-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can a Baptist agree with this?
- Thread starter 12strings
- Start date
The word propitiation is the satisfaction of God's wrath.
Romans 3:24-26 " Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"
I John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world"
1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Romans 3:24-26 " Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"
I John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world"
1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
I have had quite a few discussions with Eastern Orthodox men and women. I would agree that God's love is seen in His coming in the flesh. I would also point out that God is righteous and as such the sins of mankind had to be atoned for. Reading Hebrews we see how/why the OT sacrificial system was replaced by Christ's final and perfect sacrifice. God's love chose to pay that price Himself as He poured out His righteous wrath on His Son. It was this same righteous wrath that drove Him to destroy everything with the flood, to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and other acts of His divine justice being meted out.
preacher4truth
Active Member
I can't agree with him, as his view is unscriptural, or, at the least, wishes to look only at one aspect of His death, which is looking at only what is pleasant. Other Scriptures are disregarded with his view.
This all reminds me of those who wish to tear out certain portions of Scripture in order to frame a god according to their liking.
Oft times I wonder how our culture here helps facilitate this, especially in light of the fact that 'the God of love' theology has been preached for so long, which also avoids the wrathful side of God towards sin and sinners.
He only has part of the story, thus his Gospel is 'another' Gospel.
This all reminds me of those who wish to tear out certain portions of Scripture in order to frame a god according to their liking.
Oft times I wonder how our culture here helps facilitate this, especially in light of the fact that 'the God of love' theology has been preached for so long, which also avoids the wrathful side of God towards sin and sinners.
He only has part of the story, thus his Gospel is 'another' Gospel.
Clearly to God, Christ represents the human race, when he is crucified on the cross. It is God manifesting his wrath against mankind in general and Christ as their representative. However, I am getting a real palpable sense at the moment of limited atonement, in that Christ was dying as the representative of mankind, but was it the representative of all of mankind? He's the first-born among many brothers, is it not for their sins, for his bretheren, he was being chastised? I get a sense that Jesus is saying to the Father, "Here am I and the children you have given me." And God is saying in response, "OK they're yours - you're their representative, you're going to have to pay for what they've done." Certainly as some people will be in Hell forever, such people do not have their sins atoned for, only those of the elect, the sons and daughters of God through Christ.
I do not know much about Eastern Orthodox, but this young man has misunderstood the position of penal substitution. The Father’s love is in sending His Son, the Son’s love in giving Himself for man. I am not sure of the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity, but as a Baptist the penal substitution theory speaks of God’s self-sacrifice. It is not about anger, but about love. God became man (which is amazing on its own accord) because of love. The Father sent His son, because of love. Christ took on flesh and became a propitiation for sin, because of love. I believe that this is where the young man makes an error. He seems to hold one view when understanding his own theory of atonement, but throws off that and views Penal Substitution from an altogether unbiblical view. It is no wonder he rejects the idea that the Father killed His Son on the cross – stated as such, it is a very unbiblical stance on atonement. Christ lay down His own life.
Perhaps the person in question held such an unbiblical understanding when he sung “In Christ Alone,” perhaps he was taught in that manner by others who did not view the atonement from a Trinitarian understanding. I could understand one rejecting this view, under those conditions, when presented with another alternative. But the young man’s idea of penal substitution is not penal substitution as it misses entirely misses the point.
Perhaps the person in question held such an unbiblical understanding when he sung “In Christ Alone,” perhaps he was taught in that manner by others who did not view the atonement from a Trinitarian understanding. I could understand one rejecting this view, under those conditions, when presented with another alternative. But the young man’s idea of penal substitution is not penal substitution as it misses entirely misses the point.
Some hold that His death paid ransom due satan, others that he was an examplr/moral influrnce to us of love of God...
Think bible view is that He was the lamb of God, who would die in place of his people, to make atonement for sins by shedding of his bllod on the Cross!
:thumbs:16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
He did not take upon himself the seed of adam....but the seed of abraham
convicted1
Guest
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I agree with it. It is scriptural, and it states almost perfectly the Christus Victor view of the atonement which was taught by the early church, the fathers, and down through the centuries until Anselm, and later Calvin. It denies the abhorrent penal substitution theory -- the way many define that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
That is incorrect and false.
Christus Victor is a wholistic view of the atonement which encompasses the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
And this is what the proponents of penal substitution on this forum teach, showering their wrath on those who disagree.
Your post is one of the most clear and reasonable posts on this that I've seen. The way you have defined penal substitution, I could maybe accept.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
And many disagreements.
Many Protestants hold to the Christus Victor view of the atonement.
Isaiah 53:6 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.
HankD
HankD
But the bible also call Jeuss the last Adam
Willis........That Jesus is the last Adam is fine.....but the text in Hebrews is very clear He [the last adam] took upon Himself The SEED of Abraham....
Willis......that means he did not take on all men everywhere..[seed of adam]
The covenant line comes through Abraham;
With out this suffering of Christ in our stead we would all be doomed to Hell. There would be no Salvation. No one would be righteous enough no matter how closely you followed the Law. Man has never kept the Law perfectly, except for Christ. There are those who make claims but the scriptures say they are all Liars. I am both sorry it had to happen and yet I'm glad that it did. Christ proved to the world His great love for man simply to save men who do not deserve it. He could do no less simply because He is LOVE. What and who He is demanded it.
MB
There have been more than a few in this thread saying that Jesus mission was all about "love", and how could anyone take issue with that, except maybe I am to an extent. I don't think we should imagine something like a Peace Corp volunteer going to help the unfortunate backward natives - sort of a patronizing, condescending, sentimental type of love, like say, "Feed the Children" appeals.
There are verses that convey this sort of underserved favor, bestowed by a vastly superior God on some inconsequential beings that he happened to take notice of.
Otoh, as per God's omniscience, there was never a time in eternity past when God did not know he would create mankind. That bestows on mankind a timelessnness in some sense, as the fact that mankind would exist has been true for as long as God has existed. And it has always been true from eternity past that God the Son would be manifested as a man, a human being. What he was before becoming a human being, I do not know. But if his ultimate manifestation is as a man, that is just one more indication that there is something central to mankind, not peripheral.
It says in John 3:16, "For God so loved the World..." does God love "the world" less than he loves his only begotten Son? Just a question. Yes, its undeserved favor as far as we are concerned but in the sense that parents are bestowing favor on their children by bringing them into existence. The parents get something out of the arrangement as well.
I personally tend to think that Christ came because it was "necessary". It was a necessity to redeem the elect. I guess the point I'm making is that I don't see it as "altruism" as it were, on the part of God the Father or God the Son. It was always the plan from eternity past that mankind would exist, and their redemption was necessary. There was no chance that there would not be a fall.
Just my gut reaction to some posts in this thread.
There are verses that convey this sort of underserved favor, bestowed by a vastly superior God on some inconsequential beings that he happened to take notice of.
Otoh, as per God's omniscience, there was never a time in eternity past when God did not know he would create mankind. That bestows on mankind a timelessnness in some sense, as the fact that mankind would exist has been true for as long as God has existed. And it has always been true from eternity past that God the Son would be manifested as a man, a human being. What he was before becoming a human being, I do not know. But if his ultimate manifestation is as a man, that is just one more indication that there is something central to mankind, not peripheral.
It says in John 3:16, "For God so loved the World..." does God love "the world" less than he loves his only begotten Son? Just a question. Yes, its undeserved favor as far as we are concerned but in the sense that parents are bestowing favor on their children by bringing them into existence. The parents get something out of the arrangement as well.
I personally tend to think that Christ came because it was "necessary". It was a necessity to redeem the elect. I guess the point I'm making is that I don't see it as "altruism" as it were, on the part of God the Father or God the Son. It was always the plan from eternity past that mankind would exist, and their redemption was necessary. There was no chance that there would not be a fall.
Just my gut reaction to some posts in this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It think the distinction is the way in which we understand divine wrath. From the human perspective it may appear, and even be represented in scripture (anthropomorphically) as God's anger toward man, but I believe in reality the full revelation teaches us that God's wrath is the full weight of his power being poured out upon that which would destroy the objects of his greatest affection. ( i.e. 'God's wrath poured out against ungodliness')
When I caught my son looking at racy youtube videos on the computer I got VERY angry. And I punished him. But my anger was more directed at the sin and its potential to destroy someone I dearly love. That is a better picture of divine wrath.
God, through Christ, cures the curse of sin by taking on death and destroying that which would certainly destroy those he loves.
God's wrath is just as much a display of God's love as Grace is.
When I caught my son looking at racy youtube videos on the computer I got VERY angry. And I punished him. But my anger was more directed at the sin and its potential to destroy someone I dearly love. That is a better picture of divine wrath.
God, through Christ, cures the curse of sin by taking on death and destroying that which would certainly destroy those he loves.
God's wrath is just as much a display of God's love as Grace is.