That is the very issue under discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
John 1:29 — “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
Point 1: Both John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 state that Jesus takes away the sin of the world and is the propitiation not only for believers but for the sins of the whole world.

OK, let’s look at John 1:29 but instead of starting in verse 29, start at the beginning of the chapter. John draws from Genesis 1 which speaks about the creation of the world. Then in verses 9 and 10 John uses the word “world” here (kosmos) to refer to God’s creation. We know from the context here that “world” isn’t referring to a group of people. When we move forward to verse 29, John the Baptist says “Behold the Lamb of God” and in saying this he’s drawing from Exodus 12 and Isaiah 53. In both Exodus 12 and Isaiah 53 the lamb was slain only for God’s chosen people. Then John says “who takes away the sin of the world” He’s referring to the sin that entered the world through Adam (Genesis 3, Romans 5). He’s not making a statement that Jesus takes away the sins of every person who ever lived or that Jesus atoned for the sins of every person on Earth. We know from 1 Samuel 3:14 that God swore that some people would never have their sins atoned for.

With regard to 1 John 2:2, I’ve countered your point previously and explained why “world” can’t be interpreted as “believers and unbelievers”. When you restated your point, you read the text as “propitiation not only for believers” but that’s not what the text says. The text says “not for ours only”. You are assuming that “ours” means “believers” but you haven’t shown why we must interpret the text this way. You are relying on your presupposition that Jesus atoned for the sins of everyone and using circular reasoning to interpret the text this way. As far as citing 1 John 2:15 saying not to love things of this world, I honestly can’t see how that helps your interpretation or your point here.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Point 2: The word “world” in these verses cannot be limited to “believers only.” Only people have sin that needs to be taken away or propitiated for.

I’m not understanding what you are trying to say here, could you clarify?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Point 3: In John 3:16-17, “world” cannot mean just the physical earth. “For God so loved the earth… that the earth might be saved through Him” makes no sense. It clearly refers to people — sinners — in the world. For God so loved sinners, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world of sinners to judge sinners but that sinners might be saved through Him.

Correct, it doesn’t just mean the physical Earth in vv. 16-17. I was referring to vv. 12-13 when Jesus is talking about coming down from heaven and also John chapter 1:9-10 where “world” means “Earth”. In John 3:16 kosmos is referring to God’s creation. It wouldn’t be proper exegesis to substitute in the word “sinners” here. If you want to substitute a word for kosmos you could say God’s creation. For God so loved his creation, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into his creation to condemn his creation but in order that his creation might by saved through him.

Hopefully you read my post as responding with nothing but good intent and charity. God bless you.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

OK, let’s look at John 1:29 but instead of starting in verse 29, start at the beginning of the chapter. John draws from Genesis 1 which speaks about the creation of the world. Then in verses 9 and 10 John uses the word “world” here (kosmos) to refer to God’s creation. We know from the context here that “world” isn’t referring to a group of people. When we move forward to verse 29, John the Baptist says “Behold the Lamb of God” and in saying this he’s drawing from Exodus 12 and Isaiah 53. In both Exodus 12 and Isaiah 53 the lamb was slain only for God’s chosen people. Then John says “who takes away the sin of the world” He’s referring to the sin that entered the world through Adam (Genesis 3, Romans 5). He’s not making a statement that Jesus takes away the sins of every person who ever lived or that Jesus atoned for the sins of every person on Earth.

1. On John 1:29 you said, “We know from the context here that ‘world’ isn’t referring to a group of people.”

1
a. Actually, that’s precisely what we’re debating — we don’t “know” it yet. The fact that “world” (kosmos) means creation in John 1:9-10 doesn’t automatically dictate its meaning in v. 29 any more than “man” in 1 Timothy 2:5 means Jesus isn’t God. Context in each verse decides.

1
b. Even in John 1:9-10 itself, the text quickly shifts from creation to people: “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.” If “world” referred only to inanimate creation, creation itself wouldn’t “not know” its own Creator — the stones would have cried out in praise if the people had been silent (Luke 19:40). The very next verse confirms the focus: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). So John 1:10 quickly pivots “world” to refer to humanity in its sin and rejection. Do you agree?

1
c. More importantly, the verse doesn’t say the Lamb takes away “the sin in the world.” It says “the sin of the world.” Only people have sin. The earth didn’t sin; Adam’s descendants did (Rom 5:12). John 1:29 is echoing Isaiah 53:6 (“the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”) and the universal language of the Baptist’s ministry. You are incorrect on two levels here. First, when Isaiah 53 was written, “the iniquity of us all” referred specifically to Israelites, God’s chosen people. Yet the New Testament reveals this also includes Gentiles (the “mystery” of Ephesians 3:6). Second, even among the Israelites (“us all”), not all were saved — Romans 9:6 says “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” So Isaiah 53 supports the idea that the iniquity of us all was laid on Him even though not all of us will be saved, whoever all of us may be.

2. On 1 John 2:2, you said you already countered my point about “world” not being limited to believers only.


2a. Could you please restate the key part of your counter so I’m sure I’m addressing it? (It’s easy to talk past each other in these threads.)


2b. To clarify my own point: I did not say “believers and unbelievers” as two separate categories. I said the “whole world” includes all sinners — the entire human race in its guilt — which is exactly why John can say the propitiation is “not for ours only.”

3. You asked why “ours” in “not for ours only” must refer to believers, and you felt I was assuming it.


3a. Fair question — here’s the reasoning again: It’s not any presupposition of mine that points to “ours” as referring to believers but the context.


3b. 1 John is explicitly written to believers. See 1 John 2:1 — “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate… He Himself is the propitiation for our sins…”


3c. John includes himself with his readers (“we,” “our,” “little children”). By 2:12 he says, “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven.”


3d. So when he says “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” the most natural reading is: not only for us believers, but for the sins of the whole world of sinners as well. Who else would “ours” refer to in that immediate context?

4. On John 3:16-17, you prefer substituting “God’s creation” for “world”: “For God so loved his creation… that his creation might be saved through him.”


4a. My paraphrase: “For God so loved sinners, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world of sinners to judge sinners but that sinners might be saved through Him.”


4b. I’m happy to let both versions sit side-by-side. Notice that your version puts “whoever believes in Him” right in the middle of “creation,” yet you’ve already said the “world” isn’t people. It feels like the text itself keeps forcing us back to humanity in its sin and need for salvation.

Thanks for taking the time to organize your post so carefully. I’ll try to respond to everything but I will also try to not make this post so long.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH: 1b. The very next verse confirms the focus: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). So John 1:10 quickly pivots “world” to refer to humanity in its sin and rejection. Do you agree?

I wouldn’t say that John quickly pivots here, I just think that kosmos refers to God’s creation which of course includes every living thing. Verse 10 doesn’t mention sin and rejection, only that the world didn’t know Christ. Verse 11 is speaking about the Jewish people rejecting him. I’m keeping my response short here because I don’t think this is a central point of your argument and there’s a lot to respond to.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH: 1c. So Isaiah 53 supports the idea that the iniquity of us all was laid on Him even though not all of us will be saved, whoever all of us may be.

I agree with a lot of what you posted here but your conclusion doesn’t follow. When we keep reading through 53:11 it says “make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” and verse 12 says “yet he bore the sin of many”. It doesn’t say he bore the sin of every person who ever lived, which is what your position is. You read the part about “us all” as not meaning every single person correctly but then somehow used Ephesians 3:6 and Romans 9:6 as your hermeneutic to make it try to say that “us all” is every person who ever lived, saved or unsaved.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH: 2. On 1 John 2:2, you said you already countered my point about “world” not being limited to believers only.2a. Could you please restate the key part of your counter so I’m sure I’m addressing it?

I think it’s easiest if I just address 1 John 2 under point 3 to avoid being redundant

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH: 3b. 1 John is explicitly written to believers. See 1 John 2:1 — “My little children … … ”3c. John includes himself with his readers (“we,” “our,” “little children”). 3d. So when he says “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” the most natural reading is: not only for us believers, but for the sins of the whole world of sinners as well. Who else would “ours” refer to in that immediate context?


If you look down in 1 John 2 to verses 12 to 14, you’ll see he specifically addresses writing to “little children” along with other groups such as “fathers” and “young men”. He’s talking about a specific group of people. This is why we can’t simply substitute “my little children” and “ours” for the term “believers”. Going back to verse 1, he mentions this specific group of “little children” and this is the “ours” in verse 2. Given this context, I see the kosmos in verse 2 the same as John 1:29 with it referring to believers throughout the world. I don’t see this verse as John contradicting what he’s written in his gospel account about Jesus giving his life for the people who believe in him (John 3:15-16, John 5:21, John 6:37-39, John 10:15-26, John 15:13, John 17:6). By the way, if you would like to address these verses in John or Ephesians 5:25 with an argument other than an argument from silence (i.e. it doesn’t say X so therefore X is true) I would like to hear what you have to say.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH: 4. I’m happy to let both versions sit side-by-side. Notice that your version puts “whoever believes in Him” right in the middle of “creation,” yet you’ve already said the “world” isn’t people. It feels like the text itself keeps forcing us back to humanity in its sin and need for salvation.

My version uses a word that is closer to the Greek word kosmos. I did say that sometimes world just means Earth and I do agree that God’s creation includes people but I just don’t think we can substitute the word kosmos for “sinners”. If you replace kosmos for “sinners” it can change the meaning of the text and I try to exegete scripture as accurately as possible.

My response is getting long and I’m sure I’ve left something out but it’s getting late so I’ll end it here. I truly do appreciate your response and your time. God bless you.