Please Explain 1 John 2 "Jesus propiation For Sins Of Whole World!"

The propitiation of Christ satisfied God's wrath against sin, ALL sin. The person is still responsible for faith.
Without faith, you will be condemned. Christ has done all the work. Propitiation and faith are 2 separate things, but both are required.

 

'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.'
1 Cor 6:9-10 (NKJV)

'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.'
Eph 2:8-9 (NKJV)

Amen! Christ has indeed done all the work. Propitiation and faith are indeed two separate things, and both are gifts of God. 'His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness' (2Peter 1:3).

Steve

 

Ahhhh, well then you got me confused.....with the exception of homosexuality, I've done all those things.
I think further clarification is required. Oh add lier & murder to that list. Im not proud of it but there it is, full discloser. The thing is, I enjoyed much of it.

 

'.....And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.'

You need to ask yourself, is that true of you? Otherwise Matt 7:21-23 applies.

Steve

 

Im not the one runnin around saying I wanted to be though. In fact, it was the conviction by George Whitefield in his sermon "The Method Of Grace" that I in fact realized I was guilty of the Sin of Unbelief....so if I did not belief, all my life, how could I have been regenerated? Why I did not have even the Faith or wish to believe---and my sins were testimony to it. So how brother....how could I be reborn?

 

Like the rest of us; by the Grace of God....ain't it a beautiful thing????

 

All of God, brother. :godisgood:

'For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.'Titus 3:3-7 (NKJV)

 

How do you know what I understand or don't understand about what these scholars are saying when everything I've said is a direct quote from what they themselves have said, which noticeably you have not specifically addressed. I challenge you to go line by line through one or two of the quotes I've provided and tell us specifically what each phrase means. Clearly they all believed that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all.

Calvinists of old (16th/17th century) didn't exactly use the terms 'limited' and 'universal' in regard to the atonement in a way represented by modern Calvinists...(nor did their opponents of that time). As I pointed out, the issue was more concerning the ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate wasn't really about if Christ’s satisfaction was 'limited' or 'universal.' Everyone believed Christ's work was sufficient to pay the price for every single sin ever committed and the Reformers of that day believed it to be 'efficient' only for those who believed and were saved. I think you would agree with me so far on this point, right?

The REAL question was about the identity of those who were saved and the grounds of the limitation -- God’s choice or human choice (i.e. free will vs. pre-regenerated - Which is more about "Irresistible Grace" than "Limited Atonement"). So, both Calvin and his opponents believed and taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all; and to Calvin's credit both affirmed the universal preaching of the Gospel based on this shared biblical belief. It just appears to me that SOME modern Calvinists have shifted the grounds of God's limitations from one point (those "effectual called") to another (limited atonement - whose sins have been satisfied and whose haven't?). In other words, that which limited the number saved was God's elective purposes made manifest through who was effectually called to faith, not whose sins have been satisfied by the work of Christ and whose haven't...as if He just suffered so much for just so many. I think that is a modern twist added into the Calvinistic system that the more classical Reformers would have rejected.

 

Hello Skandelon,
Let's look at one of your quotations.

That is exactly right. But all men do not enter. In fact no one enters by their own fallen will. 'And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil' (John 3:19. cf. 1Cor 1:18 etc., etc.).

If God had not elected some to salvation through Christ before the salvation of the world (2Thes 2:13), none would be saved, not because God prevents them entering salvation, but because they will not enter because of their evil unregenerate hearts.

However, praise His Name, God has given to the Son, a vast number (Rev 7:9-10) of people whom the Son has redeemed (John 6:37-40) by the shedding of His own precious blood and to whom the Holy Spirit has given New Birth (John 3:3). These enter into heaven (Matt 11:12), while the rest refuse to. Nothing stops them from entering, as Calvin says, but their own wicked, culpable unbelief.

Absolutely Not. Calvin believed and taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all who believe.

I dealt briefly with the Dabney quote in my earlier post, but I can look at it in more detail if you want.

Steve

 

Right. But why? Is it because of their unbelief alone (as Calvin claims), or is it also their lack of atonement, in that Christ didn't die to pay for their sin so that remains a legal impediment for their salvation?

I don't disagree that this is the classical Reformed view, but that is not the point with which I'm taking issue. You have said the reason they will not enter is because of their hearts (meaning their 'unbelief.') They are not prevented by lack of atonement, in other words.

We agree that this is what Calvin taught, but you must recognize that SOME modern Calvinists take this a step further by suggesting that Christ died only for the elect thus he only paid so much for so many, leaving the rest of humanity without satisfaction of justice thus preventing them from salvation.

You don't seem to be one of those Calvinists who make that error, and for that I commend you, but you must acknowledge that this is a point of contention within the reformed tradition.

 

Is not the argument about Limited Atonement mostly semantics, seeking for a way to describe what happened, while the answer either way has very little effect on our other beliefs or practice?

Don't we mostly agree that While Jesus death was certainly sufficient for all sins, it only gets applied to those who believe? Both sides limit the atonement in some fashion, in that its application is limited to those who believe.

Is not the real arguement, as skandalon said earlier: What ultimately CAUSES one person to recieve the benefit of Christ's death, God's choice or that person's choice? if so, I have 2 questions:

1. What does a calvinist gain by saying Jesus only died for certain people?

2. What does a non-cal gain by saying Jesus died for the sins of all?

(I realize the answer for either side might be "because the bible says so," but is there any other benifit...it it like arguing that Mark was the young boy who ran away after Jesus was arrested...interesting, but not really helpful?)

 

I want to address the first couple lines of this post. It's more than just mere semantics I think, that keeps both sides in such a disagreement. The atonement is not sufficient for anyone who the atonment wasn't provided for. If Jesus did not die for the non-elect, then the atonement He made wasn't made for them,IOW, He left them out of His redemptive plan altogether.

You can't kill a bear if you aim at the turkey. The atonement could not be for someone if Jesus did not die for them. I state emphatically that Jesus tasted death for every man(Heb. 2:9??).

 

Perhaps I don't understand...And this was the argument I always had with my brother incidentally......you come to me, a lost person with this wonderful message that Jesus died for everyone "YAY, then......wait for it.......without the conviction that His death actually accomplished salvation for those who should believe.That is when Im going to blow it off by asking you "what good was it"?

Now this is beginning to look like a fools errand ..... because you (& my brother) just proclaimed a redemption that did not redeem, a reconciliation that did not reconcile, a propitiation that did not propitiate & an atonement that did not atone. I would suggest that you are attempting to proclaim a weak Christ that cant accomplish & provide "True Salvation" That argument was never convincing to me.

 

EXACTLY! Especially when one considers that was not the view of the original reformers.

One, it is what the bible teaches.

Two, it the basis for the genuineness of the gospel's appeal for all to be saved.

Three, it speaks to God's gracious love and provision for those who rebel, thus showing they truly are without any excuse.

Four, it helps to reveal God's intent to allow for a 'free' decision ('whosoever').

Five, it supports the concept of federal headship of all mankind by Adam and Christ alike.

 

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Who is the "our/s"?

Who is the "whole world"?

 

It is more than unbelief; it is the wickedness and hardness of heart of men. They will not believe unless God changes their hearts. It is this that prevents men from entering. To say that it is merely a matter of believing is Pelagianism.

No. Not meaning merely their unbelief. Their unbelief is only a symptom of the disease. I mean the hardness and wickedness of their unredeemed hearts.

If men will sincerely believe, Christ will receive them. But they will not believe unless God gives them a new heart and a new spirit. This He has not done for all men.

Christ has died only for the elect (John 10:11, 27).

I can't think that I have heard any reputable theologian make such a comment. I suppose that there may be someone somewhere who thinks this. Perhaps you could find a quotation for me?

There is a variety of views among Reformed folk, just as there is among non-Reformed who vary all the way from semi-Pelagians to four-point "Calvinists." However, the idea that Christ's blood is of insufficient value to atone for all who come to Him is gross and ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you really don't understand the Reformed Faith at all, or if you are just being mischievous; I suspect the latter.

Steve

 

I agree with you, and especially your concluding statement and your initial statement as well.

Faith is the gift of God, obviously given to whom God chooses, thus He gives this gift to His elect. Yet not all are elect, so all do not get this gift.

I see a teetering on faith/belief here in this way; in one sentence the non-cal (skan) says the only thing that keeps them out is not believing (almost as if this is an inherent faith, when it is not such at all) then later, it is acknowledged that faith is a gift from God. Well, there's your answer.

 

I suspect Skan understands the various nuances of reformed folk quite well. Your mischievous comment is misguided.

 

You are missing the point. I'm agreeing with you. This wickedness or "depravity" of man's nature within the Calvinistic system is certainly what prevents man's belief, but the point we are discussing is in regard to the satisfaction of justice by Christ's work on the cross. Calvin, Hodge and the others are in agreement with you on the nature of man's depravity but they differ from SOME regarding whether or not there are other legal impediments/obstacles preventing their salvation. That is the point we are discussing.

Again, not the point I'm contending. We are talking about the Calvinistic views on atonement, not the needed work of regeneration. You keep shifting the discussion from the "L" to the "U" and the "I" of TULIP.

Look at the link I provided of quotes from Hodge, Shedd, Dabney and the like. What doctrinal disagreements do you suspect they are addressing in these quotes?

Ok, then explain the differences related to the various Calvinistic approaches to the satisfaction of Christ's work and show how I have misrepresented it.

Yet, there are some Calvinists who merely suggest that Christ's work was valuable enough to be sufficient while others actually say it IS sufficient. Do you see the difference in those claims? You don't have to agree with either view, but at least acknowledge the difference between saying something is valuable enough to satisfy justice for all mankind and saying it has satisfied the justice for all mankind. When you acknowledge that distinction then maybe you will see the divide among those in the reformed tradition and stop accusing me of not understanding.

Now you are turning the conversation to a personal attack by questioning my motives. I'm the only one here presenting historical quotes from actual reformed scholars who clearly believed and taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all. Do you agree with that, or not?

 

Again, must a gift be irresistibly applied for the giver to receive full glory for giving it? No.

Well, there is your answer...