The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

[Dave G]

So far in this thread I see a lot of what men have written about the Bible on the subject, and men who reason through the Scriptures to a conclusion that seems obvious to them,...
But I've not seen anything yet that would definitively convince me that God's wrath, which I see was never directed against His elect ( only His love was ), was ever laid upon the Lord Jesus at the cross.

Only our sins were.

Yes, He was made sin for us, I agree.
Yes, God was pleased to bruise Him for our sake.
Yes, He was pierced, suffered shame and was made a mockery for us.

But nowhere in any of the posts have I yet seen, have there been any Scriptural declarations answering whether or not God the Father actually laid any of His wrath upon His Son.

I also see quite a bit of arguing back and forth ... but no Scripture outright declaring that the Lord bore the wrath that was supposedly directed at His people for their sins.
Has there been any "building a case" in favor of PSA?
Yes, and that's something I've seen well-respected preachers doing on just about every doctrine of God's word that there is.

But until someone can demonstrate to me where the Lord tells us that "Christ bore our wrath", then to me it's still just a theory;
Granted, one I was convinced of not all that long ago, but now, not so much.

 

[Brightfame52]

So far in this thread I see a lot of what men have written about the Bible on the subject, and men who reason through the Scriptures to a conclusion that seems obvious to them,...
But I've not seen anything yet that would definitively convince me that God's wrath, which I see was never directed against His elect ( only His love was ), was ever laid upon the Lord Jesus at the cross.

Only our sins were.

Yes, He was made sin for us, I agree.
Yes, God was pleased to bruise Him for our sake.
Yes, He was pierced, suffered shame and was made a mockery for us.

But nowhere in any of the posts have I yet seen, have there been any Scriptural declarations answering whether or not God the Father actually laid any of His wrath upon His Son.

I also see quite a bit of arguing back and forth ... but no Scripture outright declaring that the Lord bore the wrath that was supposedly directed at His people for their sins.
Has there been any "building a case" in favor of PSA?
Yes, and that's something I've seen well-respected preachers doing on just about every doctrine of God's word that there is.

But until someone can demonstrate to me where the Lord tells us that "Christ bore our wrath", then to me it's still just a theory;
Granted, one I was convinced of not all that long ago, but now, not so much.

I don't think you have to see the word wrath dave, but the point is what He did suffer and endure for the sins of the elect satisfied God's wrath towards them ,they don't have to face wrath which otherwise they would. You do believe those Christ did not die for will suffer God's wrath right?

Another thing to consider (along with no actual passage telling us Jesus experienced God's wrath) is the fact that nobody believed Jesus experienced God's wrath for most of Christian history.

This alone is not proof, but it (along with the fact that many views exist....only one holding Jesus experienced God's wrath) does prove that it is not something evident in Scripture itself.

The most common view (one I do not hold) is that Christ satisfied what man lost by merit through His obedience to die at the hands of the wicked.

More importantly, IMHO, is that we cannot expect better treatment by God than He treated Jesus. If God was willing to pour His wrath on "His Elect", His "Righteous One", then we have no hope.

Do you believe the unredeemed by Christ will undergo and suffer wrath from God for their sins ? Like Eph 5 3-6

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Those He died for have been delivered from wrath

1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

How did Jesus deliver us from the wrath to come ?

 

[JonC]

So far in this thread I see a lot of what men have written about the Bible on the subject, and men who reason through the Scriptures to a conclusion that seems obvious to them,...
But I've not seen anything yet that would definitively convince me that God's wrath, which I see was never directed against His elect ( only His love was ), was ever laid upon the Lord Jesus at the cross.

Only our sins were.

Yes, He was made sin for us, I agree.
Yes, God was pleased to bruise Him for our sake.
Yes, He was pierced, suffered shame and was made a mockery for us.

But nowhere in any of the posts have I yet seen, have there been any Scriptural declarations answering whether or not God the Father actually laid any of His wrath upon His Son.

I also see quite a bit of arguing back and forth ... but no Scripture outright declaring that the Lord bore the wrath that was supposedly directed at His people for their sins.
Has there been any "building a case" in favor of PSA?
Yes, and that's something I've seen well-respected preachers doing on just about every doctrine of God's word that there is.

But until someone can demonstrate to me where the Lord tells us that "Christ bore our wrath", then to me it's still just a theory;
Granted, one I was convinced of not all that long ago, but now, not so much.

Another thing to consider (along with no actual passage telling us Jesus experienced God's wrath) is the fact that nobody believed Jesus experienced God's wrath for most of Christian history.

This alone is not proof, but it (along with the fact that many views exist....only one holding Jesus experienced God's wrath) does prove that it is not something evident in Scripture itself.

The most common view (one I do not hold) is that Christ satisfied what man lost by merit through His obedience to die at the hands of the wicked.

More importantly, IMHO, is that we cannot expect better treatment by God than He treated Jesus. If God was willing to pour His wrath on "His Elect", His "Righteous One", then we have no hope.

Jesus suffered and died. We will die. God raised Jesus to life. We will have that same deliverance in Him. Rather than focusing on God's wrath, why not focus on God's deliverance?

I don't care about"most of Christian history" Jon.
I only care about what God's word says.

For example, if billions of people who all profess Christ tell me that an infant who has never come to realize that they are a sinner and casts his or her hope upon Jesus Christ as Saviour during the preaching of God's word can be baptized, washing away all their sins...
And Scripture says different, then their "history" means nothing to me.

That's why "orthodoxy" has absolutely no effect on what I believe, either.

That stated, I'll get to the point:
Just because a majority of those who have professed Christ over the centuries have agreed or "established precedent" on a matter, should in no way influence how I read and understand God's word for myself one way or the other.
Just because, for example, John Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church or anyone else was known to have sponsored murder... should not prejudice me for or against any doctrine...whether true or false.

Whether or not it's true or false should be determined by how I read and understand God's word for myself.
Each and every one of us has only one person that must be persuaded of the truth or error of anything...
Ourself.

Anything outside of just me agreeing with me, I've found to be a blessing.

As I see it, PSA has been observed by some very well-respected and learned men out of a host of Scriptural passages over the years, but is not absolutely declared anywhere.
That so many agree with it is not my concern...
That Scripture outright declares it, I have yet to see.

Until then, no matter how many people outnumber me on it, I still will not be convinced until I see it for myself.

I agree history does not dictate what we believe. Like I said, I disagree with the majority Vhriatian view (Satisfaction Theory).

The difference, I think, is that I do belueve we have to set aside our own opinions/ understandings and lean on God's Word. That is why I can no longer agree with the Penal Substitution Theory of.

I can nit find in thGod's Word any passage saying that Jesus experienced God's wrath.
I cannot find any passage stating that God abandoned Jesus when He hung on the Criss.
I cannot find any passage that states Jesus died for our sins instead of us.
I cannot find any passage that states God transferred our sins from us and put them on Jesus.
I cannot find any passage that states that God punished the righteous.

Any one of those are enough to reject Penal Substitution Theory.


But I will give you this....if you can show me a verse that states Jesus suffered God's wrath instead of us then I will concede I was wrong to abandon the theory. But absent Scripture, I will not be persuaded as I will lean on God's Word.

I grant that I could misinterpret a text, but it will be a misinterpretation of the actual text and not what somebody thinks is taught by the text.

Do you believe the unredeemed by Christ will undergo and suffer wrath from God for their sins ? Like Eph 5 3-6

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Those He died for have been delivered from wrath

1 Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

How did Jesus deliver us from the wrath to come ?

Yes, I believe those who remain lost will suffer the wrath to come.

I believe that Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come by His obedience. "In Him we escape the wrath to come". Jesus died under the powers of sin and death ("sin produces death"). But Jesus did not sin and was obedient even unto death. God raised Jesus, have Him a name above every name.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. I believe that Jesus died and was judged righteous.

We escape the wrath to come by being "transformed into the image of Christ", being "born of the Spirit", "made alive in Christ", "made a new creation".

Jesus "became a lufe giving Spirit", we share in His death (death to the flesh) and will share in His resurrection (His life).

 

[Dave G]

Another thing to consider (along with no actual passage telling us Jesus experienced God's wrath) is the fact that nobody believed Jesus experienced God's wrath for most of Christian history.

I don't care about"most of Christian history" Jon.
I only care about what God's word says.

For example, if billions of people who all profess Christ tell me that an infant who has never come to realize that they are a sinner and casts his or her hope upon Jesus Christ as Saviour during the preaching of God's word can be baptized, washing away all their sins...
And Scripture says different, then their "history" means nothing to me.

That's why "orthodoxy" has absolutely no effect on what I believe, either.

That stated, I'll get to the point:
Just because a majority of those who have professed Christ over the centuries have agreed or "established precedent" on a matter, should in no way influence how I read and understand God's word for myself one way or the other.
Just because, for example, John Calvin or the Roman Catholic Church or anyone else was known to have sponsored murder... should not prejudice me for or against any doctrine...whether true or false.

Whether or not it's true or false should be determined by how I read and understand God's word for myself.
Each and every one of us has only one person that must be persuaded of the truth or error of anything...
Ourself.

Anything outside of just me agreeing with me, I've found to be a blessing.

As I see it, PSA has been observed by some very well-respected and learned men out of a host of Scriptural passages over the years, but is not absolutely declared anywhere.
That so many agree with it is not my concern...
That Scripture outright declares it, I have yet to see.

Until then, no matter how many people outnumber me on it, I still will not be convinced until I see it for myself.

How did Jesus deliver us from the wrath to come ?

BF, I realize that you were addressing JonC here, but I'd like to throw in if I'm allowed to.

Answer:
By making propitiation for the sins that those who are not God's elect, will suffer His wrath for.
My friend, God being provoked to anger is what makes Him willing to show wrath.
But since He loved each and every one of His elect while they were still enemies in their hearts and in their minds, then there was no wrath to appease.

Are those who support this teaching absolutely sure that PSA isn't coming from somewhere else besides the Scriptures?

The Lord Jesus didn't "stand in our place" or "take our punishment" on the cross;
He took upon Himself our sins, so that no one of God's elect would ever have to face His wrath and eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.
Just as salvation is not a "potential", but a sure thing, so was God's love for His people from before the foundation of the world.
It was a done deal way before you or I ever existed.

So how could God ever be angry about something that He was always going to graciously cast behind Him as far as east is from west, because of His grace and mercy towards us?

I'll need to see Scripture that declares that God was ever angry with His own spiritual people, before I even begin to agree.

 

[Dave G]

I can nit find in thGod's Word any passage saying that Jesus experienced God's wrath.
I cannot find any passage stating that God abandoned Jesus when He hung on the Criss.
I cannot find any passage that states Jesus died for our sins instead of us.
I cannot find any passage that states God transferred our sins from us and put them on Jesus.
I cannot find any passage that states that God punished the righteous.

Any one of those are enough to reject Penal Substitution Theory.

Agreed, except for the one I've highlighted.
That one I see clearly:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."( Isaiah 53:6 ).

" who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ( 1 Peter 2:24 )

" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." ( Hebrews 9:27-28 )

" He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." ( Isaiah 53:11 ).


Each and every sin that we are guilty of, He bore in His body on the tree.
"Transferred" vs "bare" or "took on" / "took upon Himself"?

It's the same meaning to me.

 

[Brightfame52]

BF, I realize that you were addressing JonC here, but I'd like to throw in if I'm allowed to.

Answer:
By making propitiation for the sins that those who are not God's elect, will suffer His wrath for.
My friend, God being provoked to anger is what makes Him willing to show wrath.
But since He loved each and every one of His elect while they were still enemies in their hearts and in their minds, then there was no wrath to appease.

Are those who support this teaching absolutely sure that PSA isn't coming from somewhere else besides the Scriptures?

The Lord Jesus didn't "stand in our place" or "take our punishment" on the cross;
He took upon Himself our sins, so that no one of God's elect would ever have to face His wrath and eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.
Just as salvation is not a "potential", but a sure thing, so was God's love for His people from before the foundation of the world.
It was a done deal way before you or I ever existed.

So how could God ever be angry about something that He was always going to graciously cast behind Him as far as east is from west, because of His grace and mercy towards us?

I'll need to see Scripture that declares that God was ever angry with His own spiritual people, before I even begin to agree.

So God was not angry at the sins of the elect? Now I do believe the elect were never under God's wrath or condemnation you should know that from Reading me over the years however He is angry with sin even the sins of the elect. It's kind of a simple concept to me if the non-elect will experience God's wrath because of their sins see Ephesians chapter 5:6 , the elect would be in the same boat if Christ had not died for their sins.

Furthermore I believe you are in error saying the Lord Jesus didn't stand in our place or take our punishment on the cross, how do you understand Isaiah 53: 5,10

Yes, I believe those who remain lost will suffer the wrath to come.

I believe that Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come by His obedience. "In Him we escape the wrath to come". Jesus died under the powers of sin and death ("sin produces death"). But Jesus did not sin and was obedient even unto death. God raised Jesus, have Him a name above every name.

It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. I believe that Jesus died and was judged righteous.

We escape the wrath to come by being "transformed into the image of Christ", being "born of the Spirit", "made alive in Christ", "made a new creation".

Jesus "became a lufe giving Spirit", we share in His death (death to the flesh) and will share in His resurrection (His life).

You know why they remain lost? Because Christ did not die for their sins!

I kniw they remain lost because they reject the Light for their deeds are evil (John 3:19).

What verse are you referencing?

Thats because Christ didn't die for them and consequently redeem them from all iniquity and purify them unto zealous good works. Titus 2:14

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

I understand that Christ gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a paticular people. I understand that He lay down His life for His sheep. I agree that Jesus died to save those who believe, that these people were given to Him by the Father.

But that was not my question.

I was asking what reference you used in regards to the idea that the lost remain so because Christ did not die for them.

I just answered, you probably dont understand, but that's my reason for saying it

@JonC

Yes, I do not understand. The verse you provided does not say that the lost remain so because Jesus did not die for them. I am trying to get how you come to that conclusion.

Because the ones Jesus gave Himself for, it redeemed them from all iniquity and purified them into a people zealous of good works. If that does happen in my life or your life, then Christ didn't die for and redeem you. Pretty simple bible reasoning.

I agree it is a kind of reasoning, but I disagree that the readon is "biblical". This is because it makes assumptions that are not in the Bible at all.

The Bible tells us thst the lost (those who remain lost) remain lost because they reject the Light, and that they reject the Light because their deeds are evil (they will not "repent and believe").

It would be biblical reasoning to say that the lost remain lost because they reject Christ, but not because He did not die for them.

Your conclusion is based on an informal fallacy, the questionable cause (false cause) fallacy.

You can disagree, I just gave you my reason for saying it.

 

[JonC]

Agreed, except for the one I've highlighted.
That one I see clearly:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."( Isaiah 53:6 ).

" who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ( 1 Peter 2:24 )

" And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." ( Hebrews 9:27-28 )

" He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." ( Isaiah 53:11 ).


Each and every sin that we are guilty of, He bore in His body on the tree.
"Transferred" vs "bare" or "took on" / "took upon Himself"?

It's the same meaning to me.

Here is what I was talking about before - interpretation vs addition.

What you do is interpret the text. I do as well. Since we both have the passage in common we can discuss our differences in interpretation and perhaps understand one another even if we disagree.


I interpret the verse to mean that God laid our sins on Jesus (without removing them from us).

There are several reasons I believe this, and I will try to quickly hit the main ones.

The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), for sin produces death (James 1:15). Death spread to all because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. (Heb 9:27). I believe that God became man (truely man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).

I believe this speaks of Jesus becoming one of us, suffering under the bondage of sin and death, but that this is the bondage we sufferer under for our sins. He became like us (suffering under, taking upon Himself the wages our sins, with us )so that we would become like Him (glorified with His glory, with Him).

The larger picture is that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:23). The second statement (the gift of God) does not nullify the first (the wages of sin), because sin produces death (James 1:15). But it does remove the sting of death (1 Cor 15:55) because although we die yet shall we live (John 11:25).

I welcome your critique of my view. I believe we can learn from one another even if we do not agree. Criticisms of my position can only make my position stronger, either by correction or confirmation.


I am also interested in how you arrive at your position, if you want to discuss your view.

 

[JonC]

You know why they remain lost? Because Christ did not die for their sins!

I kniw they remain lost because they reject the Light for their deeds are evil (John 3:19).

What verse are you referencing?

Thats because Christ didn't die for them and consequently redeem them from all iniquity and purify them unto zealous good works. Titus 2:14

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

I understand that Christ gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a paticular people. I understand that He lay down His life for His sheep. I agree that Jesus died to save those who believe, that these people were given to Him by the Father.

But that was not my question.

I was asking what reference you used in regards to the idea that the lost remain so because Christ did not die for them.

I just answered, you probably dont understand, but that's my reason for saying it

Yes, I do not understand. The verse you provided does not say that the lost remain so because Jesus did not die for them. I am trying to get how you come to that conclusion.

I take it you mean that Christ came to save those who believe, that His purpose was to purify unto Himself as a people all who believe.

I can see how that is reasoned out of the passage you provide and it is consistent with John 3:19 (the condemnation....why they are lost....is they rejected the Light because their deeds were evil).

But what you said was that the lost remain so because Jesus did not die for them, which has nothing to do with the passage you provided.

@JonC



Because the ones Jesus gave Himself for, it redeemed them from all iniquity and purified them into a people zealous of good works. If that does happen in my life or your life, then Christ didn't die for and redeem you. Pretty simple bible reasoning.

I agree it is a kind of reasoning, but I disagree that the readon is "biblical". This is because it makes assumptions that are not in the Bible at all.

The Bible tells us thst the lost (those who remain lost) remain lost because they reject the Light, and that they reject the Light because their deeds are evil (they will not "repent and believe").

It would be biblical reasoning to say that the lost remain lost because they reject Christ, but not because He did not die for them.

Your conclusion is based on an informal fallacy, the questionable cause (false cause) fallacy.

 

[Piper 2]

The mean of the word "propitiation is to turn aside or avoid something, particularly wrath or anger. I think this is evident in that it is in Christ we "escape the wrath to come". Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the Wirld (the ONLY Propitiation).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

Oh, here you go with your garbage. On any other moderated Baptist forum, you would be laughed to scorn. The only reason you get a hearing is that you are a moderator. On the other foryum I post at, you are mocked for this weird position.

 

[JonC]

Oh, here you go with your garbage. On any other moderated Baptist forum, you would be laughed to scorn. The only reason you get a hearing is that you are a moderator. On the other foryum I post at, you are mocked for this weird position.

You have to remember I am not a young pup. I was a Calvinist, and at the time one of the "go to" Calvinist theologians was FF Bruce. This was a point he made and it stuck with me. It was also John Calvin's point in his commentary. I am not too up to date with the newer Calvinism so I am not surprised that they have changed to the point that they mock Bruce. But change is expected as the "good idea fairy" seems to visit every generation.

I am surprised, however, that they read "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" and believe that "Jesus is the Propitiation" is such a weird position.

But regardless of what those on your other board believe, I am persuaded that Jesus is the Propitiation, He is the Lanb of God, He is the Atonement.

I am surprised you believe Jesus actually being the Propitiation for our sins is "garbage", but to each his own.

 

[JonC]

You can disagree, I just gave you my reason for saying it.

I obviously disagree. I just did not know if it was simply something you concluded or if there were passages (other passages) that actually gave a reason the list remain so other than rejecting Christ.

But yes, I believe we have to stick a little closer to Scripture when it comes to doctrine.

 

[Brightfame52]

I obviously disagree. I just did not know if it was simply something you concluded or if there were passages (other passages) that actually gave a reason the list remain so other than rejecting Christ.

But yes, I believe we have to stick a little closer to Scripture when it comes to doctrine.

I gave you scripture

 

[JonC]

I gave you scripture

I mean a verse actually attributing the lost as remaining lost to Christ mot dying for them. That is not at all what the verse you provided states. It states that He gave Himself to make a people of Christians (the "us). It dies not say we are Christians because He died for us or that the lost remain lost because He did not die for them.

The verse itself is completely unrelated to your conclusion. Christ died for those who believed znd the lost are condemned for their disbelief. There is a huge gap you need to fill to connect your conclusion with Scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

I mean a verse actually attributing the lost as remaining lost to Christ mot dying for them. That is not at all what the verse you provided states. It states that He gave Himself to make a people of Christians (the "us). It dies not say we are Christians because He died for us or that the lost remain lost because He did not die for them.

The verse itself is completely unrelated to your conclusion. Christ died for those who believed znd the lost are condemned for their disbelief. There is a huge gap you need to fill to connect your conclusion with Scripture.

I gave you my verse, that settles it for me, I make my claims from scripture that has enlightened me, I dont need your catch words. What I provided means the same thing.

 

[JesusFan]

No, I finished my studies (masters degree in theology, summa cum laude).

ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου is a genitive phrase meaning "of the whole world".

ὅλου means "whole" or "complete".
κόσμου means "world".

The καὶ points to "sins".

In my opinion this is evident in English without the transkator clarifying by outting "sins" in italics.

Translations are not "word matches" (it is not just finding an Engkish word rhat natches the Greek). Languages are more different.

But I was looking at "whole world" as I assumed you understood the concept of the language (that the second applied to the first). I sometimes forget how indoctrated some people are. My apologies.

A major problem in our churches today is biblical illiteracy (something you aptly demonstrated). The good news is this can be fixed. The bad news is many are too indoctrinated to even care.

Yes....Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins, not ours only but for the whole world.


The reason you cannot grasp that the second part is also for sins is your indoctrination into a tradition.

What did you think that Jesus is the propitiation for in terms of the whole world? Good deeds? Righteousness?

The word "propitiation" looks towards wrath or anger, something that needs to be turned aside.

Actually it refers to someone or something bearing that very wrath and appease it, not just merely "turn it aside"

@JonC

Except what you provide dies not mean the same thing as the biblical text.

Thats your opinion, everyone has one

none of us are able in and of ourselves to turn to Jesus to save us, as we are born as sinners at war against God, so requires the Holy Spirit enabling us to do that, and he does that for and just the Elect of God

I would say however enabling us through regeneration, giving a new heart

I mean a verse actually attributing the lost as remaining lost to Christ mot dying for them. That is not at all what the verse you provided states. It states that He gave Himself to make a people of Christians (the "us). It dies not say we are Christians because He died for us or that the lost remain lost because He did not die for them.

The verse itself is completely unrelated to your conclusion. Christ died for those who believed znd the lost are condemned for their disbelief. There is a huge gap you need to fill to connect your conclusion with Scripture.

none of us are able in and of ourselves to turn to Jesus to save us, as we are born as sinners at war against God, so requires the Holy Spirit enabling us to do that, and he does that for and just the Elect of God

 

[JonC]

I gave you my verse, that settles it for me, I make my claims from scripture that has enlightened me, I dont need your catch words. What I provided means the same thing.

Except what you provide dies not mean the same thing as the biblical text.

For those members and viewers who do actually care, here is the passage:

Titus 2:11-14

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and in a godly manner in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, eager for good deeds.

There is nothing in the passage stating or even hinting that the lost are lost because Jesus did not die for them.

Contrary to that idea, John 3:19 actually telks us why they are lost - they rejected the Light because their deeds were evil.

This is what I mean by various legitimate interpretations and si.ple reading into Scripture what is not there. There are no words or phrases that can be interpreted as "the lost are lost because Jesus did not die for rhem" in that passage. That is NOT an interpretation. It cannot pass the test of Scripture.

BUT people believe it anyway. Why? Because they have leaned on their own understanding and been carried away by the resulting philosophy to a point they cannot discern the difference between God's Word and human philosophy. It looks identical to them.

 

[JonC]

Actually it refers to someone or something bearing that very wrath and appease it, not just merely "turn it aside"

Not the word "propitiation" (it is a real word, not something made uo for religious purposes).

For example, if you give a police officer a donut to get out of a ticket that donut is a propitiation offered to escape a penalty. If you stay out all day fishing, making your wife angry at you, but bring her a bouquet of flowers to calm the situation, that bouquet is a propitiation intended to avert (to propitiate) your wife's anger.Cults sacrificed animals, and sometimes peoole, as propitiation to appease (to propitiate) angry gods.

The word "propitiation" has nothing to do with bearing wrath. It actually means the opopposite.It is something that alerts wrath, anger, or a negative action.

 

[JonC]

@JonC



Thats your opinion, everyone has one

Ummm....no....words actually have meaning. That is why we use them.

I understand in today's world everything is "subjective truth". But truth is not really subjective. We have seen sime hete outright deny history, historical events, and historical facts by claiming these as opinions. Now you are claiming that the meaning of words are actually matters of opinion. "Dog" may be a dig to me but to you it is a cat. Facts, my friend, are facts. Truth is not subjective.

There ate differences in understanding and interpretations. But none of the words in the passage you quoted have anything to say about the lost being lost because Chriat did not die for them.

I do not mind you believing whatever you want to believe. But you do not need to drag God into your opinions. That is tge same as taking His name in vain.