Propitiation

Let me break in, and restate.

The shedding of blood was not limited to only those who believe, but for all humanity.

I still read that in some posts the atonement blood is being linked to salvation.

That is an inappropriate linking, unsupported by Scriptures.

“Not for us only” is not just Jews, for that isn’t the people of the church John is writing. They are a mixed race/class.

“but for those of the whole world” is a statement of both inclusion and exclusion.

It includes all humanity and excludes no one of humanity.

Did the atonement blood ever save anyone in the OT?

 

Tim, some say that κοσμος refers to the Elect, who happen to be drawn from every tribe, language, people, and nation. Obviously, this spills over into one's view of the atonement as well as propitiation and expiation. Did the Father intend for Christ to propitiate for the sins of "whosoever" or for those whom He chose before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:4)? If it is the latter then we must say that the sin-debt of each one of the Elect was satisfied at the Cross and realized "in time" as each member of the Elect is converted.

Just offering a different wrinkle to the discussion.

 

Christ did not propitiate the sins for every human being without exception and God does not love every man without exception. Moses clearly states that God's love was restricted to the nation of Israel as opposed to all other nations:

Deut. 7:6 For you are an holy people to the LORD your God: the LORD your God has chosen you to be a special people to himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love on you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, has the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of slaves, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Here is explicit distinguishing love upon one ethnic set of people above all other ethnic sets of people. God clearly loved the nation of Israel MORE THAN any other nation and so there is no equal love by God for all nations. This is an example of elective love above all other nations. Likewise, the same is true with elective love with regard to individuals. God does not redemptively love all individuals without exception.

God hated Esau (Rom. 9:11) but loved Jacob. There is no example of salvation of any individuals out of Edom at all. However, if Paul had meant the Edominites as a race he would have clearly said so but did not.

The truth is, there is no propitiating love of God outside of Christ as we are all condemned, that is under the wrath of God when we come into the world and all unbelievers are abiding presently under his wrath (Jn. 3:36). Thus to be "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" is to be redemptively loved by God and Paul clearly states the purpose of this elective choice prior to the world was to procure salvation in its fullest sense ("that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: - Eph. 1:4).

Christs propitiation obtained the redemption of all the elect who are to be found scattered among all tribes and nations or from among Jews and Gentiles ("the whole world").

 

Nothing. You're not reading the verse right. Jesus said one who believes in Him would never die.

Gotta read it right.

 

Amazing that those who desire to take the Scriptures literally do not do so when it comes to propitiation, but scheme and invent that which the Scriptures do not support either by type or practice.

Here is the statement I expect such thinkers to refute:

There is NO support to limit the blood of Christ to the elect. Not a single Scripture, much less a passage. It is all mere irresponsible thinking attempting to prop up what is not foundational to the Scriptures. ​

So, in order to narrow the focus of the discussion, I suggest two areas that need to be resolved by the Scriptures - they are presented as challenges.

First the blood atonement type taken from the OT:

1) Prove by Scriptures that the OT once a year blood sprinkled on the mercy seat was for the priests ONLY, for the Scriptures do plainly declare all believers are priests, and should the blood be only for believers, then the OT type would be limited to the priests.​

Or, even prove by Scriptures blood was for just the Israeli people only, for the Scriptures state that it was for all without regard to heritage or social status dwelling in the land.​

Second, the blood atonement of the Cross.:

2) Prove that there is a clear statement of the Scriptures in the NT that the blood was limited to ONLY the elect following the OT type in which for centuries was given as a picture of God's Lamb.

Or, even prove that the blood was withheld from the elect, for certainly there must be ONE Scripture to express this plainly and clearly.​

One other matter:

It is stated in a post that God does not love everyone.

Perhaps then it would be good to show how God did not love the "Kosmos" - all creation, world, in particular humanity - in violation of John 3:16, and also 1 John 4 which expresses that God loves BEFORE a believer is a believer and is yet ungodly.

Should there not be found even a single verse of support that specifically refutes the OT type, the declaration of the NT, and the Love of God that is shed abroad by the believers reflecting the love of God through them to the ungodly - therefore, God demonstrating He loves even the ungodly - then it is to be declared a false doctrine.

For what is not based upon Scriptures is not worthy to be called truthful.

 

Only Israel participated in providing offerings and the application of offerings. Egypt did not. Syria did not. Moab did not. Ammon did not. etc., etc.​

Joh 10:15 As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Among Jews the term "world" simply meant Jews and Gentiles not every human being that ever existed. Remember John 3:16 is being addressed to a Jewish theologian.


​

What was said is that God does not love all equally. God does not love all nations equally or else Deut. 7:6-7 means nothing. God did not love Esau (Rom. 9:11).

There is no evidence that the term kosmos with regard to redemption means every person existing from Adam to the Second coming - none!

Yes, and it is called election! They were chose IN HIM in order that they should have all sins removed and stand before him "in love" - Eph. 1:4

Amen!

 

Propitiation: This man is found guilty and condemned to death---kill me instead, let him go free and quiltless.

This is the Grace of God through The Lord, Jesus, The Christ.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Doesn’t answer the basic question for the atonement blood was for ALL people in the land. Irregardless of any nationality and social status.
​

​

Sorry, this is just not true, for their is no reason not to take the Scriptures as stated. “Kosmos” is the world, that includes all humanity that ever lived are living or will live.

The suggestion that John 10:15 addresses the topic is also not the case for the question is on the blood, not on election.

No one said anything about “God does not love all.... all nations equally.”

That is a just a distraction.

Wrong. I thought you were stronger in languages.

There is never a time “kosmos” does NOT include every person.

That your view demands such thinking is not supported by Scripture or surely you would have posted at least one verse.

True is you cannot.

Nope, they were chosen in Him because the Father gave them to the Son.

Again, is this not foundational teaching.

“ALL the Father gives me WILL come to me.”

 

The people of "the land" were types of the elect from all nationalities, but "the land" refers to palestine not the whole geographical world. Remember this is the "promised" land not Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Ammon, Moab, etc. The very restriction "the land" repudiates your whole view.
​

​

It is quite apparent you have never done a lexical and contextual study of kosmos or you would not even dare to make such an assertion. For example, Jesus said he would not pray for the kosmos (Jn. 17) and John said those who love the kosmos do not love God (1 Jn. 2). There are at least seven different uses of kosmos in the Bible and six out of seven never come close to meaning every human being who has ever lived or will live. Do you have a concordance?.

apparently you have never studied how Jesus uses the term "sheep" in the gospel of John.

No; it is an absolute obstacle to your view! It clearly teaches unconditional redemptive elective love on a national level which is a microcosm of unconditional redemptive elective love on a personal level. It clearly repudiates that God loves all peoples equally and Romans 9:11 repudiates that God redemptively loves every human being equally. God certainly has a benevolent love for all his creation.

I thought you might have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Biblical use of kosmos but it is apparent you do not. Pick up a concordance and you will easily find it is used by New Testament writers at least seven different ways. For example, Jesus said "I pray NOT for the kosmos" but for those the Father gave him. Obviously, this cannot mean every human being or it makes complete nonsense. John said that anyone who loved the kosmos does not have the love of the Father in him! Obviously, John is using it differently than Jesus did in Jn. 3:16. Look, you need to pick up a concordance and just do the rudimentary study of the word as no one who has even done a rudimentary study of how the term kosmos is used in the New Testament would make the claim that it always includes every human that ever lived as that simply declares you have never even studied the use of the term at all.

So, you repudiate the clear and explicit ULTIMATE reason Paul gives for them being chosen by the Father in Ephesians 1:4? And no, they were not chosen BECAUSE the Father gave them to the Son but they were given to the Son because the Father chose them "unto salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13). In John 6:37-39 the time of them being given preceded their coming to Christ and the incarnation of Christ into the world (v. 38). In John 6:37 giving is found in the present tense while coming is future tense. In John 6:38-39 giving is found in the perfect tense as the giving event is the stated cause for Christ coming into the world. Hence, giving occurs previous to the incarnation, previous to the birth of those being given,and therefore God's elective choice must be inclusive of that act of being given. Please don't respond unless you can do it with substance both in grammar and in context of John 6:37-40.

 

To propitiate in the redemptive context of scripture means to placate the wrath of God. For example, it is the blood smeared across the doorways of those in Egypt that prevented the wrath of God from striking their firstborn. This Passover blood has its ultimate application to the blood of Christ shed in behalf of his elect.

God dwelt in the midst of Israel and it was dangerous to have a holy God living in the midst of ungodly people. Often God's wrath would strike out against Israel or a portion of Israelites because of their wickedness and only shed blood would placate His wrath from destroying them.

The sacrificial blood was a type of Christ, and providing a sacrificial animal to the priests was an act of faith that proclaimed this animal is to take my place in death in order to placate the wrath of God and expiate my sins in what it typifies - the death of Christ, and so John points to Christ and said, "behold the lamb of God that taketh away (expiates) the sin of the world."

The atonement placates (propitates) a PERSON and removes the PROBLEM (expiation) which is sin and its consequences.

 

​

Using your own words, "You apparently never studied" the statements of the OT concerning the scope of all the "inhabitants" of the land. Should you have, you would not attempt to be opposed to the blood coverage.

​

"It is quite apparent you have never done a lexical and contextual study of kosmos or you would not even dare to make such an assertion."

NO ONE stated "that God loves EVERY human being equally."

This is your own bias posting to the extreme of what I posted, and is not worthy of further comment, for it is an ignorant statement and opposed to the Scriptures.

"I thought you might have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Biblical use of kosmos but it is apparent you do not."

Absolutely obvious that you design your bias upon a designation of the word that is limiting the blood, but that is NOT the truth of the Scriptures.

At no place is the blood, nor the love mitigated to a select holy huddle.

Strange that you want the use the word "kosmos" as universal when it fits your bias, but restricted when it also fits your bias.

The over exuberance of your posts are disclosing the implausibility of your understanding.

Why do you mix election with the blood.

Is it because your bias demands such a link?

Perhaps you have forgotten that the blood was offered ONCE for all, and not held in reserve of the time of God choosing who was to believe.

The choosing of believers in no fashion is linked to the blood limited to only those believers.

Not a single verse of scripture supports such thinking.

You deal with John 6.

What part of that passage you desire ME to work through does it state that the blood was shed ONLY for the elect?

It doesn't.

Doesn't even elude to such thinking.

Neither does any other Scripture, unless your bias exercises you to that thinking.

 

No problem, but this was not the blood of atonement offered once a year. THAT is the type in which includes all in the land.

The blood spread on the door posts, was signifying to the death angle that one was to be passed over in JUDGEMENT of all in the land, not a covering for sin.
The atonement blood on the mercy seat was the sin offering for all in the land.

Well, this statement (only the shed blood would placate His wrath from destroying them) would be true if it carried through all examples of God demonstrating His intolerance during the wandering. But it doesn't.

Makes for great emotional reading, and unlearned nodding in agreement, but it just isn't the case of support.

Remember the snakes? What blood comes from a bronze snake?

Rather, the "lifting up" was the symbol of the promised redeemer, as Christ states. (John 3)

I really like this part, because it proves EXACTLY that the blood is NOT limited.

John the Baptist does not say, "Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the elect."

But DOES say, "Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the WORLD."

As Calvinistic Brother Strong defined: Kosmos - universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

So, no limit to the blood found in John the Baptist statement.

Not true.

There is NO blood atonement that is not personal, and not for all persons.

Again, John 3, Isaiah 53, Romans 9,..., is clear that the sin problem is dealt with for all ungodly, that the matter of salvation resides totally upon belief.

Blood for all - unlimited supply, unlimited in purpose.
Belief - that which is totally under the control and purpose of the Sovereign - God.

 

The passover was a preeminent type of the shed blood of the Lamb from which the Lord's Supper is derived and the symbolism of the cup. Your rationale is a complete mystery to me.

For example???

Circular reasoning.

I have given you two clear examples where the term kosmos cannot possibly mean all human beings that ever existed and ever will exist and what do you do? Simply ignore it and keep repeating the same error.

You have misunderstood what I said. It is not people that need placating but God and God is the PERSON that is being propitaited. The problem is sin by his people and that needs expiating.

 

You really don't understand that "the land" does not refer to the whole planet earth???????? Really? It is used in scripture consistently toward Israel as a descriptive of the PROMISED Land.

​

This is the last time I am going to respond to this absolute nonsense. I gave you two clear examples to prove that the term "kosomos" does not always include all human that have ever existed and will exist. Remember,that was your claim, do I need to requote it from your post? What did you do with the two examples? Nothing! You simply ignored them and you were wise to do so as they cannot possibly fit your definition and you know it and that is precisely why you have ignored them. Deal with those two examples (and I could give many more) or don't waste my time.

Wrong! I did, and you quoted me but ignored my application. That non-equal love was the basis of divine election of Israel "above" all other nations and that election included the sacrifices, the covenants, the Scriptures, and God said this restrictive election was demonstration of his love - read it - Deut. 7:7-9. Paul says the exact same thing about personal individual divine election that it is demonstration of His love - read it - Eph. 1:4-6. Either you don't understand what I said or you are simply arguing to argue.

Again, I have provided two clear examples to prove that kosmos does always include all humans that have ever existed. You can't deal with the examples and so you having nothing to say but ridicule. This is my last post concerning this point. I will not respond to such nonsense any more.

I have and it shut your mouth.

 

​

Never said that the tabernacle and temple atonement blood was for the WHOLE earth. That is from your own bias distortion of what I posted.

The blood atonement of the temple/tabernacle EXCLUDED no one in the land (land God gave Abraham).

As a type of the promise to come, that type is destroyed by limiting the blood to only the priests, or even the Israeli.

The type is consistent if the blood of the cross is for every person in the land, but in this case John being VERY specific that land was the "kosmos" - whole creation, whole world, ...

NOT limited to a select few.

Strange that you call your own words, "...absolute nonsense."

Perhaps you need a bit of education as to how the word, "kosmos" is defined. I grabbed this off the "Bible Study Tools" web as a starter for you:

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
kos'-mos Noun Masculine
Definition

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
   2. of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

​

(taken from: Kosmos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard)

Now, before you go off and try to point to the last definition as proof, I will remind you and the readers that definitions are gatherings of all uses of a word and any good dictionary attempts to place the use in an order of priority by placing the most closely and original use as first and then descending in order until it attempts to capture even the colloquial use.

So, the definition of kosmos (#3) that I have used, is far more accurate to the original use than that 5 definitions further down.

Which is EXACTLY the statement of definition given by Calvinistic thinking Strong:

kósmos (literally, "something ordered") – properly, an "ordered system" (like the universe, creation); the world.

[The English term "cosmetic" is derived from 2889 /kósmos, i.e. the order ("ensemble") used of treating the face as a whole.]​

(from Strong's Greek: 2889. κόσμος (kosmos) -- order, the world)

Do you not see that propitiation and election are separate and one is authorized by the other?

Of course not. Because, again your bias, demands that the two not be considered as one coming from the authority of the other.

Just because the atonement blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat was for ALL in the land, did not mean that ALL in the land were saved?

ALL are saved from the first to the last as the result of belief.

But, this thread is on propitiation, and NOT upon election.

Oh, THIS is marvelous.

YOU AGREE !!!!

You said, "I have provided two clear examples to prove that kosmos does always include all humans that have ever existed."

Is it not good to finally agree that the blood is unlimited, but the election is specific?

 

Yes, as you stated here very well, one must define just what died for all really means, as it has to be qualified to be applying towards those whom the Lord will redeem!

 

If John actually meant by that that Jesus Jesus death propiated the wrath of Giod towards all sinners, then all would be getting saved!

 

So sinners who no longer have their sin debt remaining still go to hell then?