Featured Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod

No. My point is that we need to be faithful to Scripture. I am not opposed to people holding and defending any of the theories. But I do not believe it appropriate to determine the meaning of a word by reading into Scripture an interpretation.

It is one thing to say Jesus propitiated by bearing God's wrath, and another to say that Scripture dictates the meaning of "propitiation" to mean "bearing wrath".

What was done is Scripture was altered so that only one interpretation of 1 John 2:2 was textually possible. This is not honest to the text itself regardless as to the validity of the theology.

Again, take a look at the comment to which I objected:

Romans 3 does say that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation, and propitiation is a key word. BUT it is NOT by definition "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin." The last statement is eisegesis by definition.

Does that help understand my objection? It's not Penasl Substitution but an inability to look at Scripture objectively. It's about handling Scripture with care and being faithful to the text.

 

I already said that 1 John 1 indicates sin and wrath is in view, and I offered the definition of propitiation being an appeasement or turning away of God's wrath. You argued against my rejection of @The Archangel 's definition and said I was like the Jehovah Witnesses for saying truth is decided by what is written. The OP was not an argument against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and what I objected to was liberties taken with Scripture (I believe we need to take care to be faithful to the biblical text rather than substituting our theories for words).

I was not arguing against the Theory or the traditional definition of propitiation (the dictionary definition). I was arguing against what I quoted:

The above quote shows the dangers present when we puff up theology to the level of Scripture. Romans 3 does say God put forth Christ as a propitiation. Propitiation is a key word. BUT by definition it is NOT bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

Look again at what was said (at what I was arguing against):

1. Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation.
2. Propitiation is the key word.
3. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

Can you discern the error in that quote?

 

AGAIN, I was not arguing against the traditional definition of propitiation. We were speaking of "propitiation" in 1 Jn 2:2 and this was what I was arguing against:

I also agree that "propitiation" is the correct word choice because it has the turning of wrath in view. Please stop dancing around the error. I was arguing against a lack of faithfulness to the biblical text.

Can you or can you not discern the error in the statement below?

 

[/QUOTE]
Yes. You were covertly agreeing with my statement that 1 John 1 indicates that the word should be translated as "propitiated" because it has in view the turning aside of God's wrath. That's what threw me off. We usually don't agree so easily .

What you were talking about in 1 John was not "biblical exposition", but a simple application of theology/theory. John is not speaking of Christ bearing wrath at all (neither by use of "propitiation" or biblical context). That does not mean your theory is wrong, but nowhere is it the subject of 1 Jn 2:2. If you see it there then you are reading into the text. And I already...actually....dealt with the text. You thus far refused (you affirmed a belief that Christ bore God's wrath, dealt with commentary on the topic of God expressing his anger and wrath on Christ, but thus far have not actually dealt with the actual text of John 2:2).

 

I understand. The other thread was not about varying theories of atonement either.

The reason I made such a statement was that you “injected yourself into [my] discussion” with Martin in post # 47. I replied in post # 52, and you responded that until I show you where someone allowed their theology to define a term you would consider my post to be a “red herring”. So I provided the post (I had been objecting to @The Archangel 's comment that propitiation means bearing the anger and wrath of God as it simply does not, regardless as to how Christ turned aside that wrath. The comment was not faithful to the biblical text, and I believe this important).

Glad to see we are at least up to speed (and we actually agree on the subject that was at hand while perhaps disagreeing on the theories of atonement).

I agree that defining propitiation as “bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin” is an error. That said, I do understand (as I stated on the other thread) the theory that Christ propitiated by bearing that wrath.

My concern is that we be very careful with Scripture when developing our theories and theologies that we do not read back into Scripture our interpretations (which is what was obviously done before). You and I can discuss our differences only if we remain faithful to Scripture even when differing in interpretation. Once one of us reads back into Scripture their theory then meaningful discussion is impossible because that person cannot discern Scripture from its interpretation.

My entire point was that we have to treat Scripture with respect and integrity. If we do that, I think that we will be able to identify both common ground and areas where we truly differ - common ground being Scripture where interpretation, application, and theology may vary.

 

That's what Fred A. Malone contends in The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenental Argument.

Malone argues that the change of wording from the Westminster to the Second London was specifically aimed at practices such as paedobaptism.

quoted in V.A. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, Reformation Heritage Books, 2010.

Timothy George argues that the change reflected a Baptist bias toward the regulative principle, probably best exemplified today by the Primitive Baptists.

Timothy George, Baptists and the Westminster Confession, 1996 Calvin Conference: The Westminster Confession in Current Thought.

 

This is hardly earth-shattering. So the word is translated in all the best English Bibles. However, as I showed, the surrounding context and the comparing of Scripture with Scripture clearly reveals that Penal Substitution is in view.

'.......God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.' We note that darkness cannot abide in the presence of God (Revelation 22:5), and that light and darkness in John are spiritual rather than physical. Thus we see the darkness of ignorance in Nicodemus (John 3:2), and the darkness of sin in Judas (John 13:30). If we are walking in darkness, we can have no fellowship with God (v.6). Yet, 'if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1:8). How can we ever be right with God? How can sinners walk in the light?

'Eternal light! Eternal Light!
How pure that soul must be
When, placed within Thy searching sight,
It shrinks not, but with calm delight
Can live and look on Thee?

.......Oh, how shall I whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the Ineffable appear
And on my naked spirit bear
The uncreated beam?

But verse 8 tells us that 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' How can He do that? God is faithful; that is, He is true to His character and true to His word, which states that He is 'By no means clearing the guilty' (Exodus 34:7). He declares, 'I will not justify the wicked' (Exodus 23:7). God is just: the wicked must be punished. How can He forgive us? We see the remarkable similarity of 1 John 1:5-2:2 and Romans 3:21-26. '.......That [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

'There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
And offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit's energies,
An advocate with God.'

God's law must be upheld; the guilty must be punished; God's wrath, 'Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' must be appeased. And this is done by the Lord Jesus Christ. 'He Himself is the propitiation for our sins......' Sin has been punished in Him (Isaiah 53:6). 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). And the use by Peter of 'tree' rather than 'cross' reminds us that Christ also bore the curse that our sins brought upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:13). Sin has been punished, in Christ; God's righteousness has been upheld, in Christ; we are free from condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1), because we become 'the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21), because He has borne our sins, every last bit of them, and God looks at us and sees the perfect, unblemished righteousness of Christ.

I shall be pasting that on every reply I make to your posts until you actuallymake some effort to answer it.

Deal with what I wrote then. Show how the context of 1 John 2:2 does not include 1 John 1:5, for example. Show how God can be both faithful and just whilst still forgiving our sins, in the light of the various verses I quoted.[/QUOTE]
That is off topic. My complaint was allowing theology to change the be meaning of words. You are jumping from the actual text to the theory. Everything seems to go back to the Theory with you (I wasn't even arguing against the Theory).

I will say that 1 John in no way demands the Theory of Penal Substitution, and that you are reading it into the text. I will walk through the passage with you on a new thread when I get to a computer.

 

Sorry.