Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?

The reason I asked is what you have offered is not the definition of "propitiation", not an interpretation of the verse, but a general commentary about how the verse fits into one theory. It just seemed odd.

I know theories and interpretations differ, but you should be able to look at Scripture without automatically applying to it your chosen theory. You have not thus far proved able to accomplish this basic step.

Read the text. Read what is written. Here we should agree but we dont. Scripture itself is objective. From there we develop doctrine, application, and theories (which is where disagreements should arise). But you have to start by allowing the text to speak.

 

Sproul believed the Penal Substitution Theory (He was a Presbyterian).And he did believe that Jesus propitiated God by bearing our sin and experiencing His wrath. But don't insult the man by assuming he believed the word meant "bearing wrath". Sproul was not a fool.

 

The theory of atonement that people believe do not make them foolish. Calvin was not foolish for holding to Penal Substitution Theory. Luther was not foolish for assuming Satisfaction Theory. Aquinas wasn't foolish for looking to Christ's merit. Anselm wasn't foolish for looking to God's honor. Origen was not foolish for his Ransom Theory. Irenaeus wasn't foolish for Recapulation Theory. Tertullian wasn't foolish for his view of Christus Victor. NONE of these men were foolish. All of them believed that Christ suffered for us, as our representative, to purchase us from sin and death, to propitiate the wrath to come, and by his stripes we are healed. ALL of them. But NONE of them were foolish.

R.C. Sproul was not the "fool" you pretend him to be. He was a godly man and a scholar. He, along with many who disagreed with him on this topic, tried to remain faithful to Scripture. I personally disagree with him on several issues (to include infant baptism, ecclesiology, and his theory of atonement). But this does not mean Sproul was a fool. As I stated before, while Sproul would never have defined "propitiation" to mean "bearing wrath" he did believe this was the way Christ appeased God's wrath. You should be ashamed of yourself, @Yeshua1 , for dragging such a godly man through the dirt.The fact he passed away not so long ago makes your comments that much more disgraceful.

 

I like that one. My favorite is still appeasing God's wrath (or anger).

But the claim was not that "propitiation" means "averting the anger" or "appeasing God's wrath". I believe that this is true. This is exactly what Christ did. He appeased God's wrath towards us (I still need to read why F.F. Bruce objected to "propitiation").

The claim was that the word "propitiation" is not defined as "appeasing God's wrath" but "bearing God's wrath". I believe it remains that those who believe in Penal Substitution Theory believe that Jesus propitiated God's wrath by bearing it, but the word "propitiate" itself does not necessitate that definition.

 

The word never appears with Jesus bearing God's wrath either. The subject of the verse is not wrath, man, or sin. The subject is Christ who is the Atonement that adverts God's wrath.

Set aside your presuppositions and deal honestly with the biblical text. Even if your theory were correct it would not excuse such eisegesis.

 

Let’s just call you to the task - interact with the CONTEXT of the passages (if you are able) and show us where John is speaking of Jesus bearing God's wrath in 1 John :

ἱλασμός appears twice in Scripture – both in 1 John (1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10)

1 John 2:1-14 1 John 1:5-2:6 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. 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. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

What is the context? Is it God’s wrath, or bearing God’s wrath? No. The context of propitiation in 1 John 2 is the advocacy of Christ as the propitiation (the One who propitiates). Does the context demand this mean Christ propitiates by bearing God’s wrath? No, it does not. God’s wrath is not even mentioned in the passage except perhaps as assumed by the word choice “propitiation” (and here only as a propitiation, or an atonement which appeases God’s wrath – which is implied in that the Advocacy is linked to the forgiveness of sins mentioned in the previous verses).

1 John 4:7-12 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

What is the context? Is it God’s wrath, or bearing God’s wrath? No. The context of propitiation in 1 John 4:10 is actually God’s love manifested in sending His only begotten Son that we might live. The only reason to use the word “propitiation” is that it is what was used in chapter 2 (the only other time the word appears in Scripture). But no mention of Jesus bearing God’s wrath.

'Come on....we're waiting....I don't want to hear your theories or how Christ bore God's wrath - show us where ἱλασμός means "bearing wrath" because of the context it is used in the passages.

 

Here is F.F. Bruce’s comments (the one I couldn’t recall before):

We need not stay to enquire whether ‘expiation’ or ‘remedy for defilement’ would be a preferable rendering of hilasmos; ‘propitiation’ or ‘atonement’ will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God but something which God as provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance – guilt, with its attendant retribution, the ‘punishment’ which is banished by ‘perfect love’. (The Epistles of John)