Soteriology - Limited Atonement

All right, well, then we will say amen. Ms. Jennifer, thank you for being with us for the prayer time. And again, I wanna tell everyone, I guess you miss everybody.

I miss everybody. We miss and we pray for you all. And if there's anything that we can do, if you need anything, please let us know and we'll be praying for you all. We love you.

Okay, absolutely. Well, Ms. Jennifer is gonna depart now and I'm gonna turn my attention to tonight's Bible study. This will take just a moment of time.

Oh, maybe not.

Let me reposition myself. This might affect the background a little bit. Give me just a moment here. All right.

All right.

I guess we're still streaming. Let me double check and look. Looks like we are still going strong on the live stream. Oh, and I see one just asked for prayers. Timothy West asked for prayers. So when we finish our time tonight, when I pray at the last, I will pray for him.

All right.

So, well, it is Wednesday night and along with our prayer on Wednesday night, we always have a time of Bible study. Now, I've been doing daily Bible studies. I've been filming a lot of Bible studies from this studio.

And I must say as difficult as it has been, I've been enjoying putting these together. And we have been studying in our Wednesday night services, the subject of soteriology. Now, soteriology is the doctrine of salvation.

This is part of the larger study that we call systematic theology, or the more simple term is the overview of Christian theology and doctrine. That's what we have called this series. And so systematic theology is the systematic breaking down of the categories of the Christian faith, looking at each of the categories individually and determining what the Bible has to say about those things.

So it really is a subject-based theological study. So it looks at the subjects. First, we looked at theology proper. Then we looked at Christology, which is the study of Jesus Christ. We have looked at pneumatology, which is the study of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

We have looked at angelology and demonology. We have looked at the doctrine of what's called hamartiology, which is the doctrine of sin. And now we have moved finally into the doctrine of soteriology.

And soteriology, again, the doctrine of salvation is breaks down into 10 parts. At least this is how I have chosen to break it down. Certainly could be more. And were we wanting to make it a little simpler, it could be less.

So we've stuck with the 10 parts. And I'm gonna move this chair. This is just bothering me. So we're gonna look tonight at the subject of the extent of the atonement. Here, the 10 parts, I'm not gonna outline, but if you would like a copy of the handout that would accompany this lesson, which would give all 10 parts, then just send me a message through Facebook or through email, and I'll be happy to send you a copy of the handout that we use for this study.

We have looked already at part one, which is called, part one was saved from what? In that lesson, we asked the question, well, if the doctrine of soteriology is the doctrine of salvation, what are we being saved from?

And in that lesson, we talked about the fact that we're being saved from the wrath of God. And we are saved by God, we are saved from God, by God, for God. We're saved from God's wrath, we're saved by God's grace, we're saved for God's glory.

And so that is really what we say, saved from what? That's what we're being saved from. And then in the second session, we looked at the definition of atonement. The definition of the atonement that we believe at Sovereign Grace Family Church, and we believe is biblical and historic, is the doctrine called penal substitutionary atonement.

Penal substitutionary atonement simply means that we believe that the penalty that is due sin, which is death, was paid for by a substitute who is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ gave his life to make an atonement for sins.

And atonement simply means to bring two parties back together. And the two parties that were at odds were man and God. Man and God were separated by sin, man's sin, and the penalty was paid by Christ, and an atonement was made.

He became the substitute. He became sin who knew no sin, that we could become the righteousness of God in him. That's called the great transaction in 2 Corinthians chapter five and verse 21. So tonight, we're going to look at the question of the extent of the atonement.

And this really is a question that isn't often asked, but rather it is often assumed. And often, I believe, assumed wrongly. Because this is based on the question, and the question is, did Jesus make an atonement for every person who has ever lived and ever will live?

Or did Jesus only make an atonement for certain people? And however you define those certain people, whether you say those certain people are the elect, which is a term that we would use as reformed in our view of soteriology, we are Calvinistic, we would use the word elect without any issues.

Some people, it might be easier, though, if you think of it this way, if you're not necessarily coming from a reformed background, and you're just thinking about this, I would ask it this way. Did Jesus die for everyone, or did Jesus die only for believers?

And the immediate response that most people get, well, Jesus died for everybody. And who could even question such a thing? In fact, it's part of the evangelical vernacular for people to assume, well, Jesus died for everybody, and therefore, the natural way of sharing the gospel is normally, Jesus died for you.

He gave his life for you. And so, because of that natural, instinctual, part of the vocabulary of the Christian world, it's almost assumed, well, Jesus died for you, Jesus died for everybody. Yet, what we need to realize is this question gets to the heart of how we understand the concept of the atonement.

Because if Jesus died to make an atonement for all men, then we have to ask the question, does that mean that all men are therefore justified? And the thoughtful evangelical would have to say, no, all men are not justified because there are some people going to hell.

In fact, the scripture teaches that the larger number of people are going to hell. Jesus said, wide is the road that leads to destruction, and many there are who find it, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there are who find it.

So, I still think that many people will be saved in the sense that they're, I don't think it's just only a handful of people that will be saved, but comparatively, between the saved and the lost, Jesus says, there will be many who find the broad road which leads to destruction, and there will be relatively few who find the narrow way.

So therefore, Jesus says that there are those.

Who are going to go to hell.

And in fact, no one spoke more clearly and more, I would say clearly and in the way of warning, no one was more concerned, it seems, than Jesus about reminding people of the reality of hell, that hell is a real place that real people really go to.

And therefore, if Jesus says that there are people who are going to hell, and Paul, and of course, Peter, and everyone else who writes in the New Testament agrees with Jesus.

That people are going to hell,.

The question is then, was an atonement made for them? And if an atonement was made for them, was it then somehow made ineffectual? Because that's an important question, wouldn't you say that if an atonement was made for someone, and yet they still have to pay for their own sin in hell, then somehow that atonement was lacking in power.

And so that's really what the question is. The question is, did Jesus make an atonement for all people, or did Jesus make an atonement only for those who believe? And again, this is a very important question.

Now, there are several views regarding the extent of the atonement, but tonight we're only gonna talk about three of those views. And I'm gonna give you the three views now. I wish I had a handout to hand you, but of course we're not together, so I can't give you the handout.

Again, if you send me a message, I'll send you the PDF. But there are three views of the atonement that I want to give you tonight. The first one is what I call universal actual atonement. So universal actual atonement.

Let me see here, might be able to... Well, I don't wanna do that, I'll just say it. And if you're taking notes, if you're interested in following along, that's the first view, universal actual atonement.

What is universal actual atonement? Well, universal actual atonement says this, Jesus died for everyone, regardless of whether or not they believe they're going to be saved, because ultimately Jesus made an atonement for everyone.

And this becomes what's known as universalism. If you believe in universal actual atonement, what you mean is that Jesus died for everyone, therefore everyone's ultimately going to be saved. And there are some people who do believe this.

I mean, there's a universalist church, and the universalist church believes no one's going to hell because Jesus paid the penalty for every single person who has ever lived, will ever live. No one is going to suffer the punishment of God's wrath, therefore there has been a universal actual atonement, which has been made.

The second view is the more common view, because that view is not very common. Number one is not very common. The second view is known as universal potential atonement. Now this I have heard expressed in many different ways in many different settings.

And basically what universal potential atonement is, is this, Christ makes all men savable by providing an atonement for them all, but the only ones who are saved ultimately are those who actually believe in the atoning work.

All the others, an atonement was made, but it wasn't received, and therefore they will not receive the benefits of the atoning work. And so the atonement at that point becomes universal, but only potential.

So Jesus in that scheme is not really savior, but potential savior. He doesn't save, he simply makes men savable. They must contribute something to be saved. And that is usually seen as the contribution of their faith.

And you'll hear this expressed in a lot of different ways, but ultimately this is, it's universal because it applies to everyone, but it's only potential. And therefore the atonement cannot function, cannot be realized until it's received.

And so it's not actual atonement, it's potential atonement. So that's number two. So you have universal actual atonement, that's universalism. You have universal potential atonement, that's pretty rank and file standard evangelicals believe that.

But then there is the third view, and the view that I'm going to present tonight, and that view is known as limited atonement. Now, some people don't like to call it limited atonement, but I'm using that term because that is the term that is most associated with the acrostic tulip, T-U-L-I-P, which is part of the five points of Calvinism, and the L standing for limited atonement, sometimes would be referred to as particular redemption.

And as R .C. Sproul sometimes calls it, particular redemption, he said, but then you get two pip and it doesn't have the same ring as tulip. And so limited atonement is basically this, Christ died with the intention of saving those who will believe that he didn't die potentially for everyone, but rather he died actually for the elect.

He didn't die as a potential savior for every person, but rather as an actual savior for those who will believe. And when you have to hear, you have to understand the language I'm using. Those who will believe are the elect.

The ones who believe do so because the gift of faith is given to them by God. And that's a lesson for another time, but ultimately faith itself is a gift from God. Repentance and faith are not something that the natural man can do because the Bible says the natural man cannot do that which pleases God, that it's a spiritual person who does that.

And the only way that a person can become spiritual is if God gives them the gift of regeneration. And so regeneration is what causes repentance and faith. And repentance and faith are in fact, at that point, exercises of a gift that God has given.

And so limited atonement essentially is saying that a person is saved by the work of Christ that has actually made an atonement for them. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, he actually made an atonement.

He didn't potentially make an atonement, he actually made an atonement. And as I've already said, I hold to that position. In fact, I hold to that position as probably the strongest of the five points of Calvinism.

Some people think it's the weakest, some people don't even hold to it, they call themselves four pointers, Amaraldians, other terms that are used because they don't want to go near the L in tulip. They find it to be offensive to say, oh, well, Christ didn't die for everyone.

But at the same time, I think it's the strongest point because it ultimately asks the question, is Jesus a powerful savior or is he an impotent savior? Is he able to save to the uttermost those who draw nigh unto God through him or is he trying to save everyone and he just can't accomplish it?

And so I think the answer, of course, is that he is able and he does save and that the cross saves everyone for whom it was intended. Now, one immediate objection that people have, you shouldn't use the word limited because it limits the work of Christ.

Well, that's actually a false accusation because unless you take the universal actual atonement approach, the first one I mentioned earlier, then everyone limits the atonement in some way, except universalists.

Universalists say Jesus died for everybody,.

Everybody's gonna be saved.

And in that sense, they're not really, well, they're still limiting the atonement because they're limiting God's free choice. So they're saying God doesn't have the freedom to choose to save some and not save others.

So they're limiting God. And then of course, you have the other side of that, those who say, well, Jesus died for all, but it's only a potential salvation. And in that sense, they're limiting the power of the atonement.

They're saying that it's only a potential power and it only becomes actual when it's activated by faith. So everybody in that sense is limiting the atonement in one way or another. B .B. Warfield said this, he said, the things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value or an atonement of wide extension.

The two cannot go together. You see, the Calvinist limits the extent of the atonement. We say the atonement is for the believer. The atonement is for the elect. Remember, those two are, they are not mutually exclusive.

Those are the same group. The believers are the elect. And so the Calvinist says that the atonement is not wide, but it is to be, the limits of the extent are for believers. And the Arminian or the potentialist, whatever you want to call them, they limit the power of the atonement.

They say, no, the Christ didn't actually save anyone on the cross. He simply made them savable and his atonement wasn't actual, it was potential. So this is really the question that we have to ask ourselves was the atonement of Christ actual for some or was it potential for all?

Was it actual for some or potential for all? And more emphatically, did the death of Christ actually save anyone or did it simply make them savable? These are huge, very important, very, very crucial questions.

And something that you need to consider whether or not you're reformed is that limited atonement, the doctrine of limited atonement actually emphasizes the power of Christ's atonement because we believe that the atonement is able to save, by that we mean the death of Christ, that which made the atonement, is able to save everyone for whom it was intended.

We do not believe anyone will be lost for whom Christ died. This is why John 18, nine says, this was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, of those whom you gave me, I have lost not one. Jesus will not lose one of those whom the father has given him.

And the father, who is it that the father has given him? The father has given him those who will believe. All the father gives me will come to me, Jesus says in John six. And he goes on to say, no one can come to me unless it was granted to him by the father, that again in John six, 65, and it's stated in verse 44 and 65, that no one can come unless the father does a preliminary work of drawing and granting the person the ability to come.

And so of those that do come, they will be saved. There is power in the atonement. There is no one the father brings to the son that the son cannot save. There's no one that is so bad, that is so sinful, that is so far gone, that when the father brings him to the son, the son's blood is not capable of atoning for his sins.

There's no one that the father can bring to the son that the son would say, nope, that person is just too lost. No, that's not the case at all. The limiting in limited atonement does not in any way limit the power of the atonement.

Now, I want to mention a theologian at this point. The theologian most noted for articulating the doctrine of limited atonement was a man by the name of John Owen. His masterful work on this subject was called The Death of Death and the Death of Christ.

And in it, he covers argument after argument for the concept of limited atonement. And most memorable of his arguments is his logical syllogism. So I want to share with you that logical syllogism. Now, this is one of the times where I really wish I had my whiteboard.

And I can put it up on the screen, but I don't want to get caught up in the technicality of that. Let me just give you, this is his syllogism. The father imposes his wrath upon the son, and the son was punished for one, the sins of all men, two, all the sins of some men, or three, some of the sins of some men.

Let me say that again. All of the sins of all men, all of the sins of some men, some of the sins of some men. Now, in which case, it may be said that if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none is saved.

That if the second be true, then Christ is there instead suffered, in their stead suffered for all the sins of the elect in the world, and this is the truth. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

The answer is because of unbelief. And I ask you, is unbelief a sin or not? If it is, then Christ suffered punishment due unto it, or he did not. And if he did, why must that hinder them more than other sins for which he died?

If he did not, he did not die for all their sins. So, all right, so that may have, I was reading that off the page. Let me break that down a little easier, because it may have come out a little strange.

If Jesus died for all the sins of all men, then why do people go to hell? That's the question Owen's asking. If Jesus died for all the sins of all men,.

Why did they go to hell?

And someone says, well, they don't believe. And so Owen says, well, is unbelief a sin? Yes, unbelief is a sin. So did Jesus die only for all of their sins except unbelief? If he died for all the sins of all men, did he not also die for their unbelief?

And so the point that Owen is making is that Jesus died for all sins, but he didn't die for all the sins of all men. He died for all of the sins of the elect, or all of the sins of some men. And Dr. James White makes a good point on this.

He makes a point that if you think back to the time of the Old Testament priests, the Old Testament priests would make their sacrifice, but the sacrifice wasn't being made for everyone in the world. The Old Testament priests were making their sacrifice on behalf of the people of God.

At that point, it would have been understood as the people of the nation of Israel. And so when the priest, the Levite priest, is making his atonement for the people of Israel, he's not making an atonement for the Amorite high priest who is at that time worshiping the pagan deities.

And so the question is when Jesus died on the cross, is Jesus dying with every person in mind, or is Jesus dying with those in mind who are only, is Jesus dying in mind those who do believe or will believe?

And a good question, did Jesus die for the Amorite high priest who was already in hell? Did Jesus make an atonement for him? He already, you know, the Old Testament has already concluded by the time of Christ, when Christ died on the cross, did the cross of Christ pay the payment for the Amorite high priest who was already in hell?

That's a very important question. It's a very difficult question, but it's one that needs to be asked because that's really the heart of the issue. Does Jesus die for the sins of every single person or does Jesus die for the sins of those who believe?

And again, I've been making the illogical argument that if Jesus died for the sins of every single person, then no one would go to hell. Unless of course you make the argument, well, it's their unbelief that sends them to hell.

And then we have to ask the question, well, did Jesus die for all their sins except for the sin of unbelief? That was the argument Owen is making. And it's a really solid one. So at this point, maybe some of you are saying, you know what, pastor, you haven't cracked the Bible yet.

You have been making all these logical arguments. You've been using Owen and you've been looking at all these syllogisms, but you haven't opened the Bible. That's true. And so at this point, I do want to look at some scripture.

The first thing that we need to understand is how the Bible expresses this through the Old Testament archetype of the priesthood and sacrificial offering. We've already mentioned that. When the priest of God in the Old Testament made his atonement, excuse me, my background is getting a little funky here.

Let me see if I can, there we go.

All right, when the priest of the Old Testament made his atonement, it was not a universal offering. And it was made for the people of God. It wasn't made for the Canaanites, the Amorites, or anyone else.

The high priests of pagan worship were not in view. Neither were the other nations in view. It was only the nation of Israel that was being atoned for. And so the question then is, well, when Christ died, people say, well, what made Christ so special was his atonements for the whole world.

Well, his atonement is for an indiscriminate body because the elect are made up of people of all tribes, tongues, and nations. There is no nation that only houses the elect. Like it isn't that only the elect come from Israel or only the elect come from Europe or only the elect come from Africa.

The elect come from every tribe, tongue, and nation. But at the same time, it's still the elect in those nations who the atonement is made for. And the passage that I would point everyone to, and if you have your Bibles, open it to Hebrews chapter 10, because I think this passage really answers the question really well and deals with the question really, really well.

And this is the Hebrews chapter 10, verse 14, Jesus is, it's talking about Jesus being the priest of the new covenant. He is the high priest, a great high priest. He's not like the Old Testament priests who would die and go away and someone else would take their place.

He's not like the Old Testament priests who had to make a sacrifice for their own sins because Jesus was sinless, so he didn't have to make any sacrifice for sins. And then in chapter 10, in verse 14, it says this, for by a single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Let me say it again, for by a single offering, that's his death on the cross, he has perfected, meaning he has taken away their sin, he's granted them forgiveness, he has granted them his righteousness, he's perfected them for all time, not just for a short time, but he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified, not everyone in the world, but he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Now, I wanna quote from Paul Enns, this is from the Moody Handbook of Theology. Now, the Moody Handbook of Theology does not necessarily ascribe to the limited atonement perspective, but it does make this good point.

There are a number of passages that emphasize Christ died for a particular group of people and not for everyone. As the good shepherd, Christ lays down his life for the sheep, John 10, 15, not everyone is included in that flock.

Christ gave his life for the church, Acts 20, 28, Ephesians 5, 25. He died for the elect, Romans 8, 32 and 33. Therefore, the objects of God's love are particular. He does not love everyone with the same love.

That's a hard thing to hear, but that is very important. And he goes on to say, and in that one, he gives several verses, Romans 1, 7, Romans 8, 29, Romans 9, 13, Colossians 3, 12. By the way, Romans 9, 13 is very huge because it tells us, Jacob, I loved Esau, I hated.

And a lot of people say, oh, well, that just means he loved Esau less. Well, even if that's what it means, which I don't agree, but even if it means Esau loved, God loved Esau less, what that means is God loved Esau less.

And so therefore, if you say God's love is always equal for every person and God loves everyone absolutely equally, then when it says, Jacob, I loved, and Esau, I loved less, if that's what it means, it's not, but if that's what you take it to mean, then you're automatically putting yourself in a position where you're saying, okay, well, God does have the ability, just like I have the ability, to make distinctions in how and who I love and in what way that I love different people.

I love my wife differently than I love my other family members. And I love my wife differently than I love my friends' wives. And if I, as a finite creature, can make distinctions in love, then how can I dare to think that the infinite, the almighty infinite Father, maker of heaven and earth, does not have the ability to make distinctions in his love?

Certainly he does. He says to Israel, of all the nations, I have known you, Amos 3 .2, I have known you of all the nations of the world. And that doesn't simply mean he knows them or he didn't know the other nations.

What it means is he loved them in a different way than he loved all the other nations of the world. And he says that of the elect of God, that he loved them differently. As Paul then goes on to say, since the objects of the Father's love are particular, definite, and limited, so are the objects of Christ's death.

Hear that again, that's so huge. Since the objects of the Father's love are particular, definite, and limited, so are the objects of Christ's death. So, running out of time, and I do wanna try to get through a few more things.

Let me just say this. I know that some of you are just, you're hearing this maybe for the first time, and it's just, it's a wild new thing. I would encourage you to not simply dismiss it, but to research it and study it.

But let me add this. I know some of you, maybe the more keen, biblical, knowledgeable people out there are saying, but wait a minute, there's a lot of verses that use the word all. There's a lot of verses that use the word the world.

I mean, for God so loved the world. But yeah, even in that verse, John 3, 16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish. Notice it doesn't say that every person's not gonna perish, but it says the ones who believe are not going to perish.

In fact, it's been stressed that the phrase there, whosoever will believe is actually the Greek, pas hapistouon, which means all the believing ones. So, God loves the world so much that he's going to save believers.

And that's what John 3, 16 says. It doesn't say he's going to save every person. Doesn't even say it's his intention to save every person. It says it's his intention to save all the ones who believe. And as we said earlier, the ones who believe are the ones who've been given the ability to believe by the Father.

And so, that's just an important truth that we all need to recognize. But as for the word all, I've heard people make the argument,.

All means all, and that's all all means.

Well, no. The word all can have various nuances of meaning. The word all can obviously have various nuances of meaning. And I'll give you one good example. In Mark chapter one, in referring to John the Baptist, it says, John appeared baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins. Now, I ask you, reasonable hearer, did every single person in Jerusalem, did every single person in Judea go out and be baptized by John?

Because this says clearly all Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to be baptized by him. Were the Pharisees going to be baptized? Were the Sadducees? Were the Romans? Did Pilate go and get baptized by John?

I think you know the answer to that is no. Was this a time where the Bible's not telling the truth? No, the Bible here is using the word all in a very specific way to refer to all without distinction, not all without exception.

For instance, if the president of the United States visited Jacksonville and the news came on that night and said there was a huge turnout for the president, all of Jacksonville came to see the president and his visit.

Now, we would know that that didn't mean every person in the hospitals, that would not mean every person who had to work, but what it would mean is that, representatively, all of the city or people of every type within the city, all without distinction, not all without exception, turned out for the president.

I think that's the same way that Mark is using that when he refers to John. All types of people is another way to understand the word.

All there.

And likewise, the world can have several meanings. Even in the book of John, the word world has several different ways that it's used. John 12, 19 says, so the Pharisee said to one another, you see that you're gaining nothing.

Look, the world has gone after him. Now, does that mean every single person had gone after Jesus? No, no, because many people had not followed Jesus. Many people, the Pharisees certainly hadn't. The Sadducees certainly hadn't.

Again, Pilate had not, and Herod had not, but a mass of people had, and therefore that phrase, the world, is referencing a large group of people and an indiscriminate group of people. And so when someone says that, well, the word world always refers to every single person, it's not exactly true because the word world can be used in several different ways and it is used in several different ways.

As I already mentioned, sometimes we're told to love not the world, neither the things of the world, and yet at the same time, the Bible says, for God so loved the world. There's two different ways the word world is being used there and neither one of them is referring to every single man, woman, and individual individually.

In fact, oftentimes when John uses the word world, he's referring to the world of the Gentiles. In fact, that's how I understand 1 John 2, 2, which is the key verse people often use to deny limited atonement because 1 John 2, 2 says this, that Jesus, it says he, but it's referring to Jesus, is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.

And they say, see right there, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. You're wrong, pastor. Everything you've said is wrong.

Limited atonement's wrong.

Take it, pack it up in your suitcase and go home. Limited atonement's wrong and they base it on 1 John 2, 2. Well, let me say this about that. 1 John 2, 2 says, Christ is the propitiation for our sins.

John is speaking of himself and his community. And I would argue that it was likely a community of Jewish Christians that he's speaking to. And he is saying that Jesus Christ bore the wrath of God on behalf of their sins.

And he did.

That's what propitiation means, that Jesus Christ satisfied the wrath of God on behalf of John and his community. But John says, but understand this, it wasn't for our community only, but it was for the whole world.

Now you say right there, well, pastor, that's talking about every single individual in the world. No, what John is referring to is that Jesus bore the sin. He bore the punishment for sin for people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, not just the Jewish people, not just the people in John's immediate community, but for people all around the world who would believe in him.

That's the point. Because Jesus did not propitiate. He did not satisfy the wrath for unbelievers because unbelievers will receive the wrath of God when they are in hell. Jesus received the wrath of God for believers, both those who are in John's immediate community and those who are all around the world who believe in Christ.

So the key to this, and here's something to think about, and Dr. James White, again, I mentioned it. He points this out very clearly. The key to 1 John 2 .2 is this. The word world can have several different meanings, especially in John, but propitiation only has one meaning.

Propitiation means to satisfy God's wrath. So either Christ satisfied the wrath of God for every person and you become a universalist, or Christ satisfied the wrath of God for all the believers all around the world, and therefore we understand that they will not go to hell.

They will not receive the wrath of God because God has been satisfied by Christ's sacrifice for them. The gospel is not limited to the Jews and it is not potential in any way.

It is actual.

Consider for a moment this reality. What would it mean if hell were filled with people for whom Christ died? What would it mean if hell were filled with people for whom Christ died? That would mean that the work of Christ was terribly ineffectual, but it would also mean that God was unjust because that would mean that God received a payment on behalf of those people and he punished them anyway and therefore extracted a double payment for their sins because he's already received the payment of Christ and now he's going to make them pay and therefore God would then be unjust because he's taken the payment Christ made and the payment they are making in hell.