Actual Atonement vs Potential Atonement

[JonC]

Pinnock, for example, states that this makes God worse than Hitler.

I was wrong in this statement. Pinnock said this in reference to Christians who believe that hell is an eternal punishment. I was reading two books, and took this as a reference to atonement when it was actually in reference to the conditional view of hell.

 

[savedbymercy]

jon c

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.

Ok, I have no problem with that. Their is a whole world of men and women whose sins God has been propitiated for !

You were arguing that propitiation cannot mean all without exception.

Duh Yeah, since some God is going to punish for their sins !

But it has absolutely nothing to do with implying that propitiation has to have “sin” as its subject.

Thats a Lie. The very verse states that 1 Jn 2:2

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

If you really can’t see what I am saying, that’s fine

Fine, because you do not even see what you saying ! You just running off course !

We actually believe the same regarding the elect, non-elect, and God’s wrath.

No we do not !

 

[JonC]

No we do not !

I am sorry – I didn’t mean to imply your view. I misunderstood you.

If you do not believe that Christ’s death was to redeem those who believe, to appease God’s wrath for the sins of those who would believe, and that the non-elect suffer the wrath of God – then please explain:

1. Why do you believe that those who do not believe perish? Are they not still in their sins?
2. If God does not demonstrate His justice against those who do not believe, then in what way do you believe he demonstrates justice?
3. If Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of man, then who is?

Thats a Lie.

And that is an asinine and immature statement.

As we were discussing propitiation – YOU define propitiation (without who benefits from this - just the word).

What do you see as the subject of 1 John 2:2?
What type of word is propitiation?
What is its subject?

I have had patience with you (as on another post you took two words – as a quote from me – and misrepresented my actual statement and I let it slide – I thought you were simply argumentative) – but I am starting to believe that you are serious regarding your objection in this post. I am not an English teacher, nor am I a Greek language teacher. But there are some good references that may help you when it comes to looking at individual words without carrying in your own presuppositions into the exegesis of Scripture and word studies.

Again, we were not arguing doctrine regarding the word, I was addressing your statement regarding the definition of propitiation.

 

[savedbymercy]

jon c

If you do not believe that Christ’s death was to redeem those who believe, to appease God’s wrath for the sins of those who would believe, and that the non-elect suffer the wrath of God – then please explain:

Where did I say i did not believe those things ? Please explain and provide the quote !

Why do you believe that those who do not believe perish? Are they not still in their sins?

Of course ! Their sins have not been propitiated for as those in 1 Jn 2:2. That is kind of elementary, just from understanding that one verse.

Jesus plainly indicates that some shall die in their sins Jn 8:24

24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

They could not be any for whom Christ died 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Jn 2:2 because those ones, have no sins to die in !

If Christ is not the propitiation for the sins of man, then who is?

Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men, those who believe, and the rest, shall die in their sins. Pretty simple !

 

[DaChaser1]

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?).

he is also making election equivalent to being saved by God...

the election by god causes the Lord to enabling us to believe, to gift us with saving faith to place in christ, but we STILL must receive Christ by faith before wrath of God is appeased, as its THAT point the propiatition of jesus applies in effectual way towards sinners making them saints!

 

[DaChaser1]

jon c



Where did I say i did not believe those things ? Please explain and provide the quote !




Of course ! Their sins have not been propitiated for as those in 1 Jn 2:2. That is kind of elementary, just from understanding that one verse.

Jesus plainly indicates that some shall die in their sins Jn 8:24

24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

They could not be any for whom Christ died 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Jn 2:2 because those ones, have no sins to die in !



Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men, those who believe, and the rest, shall die in their sins. Pretty simple !

Unilr the sinner becomes a saint by receiving Christ by faith, wrath of God still on them!

 

[DaChaser1]

I was wrong in this statement. Pinnock said this in reference to Christians who believe that hell is an eternal punishment. I was reading two books, and took this as a reference to atonement when it was actually in reference to the conditional view of hell.

think that those holding to such a view need to have their theology driven by what the Bible actually stated, NOT what human reasoning/logic would conclude to be the way it needs to be done!

 

[DaChaser1]

Did Christ ACTUALLY atone for our sins at Calvary of did he make atonement possible at Calvary?

How would you define it?

his death was of enough value atonement wise to be able to save all who ever sinned, but ONLY the elect will get their sins actually paid for/covered by that atonement!

 

[JonC]

think that those holding to such a view need to have their theology driven by what the Bible actually stated, NOT what human reasoning/logic would conclude to be the way it needs to be done!

I don’t agree with Pinnock regarding conditional hell, and I think that you are exactly right in determining why he viewed it that way (his couldn’t reconcile God’s love with His justice).

Anyway, regardless of whether or not I agree with Pinnock, I did not mean to misrepresent what he said (which is exactly what I did). I needed to clarify that.

 

[JonC]

he is also making election equivalent to being saved by God...

the election by god causes the Lord to enabling us to believe, to gift us with saving faith to place in christ, but we STILL must receive Christ by faith before wrath of God is appeased, as its THAT point the propiatition of jesus applies in effectual way towards sinners making them saints!

I agree. He is trying to discuss various aspects of atonement but he cannot divorce himself from his theological presuppositions enough to examine it objectively. I actually agree with what he has said, insofar as doctrine is concerned (I believe that it is through grace that God provides the faith) – but his understanding of the actual text 1 John 2:2 is questionable to say the least.

 

[JonC]

Where did I say i did not believe those things ? Please explain and provide the quote !

We actually believe the same regarding the elect, non-elect, and God’s wrath.

No we do not !

You are assuming that I stated you did not believe those things – again, this my problem with your method of interpretation. The first word is of my statement was “If you do not believe…” Like I said, I think that we agree on the status of the elect, non-elect, and the wrath of God. Since you disagreed, I was trying to see where we parted in these doctrines.


The problem that you have is that you cannot seem to examine scripture without recognizing your presuppositions. It is hard (probably impossible) to completely divorce ourselves from our theology when reading scripture – but it is important to recognize that they exist.

A good example would be John Calvin’s interpretation of 1 John 2:2. He held a high view of Scripture and formed his theology from the Biblical text rather than forming his understanding of Scripture through his theology. He also, by the way, disagreed with your interpretation of the passage (although he did support your conclusions regarding the elect/non-elect/wrath of God).

It is not I, but you that have been running of course. Remember what we were talking about? The definition of propitiation.

You said that if someone believed that Christ was the propitiation for not only our sins, but for the sins of the world, but didn’t clarify Scripture by noting that the “world” actually means the elect all over the world, then they do not know what propitiation means. Now that we have gone around the world chasing these theological issues and points, we may finally arrive back at the topic of our disagreement.

What do you believe is the subject of 1 John 2:2 (as a biblical text )? (hint – diagram the sentence – it’s, as you say, elementary).

What is the subject of propitiation?

 

[DaChaser1]

I agree. He is trying to discuss various aspects of atonement but he cannot divorce himself from his theological presuppositions enough to examine it objectively. I actually agree with what he has said, insofar as doctrine is concerned (I believe that it is through grace that God provides the faith) – but his understanding of the actual text 1 John 2:2 is questionable to say the least.

This is WHY I am tecnically NOT a strict calvinist, but more an Amyraldism, as hold to Jesus death able to provide atonmemnt for All, BUT God requires us still to place faith in that work in order to get saved, but knowing sinners cannot produce that faith, his election grants us that needed gift of Grace!

So His death did provide specific salvation unto the elect. but also potentially could have saved all...

 

[savedbymercy]

jon

What is the subject of propitiation?

You must be kidding me ? The sins of those Christ died for !

 

[savedbymercy]

Unilr the sinner becomes a saint by receiving Christ by faith, wrath of God still on them!

Another lie. The scripture plainly states that even while those Christ died for were enemies to God, by nature, that they had been reconciled to God by the Death of His Son Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

Secondly, all those Christ died for, His Death propitiated God's wrath for them. How can they therefore be under God's wrath ? That is a slap in the face to the accomplishment of Christ's Blood and contradicts propitiation.

 

[DaChaser1]

Another lie. The scripture plainly states that even while those Christ died for were enemies to God, by nature, that they had been reconciled to God by the Death of His Son Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

Secondly, all those Christ died for, His Death propitiated God's wrath for them. How can they therefore be under God's wrath ? That is a slap in the face to the accomplishment of Christ's Blood and contradicts propitiation.

God was NOT reconciled by Death of jesus alone , but he had to actually justify us, grant us a new nature as the result of one receiving by faith the person/work of Christ!

Before born again, still all were sinners, under wrath and judgement of God!

 

[JonC]

You must be kidding me ? The sins of those Christ died for !

No, I’m not “kidding” you. (and no, the subject of propitiation is not sin).

“He Himself is the propitiation for our sins”

Propitiation carries the sacrificial imagery from the Old Testament. Sin is not the object of propitiation – Christ is the propitiation for our sins.

In the Old Testament sacrificial system, the offering was made before the Lord as a propitiation: “the priest shall burn it on the alter on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire. In this way the priest will make atonement for the sinner for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven” (Lev. 4:34). Interestingly enough, in the Old Testament sin is never the subject of propitiation either. Propitiation is the sacrifice which appeases God through which sins are forgiven.

Propitiation is the action of appeasing. Christ did not appease our sins, but was instead the appeasement for our sins.

Like I said (and you confirmed), we are in agreement concerning the elect, the non-elect, and God’s wrath in regards to Christ as the propitiation for our sins. Where we seem to disagree is in examining the biblical texts.

If you don’t have one, I’d suggest purchasing a good interlinear New Testament, a lexicon (I like Perschbacher’s), and a concordance. Choose good commentaries by scholars in the field of hermeneutics. A good one will provide various ways a passage may be interpreted and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each. Unlike commentaries written by pastors, these attempt to interact with the text apart from theological presuppositions (although many will also offer why they believe a particular interpretation is better). If you do have them, I'd suggest using them. Word studies are not only important, they are also interesting.

 

[savedbymercy]

jonc

No, I’m not “kidding” you.

Well then you are lost in space, not really worth my time.

 

[savedbymercy]

dac

God was NOT reconciled by Death of jesus alone

Thats a Lie Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

 

[JonC]

jonc



Well then you are lost in space, not really worth my time.

Funny, I actually had the same thought– see, we do have that much in common. :laugh:

 

[JonC]

God was NOT reconciled by Death of jesus alone , but he had to actually justify us, grant us a new nature as the result of one receiving by faith the person/work of Christ!

Before born again, still all were sinners, under wrath and judgement of God!

I may be wrong, but I think you mean that we were not reconciled to God by the death of Jesus alone…

There are various meanings to reconciliation – Paul insists that reconciliation is a completed and ongoing work of God (Paul speaks of it as having been already accomplished and yet of God continuing to accomplish it right up to the present – 2 Cor 17-20).

Ignore savedbymercy calling you a liar. By his standard and logic, reconciliation was the process of reconciling sin to God – that is how he defines propitiation (sin is its subject) and this is the only logical conclusion that he can make from that definition.

Regardless, many on this site will disagree with you, and I may sometimes disagree with you, but judge people by their fruit – how do they react when they disagree or do not understand your understanding of a particular issue or passage. Even though this is an online forum, the interaction will tell you much about a person.