That Pesky Propitiation Problem

Among the Arminian types perhaps the biggest argument is with that last point -- Can you lose your salvation? Some Arminians say you can and some say you can't (in line, in this case, more with the Calvinist thinking). So you'll find "four-point Arminians" so to speak. Among the more Calvinist-leaning folk, perhaps the biggest argument is with that bloody "L" -- "Limited Atonement". The most common "four-point Calvinist" balks at that one point. What was the extent of the Atonement? Was it limited or not?

To be fair, there is actually wide agreement on the point. They just don't know they're agreeing. The Calvinist says, "Jesus said He laid His life down for His sheep^[1], so we believe He laid His life down for His sheep." The Arminian will say, "No, He died once for all^[2], so we believe His Atonement was for all." When pressed, however, they do not stand there exactly. They argue that the Atonement was only effective for those who come in faith^[3]. So both believe that the Atonement was actually limited. If they did not agree on that, they would be Universalists. So there is, in almost everyone's perspective, some limitation on it.

It doesn't matter. Agreeing as we do that the Atonement is limited in some way, it seems that we're still not going to agree. One of the absolutely most popular "proofs" thrown up against the Calvinist belief that the Atonement was limited is 1 John 2:2.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

I'm sure I don't have to explain how that objection works. It is explicit, isn't it? "Not for ours only." Whose? "For those of the whole world." I mean, can it get any clearer than that? So they lay that egg in the laps of the Calvinists and wait to see what hatches. Surely they'll have to recant and join the ranks of the faithful, right?

Enter the pesky propitiation problem. It's much more than a clever alliteration. It's a problem. And not for Calvinists. You see, the text says "He is the propitiation for our sins." Understand that "propitiation" is the actual appeasement of wrath. It is the means by which God's righteous wrath against our sins can be set aside. It is Atonement. The Just Judge is right to damn us to eternal torment. Christ appeases that wrath. The problem is solved. But is it?

If you simply leave it as it lies, you're kind of stuck. If He is the propitiation for our sins and "the sins of the world" in the sense it is being suggested -- each and every sin of every person that has lived, lives now, or will live -- then what do we have? Well, surely the Calvinist is wrong; that's easy. Unfortunately, so is the Arminian. You see, if the sins of the whole world are propitiated, then God has no more wrath against sin and there can be no judgment. All that stuff about Hell and "the worm that never dies"^[4] and that stuff? Nonsense. Doesn't happen. Everyone -- Cain, Pharaoh, the Amorites, the Pharisees, Pilate, Judas Iscariot, even that silly rich guy in the Lazarus story, Hitler, Stalin, even that gay guy down the street -- is going to heaven because all sin is propitiated.

"Oh, no," they will assure me, "it is only effective if you come to Christ in faith." And, of course, we would all agree with that ... except that this isn't what the text says. The text indicates that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Not "He might be." Not that He potentially is the propitiation. Look, either He is or He isn't. If you're going to say He is, you're going to have to figure out how any sin could be un-propitiated.

The illustration is offered of the murderer on death row. The warden shows up and says, "Look, you may not believe this, but someone else has been put to death in your place and you're free to go." The prisoner is incredulous. "What? No! Can't be!" He refuses to leave the cell. He is still due the death penalty. You see, the debt was paid, but if he doesn't accept the payment, he'll still be put to death. The problem, of course, is that this would be unjust. If the penalty was paid in full and the warden said, "Well, I guess, if you won't accept the payment, we'll just have to carry out the sentence" and he did, the next occupant of that cell would be the warden. You can't have the payment made twice. To execute someone for a capital crime is justice. To execute someone who owes nothing is murder. If Jesus paid the bill for everyone, God hasn't a leg to stand on.

So, you see, you're kind of stuck here. If He is actually the propitiation for the sin of everyone ever -- if that is what the text means -- then you're going to have problems explaining how a just God can send anyone to Hell^[5]. There is a lot of Scripture that will be piled up against you. If you're going to argue that He is potentially the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then you're going to have to explain why it says what it says, because that's not what it says. You think this is a problem for Calvinists? Oh, no. It's yours, too.
________

^[1] John 10:15

^[2] Heb 10:10

^[3] Interestingly, both sides can be heard to say, "The Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient for some." As if they're disagreeing somehow.

^[4] Mark 9:48

^[5] Hint: I do not believe that's what is intended by the text. I believe it means "not only for ours" -- the readers of this epistle -- "but for all the sins of the whole world that are propitiated." That is, Jesus is the only propitiation. This allows that not all sin is propitiated. Unfortunately, it also removes this as proof of Unlimited Atonement. Of course, why people would be arguing for Unlimited Atonement isn't entirely clear to me ... since none of us believe in it.