1 John 2:2

[Silverhair]

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.

@taisto why do you struggle so hard to understand clear scripture.

You will continue to twist scripture to your destruction.

What did I post
"Propitiation The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of 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."

Now I have to call into question your ability to comprehend clear English. How many times must you be told something before it sinks in. Unless you missed it I am questioning your intelligence. Not as in insult but just as an observation.

Intelligence
The capacity for learning, reasoning, or understanding. The relative aptitude in grasping truths

I have presented truths to you but you seem incapable of grasping them or you just do not want to accept them.
You seem to enjoy playing silly word games I do not. To me that is just childish behavior. So I will leave you to play your games with someone else.

 

[old regular]

I know this has probably been articulated here. But how do you Calvinists (I am one) handle 1 JOhn 2:2?

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

Did Jesus die in the same way for the sin of every single person, without exception, who has ever lived on the planet?

: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine . I believe he died for the same ones he prayed for those given him of the Father , there is a world he died for there is a world he would not pray for . I believe'' our sins'' the Jews [elect] whole world the Greeks or gentiles [elect]."Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" Hebrews 1:2 KJV

 

[JonC]

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.

I'll add that where you start has a great impact on where you end when theology is involved. I disagree with Owens basic assumptions here, but I do not discredit his logic given his foundation. That is one thing that I have loved about studying theology.

As far as apparent inconsistentcies, I think some can be explained by looking at Owens intent. Spurgeon was the same way (his view of God conquering our wills yet his exclamation that the "water" id offered to all should they just come and drink).


Tim Keller used Paul's shipwreck as an example here, first noting that what is impossible for us (perhaps reconciling this issue) is not with God.

God told Paul that the ship would be destroyed but no lives lost. Paul told the sailers that if they jump ship all will die. The sailors chose to remain, convinced by Paul's testimony. Did God lie to Paul? Did Paul lie to the sailors? I believe both God and Paul spoke truthfully.

I find it helpful to look at God's will as being larger than man's will. If God is omniscience, omnipotent, and sovereign then why can God not save yet man still have to choose without one negating the other?

The problem only comes in when we equate God and man. Then, and only then, is God lowered to the place of man and man elevated to the place of God in such a way we have to have an "either-or" answer as a solution.

 

[Brightfame52]

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"

Tulip is the Gospel of Gods Grace !

 

[Brightfame52]

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

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. Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The Death of Christ alone propitiated Gods wrath for them He died for 1 Jn 2:2

 

[DaveXR650]

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?

It is a prominent theme of Owen that faith is essential for justification and prior to justification. "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" is a large work and I'm not going to study if for you but this is a quick example:
"The certain, infallible, inviolable connection that is between faith and salvation, so that whosoever performs the one shall surely enjoy the other, for whoever comes to Christ he will in no wise cast out, Of which more afterward." From "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" Book 4 Point no. 3. where he is talking about man's duty and God's purpose. That quote alone should put to rest any such nonsense about Owen believing that Calvinism could lead to a conclusion that faith was not essential to salvation.

If he said that then he does not sound much like a calvinist does he.

That's my whole point. He is the Calvinist. He wrote the book on the doctrines of grace, literally. You have no right to think you are refuting Calvinism without deeply studying his works. And that goes for the hyper-Calvinists on here who have no idea what they are talking about either. You are not saved without faith.

It may surprise you but if you take the time to really read his works Owen quotes and then refutes all objections brought up against the Calvinistic scheme of things. I'm not saying you have to agree with him. I don't know if I agree with him on everything. But I can tell you that you will not come up with some kind of gotcha answer to Owen. All, and I mean all of your gotcha comebacks can be found in the works of Owen along with his response.

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.

He spends a lot of ink discussing this too and that is where I am still trying to figure out where he was coming from. To dismiss Owen like the paper you quoted requires an assumption that "his calvinism" is something separate from following the bible. There again, if you actually read Owen you find a constant list of verses accompanying his statements.

I am beginning to realize that the worst thing we do as modern men is to start with a presupposition that if it doesn't make immediate logical sense to us, then that indicates a flaw in what is being said.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'll add that where you start has a great impact on where you end when theology is involved. I disagree with Owens basic assumptions here, but I do not discredit his logic given his foundation. That is one thing that I have loved about studying theology.

Yes. The only way to truly refute Owen is to have a different view of "that which cannot be discussed". And I don't want to do that because I agree with Owen in that area. But I agree with what you said about us not having the ability to resolve all theological tensions and I do not find fault with someone who cannot resolve that in their own minds - and so they insist that you cannot possible be offered Christ if he did not die for you. I'm not sure I don't agree with them. I'm not even sure Calvin didn't agree with them.

 

[taisto]

It is a prominent theme of Owen that faith is essential for justification and prior to justification. "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" is a large work and I'm not going to study if for you but this is a quick example:
"The certain, infallible, inviolable connection that is between faith and salvation, so that whosoever performs the one shall surely enjoy the other, for whoever comes to Christ he will in no wise cast out, Of which more afterward." From "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" Book 4 Point no. 3. where he is talking about man's duty and God's purpose. That quote alone should put to rest any such nonsense about Owen believing that Calvinism could lead to a conclusion that faith was not essential to salvation.

That's my whole point. He is the Calvinist. He wrote the book on the doctrines of grace, literally. You have no right to think you are refuting Calvinism without deeply studying his works. And that goes for the hyper-Calvinists on here who have no idea what they are talking about either. You are not saved without faith.

It may surprise you but if you take the time to really read his works Owen quotes and then refutes all objections brought up against the Calvinistic scheme of things. I'm not saying you have to agree with him. I don't know if I agree with him on everything. But I can tell you that you will not come up with some kind of gotcha answer to Owen. All, and I mean all of your gotcha comebacks can be found in the works of Owen along with his response.


He spends a lot of ink discussing this too and that is where I am still trying to figure out where he was coming from. To dismiss Owen like the paper you quoted requires an assumption that "his calvinism" is something separate from following the bible. There again, if you actually read Owen you find a constant list of verses accompanying his statements.

I am beginning to realize that the worst thing we do as modern men is to start with a presupposition that if it doesn't make immediate logical sense to us, then that indicates a flaw in what is being said.

Of course faith is essential for justification. This is why God grants faith to those whom he has ransomed and propitiated.
The redeemed person will have faith. The question is, at what point does that faith become reality.
For a person who emphasizes free will, faith will be latent in a human soul until the will of that human activates it unto salvation. For a person who emphasizes God's authoring of salvation, faith will not exist until God graciously gives it as a gift of salvation.
Therefore, the person who is saved will have faith, it's just a matter of who initiates faith. Does man initiate faith or does God initiate faith?

 

[Silverhair]

Tulip is the Gospel of Gods Grace !

You keep saying that but with out clear contextual scriptural support it is just your opinion.

 

[Silverhair]

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. Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The Death of Christ alone propitiated Gods wrath for them He died for 1 Jn 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.

So your a universalist, got it.

 

[DaveXR650]

Of course faith is essential for justification. This is why God grants faith to those whom he has ransomed and propitiated.

It seems you have a logical dilemma. Either God paid for all sins, including unbelief (no faith) or God didn't pay for all sins. You cannot logically have both all sins paid for, but not the sin of unbelief. So one of your propositions must be false.
You quote scripture for both your propositions and since both propositions cannot logically be true, therefore it must be concluded that at least one of your prooftexts does not support your assertion.

The problem lies with you needing to resolve your contradiction or simply ignore your contradiction and keep pressing on with a logical fallacy.

Do you not see how the above quotes could be confusing to someone. And then look at this, also from Owen:
"Christ is able to save all them, and only them, who come to God by him. Whilst you live in sin and unbelief, Christ himself cannot save you.." And then a couple of sentences later, "All things in heaven and earth are committed unto him (Christ); - all power is his; - and he will use it unto this end - namely, the assured salvation of all that come unto him."

Now I admit that we think like modern men. But it seems to me that that last statement, if you have been trained as a modern man, that everything must be thought of as a logical consequence of what was stated before - that you could come to the conclusion that the propitiation was for everyone - at least everyone who comes.

 

[Silverhair]

It is a prominent theme of Owen that faith is essential for justification and prior to justification. "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" is a large work and I'm not going to study if for you but this is a quick example:
"The certain, infallible, inviolable connection that is between faith and salvation, so that whosoever performs the one shall surely enjoy the other, for whoever comes to Christ he will in no wise cast out, Of which more afterward." From "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" Book 4 Point no. 3. where he is talking about man's duty and God's purpose. That quote alone should put to rest any such nonsense about Owen believing that Calvinism could lead to a conclusion that faith was not essential to salvation.

That's my whole point. He is the Calvinist. He wrote the book on the doctrines of grace, literally. You have no right to think you are refuting Calvinism without deeply studying his works. And that goes for the hyper-Calvinists on here who have no idea what they are talking about either. You are not saved without faith.

It may surprise you but if you take the time to really read his works Owen quotes and then refutes all objections brought up against the Calvinistic scheme of things. I'm not saying you have to agree with him. I don't know if I agree with him on everything. But I can tell you that you will not come up with some kind of gotcha answer to Owen. All, and I mean all of your gotcha comebacks can be found in the works of Owen along with his response.


He spends a lot of ink discussing this too and that is where I am still trying to figure out where he was coming from. To dismiss Owen like the paper you quoted requires an assumption that "his calvinism" is something separate from following the bible. There again, if you actually read Owen you find a constant list of verses accompanying his statements.

I am beginning to realize that the worst thing we do as modern men is to start with a presupposition that if it doesn't make immediate logical sense to us, then that indicates a flaw in what is being said.

I have to agree with what @JonC said in post #223 "I'll add that where you start has a great impact on where you end when theology is involved. I disagree with Owens basic assumptions here, but I do not discredit his logic given his foundation."

Owen is using calvinism as his base rather than the bible. As you said: "Owen is the Calvinist. He wrote the book on the doctrines of grace, literally."

Contrary to your claim that one has no right to think you are refuting Calvinism without deeply studying his works. One does not need to study Owens works before they can refute calvinsism. Calvinism is not the standard of truth, the bible is.

Which brings us to one of the problems that I see with many calvinists, they start with the assumption that calvinism is the standard and end running foul of the truth of scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you not see how the above quotes could be confusing to someone. And then look at this, also from Owen:
"Christ is able to save all them, and only them, who come to God by him. Whilst you live in sin and unbelief, Christ himself cannot save you.." And then a couple of sentences later, "All things in heaven and earth are committed unto him (Christ); - all power is his; - and he will use it unto this end - namely, the assured salvation of all that come unto him."

Now I admit that we think like modern men. But it seems to me that that last statement, if you have been trained as a modern man, that everything must be thought of as a logical consequence of what was stated before - that you could come to the conclusion that the propitiation was for everyone - at least everyone who comes.

I have to take exception to what Owen said here. "Christ is able to save all them, and only them, who come to God by him." If he had left out the words "and only them" it would be biblical. Christ could save anybody and will save those that freely trust in Him and that is why I can mostly agree with the rest of his comment. "Whilst you live in sin and unbelief, Christ himself cannot save you." Which actually shows God condition for salvation. Man must exercise his free will in his choice to either accept or reject Christ Jesus as savior. So it is not that Christ can not save it is that He will not save one that is still in unbelief.

With reference to 1 John 2:2
The atonement was made for the ones that John was writing to
"propitiation for our sins"
Then he tells them but the atonement was not limited to just them
"and not for ours only"
Then he tells them who else were to be included
"but also for the whole world"

That does not leave any wiggle room as to what John was saying. How can you conclude that John was not making a case for the extent of the atonement? What more should he have said?

 

[37818]

Does 2 Peter 2:1 deny effectual atonement?

The link provides the answer

The answer you want to hear.

But who is then "the Lord" that bought them? And how? And how does it bring them to distruction?
". . . denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. . . ."
Answer my questions.
Who is that Lord that bought them?
Why are they denying him?
How did this Lord buy them?
Biblical references please.

 

[Brightfame52]

You keep saying that but with out clear contextual scriptural support it is just your opinion.

No its not merely my opinion, but the Truth of scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So your a universalist, got it.

1 Jn 2:2 is the elect. The whole world of individuals arent of the elect, sorry

 

[Silverhair]

The answer you want to hear.

But who is then "the Lord" that bought them? And how? And how does it bring them to distruction?
". . . denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. . . ."
Answer my questions.
Who is that Lord that bought them?
Why are they denying him?
How did this Lord buy them?
Biblical references please.

I think the first line says it all "While this is a difficult text, it is actually quite ambiguous.". So while the text is actually clear,
false prophets among the people
there will be false teachers among you
who will secretly bring in destructive heresies
even denying the Lord who bought them
bring on themselves swift destruction

So what is hard about understanding that verse.

But for the calvinist it is "quite ambiguous" so they have to come up with multiple versions of the verse in the attempt to make it fit their man-made theology. So it seems that once again it is not the bible they believe but what some man tells them the bible says.

 

[DaveXR650]

Contrary to your claim that one has no right to think you are refuting Calvinism without deeply studying his works. One does not need to study Owens works before they can refute calvinsism. Calvinism is not the standard of truth, the bible is.

True. But you will end up with the disaster you used above from the Arminian website. You make a mistake assuming that Calvinists don't use the Bible. I don't use the Bible much on this site for the simple reason it doesn't help. We are on post 237 and all looking at the exact same verse. If you don't realize Owen had a verse or two for everything he said then I know you have not read Owen.

" Which actually shows God condition for salvation. Man must exercise his free will in his choice to either accept or reject Christ Jesus as savior. So it is not that Christ can not save it is that He will not save one that is still in unbelief.

I don't know how many times I have said on here that faith is a condition for salvation in Calvinism. What is not happening though is Jesus doing his part and then the Triune God having to sit passively by and see what we are going to do with our free and autonomous wills. That is unbiblical and goes against scores of verses. And don't get caught up in can't vs won't. The meaning can be interchangeable and often is.

 

[Silverhair]

No its not merely my opinion, but the Truth of scripture.

Without clear scriptural support it is just your opinion.

 

[Silverhair]

1 Jn 2:2 is the elect. The whole world of individuals arent of the elect, sorry

Then as I said before you are promoting universalism. The fact you can not understand that is troubling.