Featured Actual Atonement vs Potential Atonement

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:22)
You are still interpreting the word to suit your theology. The word itself carries a specific meaning.

Your argument was the definition of propitiation (ἱλασμός), not who benefits from this propitiation. The ones who will believe and the one’s who will not believe are not the subject of propitiation – Christ is the appeasement of God.

I am not saying that you do not have a good argument as a whole, but it extends beyond the meaning of propitiation. This difference is important in terms of arguing for or against potential atonement.

 

__________

 

I think you missed what I was saying.

I agree with you in what you have stated (I have not actually looked up the Greek for the tenses as it doesn’t have any bearing on my point – and my Greek isn’t that strong anyway – but I have no problem accepting that you have).

My point is that you were defining propitiation, implying that someone (I can’t remember who) didn’t know the definition because it applies to a specific group of people. Yes, the elect are the only ones who will be redeemed. But the definition for propitiation does not in itself prove this. Never in the Old Testament is propitiation used with sin as its subject – not once.

You state that “He did appease God’s wrath for those He died for.” The last part (the part in italics) is an addition when regarding Christ as the propitiation for the sins of man. Some view this as saying that it means that He died for no one – which is of course an asinine statement. What it is saying is that phrases and clauses should be treated as units.

I agree with you that Christ appeased God’s wrath for those who would believe (and that those who don’t believe will experience the wrath of God), but I disagree in your methods of exegesis. 1 John 2:2 can very well mean exactly what it says, without utilizing theological insights to apply this to a particular people. It depends on where you find the subject of the passage (is the subject Christ, the One who propitiates; or is it sin?).

 

That has been the “traditional” or classic view. This is a problem with many, even who hold the Ransom Theory to be correct. Gustaf Aulen held the Ransom view, but he views the position that the ransom was paid to Satan was mistakenly assumed due to the metaphors used by the early Church. He presents “ransom” to have meant “liberation.” This is the Christus Victor position - Christ is the victor over sin, death and satan. But, yes, the view that God paid a debt to Satan is a problem – it is probably a common view in some form (especially in Hollywood), even among adherents of other positions.

And yes, the penal-substitution theory holds that Christ died as a substitute for men. It is not necessarily a stronger support for Christ as the second Adam than other theories, but Scripture does present Christ as the second Adam.

I believe that Christ bears the sin of man. He Himself is the propitiation for our sin, not only ours but for the whole world. I see this verse as describing Christ as the propitiation for the sin of the whole world. Add a million people, it’s the same (Christ wouldn’t have to do more), take away a million elect and it’s still the same (He would not have need to do less). It does matter if it is one person or millions. In that, only the wrath of the elect are appeased. Those who do not believe will suffer the wrath of God because they are still in their sins and they do not believe.

 

I agree. Another reason that the penal substitution view is not barbaric can be seen in the Trinity. Christ lay down His own life as a self-sacrifice.

Some object because they view the view as presenting the Father killing His righteous Son instead of those who deserve to die. Pinnock, for example, states that this makes God worse than Hitler. What Pinnock misses is that the love of the Father in sending His Son is coupled with the love of the Son to sacrifice Himself. It is wrong to view the Penal Substitution theory of atonement as stating that the Father killed His Son, because Christ lay down His own life for us. It is self-sacrifice.

That said, the Penal-substitution theory alone may not incorporate the fullness of the atonement. It is difficult for me to understand the benefit to the non-elect (although they are not redeemed) as merely accidental or something that overflows. Also, there is a victory over sin, Satan, and death that are not actually addressed by the Penal substitution theory (in addition to implications to the elect, Christ will judge the wicked, all will bow, and His kingdom will reign).

I believe that you are absolutely correct in that the atonement needs to be viewed through the sacrificial system (it is even presented in that manner in the New Testament).

 

I think so – at least from our perspective. There are aspects that other views point out that are also right – but I believe that the purpose for those being saved are summed upon the Penal substitution theory.

 

Are you being serious?

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

Diagram the passage. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. Christ is the propitiation. You are talking about the effect, or what the atonement applies to – but in this verse you are not grammatically correct, and yours is certainly not the only way to view the verse.

Do you remember your statement to DaChaser1?

[/QUOTE]

You were arguing that propitiation cannot mean all without exception. You are stating a truth, that those who do not believe will go to hell for their sins, and that this is the wrath of God. But it has absolutely nothing to do with implying that propitiation has to have “sin” as its subject.

If you really can’t see what I am saying, that’s fine. We actually believe the same regarding the elect, non-elect, and God’s wrath.