1 John 2:2

[RipponRedeaux]

The word propitiation is being emptied of its meaning by some here. If Christ propitiated the sins of every one then no one is in Hell and no one will be condemned to Hell. That's obviously false. The wrath of God abides on every person who is not a believer. The wrath of God even hangs onto a person who will be saved. At the point of conversion His wrath doesn't abide any longer. God's wrath has been satisfied. Does anyone think that the residents of Hell have had their sins propitiated by Christ's sacrifice? That is absurd. God is at peace with those who have been reconciled to Him through the cross work of Christ. There is no peace between an unregenerate person and God. No peace --no reconciliation -- no intercession -- no propitiation.

 

[taisto]

Sorry but I do not need to read what a calvinist thinks the bible says. I will trust what the bible does say. You seem to have a real problem doing that as you keep avoiding the truth of scripture.

The problem lays with you, if Christ paid for all sins including sin, as you posit, then we have universalism which is not a biblical view but you seem willing to embrace it.

Your statement here shows you are unable to argue your point and accept your fallacy.
The article provides a definition of propitiation. You reject it out of personal prejudice, not because it is biblically inaccurate.

You have shared Bible verses and contradicted yourself when sharing the verses. It is incumbent upon yourself to resolve your contradiction. At present you are avoiding your contradiction and creating a strawman as the reason you refuse to explore your contradiction.

Either God has paid for all the sins of all people (this is your assertion),which means God paid for the sin of unbelief, or God paid for some sins, but not all. If you claim that God did not pay for the sin of unbelief, then you have to explain the verses you quoted which say God paid for all.

You have a dilemma to figure out. It's not my problem.
Thank you for the conversation.

 

[DaveXR650]

@taisto. You must be new. Welcome. The thing you have to keep in mind with that argument, which is Owen's argument, is that it assumes a deterministic view in which all the other things involved in salvation will inevitably be accomplished in each individual for whom Christ died. In other words, those whose sins were propitiated at the time of Christ's death are exactly those who at some time in their own lives invariably come to Christ by faith. We know this to be the case because Owen clearly taught that until a person comes to faith in Christ they are as lost as anyone. But how can this be? If the argument is taken to the "logical" conclusion that you are demanding from @Silverhair then the only possibility is that salvation occurs at the time of Christ's death and without regard to their faith which Owen did indeed say was a "condition" for salvation. It seems that you are making a simplification of Owen's argument which he did not intend in that he assumed the rest of the Calvinistic scheme of things are in operation like I mentioned.

In other words the argument you are using is fine for some primitive Baptists and for hyper-Calvinists or anyone who believes that salvation occurs at the time of Christ's death. In that case you are logically consistent although I don't agree with you. But if you believe like Owen, or Sproul, or Ferguson who you used for the lesson on propitiation, or any of the Calvinists who taught that salvation occurs timewise either when a person is born again, and/or when they believe - you still have the same logical problem you put on @Silverhair . The problem being that those guys did not really believe that a person was saved until such time as they believed - which is not logical if their sins were forgiven at the time of Christ's death.

In other words your logical trap for @Silverhair is also a trap for any Calvinist who believes that a person is not saved - until he comes to Christ by faith.

 

[Silverhair]

The word propitiation is being emptied of its meaning by some here. If Christ propitiated the sins of every one then no one is in Hell and no one will be condemned to Hell. That's obviously false. The wrath of God abides on every person who is not a believer. The wrath of God even hangs onto a person who will be saved. At the point of conversion His wrath doesn't abide any longer. God's wrath has been satisfied. Does anyone think that the residents of Hell have had their sins propitiated by Christ's sacrifice? That is absurd. God is at peace with those who have been reconciled to Him through the cross work of Christ. There is no peace between an unregenerate person and God. No peace --no reconciliation -- no intercession -- no propitiation.

So you have just admitted that you do not believe the bible, is that right?
1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

 

[Silverhair]

Your statement here shows you are unable to argue your point and accept your fallacy.
The article provides a definition of propitiation. You reject it out of personal prejudice, not because it is biblically inaccurate.

You have shared Bible verses and contradicted yourself when sharing the verses. It is incumbent upon yourself to resolve your contradiction. At present you are avoiding your contradiction and creating a strawman as the reason you refuse to explore your contradiction.

Either God has paid for all the sins of all people (this is your assertion),which means God paid for the sin of unbelief, or God paid for some sins, but not all. If you claim that God did not pay for the sin of unbelief, then you have to explain the verses you quoted which say God paid for all.

You have a dilemma to figure out. It's not my problem.
Thank you for the conversation.

BF you really have to start trusting what the bible actually says not what you want it to say. The bible is clear that He was the propitiation for all men. But if the person that Christ is the propitiation for chooses to stay in their unbelief then they will not be saved will they.

I do not reject the comments from personal prejudice, I just trust the bible more than what some man tells me the bible means. You should try that.

Since the bible does not contradict itself then it would seem it is you that has the problem.

 

[Brightfame52]

So you just avoid dealing with the topic. You have yet to deal with scripture that I posted so the only conclusion that I can draw from that is that you do not have anything to say that refutes what I have said.

Do you want some bible teaching on TULIP, I have many scriptural resources that can show you limited particular atonement from the scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

If Christ died for the sin of unbelief then faith would be unnecessary for salvation. Which you seem to think is true but the bible disagrees.

Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

In Scripture, the sin of unbelief is not merely ignorance; rather, it is willfully refusing God’s free gift of forgiveness of sin.
When God offers to forgive a man’s sin if he believes, logic dictates that his response cannot be, “No, I refuse to believe in You, but forgive my sins anyway.” Forgiveness is a conditional offer: if the required condition is met (faith), then the promised result occurs (forgiveness). Faith in Christ is how people rightly respond to God’s offer of salvation.

(If Jesus didnt pay for the sin of unbelief, then how is one saved from that sin ?

 

[taisto]

@taisto. You must be new. Welcome. The thing you have to keep in mind with that argument, which is Owen's argument, is that it assumes a deterministic view in which all the other things involved in salvation will inevitably be accomplished in each individual for whom Christ died. In other words, those whose sins were propitiated at the time of Christ's death are exactly those who at some time in their own lives invariably come to Christ by faith. We know this to be the case because Owen clearly taught that until a person comes to faith in Christ they are as lost as anyone. But how can this be? If the argument is taken to the "logical" conclusion that you are demanding from @Silverhair then the only possibility is that salvation occurs at the time of Christ's death and without regard to their faith which Owen did indeed say was a "condition" for salvation. It seems that you are making a simplification of Owen's argument which he did not intend in that he assumed the rest of the Calvinistic scheme of things are in operation like I mentioned.

In other words the argument you are using is fine for some primitive Baptists and for hyper-Calvinists or anyone who believes that salvation occurs at the time of Christ's death. In that case you are logically consistent although I don't agree with you. But if you believe like Owen, or Sproul, or Ferguson who you used for the lesson on propitiation, or any of the Calvinists who taught that salvation occurs timewise either when a person is born again, and/or when they believe - you still have the same logical problem you put on @Silverhair . The problem being that those guys did not really believe that a person was saved until such time as they believed - which is not logical if their sins were forgiven at the time of Christ's death.

In other words your logical trap for @Silverhair is also a trap for any Calvinist who believes that a person is not saved - until he comes to Christ by faith.

The term "saved" is a complicated term in this instance. On one hand God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. Is that the point of salvation? On the other hand we as humans do not recognize our position and inheritance until a point in our lives on the timeline where our faith is activated. Is that the point of salvation. From whose perspective are we going to argue? Will it be God's perspective or will it be our own experiential perspective? Since Silverhair has appealed to the Bible, I suggest we must view salvation from God's perspective.
My question to you, DaveXR650, is: At what point does God consider us to be saved?

As to my dialogue with Silverhair, the dilemma of claiming universal propitiation (payment) for sin, yet stating that not all sin is propitiated by Jesus sacrifice, is still a conundrum Silverhair has to address since it is a fallacy on his part.

 

[taisto]

BF you really have to start trusting what the bible actually says not what you want it to say. The bible is clear that He was the propitiation for all men. But if the person that Christ is the propitiation for chooses to stay in their unbelief then they will not be saved will they.

I do not reject the comments from personal prejudice, I just trust the bible more than what some man tells me the bible means. You should try that.

Since the bible does not contradict itself then it would seem it is you that has the problem.

Once again you are arguing a strawman and avoiding your conundrum. You have a very obvious problem with your position. Will you seek to address it or keep attempting to call me an unbeliever?

I have not denied any verse or not trusted any verse you have shared. I do, however, understand the verses differently than you seem to understand them. We both are trusting the Bible. You, however, have a significant conundrum that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Thank you for the conversation. Is there any point in us restating the same points we have made. You either address your conflict or you don't, but stop telling me that I don't trust the Bible when you refuse to review your dilemma.

 

[37818]

@taisto,
I assume you are aware, those who do not hold to Limited Atonement, believe Christ gave His soul for His sheep?

 

[DaveXR650]

The term "saved" is a complicated term in this instance. On one hand God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. Is that the point of salvation? On the other hand we as humans do not recognize our position and inheritance until a point in our lives on the timeline where our faith is activated. Is that the point of salvation. From whose perspective are we going to argue? Will it be God's perspective or will it be our own experiential perspective? Since Silverhair has appealed to the Bible, I suggest we must view salvation from God's perspective.
My question to you, DaveXR650, is: At what point does God consider us to be saved?

That is why you cannot create true a logical fallacy argument in this case that has any real life meaning. If God decides something is to be it will be, so in that sense a person is saved as soon as God makes that determination. Which is probably since eternity past. But do the events that are determined still have to happen in order to be? Scripture no where hints that salvation occurs apart from faith. Even a monergistic Calvinist who believes that any movement by man towards salvation is wrought by God still believes that the events of faith and so on must truly occur. There are only a few on the fringes who believe that you are actually saved without regards to faith. Even those who believe that faith itself is a gift or that you are born again and then saved believe that faith is essential on your part and without it there is no salvation. That brings up the same logical conundrum you are putting before @Silverhair .

 

[Silverhair]

Do you want some bible teaching on TULIP, I have many scriptural resources that can show you limited particular atonement from the scripture.

Why would I a bible believer want to trust your TULIP? It may work for someone that holds to a divine deterministic view but since I do not do that I will pass on your offer.

 

[Silverhair]

(If Jesus didnt pay for the sin of unbelief, then how is one saved from that sin ?

When they actually trust {believe} in Christ Jesus.

Think that through BF. If unbelief had, as you say, been paid for then no one would be held responsible for their unbelief so all would be saved which as you know would be universalism. So logically if you hold to that view you must support universalism which I doubt you do so your view has to change BF.

 

[37818]

. . . a person is saved as soon as God makes that determination. Which is probably since eternity past. . . .

God in His absolute omniscience knows everyone whom He saves. We don't know our salvation until we are.

 

[DaveXR650]

As to my dialogue with Silverhair, the dilemma of claiming universal propitiation (payment) for sin, yet stating that not all sin is propitiated by Jesus sacrifice, is still a conundrum Silverhair has to address since it is a fallacy on his part.

This is easy. Imputation of your sins to Christ and Christ's righteousness to you are essential to your salvation. This occurs theologically when there is a "union" with Christ and that occurs at or even at the most monergistic level, immediately before faith. Many people believe that Christ's death removed all barriers to this occurring but by definition propitiation does not mean that this imputation or union has actually occurred. You can even have a Calvinist or monergistic belief that this coming to Christ is wrought by the Holy Spirit, totally, and electing grace is therefore in operation - yet the atonement itself was universal.

The reformers were not all saying the same thing in this case. Calvin and Edwards seemed not to say much on the subject and from what we have you could, and people do, make the case they did not believe in limited atonement. Owen himself said that refusing to believe in Christ was an offense greater than almost anything else in the universe and the implication was that you would be neglecting what Christ has done for you.

 

[Brightfame52]

Why would I a bible believer want to trust your TULIP? It may work for someone that holds to a divine deterministic view but since I do not do that I will pass on your offer.

TULIP Truths are the Gospel of Gods Grace, if you reject them, you reject the Gospel of Gods Grace !

 

[Brightfame52]

When they actually trust {believe} in Christ Jesus.

Think that through BF. If unbelief had, as you say, been paid for then no one would be held responsible for their unbelief so all would be saved which as you know would be universalism. So logically if you hold to that view you must support universalism which I doubt you do so your view has to change BF.

So people are saved when they do something, something the death of Christ didnt do, since unbelief according to you wasnt covered by the death of Christ. Congratulations, you are your own saviour from unbelief which caused you to get saved.

 

[DaveXR650]

God in His absolute omniscience knows everyone whom He saves. We don't until we are.

Yes. But what a hyper-Calvinist does with that is that they take it to mean that salvation is in reality just us finding out that we are of that elect group. (See above.) All non-Calvinists, and even most Calvinists, believe that you are actually saved when you believe. Some say that you believe as result of being born again or as a result of receiving the gift of faith, but until that time you are lost.

This is where we have to accept our limitations as humans. Election and God's sovereignty are scriptural. But actual faith and repentance is also. In trying to make a theological point we ere if we don't believe both as true and true at the same time. But any appeal to "mystery" is often ridiculed as wishy washy or being weak theologically.

 

[Silverhair]

Once again you are arguing a strawman and avoiding your conundrum. You have a very obvious problem with your position. Will you seek to address it or keep attempting to call me an unbeliever?

I have not denied any verse or not trusted any verse you have shared. I do, however, understand the verses differently than you seem to understand them. We both are trusting the Bible. You, however, have a significant conundrum that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Thank you for the conversation. Is there any point in us restating the same points we have made. You either address your conflict or you don't, but stop telling me that I don't trust the Bible when you refuse to review your dilemma.

@taisto you are just refusing to accept what those verses say. While Christ as the propitiation for the whole world made salvation available to all it is only those that actually place their trust in Him for their salvation that will be saved. So no contradiction no conflict and no strawman. It actually is your deterministic view that causes the conflict with the bible.

I am sure you have a different understanding of those verses I posted. You are approaching them from a deterministic point of view. You require God to have written the script and you just act it out whereas I see that God has given man free will. So there in no point in my restating what the bible says since you do not agree with what it says.

 

[Brightfame52]

The term "saved" is a complicated term in this instance. On one hand God has chosen from before the foundation of the world. Is that the point of salvation? On the other hand we as humans do not recognize our position and inheritance until a point in our lives on the timeline where our faith is activated. Is that the point of salvation. From whose perspective are we going to argue? Will it be God's perspective or will it be our own experiential perspective? Since Silverhair has appealed to the Bible, I suggest we must view salvation from God's perspective.
My question to you, DaveXR650, is: At what point does God consider us to be saved?

As to my dialogue with Silverhair, the dilemma of claiming universal propitiation (payment) for sin, yet stating that not all sin is propitiated by Jesus sacrifice, is still a conundrum Silverhair has to address since it is a fallacy on his part.

The elect are saved in three respects, #1 as you pointed out, From eternity 2 Tim 1:9-10

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

#2 The elect are saved legally at the death of Christ Heb 10:10,14
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

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.

To be reconciled to God by Christs death is to be legally saved, saved from the penalty of sin and at peace with God.

Then the elect are spiritually saved by the Spirits sanctifying work of the New Birth which effects Faith 2 Thess 2:13

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Salvation is accomplished for the elect by the One Triune God !