Quote:

In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, “whole world,” can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews… It would seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins. –Lectures, p., 525.

Contrast this with John Owen on the same passage:

If the words are to be understood to signify all and every one in the world, then is the whole assertion useless as to the chief end intended–namely, to administer consolation to believers; for what consolation can arise from hence unto any believer, that Christ was a propitiation for them that perish? Yea, to say that he was a sufficient propitiation. for them, though not effectual, will yield them no more comfort than it would have done Jacob and his sons to have heard from Joseph that he had corn enough, sufficient to sustain them, but that he would do so was altogether uncertain; for had he told them he would sustain them sufficiently, though not effectually, they might have starved notwithstanding his courtesy.

How convincing is Owen? Does anyone think that Joseph would have provided for his brothers if they had still hated him so much that they refused to come to Egypt? Was not the sufficient supply promised by Joseph enough to assure them of his care and love for them? Was Jacob supposed to say to Joseph, “Unless you promise to ensure my family is fed by your grain no matter what they do in response to your offer your promise of sufficiency is of no comfort to me?”

It is true that God effectually calls and we have to thank him for our repentance and true faith which is withheld from others. But it is also true that God addresses us as persons, not as blocks. On the day of judgment, when he says to former Christians who have made shipwreck of their faith, “What more could I have done for you?” he won’t be interested in hearing “Well, Lord, you could have exercised irresistible grace — you know, the ‘I’ in the TULIP – and that would have changed things.”