The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Lamb of God Who is taking away the sin of the world (Jn.1:29)

Does John 1:29 support universalism:

Berean Literal Bible
On the next day, he sees Jesus coming to him and says, "Behold the Lamb of God, the One taking away the sin of the world.

New American Standard Bible
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

King James Bible
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

This poster from alleged that John 1:29 does not refer to the death of Christ on the cross, citing the Greek word tense and a commentator. Do you agree or disagree & why:

Now we still have “sin” in the world, even in every mortal Christian, so how can “sin” be already taken away:

1 John 1:9 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 3:5
But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin.

If sin is ultimately taken away (Jn.1:29), or removed, from the world, how can anyone remain in the lake of fire being tormented forever and ever? Can even one person be lost?

But of course we know He does.
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I Tim 2.4

1 Like

A sure road to depression, is the Calvinist road. But I guess we all have to find that out for ourselves.
The Calvinist portrait of God is evil.

1 Like

qaz, Christ came to be the propitiation for Israel, and thus the nations, or in common terms, the world. If you want to view God through the Calvinist lens, you will have a butt load of questions to answer at the end of the day. I think Dave kind of said the same. :wink:

Already addressed in this thread, starting with this post:

Perhaps you should fully embrace this for which you are seemingly predestined… I can recommend an in-kind translation to assist ** rotflmao **


I think, like many theologies, they all hold some truth but not all. I agree with calvanists on some things, some things I disagree with how they portray it. For instance total depravity. I agree with them that we cannot come to God and God is the one who subjects people to faith given BY Him to those He has chosen in this eon. However I dont agree with their conclusion that it also means we are always inexplicably evil, with or without faith.

I agree with them that God is sovereign and employing that sovereignity over all creation. Making some vessels of honor and others not.

I agree with them about the preservence of the saints, in relation to the body of Christ. Saved by grace, not by works. As for the circumcision not so much.

etc etc etc.

But EVEN IF i took their thesis at face value, the one that seems the most disturbing and least scriptual is limited attonement. They can try to explain away the “all will be saved” verses with “as many as” BUT there are plenty of verses that come to the conclusion of the reconciliation of all even without those, what should be obvious, “all” verses.

In this L Ray Smith plays “theologians advocate” where he refutes universal salvation in the face of the “all” verses. BUT he goes on to show how it can be surmised without those verses.

This is why, though I agree with some of what calvanist teach, Im reluctant to even call myself a 4 point calvanist because of the implications of t.u.l.i.p. even without limited attonement. Id rather just explain the nuanced variance of my beliefs than to slap a label on it that may already carry some preconceived notions which I do not ascribe too.

Sheep and goats, one shepherd, two different temporary outcomes (eonian life or no eonian life), one ending at the end of the eons of eons; The reconciliation of all.

Im sure all have seen that I am not an advocate of free will. BUT if any should be lost I would rather it be by some notion of their will than Gods.

1 Like