Propitiation

[John Mullally]

If that’s the case, what sins are people in hell punished for?

People are in hell for sin - as the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). They perished in unbelief despite the fact that Christ made an atonement for everyone's sin (1 John 2:2) - that is because Christ's atonement is applied conditionally. See Post 60 for more information.

Analogy: Christ's atonement is like a check that is cashed by putting faith in Him.

 

[Hammster]

The atonement is universal-affecting people in every part of history. It knows no time boundaries. Anyone who is saved are saved by the merits of Christ. It takes effect in a person's life the moment they come to believe. Our past sins are forgiven and we're empowered to overcome sin.

If it knows no time boundaries, then how can there be anger for sins since all would fall under the atonement?

 

[Hammster]

People are in hell for sin - as the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). They perished in unbelief despite the fact that Christ made an atonement for everyone's sin (1 John 2:2) - that is because Christ's atonement is applied conditionally. See Post 60 for more information.

Analogy: Christ's atonement is like a check that is cashed by putting faith in Him.

Unbelief is a sin. If Christ died for that sin, too, then there’s no sin to be punished for.

 

[John Mullally]

Unbelief is a sin. If Christ died for that sin, too, then there’s no sin to be punished for.

As such, unbelief will keep you from receiving the atonement for the sin of unbelief.

 

[Hammster]

As such, unbelief will keep you from receiving the atonement for the sin of unbelief.

What does receiving have to do with anything? Do you not believe that all sin was paid for on the cross? Was God’s wrath not satisfied by Christ’s death?

 

[fhansen]

If it knows no time boundaries, then how can there be anger for sins since all would fall under the atonement?

Anyone who's saved, from Adam, Abraham, Moses, et al are saved due to Christ's sacrifice.

 

[BNR32FAN]

See how it says “having nailed”? It doesn’t say “and will keep getting nailed when sinners repent”.

This is a very common problem with most Calvinists I’ve encountered is they typically read certain passages of scripture and build doctrines that contradict other passages. You can’t arrive at a sound theology based on doctrines formulated from one passage while completely ignoring the fact that said doctrine contradicts other passages in the scriptures. This is why you’ve repeatedly declined to answer the simple question I’ve asked you three times already, we’re the people that Peter was speaking to in Acts 2 & 3 forgiven of their sins? You refuse to answer the question because it proves your theology is incorrect. You would have to directly contradict what Peter said in Acts 2 & 3 “repent and believe so that you may be forgiven” in order to answer the question. So rather than answer the simple question you choose to ignore it which is why you don’t understand Colossians 2. It’s not that you don’t understand it, it’s that you refuse to admit it. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”.

 

[fhansen]

What does receiving have to do with anything? Do you not believe that all sin was paid for on the cross? Was God’s wrath not satisfied by Christ’s death?

Christ's death satisfied God's wrath for sin. If we continue in sin how/why would God remain appeased?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Christ's death satisfied God's wrath for sin. If we continue in sin how/why would God remain appeased?

We would have to repent in order to remain in good standing with God. We can see examples of this in Revelation 2 & 3 in the seven letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What does receiving have to do with anything? Do you not believe that all sin was paid for on the cross? Was God’s wrath not satisfied by Christ’s death?

Christ paid for all sin at the cross, for believers and unbelievers, but His atonement is not imputed to us until we repent and believe.

 

[Hammster]

Anyone who's saved, from Adam, Abraham, Moses, et al are saved due to Christ's sacrifice.

I’m not sure how that addresses my question.

 

[Hammster]

This is a very common problem with most Calvinists I’ve encountered is they typically read certain passages of scripture and build doctrines that contradict other passages. You can’t arrive at a sound theology based on doctrines formulated from one passage while completely ignoring the fact that said doctrine contradicts other passages in the scriptures. This is why you’ve repeatedly declined to answer the simple question I’ve asked you three times already, we’re the people that Peter was speaking to in Acts 2 & 3 forgiven of their sins? You refuse to answer the question because it proves your theology is incorrect. You would have to directly contradict what Peter said in Acts 2 & 3 “repent and believe so that you may be forgiven” in order to answer the question. So rather than answer the simple question you choose to ignore it which is why you don’t understand Colossians 2. It’s not that you don’t understand it, it’s that you refuse to admit it. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”.

That didn’t address anything I said.

 

[Hammster]

Christ's death satisfied God's wrath for sin. If we continue in sin how/why would God remain appeased?

Because continuing in sin is sin which you’ve just said Christ’s death satisfied God’s wrath for. God’s wrath must be satisfied for all sin, or just some. You can’t just keep jumping back and forth like you are doing.

 

[Hammster]

Christ paid for all sin at the cross, for believers and unbelievers, but His atonement is not imputed to us until we repent and believe.

Maybe I’ll try this a different way. When you say paid for, what exactly does that mean?

 

[BNR32FAN]

That didn’t address anything I said.

It was intended to expose the fact that you’re ignoring what Peter said in Acts 2 & 3. Your theology is in opposition to what Peter specifically stated in Acts 2 & 3 therefore it cannot be sound theology. You can’t formulate a theology that contradicts other verses. Our theology must be in line with all scripture in order to be considered sound theology.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure how that addresses my question.

The atonement covers sin regardless of when the person lived or will live. It effects nothing if the person doesn't respond to it. IOW, salvation is not universal. God's forgiveness is universal, but, again, means nothing to the person who doesn't care, who doesn't respond in kind to the love he's been show, So, again, for example,

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14-15

That contingency stuff...

 

[fhansen]

Because continuing in sin is sin which you’ve just said Christ’s death satisfied God’s wrath for. God’s wrath must be satisfied for all sin, or just some. You can’t just keep jumping back and forth like you are doing.

If I've jumped around I apologize-not meaning to do so. But the most basic difference between us seems to center around whether or not the atonement is limited to a predestined elect only, or whether it's universal but effective only for those who choose rightly, with the help of grace, and continue to choose rightly as they persevere, overcoming sin, living righteously as they succeed in loving to a degree that satisfies God, with the help of that same grace.

 

[Hammster]

The atonement covers sin regardless of when the person lived or will live. It effects nothing if the person doesn't respond to it. IOW, salvation is not universal. God's forgiveness is universal, but, again, means nothing to the person who doesn't care, who doesn't respond in kind to the love he's been show, So, again, for example,

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14-15

That contingency stuff...

Then I don’t understand what you mean by “covers sin”. I thought your position was that God’s wrath was satisfied for all sin. That doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

[Hammster]

If I've jumped around I apologize-not meaning to do so. But the most basic difference between us seems to center around whether or not the atonement is limited to a predestined elect only, or whether it's universal but effective only for those who choose rightly, with the help of grace, and continue to choose rightly as they persevere, overcoming sin, living righteously as they succeed in loving to a degree that satisfies God, with the help of that same grace.

The actual issue, going back to the OP, is whether Christ’s sacrifice, on its own merit, satisfied God’s wrath apart from anything man might do.

 

[Gr8Grace]

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
— 1 John 2:1-2

It’s is commonly understood that propitiation is the atoning sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath. That’s the definition I’m going with here. Looking at this passage, we can conclude one of two things. God's wrath was satisfied for some or for all. Those who think it’s for all take “whole world” prima facia and say God loved the whole world and bore the sins of every man. Those who say it’s only for some look at the context and see the “our sins” as John’s immediate audience, and “whole world” as indicating that it’s just not his audience, but others throughout the world.

My argument against the former is that if God’s wrath is satisfied by His Son’s sacrifice, then He would be unjust for sending anyone to hell. It would be akin to someone paying off my house in full, yet the bank foreclosing on my house. That would not be just.

So it’s best to see “whole world” as referencing people throughout the world, as opposed to every single person in the world.

Sins, all sins were paid for by Christ. What wasn't paid for was " human good." Human 'good' deeds. That is why in revelation we see the judgement of human DEEDS. Not Human sin. All unbelievers get to plead their case of their 'good' deeds to save them. And we all know how that will work out.
All sins are evil, but not all evil is sin........human 'good.'