1 John 2:2 and 1 John 5:19

[Cruxis117]

I’ve been presented with the argument that 1 John 2:2 does not prove that Jesus died for the whole world, because in 1 John 5:19 it also uses the phrase “the whole world”. To give both verses:

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 John 5:19[/BIBLEDRB]

The idea is that because the whole world can’t include believers, it must only mean for the damned. And that means that 1 John 2:2 uses the “whole world” in the sense of the “elect.”

My rebuttal of this goes like this:

]That in both verses, there is a distinction made between the Christians and the “whole world”, and because of this, it appears that St. John was writing in a manner which used the phrase “whole world” as the same thing, for “everyone”. Whereas the Christians are already addressed before “the whole world”.

What do you guys think of the argument against the Catholic understanding of 1 John 2:2?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

NAB
usccb.org/bible/1john/2
DRB:
1John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
KJV:
1John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1John 2:2 και αυτος ιλασμος εστιν περι των αμαρτιων ημων ου περι των ημετερων δε μονον αλλα και περι ολου του κοσμου

and…

NAB:
usccb.org/bible/1john/5
DRB:
1John 5:19 We know that we are of God and the whole world is seated in wickedness.
KJV:
1John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and** the whole world** lieth in wickedness.
1John 5:19 οιδαμεν οτι εκ του θεου εσμεν και ο κοσμος ολος εν τω πονηρω κειται

The structure in Greek is a little different; 1John 5:19 is straight forward “and the cosmos/world wholly”; which can be said “the whole world” in English;

But I’d have to spend a little time on 1John 2:2 before commenting because when I see complicated grammar like this in John’s work, it often hides surprising references in the OT and precise logical meaning that don’t always immediately come to mind… (It could be simple, I’m just unsure yet…)

 

[bogeydogg]

Christ is the redeemer of the whole world. To redeem means to purchase out fo debt not to guarantee salvation for. The debt that was purchased was sin which he carried to the tree and died for on the cross. That debt is cancelled and the whole world, which lies in wickedness, is under the grace of the cross. Whether or not thee world accepts or rejects that grace will be the determining rule as to whether or not it will be saved.

I don’t see a contradiction here

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

If “the whole world is seated in wickedness” does not apply to believers, then those believers presume to be free of wickedness, free of sin.

This has profound implications, not the least of which is young virgin who Catholics believe was free from sin.

-Tim-

 

[MarcoPolo]

Is it just me or does 1 John 5:19 confirm the Catholic interpretation of 1 John 2:2. The whole point is that Christ died for everyone, not just the elect. So if the “whole world” includes those who are wicked, then 1 John 2:2 is confirming that Christ even died for those wicked people.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

I honestly don’t find the contradictions/differences here. They both state the same thing. This man’s logic is quite backwards if he believes that there is some sort of proof for anything other than God came to save the whole world here.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I honestly don’t find the contradictions/differences here. They both state the same thing. This man’s logic is quite backwards if he believes that there is some sort of proof for anything other than God came to save the whole world here.

This particular apologetic is going to be aimed, I believe, at people like James White and other Calvinists. The points of Calvinism are summed up in an acronym called “Tulip” – where the point called “L” is “Limited Atonement”.

I have sympathy (not empathy) for the arguments of Calvinism on limited atonement;
for it seems wrong to say that Christ came to die to save those who weren’t saved.

In particular, the bishops have seen fit to force the translation of another passage (I’ll look it up later…) where the idea is expressed that one came to die for the “many” as one came to die for “all”.

I can’t really fault the translational change, for it fails to really change the functional interpretation of the scripture; “all” is undefined, and so it can mean “all the many” (which by definition it must!).

I think we need to actually locate the Calvinistic doctrine on Limited atonement, inspect the actual language of their statement and compare it to church teaching to isolate exactly what is wrong with their statement.

Some formulations of “faith alone” are permissible within the Catholic understanding – although the statement itself is facilely wrong. Just so, I think we need to look carefully at limited atonement and make sure we aren’t dealing with a similar subtle issue. (more later, when I have time…)

 

[MarcoPolo]

This particular apologetic is going to be aimed, I believe, at people like James White and other Calvinists. The points of Calvinism are summed up in an acronym called “Tulip” – where the point called “L” is “Limited Atonement”.

I have sympathy (not empathy) for the arguments of Calvinism on limited atonement;
for it seems wrong to say that Christ came to die to save those who weren’t saved.

In particular, the bishops have seen fit to force the translation of another passage (I’ll look it up later…) where the idea is expressed that one came to die for the “many” as one came to die for “all”.

I can’t really fault the translational change, for it fails to really change the functional interpretation of the scripture; “all” is undefined, and so it can mean “all the many” (which by definition it must!).

I think we need to actually locate the Calvinistic doctrine on Limited atonement, inspect the actual language of their statement and compare it to church teaching to isolate exactly what is wrong with their statement.

Some formulations of “faith alone” are permissible within the Catholic understanding – although the statement itself is facilely wrong. Just so, I think we need to look carefully at limited atonement and make sure we aren’t dealing with a similar subtle issue. (more later, when I have time…)

Do you know off-hand any encyclicals or Church docs that express the unlimited nature of Christ’s atonement? Or “universal redemption”, or any other term that suggests salvation is possible for all.

 

[bogeydogg]

This particular apologetic is going to be aimed, I believe, at people like James White and other Calvinists. The points of Calvinism are summed up in an acronym called “Tulip” – where the point called “L” is “Limited Atonement”.

I have sympathy (not empathy) for the arguments of Calvinism on limited atonement;
for it seems wrong to say that Christ came to die to save those who weren’t saved.

In particular, the bishops have seen fit to force the translation of another passage (I’ll look it up later…) where the idea is expressed that one came to die for the “many” as one came to die for “all”.

I can’t really fault the translational change, for it fails to really change the functional interpretation of the scripture; “all” is undefined, and so it can mean “all the many” (which by definition it must!).

I think we need to actually locate the Calvinistic doctrine on Limited atonement, inspect the actual language of their statement and compare it to church teaching to isolate exactly what is wrong with their statement.

Some formulations of “faith alone” are permissible within the Catholic understanding – although the statement itself is facilely wrong. Just so, I think we need to look carefully at limited atonement and make sure we aren’t dealing with a similar subtle issue. (more later, when I have time…)

The fundamental problem with the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement is that it presupposes that those who are not saved do not receive grace. When I speak to Reformed people they insist that grace is salvific and therefore only the saved receive grace. That is why the Baptist do not baptize babies because they say that a baby who is not elect will receive no baptism just water. This goes back to Calvin’s teaching that the sacrament is symbolic but made real by the faith of the elect believer. That is if one person who is elect receives the Table he gets the Body and Blood while a non-elect person gets bread and wine.

To that end they argue that the non-elect receive no grace from God and thus all the sacraments are symbolic and, though they would say not so, also meaningless.

So they would argue that Christ’s death which procures the grace of salvation, which is only for the elect, is therefore effective only for the elect and therefore only for the elect at all.

However this plainly contradicts Romans 1, 2Peter 3, etc. Many times the Apostolic Teaching affirms that grace is held out to all men and some appropriate it for salvation and some for condemnation because of the hardness of their hearts. While it is true the Bible says that only the elect will have faith it also says that men first are idolators and haters of God by their own hearts’ desires and so the lost are lost because of their own choosing and not God’s reprobation of them apart from their deeds.

“This is the condemnation of the world that light has come into the world but men love the darkness because their deeds are evil.”

God Bless

 

[MarcoPolo]

this plainly contradicts Romans 1, 2Peter 3, etc.

Which verses are you thinking of?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Do you know off-hand any encyclicals or Church docs that express the unlimited nature of Christ’s atonement? Or “universal redemption”, or any other term that suggests salvation is possible for all.

No, I don’t. But I haven’t read them exhaustively either.
Atonement doesn’t even get a heading in the glossary/index of the CCC.
Tracing out some of the logic, I come across CCC 580:

“Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself ‘the curse of the Law’ incurred by those who do not ‘abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them,’ for his death took place to redeem them 'from the transgressions under the first covenant.” (339)

(339) Gal 3:13, 3:10, Heb 9:15

hmmm…

This interests me, and previously on CAF I have come across an audio interview of a Calvinist which brought up a point called “common grace”, or a term akin to that. So, I’m not sure that the other post I just read can be made to stick solidly to Calvinists in general – although they may downplay with their vocabulary the link.
I’m starting to dig into this, but it’s not going to be really quick… obviously…!
I need to find and listen to that interview again.

Scripture passages which suggest an alternate understanding are Matth 20:28, 26:28, Mark 10:45, Mark 14:24; these say in the KJV (for many) and at least in some of them the Greek supports it literally; there may be more, this was just a cursory view of where some differences in scripture might be looked for.

 

[bogeydogg]

Which verses are you thinking of?

Romans 1:18-32 says that God has revealed himself to all men but men have refused this revelation by suppressing it in their unrighteousness.

2Peter 3:9

And concerning those who eat and drink but are not of the faith have not received the sacrament then refer to 1Cor 11:29 and ask how a person may not receive the sacrament and yet still eat condemnation on themselves?

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

Which verses are you thinking of?

Also

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous,…(1 Peter 3:18)

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In the CCC, the most relevant passages I am able to find are:

See Nos. 601, 604-605
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

It references the council of Quiercy (853); DS 624; 2 Cor 5:15 and John 2:2
But the Companion to the CCC does not show any quotes from such a council.

In the opening statement #601, (fn.400) references Mt 20:28 which says “αντι πολλων” (against-many) in Greek and “multis” in Latin Vulgate.
The NAB translates here as “many”; but see the footnote:
usccb.org/bible/matthew/20/

And with regard to the statement “to give his life as a ransom for many” – it footnotes Mt 18:14 which merely condemns the idea of “double predestination”;

Matth 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

These passage all converge on the Synod of Quiercy; and although I don’t have the text of it, the vatican does quote it on the hope that infants are saved (International theological commission):

1. The Synod of Quiercy (853) asserts: “Almighty God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim 2:4], although not all are saved. The fact that some are saved, however, is a gift of the Saviour, while the fact that others perish is the fault of those who perish”.[74] Spelling out the positive implications of this statement as regards the universal solidarity of all in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the synod further asserts that: “As there is no man who was, is or will be, whose nature was not assumed in him [the Lord Jesus Christ], likewise there is no one who was, is or will be, for whom he did not suffer, even though not everyone [factually] is redeemed by his passion”.[75]

Bold emphasis, mine.

So the argument of the CCC is tenuous in some regards; for Jesus assumed the form of a slave, but without sin. Since the passage begins with “as”, it appears to mean a causation in the abstract and not a personally identifiable suffering for each and every person.

Also, I’m going to just note that within the Catholic Church, predestination is not restricted to the Thomistic view which is what typically Calvinists convert to when entering the church. (Scott Hahn?). There is a ban in place by the Pope on historical controversy where either the Molinists or Thomists (or other variations) claiming each other to be heretics because of their apparently un-reconcilable differences on predestination. Neither side is permitted to be called heretical; although that makes the writing in the CCC on this point suspect.

eg: the CCC here may really be responding to a difference of opinion which rests on a disputed idea about predestination and is not clear simply because of internal politics.

The decree being likewise cited in the document on the hope of salvation for infants is indicative of the volatile nature of the teaching/scriptural interpretation as opposed to scholastic opinions, such as Thomas, and traditional uncertainty as in the case of Augustine.

I would call St. Paul, one of the “little ones” in the faith; and I do so because he could wish to be cut off from christ (Anathema) to save his brethren. eg: he brags that he would like to BE the messiah immediately after listing all the qualities of the messiah. There is, in one of the psalms, a line which reads that God took “captives” on high – foreshadowing the capture of glorious figures of false Gods (Pharisees…) their cleansing and bringing INTO heaven.

I think St. Paul even says of himself, I am unworthy to be called an Apostle – or again, something like – the Least of the apostles. God says that he who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to break it will be called “Least” in my kingdom.

On the outside of the Temple in Jerusalem, glorious ornaments captured in War were cleansed and then hung up – eg: Gold shields, etc., which were considered divine in the hands of Israel’s enemies; but which were used to decorate the OUTSIDE walls of the temple itself so much so that people commented that the temple radiated light like that of the Sun.

Intuitively, this is an image saying that even some anathema has a place in God’s kingdom; (after a little fire, perhaps?), and St. Paul is, I think, one of the best examples of such a thing; he was saved in spite of himself and had to live with demons until the day he was beheaded like the serpent is figuratively done in circumcision – by the Roman Axe.

Next week (Advent 2011) begins the changes in wording in the mass; and one of the first changes is “Glory to God in the highest and on Earth____Peace to people of Good will”.

Since this too applies to the very argument being discussed; I thought I would bring it up.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think the key to understanding this is the simple declaration that in Christ all men have died so that they may live. We by our sin deserve death and so death must be paid. Christ died literally for the death of the whole world and took it and the guilt of sin it conveys with him into the grave. Once there death died and Christ rose again to prove that life in him is perfect and incorruptible.

That death is the chief grace of God. All men have died with Christ and Christ has risen for the sake of all men. However grace is a received gift whose appropriation is by no means sure. The example Paul gives is in the Table. All eat some to life some to damnation. Nevertheless all receive the grace conveyed by the Body and Blood of our Lord. Those who take the Table and make it a common thing or refuse to live according to it do so to their own destruction because they have profaned the holy. Those who live according to the Table have proven they are Christ’s and reap its blessings.

So too is the death of Christ. Christ’s death is for all men. His resurrection is grace held out to all men (behold I hold out to you life and death) everyone receives the grace of Christ’s death only those who live according to the new life found in Christ will be blessed by it unto life. Those who treat this grace as common will profane it by not living according to it and thus reap destruction because of it not in spite of it.

God Bless

 

[MarcoPolo]

In the CCC, the most relevant passages I am able to find are:

See Nos. 601, 604-605
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

Thank you for your post. What do you think of:CCC#616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

 

[MarcoPolo]

a Calvinist which brought up a point called “common grace”

That may be a form or the same thing as the Calvinist idea of the “outward call.”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That may be a form or the same thing as the Calvinist idea of the “outward call.”

I found the thread I was listening to;
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122036
The originals have been moved (no surprise, this is a pretty old debate) – and even the MP3’s on this page appear to have some kind of corruption in them regarding repeated parts and cut short. I’m going to tinker with it and see if it’s my MP3 player, or the audios themselves. I’ll post again when/if I find the part which applies to the discussion – and compare it to “outward call”.


forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2918616&postcount=25

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thank you for your post. What do you think of:CCC#616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

It has the same issues as I mentioned before; I’ve been reading through these CCC passages and looking at the scriptures referenced carefully.

I first Notice the words used regarding the purposes of the cross; redemption and reparation, aka satisfaction and atonement;

The Israelites were redeemed from Pharaoh/Egypt and slavery – but God did not “pay” Pharaoh a ransom to release the Israelites; rather he struck Egypt as payment – and he also threatened to strike all of Israel who did not have the life of a lamb as a sign over their doors.

All of mankind inherited slavery; Egypt who indentured servants, also claimed rights over the slave’s children as well. Adam to Jesus, we all were born into slavery for someone had gained power over us. Thus, when Jesus is said to have been born a “slave” – that is what means he was born under the power of death.

There isn’t much of a meditation, in the CCC passage, how he became the head of “humanity” nor of what it means that he bore (on the cross) all of our sins; but there are references to the last supper with Judas included in the immediately preceding paragraphs.

When I look as Isaiah, on the suffering servant, the connection between Jesus suffering (grief/travail – like a woman giving birth) and his body being bruised are not coincidental. It is through reproduction and the gifts of inheritance that Eve and Adam(esp) are found to be the head of all “humanity” (humani generis).
Just so, Jesus can only be head inasmuch as something of him (eucharist/incarnation) is also found in all the children that he “begets” from the cross.

I also don’t think it a coincidence that God says he ransomed Israel from Egypt – when he wanted to bring fourth his “firstborn son” (as a nation) from them. For, this ransom did not pay off Pharaoh for the price of the indentured servants – nor did it please the Father that man (made in God’s image) should die; but it bruised Egypt such that Israel could come forth out of her.

What do you think the CCC means by the statement “who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons” ?

I can only see one connection; Man has logic/logos – beasts do not; There is no man, then, that exists without having God’s logic forming their humanity (logic/rationality) which exceeds that of mere substance or earth;

I think St. Paul said it something like this – “In him we live and move and have our being”;

 

[MarcoPolo]

What do you think the CCC means by the statement “who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons” ?

I think it can be understood in light of the previous sentence: “No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all.” He is the greatest human who brings humanity with him when he reverses man’s futile condition of Adam.