Grudem's answer

I believe that I have come to a conclusion on the doctrine of Limited Atonement (from here on LA). The treatment of the doctrine that I found most helpful in coming to this conclusion is chapter 27 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. I have alluded earlier that my primary holdup in accepting the Calvinistic view of LA were two verses, I John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 There were other verses that said similar things, but it was these two verses that did not seem to have a simple explanation for how a view of LA could be acceptable when Christ is a propitiation “for the sins of the whole world”, and when he “gave himself as a ransom for all.”

Before reading Grudem, every Calvinistic defense of LA that I read relied on redefining the words “world” and “all” in these two verses. I could not, and still cannot accept that redefinition with those verses. I have been aware of what Kelfer talked about in his previous post, that “world” means a lot of different things in scripture. However, in these two verses, the context suggests that “world” and “all” in their respective verses actually mean the whole world and all men. This seems especially clear to me in 1 Timothy 2:6. The attempts to redefine this word in the verse look like an attempt to avoid the clear meaning of the verse through sophisticated argumentation. The interpretation does hazard to the text, and I can’t accept it. To accept it, I feel as if I would be molding scripture into my image.

*This post was already finished, but I just read Kelfer’s defense of the “whole world” referring only to the elect in 1 John 2:2, so the following section is in one sense separate from the rest of the post.*

I have a reason for rejecting your theory on the context of the whole world in 1 John 2:2, Jon. In 1 John 4:10 we see that John says, “He has sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” In context, this verse clearly is talking about believers, because there are references to many things that are only true to those that are saved. I totally agree with you.

However, compare this to 1 John 2:2. “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins,” at first, this sounds just like 4:10. He uses “our” the same way in both verses. However, when we continue reading we see, “and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” The first group in 1 John 2:2, the “our”, is who he is talking about in 1 John 4:10, not the “whole world.” The whole world is something different, something more than his audience, which seem to be believers based on your own observations of 1 John 4. It seems that he is making a clear distinction in this verse that it actually is the whole world he is talking about, and not just the elect.

*Back to the original…*

I needed another interpretation, and that is where Grudem came in. He said something about these two verses that seems so obvious now that I have read it, but I could not see it before. Grudem’s interpretation on pg 598-599 of 1 John 2:2 is:

“He [John] may simply be understood to mean that Christ is the atoning sacrifice that the gospel now makes available for the sins of everyone in the world. The preposition “for” (Gk. Peri plus genitive) is ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation “for” the sins of the world. Peri simply means “concerning”, or “with respect to” but is not specific enough to define the exact way in which Christ is the sacrifice with respect to the sins of the world.

The same word is used in 1 Timothy 2:6. I don’t know Greek. But this interpretation is consistent even in the English. How is Christ a propitiation for the sins of the world? Does saying that Christ is “for” that mean that their sins have been propitiated before God? In 1 Timothy, Does it mean that Christ has actually ransomed all? He is a ransom for all in the sense His ransom is sufficient for all, is offered to all, and could be given to all. However, we know that God chooses some and that we are unable to come to faith on our own, so he is effectually only a ransom for the elect. He is offered to all, but only some have been enabled by God to overcome their own depravity and accept the offer.

Now I have an answer to the question “for whom did Christ die?” He died for all, to genuinely offer salvation to all. And, He died only for the elect to effectually work out their salvation on the basis of His choice. Both answers are equally true. They are not in conflict. He died for all, and He died only for the elect. The answer to the question “for whom did Christ die?” is ambiguous. The answer to the question, “For whom did Christ die to offer salvation?” is all men and women on the earth. The answer to the question, “For whom did Christ die to save from their sins and justify in the sight of God?” is only the elect. I don’t know if that makes me a four or a five point Calvinist. I don’t really care. I do believe that this is what the Bible teaches on this subject, thus it is what I believe.

Also, Dave and Jon, thanks for being clear on propitiation. You guys are correct there for sure. Propitiation cannot be divorced from reconciliation. It’s weird to think about, but I knew something was wrong, so I wanted to analyze everything to try to find what I was missing. I believe that this way of looking at “for” is it.

-Paul

Propitiation and Reconciliation

Someone being propitiated has God's wrath averted. If the person isn't saved, it presents a problem when one considers the meaning of reconciliation and its relationship to propitiation in the Bible.

First, propitiation puts away enmity and wrath of someone towards another.
Second, reconciliation is ending conflict and disagreement between two parties.

The Bible presents reconciliation in such a way that it is an act of God. God is the one the must be reconciled to us because of His demands for justice. We are reconciled by Christ's death and much more by his life. Yet, our nature is not reconciled to God in the gospel. The flesh remains at enmity against God. The reconciliation which is present and talked about in the Bible is complete past tense action. We are at peace with God already. So this reconciliation must be just as forensic as justification. Otherwise, our reconciliation would follow some other path which includes dissolving our enmity in the flesh. (aka sanctification.) Christ is can scarcely be called the only mediator between God and man in such an arrangement.

This should make it clear that it is not our reconciliation to God but God towards us is presented in the Bible. God's holiness and justice require an answer. His demands are answered in Christ alone. The ministry of the reconciliation is the ministry of gospel. The apostles are said to be ministers of reconciliation. It is likewise God's wrath, as an outflowing of his justice and enmity towards sinners, that must be dealt with in Christ for us to be reconciled. God cannot give up his justice by withholding His wrath. I cannot see how propitiation (turning wrath away) can be divorced from reconciliation or the even gospel. It God's Holy enmity towards sinners which must be reconciled. It is all an act of God by which reconciliation takes place. Wrath cannot be pour out twice if a hypothetical unbeliever is propitiated but not reconciled. Such a dispensing of wrath is unjust. I cannot accept any propitiation for those who do not inherit salvation because of how it relates to reconciliation.