R. C. Sproul Jr.

[heartstrings]

I was at Walmart this morning, having a new battery installed in my truck, and bumped into someone I've done business with in the past. He's active in the SBC, knows I'm a Christian, invited me to a local meeting with R C. Sproul Jr. as the guest speaker. The brochure he handed me says that RCJr. is a Presbyterian: I didn't know that. Anyway, I was curious as to how his teachings compared to his Calvinist father and this was the first thing that came up:. http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/ask-rc/rc-babies-die/ That didn't appear to give a definitive answer to the question put forth and neither does this one except, in an indirect and roundabout way, to say that no: Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. . http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/ask-rc/rc-give-thoughts-1-john-22-and-propitiation-sins-world/.  The guy said he already has 9 people invited to the meeting. But I won't be going.

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by heartstrings

[No Nicolaitans]

I didn't know there was a R.C. Sproul Jr.

Here's the verse in question...

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

However, according to Sproul Jr.'s Calvinist word-wrangling...and his claim that when taken in context...I think he meant when taken in Calvintext, the verse is saying...

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our the Jew's sins (NOT believer's sins): and not for ours the Jews only (NOT for believers only), but also for the sins of the whole world the elect and chosen Gentiles located throughout the whole world.

The "context" of 1 John is that it was written to believers...not just to Jews. But you gotta wrangle it around somehow to make it fit Calvinism...

[DaveW]

Presbyterian AND calvinist?

 Well that's  a surprise...... (not!)

[No Nicolaitans]

 

1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The "context" of 1 John is that it was written to believers...not just to Jews. But you gotta wrangle it around somehow to make it fit Calvinism...

​Oh...and the context of "the whole world" is...the whole world.

Sproul Jr. and his Calvinist word-wrangling has completely redefined what God's word clearly says. Whole world means whole world, but Sproul Jr. would have people believe that "whole" means "pieces of the whole".

This Calvinistic word-wrangling is so monotonous. Maybe that's their plan. Get all monotonousy with their monotonousogetics so that people throw their hands up in surrender to their monotonousogenics.

Hey! I just made up some new Calvinistic Theology terms that they like so much!

They can soon be found in the Doctrine of Monotonousomy.

[heartstrings]

Why....that's just Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious....

[Old-Pilgrim]

see also

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

[Leonard Sylvia]

So, in John 12:19, did in the entire world go after Jesus?

[heartstrings]

¹⁹ The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him

[Leonard Sylvia]

Did the entire world go after Jesus?

[heartstrings]

No, no doubt the Pharisees had no way of knowing if the Australian Aborigines, Amazonian Indians and Arctic Eskimos went after Jesus; but the Bible doesn't say "the world went after Jesus" it says "the Pharisees said". So, what is your point?

[Leonard Sylvia]

World doesn't necessarily always mean world. You have to consider the text on to whom the author was writing. Jesus dieing for the "world " doesn't necessarily mean the whole world, thus universalism is true then.

i read a quote on here, I don't know from whom. But the question was asked; was the OT sacrifices for the Jews or for the whole world?

[Invicta]

We might say, "Give my regards to everyone"  We don' literally mean 'everyone'  in the whole world.  Where we would say 'everyone' the French would say "Toute le monde, (all he world)"   It is a figure of speech, presumably the Jews had a similar one.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Invicta
Spelling

[John81]

This has led some to speculate that much of what's written in Revelation isn't referring to the whole world, but often regional things.

[Old-Pilgrim]

World doesn't necessarily always mean world. You have to consider the text on to whom the author was writing. Jesus dieing for the "world " doesn't necessarily mean the whole world, thus universalism is true then.

i read a quote on here, I don't know from whom. But the question was asked; was the OT sacrifices for the Jews or for the whole world?

God Gave the Doninion to man over Creation, Man had authority and it was legit, Man lost it to Satan, man was in sin debt, Christ died for all men and paid for it all, now it all belongs; in every sense of the word; to Him, so he has all the rights over the living and the dead, the saved and the lost.

[Leonard Sylvia]

God Gave the Doninion to man over Creation, Man had authority and it was legit, Man lost it to Satan, man was in sin debt, Christ died for all men and paid for it all, now it all belongs; in every sense of the word; to Him, so he has all the rights over the living and the dead, the saved and the lost.

you still didn't answer the question? Did the sacrifices in the OT for the Jews or the whole world?