Think Wink.

It is no secret that I am a Five-Point Calvinist.  Just last week I posted that I hold to all five points that the Synod of Dort put forth.  But I redefined them because the imagery that the TULIP ancronymn carries is very archaic.  So I put them in more modern terms while trying to keep the intent of the the Synod in the five points.  There is one text that is very much a problem to Limited Atonement, or Particular/Definite Atonement.  That is 1 John 2:1-2,

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

This verse is taken to mean by non-Calvinists to mean that the cross atones for all the sin of the whole world.  And I definitely see where they are coming from in that interpretation.  I can see it and as a Calvinist, it presents a problem.  I have been given two ways to deal with 1 John 2:2.  First, it must be construed to mean something like that found in John 11:52, “and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”  Thus the “world” in 1 John 2:2 is the same as “the children of God who are scattered abroad.”  And it works.  It does.  But more so I personally feel that this text, like John 3:16, speaks of the sufficiency and the efficiency of the Cross.  In other words the cross has the ability to atone for the sins of the whole world but that does not mean that it does atone for the sins of the whole world.

I raise this objection because of that word “propitiation.”  Propitiation is the satisfying of divine anger and wrath by a blood sacrifice.  God’s wrath and anger are burning against us in our sin.  Therefore Christ came to this earth and died upon the cross to take up the wrath of God upon himself.  With him being a perfect being, he was the perfect sacrifice and thus satisfied the wrath of God.

Now those who are opposed to Calvinism say see, all our sins have been atoned for.  All of the sins for everyone who has lived upon this earth (Feel free to correct me if I am misconstruing you).  All a person now needs to do is just believe and live the life that God commands.  That’s it.  In some ways I like that but there arises a serious problem.  Should we construe unbelief as sin?  If we do then did the cross cover our unbelief or all of our sins but our unbelief in the gospel and therefore all who do not believe are going to hell?  The reason I bring this up is because if unbelief is  sin and Christ’s death atoned for all sin, then every one should get to heave because the atonement covers all sin and that has to include the sin of unbelief.  Or it is said that Christ’s death atoned for all the sin of the world except unbelief.  Then the sufficiency of the cross is limited and cannot cover all sin.  This is a very serious theological problem!

Think of it like this: Christ died for all the sins of all men (universalism); Christ died for some of the sins of all men (mainly Arminianism); Christ died for all of the sins of some men (Calvinism); or Christ died for some sins of some men (which I don’t think anyone would hold to, I don’t know).

This comes across very philosophical, more so than I like to do.  But it is very important to understand that in Calvinism, the cross is sufficient for every sin.  In Calvinism the cross fully atones for whom it was meant.  My question to the non-Calvinist is how do they maintain the sufficiency of the cross to atone for all sin for all men?  At some point the nature of the cross to atone for all sin is contradicted.  I am curious how this works.

No related posts