Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
1 John 2 says - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I found this from Albert Barnes who is a Calvinist.


But also for the sins of the whole world - The phrase "the sins of" is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, "the whole world," is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:

(1) that the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;

(2) that it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;

(3) that it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one easier than that of another.

It so magnified the law, so honored God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see the 2 Corinthians 5:14 note, and Hebrews 2:9
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Calvin said this about John 1:29 the lamb who takes away the sins of the world .

Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
The view of the atonement for either side of this debate is where most of the acrimony is found. Now, who exactly was atoned, or as 1 John 2:2 in most versions(NIV does a really good job of using “atoning sacrifice “) write it, propitiated? It was not us, but God, seeing He is the One who was offended. We incurred a debt we could in no way pay back. That is why Christ came as a man to die for our sins. He paid that debt we owed for us, on our behalf. The Father was satisfied with this payment made.

So, if God is satisfied with the payment made, it means His wrath has been appeased, satisfied, satiated, placated(look up the various meanings of all that the word ‘propitiation’) for those whom Christ paid their sin debt for. If Christ did this on behalf of all mankind w/o exception, then all mankind w/o exception have had their sin debt paid in full, the Father is appeased, satisfied, satiated, placated in regards to their sins, and He no longer has any wrath to mete out unto them.

A universal atonement = a universal salvation, AKA universalism.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
The view of the atonement for either side of this debate is where most of the acrimony is found. Now, who exactly was atoned, or as 1 John 2:2 in most versions(NIV does a really good job of using “atoning sacrifice “) write it, propitiated? It was not us, but God, seeing He is the One who was offended. We incurred a debt we could in no way pay back. That is why Christ came as a man to die for our sins. He paid that debt we owed for us, on our behalf. The Father was satisfied with this payment made.

So, if God is satisfied with the payment made, it means His wrath has been appeased, satisfied, satiated, placated(look up the various meanings of all that the word ‘propitiation’) for those whom Christ paid their sin debt for. If Christ did this on behalf of all mankind w/o exception, then all mankind w/o exception have had their sin debt paid in full, the Father is appeased, satisfied, satiated, placated in regards to their sins, and He no longer has any wrath to mete out unto them.

A universal atonement = a universal salvation, AKA universalism.
So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

Also I see a circular argument or reasoning in your response to both Calvin and Barnes commentary on these passages. I do not think your reply is persuasive enough for me to disagree with them

Thank you for replying.
 

civic

Well-known member
So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

Also I see a circular argument or reasoning in your response to both Calvin and Barnes commentary on these passages. I do not think your reply is persuasive enough for me to disagree with them

Thank you for replying.
Yes those are highly debated passages even among Calvinists as you observed with John Calvin and Albert Barnes.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Jesus took away the power of death away from Satan in the Atonement. He because the Judge of all of humanity. To say that Jesus didn't atone for ALL of Sin destroy these facts.

If Jesus's atonement was only for the Elect, then Satan still has power over death for damned.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

All of humanity is judged by their response to Jesus Christ.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
1 John 2 says - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I found this from Albert Barnes who is a Calvinist.


But also for the sins of the whole world - The phrase "the sins of" is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, "the whole world," is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:

(1) that the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;

(2) that it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;

(3) that it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one easier than that of another.

It so magnified the law, so honored God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see the 2 Corinthians 5:14 note, and Hebrews 2:9
What nuance is meant by "world"?
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

Also I see a circular argument or reasoning in your response to both Calvin and Barnes commentary on these passages. I do not think your reply is persuasive enough for me to disagree with them

Thank you for replying.
It’s incumbent upon you to search the scriptures and see who is right. I don’t think you’re seeing exactly what Calvin taught in that passage.

The atonement was what satisfied God. All those who Christ died for is what satisfied God’s wrath. If He died for every “Tom, Dick, & Harry”, then everyone has had their sin debt paid in full, God is satisfied with that payment made on their behalf, and all are saved.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

Also I see a circular argument or reasoning in your response to both Calvin and Barnes commentary on these passages. I do not think your reply is persuasive enough for me to disagree with them

Thank you for replying.
Look at this verse…

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.[1 John 2:15]

If you love everybody w/o exception, then the love of the Father is not in you? 😬🤔🤨
 

civic

Well-known member
@Johnnybgood Calvin also said the following :

“It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.148,)

“And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, so that the Jews might not think the Redeemer had been sent to them alone. From this we infer that the whole world is bound in the same condemnation, and that since all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they have need of reconciliation. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking about the sin of the world in general wanted to make us feel our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy. Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he comes to him.” (John: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.37,)

hope this helps !!!
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Look at this verse…

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.[1 John 2:15]

If you love everybody w/o exception, then the love of the Father is not in you? 😬🤔🤨

This is Calvinst circular rationalism at its finest.

There are many facets to Love. 1 John 2:15 is not talking about the kind of Love that the Father expressed in loving all of humanity enough to give His Son Jesus Christ for them.
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
@Johnnybgood Calvin also said the following :

“It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.148,)

“And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, so that the Jews might not think the Redeemer had been sent to them alone. From this we infer that the whole world is bound in the same condemnation, and that since all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they have need of reconciliation. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking about the sin of the world in general wanted to make us feel our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy. Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he comes to him.” (John: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.37,)

hope this helps !!!

Which is why I try to focus upon how we can agree in effectiveness of the Atonement. The Atonement drives so many key facets of theology but it is only effective for the Elect.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

Also I see a circular argument or reasoning in your response to both Calvin and Barnes commentary on these passages. I do not think your reply is persuasive enough for me to disagree with them

Thank you for replying.
The Adamic Covenant is Universal, but the Mosaic Covenant is Limited; these are the One Covenant of Works. Jesus kept the Covenant of Works, so he kept the Adamic Covenant by keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is not mentioned in Romans 5, the Adamic and New Covenants are. The Adamic Covenant is Universal in Scope, but the Mosaic Covenant is not; it's Limited to the Chosen People of God. "IF" Adam would have kept the Edenic Covenant, there would have been a Universal Righteousness for all people; as there is a Universal Condemnation for all people. Christ's Atonement can cover everyone too; most here would agree that his blood is sufficient for All. His Covenant of Works is sufficient for All, his New Covenant is Sufficient for All. But his Mosaic Covenant is NOT sufficient for All; only for the Elect. I think we see both a Limited Atonement and a Universal Atonement; because the ramifications of the Adamic Covenant are Universal. Who is your Federal Head? The Universal Headship of Adam, or the Limited Headship of Christ?
 

civic

Well-known member
The Adamic Covenant is Universal, but the Mosaic Covenant is Limited; these are the One Covenant of Works. Jesus kept the Covenant of Works, so he kept the Adamic Covenant by keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is not mentioned in Romans 5, the Adamic and New Covenants are. The Adamic Covenant is Universal in Scope, but the Mosaic Covenant is not; it's Limited to the Chosen People of God. "IF" Adam would have kept the Edenic Covenant, there would have been a Universal Righteousness for all people; as there is a Universal Condemnation for all people. Christ's Atonement can cover everyone too; most here would agree that his blood is sufficient for All. His Covenant of Works is sufficient for All, his New Covenant is Sufficient for All. But his Mosaic Covenant is NOT sufficient for All; only for the Elect. I think we see both a Limited Atonement and a Universal Atonement; because the ramifications of the Adamic Covenant are Universal. Who is your Federal Head? The Universal Headship of Adam, or the Limited Headship of Christ?
I think the above in bold coincides with Calvin and Barnes. They are being honest with the text and not allowing their own personal theology to get in the way of the plain teaching of the text in question. Its something many of us can learn from and there is no shame in admitting its a paradox. Some truths are parallels and we as finite humans can have a difficult time grasping them.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
@Johnnybgood Calvin also said the following :

“It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.148,)

“And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, so that the Jews might not think the Redeemer had been sent to them alone. From this we infer that the whole world is bound in the same condemnation, and that since all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they have need of reconciliation. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking about the sin of the world in general wanted to make us feel our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy. Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he comes to him.” (John: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.37,)

hope this helps !!!
This is showing how salvation was not to be solely for the Jews, but Gentiles as well.
 

civic

Well-known member
This is Calvinst circular rationalism at its finest.

There are many facets to Love. 1 John 2:15 is not talking about the kind of Love that the Father expressed in loving all of humanity enough to give His Son Jesus Christ for them.
I agree it is circular. Like I told reverand these theologians are being honest with the actual text and not allowing their theology to interfere with interpreting it. That is solid exegesis and not allowing eisegesis to get in the way. That is very difficult to do and we see this happening on both sides of many issues discussed on the forum from both A and C's.

I'm also guilty of this as well but I'm trying the do that less these days then I use to.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
The Adamic Covenant is Universal, but the Mosaic Covenant is Limited; these are the One Covenant of Works. Jesus kept the Covenant of Works, so he kept the Adamic Covenant by keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is not mentioned in Romans 5, the Adamic and New Covenants are. The Adamic Covenant is Universal in Scope, but the Mosaic Covenant is not; it's Limited to the Chosen People of God. "IF" Adam would have kept the Edenic Covenant, there would have been a Universal Righteousness for all people; as there is a Universal Condemnation for all people. Christ's Atonement can cover everyone too; most here would agree that his blood is sufficient for All. His Covenant of Works is sufficient for All, his New Covenant is Sufficient for All. But his Mosaic Covenant is NOT sufficient for All; only for the Elect. I think we see both a Limited Atonement and a Universal Atonement; because the ramifications of the Adamic Covenant are Universal. Who is your Federal Head? The Universal Headship of Adam, or the Limited Headship of Christ?
Thank you
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
@Johnnybgood Calvin also said the following :

“It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.148,)

“And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, so that the Jews might not think the Redeemer had been sent to them alone. From this we infer that the whole world is bound in the same condemnation, and that since all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they have need of reconciliation. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking about the sin of the world in general wanted to make us feel our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy. Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he comes to him.” (John: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.37,)

hope this helps !!!
Thank you
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
The Adamic Covenant is Universal, but the Mosaic Covenant is Limited; these are the One Covenant of Works. Jesus kept the Covenant of Works, so he kept the Adamic Covenant by keeping the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is not mentioned in Romans 5, the Adamic and New Covenants are. The Adamic Covenant is Universal in Scope, but the Mosaic Covenant is not; it's Limited to the Chosen People of God. "IF" Adam would have kept the Edenic Covenant, there would have been a Universal Righteousness for all people; as there is a Universal Condemnation for all people. Christ's Atonement can cover everyone too; most here would agree that his blood is sufficient for All. His Covenant of Works is sufficient for All, his New Covenant is Sufficient for All. But his Mosaic Covenant is NOT sufficient for All; only for the Elect. I think we see both a Limited Atonement and a Universal Atonement; because the ramifications of the Adamic Covenant are Universal. Who is your Federal Head? The Universal Headship of Adam, or the Limited Headship of Christ?

I don't want to offend you. God knows that I don't. Please don't take this the wrong way.

You just made an argument solely based upon man made classifications. These line you've drawn above are not clearly and explicitly define in this way in the Scriptures. One of the hardest thing I find myself doing anymore is getting people to stop arguing another man's classification and argue theology from the Scriptures alone. You will not see me appeal to classification such as this in any arguments I make for a proper theology. I could care less where and how another man draws lines of segmentation in the their theology. I want to see those "lines" in the Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Top