Magic Blood Theory

[JonC]

There is no where to go with this. Redemption by blood to me speaks of wrath. "Propitiation" speaks of appeasement of something. If something is transferred to someone else rather than the one it was intended for it is substitution. The Old Testament sacrificial system is valid to look at and compare and the general interpretations of transference and substitution are correct. The instances of God's wrath are against sinners. Justification and forgiveness when done by God must be consistent with his nature. Becoming "in Christ" is based on something. Being by nature a child of wrath means something when combined with knowledge of God's holiness and his view of sin. I don't think we agree on these things even though we are looking at the same verses. That's alright with me but can you site anyone else who uses your view of atonement or are you the only one who correctly views scripture?

"Propitiation" has many ideas behind it. It certainly points towards wrath. And from a purely pagan point of view (as seen in ANE pagan rituals) they were appeasing the wrath of their gods.

But this raises questions.

We serve a holy God. Can God literally be appeased? Can God be, as pagans thought, pacified or placated?

Also, we have to remember that the word "propitated" is an English word. In 1 John ἱλασμός is typically translated two ways - in 1 John 2:2 as "propitiation", and in 1 John 4:10 as "atoning sacrifice".

I agree with FF Bruce on this one. It should be "atoning sacrifice" as it is a broader term that also incorporates wrath. The reason for "propitiation" is because of "sins" in the verse (it does have wrath in view).

Either word works fine. The issue is in defining the word. Do we look at "atone" as a pagan, sacrificing to pacify a god? Or do we look at the word through Scripture, using the OT as a guide, seeing sacrifices not as appeasing but as obedience to turn aside wrath?

 

[AustinC]

"Propitiation" has many ideas behind it. It certainly points towards wrath. And from a purely pagan point of view (as seen in ANE pagan rituals) they were appeasing the wrath of their gods.

But this raises questions.

We serve a holy God. Can God literally be appeased? Can God be, as pagans thought, pacified or placated?

Also, we have to remember that the word "propitated" is an English word. In 1 John ἱλασμός is typically translated two ways - in 1 John 2:2 as "propitiation", and in 1 John 4:10 as "atoning sacrifice".

I agree with FF Bruce on this one. It should be "atoning sacrifice" as it is a broader term that also incorporates wrath. The reason for "propitiation" is because of "sins" in the verse (it does have wrath in view).

Either word works fine. The issue is in defining the word. Do we look at "atone" as a pagan, sacrificing to pacify a god? Or do we look at the word through Scripture, using the OT as a guide, seeing sacrifices not as appeasing but as obedience to turn aside wrath?

Jon, it seems that somewhere along the way you read some book that talked all about pagan beliefs and now you imagine the church has appropriated paganism. Thus, you have created a theory that might stop you from being a pagan.

However, could you admit that no one but you is interpreting the Bible as a pagan? Instead, everyone is interpreting the Bible by reading the Bible and seeing how God addresses old testament atonement as a foreshadowing of Jesus New Testament atonement. Paganism isn't even in the mind of anyone but you...but you project it on everyone who questions yoir interpretation. It's really similar to silverhair and sbg who cry "calvinist" whenever they are challenged. It's really just a boogeyman crutch...and now you have created your own boogeyman regarding atonement. You see something that isn't there and no opponent is doing. I suggest you stick that book you read back on the shelf and let the dust settle.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have not discussed Matthew....or Peter. I was not posting verses (verse and chapter divisions were not a part of Scripture).

I was posting what I believed. Not an order of occurrences but what I believe.



I did not realize you assumed you thought the entirety of my belief was found in Matthew.

If I took your reply wrong then you have my sincere apology. I was not lying but believed you were saying Scripture did not say that. If you were referring to Matthew....well...I agree. It is not Saud in Matthew. It was in the writings of Peter. But it is all God's Word.

If you assumed I was linking random passages, mashing them up... then you misunderstood my post.

I was simply listing individual truths that I accept. I just did not see fit to post entire chapters (we all have Bibles).

No need to apologize for calling me a liar. You simply misunderstood my post.

Do you have any passages that state Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us, or is this just what you believe is taught by certain passages?

I will apologise if that is how it went down.
I thought you were blending Isaiah 53 wrongly, then tried to switch to me denying 1 pet 2:24.

 

[DaveXR650]

We serve a holy God. Can God literally be appeased? Can God be, as pagans thought, pacified or placated?

This is a good point and it is why I think that while it is fair on your part to expect a concept to be supported by scripture it is also allowed to take various truths and keep one in mind as you look at another. This is necessary not just allowed, otherwise you end up with a lot of folks claiming direct authorizations to do and believe various things because they have a verse.

In the case above, there is much scripture explaining how Jesus by virtue of prophecy, lineage, his sinless life, his miracles, his claims to be one with the Father, his submission to things like a humble earthy life, baptism (which identifies him with humanity); all this shows you by scripture that he was in a unique and once in history position to appease God. It is also clearly stated that the OT sacrifices were representations but not truly effective in themselves. Then you have Hebrews showing the connection. All these scriptures you are dismissing because they don't state in 1 place what you want it too. You have danced around this for 900 posts but you do not clearly state 2 things.
1. What exactly is you view of the atonement. (and here I ask you to stop the doubletalk and give your explanation without using anything that we use in penal substitution. Don't say he bore our sins and then say but I hereby declare that that has nothing to to with penal substitution.)
2. You still have not, unless I missed it, answered my concern that your ideas are only found by you. If that is the case, fine, but that means something to most of us who are laymen and are comparing your views to all the Calvinists theologians and all the regular Baptists theologians also.

 

[JonC]

I will apologise if that is how it went down.
I thought you were blending Isaiah 53 wrongly, then tried to switch to me denying 1 pet 2:24.

I understand. It was just miscommunication. No problem.

 

[JonC]

This is a good point and it is why I think that while it is fair on your part to expect a concept to be supported by scripture it is also allowed to take various truths and keep one in mind as you look at another. This is necessary not just allowed, otherwise you end up with a lot of folks claiming direct authorizations to do and believe various things because they have a verse.

In the case above, there is much scripture explaining how Jesus by virtue of prophecy, lineage, his sinless life, his miracles, his claims to be one with the Father, his submission to things like a humble earthy life, baptism (which identifies him with humanity); all this shows you by scripture that he was in a unique and once in history position to appease God. It is also clearly stated that the OT sacrifices were representations but not truly effective in themselves. Then you have Hebrews showing the connection. All these scriptures you are dismissing because they don't state in 1 place what you want it too. You have danced around this for 900 posts but you do not clearly state 2 things.
1. What exactly is you view of the atonement. (and here I ask you to stop the doubletalk and give your explanation without using anything that we use in penal substitution. Don't say he bore our sins and then say but I hereby declare that that has nothing to to with penal substitution.)
2. You still have not, unless I missed it, answered my concern that your ideas are only found by you. If that is the case, fine, but that means something to most of us who are laymen and are comparing your views to all the Calvinists theologians and all the regular Baptists theologians also.

I thought I explained my understanding well, however (as you have pointed out in the past) I ain't the most articulate fella.

We do not have time on this thread to get into my understanding of the atonement. I will start a new thread and provide a link do that it can be discussed.

 

[DaveXR650]

I thought I explained my understanding well, however (as you have pointed out in the past) I ain't the most articulate fella.

Are you kidding? With only 1 ally you have taken on the whole board on 5 or 6 different threads and over 900 posts. You do quite well and are the best verbal judoka I have ever seen. I would rather debate James White than you. I would rather box Mike Tyson than debate you. Well, maybe not that.

 

[AVL1984]

This reeks of Apollarianism or Nestorianism, or a hybrid of the two.

It wreaks of what most Baptist Churches teach....the Bible. UGH! No wonder so many people are turned off by "Christianity"...the constant use of "labels" to try and pigeonhole people to make themselves feel good about their position. Go figure.

 

[JonC]

1. What exactly is you view of the atonement. (and here I ask you to stop the doubletalk and give your explanation without using anything that we use in penal substitution. Don't say he bore our sins and then say but I hereby declare that that has nothing to to with penal substitution.)
2. You still have not, unless I missed it, answered my concern that your ideas are only found by you. If that is the case, fine, but that means something to most of us who are laymen and are comparing your views to all the Calvinists theologians and all the regular Baptists theologians also.

1. We can discuss it here: My (JonC) view of the Atonement

2. My view is shared by the majority of Christians (historically). It is the view of the Early Church (which does not prove it is correct). It is also Anabaptist theology...and in Orthodox Christianity (Eastern Orthodox). It was expressed by Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom. More recently, it was expressed by authors like C.S. Lewis. Although there are different emphasis, it is the overarching view of every Classic View of the Atonement. It is even hinted at at earlier Latin Views. Augustine, for example, opposed the idea that Christ's death appeased God.

That said, it was a very good question. If we ever come up with something "new" then we should reconsider. Had Calvin done this, Penal Substitution Theory would not exist today.

 

[JonC]

Are you kidding? With only 1 ally you have taken on the whole board on 5 or 6 different threads and over 900 posts. You do quite well and are the best verbal judoka I have ever seen. I would rather debate James White than you. I would rather box Mike Tyson than debate you. Well, maybe not that.

"Debate"???? You thought this was a debate!!!! I was just asking for passages that stated your view.

I stated my view very clearly, point by point, in several of these threads (I even put numbers there so it would be clear). That said, I did start a thread so we can discuss my position as all of these threads were merely appeals for Scripture. Go through that thread and let's talk (not debate) about it.

 

[Salty]

SIX HOUR WARNING
This thread will be closed no sooner than 630 pm EST / 330 pm PST

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

[Let's stop beating around the bush, talking about theories and what some belueve Scripture teaches and get right to the meat of things - to "what is written" and what is written again. To God's Word.]

On the other thread I started....I am walking through the issue.
Rather than what you call "beating around the bush"....we are examining key verses but more importantly....key words....their primary biblical
Meanings which inform us as to why PSA is what is consistently taught in scripture.
It is not a shallow show me one verse look here approach.
By being thorough we do not miss biblical truth.
I have learned this from puritans and teachers who have a greater gift than you or i.
I do not despise these teachers.
I find in scripture what I see as truth then I look and see if others have seen the same thing.
Many times they saw what I did but added more to it and a clarity I lack.
I am leery when someone tells me...I used to believe but now God showed me things everyone missed

 

[agedman]

Not death, as you imagine it, but the pains of death.

I have watched the dying die. No matter the cause - death is usually a welcome relief. The exception is those who are unsaved more often die in desperation for another moment or some have died in awareness of the fate that awaits them.

The "sting" of death is the judgement that awaits. To the believer there is no condemnation of judgement.

So, your thinking of "pains of death" is misdirected, imo.

However, that does not diminish the pain prior to death. To witness one in such pain is disconcerting. Watching one burn alive, another one consumed by the poisons as the body organs fail, one deleterious as their endorphins no longer respond, all are images that haunt.

What pains did our Lord face. As I pressed the issue before, other before and after have tasted of His cup, as He said would happen. The suffering and agony was purposed by God through the prophets. His former manliness crushed into being so weak He stumbled on the road and had to have another help. What a mystery of awe that the very creator and sustainer of all things had to have help by the creation.

Certainly, death was welcome, for with it brought the finish, the end of the mission, the purpose for which He came.

However, do not consider that the "pains of death" had anything to do with the Wrath of God.

There is no Scriptures that support such thinking.

Rather, just as in the OT sacrificial system, wrath was removed by the purity of both the priest and the blood. The Hebrews tell of the Lord's sacrifice was far greater and eternal compared to all the OT sacrificial offerings. If no wrath was directed toward them, how much less would appear at our Lord's?

 

[agedman]

No..there is no more wrath because He paid it all.
it did not just vanish.....justice was done , then mercy.

Like this;21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Does not say he threw it out. He magnified it by His active obedience

My friend, there was and is no wrath for the believer nor for the Christ. Which believer in the OT list found in Hebrews 11 suffered the wrath of God?

What sacrifice of the OT was displaying the wrath of God upon the Christ?

For your view to be correct, one must actually insert into the text of Scriptures a mindset that is contrary to the presentation.

Do you not think that had God's wrath been a major part of the crucifixion it would have been written in bold headline print in the pages of prophecy?

Yet, it was not.

It pleased God, does not mean that God had to do anything to be pleased.

Besides, you have yet to address the philosophical issue of how the trinity actually punishes a full member of the trinity?
And, How does one member of the trinity become unholy to deserve that treatment and then again become holy - for does not all who are unclean need the clean to make the unclean clean?

We who are unclean are cleaned by the Redeemer, but if the redeemer became unclean, there remained no redemption for nothing clean can clean an unclean God. Humankind was made for redemption, not God.

So, even from a philosophical standpoint, the PSA is error.

It is doubly wrong. Wrong by scripture, wrong by logic.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It wreaks of what most Baptist Churches teach....the Bible. UGH! No wonder so many people are turned off by "Christianity"...the constant use of "labels" to try and pigeonhole people to make themselves feel good about their position. Go figure.

Again, Christ being fully human does not equate Him having holy and pure blood. If most Baptist churches teach that, then they are in grave error.

 

[AustinC]

"Debate"???? You thought this was a debate!!!! I was just asking for passages that stated your view.

I stated my view very clearly, point by point, in several of these threads (I even put numbers there so it would be clear). That said, I did start a thread so we can discuss my position as all of these threads were merely appeals for Scripture. Go through that thread and let's talk (not debate) about it.

Link us to those points, because I have yet to see them anywhere. Moreso, I highly doubt this topic would go on this long if you were actually clear on the subject. This brings us full circle back to my OP, which states how you have provided a confusing confusion of whatever it is you think you have clearly stated.

 

[agedman]

Agedman
on the false doctrine thread, posts 83-97 explain the words used.

I have looked back at the posts.

The false doctrine is that which contains God’s wrath was poured out upon Christ.


You, of course don’t recognize it as false, but it is nevertheless false.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I have looked back at the posts.

The false doctrine is that which contains God’s wrath was poured out upon Christ.


You, of course don’t recognize it as false, but it is nevertheless false.

Was Christ imputed His ppl’s sins?

 

[agedman]

Jon, it seems that somewhere along the way you read some book that talked all about pagan beliefs and now you imagine the church has appropriated paganism. Thus, you have created a theory that might stop you from being a pagan.

However, could you admit that no one but you is interpreting the Bible as a pagan? Instead, everyone is interpreting the Bible by reading the Bible and seeing how God addresses old testament atonement as a foreshadowing of Jesus New Testament atonement. Paganism isn't even in the mind of anyone but you...but you project it on everyone who questions yoir interpretation. It's really similar to silverhair and sbg who cry "calvinist" whenever they are challenged. It's really just a boogeyman crutch...and now you have created your own boogeyman regarding atonement. You see something that isn't there and no opponent is doing. I suggest you stick that book you read back on the shelf and let the dust settle.

So you think God dumping His wrath upon the Son is some manner less paganism?

Why not discard the PSA presentation in favor of clear presentation in Scripture, which God is not seen as recipient of some pagan blood ritual, but as one reconciled totally by His own work and nothing from humankind other then being the tool?

 

[agedman]

Again, Christ being fully human does not equate Him having holy and pure blood. If most Baptist churches teach that, then they are in grave error.

Are you presenting His blood was less then pure and holy? That the “fullness of God” would be found in less then pure and holy?