Propitiation

[David Lamb]

The problem comes in when people read PSA into the verse.

If the Cross was God punishing our sins that were laid on Jesus then only and all of those people who's sins were laid on Jesus are saved.

If God laid the sins of the whole world, without exception, on Jesus and punished those sins then the result is universal salvation. God had to only lay the sins of the elect on Jesus, punish only those sins.

That is the "universal salvation" argument Calvinists make. The reason is they hold a very shallow view of sins (they can be remedied by punishing them on Christ) and a very low view of divine justice (justice can be satisfied by punishing a sinners sins laid on Christ).

Calvinism is the ultimate form of "easy believism", and this is why they cannot accept anything but a limited atonement. It is the original and most consistent form of PSA. It is logical. It matches human wisdom. It makes sence. And it is wrong.

Those Christians I know who believe the doctrines of grace don't view sin lightly. They realise that sin is so serious that God sent His Son to take on human flesh, and to die in order to save sinners.

 

[JonC]

Those Christians I know who believe the doctrines of grace don't view sin lightly. They realise that sin is so serious that God sent His Son to take on human flesh, and to die in order to save sinners.

They think they do not view sin lightly, and compared to many religions they do not. But in comparison to traditional Christianity they view sin very lightly.

We all agree that God sent His Son to take on human flesh, to come "in the likeness of sinful flesh", to be "made sin for us", to "share [our] humanity", to "share our infirmity". And yes, this is because of sin.

BUT prior to the Reformation the idea that divine justice could be met by God punishing our sins on Christ was foreign to our faith. Sin was viewed as much greater an offense, much larger a problem.


Viewing the remedy for sin as God punishing those sins on Christ is viewing sin very lightly in comparison to traditional Christianity. Viewing punishment as satisfying the demands of divine justice is minimizing divine justice.

Sin is much greater a problem than Calvinism believes, and God is more holy a God than their doctrine will allow. There is no getting around that when you view Calvinism alongside a traditional form of the faith. Calvinism is simply "easy believism".

 

[DaveXR650]

Sin is much greater a problem than Calvinism believes, and God is more holy a God than their doctrine will allow. There is no getting around that when you view Calvinism alongside a traditional form of the faith. Calvinism is simply "easy believism".

Are we talking about the same Calvinists as the Puritans? The same ones who said to claim to be born again and to continue in any known sin is an impossibility. The ones who say that the only way men can on their own provide just recompense to God for the smallest sin, which an infinite offense against a Holy God, is to suffer endlessly? The ones who have been ridiculed for hundreds of years now for living such exact and attempted holy lives?

Regarding the verses in 1John, do you know what Owen wrote about the purpose and order of the gospel as meant in those verses?
"And as the whole effect of the doctrine of the gospel in holiness and obedience consists in the soul's being cast into the frame and mold of it, Romans 6:17; so the whole of the apostasy from the gospel is principally the casting of the into the mould of this false reasoning, that sin may be indulged unto upon the account of grace and pardon." In other words, he complains that people tend to view the propitiation available when they sin while forgetting that the first point was "that we sin not". (From John Owen's works book 19 Indwelling Sin in Believers, chapter 12 of 17 chapters of the main man who leads the sect that doesn't take sin seriously enough)

Of all the statements I have ever heard anyone make on here, the idea that the Calvinists don't take sin seriously is the most ill informed and ignorant yet.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Posting articles like this puts you in the "Hot Seat" and it will be "Peer Reviewed" whether you like it or not!

I really do not understand your statement. Discussion, review, that is the reason I post.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Perhaps you could become a moderator. Then you could stop people posting on your favourite threads.

I have largely left to pursue other projects, but will pop in here and there. I post for discussion, for review and have participated in and enjoyed the debates.

 

[Silverhair]

I see this back and forth and I certainly don't think that there is a fixed amount of "propitiation" somewhere such that anyone should ever worry that it wasn't meant for them or that there isn't enough to go around. Yet, those two verses being together, doesn't it seem that they should be kept in context? "My little children" is a specific group, obviously the believers who John was writing to, who are being instructed about what happens if they sin. They do have an "Advocate" and that Advocate intercedes for them. The exclusivity is that this is only speaking of those who have an "Advocate" with the Father. John seems to have no problem limiting the propitiation at first to those who have an Advocate rather than just saying "everyone". So I think the last part of verse 2 is simply saying that this includes all those who come later and read this in different times and places - that also have Christ as an Advocate. That's where the exclusivity lies. John was referring to the whole world of those who are also within the concept of "my little children", rather than everyone in general.

I part with most Calvinists in that in other uses of the "world" I do believe it means everyone. John 3:16 is limited in that it applied only to those who believe but the whole world was loved and "whosoever" means what it says. But the above verses are only for those who are in the group of those who have Christ as an Advocate and it is a stretch to exceed that. That does not mean that Christ is not offered to be the Advocate of anyone who would come to him though. We have that as a direct promise and it over rides our theological interpretations.

The text does not support your view Dave. Yes John was speaking to believers and Christ is the propitiation for them but then John goes on to say Christ is not just their propitiation but also for the whole world. John did not say for the whole world that believe, that has to be read into the text.

The Scriptures plainly says that Jesus did die for all. {1Ti_2:6 ransom for all, Rom_5:6 Christ died for the ungodly, Rom_5:8 Christ died for us}
And the bible even gives us the reason He died for all. That all could be saved which is the Fathers desire. {1Ti_2:3-4 wants everyone to be saved}

It is an error to try and limit for whom Christ is the propitiation.

 

[JonC]

Are we talking about the same Calvinists as the Puritans?

Not the same as the Puritians (broader context) but yes, certainly including the Puritians.

The Puritians believed that sins were remedied by punishment, so in that way they also viewed sins very superficially in terms of divine justice.

You provided the evidence in your post - they believed eternal punishment a recompense for sin. The idea that punishment satisfies divine justice itself is to treat sin lightly.

This probably led - or at least played into - to their legalistic approach to Christianity and their infamous persecution of other Christians.

While we can certainly learn from the Puritians (and other sects) they are not a group Christians would want to emulate.

 

[DaveXR650]

The text does not support your view Dave. Yes John was speaking to believers and Christ is the propitiation for them but then John goes on to say Christ is not just their propitiation but also for the whole world. John did not say for the whole world that believe, that has to be read into the text.

If what you mean is that Christ is the source of propitiation for anyone who comes to him, whether those spoken of as "my little children" by John or those who come to him from other places or times then I agree with you. I just feel that this whole way of discussing propitiation as if there is a nebulous cloud of existing propitiation which we then argue as to who can get it is meaningless. All who come to Christ will have Christ as their Advocate, and he is the propitiation for them and no one else. But I do believe that this includes all who come. The Calvinists taught this, and whether you have an explanation that logically ties those who choose to come with the work of the Spirit in drawing them, and the atonement being only for them - as long as the agreement regarding the fact that the offer to come is there and real for all, I don't see a problem unless you are a pastor in a denomination or a teacher at a school with a certain doctrinal stance. For the rest of us I see no problem.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Puritians believed that sins were remedied by punishment, so in that way they also viewed sins very superficially in terms of divine justice.

They viewed sin as needing satisfaction such that God could be just according to his nature of holiness and justice and still lovingly overlook and then forgive the sins of those who come to him. This shows a high regard for God's honor as well as his love. (Remember, the whole plan was of the Father as well as the Son and Holy Spirit). I worry about you because you, I think know this and continually repeat this stuff out of extreme animosity for what appears to me to me the gospel.

 

[JonC]

They viewed sin as needing satisfaction such that God could be just according to his nature of holiness and justice and still lovingly overlook and then forgive the sins of those who come to him.

In relation to atheism, perhaps. But it is a superficial view of sin and a very low view of God (His righteousness, holiness, and justice) compared to traditional Christianity.

Biblically the punishment of sin does not satisfy divine justice as sin is too much an offense to God and God's justice is too great. Punishing sins is superficial. Period.

Forgiveness is greater than averting punishment by punishing Another. Sin is not such a light matter. It is serious - more serious than mere punishment can resolve.

Calvinism is "easy believism". It belittles the severity of sin and the holiness of God.

Biblically all who sin must die. Period. No exception. God's words stand.

Biblically the wicked will not enter the kingdom of God - regardless of whether their sins have been punished on another.

Biblically God will not clear the wicked. Period. And He will not punish the Just. Period.

If somebody believes they are saved because their debt of sin was paid by Jesus suffering that punishment then they hold a corrupt and worldly view of the gospel that diminishes the severity of sin and minimizes the holiness of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

If somebody believes they are saved because their debt of sin was paid by Jesus suffering that punishment then they hold a corrupt and worldly view of the gospel that diminishes the severity of sin and minimizes the holiness of God.

Keep saying this in case someone might come on this site and not realize the oddities of your views. But that won't make them any more true. You are seriously out of step with mainstream Christianity and seem to be becoming more so as well as more aggressive and attempting less as far as finding common ground. On second thought you really are becoming more honest and open and confirming what I suspected, sadly.

 

[JonC]

Keep saying this in case someone might come on this site and not realize the oddities of your views. But that won't make them any more true. You are seriously out of step with mainstream Christianity and seem to be becoming more so as well as more aggressive and attempting less as far as finding common ground. On second thought you really are becoming more honest and open and confirming what I suspected, sadly.

I understand that my view seems odd to you. I am out of step with several sects and movements within mainstream Christianity. But I never sought the wide road.

I am not "becoming more honest". I have said for decades that the neo-Christian idea that sins are remedied by punishment is based on a flawed judicial philosophy.

The fact that this is just dawning on you is quite surprising as nothing I have posted here is new.


I do not believe the gospel is to be compromised in order to find common ground. I view your theory as liberal theology, a departure from the "faith once given". As evidence I will point out the fact that you cannot find a flaw in my view on this topic except it departs from your philosophy. Yet you cannot find your faith in the very Scriptures you claim to follow.


Sin is not so superficial an offense as to be remedied by punishing Another instead of the guilty party. God's justice is not so benign as to be met through punishing One instead of the sinner. God's righteous is not that shallow, His holiness is not so common. You sought "easy believism" and found what you were seeking.

Instead God has revealed to us His redemption, not in the words of John Owen but in His own words. We each choose who to follow. You have chosen poorly.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sin is not so superficial an offense as to be remedied by punishing Another instead of the guilty party. God's justice is not so benign as to be met through punishing One instead of the sinner. God's righteous is not that shallow, His holiness is not so common.

There is really no reason to go through all this again. As long as we are clear in that you have stated and do think that I have a false and superficial gospel. Because I feel the same about you, without relying on any quote from John Owen or JonC, just scripture. Let's leave it there as I think as you have said, your views have been stated many times and mine are as apparent and in agreement with what we commonly call Calvinism, Arminianism, Provisionism, or traditionalism as in traditional Baptists, and Methodism. That's not exhaustive and the importance is that it lists actual active Christian church groups and denominations rather than this mythical "classic Christianity". I just want it made clear what you have stated as your view of all these groups as I imagine we now are ready to once again move into the realm of modifying posts, threats, and declarations of hurtful offense.

I for the life of me don't know why you would come on a thread about "propitiation" of all things and get involved, all the while believing that the meaning should be explained as something like this:

"Propitiation" is an English word from propitius (favorable). It literally means "to make favorable" which implies from an unfavorable state.

A boss could plan on demoting you because he dislikes your haircut. This may not be anger, just something he does not like. You could propitiate your boss' preferences by getting a hair cut. He would then view you favorably rather than a hippie.

Your wife could be angry at you and you apologize, propitiating her anger (the apology being a propitiation).

We are talking about propitiation in regards to the wrath that is caused by our sin, not whether we need a haircut. And this from someone who says Calvinism has a superficial view of sin. And your conclusion:

Escaping the wrath to come by being "in Him, in Whom there is no condemnation" is propitiation. So in this case the unfavorable state is the wrath to come.

This conclusion is incorrect as God's wrath toward sin (our sin) results in the need for propitiation. Jesus is our propitiation and that is the meaning of it in our case. Being in Christ, identifying with Christ, is true but in the scripture related to propitiation in 1 John is not that the propitiation is not that we escape the wrath to come by being in him but that for those of us in him, referred to as "my little children" by John we are said to have Christ as our Advocate. And as such he is propitiating God's wrath that would have been ours. He indeed is the propitiation and it's by who is is and what he did and what he does. And we know what Jesus did. He bore our sins in his own body on a tree, as our substitute. And since, as you always point out, you can't take a bucket of sins and literally put them on someone else - but you can put the wrath and punishment of those sins on someone. It normally would mean nothing and would normally be unjust, but the unique situation of the plan of our redemption by the Godhead and the unique role of each member, as outlined over and over in scripture makes it a true situation, an essential event, and admittedly a one time and unique event never to be possible to repeat. Unfortunately, you seem to have not only missed the whole thing, but it seems that you once claim to have believed it. And that really concerns me.

The fact that I see PSA all over scripture, and I see it in Early Church Fathers writings as well as in scholastic and medieval theological writings and you don't doesn't bother me. The fact that the Calvinist theologians I am familiar with also embraced other facets of the atonement as true - even as they insisted PSA was the central core and you don't agree with that - doesn't bother me either. The fact that they agree with me and saw it everywhere in scripture and in the other writings and you don't, anymore at least, doesn't bother me either. So let's just leave it there. Now what you'll do is ask for me to show from scripture what we have shown you many times and I guess we are supposed to start all over. That doesn't bother me either.

 

[Ben1445]

When man sinned, God cursed the earth the man, the woman and the serpent.
The man and woman are both mankind. I haven’t met anyone yet who thinks that Jesus only died for men and not women.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


So when Jesus is substituted as taking on the curse for men, and the curse being the direct penalty of sin, I see a very clear picture of penal substitution. That is, Jesus suffered the penalty of our sin.

The curse is death.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

And since He tasted death for every man, and since death is the promise of the curse, Jesus took the penalty of the curse upon Himself.

It is as simple as that.

 

[JonC]

There is really no reason to go through all this...

Apparently there is a reason because you falsely conclude that I reject that because of God's wrath we need propitiation.

I never once made that claim.

My statement was that you hold to a relatively new and benign form of the gospel that minimizes sin and diminishes divine justice in relation to "the faith once given".

This goes to propitiation as well. You hold an extraordinary low view of Christ as our Propitiation.

The only reason I can think of for you to exchange the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to us in God's words to follow, as you put it, the "mainstream" of those you encounter is that what they offer is "easy believism".

You reduce redemption to someone else being punished in your place. You reduce justice to punishing offences. You reduce God's righteousness to paying a debt of sin. You reduce God's holiness to a failed judicial philosophy.


But to correct your error, we absolutely need to recieve the Propitiation God set forth in Christ in order to escape the wrath to come. However our sin is an eternally greater problem than you care to acknowledge because your "easy believism" system would crumble.

 

[JonC]

When man sinned, God cursed the earth the man, the woman and the serpent.
The man and woman are both mankind. I haven’t met anyone yet who thinks that Jesus only died for men and not women.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


So when Jesus is substituted as taking on the curse for men, and the curse being the direct penalty of sin, I see a very clear picture of penal substitution. That is, Jesus suffered the penalty of our sin.

The curse is death.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

And since He tasted death for every man, and since death is the promise of the curse, Jesus took the penalty of the curse upon Himself.

It is as simple as that.

You are ignoring several important facts by combining death and divine judgment.

It is appointed man once to die, the death sin produces as a wage under the piwer of the one who holds the power of death. But then there is the judgment, the wratg to come.

Yes, Jesus shared our humanity, He came in the form of sinful flesh - was made sin for us, became a curse for us, suffered the death sin produces even though He has no sin.

But this was not penal substitution. It is representative substitution (the Son of Man; the last or second Adam).

Jesus was appointed once to die - because of our sin. All men are appointed once to die. Then comes the judgment. Jesus was raised, seated at God's right hand, glorified with the glory He had before coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. He is the Firstborn, and we will be made new creations in His image Again, representative substitution.

Yes, there are penal and substitution adpects, but it is impossible to believe God's words (the biblical text) and penal substitution.

 

[Ben1445]

You are ignoring several important facts by combining death and divine judgment.

It is appointed man once to die, the death sin produces as a wage under the piwer of the one who holds the power of death. But then there is the judgment, the wratg to come.

Yes, Jesus shared our humanity, He came in the form of sinful flesh - was made sin for us, became a curse for us, suffered the death sin produces even though He has no sin.

But this was not penal substitution. It is representative substitution (the Son of Man; the last or second Adam).

Jesus was appointed once to die - because of our sin. All men are appointed once to die. Then comes the judgment. Jesus was raised, seated at God's right hand, glorified with the glory He had before coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. He is the Firstborn, and we will be made new creations in His image Again, representative substitution.

Yes, there are penal and substitution adpects, but it is impossible to believe God's words (the biblical text) and penal substitution.

You are committed to your belief system and not what is written.

 

[JonC]

No sir! The problem is when ppl read PSA out of the verse.

The problem is it is not in the verse itself.

Here is the verse:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world

1. John is talking to the "children" so that they do not sin.

2. If they do sin they have an advocate with the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

3. He (Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice (or propitiation) for our sins, and not only our sins but the sins of the whole world.

That is what the biblical text states.

You say it "really" teaches that Jesus suffered God's wrath as a penal substitute instead of us.

I say the verse really teaches that we should not sin but if we do Jesus is our Advocate with the Father - that Jesus Himself is the Propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but the sins of the whole world.

I agree that only one of us is being faithful to the passage. I do not believe it is you.

My evidence is that I can highlight what I believe in the text of Scripture but all you can do is highlight your faith in the writings of the men you follow, who shate your ideas.

I am not sure if the men you choose to worship are any better than those who worship Brigham Young and David Lipscomb as it is still choosing men over God.

 

[JonC]

You are committed to your belief system and not what is written.

Maybe. Provide an example.

What part of my belief system is not "what is wtitten"?


Which do you think is unbiblical?

1. It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.

2. Sin begats death as a wage (something earned)

3. Christ defeated the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil.

4. Judgment comes after death.

5. Jesus shared our humanity, He came in the form of sinful flesh - was made sin for us, became a curse for us

6. Jesus suffered death, sin produces death, Jesus has no sin.

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445

While you are wrestling with a way to reject 1-6, and trying to find a verse I reject, I have questions about your belief system as opposed to "what is written".

This will help us discover which of us believes "what is written" and which of us has been carried away be the philosophy of men trusting what they think is really taught over "what is written".

What verse states that Jesus suffered God's wrath?

What verse states that sins can be remediated by punishing those sins on Another?

What verse describes divine justice as collecting debts of sin?

What verse states that the Cross was divine punishment?

What verse states that Jesus died to free us from God's bondage?

What verse states that Jesus suffered punishment instead of us?

What verse states that forgiveness is punishing another?

What verse states that it is just to punish the Just to clear the guilty?



I think you, my friend, will find that you are the one who has abandoned God's words for human wisdom and have been carried away from "the faith once delivered".