Limited Atonement and when it is applied to the Elect?

[min_is_3]

So I was discussing Limited Atonement with someone who is non-reformed and they brought up 1 John 2:2. And their argument is that Christ's death propitiated sins for "the whole world" meaning every single person. So I responded back that this would mean that God's wrath was removed from every single person and hence universalism, which this person doesn't hold to.

He said, that the propitiatory sacrifice is only applied or effective to those who believe and quoted Romans 3:25 which threw me for a loop because the verse states that propitiation is through faith. He said that those who don't believe, the propitiatory sacrifice made for them doesn't get applied but nonetheless, it was still made for every single person. It's the exercise of faith that determines if it actually gets applied to the person.

He said that even the Elect are not born into this world with their sins already propitiated, that they still have to exercise faith in time for the sacrifice to be efficacious. So Christ could have died for everyone but only benefits those who believe.

Something doesn't sound right but I didn't know how to answer him.

 

[Afterthought]

Christ purchased a perfect salvation. Faith is one of the things that sinners need. Therefore, faith is one of the gifts purchased by Christ's death. If they do not believe, Christ did not die for them.

But if that is too theologically abstract, Romans 3:25 does not only say that the propitiation is applied or effective to those who believe; it says Christ was set forth as a propitiation *through faith.* Christ is only intended to be set forth as a propitiation through faith; If there is no faith, there is no propitiation.

Or maybe simpler still: A propitiation removes God's wrath; if a person never believes, God's wrath is never removed from them...else why are they condemend to suffer God's wrath in hell for their sins? Therefore, no propitiation--no removal of wrath, forgiveness of sins, and bringing of peace--was accomplished for a person who never believes.

You could also challenge him where in Scripture does it teach Christ only making men savable (how is that Christ saving then? The person saves themself under this scheme.) or accomplishing a partial salvation that is in the end made void (how is that even real "salvation" at that point, if it is never applied to the person?). Christ actually saves men, and when Christ saves, he saves to the uttermost.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Hi min_is_3, please see board rules on signature (click the link below) and fix yours accordingly! Thanks.

 

[JH]

Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either -
(1) all the sins of all men
(2) all the sins of some men
(3) some of the sins of all men

If the last, then all men have some sins to answer for, and so no man can be saved. For if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight. "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who shall stand?" (Ps. cxxx. 1). We might all go to cast all that we have to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. (Isa. II. 20, 21).

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room, suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "because of their unbelief, they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins, for which he died, from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them (the Universalists) choose which part they will.

- Owen on Particular Redemption, Vol 10 of his works

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

It doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would be punished for someone's sins, then there would later be punishment for those same sins.

Imagine a friend paying a ransom for another to be released from captivity, but they are never released, then the captive has to pay his own ransom to truly be released. This logically makes no sense.

I get it, people can use verses to justify a belief, but the rationale to me doesn't work out here.

The Father planned, Jesus made atonement at the cross for all of the Church, and justification happens when faith is exercised.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So I was discussing Limited Atonement with someone who is non-reformed and they brought up 1 John 2:2. And their argument is that Christ's death propitiated sins for "the whole world" meaning every single person. So I responded back that this would mean that God's wrath was removed from every single person and hence universalism, which this person doesn't hold to.

He said, that the propitiatory sacrifice is only applied or effective to those who believe and quoted Romans 3:25 which threw me for a loop because the verse states that propitiation is through faith. He said that those who don't believe, the propitiatory sacrifice made for them doesn't get applied but nonetheless, it was still made for every single person. It's the exercise of faith that determines if it actually gets applied to the person.

He said that even the Elect are not born into this world with their sins already propitiated, that they still have to exercise faith in time for the sacrifice to be efficacious. So Christ could have died for everyone but only benefits those who believe.

Something doesn't sound right but I didn't know how to answer him.

The view he's presenting divides the intent of the atonement from its application. It's similar to the Amyraldian scheme, where Christ died for all (without distinction), but the decree to apply that death only to the elect exercising faith is made subsequent/subservient to the other decree.

The practical effect is twofold. 1) election is misprioritized; it becomes a guarantee-after-the-fact, and not the very foundation of our redemption. Election (to create a people worthy) is removed as the reason for Christ's incarnation and atoning sacrifice. The proper relationship between election and faith is made more (not less) obscure.

The other effect of dividing intent and application. 2) What is thought to be gained by a universal atonement: assurance of pardon and its outcome, is actually lost. In the universal scheme, the outcome is not assured. In other words, Pardon is granted to all, yet that pardon (the effect of the atonement) is not effectual (the end or outcome, i.e. heaven) to all for whom it was granted.

Personally, knowing that in the universal scheme Christ's death did not bring to heaven all for whom it was offered--that the death of Christ itself guaranteed no specific outcome, and indeed there are those in hell forever for whom Christ died and from which he will see no satisfaction for his suffering--this would be the most unsettling fact imaginable. Is my confidence in Jesus' death--which may not bring me to the end--or in my faith in Jesus' death that brings me to the end?

It is on account of such tension that many do not remain convinced of eternal hell, but resolve the tension by conceiving a universal or near-universal salvation. Judas has to stay... and probably Hitler. But that's it; eventually God has to turn hell into a purgatory, and bring out all for whom Christ died.

It's best not to divide the intent and the application of the atonement, keep election where it belongs right at the foundation of the plan of salvation. If one must, he may resort to the "sufficient/efficient" distinction, in which he recognizes the infinite worth of Christ's death (that it was more than enough to cover the sins of all men in every age of history); but that it was meant for, intended for the elect, and in fact covers them; and only them.

 

[min_is_3]

The view he's presenting divides the intent of the atonement from its application. It's similar to the Amyraldian scheme, where Christ died for all (without distinction), but the decree to apply that death only to the elect exercising faith is made subsequent/subservient to the other decree.

The practical effect is twofold. 1) election is misprioritized; it becomes a guarantee-after-the-fact, and not the very foundation of our redemption. Election (to create a people worthy) is removed as the reason for Christ's incarnation and atoning sacrifice. The proper relationship between election and faith is made more (not less) obscure.

The other effect of dividing intent and application. 2) What is thought to be gained by a universal atonement: assurance of pardon and its outcome, is actually lost. In the universal scheme, the outcome is not assured. In other words, Pardon is granted to all, yet that pardon (the effect of the atonement) is not effectual (the end or outcome, i.e. heaven) to all for whom it was granted.

Personally, knowing that in the universal scheme Christ's death did not bring to heaven all for whom it was offered--that the death of Christ itself guaranteed no specific outcome, and indeed there are those in hell forever for whom Christ died and from which he will see no satisfaction for his suffering--this would be the most unsettling fact imaginable. Is my confidence in Jesus' death--which may not bring me to the end--or in my faith in Jesus' death that brings me to the end?

It is on account of such tension that many do not remain convinced of eternal hell, but resolve the tension by conceiving a universal or near-universal salvation. Judas has to stay... and probably Hitler. But that's it; eventually God has to turn hell into a purgatory, and bring out all for whom Christ died.

It's best not to divide the intent and the application of the atonement, keep election where it belongs right at the foundation of the plan of salvation. If one must, he may resort to the "sufficient/efficient" distinction, in which he recognizes the infinite worth of Christ's death (that it was more than enough to cover the sins of all men in every age of history); but that it was meant for, intended for the elect, and in fact covers them; and only them.

So he said that intent and application does not necessarily go hand in hand. He gave the example of the Gospel. God's intent in the giving of the Gospel is for salvation and yet not everyone believes the message. Therefore, those who do not believe do not have the saving power of the Gospel applied to them. So the intention of Christ's death was for propitiation, reconciliation, justification, etc. which doesn't get applied unless the person believes.

So I asked him if he believes that Christ's death merely made the possibility of salvation for every single person to which he said yes, but only those who exercise faith will actualize the possibility. And that those people who actualize it can then say, with Paul, that they have been crucified with Christ.

 

[aaronsk]

James White has a good write up on that verse that may be useful - here is the link from Mongerism.
https://filekeeper.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/spt-1-john-2-2.pdf

 

[Eyedoc84]

Is this a personal friend? Be patient. I was an “evangelical Arminian” for years. I was a member of the Society. Yet I attended a reformed church because of the pastoral care and preaching. Conversations and sermons on Calvinist/Arminian points of contention would occasionally surface but never too adversarial. In my eventual conversion to the reformed side, Isaiah 53 and John 17 were critical to my acceptance of particular redemption.

 

[min_is_3]

James White has a good write up on that verse that may be useful - here is the link from Mongerism.
https://filekeeper.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/spt-1-john-2-2.pdf

Thanks, that looks pretty helpful. I'll pass this along.

 

[min_is_3]

Is this a personal friend? Be patient. I was an “evangelical Arminian” for years. I was a member of the Society. Yet I attended a reformed church because of the pastoral care and preaching. Conversations and sermons on Calvinist/Arminian points of contention would occasionally surface but never too adversarial. In my eventual conversion to the reformed side, Isaiah 53 and John 17 were critical to my acceptance of particular redemption.

Yes, he's a personal friend but not like a close friend.

 

[hLuke]

Send your friend Packer's introduction to Owen's The Death of the death in the death of Christ.
Grace and peace,
Hayden

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So he said that intent and application does not necessarily go hand in hand. He gave the example of the Gospel. God's intent in the giving of the Gospel is for salvation and yet not everyone believes the message. Therefore, those who do not believe do not have the saving power of the Gospel applied to them. So the intention of Christ's death was for propitiation, reconciliation, justification, etc. which doesn't get applied unless the person believes.

So I asked him if he believes that Christ's death merely made the possibility of salvation for every single person to which he said yes, but only those who exercise faith will actualize the possibility. And that those people who actualize it can then say, with Paul, that they have been crucified with Christ.

It's possible the gospel should go forth, as with all God's truth, and the word shall accomplish all that the LORD intends by it, Is.55:11. The intent in such a thing may be this, or it may be that. It may soften this heart, and harden that one, the same word. So, saying that the gospel may have a general intent, but a particular application for those who believe it is uncontroversial. It would be more challenging to hear what might be said in answer to the Reformed appropriation of Is.55:11, meaning that the gospel is also decreed for the hardening of certain hearts, if men (like Pharaoh) refuse it.

Either way, there's no necessary (logical) comparison between a general gospel-intention "for salvation," which may be divorced from a particular application; and the proposition that the atonement of Christ has manifold intentions, or that it has an application set smaller than the intention set. God's ways can incorporate acts that have manifold intentions side-by-side with acts that have single intent. The point made by Limited Atonement is that saving intent of Christ's sacrifice (he will save his people from their sins) and the application of that saving effect achieved are exactly co-extensive. He will see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied--not partially satisfied, Is.53:11; cf. Is.49:4ff.

But, at least the man is honest to admit the reason he can't accept the atonement actually fulfills the redemptive requirement for all for whom Christ died is because he separates the intent from the application. Such division leads inexorably to open-theism (yes, many if not most stop short of that explicitly). God sets forth his Son to be the propitiation for sins; but (in the man's view) God doesn't know how many sins it will eventually cover, or whose; which result is contingent on human faith--what actually saves is not the death of Christ, but faith in the death of Christ.

In this view, faith is more than instrumental; it is the human act of the terms of union sealing redemption. God builds the bridge almost from heaven to earth; man must only step over the narrowed chasm in faith to benefit. God helps those who help themselves (a little).

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Send your friend Packer's introduction to Owen's The Death of the death in the death of Christ.
Grace and peace,
Hayden

Yes, excellent theological essay.

 

[min_is_3]

It's possible the gospel should go forth, as with all God's truth, and the word shall accomplish all that the LORD intends by it, Is.55:11. The intent in such a thing may be this, or it may be that. It may soften this heart, and harden that one, the same word. So, saying that the gospel may have a general intent, but a particular application for those who believe it is uncontroversial. It would be more challenging to hear what might be said in answer to the Reformed appropriation of Is.55:11, meaning that the gospel is also decreed for the hardening of certain hearts, if men (like Pharaoh) refuse it.

Either way, there's no necessary (logical) comparison between a general gospel-intention "for salvation," which may be divorced from a particular application; and the proposition that the atonement of Christ has manifold intentions, or that it has an application set smaller than the intention set. God's ways can incorporate acts that have manifold intentions side-by-side with acts that have single intent. The point made by Limited Atonement is that saving intent of Christ's sacrifice (he will save his people from their sins) and the application of that saving effect achieved are exactly co-extensive. He will see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied--not partially satisfied, Is.53:11; cf. Is.49:4ff.

But, at least the man is honest to admit the reason he can't accept the atonement actually fulfills the redemptive requirement for all for whom Christ died is because he separates the intent from the application. Such division leads inexorably to open-theism (yes, many if not most stop short of that explicitly). God sets forth his Son to be the propitiation for sins; but (in the man's view) God doesn't know how many sins it will eventually cover, or whose; which result is contingent on human faith--what actually saves is not the death of Christ, but faith in the death of Christ.

In this view, faith is more than instrumental; it is the human act of the terms of union sealing redemption. God builds the bridge almost from heaven to earth; man must only step over the narrowed chasm in faith to benefit. God helps those who help themselves (a little).

Wow, thanks for this response. There's a lot in there that I have to process to comprehend what you're saying fully.

You made a good point that the fact that Jesus will save his people from their sins. To me, this would indicate that he had a particular people in mind and not just a unknown group of people and that he "will save" them indicates certainty rather than just possibility because possibility implies the possibility that none might be saved.

Which made me think about John 10:15-16 about Jesus laying his life down for the sheep. Then in John 10:26, Jesus says there are those who are not his sheep which we, then, are forced to conclude that he didn't lay his life down for every single person since Jesus himself makes the point that some are not his sheep and therefore he wouldn't have laid his life down for them.

You're response was very helpful and gave me much to think about.

min_is_3
Reformed Baptist
California

 

[min_is_3]

Yes, excellent theological essay.

Thank you. I just bought this book a few days ago and I'm reading through it now. I'll need to read it first and comprehend it before I send it to him so that I'll know how to answer his potential objections.

min_is_3
Reformed Baptist
California

 

[Ed Walsh]

Owen on Particular Redemption, Vol 10 of his works

You beat me by ten minutes. The quote is even now in my clipboard as I read your post.
Thanks.

 

[timfost]

Hi @min_is_3

It sounds like you're having a great conversation about an incredibly important issue. In no way do I want to undermine the things that have been so very helpfully said in this thread. It also does seem like your friend has an "indefinite" view of the atonement with which we cannot agree.

I do think that it would be helpful for your to understand that there is some diversity in the Reformed world on this subject. Most of the Reformed today seem to hold to some form of strict particularism. Briefly, this view holds that Christ only died for the elect in any capacity (although some believe that the death of Christ procured common grace benefits for all of humanity). At the opposite spectrum, there are hypothetical universalists. Some writers (Fesko and Moore) believe that the English hypothetical universalists should be distinguished from the Amyraldians. I believe it can be argued convincingly that English hypothetical universalism is compatible with the confessions (some of the divines, after all, held this view), though Amyraldianism is not compatible with Westminster. Finally, there are those who hold a sufficient/efficient view of the atonement. While the Westminster standards lean toward strict particularism (SP), the Three Forms lean toward sufficient/efficient (SE). (See Heidelberg 37, Dort 2nd head. Full disclosure, this is also my view of the atonement.) Ursinus, the primary writer of the Heidelberg, wrote the following in his commentary:

Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction. Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us.

All of this to say, even in the Reformed world, it is not always "off limits" to say that in certain respects Christ died for all, though not with equal intention. Charles Hodge, another proponent of this view, writes about 1 John 2:2 thus:

These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, “Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches.

I say all of this, not to debate other Reformed brethren with a different Reformed perspective on the atonement, but to say that I believe that part of what your friend says is true. Regardless of where you fall in the end, I do think that the most important portion of this discussion is not whether or not Christ died for all, but what was His intention in dying? If to simply make salvation possible, humanity is in real trouble when we are honest about our bondage to sin. No, Christ determined to save His sheep so that none of them would be lost and provided a sacrifice that accomplished exactly what He determined it would accomplish. Praise God!

Please let me know if you would like additional information/reading suggestions.

Blessings,

Tim

 

[min_is_3]

Hi @min_is_3

It sounds like you're having a great conversation about an incredibly important issue. In no way do I want to undermine the things that have been so very helpfully said in this thread. It also does seem like your friend has an "indefinite" view of the atonement with which we cannot agree.

I do think that it would be helpful for your to understand that there is some diversity in the Reformed world on this subject. Most of the Reformed today seem to hold to some form of strict particularism. Briefly, this view holds that Christ only died for the elect in any capacity (although some believe that the death of Christ procured common grace benefits for all of humanity). At the opposite spectrum, there are hypothetical universalists. Some writers (Fesko and Moore) believe that the English hypothetical universalists should be distinguished from the Amyraldians. I believe it can be argued convincingly that English hypothetical universalism is compatible with the confessions (some of the divines, after all, held this view), though Amyraldianism is not compatible with Westminster. Finally, there are those who hold a sufficient/efficient view of the atonement. While the Westminster standards lean toward strict particularism (SP), the Three Forms lean toward sufficient/efficient (SE). (See Heidelberg 37, Dort 2nd head. Full disclosure, this is also my view of the atonement.) Ursinus, the primary writer of the Heidelberg, wrote the following in his commentary:



All of this to say, even in the Reformed world, it is not always "off limits" to say that in certain respects Christ died for all, though not with equal intention. Charles Hodge, another proponent of this view, writes about 1 John 2:2 thus:



I say all of this, not to debate other Reformed brethren with a different Reformed perspective on the atonement, but to say that I believe that part of what your friend says is true. Regardless of where you fall in the end, I do think that the most important portion of this discussion is not whether or not Christ died for all, but what was His intention in dying? If to simply make salvation possible, humanity is in real trouble when we are honest about our bondage to sin. No, Christ determined to save His sheep so that none of them would be lost and provided a sacrifice that accomplished exactly what He determined it would accomplish. Praise God!

Please let me know if you would like additional information/reading suggestions.

Blessings,

Tim

Thanks for your response Tim.

My understanding of SP is that God has a fixed number of the Elect and Christ's death was sufficient and efficient for them only.

While SE is Christ would not have to shed any more blood than He already did because His sacrifice would be sufficient for any number. So in that sense, Christ's death would be sufficient for all but only efficient for those who believe.

As I'm writing this, I can't think of any verses that clearly points to either position even though, I've always held to the SP view since it made sense to me that if God had a particular number of the Elect in mind, and the intent of Christ's death was to effectuate propitiation, reconciliation, justification and intercession, that it would only be sufficient and efficient for the Elect only. But this conclusion was based more on what I thought was more reasonable rather than actual verses that clearly taught it.

Maybe there are verses and I'm just getting old and forgot them.

Either way, I'm not sure how it would help my argument with my friend.

I was discussing this with my 15 year old son, and he was saying that if propitiation is received through faith according to Romans 3:25, and 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the propitiation for not only "our" sins (the believers according to my non-reformed friend's understanding of the word our) but also for the "whole world" (the unbelievers according to my friend), my son pointed out how can Christ be the propitiation for unbelievers if Romans 3:25 says that propitiation is received through faith and hence only for believers?

If, according to my friends understanding of "our" and "whole world", 1 John 2:2 is talking about 2 different categories of peoples, believers and unbelievers, then that kind of understanding of propitiation would seem to contradict Romans 3:25 would it not?

If this is the case, then I'll bring this up to my friend.



min_is_3
Reformed Baptist
California

 

[timfost]

Thanks for your response Tim.

My understanding of SP is that God has a fixed number of the Elect and Christ's death was sufficient and efficient for them only.

Most SP would understand that Christ's death was sufficient for the sin of all of Adam's descendants, though efficient for the elect only (e.g. John Owen). Generally, sufficient for all humanity, efficient for the elect only is admitted with both SP and all other reformed camps.

The difference lies more in the purpose of the sufficiency. For SP, the sufficiency has to do with the intrinsic value of the atonement. For the SE, it is used to understand that it was sufficient for all, even if they do not believe. In other words, generally a SP would not say that Christ died sufficiency for all humanity, even though they believe the price paid would be sufficient for all humanity. The SE believe that Christ died for all in terms of the sufficiency.

While SE is Christ would not have to shed any more blood than He already did because His sacrifice would be sufficient for any number. So in that sense, Christ's death would be sufficient for all but only efficient for those who believe.

This is the position of the SP. Again, what is meant by sufficiency is the infinite value of the atonement.

As I'm writing this, I can't think of any verses that clearly points to either position even though, I've always held to the SP view since it made sense to me that if God had a particular number of the Elect in mind, and the intent of Christ's death was to effectuate propitiation, reconciliation, justification and intercession, that it would only be sufficient and efficient for the Elect only. But this conclusion was based more on what I thought was more reasonable rather than actual verses that clearly taught it.

Some key verses for the SE distinction are as follows:

John 3:18 " Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

2 Thes. 2:9-10 "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

The question is this: if Christ's death was in no respect for those who perish, what do unbelievers reject that would have saved them?

Maybe there are verses and I'm just getting old and forgot them.

Either way, I'm not sure how it would help my argument with my friend.

This is where I've found this distinction to be helpful. I was speaking a while ago with someone really struggling with this point (he initiated these conversations with me). When he brought up verses that seemed universal (e.g. John 3:16-18, Heb. 2:9, 1 John 2:2), I did not have to qualify them to fit a particular scheme. After all, scriptures never say that there are some for whom Christ did not die, though there are plenty verses that use universal language. This took away the frequent SP "road block" and, like I mentioned earlier, we could look at the intent of Christ's death which scripture is very clear about. In this way, I think it is a very practical doctrine when discussing these matters with those who disagree.

I was discussing this with my 15 year old son, and he was saying that if propitiation is received through faith according to Romans 3:25, and 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the propitiation for not only "our" sins (the believers according to my non-reformed friend's understanding of the word our) but also for the "whole world" (the unbelievers according to my friend), my son pointed out how can Christ be the propitiation for unbelievers if Romans 3:25 says that propitiation is received through faith and hence only for believers?

Propitiation means that God's wrath was turned away from us. If God's wrath is turned away, He is also reconciled to us. How is God reconciled to us before we believe and are children of wrath? (See Rom. 5:10 and Eph. 2:3.) Communion with God is not only that he is reconciled to us through His death, but that we are also reconciled to God. Consider 2 Cor. 5:18-20:

"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

God reconciling the world is defined by the Apostle in that God does not count our trespasses against us. In part, we can see this in the common grace benefits bestowed indiscriminately on all every day (see Matt. 5 and Luke 6). He does not treat us as our sins deserve, which statement is true for all living descendants of Adam.

In terms of propitiation, therefore, can we-- in a qualified sense-- see that God does not treat all living people as their sins deserve? In this sense, are even unbelievers (whether elect or non-elect) experiencing the wrath of God presently, or are they experiencing a measure of grace from God, even if temporal? Col. 1:15-23 is also very helpful in this regard.

If, according to my friends understanding of "our" and "whole world", 1 John 2:2 is talking about 2 different categories of peoples, believers and unbelievers, then that kind of understanding of propitiation would seem to contradict Romans 3:25 would it not?

One of the difficulties here is that in John's later writings (1, 2, 3 John, Revelation), the term "whole world" refers to unbelievers (see 1 John 5:19, Rev. 3:10, 12:9, 16:14). If "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 referred to only other elect people, it would be an anomaly in the author's own usage of the term. But according to the SE scheme, this "problem" is quite simple and really poses no problem at all. Christ is the propitiation offered indiscriminately in the gospel through an atonement that is suitable to every sinner, regardless of their status of election/reprobation.

Again, I only bring this up to show the practical implication of how these doctrines may assist you in your conversations with this friend. I'm not proposing this as the only possible view a Reformed believer can hold, as many do not.

 

[Taylor]

Not relevant to the OP, but I think it’s fascinating that you’ve been a member of Puritan Board for nearly a decade, yet the entirety of your posts are contained in this one thread! Should I say, “Welcome to Puritan Board,” even though you’ve been here longer than me?

 

[min_is_3]

Not relevant to the OP, but I think it’s fascinating that you’ve been a member of Puritan Board for nearly a decade, yet the entirety of your posts are contained in this one thread! Should I say, “Welcome to Puritan Board,” even though you’ve been here longer than me?

Lol thanks and wow, I didn't realize I signed up in 2012. Yeah, I mainly used it to read and learn in the beginning. Then as I upgraded my phones over the years, i forgot to install Tapatalk, and Google searches would bring up the Puritanboard anyways for what I was looking for so I never bothered to log back in and just read instead.

Earlier this year, the Lord was gracious to grant repentance and faith to my teenage son and he's been really active in trying to learn and grow in the Lord which has been amazing for me to witness as a Father because of knowing how he was before conversion.

So he's been forcing me to engage more in debates and study which opened up a door to talking about this topic with someone.



min_is_3
Reformed Baptist
California

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello @min_is_3,

At this point in redemptive history, many of those who believed were Jews, and John in this verse, speaking of the Hebrew concept of propitiation, has his people in mind:

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).​

The Jews tended to think of their nation as the sole beneficiaries of Messiah the High Priest's atoning sacrifice, but John here says No, not our nation only, but for the sins of the whole world, that is, from out of the nations of whole world His elect are chosen and redeemed.

 

[pgwolv]

Most SP would understand that Christ's death was sufficient for the sin of all of Adam's descendants, though efficient for the elect only (e.g. John Owen). Generally, sufficient for all humanity, efficient for the elect only is admitted with both SP and all other reformed camps.

The difference lies more in the purpose of the sufficiency. For SP, the sufficiency has to do with the intrinsic value of the atonement. For the SE, it is used to understand that it was sufficient for all, even if they do not believe. In other words, generally a SP would not say that Christ died sufficiency for all humanity, even though they believe the price paid would be sufficient for all humanity. The SE believe that Christ died for all in terms of the sufficiency.


This is the position of the SP. Again, what is meant by sufficiency is the infinite value of the atonement.

Some key verses for the SE distinction are as follows:

John 3:18 " Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

2 Thes. 2:9-10 "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

The question is this: if Christ's death was in no respect for those who perish, what do unbelievers reject that would have saved them?

This is where I've found this distinction to be helpful. I was speaking a while ago with someone really struggling with this point (he initiated these conversations with me). When he brought up verses that seemed universal (e.g. John 3:16-18, Heb. 2:9, 1 John 2:2), I did not have to qualify them to fit a particular scheme. After all, scriptures never say that there are some for whom Christ did not die, though there are plenty verses that use universal language. This took away the frequent SP "road block" and, like I mentioned earlier, we could look at the intent of Christ's death which scripture is very clear about. In this way, I think it is a very practical doctrine when discussing these matters with those who disagree.

Propitiation means that God's wrath was turned away from us. If God's wrath is turned away, He is also reconciled to us. How is God reconciled to us before we believe and are children of wrath? (See Rom. 5:10 and Eph. 2:3.) Communion with God is not only that he is reconciled to us through His death, but that we are also reconciled to God. Consider 2 Cor. 5:18-20:

"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

God reconciling the world is defined by the Apostle in that God does not count our trespasses against us. In part, we can see this in the common grace benefits bestowed indiscriminately on all every day (see Matt. 5 and Luke 6). He does not treat us as our sins deserve, which statement is true for all living descendants of Adam.

In terms of propitiation, therefore, can we-- in a qualified sense-- see that God does not treat all living people as their sins deserve? In this sense, are even unbelievers (whether elect or non-elect) experiencing the wrath of God presently, or are they experiencing a measure of grace from God, even if temporal? Col. 1:15-23 is also very helpful in this regard.

One of the difficulties here is that in John's later writings (1, 2, 3 John, Revelation), the term "whole world" refers to unbelievers (see 1 John 5:19, Rev. 3:10, 12:9, 16:14). If "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 referred to only other elect people, it would be an anomaly in the author's own usage of the term. But according to the SE scheme, this "problem" is quite simple and really poses no problem at all. Christ is the propitiation offered indiscriminately in the gospel through an atonement that is suitable to every sinner, regardless of their status of election/reprobation.

Again, I only bring this up to show the practical implication of how these doctrines may assist you in your conversations with this friend. I'm not proposing this as the only possible view a Reformed believer can hold, as many do not.

Hi Tim

Do you perhaps have a link for me of previous threads on the PB where SP vs. SE has been discussed? I would like to view both sides. Also, would both be classified as "Limited Atonement"? (Edit: I found my answer to this last question at https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/does-the-heidelberg-deny-limited-atonement.88801/post-1096945, so only the first question stands).

Kind regards

 

[timfost]

Hi Tim

Do you perhaps have a link for me of previous threads on the PB where SP vs. SE has been discussed? I would like to view both sides. Also, would both be classified as "Limited Atonement"? (Edit: I found my answer to this last question at https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/does-the-heidelberg-deny-limited-atonement.88801/post-1096945, so only the first question stands).

Kind regards

Hi,

I don't recall many conversations here that seem to lay out the positions very well. (Perhaps there are some, but I would have to dig.) I would recommend reading Ursinus's commentary as well as Hodge's portion in his ST (let me know if you'd like particular references). Fesko lays out the diversity fairly well (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433533111/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_RT1DN66B3HV7VHR00XP0) and Moore focuses on discussing HU in the English context (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802820573/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_M2H16CF1NEV2NC92M161).

I hope this helps. Blessings on your studies!

Tim

 

[pgwolv]

Hi,

I don't recall many conversations here that seem to lay out the positions very well. (Perhaps there are some, but I would have to dig.) I would recommend reading Ursinus's commentary as well as Hodge's portion in his ST (let me know if you'd like particular references). Fesko lays out the diversity fairly well (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433533111/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_RT1DN66B3HV7VHR00XP0) and Moore focuses on discussing HU in the English context (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802820573/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_M2H16CF1NEV2NC92M161).

I hope this helps. Blessings on your studies!

Tim

Thank you, I will have a look!

Blessings to you, too.