Pink has several errors and fallacies here, however, as I pointed out he equates propitiarion for sins with being saved. He does the very thing I spoke of. Rather than trying to reconcile what the Scriptures actually say, he jumps around trying to prove the Scriptures don't actually mean what they say.This is an abridged explanation of 1 John 2:2 from a reformed prospective
1 John 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. Pink, A.W. . The Sovereignty of God (Kindle Locations 4197-4203).
There is one passage more than any other which is appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition. “And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This is the passage which, apparently, most favors the Arminian view of the Atonement, yet if it be considered attentively it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.
In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with “and” necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from Bagster’s Interlinear: “Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous”. It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God’s children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of verse 1 and throughout verse 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an “Advocate with the Father”; second, that this Advocate is “the propitiation for our sins”. Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an “Advocate”, for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation (“and”) with “the Advocate”! Also the word “Comfort”, in such a case, belongs to none but believers; unto others in a state and condition of alienation, wrath is to be denounced, John 3:36. Thirdly, They are the "little children" to whom he writes, 1 John 2:1; whom he describes, verses 12, 13, to have "their sins forgiven them for his name's sake," and to "know the Father."
In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament which speak of “propitiation,” be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Romans 3:25 we read that God set forth Christ “a propitiation through faith in His blood”. If Christ is a propitiation “through faith”, then He is not a “propitiation” to those who have no faith! Again, in Hebrews 2:17 we read, “To make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17, R. V.).
In the third place, who are meant when John says, “He is the propitiation for our sins”? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader. In Galatians 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles “unto the circumcision” (i.e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to “the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad” (1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to “the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion” (1 Peter 1:1, R. V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles. Some of the evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows.
In the opening verse he says of Christ, 1 John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—“ How impossible it would have been for the Apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!
1 John 2:7 “Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning”. The “beginning” here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ— in proof compare 1 John 1:1; 1 John 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the “old commandment” from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.
“I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning” (1 John 2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:18-19). These brethren to whom John wrote had “heard” from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matthew 24). The “many antichrists” whom John declares “went out from us” were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says “He is the propitiation for our sins” he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers.
...and on it goes....
He's got several errors here for instance he says John was speaking to Jews in 1 John 2. However, we know from history that John essentially took over Paul's ministry after Paul was killed. Paul's ministry was primarily to the Gentiles and John at that time was in Ephesus. I'm sure there were Jews there but I seriously doubt they were a majority.
He also mentions John's statement, 'they went out from us'. That's not a reference to the Jews. It's a reference to the Gnostics. That's why John told them to test the spirits. It was about Gnosticism. The funny thing is, some of the doctrines he adhered to were Gnostic.