The "whole world" in 1 John

[Glenn P]

1 John 2

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD:

I have created this thread because the muzicman has recently been engaging in what I consider to be proof texting, by quoting this verse in numerous places at TWeb to prove that the Bible teaches universal atonement. I do not think this is exegetically defensible, or at any rate, if it is a possible interpretation is is by no means the only plausible one, and as such this text cannot be said to prove that the Bible teaches universal atonement.

WARNING - TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

If anyone wishes to argue about other theological issues, or if anyone decides that this would be a good opportunity to attack, belittle, insult, employ sarcasm, try to show as little grace as possible, and undermine the genuine Christian character or committment of Calvinists (and yes, that's for RanRan, who i do not expect to see in this thread, as it is for genuine discussion only), do not do it in this thread. This thread is only to descuss the issue I have identified above. It's not about Arminianism, Calvinism, or Open View Theism, it is about the first Epistle of John. That's it. Anything else is off topic, unless it contributes to that very strictly defined exegetical focus. As such I will request that it be removed. I hope that's clear. I will expect every contributer to abide by this

There are two ways in which themuzicman's claim falls short of the mark. There may be more, but the two problems I will identify with using verse 2 as a proof text for universal atonement are 1) the identifiaction of who John is referring to with the word "ours" and 2) The unjustified assumption that the term "the whole world" refers to every individual in past (n the sense of "each man" or "every man"), present and future existence.





1) Who is in mind when John says "not only for ours"?

If this is a text that teaches universal atonement, then one would expect that when John says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world," what he means is "He is the atoning Sacrifice for Christians, those who have faith in christ, and not only for those people, but also for the rest of the people in the world as well."

The first thing to observe then is that it is just not obviously correct, much less necessary, to understand the "ours" in this way. In context, as john reminds the reader in verse 1 as quoted at the start of this post, we have a discussion involving John and a group of Christians, affectionately called "my dear children." Thus, the first candidate for the meaning of "ours" is "yours and mine," namely John and His audience. Stephen Smalley seems to be suggesting something along these lies when he says it refers to "those of John’s immediate circle." (Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 51: 1, 2, 3 John, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.)

Smalley suggests that the "ours" refers to what he calls the Johannine community, composed this way:

Stephen Smalley's Word Cmmentary

On the one hand there were Jewish-Christians, who had professed their commitment to Jesus but still felt a loyalty to Judaism. This section of the community may have found it difficult to accept the messiahship of Jesus, but its members would have given an exalted place to the Jewish law. Such views have something in common with the primitive sect of the Jews known as the Ebionites. On the other hand there were HellenisticChristians (including, perhaps, some Jewish-Christians who lived in a Hellenistic environment), who had emerged from a pagan religious background but were still influenced by the beliefs enshrined in Hellenistic systems of salvation, which depended on a dualist (“gnostic”) background. Such believers would have found it difficult to accept the full humanity of Jesus, and their views are close to the position which was later defined as docetism (belief in a “phantom” Christ).

© source where applicable

The contrast then is not between all the saved or all the church, and those outside. It is between a much smaller group, and the rest of the world. This makes sense especially in light of chapter 1 opening as an apparent polemic against the Ebionite view of Christ, where the Christ is the Spirit who descended on the man Jesus, and departed at the cross. I say this because this error was a specifically Jewish one, which existed among Jewish converts to the faith who had a problem with the idea of a divine man. Writing to this crowd, stressing the fact that the cross was not just for "us" but also for "the whole world" is a way of rejecting Jewish nationalism, which at that point was clearly a problem for Christianity, as evidence, for example, in the Jerusalem Council.



2) How many people are "the whole world"?

The claim that really carries the whole "universal atonement" reading of this passage is that "whole world" refers to each and every individual human in the universe. My second two points therefore address this assumption (and it is an assumption, that is, a belief not arising from the text, but brought to the text, as the reader finds it to be a plausible belief about this language).

The second point is this: That is is not necessary to believe that "the whole X" always carries the meaning of every individual within X. However, any reader of the new Testament, whether Calvinist, Arminian, Protestanbt Catholic or otherwise, knows that this is not the case. The Greek word here is holos. Like pan or pas, it is often used in cases where a class or category is in mind, but not every item within that class or category. Examples of this type are probably the most common. For example Matthew 4L24, "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, etc." That doesn't mean that no matter where you went in Syria, Jesus' fame had reached that place. In Mark 1:33, Jesus went to Andrew's house and was healing people there, and the author says, again, using the word holos, "And all the city was gathered together at the door." There are dozens of such cass, as I know themuzicman will not dispute. So we know that the term does not always mean what the proponent of Universal atonement might wish it to mean in 1 John. The usagehere may well be intended in a similar way to John's quotation from Jesus in His Gospel when he says that "I, when i am lifted up, will draw all men to myself," where jesus appears to be drawing on the prophecy of Isaiah 2:2,

Scripture Verse:

In the last days
the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.

If this connection is intentional, then "all men" in John's Gospel means "men of all nations" (as opposed to, for xample, "every man), a meaning that is a legitimate candidate in 1 John as well - which is, again, especially appropriate against the backdrop of Jewish nationalism.


Am I here denying universal atonement? No, I am not. Am I saying that this text denies universal atonement? No, I am not. Am I saying that the words used in this passage cannot be interpreted to refer to universal atonement? No I am not. I am saying only that this text is unable to serve as a proof text for universal atonement, simply because of the plausibility of alternative meanings. The contrast is not between the church and everyone else, it is just to say that atonement is not for one small group only, but for mankind, people from all the world. I do not need this as a proof text, and even if I did, I would have to admit - as people who believe in universal atonement must admit - that it does not do the job, convenient though it would be if it did.

[scottmcc]

This verse only teaches universal OFFERING-SACRIFICE, no one can receive forgiveness unless they REPENT and seek forgiveness. Many are called, few are chosen. God wishes no one to perish, but COME to repentance.

[Glenn P]

Scott, the doctrine of Universal Atonement is that Jesus' death atoned for the sins of every human individual in the past present and future, but they must make the right sort of response to God in order to receive the benefits of that atoning sacrifice. It is not the same as universal salvation, although some people believe that it actually entails universal salvation. I hope that clarifies.

[themuzicman]

Excellent post, Theonomy. I appreciate your willingness to engage this text.

I have no disagreement with point #1. Whether John had in mind only the unspecified group that he is writing to or the church at large may be debatable, but your point is certainly valid.


And, to some extent, I don't have a major disagreement with you about point 2. [greek]pan[/greek] is freqently used as hyperbole to reflect an undifferentiated subset of a larger group, such as "all the men of the city" or "all Jerusalem." These are clear examples of the hyperbolic use of [greek]pan[/greek], as are the other examples you provide. John 12:32 may be debatable, but I wouldn't debate it, since I take it that way, as well.

I have little doubt that [greek]`oloV[/greek], given a setting that demands hyperbolic exegesis can be used in the same way.

However, specific to this text, I see a problem:

Let us look at how John uses [greek]kosmoV[/greek]. 1 John 2:2 is the first use of [greek]kosmoV[/greek], but certainly not the last:

1 John 2

15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and [also] its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

Notice that [greek]kosmoV[/greek] takes on the context of those in the world who sin, its participants, who live in their sins of lust and pride. This remains the use of [greek]kosmoV[/greek] throughout the rest of 1 John. John is instructing them not to embrace their lifestyle of lust and pride.

1 John 3

13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him

Notice that the "world", those who are participants in the world's sins, are the ones who hate John's readers. So, this world includes any unregenerate who sin.

John even calls these same people of the world "the children of the devil" in 3:10.

So, if we go back to 1 John 2:2, we see that John is specifying that Christ died for the sins of his readers, but not just those sins, but the sins of the whole world, all sins of lust and pride committed by the world, that is anything that is not from the Father (see 2:16).

Thus, I don't believe that we have a hyperbolic or limited use of [greek]`oloV[/greek], since the context of [greek]`oloV kosmoV[/greek] seems to point to anyone who is not saved, but takes part in the world's sin.

Michael

[Solly]

What is wrong with a universalistic application of this verse?

John often uses 'world' in reference to that which is in opposition to either faithful Jewry, or even more so to the Kingdom of God. It therefore means every single human being. That it does not mean unviersal salvation is apparent by the rest of his argument, here and in his Gospel, that faith is required. Salvation for the Jews was seen as for the jews, you had to become one, and there was resistance to gentiles becoming Jews. John is pointing out that Christ is for the world, John 3.16, as it stands in opposition to God. The Gospel doesn't count for much if that is then phrased abstractly as 'the world' rather than as 'you in the world who hear this.' and who are opposed to the Father and his Son. If we need to label each and every person as standing in this relation to God, then we need to show that there is an equally universal standing in relation to us by God in Christ. Unless you rely on soteriological election of course, but even Calvinists hold to 'sufficient for all...'

[Glenn P]

OK, so we agree that the language itself does not commit to universal atonement, but you say that as an inductive argument, you can use it that way since John has a tendency to use the word "world" (kosmos) in a moral way, rather than simply a reference to the world around us, and as such you see this as two groups: Jesus didn't make propitiation only for the saved, but for the wicked (perhaps we might say "worldly") as well.

I think this reading of verses 1-2 is, however, slightly eroded by my point 1, a point which you accepted, since the contrast is not between the saved and the unsaved in verses 1 and 2 at all, but between John's small community and those outside, including, importantly, Gentiles.

But additionally, I think there are doubts to be raised as well on the basis of the overall Johannine use of kosmos. I think that shows that even though he often uses it in his epistles in a moral sense, he as a writer far more often uses it in a locatory sense (if I can coin a word), in that he more often uses it to refer to a place. And even if that were not so (and it is), he uses it often enough in that way that we should not think that it has to have a moral sense, and as such even if this text could be used to support universal atonement (something I have not denied), it's not the case that it could only mean that.

Let me show you what I mean. In the NIV, the word "world" appears 101 times in the Gospels. But it has anything but an even distribution among the Gospel writers. Of seventy nine times the word kosmos appears, it appears in John's Gospel. That's quite a difference, suggesting no more than that it is simply far more common in John's vocabulary than in that of the other evangelists. It also means that we have a very good sample of how John tends to use the word as a rule of thumb - not an infallible and always binding rule, but a general one. I have just looked up all 79 references, and I can tell you that I can count on probably one hand the number of times it certainly means "world" in a negative moral sense. Maybe two hands at a very imaginative stretch, but that's a very small minority.

There are also at least some times in John's Eistles - and I am assuming the same author throughout - where the word does not carry an inherently moral meaning. For example in 2 John 7, he says that many deceivers have gone out into the world, where deceivers is obviously a moral term, but kosmos does not appear to be. In 1 John 4:17 he says that "we are in this world" with no suggestion of a moral meaning. In 1 john 4;9 he says that God sent His Son "into the world," with no implied moral meaning. In 1 John 4:3 he says that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world, where it looks to me like it just uses kosmos as a location. In 1 john 4:1 he says that false prophets have gone out into the kosmos, and it is just a location, not a wicked group. In 1 John 3:17 he says that if we have (literally) "this world's good" but we do not share it with those in need, the love of God does not dwell in us, and it is clear that kosmos is not used in a moral sense there.

Even at times where the world is condemned in some way, it is not clear that the word carries an inheently moral meaning. For example in 1 John 2:15 he says "do not love the world." But that's not because it is evil, but rather because it is not of God n the sense that what we desire in this world is perishing. This world is passing away, and we should love - above all - that which is eternal.

So I don't think it's plausible to say that 1 John 2:1-2 teaches universal atonement on the grounds that John uses the word kosmos to refer to the unsaved. occasionally he does, but normally he does not.

[Glenn P]

What is wrong with a universalistic application of this verse?

John often uses 'world' in reference to that which is in opposition to either faithful Jewry, or even more so to the Kingdom of God. It therefore means every single human being. That it does not mean unviersal salvation is apparent by the rest of his argument, here and in his Gospel, that faith is required.

Solly, I'm not interested in whether universal salvation follows or not. I do not believe monergism requires limited atonement, and I do not believe Arminianism requires universal atonement.

My only interest here is the exegesis of this one text of Scripture, and whether it requires universal atonement or not. I'm being as un-doctrinal as I possibly can about this.

Salvation for the Jews was seen as for the jews, you had to become one, and there was resistance to gentiles becoming Jews. John is pointing out that Christ is for the world, John 3.16, as it stands in opposition to God.

This I absolutely agree with.

[Solly]

Solly, I'm not interested in whether universal salvation follows or not. I do not believe monergism requires limited atonement, and I do not believe Arminianism requires universal atonement.

My only interest here is the exegesis of this one text of Scripture, and whether it requires universal atonement or not. I'm being as un-doctrinal as I possibly can about this.

This I absolutely agree with.

OK.
Having read your latest post, I think there is a danger that you could say of any individual verse that it doesn't teach the doctrine it is reported to. We never rely on just one verse for a doctrine, but the cumulative effect. Perhaps on it's own it does not conclusively prove the doctrine, but its weight is added to an overall weight of evidence.

Jaltus once pointed out, generally, that we rely on control texts. This is such a text for those holding to a certain angle on doctrine. but the same can be applied elsewhere, such as to the doctrine of soteriological election.

I think all that will happen here is that both of you will exegete the text after a fashion, but you then you have to stop there, brecause after that you ARE getting doctrinal, you can't do exegesis without being doctrinal.

You say that 'world' is predominately not used in a moral sense, but John Gill - the exegete's exegete of his day - says it is used mostly used perjoratively in John, being in opposition to 'the Jews', and is therefore moral, because it means those outside God's covenant, that is, sinners, and those who, again contra the Jewish expectation, where the target of God's grace.

[themuzicman]

OK, so we agree that the language itself does not commit to universal atonement, but you say that as an inductive argument, you can use it that way since John has a tendency to use the word "world" (kosmos) in a moral way, rather than simply a reference to the world around us, and as such you see this as two groups: Jesus didn't make propitiation only for the saved, but for the wicked (perhaps we might say "worldly") as well.

I think [greek]`oloV[/greek] is important as language. Obviously [greek]kosmoV[/greek] is less clear.

I think this reading of verses 1-2 is, however, slightly eroded by my point 1, a point which you accepted, since the contrast is not between the saved and the unsaved in verses 1 and 2 at all, but between John's small community and those outside, including, importantly, Gentiles.

If we could establish that John's ministry was only to Jews and exlusively Jewish and there were some other indicator that John was referrring to this disctintion between Jews and Gentiles, then you'd have grounds to stand upon.

The problem is (I'll defend this in a minute) is that the distinction isn't between Jews and Gentiles, but between those who are "in the world" and those who are not. John revives his metaphor of light and darkness in this same way. So, while your general statement that this is a possible reading doesn't survive the context in which it is written in terms of the groups John makes distinct.

But additionally, I think there are doubts to be raised as well on the basis of the overall Johannine use of kosmos. I think that shows that even though he often uses it in his epistles in a moral sense, he as a writer far more often uses it in a locatory sense (if I can coin a word), in that he more often uses it to refer to a place. And even if that were not so (and it is), he uses it often enough in that way that we should not think that it has to have a moral sense, and as such even if this text could be used to support universal atonement (something I have not denied), it's not the case that it could only mean that.

Obviously John isn't going to restrict the use of a word to a particular meaning every time he uses it across multiple writings.

...

Agreed re: gospel of John

There are also at least some times in John's Eistles - and I am assuming the same author throughout - where the word does not carry an inherently moral meaning. For example in 2 John 7, he says that many deceivers have gone out into the world, where deceivers is obviously a moral term, but kosmos does not appear to be. In 1 John 4:17 he says that "we are in this world" with no suggestion of a moral meaning. In 1 john 4;9 he says that God sent His Son "into the world," with no implied moral meaning. In 1 John 4:3 he says that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world, where it looks to me like it just uses kosmos as a location. In 1 john 4:1 he says that false prophets have gone out into the kosmos, and it is just a location, not a wicked group. In 1 John 3:17 he says that if we have (literally) "this world's good" but we do not share it with those in need, the love of God does not dwell in us, and it is clear that kosmos is not used in a moral sense there.

Agree re 3:17...

The rest I would say that John does have a moralistic sense in that the false prophets, Christ, and the deceivers are going into the unregenerate world, the people who are characterized by the world, which John describes as those who pursue the lusts and pride. John's use of light and darkness is reflective of his use in John 1 in that there are those who do not comprehend the gospel, and, in John's terms, are of the world and act like they are of the world in that they indulge in the lusts and pride. It's not necessesarily a moral indictment of those in the world, but descriptive of their character nonetheless.

Even at times where the world is condemned in some way, it is not clear that the word carries an inheently moral meaning. For example in 1 John 2:15 he says "do not love the world." But that's not because it is evil, but rather because it is not of God n the sense that what we desire in this world is perishing. This world is passing away, and we should love - above all - that which is eternal.

You must be reading a different 1 John than I am. One of John's major points in 1 John is that those who are of God follow His commandments. To John, being "of God" or "of the world" is very much a moral statement regarding the character of those who are "of God" or "of the world." I don't see how you can separate the two in light of the overall character of 1 John.

So I don't think it's plausible to say that 1 John 2:1-2 teaches universal atonement on the grounds that John uses the word kosmos to refer to the unsaved. occasionally he does, but normally he does not.

But the question isn't whether John normally uses it in that way, but to look at how John is using [greek]kosmoV[/greek] here. 1 John 2:2 itself doesn't give us many clues, but the significant uses of "world" that follow this verse paint a clearer picture, and that is one of contrast between those who are of God and those who are of the World, meaning the unsaved.

Michael

[smaller]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: ApologiaNick

It is requested to honor the requests of OPers if they wish input on a specific topic. If you have a dispute, you are free to start your own thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Zguy28]

From John Gill's commentary:

and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:

but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world"

It appears that for Jews to refer to anyone "not jewish" as "the world" was not uncommon. And I too agree, it doesn't refer to universal salvation, but to those who partake in the forgiveness. It would mean universal salvation if EVERYONE believed, but we know thats not happening.

[themuzicman]

From John Gill's commentary:


It appears that for Jews to refer to anyone "not jewish" as "the world" was not uncommon. And I too agree, it doesn't refer to universal salvation, but to those who partake in the forgiveness. It would mean universal salvation if EVERYONE believed, but we know thats not happening.

But it's not referring to forgiveness, but propitiation.

Furthermore, the distinction in groups isn't Jew/Greek, but "children of God" and children of the Devil."

So, the whole Jew/Greek thing seems foreign to the text.

michael

[Glenn P]

OK.
Having read your latest post, I think there is a danger that you could say of any individual verse that it doesn't teach the doctrine it is reported to. We never rely on just one verse for a doctrine, but the cumulative effect. Perhaps on it's own it does not conclusively prove the doctrine, but its weight is added to an overall weight of evidence.

Jaltus once pointed out, generally, that we rely on control texts. This is such a text for those holding to a certain angle on doctrine. but the same can be applied elsewhere, such as to the doctrine of soteriological election.

I think all that will happen here is that both of you will exegete the text after a fashion, but you then you have to stop there, brecause after that you ARE getting doctrinal, you can't do exegesis without being doctrinal.

You say that 'world' is predominately not used in a moral sense, but John Gill - the exegete's exegete of his day - says it is used mostly used perjoratively in John, being in opposition to 'the Jews', and is therefore moral, because it means those outside God's covenant, that is, sinners, and those who, again contra the Jewish expectation, where the target of God's grace.

Solly, the reason i started this thread is that themuzicman has claimed recently that on its own this verse requires universal atonement. What you're suggesting is that we allow our exegesis of this verse to be informed by our systematization of the exegesis of a range of other verses. I agree witht his, but it's the very thing muz has explicitly denied that we should do, hence my insistence in this thread of sticking to one verse.

[Glenn P]

I think [greek]`oloV[/greek] is important as language. Obviously [greek]kosmoV[/greek] is less clear.

We agree that holos is important, but we also agree that the semantic range of the word allows for either view here. Your reply depended upon you claims about John's typical use of kosmos in his epistles.

If we could establish that John's ministry was only to Jews and exlusively Jewish and there were some other indicator that John was referrring to this disctintion between Jews and Gentiles, then you'd have grounds to stand upon.

I think there's a very plausible indication that this is his intention based on his reference to "all men" in his Gospel and its connection to prophetic fulfilment.

The problem is (I'll defend this in a minute) is that the distinction isn't between Jews and Gentiles, but between those who are "in the world" and those who are not. John revives his metaphor of light and darkness in this same way. So, while your general statement that this is a possible reading doesn't survive the context in which it is written in terms of the groups John makes distinct.

Well, this rebuttal itself depends absolutely on your claim that the term kosmos in John always carries the moral sense of referring to those who are not saved and (I am presuming) will not be, the enemies of God. But I have shown that even though John uses the word this way, he usually does not, either in the Gospel or here, in his epistles.

Obviously John isn't going to restrict the use of a word to a particular meaning every time he uses it across multiple writings.

I agree. And the fact that this is true shows that you can't just assume that since there are some times in his epistles when the word requires a moral interpretation, it must carry that meaning in verse 2. That does not follow. It might carry that meaning, but nobody may insist that it needs to, since in this epistle is often does not.

Agreed re: gospel of John

You should also agree re: John Epistles. i showed not just one or two but numerous times in his epistles where it doesn't require a moral reading.

The rest I would say that John does have a moralistic sense in that the false prophets, Christ, and the deceivers are going into the unregenerate world, the people who are characterized by the world, which John describes as those who pursue the lusts and pride. John's use of light and darkness is reflective of his use in John 1 in that there are those who do not comprehend the gospel, and, in John's terms, are of the world and act like they are of the world in that they indulge in the lusts and pride. It's not necessesarily a moral indictment of those in the world, but descriptive of their character nonetheless.

You need to appreciate that this is far from necessary. To just say that Christ came into the world is, at face value, fairly neutral. The same is true of the other references you list here. I would agree, as I would agree with verse 2, that what you're proposing is in the realm of linguistic possibility, but a lot more than possibility is required for a proof text to carry weight.

You must be reading a different 1 John than I am. One of John's major points in 1 John is that those who are of God follow His commandments. To John, being "of God" or "of the world" is very much a moral statement regarding the character of those who are "of God" or "of the world." I don't see how you can separate the two in light of the overall character of 1 John.

The trouble is, hiding beneath the word "overall" is your belief that overall, the term kosmos carries an inherently moral meaning in John's Epistles. As I have said, this is sometimes clearly true, and many times not.

But the question isn't whether John normally uses it in that way, but to look at how John is using [greek]kosmoV[/greek] here.

If by "here," you mean in John's Epistles and this epistle in particular, that's not a bad point. How John normally uses th eword is obviously a very important exegetical consideration, but yes, how he uses it in this letter is even more important. The problem is a) You yourself tried to make the argument that normally in this letter John uses the word in a moral sense, and b) I showed that this - even if it is a possible interpretation, is definitely not an obvious one, as there are many times in John's letter where no such meaning is required at all. So "here" there's no compelling argument that "world" in vese 2 means "the unsaved." As also noted, this is further undermined by the fact that the group Paul is contrasting "the world" with is not "the saved," but more likely his own small community.

So again, I'm not taking away from the possibility that your view of verse 2 legitimately lies somewhere in the realm of linguistic possibility. But you want it to be much more than that, and it just won't carry that kind of weight.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Solly, I'm not interested in whether universal salvation follows or not. I do not believe monergism requires limited atonement, and I do not believe Arminianism requires universal atonement.

That's very interesting. Will you discuss this on Paltalk some time?