Featured General Reconciliation

I do not advocate "universal atonement" but I do advocate "general reconciliation." The difference between general and universal is that universal suggests that the reconciliation is applied individually to everybody. I do not think this is what the bible teaches. But Jesus being the propitiation for the whole world, God reconciling the world to Himself, indicates redemption is available to everybody; Jesus having paid the ransom for the many. If you continue reading in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, you see that being reconciled in the general sense, does not indicate you have "received" the reconciliation individually, that is why we have the ministry of reconciliation. Therefore the difference between general reconciliation and individual reconciliation is in who has "received" the reconciliation. And this occurs when God places us individually "in Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:30)

Here is a summary of Particular Reconciliation and General Reconciliation

Particular Reconciliation:
(1) God preselected folks for salvation before creation
(2) Christ came and died for those folks - limited atonement
(3) God gives those folks faith in Christ, then accepts their faith and places them in Christ.

General Reconciliation
(1) God selected Christ to redeem mankind before creation. Therefore those chosen and placed in Christ during their lifetime through belief in the truth were corporately chosen as the target group of His redemption plan before the foundation of the world.
(2) Christ came and died for mankind in general but not specifically for each individual.
(3) God chooses folks and places them in Christ after accepting their faith and reckoning it as righteousness.

The first point of difference centers on the meaning of Ephesians 1:4 which says we (born again believers) were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means being chosen as foreseen individuals. General Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world and anyone subsequently redeemed by the Lamb was conceptually chosen because you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem..

The second point of difference centers on the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that Jesus is the propitiation not only for elect Jews but also for elect Gentiles. General Reconciliation maintains that Christ is the propitiation not only for believers, but also for everybody else, the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice provides the means of salvation, the mechanism of reconciliation. When God puts a believer spiritually in Christ they “receive” the reconciliation provided by Christ’s sacrifice.

The third point of difference centers on the meaning of Romans 4:5 which says but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Particular Reconciliation maintains the “his faith” was supernaturally given to him by God because the unregenerate are spiritually unable to trust in Christ. General Reconciliation maintains “his faith” is the individual’s trust in Christ, because if it were God’s gift of faith, it would not need to be reckoned as righteousness.

 

The reason I use reconciliation is because it is the word used in the English translation of Scripture. The reason I use Propitiation, meaning means of salvation, is because it is the word used in the English translation of Scripture.

Now, on the other hand, I do not use "reconciler" or "atoner" because they do not appear in any of the English translations of Scripture I searched. Why do you concoct a complaint about my choice of words, rather than address the content. Answer, shuck and jive.

 

Hilasterion

Before we even think about studying hilasterion and the related words hilaskomai and hilasmos, we must address the three cornerstone words of salvation - propitiation, the means of salvation, redemption, the act of salvation, and reconciliation, the result of salvation. Our word study below enters into the arena of the means of salvation, which is Jesus Christ.

Hilasterion

Our best understanding is that hilasterion referred to the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was sprinkled with blood, and thus referred to as the mercy seat. Articles on its meaning are filled with classic words like expiation, atonement, and propitiation, all of which convey almost nothing to the modern reader. In a nutshell, under the Old Covenant, the blood of animals was sprinkled on the hilasterion on the day of atonement to provide temporary reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin. Under the New Covenant, Jesus, covered with His precious blood, has become our "hilasterion" (and our blood sin offering) as the means of everlasting reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin.

Three related Greek words (Hilasterion and Hilasmos-nouns and Hilaskomai -verb) appear 6 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 ; 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 18:13, and Hebrews 2:17. If we look at several translations we find the words translated as (1) propitiatory sacrifice; (2) propitiation; (3) mercy seat; (4) atonement and (5) atoning sacrifice for the nouns; with the verb being translated as (1) have mercy; (2) be merciful; (3) turn your wrath; and (4) make propitiation.

In short the verb refers to the act of having mercy and the noun to the means of having mercy. Therefore hilasterion should be understood as the means of obtaining mercy , i.e the propitiatory shelter.







.

.

 

Not sure why this post appears in this thread, since "world" was not defined or even mentioned. But I recognize a different Calvinist doctrine being asserted, where world means this here, but that there, whatever is needed to support Calvinism.

If you analyze John's books, you will find (or the objective reader will find) that John uses the word translated world, to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

In John 3:16, God loved the world in this way, He gave is one of a kind Son. Obviously fallen mankind is in view. In John 3:17 we see that God sent His Son so that the world might be saved through Him.

So the silly Calvinist chestnut relies on claiming saving some of mankind does not equate with saving the world. But if we set that absurdity aside, we see that God is saving the world (fallen mankind) one person at a time. He is reconciling the world to Himself, one person at a time, when He puts an individual spiritually in Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. The suggestion that if the world refers to all of fallen mankind, then saving some does not save the world is absurd. The requirement that says you must save everyone of the world to save the world is a Calvinist fiction designed to nullify John's usage and insert the Calvinist view. Twaddle.

God and Christ did not fail to provide general reconciliation for the whole world, nor did God and Christ fail to reconcile each individual placed in Christ.

Bottom line, Calvinism rewrites scripture by redefining words such that they mean this here and that there, in order to pour Calvinism into the text. But would viewed objectively, the TULI of Calvinism cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

 

First 2 Corinthians 5:18 says that believers have been, a completed act, reconciled. These are the folks that have received the reconciliation because they have been spiritually placed in Christ. Then in verse 19, scripture says that in Christ God is reconciling the world to Himself. Calvinists say that in this verse, Paul was using the word translated as world to refer to the elect rather than all mankind. So the issue is how did Paul use the term. He used it in a few different ways so lets see what they were.

In Acts 17:24, Paul uses the "world" to refer to everything created by God both in the physical realm and in the spiritual realm. Lets call this #1. (The kosmos of creation.)

In Acts 17:31, Paul uses the "world" to refer to mankind, both the elect and the non-elect and this usage includes both the worldly concerns of mankind and the corrupt worldly value system of mankind and the location where mankind resides. Lets call this #2 (The kosmos of man)

Romans 1:20 - #1; Romans 3:6 - #2; Romans 3:19 - #2; Romans 4:13 - #2. (This one requires a little explanation. To be an heir is to receive a blessing, not to give one. Christ, the seed of Abraham reconciled the world (mankind) and Abraham, being part of mankind - he received his portion of the world's blessing, thus an heir of the world.) Romans 5:12 - #2; Romans 5:13 - #2; Romans 10:18 - #2;

In Romans 11:12, Paul uses the world to refer to all of mankind except Jews. Lets call this #3. (The kosmos of Gentiles).

Romans 11:15 - #3; 1 Cor. 1:20 - #2; 1 Cor. 1:21 - #2; 1 Cor. 27 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 1:28 - #2; 1 Cor. 2:12 - #2; 1 Cor. 3:19 - #2; 1 Cor. 3:22 - #2; 1 Cor. 4:13 - #2; 1 Cor. 5:10 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 6:2 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 7:31 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 7:33 - #2; 1 Cor. 7:34 - #2; 1 Cor. 8:4 - #2; 1 Cor 11:32 - #2, 1 Cor. 14:10 - #2; 2 Cor. 1:12 - #2; 2 Cor. 5:19 - #2, Gal. 4:3 - #2; Gal. 6:14 - #2 twice; Eph. 1:4 - #1; Eph. 2:2 - #2; Col. 1:6 - #2; Col. 2:8 - #2; Col. 2:20 - #2; 1 Tim. 1:15 - #2; 1 Tim. 3:16 - #2; and 1 Tim. 6:7 - #2;

In summary, Paul used #1 twice (Acts 17:24 and Eph. 1:4) and #3 twice (Romans 11:12 and 11:15). In the remaining uses, Paul used the word translated world to mean #2.
Thus in 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul is referring to all mankind and not just the elect. In my quick study, Paul never used the term to refer to the elect only.

May God Bless

.

 

No Thanks

I believe I know what you were attempting. Now if we can return to the topic...

 

Hi Bob, thanks for your contribution. Several translations do indeed translate the Greek word as atoning sacrifice, but most go with propitiation. No matter the translation choice, the meaning remains the same, "means of salvation." Christ is the "propitiatory shelter" and thus when we are spiritually placed within that shelter, we are propitiated, reconciled, saved.

My NIV reads in Romans 3:25 (you did not specify your verse) "sacrifice of atonement." Now at 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice does appear in the NIV (also NET and WEB). However propitiation appears in the other well respected translations including the NASB.

As I said before, when the term is applied to Christ and not the lid of the ark of the covenant, "propitiatory shelter" is my choice as the best translation, but is not the choice of most if not all translations.

I agree deflecting wrath is not a good illustration, rather mechanism for the removal of the sin burden (the consequence of just punishment for our sin) best illustrates the idea in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2.

Christ, became the mechanism for the removal of our sin burden, through the shedding of His blood unto death, which demonstrates God's righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins.

 

Always finding fault and never addressing the topic, or in other words, more shuck and jive. Calvinism is simply a mistaken doctrine invented by men and poured into scripture.

General Reconciliation and receiving that reconciliation through faith are clearly taught in scripture.

 

Many individuals have been born, lived their lives, and died without ever hearing the gospel. Jesus told us to take the message of the gospel to the "ends of the earth."

Thus, whenever the opportunity of redemption through faith occurs by spreading the gospel, part of the message to those hearing it is that Christ died for them.