Be On Guard against false doctrine.....False Ideas on PSA considered

[JonC]

Because of being conceived with that "knowledge of good and evil "

No. It is wrong because it assumes we are able (whether an ability of physically doing so or the will) to merit righteousness.

I have not read of a passage saying that infants are born knowing good and evil. But I neither agree or disagree. It just is not a philosophical discussion I believe beneficial.

 

[JonC]

Iconoclast,
]rom4:25 preceptaustin;

Satisfaction is used as a synonym for propitiation, the concept of satisfaction being that the moral requirement of God has been completely met by the death of His Son on behalf of the believer and therefore has satisfied or propitiated God.

Hilasterion means a sacrifice that bears God's wrath to the end and in so doing changes God's wrath toward us into favor.

God has set the sinner free through Christ, but He has not done so by setting aside the rules.

He has set the sinner free in Christ by satisfying the demands of God’s justice in Christ.

Due to sin, a penalty was to be meted out and a price was to be paid. Christ paid that price and suffered that penalty (“redemption”). God’s divine wrath had to be appeased, due to man’s sin; Christ has appeased that wrath (“propitiation”).

A closely related word is hilasmos which refers to that which propitiates or that which appeases. John uses this word writing that Jesus

"Himself is the propitiation (hilasmos - appeasement, satisfaction) for our sins… " (1 Jn 2:2-note)

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross satisfied the demands of God’s holiness for the punishment of sin. So Jesus propitiated or satisfied God.

Yes...this makes it very clear...The words have a. Biblical meaning that instructs us.

Satisfaction is simply not a synonym for propitiation. This is where Calvinism devolves in "double-speek", saying one thing (like "propitiation") while meaning something completely different (like "substitution").

 

[Iconoclast]

"Iconoclast,
]Constable - There are two possible meanings of “propitiation” (NASB) or “sacrifice of propitiation” (NIV). The Greek word (hilasterion) is an adjective that can substitute for a noun. It means having placating or expiating force.

It could refer to Jesus Christ as the place where God satisfied His wrath and removed our sins. This is the substantival usage translated “propitiation.” In favor of this interpretation is the use of this Greek word to translate the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:17, LXX; Heb. 9:5). However, it seems more natural to take hilasterion as referring to Jesus Christ as the sacrifice that satisfied God’s wrath and removed our sins. This is the normal adjectival use translated “sacrifice of atonement” (cf. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Jesus Christ was the sacrifice, but the place where God made atonement was the Cross. (Romans 3 Commentary)

The Hebrew word for "mercy seat", kapporet, "is not related to mercy and of course was not a seat. The word is derived from the root “to atone.” The Greek equivalent in the LXX is usually hilasterion, “place or object of propitiation,” a word which is applied to Christ in Ro 3:25. The translation “mercy seat” does not sufficiently express the fact that the lid of the ark was the place where the blood was sprinkled on the day of atonement. “Place of atonement” would perhaps be more expressive." (Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Moody Press)

Yes these posts clarify the issue...who would have thought that learning proper definitions would open up these passages so much.
Could we see more please?

 

[Iconoclast]

Satisfaction is simply not a synonym for propitiation. This is where Calvinism devolves in "double-speek", saying one thing (like "propitiation") while meaning something completely different (like "substitution").

These posts are abundantly clear.
In post 87....four or 5 main thoughts are brought together...there is no doubt.

 

[JonC]

These posts are abundantly clear.
In post 87....four or 5 main thoughts are brought together...there is no doubt.

In what world is "propitiation" defined as "substitution"??? Words have meaning, brother. You are assigning meanings to words based on your theolog.

What you should do is base your theology on what is written in Scripture.

You have it completely backwards - the tail waging the dog. Start with the Bible, not your ideas about what the Bible should say.

And yes....your posts are abundantly clear. BUT so is Scripture. God does not need your additions. Allow Scripture to speak for itself. When it dies not make sence to you then read and pray. It is OK if you do not understand a passage. It is never OK to read into the passage so that it makes sence to you.

It is not about what Scripture means to you but about what Scripture means. And it means what it says.

 

[agedman]

Iconoclast,
]rom4:25 preceptaustin;

Satisfaction is used as a synonym for propitiation, the concept of satisfaction being that the moral requirement of God has been completely met by the death of His Son on behalf of the believer and therefore has satisfied or propitiated God.

Hilasterion means a sacrifice that bears God's wrath to the end and in so doing changes God's wrath toward us into favor.

No, it does not. It certainly means to appease, expiate but you are adding to with the idea that it "bears God's wrath to the end." NO!!!!!

It means to satisfy the wrath. To please, to ward off wrath, it does not mean to bear the wrath.

In PAGAN thinking that is how it is used. BUT not in the Scriptures, or one would witness the wrath of God common in the OT sacrificial system.

IGod has set the sinner free through Christ, but He has not done so by setting aside the rules

.

Where did you come up with this thinking!!!

Christ did not "set aside the rules" and neither did the Father.

There is not a place in Scripture such thinking is found.

I
He has set the sinner free in Christ by satisfying the demands of God’s justice in Christ.

Not what Colosians 1 and 2 teach, nor that of Romans or Hebrews.

IDue to sin, a penalty was to be meted out and a price was to be paid. Christ paid that price and suffered that penalty (“redemption”). God’s divine wrath had to be appeased, due to man’s sin; Christ has appeased that wrath (“propitiation”).

Again, this is not the Scripture presentation, but reading into the Scripture what is not supported.

IA closely related word is hilasmos which refers to that which propitiates or that which appeases. John uses this word writing that Jesus

"Himself is the propitiation (hilasmos - appeasement, satisfaction) for our sins… " (1 Jn 2:2-note)

John uses the word in the terms of the "atoning sacrifice."

IThe sacrifice of Jesus on the cross satisfied the demands of God’s holiness for the punishment of sin. So Jesus propitiated or satisfied God.

Yes...this makes it very clear...The words have a. Biblical meaning that instructs us.

I do not disagree.

What troubles me is this thinking that God is an "angry God."

Again, that carries the view of paganism, for the Scriptures from the Garden to the last Amen do not show that God is continuously angry and filled with wrath.

Rather, His wrath is appointed to the ungodly, to the unrighteous, not to those in Christ nor to Christ.

I am not presenting that God is not going to bring judgement, and that wrath will not be poured out upon the unholy.

But Christ NEVER became unrighteous, nor unholy, nor guilty, nor...

Therefore, what the Scriptures state concerning wrath is certainly true.

What is not true is that God is viewed as some Pagans do make their god to be, and that He alone did the work of redemption through the use of human tools.

In a real manner God, propitiated God, not by wrath but by the most pleasing of atonement sacrifice.

 

[agedman]

"Iconoclast,
]Constable - There are two possible meanings of “propitiation” (NASB) or “sacrifice of propitiation” (NIV). The Greek word (hilasterion) is an adjective that can substitute for a noun. It means having placating or expiating force.

It could refer to Jesus Christ as the place where God satisfied His wrath and removed our sins. This is the substantival usage translated “propitiation.” In favor of this interpretation is the use of this Greek word to translate the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:17, LXX; Heb. 9:5). However, it seems more natural to take hilasterion as referring to Jesus Christ as the sacrifice that satisfied God’s wrath and removed our sins. This is the normal adjectival use translated “sacrifice of atonement” (cf. 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Jesus Christ was the sacrifice, but the place where God made atonement was the Cross. (Romans 3 Commentary)

The Hebrew word for "mercy seat", kapporet, "is not related to mercy and of course was not a seat. The word is derived from the root “to atone.” The Greek equivalent in the LXX is usually hilasterion, “place or object of propitiation,” a word which is applied to Christ in Ro 3:25. The translation “mercy seat” does not sufficiently express the fact that the lid of the ark was the place where the blood was sprinkled on the day of atonement. “Place of atonement” would perhaps be more expressive." (Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Moody Press)

Yes these posts clarify the issue...who would have thought that learning proper definitions would open up these passages so much.
Could we see more please?

Amazing!!!!

Not ONE SINGLE mention of God's wrath poured out upon the Son in the above post!

Sacrifice of Atonement - exactly that of the OT system in which NO WRATH was shown UNLESS the sacrifice or the one offering was unworthy.

It is also the "PLACE" of sacrifice - in HEBREWS the very heavenly tabernacle not made with hands in which NO WRATH was shown.

So, I suggest Iconoclast you take your own post and truly ponder what the SCriptures present rather what is being read into them by those who want some kind of vindictive God who must have His wrath satisfied by punishment.\

BTW, how does this thinking you ascribe differ from that of the RC purgatory view that sin must have punishment?

 

[JonC]

I wonder....the title of this thread is being on guard against false doctrine.

BUT if Scripture itself ("what is written", what is written again) is not the true test of Scripture then there is no true test.

Penal Substitution Theorists "test" doctrine against what they see as being "taughr" by Scripture - NOT Scripture itself.

But so do Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses, and Holiness Pentecostals.

If the "test" of doctrine is that doctrine itself then anything goes.

We HAVE to get back Scripture....not the Reformers....not what we see as "taught"....not men who "tickle our ears"....but the ACTUAL WORD OF GOD.

 

[agedman]

@Iconoclast,

Completely off topic question.

In your job, I am assuming you are still required to take a certain number of hours break out of 24.

When we have a time jump like tonight, is there some manner that hour is accounted for or is it just a matter of missing time?

 

[JonC]

When we have a time jump like tonight

I know this is off topic but thanks for the reminder.

 

[Iconoclast]

yo

@Iconoclast,

Completely off topic question.

In your job, I am assuming you are still required to take a certain number of hours break out of 24.

When we have a time jump like tonight, is there some manner that hour is accounted for or is it just a matter of missing time?

you lose the time m
My time logs are on East Coast time so you want to pass through the other time zones I still log on East Coast time and when the time changes you and changes you when you Spring forward you lose the hour when you Spring back you gain an hour just how it works

 

[37818]

No. It is wrong because it assumes we are able (whether an ability of physically doing so or the will) to merit righteousness.

I have not read of a passage saying that infants are born knowing good and evil. But I neither agree or disagree. It just is not a philosophical discussion I believe beneficial.

Where do you think the sinful nature comes from?

 

[JonC]

Where do you think the sinful nature comes from?

The flesh.

 

[37818]

The flesh.

So am I to understand God created Adam and Eve with their fallen before their fall?

 

[JonC]

So am I to understand God created Adam and Eve with their fallen before their fall?

With their "fallen"?

 

[percho]

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. Genesis 2:1-3 NKJV

People the creation is complete...........................

Romans 8:20 YLT for to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope,

That completed creation of Genesis 2:1-3 is subject to vanity. Vanity of vanities all is vanity, saith the preacher. And had been from the very first Sabbath. ------- Yet ---------- In Hope --------From the very first Sabbath

How is it subjected to vanity? I believe Genesis 2:4-25 and 3:1-7 tell how. Was God mad at the end of the Sabbath or did God have a plan? Where was the wrath of God on that first Sabbath? Was ἱλαστήριον propitiation in the mind of God on that Sabbath? What deserved the wrath of God at that time?

Romans 8:19 which comes before Romans 8:20 says this; for the earnest looking out of the creation doth expect the revelation of the sons of God; ------ In hope of what? A promise of God, who can not lie, made before the beginning of time?

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

What sons of God?

Luke 20:36 NKJV “nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. ------Those sons?

On that first Sabbath how was God going to bring all that about and satisfy his wrath?

My question to all is this post of mine relevant?
What was the purpose of man in the flesh and the Word made flesh?

 

[percho]

So am I to understand God created Adam and Eve with their fallen before their fall?

Read my post; Why was the creation subjected to vanity before sin? In hope?

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

[We HAVE to get back Scripture....not the Reformers....not what we see as "taught"....not men who "tickle our ears"....but the ACTUAL WORD OF GOD.]

You keep trying to raise this objection but in reality it is not valid
In this thread we are showing that we must get back to scripture for sure.
we have already seen that the understanding of the actual words used in scripture dictate correct doctrine.
The reformers and puritans also had scripture and the Holy Spirit.
They did not have to get back to scripture, they did not depart from it in the first place.
these links being posted concerning these key words have not been refuted

You men do not like that they are melting away the defects in your stated beliefs, so you look to pick at it...we understand that is all you can do.
Yes I did that because we do not believe what you 2 guys are saying does not mean that we don't study the scripture or we're not using the scripture or we need to get back to scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Read my post; Why was the creation subjected to vanity before sin? In hope?

We are speaking about the cross on this thread.

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast,

Completely off topic question.

In your job, I am assuming you are still required to take a certain number of hours break out of 24.

When we have a time jump like tonight, is there some manner that hour is accounted for or is it just a matter of missing time?

The qualcomm....keeps an electric log book.It will not let me drive the truck until i have been off duty for 10 hours.