Contradiction with Matthew 15:24
Jesus stated that He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, indicating a more limited scope than "the whole world."
Matthew 15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Contradiction with John 17:9
Jesus explicitly prays not for the world, but for those whom the Father has given Him, contrasting with the idea of being a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
John 17:9: I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Contradiction with Romans 9:13
As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," suggesting selective love contrary to the universal atonement implied in 1 John 2:2.
Romans 9:13: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Contradiction with Matthew 26:28
Jesus says His blood is shed "for many," not "for all," implying a more specific group than the "whole world."
Matthew 26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Contradiction with Romans 8:30
The chain of salvation (predestination, calling, justification, glorification) pertains to a specific group of people, contrasting with a universal atonement.
Romans 8:30: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Contradiction with Matthew 1:21
Jesus will save "His people from their sins," indicating a targeted group rather than all individuals.
Matthew 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. [JESUS: that is, Saviour, Heb]
Contradiction with John 10:15
Jesus lays down His life for the sheep, suggesting a specific group rather than the entirety of the world.
John 10:15: As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Contradiction with Acts 20:28
Paul instructs the Ephesian elders to "feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," indicating a specific group, not the entire world.
Acts 20:28: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Paradox #1
One potential theological inconsistency people point out with "1 John 2:2" is the question of universal atonement versus limited atonement. The verse suggests that Jesus's sacrifice is for the whole world, which seems to imply universal atonement—the idea that Jesus died for the sins of everyone. However, some theological perspectives, like certain interpretations of Calvinism, hold the belief in limited atonement, which means Jesus died only for the sins of the elect or chosen people. This can create a conflict between these two views about the scope of Jesus's atonement.
Paradox #2
Some people see a contradiction between 1 John 2:2 and the idea of limited atonement, which is a belief that Jesus died only for the sins of the chosen or elect, rather than for everyone. According to this view, the verse seems to imply that Jesus' sacrifice was for everyone, which doesn't fit well with the concept of limited atonement. This creates a tension between the idea of a universal atonement and a more restricted one.
Paradox #3
One potential contradiction is the interpretation of atonement. Some people believe this verse suggests that Jesus' sacrifice was for everyone in the world, while other biblical passages imply salvation is only for believers. This creates a conflict in understanding whether the atonement is limited to some or available to all.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or conflict in 1 John 2:2 could stem from the idea of universal atonement versus personal responsibility. The verse implies that forgiveness is available to everyone, which might conflict with the idea that people are individually accountable for their actions and must seek forgiveness actively. This raises questions about the balance between divine grace and personal responsibility in moral and ethical behavior.