1 Jn 2:1-2 who does it apply to ?

[Radagast]

This may come down to a translation problem. Here is the Greek from the Interlinear Greek NT (the Greek word is followed by Strong's number and the English translation:

Rom 5:10 ειG1487 IF, γαρG1063 FOR εχθροιG2190 ENEMIES οντεςG5607 [G5752] BEING κατηλλαγημενG2644 [G5648] WE WERE RECONCILED τωG3588 TO θεωG2316 GOD διαG1223 THROUGH τουG3588 THE θανατουG2288 DEATH τουG3588 OF υιουG5207 HIS αυτουG846 SON, πολλωG4183 MUCH μαλλονG3123 MORE καταλλαγεντεςG2644 [G5651] HAVING BEEN RECONCILED σωθησομεθαG4982 [G5701] WE SHALL BE SAVED ενG1722 τηG3588 BY ζωηG2222 LIFE. αυτουG846 HIS​

Translating each word in English reads;

If for enemies being we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled we shall be saved by life his.​

One doesn't translate that way, actually; one has to know some grammar. The NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB all have "while we were enemies," and the NKJV has "when." That's because that is the best translation into English, given the use of the participle οντες. Being a present participle, it describes something that happens at the same time as the main action in the clause -- i.e. the reconciliation (see Duff, The Elements of New Testament Greek, p. 160).

The Greek does not provide a time element for when the reconciliation took place.

The grammar provides a time element.

 

[Radagast]

Messiah's death was for ALL, but not all will benefit from it.

Calvin expresses that thought as "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect."

 

[brother Paul]

People with sins charged against them can't be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:19. So sinners Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10.

I can see now the problem. You have been persuaded by a reformed theology closer to pure Calvinism like that of John MacAurthur (as opposed to that of say R. C . Sproul).

You re-interpret the plain language to say they are already the reconciled while yet sinners, but this is incorrect.. For example, the phrase "be ye reconciled" makes it necessary that this state of "reconciled" is something they are not yet, but are being encouraged to become. ONLY people presently estranged (who need it) can become reconciled.

People already reconciled would not require the blood of Christ. One is not simultaneously reconciled and an enemy (with God and apart and at enmity against God)

 

[jocor]

One doesn't translate that way, actually; one has to know some grammar. The NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB all have "while we were enemies," and the NKJV has "when." That's because that is the best translation into English, given the use of the participle οντες. Being a present participle, it describes something that happens at the same time as the main action in the clause -- i.e. the reconciliation (see Duff, The Elements of New Testament Greek, p. 160).

Here is another example;

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus (Messiah Yeshua) ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ (Messiah). ASV

Eph 2:13 νυνιG3570 δεG1161 BUT NOW ενG1722 IN χριστωG5547 CHRIST ιησουG2424 JESUS, υμειςG5210 YE οιG3588 WHO ποτεG4218 ONCE οντεςG5607 [G5752] WERE μακρανG3112 AFAR OFF εγγυςG1451 NEAR εγενηθητεG1096 [G5675] ARE BECOME ενG1722 BY τωG3588 THE αιματιG129 BLOOD τουG3588 OF THE χριστουG5547 CHRIST. IGNT
​

"Were" is the Greek οντες. We "were/being" far off, but were made nigh when we became "in Messiah Yeshua" by receiving him as our blood sacrifice. We were not made nigh when he died.

 

[Malachi]

That verse does not say that Christ died for all mankind without exception.

When a person deliberately contradicts God, then there are extremely serious consequences.

 

[Radagast]

Here is another example;

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus (Messiah Yeshua) ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ (Messiah). ASV

Eph 2:13 νυνιG3570 δεG1161 BUT NOW ενG1722 IN χριστωG5547 CHRIST ιησουG2424 JESUS, υμειςG5210 YE οιG3588 WHO ποτεG4218 ONCE οντεςG5607 [G5752] WERE μακρανG3112 AFAR OFF εγγυςG1451 NEAR εγενηθητεG1096 [G5675] ARE BECOME ενG1722 BY τωG3588 THE αιματιG129 BLOOD τουG3588 OF THE χριστουG5547 CHRIST. IGNT​

That reads νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγγὺς ἐγενήθητε ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. There is again the present participle ὄντες but also ποτε = "in time past, once."

The NIV translates "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." The ESV has the almost identical "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Obviously, we were "far away" up until the moment that we were "brought near."

 

[Radagast]

People with sins charged against them can't be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:19. So sinners Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10.

That seems rather contradictory. It is exactly "people with sins charged against them" who need to be reconciled.

 

[jocor]

That reads νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγγὺς ἐγενήθητε ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. There is again the present participle ὄντες but also ποτε = "in time past, once."

The NIV translates "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." The ESV has the almost identical "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Obviously, we were "far away" up until the moment that we were "brought near."

That's my point. "Far away" until brought near. In Romans 5:10, we are enemies until reconciled. Ephesians 2:13 needs to add "once" for a time element because "once" (and "while") is not part of ὄντες. It should not be read, "But now in Messiah Yeshua once while you were far away have been brought near ...". Romans 5:10 does not add a time element such as "once" or "while". It is simply telling us we were enemies, but not when we were reconciled. 2Co 5:20 tells us when the reconciliation takes effect (not at the cross, but at conversion) since Paul is telling them to be reconciled after Yeshua's death, not that they were already reconciled. If the world was reconciled at Yeshua's death, 2Co 5:20 would be total nonsense. The way to reconciliation was made through his death, but it takes effect at conversion.

 

[Radagast]

Romans 5:10 does not add a time element such as "once" or "while".

Yes it does, through the use of a present participle, as previously discussed.

 

[Deborah13]

When Christ is said to be our propitiation, it means that for us He has appeased the wrath of God on our behalf, hence we cannot be of them it is written of this Jn 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

It would be a contradiction to be one of those the wrath of God abideth on, and at the same time belong to the world of 1 Jn 2:2 !

I don't see any contradiction. The Greek word translated as wrath is the same word used in this verse and many others.
Rom 3:5 And, if our unrighteousness God's righteousness doth establish, what shall we say? is God unrighteous who is inflicting the wrath? [punishment] (after the manner of a man I speak)
Joh 3:36 he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath [punishment] of God doth remain upon him.'

Why does the punishment/wrath of God remain on him? Because he refuses to reconcile himself to God, through the Son.
2Co 5:20 in behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as if God were calling through us, we beseech, in behalf of Christ, `Be ye reconciled to God;'

Do you not believe that the whole world is condemned if they are not reconciled through the Son?
Rom 3:6 let it not be! since how shall God judge the world?
Rom 3:9 What, then? are we better? not at all! for we did before charge both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin,
Rom 3:10 according as it hath been written--`There is none righteous, not even one;

I'm pretty sure you will agree that in these verses that 'the world' does mean the 'whole world' and that 'all' means every single human being ever born into this world, except Jesus, Himself. Paul makes that clear in verse 10.

It would be a contradiction to say that God desires all men to be saved, and even commands that all men everywhere repent, but does not provided all men with the means to do that. When God reconciled Himself to the whole world, He left ALL men without an excuse for their rebellion against Him.
Matthew 21:1 - 14, this parable makes it very clear what God means by being chosen, as Luke 14:16-24 makes it clear that excuses will not be acceptable.

 

[Malachi]

It would be a contradiction to say that God desires all men to be saved, and even commands that all men everywhere repent, but does not provided all men with the means to do that. When God reconciled Himself to the whole world, He left ALL men without an excuse for their rebellion against Him.

Exactly. Any teaching which fails to acknowledge these facts is not from God.

 

[jocor]

Yes it does, through the use of a present participle, as previously discussed.

If that is the case, then please harmonize a reconciliation of unbelievers at the cross with 2Co 5:20.

 

[Roro1972]

This means that Christ by His death for them unto the law and justice of God, for all their sins, hath appeased the wrath of God for them, hence there can be no wrath from God upon them.

Not sure what you mean here. The ones under the law must give up the law and come to believe Jesus is the one and only door to salvation.
also the first three words in the verse makes me think he is writing to NEW Christians by calling them little children
and later in the chapter he speaks to older Christians

 

[FreeGrace]

It doesn't say He did die for everyone without exception, yet many appeal to it for that reason.

It actually does say that, by the phrase "for the whole world". There's just no way from the context to reduce "whole world" to mean anything less than everyone.

'Whole' never means 'less than whole'.

If John wanted to communicate that Christ atoned for only one special group, he would have said so.

John used an inclusive term to denote who Christ died for.

Limited atonement doctrine uses exclusive terms to denote that Christ didn't die for everyone.

The only way to defend LA doctrine is to add to Scripture; saying that John meant "world of the elect" or some such wording to narrow the scope of Christ's death.

But John didn't write that. By "whole world", he was including (inclusive) everyone in the world.

 

[chessman]

John tells us what he means by "the world". No need to speculate what he meant:

1 John 2:15-17 (LEB). Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because everything that is in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the arrogance of material possessions—is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world is passing away, and its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
​

I submit (subject to contextual/Textual) criticism that one can get a clear Johanian meaning of verses 2:1-2 by simply copy/paste the meaning he gives in verses 15-17, into verse 2:

and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of everything that is in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the arrogance of material possessions.​

In otherwords, Christ propitiated for sin period. (all sins, not just ours). Everything that is not of God has been paid for by Christ (God).

Thus, no reason to continue to sacrifice goats/bulls. Simple, right?