Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world

T

TomFL

Guest
Actually your whole world works from 1 John but not the gospel since he only used that phrase in his epistle . Just posting to be fair here and being objective as possible :)
Whole world does not appear here

John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

the point is any unbeliever is comprehended in the term world

and that is parallel to

John 3:16-17 (KJV)
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.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

and is soteriologically significant
 
T

TomFL

Guest
What a waste of time, simply taking anti-Calvinist propaganda and reposting it.
No thought required.
You did see the references ?

Do you have any evidence they were not valid

BTW ISA 53, Mark 14, Rom 5:18 John 1:29 quotes are all found in Calvin's commentary
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Years.... In High School? Many years did you spend in High School?

Well, let's see...
I'm Canadian.
I started learning French from Grade 3.
In Ontario, high school (at the time) went to Grade 13.

I took French all the way to Grade 12, and only dropped Grade 13 because the teacher was a jerk.

You didn't know the secondary source and you dismissed it.

Wrong again.
I didn't "dismiss" it, I simply recognized it as a secondary source.
As a scholar, I prefer working with primary sources.

You couldn't translate it yourself.

Wrong again.

You're not being ethical with the information

Thank you for the personal attack.
You will have to answer to God for that.

A translation is a secondary source. Plain and simple.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
I think they were being honest with the text and not allowing their own dogma to interfere with exegesis.
But they are also not going to say in one text, or passage of texts, one thing, and then in another text, or passage of texts, contradict it. I don’t know much about Barnes, but Calvin was a staunch defender of divine election and predestination, so whatever his thoughts were concerning John 1:29 were not going to contradict his beliefs regarding election and predestination.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
But they are also not going to say in one text, or passage of texts, one thing, and then in another text, or passage of texts, contradict it. I don’t know much about Barnes, but Calvin was a staunch defender of divine election and predestination, so whatever his thoughts were concerning John 1:29 were not going to contradict his beliefs regarding election and predestination.
Would you allow for Calvin to hold both as Compatible?
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
I believe Calvin was referring to all people of the world, from every tribe, tongue and nation. Not just the Jews, as the Jews thought.
They get hung up on the word ‘world’ and think it means everybody w/o exception. Just like the word ‘all’.

If you have a child who wants cookies you may tell them, “Don’t eat all the cookies.” Obviously you wouldn’t mean “all the cookies in the world” but “all the cookies in the house.” Context is what demands the meaning of “all” and “world” mean in that given context.

Look at Elvis Presley, Billy Graham, & Michael Jackson. It’s a true statement to say they are known all around the world. It’s not true that “all in the world whoever lived” have heard of them. Just like the gospel. It has been proclaimed all over the world, yet millions(I read an article in April 2018 that of the 7.1 billion ppl on earth at that time, it was estimated that 3.4 billion of them still had not heard it). So, world does mean encompassing the world, but not that everybody knows about it.
 

Terry43

Active member
When we read this verse CONTEXT counts.. who was the audience? Jews ... when Jews heard the word "world" or 'whole world" what did they really hear? What they heard was Christ died for the heathen gentiles as well as for the professing Jews. Jews thought they were the ones with a ticket punched by their law keeing .... This was part of the reason the Pharisees hated Him
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
Would you allow for Calvin to hold both as Compatible?
How so? How are they compatible? If expiation and propitiation are for the whole world, covering everybody w/o exception, then 1) ppl’s guilt have been taken away and 2) their sin debt has been paid in full. Then why are ppl going to stand before Him condemned in their sins, when their guilt has been taken away and also paid in full?

I do not, for one second, believe Calvin was expressing what the OP thought he did.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
But they are also not going to say in one text, or passage of texts, one thing, and then in another text, or passage of texts, contradict it. I don’t know much about Barnes, but Calvin was a staunch defender of divine election and predestination, so whatever his thoughts were concerning John 1:29 were not going to contradict his beliefs regarding election and predestination.
Scripture does that

Unconditional election to salvation is not found in scripture

BTW all four point Calvinists believe in election and predestination
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
How so? How are they compatible? If expiation and propitiation are for the whole world, covering everybody w/o exception, then 1) ppl’s guilt have been taken away and 2) their sin debt has been paid in full. Then why are ppl going to stand before Him condemned in their sins, when their guilt has been taken away and also paid in full?

I do not, for one second, believe Calvin was expressing what the OP thought he did.
I'll be back tomorrow, I am out to Thursday night Meeting...
 
T

TomFL

Guest
They get hung up on the word ‘world’ and think it means everybody w/o exception. Just like the word ‘all’.

If you have a child who wants cookies you may tell them, “Don’t eat all the cookies.” Obviously you wouldn’t mean “all the cookies in the world” but “all the cookies in the house.” Context is what demands the meaning of “all” and “world” mean in that given context.

Look at Elvis Presley, Billy Graham, & Michael Jackson. It’s a true statement to say they are known all around the world. It’s not true that “all in the world whoever lived” have heard of them. Just like the gospel. It has been proclaimed all over the world, yet millions(I read an article in April 2018 that of the 7.1 billion ppl on earth at that time, it was estimated that 3.4 billion of them still had not heard it). So, world does mean encompassing the world, but not that everybody knows about it.
Well lets see

You guys were challenged on the word world in John 12:47

and you all wiffed

Theo refused to answer

LaDodger as well

Carbon ignored half the verse and all of my argument based on what he left out

So your Elvis Presley, Billy Graham, Michael Johnson argument does not amount to a hill of beans

If you ignore the context all you have is a pretext
 

Terry43

Active member
How so? How are they compatible? If expiation and propitiation are for the whole world, covering everybody w/o exception, then 1) ppl’s guilt have been taken away and 2) their sin debt has been paid in full. Then why are ppl going to stand before Him condemned in their sins, when their guilt has been taken away and also paid in full?

I do not, for one second, believe Calvin was expressing what the OP thought he did.
Dont ask " Common sense " questions
 

Terry43

Active member
Well lets see

You guys were challenged on the word world in John 12:47

and you all wiffed

Theo refused to answer

LaDodger as well

Carbon ignored half the verse and all of my argument based on what he left out

So your Elvis Presley, Billy Graham, Michael Johnson argument does not amount to a hill of beans

If you ignore the context all you have is a pretext
I answered you on the word "WORLD" and will also answer you on PAS....
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Well lets see

You guys were challenged on the word world in John 12:47

and you all wiffed

Theo refused to answer

LaDodger as well

Carbon ignored half the verse and all of my argument based on what he left out

So your Elvis Presley, Billy Graham, Michael Johnson argument does not amount to a hill of beans

If you ignore the context all you have is a pretext
Tom, when we started to discuss these things, you did not accept anything I said, you just kept shoving the same cut and pastes over and over with out considering anything. How long do you expect people to play your game?
Your not going to find many who will continue with you. Not until you learn how to reason with others.

call it ignoring or whatever you like.
But your the one who actually ignores but expects people to answer you. Kinda one sided.
Don’t complain about what you created.
 
Top