Do Christians & Muslims Worship the Same God?

An important and throughtful article answering this critical question. 

The answer:  no.  The way we know we're talking about the same person - whether it's deity or human - is what we claim is true of the person.  Christians and Muslims believe things about God that cannot be reconciled to the conclusion that God and Allah are the same.  For instance, God cannot both be three and not-three at the same time.  These are fundamental, essential beliefs of Christianity and Islam about the deities they worship that indicate we're talking about different Persons.  That's just basic logic (and logic does apply to religion).

Either one is true or both are false, but both cannot be true and referring to the same Person.

That doesn't lead to the conclusion that there are more than one God - the Christian God and the Muslim God.  There is only one true God; the other is false.  And we adjudicate the truth of the claims by examining the historical evidence and the rationality of the beliefs.  The Christian God is the one true God.

 

Comments

[Tim]

This makes sense, but I'm not sure it plays out practically. For instance, I have trouble applying this same reasoning to human persons. Take this example and correct me where I go wrong.

Say that you believe Hillary Clinton is a Senator and I believe Hillary Clinton is a Governor. There really is a Hillary Clinton to which we are both referring; it's just that I believe something incorrect about her. My incorrect belief doesn't mean that she doesn't exist.

And take it further. Say we both have incorrect beliefs about Mrs. Clinton because she is actually Secretary of State. Would you then say that neither of us are referring to a real person? On that logic would either of us be justified in believing that Mrs. Clinton exists?

So if one can refer to a human person while not having an accurate view of her, couldn't Muslims also be referring to the real God even though they hold incorrect beliefs about him?

[Jordan]

@Tim, I think you are missing the point a little. The point was that both can't be true. Both may be false as in your example, but both can't be true. When you die, you could to heaven/hell,astroworlds, reincarnation, etc., you could do none of them, but you can't do them all at the same time. IE they cant all be true.

[James]

Sorry Jordan, I think you missed Tim's point.

To take Tim's example further, what if Tim called Mrs. Clinton, and asked, "Is this Governer Clinton?" would she say, "Wrong number" and hang up, or would she still take your call, and possibly correct you?

I think she probably wouldn't be a jerk about it and would take your call.

So it makes me wonder, when Muslims pray, does God hang up on them, or does he still take the call? And if he does listen to their prayers, then what does it mean to say they worship a different God?

[Sam]

I agree with Tim. Isn't it possible that Muslims are just wrong about God not being a Trinity? By this reasoning, we should conclude that Jews and Christians also worship different gods. In fact, we should even conclude that Calvinists and Arminians believe in different gods. In fact, any two people who have any difference in belief about God whatsoever would have two different gods.

Obviously, if two people have different beliefs about God, they can't both be right, but that alone isn't enough to say they are talking about two different gods.

I said more about this subject here.

[Tim]

Thanks, Jordan. You are absolutely right that that is the crux of the matter. I think, though, that your point would be more effectively and accurately served if we would say, "The one God is not like that" instead of, "That God doesn't exist." This is more true in the case of Islam since I presume that they are worshiping the First Mover just as we are. With polytheists like Hindus it's easier. You can say, "No those gods don't exist. There is only one."

I think the Mrs. Clinton analogy still works here. Because if I say "Governor Clinton" you wouldn't say "That Hillary doesn't exist." You'd say, "No, Hillary is Sec. of State."

[James]

I certainly have to wonder what the Roman Centurion whom Jesus said had more faith than all of Isreal believed about God (or the gods.) I'm sure he had many erroneous beliefs and most likely at best saw the Jewish God as one powerful god of many, but those differences in belief did not seem to bother Jesus too much.

[Dawn]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure the Hillary Clinton analogy applies to the topic the way it's being used. The question isn't about the existence of the Christian God vs. the Muslim god, but whether they are one and the same. If I said I know someone named Hillary Clinton, and you said you also know Hillary Clinton, we would need to know some things to determine if we are both talking about the same person. I say the Hillary I know is Secretary of State, but the Hillary you know is a stay-at-home mother. We would be justified in concluding we are not both talking about the same Hillary Clinton. The analogy isn't perfect, but it seems to be closer to the point. If Christians say God is Triune (and this quality is fundamental to His nature), and Muslims say he is not Triune and that it's a sin to say he is, then we both cannot be talking about the same person. Our gods are fundamentally different. This line of reasoning doesn't speak to which is the real one, but it simply shows that we don't worship the same God.

[dave]

As I said in an earlier post, I believe it is possible that some atheists, Muslims, and what have you, will wake up in Heaven some day, only then realizing that it was Christ who put them there. Salvation is based upon redemption, not on how much we know about it. Luther and Calvin were no doubt born again while they were Catholics, else they wouldn't have became the Reformers they were. Cornelius was no doubt born again ever before he heard Peter preach, bearing the fruits of regeneration. Faith and knowledge doesn't redeem anyone, it only lets us in on what God is doing on our behalf.

[Dawn]

It just occurred to me that it might be better in the analogy to use age or height, instead of a job title. So pretend I said one Hillary is 63 and the other is only 30 :)

[James]

Dawn - in your example, the two Clinton's really are different people. But in Tim's example, they are the same person - only the perceptions are different. So you're each using quite different analogies.

The question is, when the Muslim's believe that God is not Triune, are they getting a fact wrong about God, or are they referring to a different (non-existent) God? And I really don't know how you would decide the answer to that question. That's why I asked if God answers the prayers of Muslims... if He does, then the answer to my question is the former - that they have a fact wrong about God, not that they believe in a different one. It's up to God how much grace He will give those who have misconceptions about Him, and I try, whenever possible, not to limit God's grace or tell people how much He can give.

[Dawn]

That's the point of my analogy. We don't yet know if we are talking about one person or two. Tim's analogy presupposes we are only talking about one person.

That is the ultimate question. When Christians and Muslims use the word "God," are we talking about the same person? If we use fundamentally different qualities to describe "God" then no, we cannot be referring to the same person.

[Sam]

It seems to me there are two extremes and a debatable gray area between them. On the one extreme you might have the Christian God and the Hindu God. They're obviously not the same gods because they have practically nothing in common. At the other extreme, you have the Calvinist God and the Arminian God. In spite of their differences, they are mostly alike, so most of us would say they are the same god even though Calvinists and Arminians have different beliefs about him.

But between these two extremes you have gods that have many things in common but also many differences, and it isn't clear to me where you should draw the line between saying you are talking about the same gods with some differences in beliefs about those gods or whether you're talking about different gods altogether. Muslims and Christians both claim to worship the one true God who is the creator of the universe, the source of morality, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc. They differ primarily on the issue of the Trinity.

But I question whether that is adequate to say they are worshiping a different God rather than merely being wrong about the same God. After all, until Christianity began, Jews thought God was only one person, and Christians claimed to worship the same God the Jews had worshiped up until then. It's just that the Jews didn't know God was a trinity.

[James]

So Dawn, where do you draw the line at "fundamentally different qualities"? As was mentioned above, Armenians and Calvinists have very different views on the nature of God. Does that mean that only one group actually worships God, and the other worships something completely non-existent?

As far as your analogy goes, as a Christian, I believe there really is only one God, so yes, I would presuppose that, and I suppose that's why I find Tim's analogy more persuasive.

[Graffight]

@James, Sam, Tim & Jordan

The important thing to understand is that both ideas of God completely contradict each other. To use the example of Hillary Clinton, this is what is happening. One person is saying Hillary Clinton is governor, and the other is saying she is Senator. On its face this seems like a simple mix up, but (assuming we aren’t talking about the same person at different times) if the one person believes that in Hillary’s life she ran for Govenor, and went through all these things in order to get to that position, while the other person believes that she went through a totally different set of events at the same time to achieve her seat in the senate…in this context we can see that only one of these things can be correct, or they can both be incorrect and she went through a third set of circumstances that landed her as secretary of state at the same time she would have done the other things.
This is the law of identity, “a” cannot be “a” and “not a” at the same time in the same sense.

In addition, this isn't a simple misunderstanding about something like if Jesus was 35 or 50 when he died, which has no implications whatsoever. This is an issue that has implications to our salvation. If Muslims are correct it is literally blasphemy to believe that Jesus is God, and what Jesus did on the cross does nothing for our salvation, and we have to rely on our good works to be saved. Conversely if Christianity is correct then Muslims don’t believe something that is essential to their salvation, and ultimately they will be lost.

I know it sounds intolerant, but unfortunately the two cannot and should not be considered one. no matter how similar they may seem to be…it’s the differences that are the most important.

[Bruce Byrne]

Well said Graffight.

"Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" is an interesting question, but of greater importance, in my opinion, is the question "How can I be brought into right relationship with God?"

It is in answer to this question that Islam and Christianity reveal themselves to be starkly different religions.

[WisdomLover]

Suppose I claim to believe in Santa Claus and I go on to describe him as the jolly bringer of Christmas gifts who slides down the chimney in his green suit to bring joy to every girl and boy. I don't think that anyone would say to me "Why you don't believe in Santa at all you Scrooge, you Grinch!". People would just assume that I made a mistake about the color of Santa's suit.

On the other hand, suppose I claim to believe in Santa and go on to describe him as a mean old man in Sheboygan Wisconsin who runs a green grocery department and hates children gifts and Christmas. I think people would be well within their rights to say say to me "Why you don't believe in Santa at all you Scrooge, you Grinch! You just believe in a mean green grocer!"

The question we have to ask ourselves whenever we are talking about a being who is known to us only by description is, when there are deviations in the description, are they green suit errors, or green grocer errors.

It seems to me that to a large extent, when we declare someone a heretic because of their doctrines about God, we are essentially saying that they have made a green grocer mistake.

I don't think this is about essential vs. accidental properties.

Suppose that two individuals differ, for example, about the nature of God's eternity--does He exist at every moment of time, or does He exist outside of time. I think they are disagreeing about an aspect of God's essential nature. But I don't think that either of them is making a green grocer mistake. At least one of them is wrong, but I think the error would only be a green suit error.

On the other hand, suppose that two individuals disagree about whether the One God came into the world sometime near 1 AD. The fact in dispute is about one of God's free acts. It's not about His necessary attributes. Still, I think someone is making a green grocer mistake.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Tim,

If I understand you correctly, you are equating titles and names and offices to characteristics. They are not the same thing. Characteristics are the things that define what we are and what God is. Titles names and offices do not.

[Sam]

I like your analogy WisdomLover.

[Bruce Byrne]

WisdomLover,

I second Sam's comment.

[Brad B]

Another important distinction would be by what authority does one recognize the true God? Muslim and Christian believers both assert that their holy book *reveals* truths about God. Since they fundamentally contradict each other, they cannot be reconciled. Muslims and Christians by definition cannot be worshipping the same God. When I say fundamentally, it is to suggest that as WisdomLover said, some errors are harmless, others are fatal. The differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs are fatal.

[Frodo Baggins]

It seems that the question in the title of this post, "Do Christians & Muslims Worship the Same God?" can be approached from different perspectives, such as:

1. Question of identity: Are the characteristics of the Muslim and Christian God identical? more simply: Are the Christian and Muslim God identical?

2. Question of acceptance: Does God receive and respond to the worship of Christians and Muslims in similar fashion, or is one (or both) fallacious, and thus rejected?

I submit that perspective 1 of the question is more readily answered in a deductive fashion. Perspective 2 seems to veer into theological waters of Universalism, in that it asks whether the beliefs and acts of sincere, but wrong faithful will be credited with righteousness.

On the question of whether the characteristics of the Muslim and Christian God are identical, I've seen no one on this thread claim they are, so I submit that the answer to the original post's question is "No, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God because the characteristics of the respective God's (as established by claims of their God's nature) are not identical."

[Frodo Baggins]

Another view of this issue -- we have two questions:

1. Do various world-views hold to different claims about the nature of God?

2. If answer to question 1 is "yes", then ask, "are the differences in the nature of God significant and/or meaningful?"

Questions 1 & 2 are fundamentally different questions, and the strategies for answering them differ.

Identifying differences is generally a deductive exercise, and fairly straightforward, while assessing the significance of those differences is not as straightforward, because "significance" involves assessing utility, and utility can be defined in various fashions.

[bobbym]

Logic games! The question of "Do Muslims and Christians believe in the same God" is NOT the issue. The REAL question should be: Do Muslims and Christians believe in the same NATURE of God". And in THAT light we can further ask: "What do Muslims believe about JESUS?" To heck with all of this Hillary Clinton and Santa Claus stuff! That is nothing more than playing word games.

If a devout Muslim prays to his VERSION of God (which is a TITLE, NOT His name, by the way)and he feels that his version has answered his prayer, then either the one true God showed grace in answering him, or the supposed answer is just a coincidence or happenstance of chance.

Try looking at what Muslims believe ABOUT God and you will have your answer.

[n1330]

There is one question that will provide clear thinking to this topic (Columbo technique #1)...Do you believe that any and all paths lead to the same God?

I understand & appreciate all the analogies and comments posted, for they have certainly provided anchors for my thinking, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I faithfully and intellectually believe in John 14.6...Jesus is THE only way to God...if anyone believes that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, then essentially they believe that there is more than one path to God, and therefore would believe in religious pluralism...

[KWM]

James and Tim,

The comparison of Hillary Clinton doesn't work. If this were the case, then any description of God must pass - as others have pointed out. One could think God is evil or a space alien or a super hero that flies around on a lightning bolt.

Also, Hillary Clinton as Governor does not exist. It doesn’t matter that you call her Hillary. She simply doesn’t exist.

You can’t say, “oh, I was just wrong about the title – Hillary Clinton does exist,” because that’s not the Hillary Clinton you believed in. Just as the person cannot say, “oh, I was just wrong about the nature of God – He is good afterall! And he doesn’t fly around on a lightening bolt."

[KWM]

Put another way: If you live in the state where you think Hillary Clinton is the governor – and you need the governor to take quick action to help the state in an emergency – you’re out of luck if she’s a US Senator. Hillary as governor doesn’t exist and never did. She can't save you.

[Bahama]

I think this is why the Person of Jesus Christ is so important. If you don't believe Jesus is God, then this eliminates hinduism, mormons, muslims, jw's, buddhism, and whatever else religion is out there. So the only other "religion" is Roman Catholic, which gets the Trinity correct but gets justification wrong. So in a sense, they believe in the correct God but they don't have the correct kind of belief (some within RCC may).

I think the example of Hillary Clinton is a little off, and would make more sense if you have two Hillary Clinton's while one is the governor,senator,wife of bill clinton, while the other is a house wife married to jeff clinton. They both have the same name but the beings are different.

[Chris]

The original question was "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?"

I think you have to say yes, in the same way that you have to say that Christians and Jews worship the same God. With Christians and Jews one understanding is trinitarian, in the other it is not. They have a different understanding of the same God. This is not to say that both understandings are correct, but it is to say that it is the same being that they look to.
This makes me think of a time when my wife and I went to a movie together. When we got out of the theater and started talking about it and comparing notes, after a while my wife asked: "Did we see the same movie?"

[Sam]

...if anyone believes that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, then essentially they believe that there is more than one path to God, and therefore would believe in religious pluralism...

That's not true.

[Frodo Baggins]

Chris said:

The original question was "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?"

I think you have to say yes, in the same way that you have to say that Christians and Jews worship the same God.

How would you respond to the assertion that by rejecting the deity of Jesus, the Jews worship a different God than the Christians?

And how would you respond to the assertion that the previous statement is supported by the fact that the nature of the two "Gods" in question are logically unequal?

[Mo]

It's not just the Trinity issue. Even a quick comparison of the Bible and the Koran show clearly that these two beings are absolutely nothing alike in character. One could argue they are both made up, but there is simply no basis in the texts themselves for claiming they are the same person.

[kateg]

Since Jesus says that it is only through Him anyone can see the father, then anyone not going through Jesus is not getting to the Father.

[dave]

kateg, John the Baptist was full of the Spirit from his mothers womb. That means he was saved apart from knowledge and faith. What if he would have died and went to Heaven ever before he met Christ. Would he not still be going through Jesus to get to Heaven even if unknowingly?

[Chris]

@ Frodo Baggins,

you said:"How would you respond to the assertion that by rejecting the deity of Jesus, the Jews worship a different God than the Christians?"

I would respond by asking, was Jesus speaking to and of the same God as the God of Moses and the prophets? If he was, then where is the problem, as this is the same God that the Jews worship today. Does anyone even question that todays Jews don't worship the same God that Moses did?
Did Moses, Abraham, Elijah, etc., have a full-on trinitarian view or understanding of God? Of course not. This is why I say that although their understandings are different, they are in fact worshipping the same God. Now it absolutely can be debated as to who actually does have a better or fuller understanding of that God based on various other merits or factors. But it doesn't follow that because one's view is incomplete in one or more ways, then they must be different deities. If 200 years ago people thought that Saturn had eight rings, but today we know that Saturn actually has thousands of rings, does it mean that we are talking about two different Saturns?
I think in the case of Muslims it's a little more problematic. I do think that they actually believe that they worship the same God that we find in the bible. The problem is that somewhere along the way, contradictory additions to and changes in particular characteristics of God appear to have crept into the narrative to where the two descriptions are more difficult to reconcile. I originally said that one would have to say that they do worship the same God, but I would probably qualify that assertion. I might just suggest that it is only possible that they are the same and that the apparent contradictions could be worked out, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it.
The original article in question stated it this way in it's conclusion.

"we must conclude that despite their common monotheism, Islam and Christianity have very different views of God, worship, and mission."

I think this is a true statement.

"Therefore, it is unreasonable to claim that they worship the same God."

I think this is a false statement.

"Although Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic, their views of God differ considerably."

I think this is a true statement.

I'm seeing a fallacy forming here that I can't quite recall the name of, but I think if we are fair-minded people we have to concede that because two people have considerably differing views of something, it doesn't follow that therefore they must be different of necessity. I think careful reasoning and good scholarship are called for before one can make the categoric statement that they are mutually exclusive. Difference of view or perspective is not the same as or does not necessarily mean difference in kind.

[Tim]

I think it's important to note that monotheism (unless I'm mistaken) has some sort of commitment to the philosophical notion that there can of necessity be only one Supreme Being. It's easy for a monotheist to say that a dualist or polytheist God doesn't exist. It's not as easy to say that another conception of the Supreme Being doesn't exist without kinda implying that the Supreme Being Himself might not exist. I think that's the only thing that holds me up.

But the MOST IMPORTANT THING is what Jordan said, viz., that Islam and Christianity make mutually exclusive truth claims about what it takes for men to be saved. That is the point that must be emphasized against those who would say that the differences between Islam and Christianity are inconsequential.

The issue of whether Muslims worship a the True God falsely or a false God truly pales in comparison to the main issue.

It becomes a matter of which rhetoric is more effective in dialogue with Muslims. But we're not at that stage yet. We're still contending with secularists who think the differences don't matter.

[Brad B]

Muslims worship a diety that is unapproachable, unreliable, unstable, in a word capricious. The only reliable certainty to paradise for the muslim is death via jihad[70 virgins etc]. There is no comparison between Jehovah and Allah that could stand 1 minute of scrutiny without being discounted. But, the Koran is internally incoherent and fails as an infallible source of truth, so what is supposedly known by it or revealed in it cannot be trusted as accurately depicting Allah.

[Brad B]

Muslims worship a diety that is unapproachable, unreliable, unstable, in a word capricious. The only reliable certainty to paradise for the muslim is death via jihad[70 virgins etc]. There is no comparison between Jehovah and Allah that could stand 1 minute of scrutiny without being discounted. But, the Koran is internally incoherent and fails as an infallible source of truth, so what is supposedly known by it or revealed in it cannot be trusted as accurately depicting Allah.

[Dennis]

Generally the claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God is made to emphasize the similarities between the two religions and reduce the differences. Basically, to get people to stop arguing over which religion is correct by saying "Hey, it doesn't really matter anyway." Making the differences more on par with the differences between denominations. The point of the original post is that this actually isn't true: the two religions have fundamentally different conceptions of God and how He works. The Trinity might not be the best example, but it is true that the differences are fundamental and severe.

The other argument about whether or not Muslims and Christians are actually worshiping the same God when they worship is really a different question. Kierkegaard gets into that issue in some of his stuff, coming down on the side of them worshiping the same God. In that argument, the question can be looked at as which factors are the most important: your objective relationship with God (what you believe about Him) or your subjective relationship with God (how you experience Him and respond to Him).

You can come up with all sorts of scenarios that muddy the waters and make it difficult to determine if a particular person would really be worshiping God or not. But it's a different issue from Melinda's point.

[Kerry]

Interesting discussion. When someone asserts that Muslims or Jews worship the same God as Christians, I wonder what that person means by the term "worship?"

[kateg]

John the Baptist, from his mother's womb, recognized Jesus for Who He is.

[WisdomLover]

"I wonder what that person means by the term "worship?""

That's a really good point Kerry.

I'm starting to think that the phrase "worship the same God" is very important. There's no question that the OT and the NT describe the same God. But it does not follow from that that post-incarnation Jews who rejected YHWH when he was come in the flesh still believe in or worship YHWH anymore.

They are worshiping some idol made from their own wishes not the real God. No doubt they still have many true beliefs about what it takes to hold the title of "God", but they don't believe those things about the individual who actually holds that title.

The same goes for Muslims. They, no doubt, have a large number of true beliefs about what it takes to hold the title "God", but they don't hold those beliefs about the individual who actually is God.

[dave]

OK, lets look at it this way. Calvinists do not worship the same God as Arminians. They are two totally different religions that only lend themselves to the same terms, having vastly different definitions.

Is it possible that some of the group worshiping the false god, will be in Heaven in spite of their blindness since salvation is based upon atonement and not knowledge?

[WisdomLover]

"salvation is based upon atonement and not knowledge"

If salvation is based entirely on what God has objectively done, then universalism is true. Because He died for everyone.

[dave]

>"Because He died for everyone."

In John 10 Jesus told the Pharisees that he was giving his life for his sheep. Later he told the same group the reason they didn't believe was because they were not his sheep. That is to say, he was not giving his life for them.

If Christ died for all and all obviously are not saved, then his death didn't atone for anyone's sins. It only made it possible for the self-righteous to save themselves. This is not Christianity or Grace even by a long shot.

[Vic]

No...that doesn't make any sense at all. There wil not be any atheists, muslims, Jehovah witnesses, mormons..and on ad infinitum in heaven. If the individuals who have these worldviews are not converted to christianity...they will in no way be in heaven.....ever.

[Brad B]

Christ's work on the cross was meant for and only applied to the elect, in any sense, His sacrifice was not for everyone--only those known by God before the foundation of the world. [known=loved]

[WisdomLover]

So, Dave, you are claiming that:

1) Christ died for His sheep, AND

2) The pharisees are not His sheep, AND

3) The Pharisees do not believe because they are not His sheep.

Somehow entail:

4) Christ did not die for the Pharisees.

The proposed entailment relation does not exist. To see that the inference you are drawing is invalid consider the following argument of the same form:

1) Obama instituted Obamacare to apply to his base, AND

2) Republicans are not his base, AND

3) Republicans did not vote for Obama because they are not his base.

Therefore

4) Obama did not institute Obamacare to apply to Republicans.

Oh! If only that were so!

The fact is that Christ died for the sheep and the goats alike. Here's why:

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (I John 2:2)

He's the propitiation not only for us sheep but also for the goats.

Every soul in Hell will be justified by the death of Christ. They won't be there because Christ didn't die for their sins. They will be there because they choose to be there.

[Brad B]

Hi WisdomLover, so God's wrath was settled and yet the souls in hell are tormented??

Your interpretation of 1 John doesn't square with other scriptures very well [including the one Dave brought up]. It seems to me that it causes much more trouble than it settles. Is this a Lutheran view?

[Garry S]

Arab Christian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani is scheduled to be put to death today, by Islam the religion of peace.
Iranian authorities convicted him of apostasy. He was arrested last October, when he protested that the local establishment ought not to force Christian Children to study the Koran. His wife was sentenced to life in prison, and his family were also put in prison.
How can this be if we all worship the same God?

[WisdomLover]

Brad-

My interpretation of I John squares perfectly with the passage Dave brought up (as I showed). It was Dave's inference that failed. The inference he used was basically to say that because some A's are B, it follows that some A's are not B (which is demonstrably fallacious).

As for I John, I'd like to know how else to interpret it. I know that the standard Calvinist interpretation of the passage is to say that "not for our sins only, but for those of the whole world" means "not for our sins only, but for the sins of the church scattered throughout the world".

But there is absolutely nothing in 1 John to suggest that when John says "the sins of the whole world", he is talking about the sins of the scattered church in the world.

For starters, I John is a general epistle. That is, it is written to the church at large, not to some specific church body, like the church in Corinth or some such. So when John says "us", he is already referring to the whole church. As such, "Not only us, but the whole world" means "not only the church, but the whole world".

Also, there is absolutely nothing in before or after the passage to suggest that "but for the sins of the whole world" should be some sort of elliptical reference to "but for the sins of the scattered church in the world".

Also, there are no passages that validly imply any limitation in the scope of the atonement. There are, of course, plenty of verses that 'imply' such a limitation as long as you are willing to allow "Some A's are B, therefore some A's are not B" as a valid rule of inference. As such, there is no overriding sense of scripture that would compel us to re-interpret I John in the Calvinist way.

Finally, there are plenty of other passages to suggest that the atonement was for everyone. For example, everyone's favorite, John 3:16, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." Or John the Baptizer's recognition of Christ "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!". Or I Timothy 2: 5-6 "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all". Or Titus 2:11, or I Timothy 4, or 2 Peter 2.

In the end, like all too much in Calvinist thought, I suspect that the real basis for the idea of limited atonement comes from some a priori argument like this one from Piper:

Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
.
.
.
But then why are not all saved?...Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?

Of course, Piper does not consider the possibility that the unbelief of the damned does not condemn them because Christ didn't die for that sin but for some other reason. So the argument doesn't really represent a logical refutation of the plain meaning of Scripture (that Christ died for all). Instead, it merely represents a failure of imagination on the part of Piper.