Featured 1 John 2:2

Those who Christ is their propitiation, they are reconciled to God even while they are in unbelief. And they are guaranteed to be regenerated[saved] by His Life.

 

Here is an example of attacking me, not the argument.

Do you trust the Bible?
Then why do you add words and ideas to 1 John 2:2 that John did not state in that verse?

No disagreement with propitiation. My point is that nowhere do we find propitious in the text. You are adding a secondary feature in an attempt to blunt the definition of propitiation and thus try to change what John says in that one verse.
Silverhair if we only read the one verse do we read anything other than universal payment and ransom for all human sin, including unbelief? If we don't read that, what mental gymnastics must be done to add something else?

I will say this. I think you and I are both right to look for bigger context in order to understand what John is saying in that one verse. We need to look at the whole of his letter to understand the isolated sentence. You are attempting to do that by adding conditions that are not specifically found in the verse.

 

BF do yourself a favor and actually do the research. It is not the hard. Your TULIP/DoG is a house build on sand. And to use your words You been deceived"

 

I pointed it out. You can deny, but the written text proves you attack the person not the argument.

 

Your saying the same falsehood over and over will not make it true. Trust the bible BF.

 

If you want me to attack you then just ask me to do so but do not accuse me of what I have not done. You may not like it when I question your logic or call it flawed but that is not attacking you. As I said those ideas of my attacking you are all in your mind not mine.

 

If you consider my ask if you trust the bible as me attacking you then you are going to have serious problems on this board. That was a question as from what I see you have avoided what the text says and have imported your own meaning to words.

I have given you the definition of propitiation several times and yet you have failed to understand it and say I am adding to what it means and by extension what John was saying in this verse.

Propitiation The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of one making propitious. So when I gave you the definition of propitious it was to make what John was saying clearer. That is not adding words to the text.
Propitious Disposed to be gracious or merciful; ready to forgive sins and bestow blessings; applied to God.
Do you not agree that that is what John was saying in 1 John 2:2
1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Was John not saying God was gracious or merciful; ready to forgive sins and bestow blessings on not just believers but also the whole world of unbelievers.

When I read 1 John 2:2 I see just what the bible says, Christ appeased God so that God could forgive those that trust in His son. If John has intended to say that Christ had paid for our sins he had a Greek word for that (ἀποδίδωμι apodídōmi G591) "to pay off, discharge what is due" Thayer I do not see any mental gymnastics being required to understand what the verse says.

 

Propitiation refers to the turning away of the wrath of God as the just judgment of our sin by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. “Propitiation is used in the New Testament to describe the pacifying, placating, or appeasing of God’s wrath”.
Propitiation

Now read 1 John 2:2 and tell me your interpretation.

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

 

I agree. Owen clearly taught that propitiation was only toward the elect. But he would have had no tolerance for the premise that someone could be saved unless they believed, or that they were justified before they believed, and he would have had no tolerance for those saying that your sins were covered and then it was left up to you to decide to believe or not believe at some point later on.

 

Since @JonC got in on this it reminds me that Torrance would have said that the propitiation had caused all wrath against all men to cease and that his belief was that basically those who still persisted in rejecting God were guilty of a horrible, final and intolerable sin of unbelievable proportions by rejecting this offer of pardon. I have heard a lot of non- theologian Baptist preachers say the same thing actually. I'm not saying that's the way it is, just that that's a common way to look at it.

 

Isn't this conversation off-topic as it doesn't pertain to 1 John 2:2? It seems you two are having a conversation about John Owens, which would be fine in a different topic thread about John Owens.

 

Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of all men. His death appeased the wrath of God just as the sacrificed lambs in the OT appeased the wrath of God. That would be why the Baptist call Christ the lamb of God. John 1:29 So to say that Christ paid a sin debt would be wrong just as it would be wrong to say the sacrifices in the OT paid sin debts. His death, as the OT sacrifices, allowed God to pardon and bless the sinner and be consistent in the exercise of His love toward sinners.

 

Sorry but at around post 112 you brought up Owen's argument and hammered @Silverhair with it for several pages. It most certainly is relevant to this thread. I assumed you would be aware that that was Owen's argument from "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" but I must have been wrong there.

In addition @Brightfame52 tends to argue that the death of Christ completely saves and at least hints at the possibility that this can occur without faith. Owen, in the same work, also refutes this view.

Owen would not have agreed with @Silverhair either. And personally, I find Owen's arguments in "The Death of Death" hard to refute. What confuses me though is that in other writings Owen seems to appeal to the reason and will of those who read his sermons in a way that to me seems to contradict the things he said in that work. I have not resolved that in my own mind.

 

Dave perhaps this article can help bring some clarity on this subject. I have included the article link at the bottom.

For Whom Did Christ Die?

John Owen's Trilemma

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1} All the sins of all men
2} All the sins of some men, or
3} Some of the sins of all men

{QUESTION: why does {2} require that it only apply to the Calvinist version of elect as Owen would suppose}

In which case it may be said:

That if the last {3} be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second {2} be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first {1} be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.” @ pg 25-26

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not?

If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not.

If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died?

If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”

Let them choose which part they will.

A logical question flows from Owen's words

Owen argues that Christ dying for sins means that unbelief (itself being a sin) should not prevent unbelievers from being saved. But if the atonement would save even those who never believe, then that seems to imply that faith is immaterial to salvation.
Is it possible to reconcile this line of reasoning with salvation by faith?


Clarification
To summarize the problem and the question:
Owen argues that Christ dying for a person means that unbelief would not stop that person from being saved, viz, "...why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died?"
If, as Owen argues, the atonement means that unbelief doesn't disqualify someone from salvation, that seems to imply that faith makes no difference in whether one is saved.
The question then is how can faith making no difference in whether one is saved be reconciled with salvation by faith?

Parsing out what Owen is saying,

But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If [unbelief is] not [a sin], why should [unbelievers] be punished for it? … If [Christ did die for the sin of unbelief], then why [would the sin of unbelief] hinder [the unbelievers from being saved any] more than their other sins for which [Christ Jesus died]?

The answer to the trilemma: While refusal to believe is indeed a sin, the reason it keeps one from salvation is not due to it being a sin, but because unbelief, by definition, precludes belief in Christ, without which no one can be saved (Heb_11:6). As with all sins Christ died for, forgiveness for unbelief is only obtained through subsequent belief in Him.

While unstated, there is a premise both insidious and heretical that one must hold to make this argument without duplicity or cognitive dissonance: If one is seriously arguing that unbelief would not stop a person from being forgiven any more than any other sin, that is effectively saying that Christ’s death brings about salvation whether or not one believes.

To put it succinctly

If Christ died for one’s sins, then faith isn’t necessary for salvation.

Note that he is not arguing that all for whom Christ died must eventually believe and be saved, no, he is saying they would be saved despite not believing! Any Bible-believing Christian should be horrified by such a godless and contra-scriptural idea. That faith is absolutely necessary to be saved is all over the New Testament (Joh_3:16-18, Act_13:39, Rom_3:22, Rom_5:1, Rom_10:9, Gal_2:16, Gal_3:22, to give a few references). How in the world can an allegedly Christian theologian be arguing that lack of faith wouldn’t stop someone from receiving forgiveness?

If such a premise were true, it would entail that whether one believes has no bearing on whether he obtains salvation.

And if having faith has no bearing on obtaining salvation, then one can only conclude that salvation is not by faith.

While Owen’s trilemma and the similar arguments derived from it may seem superficially persuasive if one doesn’t spot their weakness, examination of their underlying ideas reveals more than was intended. One who argues that the atonement would save even those who never believe necessarily (except for reason of ignorance or sheer cognitive dissonance) holds a view of redemption that not only lacks scriptural support, but violates one of the central tenets of Christianity in denying salvation by faith altogether.

Extra data re Owen's thought

It should already be evident that one cannot argue that a person would be saved in spite of unbelief without assuming that belief isn’t necessary to be saved. Though Owen phrases it as a question in his famous trilemma argument, he confirms elsewhere in the same work that this is what he actually believes:

Fourthly, if this reconciliation of the world consists (as it does) in a non-imputation of sin, then this is either a non-imputation of all their sins, or only of some sins. If it is only of some, then Christ saves only from some sins. If it is of all sins, then it is of unbelief also, or else unbelief is no sin; if that were true, then all the men in the world must be saved, because their unbelief is pardoned. The world here, then, is only the world of blessed, pardoned believers, who are “made the righteousness of God in Christ.” (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Book 4, ch 3) pg 170



The Cancer in Calvinism

 

Well, what @JonC said earlier is true in that Owen viewed his Calvinism as a system. He felt that God was allowed to be intentional in the plan for our redemption and to him it was perfectly logical and proper for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to complete the work of salvation in those who would be saved. Those in whom God's wrath was propitiated would infallibly be brought to faith in Christ. Owen specifically wrote about the absurdity in his mind of Jesus doing part of his redemptive work and then stopping short of completing his priestly work in most people. The article above is wrong in that Owen did not teach that anyone could be saved without faith - a possibility he expressly refuted, even in the "Death of Death" work. Nor did he teach that anyone is saved prior to having faith. He clearly and explicitly taught that justification is by or through faith, and he said scripture expressly said that very thing.

As a system, and especially if you believe, as most Christians do, that without the convicting power of the Holy Spirit you will not come to Christ - then for you Owen's work has to be taken very seriously. He may very well be right. What I have difficulty with is not the excellence of his logical arguments, which are carefully backed up at each step with scripture by the way, but my problems is that there are other writings by Owen himself where he warns and convinces people to come to Christ in a way that to me at least seems to put a high priority on a person's free will and rational ability. And he seems to clearly show and warn against resisting and offending the Holy Spirit to the point of bringing about your own destruction. And even after you are saved Owen wrote reams on the dangers of falling away into apostacy and how to avoid it. I find these things difficult to resolve. I think the answer lies in the way our minds work and how our wills work. And I do not think these things can be resolved perfectly in our human minds.

 

Therefore, by your statement, there is no longer any wrath for any sin ever committed because Jesus has fully appeased the wrath of God.
Why then does the Bible continually express God's wrath toward humans as it does in Revelation?
Certainly, by your reckoning, God cannot judge anyone according to their sin because Jesus appeased that wrath.

Where does God say that Jesus did not appease His wrath against unbelief, but Jesus appeased God's wrath against all other sins?

You cannot find it in 1 John 2:2.

 

Is one saved by grace or is one saved by their own faith?

 

Dave you say the article is wrong "The article above is wrong in that Owen did not teach that anyone could be saved without faith - a possibility he expressly refuted, even in the "Death of Death" work."
Can you cite the passage for your conclusion?

"Nor did he teach that anyone is saved prior to having faith. He clearly and explicitly taught that justification is by or through faith, and he said scripture expressly said that very thing."
If he said that then he does not sound much like a calvinist does he.

Along with his being able to resist and possible loss of salvation comments I can understand why you find his comments hard to resolve.

He sounds to me like someone that wants to hold on to his calvinism but at the same time wants to follow the bible and is struggling trying to make them fit together.