WHAT ABOUT 1 JOHN 2.2?
Lacking references in the Bible that plainly say that Christ died only for the elect, Calvinists somehow have to change those that say He died for all. First John 2.2 clearly states that Christ is the "propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." Surely "our" and "ours" must refer to the elect. Therefore "the whole world," being in contrast to the elect, can only refer to the unsaved and would prove that Christ's death is propitiatory for all mankind.
To acknowledge what this passage declares would be the end of Calvinism. But how can that conclusion be avoided? Piper writes, "The 'whole world' refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world." But isn't that what our and ours would refer to: everyone who is saved, no matter where or when they live-and isn't "whole world" placed in contrast to "our" and "ours"? White elaborates a bit further on this brazen eisegesis, which Calvinists have devised in order to rescue their Limited Atonement theory:
The Reformed understanding is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places.
Surely, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father," refers to all Christians anywhere and at any time. Likewise, the "our" in "he is the propitiation for ours sins" must refer to all Christians, not just John's contemporaries. It certainly is a true statement for all believers in Christ every time, place, and culture. Furthermore, John's entire epistle, like all of the Bible of which it is a part, is addressed to all believers everywhere and in all ages. If the "our" thus refers to the redeemed, then "the whole world," being in contrast, could only represent those who are lost.
Piper reasons that "Propitiated sins cannot be punished...Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2.2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of ever person in the world..." This argument does not work for two reasons: 1) Christ had to pay the penalty for all sin for even one person to be saved; and 2) the benefits of Christ's death do not come automatically, but only to those who believe and receive Him. Were this not the case, then the elect, for whom the Calvinist says Christ did die, would be saved without believing and before they were born. But this is contrary to the gospel of salvation to be regenerated without believing; hence, we can say Calvinists have not been born-again, because they refuse to believe to be saved by grace through faith. No reasonable person would conclude a person is saved before being born, for everyone is born into sin.
The same nonsense is followed by John Owen who reasons that if Christ is really the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then unbelief would not keep anyone out of heaven, because unbelief, being a sin, would have been propitiated as well.
But propitiation does not occur when one believes in Christ. It must already have been accomplished on the Cross. Faith is the means of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice-a sacrifice that even the Calvinist acknowledges was sufficient value to pay for the sins of all mankind. Either the elect were always saved and never needed to believe on Christ (a clear denial of the gospel), or there was a time when the propitiation of Christ made on the Cross became effective for them through faith. John is simply saying with Paul that Christ "is the Saviour of all men, specially those that believe" (1 Tim. 4.10).
Every Christian, by very definition, has been saved through faith in Christ, and His blood is the propitiation for their sins. This fact is so elementary and essential that one could hardly be a Christian without knowing it. It is therefore absurd to suggest that John is revealing something of importance by declaring that the blood of Christ avails not only for the people alive in his day but for all Christians in all ages. If this is what the Holy Spirit through John intended, why wasn't it stated clearly? Would the Holy Spirit use "world" to convey the meaning "all Christians in all times everywhere"? Hardly.
Bookmarks