Christ set forth as a Propitiation

JesusFan · Thursday at 12:32 PM

JonC said:
First, the "He might be just" in the present is not what I am arguing against.
What I am saying is you are ignoring the reason (the sins that were not punished before that present time).

None of the passages you have posted so far support the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. You have to extract bits and pieces of passages, put them together, and then provide what they "really mean" to come up with your theory.

"Propitiate" means "to gain favor or good will".
from Latin propitiat- ‘made favorable’. It is from the verb propitiare (which is from propitius ‘favorable, gracious’).

Christ IS the propitiation (the One through whom we gain favor from God).
God set Him forth as a Propitiation (as the One in whom we gain favor from God).

In Christ we escape the wrath to come, are joint heirs, are called "children of God".

Yes, Jesus put away sin through His sacrifice, He died for our sins, God lain our sins on Him, God was pleased to crush Him, it was by God's predetermined plan He die by the means of evil, by His stripes we are healed.

I agree with what the passages you provide state.

I disagree with the philosophy and theories you add to God's Word.

The reason I disagree is that it creates a theory not only foreign to Scripture but also in opposition to the actual words of God.

When, in your "Christian" life, did you decide that God's words were nit enough snd that you needed to lean on your own understanding and the theories of the men you choose to worship be ause their understanding "tickled your ears"?

Do you believe that you would ever be content to move back (if you were ever there) to a faith that is expressed solely in the text of Scripture (do you think you will ever hold a faith that you can highlight verbatim in your Bible)?

The NT Greek is not your friend
AI Overview

+3

The Koine Greek word for "propitiation" is ἱλασμός (hilasmos), which means an appeasing or atoning sacrifice. Other related terms include hilasterion (propitiatory) and hilaskomai (to propitiate). This concept appears in the Septuagint and New Testament and refers to the act of appeasing divine wrath, making amends for sins, or forgiving them.

Meaning: The primary meaning is to appease or propitiate, often involving a sacrifice to turn away God's anger. It can also mean forgiveness or pardon.
ἱλασμός (hilasmos) : The noun for "propitiation" or "atoning sacrifice".
ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) : The adjective "propitiatory," as in the mercy seat.
ἱλάσκομαι (hilaskomai) : The verb "to propitiate".
Context: In biblical texts, the term is often linked to sin offerings and the Day of Atonement. It is used in reference to Christ's sacrifice in the New Testament, as in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10.

JonC · Thursday at 12:36 PM

JesusFan said:
God wrath against sin must be satisfied, for he cannot just say a sinner is now in his sight sinless because God wants to forgive them, or that they repented and asked God to do that, as MUST have a provided basis for Him to now be able to do that and still remain the Holy Judge

But you cannot provide ANY passages stating this. All you can do, and do, is keep repeating it as if trying to talk yourself into believing it.

God tells us the basis for forgiveness. God says it is "repentance".
You say God is lying.

God continues by defining repentance - "turning from evil to God", turning from wicked ways to God", "creating a new heart".

Then you belittle God, saying that cannot happen simoly be ause God desires it. And you call it just repenting and asking...e en though God made it clear it was not small matter.

Then God says that He does this in you, that the basis of repentance is Christ, and He gives you that "new heart", "conforms you into the image of Christ", makes you a "new creation in Christ", "refines you".

You still continue by calling God a liar, saying that Christ Himself is not a basis for forgiveness because the justi e demands that God punish sins (not necessarily the sinner, but the sins).

So God explains that this is His "righteousness manifested apart from the law". That the old you must die and you must die to the flesh, but the new you is made alive in the Spirit and is a new creation.

You tell God once more that He is lying, but you cannot find even one passage in His words to prove it

In your opinion how far can a person go before God leaves him to a hardened heart, until they are carried away from the faith altogether by their philosophy?

JonC · Thursday at 12:42 PM

JesusFan said:
The NT Greek is not your friend
AI Overview
View attachment 12958
View attachment 12960
View attachment 12959
+3

The Koine Greek word for "propitiation" is ἱλασμός (hilasmos), which means an appeasing or atoning sacrifice. Other related terms include hilasterion (propitiatory) and hilaskomai (to propitiate). This concept appears in the Septuagint and New Testament and refers to the act of appeasing divine wrath, making amends for sins, or forgiving them.

Meaning: The primary meaning is to appease or propitiate, often involving a sacrifice to turn away God's anger. It can also mean forgiveness or pardon.

ἱλασμός (hilasmos) : The noun for "propitiation" or "atoning sacrifice".

ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) : The adjective "propitiatory," as in the mercy seat.

ἱλάσκομαι (hilaskomai) : The verb "to propitiate".

Context: In biblical texts, the term is often linked to sin offerings and the Day of Atonement. It is used in reference to Christ's sacrifice in the New Testament, as in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying.

Thank you for providing this (even though I realized you did not read it before posting.

In the Bible mercy is favor (to "find favor with God" IS to find mercy y because favor is not earned).

Propitiation (NOUN) IS the atoning sacrifice (in the passage I gave this IS Christ.

Great link.

And the pagans did believe that their gods coukd be manipulated by men, and they could appease wrath or gain favor by offering a propitiation.

JonC · Thursday at 12:59 PM

Zaatar71 said:
Again you make an accusation against this man! have you noticed that no one else does this? Who are you to question what is the object of his faith?

Who am I to point out that the man's belief is not in the Bible?

I am a Christian.

I would say the same to a Mormon. Their faith is misplaced.

JonC · Thursday at 1:06 PM

JesusFan said:
He cannot get the pagan idea of appeasing the wrath of a god out of his mind.

Right there is where you deny atonement as defined to us by Jesus and Paul

???

I provided the words of Jesus and Paul. God is the One who disagrees with your philosophy. I don't care what you believe.

God provided His Word. You say that they teach something other than what the words actually state. Unless you are calling John Calvin "Jesus" and Theodore Beza "Paul" you are wrong.

Since your theory is not actually in the text of Scripture (not God's words), what book are you reading authored by Jesus and Paul explaining to you what the Bible "really" teaches?

Are you, perhaps, confusing the Bible with something like the Book of Mormon?

Post the passages stating that Jesus suffered God's wrath and let's see where they really come from.

atpollard · Thursday at 1:51 PM

Zaatar71 said:
Stand firm as you are doing. We know this is the biblical position, and it will stand against unbelief every time.

"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
(In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity)

To demonize those with whom you disagree over “dubiis libertas” is contrary to “omnibus caritas” and not very WWJD-like. Neither JonC nor myself are guilty of the sin of “unbelief”.

Zaatar71 · Thursday at 2:15 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
I think you'll find it does.

That is super! Why don't you tell us how you think it is done?

This is gobbledegook. It may be your theory, but it is not the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I have given a definition probably 20 times before on this board, but here we go again: The Doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. [From 'Pierced for our Transgressions' by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach. IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6]

Your theory may not, but the text and the true doctrine do. Verse 26 clearly refers both to the past and the present. '...That He might be just...' Not, 'that He might show Himself as having been just.' In the Greek, both einai and dikaiounta are in the Present Tense.

This is more gobbledegook. Why don't you translate this sentence into English and post it again?

You are thinking of Proverbs 17:15, which is a great proof-text for the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. God will not justify the wicked; He cannot overlook sin. He also regards those who condemn the righteous as an abomination. That is why, rather than crucifying some random bloke, He Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, came to magnify His law and make it honourable (Isaiah 42:21). Also, of course, He raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and highly exalted Him (Phil. 2:9-11).

I just counted 27 Scripture references in my O.P. How many have you actually attempted to deal with? None! Not even any!

As I said, I posted 27 passages of Scripture, so don't tell lies. If I post Scripture, you say (falsely) that I only post passages,; if I don't post Scripture, you will tell me that I am quoting the 'men I worship. The men you worship are either liberals like C.H. Dodd or Mennonite authors, who, if they agree with their founder, have a faulty view of the Trinity; or, of course, Roman Catholics..

Penal Substitution is all over the Biblical text. Just to take the letter to the Hebrews, we learn that Christ, 'provided purification for sins (1:3 NIV); 'obtained eternal redemption' (9:12); 'put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (9:26), and, 'was offered once to bear the sins of many' (9:28). Or we can look at Isaiah 53: 'smitten by God and afflicted' (v.4); 'Wounded for our transgression... crushed for our iniquities... the chastisement for our sins was upon Him' (v.5); 'Yet it was the LORD's will to crush Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10).
I know you hate that last verse, but there it is, large as life, like a dirty great pork pie at your Bar Mitsvah!

Once again, this is clear and unmistakable teaching taken from "what is written" among those who have been given understanding! Thanks for another edifying post.

atpollard · Thursday at 2:16 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
Hebrews 9:22.

[Heb 9:22 ESV] 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

… says nothing about Christ suffering my wrath from the hand of God, does it.
Thus the shedding of blood (by evil men according to scripture) is the means by which Jesus purifies us.

Martin Marprelate said:
In which case God cannot be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. If our Lord has not satisfied the justice and the righteous anger of God, you may be quite certain that you and I will have to do so ourselves.

In no sense is the punishment of the innocent a satisfaction of God’s “justice”. There are no verses that claim punishing the innocent is justice and there are verses that claim it is not. WRATH, is something reserved for the enemies of God and stored until the “day of wrath” … before then, God expresses His willingness and desire to show mercy on “whosoever believes”.

I as allowing God to show mercy without demanding SOMEBODY must be punished (which means God cannot forgive, but only transfer punishment from the guilty to the innocent and call that ’good’ in the name of ‘Justice’).

[Col 3:12-14 ESV] 12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

If I am to forgive my brother as the Lord has forgiven me, then from whom am I required to demand the transfer of debt so that Justice can be maintained since MERCY alone is inadequate? Do you see why I question the argument that God cannot forgive without first transferring His wrath?

Zaatar71 · Thursday at 2:22 PM

JonC said:
Who am I to point out that the man's belief is not in the Bible?

Hello John, can I point out to you that mans belief is all through the bible? Would that be okay?
here are just two examples among hundreds:
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Abraham, was a man, Abraham believed God

And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

JonC said:
I am a Christian.
I would say the same to a Mormon. Their faith is misplaced.

Your opinion, which is outside mainstream thought.

Zaatar71 · Thursday at 2:35 PM

atpollard said:
[Heb 9:22 ESV] 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

… says nothing about Christ suffering my wrath from the hand of God, does it.
Thus the shedding of blood (by evil men according to scripture)

So, according to your understanding, was Jesus just a victim of evil men? If Jesus was just stabbed to death by evil men, would that have been the same thing?
When the OT. describes the sacrificial Lamb, when the sins were transferring to the sacrifice, was that random, and in no way pictured in type,....The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?
If Jesus were strangled to death by these evil men, who sin be cleansed in any way, when as Martin has pointed out;
[Heb 9:22 ESV] 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Atpollard....Why is this even written in the bible?
Why are we told that Jesus is our passover, if the shed blood was not necessary?7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
When I see the BLOOD i will Passover you? why is that?

Zaatar71 · Thursday at 2:40 PM

atpollard said:
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
(In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity)

To demonize those with whom you disagree over “dubiis libertas” is contrary to “omnibus caritas” and not very WWJD-like. Neither JonC nor myself are guilty of the sin of “unbelief”.

The Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not a non-essential. You might be guilty of a bad misunderstanding at best, and unbelief at the worst. God is the judge of that, not any of us. We can raise the issue as out brother's keeper, however.

Zaatar71 · Thursday at 2:41 PM

JesusFan said:
He cannot get the pagan idea of appeasing the wrath of a god out of his mind.

Right there is where you deny atonement as defined to us by Jesus and Paul

I think you have correctly identified the problem, good post.

atpollard · Thursday at 2:51 PM

Zaatar71 said:
So, according to your understanding, was Jesus just a victim of evil men?

Nope.
No more than Joseph was just a victim of his brother’s hatred.
It WAS God’s plan that Joseph should be sold into slavery in Egypt.
His brothers WERE guilty of the sin which they committed.
Both are simultaneously true.

John 10:17-18 [ESV] For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

Act 2:22-23 [ESV] "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

…. And all of these are also true. [Jesus‘ choice; God’s plan; carried out by men].
This would have been a good place to mention that transferred wrath and God’s anger … but neither Jesus, John, Peter or Luke (speakers or writers) did.

Martin Marprelate · Thursday at 6:12 PM

atpollard said:
[Heb 9:22 ESV] 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

… says nothing about Christ suffering my wrath from the hand of God, does it?

It does if you add verses 26 and 28 which I also referenced

atpollard said:
Thus the shedding of blood (by evil men according to scripture) is the means by which Jesus purifies us.

Well in that case we should all be really pure, because there's a lot of blood being shed by evil men all over the world.
But the Bible is quite clear that it was God who set the Lord Jesus forth as a propitiation (Rom 3:25) and that it was God who was pleased to crush Him and put Him to grief (Isaiah 53:10). These verses are in the Bible, whether you and @JonC like them or not. I think it is good to contemplate those verses. How much the Father must love us to crush His beloved Son! Romans 8:32 is another verse worthy of study and meditation.

atpollard said:
In no sense is the punishment of the innocent a satisfaction of God’s “justice”. There are no verses that claim punishing the innocent is justice and there are verses that claim it is not.

Try John 1:29.

atpollard said:
WRATH, is something reserved for the enemies of God and stored until the “day of wrath” … before then, God expresses His willingness and desire to show mercy on “whosoever believes”.

I as allowing God to show mercy without demanding SOMEBODY must be punished (which means God cannot forgive, but only transfer punishment from the guilty to the innocent and call that ’good’ in the name of ‘Justice’).

What you seem not to understand is that God is the righteous JUDGE. He cannot simply pardon sin as I pointed out in the O.P. But He has found a way for His justice and His mercy to be reconciled (Psalm 85:10).

atpollard said:
[Col 3:12-14 ESV] 12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

If I am to forgive my brother as the Lord has forgiven me, then from whom am I required to demand the transfer of debt so that Justice can be maintained since MERCY alone is inadequate? Do you see why I question the argument that God cannot forgive without first transferring His wrath?

Frankly, no. If I upset someone, I apologize and offer to buy him a pint down at the pub. But if someone is in court accused of hienous crimes, it is no use him saying to the judge, "I really regret having killed that chap, raped that woman and sold all those illegal drugs. I won't do it again, so how about we just pop down to the pub for a drink, and the beers will be on me?" Read Deut 27:26 & James 2:10. God is a holy God, and if He had not set Christ forth as a propitiation, no one would be saved.

JonC · Thursday at 7:06 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
It does if you add verses 26 and 28 which I also referenced

Well in that case we should all be really pure, because there's a lot of blood being shed by evil men all over the world.
But the Bible is quite clear that it was God who set the Lord Jesus forth as a propitiation (Rom 3:25) and that it was God who was pleased to crush Him and put Him to grief (Isaiah 53:10). These verses are in the Bible, whether you and @JonC like them or not. I think it is good to contemplate those verses. How much the Father must love us to crush His beloved Son! Romans 8:32 is another verse worthy of study and meditation.

Try John 1:29.

What you seem not to understand is that God is the righteous JUDGE. He cannot simply pardon sin as I pointed out in the O.P. But He has found a way for His justice and His mercy to be reconciled (Psalm 85:10).

Frankly, no. If I upset someone, I apologize and offer to buy him a pint down at the pub. But if someone is in court accused of hienous crimes, it is no use him saying to the judge, "I really regret having killed that chap, raped that woman and sold all those illegal drugs. I won't do it again, so how about we just pop down to the pub for a drink, and the beers will be on me?" Read Deut 27:26 & James 2:10. God is a holy God, and if He had not set Christ forth as a propitiation, no one would be saved.

Those verses ARE in the Bible. I absolutely agree with what those verses say (by "say" I mean "what is written", the actual Biblical text. I suspect @atpollard does at well.

The difference is where I believe the actual words 9f God as given in the text of Scrioture to be what those verses are saying, you believe that those verses are saying something other than "what is written" (you believe those verses are saying what others have told you they "really" mean.

THAT is the difference, @Martin Marprelate . I believe God's words are teaching "what is written". You believe tge Bible teaches ideas foreign to the literal text of the Bible.

When I read "Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also the sins of the whole world" I believe the verse is teaching that Jesus is the Propitiation (a noun) for our dins and the sins of the whole world.

When you read that passage you believe it teaches about Jesus experiencing God's wrath, dying for only the elect, appeasing God's wrath, etc.

I can test my beluef against the words "that come forth from God" in a way you cannot.

You can only test your belief against what a relatively small "Christian" sect says is taught by the Bible and assaulte their understanding as your own.

I test my faith against God's Word.
You test what you think is taught by the Bibke against what you think the Bible teaches.

We simply have very different standards for our faith. I do not belueve we shoukd lean on our understanding but on every word that comes from God. You belueve your understanding is what God's words "really" teach.

On the bright side, were we to highlight our beliefs in the actual Word of God (in "what is written", the text of Scripture") I would have to buy several highlighters as they would run out but you would never even have to uncap your highlighter. You would save money.

atpollard · Thursday at 8:19 PM

Martin Marprelate said:
It does if you add verses 26 and 28 which I also referenced

Respectfully, why don’t you quote whatever you like from Hebrews and underline the word WRATH for me because I still do not see God’s wrathful anger at me being transferred to Jesus. I have no idea what would make you think that I do not believe:
- Jesus died to forgive my sins,
- Jesus’ blood washes away my guilt,
- by His stripes I am healed (relationally with the Father).

I simply see no scripture that indicates that God is powerless to FORGIVE, but can only transfer WRATH (as if wrath was some tangible object).

Martin Marprelate · Friday at 3:54 AM

JonC said:
Those verses ARE in the Bible. I absolutely agree with what those verses say (by "say" I mean "what is written", the actual Biblical text. I suspect @atpollard does at well.

The difference is where I believe the actual words 9f God as given in the text of Scrioture to be what those verses are saying, you believe that those verses are saying something other than "what is written" (you believe those verses are saying what others have told you they "really" mean.

THAT is the difference, @Martin Marprelate . I believe God's words are teaching "what is written". You believe tge Bible teaches ideas foreign to the literal text of the Bible.

When I read "Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also the sins of the whole world" I believe the verse is teaching that Jesus is the Propitiation (a noun) for our dins and the sins of the whole world.

When you read that passage you believe it teaches about Jesus experiencing God's wrath, dying for only the elect, appeasing God's wrath, etc.

I can test my beluef against the words "that come forth from God" in a way you cannot.

You can only test your belief against what a relatively small "Christian" sect says is taught by the Bible and assaulte their understanding as your own.

I test my faith against God's Word.
You test what you think is taught by the Bibke against what you think the Bible teaches.

We simply have very different standards for our faith. I do not belueve we shoukd lean on our understanding but on every word that comes from God. You belueve your understanding is what God's words "really" teach.

On the bright side, were we to highlight our beliefs in the actual Word of God (in "what is written", the text of Scripture") I would have to buy several highlighters as they would run out but you would never even have to uncap your highlighter. You would save money.

What I see is just a pile of cheap and silly insults which say more about you than they do about me, and a desperate attempt to turn the subject to General vs Particular Redemption rather than Penal Substitution.

JonC · Friday at 8:18 AM

Martin Marprelate said:
What I see is just a pile of cheap and silly insults which say more about you than they do about me, and a desperate attempt to turn the subject to General vs Particular Redemption rather than Penal Substitution.

I am not surprised that is what you see. Often understand is held very personally and contradictions are viewed as attacks and insults.

But you are missing what I am saying. I am saying that what you believe is not what God's Word says.

Several times I have been accused of seeking a belief that is in God's Word verbatim.

Well....yes.....exactly. I believe that we are not to lean on our own understsnding but on every word that comes forth from God.

We have God's words, verbatim. I do not understand why we would exchange His words for what some people think is taught by the Bible.

Have you ever considered the possibility that what God's word teaches is His actual words in the biblical text?

JonC · Friday at 8:54 AM

Zaatar71 said:
The Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not a non-essential.

You have a problem then.

If the doctrine of the Atonement is essential then it would be in God's Word (verbatim....in "what is written", in "the words that come from God") because those words are what we are commanded to lean on instead of our understanding.

By your criteria your theory cannot be correct.

Zaatar71 · Friday at 9:14 AM

JonC said:
You have a problem then.

If the doctrine of the Atonement is essential then it would be in God's Word (verbatim....in "what is written", in "the words that come from God") because those words are what we are commanded to lean on instead of our understanding.

By your criteria your theory cannot be correct.

It is clearly taught in scripture as martin M, and others have posted. Your nonsensical ideas and failure to accept godly teachers are not to be entertained, as they are proven to be unbiblical. You are welcome to your novelty, but no one is following you down this rabbit hole.
I am sorry you do not understand the verses being discussed. You try and word things to sound like what others are saying such as...
Our sins were laid upon him....well what does that actually mean/ Laid upon him in what way? You offer no understanding whatsoever, because you do not have any biblical understanding! Your false philosophy does not overrule the language of substitution that all churches who believe truth hold to. The road to apostasy should be avoided, but you are a free moral agent and can follow others who have made shipwreck of the faith.

Christ set forth as a Propitiation

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-Known Member