Confessionalism and the Salters' Hall Synod

[JonC]

Jon, is your point there are other atonement theories? So? I am convinced that scripture teaches penal substitution. Can we not just disagree about that without the accusation that my position was not derived from the study of the text?

No. My point is that we need to be faithful to Scripture. I am not opposed to people holding and defending any of the theories. But I do not believe it appropriate to determine the meaning of a word by reading into Scripture an interpretation.

It is one thing to say Jesus propitiated by bearing God's wrath, and another to say that Scripture dictates the meaning of "propitiation" to mean "bearing wrath".

What was done is Scripture was altered so that only one interpretation of 1 John 2:2 was textually possible. This is not honest to the text itself regardless as to the validity of the theology.

Again, take a look at the comment to which I objected:

Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation. Propitiation is the key word. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

Romans 3 does say that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation, and propitiation is a key word. BUT it is NOT by definition "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin." The last statement is eisegesis by definition.

Does that help understand my objection? It's not Penasl Substitution but an inability to look at Scripture objectively. It's about handling Scripture with care and being faithful to the text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history? post # 128.

My argument against @The Archangel was that defining "propitiation" as "bearing wrath" reads theology into the text and is not faithful to what is written (regardless to the validity of his theology). It is eisegesis by definition.

And in post # 140 you argued for @The Archangel definition of propitiation, linking my insistence it meant turning aside wrath based on the previous verses to hetesy.

This is what I found from @The Archangel

The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

Wayne A.; Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

That is what I was agreeing with. The rest of post #128 I pasted on post #54 on this thread. I have come to realise that you are remarkably reluctant to engage with any exposition of Scripture that I make, even when you have asked me to do it, but do you think you might make the effort?

 

[JonC]

This is what I found from @The ArchangelThat is what I was agreeing with. The rest of post #128 I pasted on post #54 on this thread. I have come to realise that you are remarkably reluctant to engage with any exposition of Scripture that I make, even when you have asked me to do it, but do you think you might make the effort?

I already said that 1 John 1 indicates sin and wrath is in view, and I offered the definition of propitiation being an appeasement or turning away of God's wrath. You argued against my rejection of @The Archangel 's definition and said I was like the Jehovah Witnesses for saying truth is decided by what is written. The OP was not an argument against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and what I objected to was liberties taken with Scripture (I believe we need to take care to be faithful to the biblical text rather than substituting our theories for words).

I was not arguing against the Theory or the traditional definition of propitiation (the dictionary definition). I was arguing against what I quoted:

I’m not confusing anything. Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation. Propitiation is the key word. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The above quote shows the dangers present when we puff up theology to the level of Scripture. Romans 3 does say God put forth Christ as a propitiation. Propitiation is a key word. BUT by definition it is NOT bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

Look again at what was said (at what I was arguing against):

1. Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation.
2. Propitiation is the key word.
3. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

Can you discern the error in that quote?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, the Baptist confession at 1:6 rejected Westminster's wording at 1:6, that which "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."
The Baptists replaced that with: that which is "necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture."

Martin Marprelate, yes, please do explain the difference between the rejected Presbyterian language and the Baptists' "necessarily contained".

You've used "necessarily implied" and "necessarily consequential" in your argumentation. Aren't those more like the Presbyterian scheme ("by good and necessary consequence may be deduced")?

Sam Waldron in his 'Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession' doesn't seem to see any difference, but the authors of the 1689 must have been dissatisfied with the WCF statement or they wouldn't have changed it.

I think the problem is with the word 'good.' What one person thinks is good, another may reject. 'Necessarily Contained' says that any doctrine that is not actually spelt out in the Scripture (like the doctrine of the Trinity) has to be found in the Scripture, perhaps by comparing Scripture with Scripture. It is not enough to argue the consent of the ECFs or the writings of great men. It has to be there in the Bible.

The Presbyterians may well say that the WCF says the same thing, but the Baptists obviously felt the need to make it clearer. I think that arguments over infant 'baptism' may have had something to do with it.

 

[Jerome]

Westminster..."by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."

Baptist..."necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture."

Sam Waldron in his 'Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession' doesn't seem to see any difference...I think the problem is with the word 'good.'

You've used "necessarily implied" and "necessarily consequential" in your argumentation.

Aren't those concepts more like the Presbyterian scheme ("by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from") than what the Baptists held to ("necessarily contained in")?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I already said that 1 John 1 indicates sin and wrath is in view, and I offered the definition of propitiation being an appeasement or turning away of God's wrath. You argued against my rejection of @The Archangel 's definition and said I was like the Jehovah Witnesses for saying truth is decided by what is written. Do you need a link to that as well?

A link would have been helpful. It took me ten minutes to find where I wrote that. I stand by it BTW. A propitiation is an appeasement or a sacrifice that turns away wrath. When Christ bore our sins upon the tree, the righteous anger (wrath) of God was propitiated, and He could be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

The above quote shows the dangers present when we puff up theology. Romans 3 does say God put forth Christ as a propitiation. Propitiation is a key word. BUT by definition it is NOT bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

It is in the context of Romans 3 and 1 John 1:5-2:2.

The Greek terms (the verb hilaskomai, “to make propitiation” and the noun hilasmos, “a sacrifice of propitiation”) used in these passages have the sense of “a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God — and thereby makes God propitious (or favorable) toward us.” This is the consistent meaning of these words outside the Bible where they were well understood in reference to pagan Greek religions. These verses simply mean that Jesus bore the wrath of God against sin.

Wayne A.; Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Making Sense of Series) (p. 575). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

I agree with this.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You've used "necessarily implied" and "necessarily consequential" in your argumentation.

Aren't those concepts more like the Presbyterian scheme ("by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from") than what the Baptists held to ("necessarily contained in")?

Without chasing through dozens of posts trying to find these quotes, which I'm not going to do, I can't see the context in which I used them.

However, it may be that I used the wrong words . I support the 1689 Confession, OK?

 

[JonC]

A link would have been helpful. It took me ten minutes to find where I wrote that. I stand by it BTW. A propitiation is an appeasement or a sacrifice that turns away wrath. When Christ bore our sins upon the tree, the righteous anger (wrath) of God was propitiated, and He could be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

It is in the context of Romans 3 and 1 John 1:5-2:2.

I agree with this.

AGAIN, I was not arguing against the traditional definition of propitiation. We were speaking of "propitiation" in 1 Jn 2:2 and this was what I was arguing against:

Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation. Propitiation is the key word. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

I also agree that "propitiation" is the correct word choice because it has the turning of wrath in view. Please stop dancing around the error. I was arguing against a lack of faithfulness to the biblical text.

Can you or can you not discern the error in the statement below?

Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation. Propitiation is the key word. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

AGAIN, I was not arguing against the traditional definition of propitiation. We were speaking of "propitiation" in 1 Jn 2:2 and this was what I was arguing against:

Not very hard. It seems you would sooner stick pins in your eyes than deal with some actual Biblical exposition.
For the rest, take it up with Archangel. I have told you what I was referring to.
[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

Not very hard. It seems you would sooner stick pins in your eyes than deal with some actual Biblical exposition.
For the rest, take it up with Archangel. I have told you what I was referring to.

[/QUOTE]
Yes. You were covertly agreeing with my statement that 1 John 1 indicates that the word should be translated as "propitiated" because it has in view the turning aside of God's wrath. That's what threw me off. We usually don't agree so easily .

What you were talking about in 1 John was not "biblical exposition", but a simple application of theology/theory. John is not speaking of Christ bearing wrath at all (neither by use of "propitiation" or biblical context). That does not mean your theory is wrong, but nowhere is it the subject of 1 Jn 2:2. If you see it there then you are reading into the text. And I already...actually....dealt with the text. You thus far refused (you affirmed a belief that Christ bore God's wrath, dealt with commentary on the topic of God expressing his anger and wrath on Christ, but thus far have not actually dealt with the actual text of John 2:2).

 

[Reformed]

But I do not believe it appropriate to determine the meaning of a word by reading into Scripture an interpretation.

Well, I have not engaged in any meaningful exegesis in this thread, so I am not sure why you are making this statement. The atonement theory that I hold to is based on what I believe the scripture teaches. It is also born from a consistent hermeneutic within an equally consistent systematic and biblical theology.

It is one thing to say Jesus propitiated by bearing God's wrath, and another to say that Scripture dictates the meaning of "propitiation" to mean "bearing wrath".

Again, I have not put forth my atonement view in this thread. For the sake of clarity, I will say that the English word "propitiation" never means "bearing wrath". Propitiation is more about appeasing wrath, not bearing it. Christ made satisfaction (propitiation) for our sins through His blood (c.f Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:5). We see the atonement aspect of propitiation in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10, where Christ's sacrifice was on our behalf.

Please do not accept the above as an exhaustive biblical defense for my position, as that is not the purpose of this thread. It serves as an example of allowing the text to speak and employing sound exegetical instruments to understand what the text is saying.

What was done is Scripture was altered so that only one interpretation of 1 John 2:2 was textually possible. This is not honest to the text itself regardless as to the validity of the theology.

I am not saying that only one interpretation is possible. Obviously, those who hold to Christus Victor came up with another interpretation. However, I believe they are wrong and that penal substitution is the better theory. Certainly, you are not going to find fault with me for holding to the theory I believe is the most faithful to scripture?

Romans 3 does say that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation, and propitiation is a key word. BUT it is NOT by definition "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin." The last statement is eisegesis by definition.

The Greek word translated "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 is ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion). I do not have access to my Septuagint right now, but I believe it used the same Greek word to describe the mercy seat in Exodus. Blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat to appease God's wrath, i.e. to propitiate. So, no, "propitiate" in Romans 3:25 does not directly mean "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin", but such a statement is propitiations result.

 

[JonC]

Well, I have not engaged in any meaningful exegesis in this thread, so I am not sure why you are making this statement. The atonement theory that I hold to is based on what I believe the scripture teaches. It is also born from a consistent hermeneutic within an equally consistent systematic and biblical theology.

I understand. The other thread was not about varying theories of atonement either.

The reason I made such a statement was that you “injected yourself into [my] discussion” with Martin in post # 47. I replied in post # 52, and you responded that until I show you where someone allowed their theology to define a term you would consider my post to be a “red herring”. So I provided the post (I had been objecting to @The Archangel 's comment that propitiation means bearing the anger and wrath of God as it simply does not, regardless as to how Christ turned aside that wrath. The comment was not faithful to the biblical text, and I believe this important).

Glad to see we are at least up to speed (and we actually agree on the subject that was at hand while perhaps disagreeing on the theories of atonement).

The Greek word translated "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 is ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion). I do not have access to my Septuagint right now, but I believe it used the same Greek word to describe the mercy seat in Exodus. Blood would be sprinkled on the mercy seat to appease God's wrath, i.e. to propitiate. So, no, "propitiate" in Romans 3:25 does not directly mean "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin", but such a statement is propitiations result.

I agree that defining propitiation as “bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin” is an error. That said, I do understand (as I stated on the other thread) the theory that Christ propitiated by bearing that wrath.

My concern is that we be very careful with Scripture when developing our theories and theologies that we do not read back into Scripture our interpretations (which is what was obviously done before). You and I can discuss our differences only if we remain faithful to Scripture even when differing in interpretation. Once one of us reads back into Scripture their theory then meaningful discussion is impossible because that person cannot discern Scripture from its interpretation.

My entire point was that we have to treat Scripture with respect and integrity. If we do that, I think that we will be able to identify both common ground and areas where we truly differ - common ground being Scripture where interpretation, application, and theology may vary.

 

[Jerome]

Without chasing through dozens of posts trying to find these quotes, which I'm not going to do, I can't see the context in which I used them.

Here you go, all four in one post:

the 1689 Confession uses the term 'necessarily contained.' The WCF says 'by good and necessary consequence.' I think I have used the word 'implied'...a gracious promise is necessarily implied- eternal life...I stand by that...However, if you prefer, you can change it to 'necessarily contained' or 'necessarily consequential.'

Now:

Westminster..."by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."

Baptist..."necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture."

Sam Waldron in his 'Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession' doesn't seem to see any difference....I think the problem is with the word 'good.'

You've used "necessarily implied" and "necessarily consequential" in your argumentation.

Aren't those concepts more like the Presbyterian scheme ("by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from") than what the Baptists held to ("necessarily contained in")?

 

[rsr]

The Presbyterians may well say that the WCF says the same thing, but the Baptists obviously felt the need to make it clearer. I think that arguments over infant 'baptism' may have had something to do with it.

That's what Fred A. Malone contends in The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenental Argument.

Malone argues that the change of wording from the Westminster to the Second London was specifically aimed at practices such as paedobaptism.

"Likely they did this in order to distinguish between true good and necessary consequence, which should always be limited by the containment of scripture, from the abuse of good and necessary consequence as logical inference alone, which is used by paedobaptists to establish infant baptism by instituting subjects of a sacrament never contained in scripture ...

quoted in V.A. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism, Reformation Heritage Books, 2010.

Timothy George argues that the change reflected a Baptist bias toward the regulative principle, probably best exemplified today by the Primitive Baptists.

The wording about necessary consequence is omitted from the Baptist Confession which declares that God's counsel is "expressly set down or necessity contained in the Holy Scripture." The Baptists insisted a strict application of the regulative principle finding in the Bible a blueprint for Christian living and a clearly-defined, universally binding model of church life including the details of polity and discipline.

Timothy George, Baptists and the Westminster Confession, 1996 Calvin Conference: The Westminster Confession in Current Thought.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. You were covertly agreeing with my statement that 1 John 1 indicates that the word should be translated as "propitiated" because it has in view the turning aside of God's wrath. That's what threw me off. We usually don't agree so easily .[/QUOTE]
This is hardly earth-shattering. So the word is translated in all the best English Bibles. However, as I showed, the surrounding context and the comparing of Scripture with Scripture clearly reveals that Penal Substitution is in view.

'.......God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.' We note that darkness cannot abide in the presence of God (Revelation 22:5), and that light and darkness in John are spiritual rather than physical. Thus we see the darkness of ignorance in Nicodemus (John 3:2), and the darkness of sin in Judas (John 13:30). If we are walking in darkness, we can have no fellowship with God (v.6). Yet, 'if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1:8). How can we ever be right with God? How can sinners walk in the light?

'Eternal light! Eternal Light!
How pure that soul must be
When, placed within Thy searching sight,
It shrinks not, but with calm delight
Can live and look on Thee?

.......Oh, how shall I whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the Ineffable appear
And on my naked spirit bear
The uncreated beam?

But verse 8 tells us that 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' How can He do that? God is faithful; that is, He is true to His character and true to His word, which states that He is 'By no means clearing the guilty' (Exodus 34:7). He declares, 'I will not justify the wicked' (Exodus 23:7). God is just: the wicked must be punished. How can He forgive us? We see the remarkable similarity of 1 John 1:5-2:2 and Romans 3:21-26. '.......That [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

'There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
And offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit's energies,
An advocate with God.'

God's law must be upheld; the guilty must be punished; God's wrath, 'Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' must be appeased. And this is done by the Lord Jesus Christ. 'He Himself is the propitiation for our sins......' Sin has been punished in Him (Isaiah 53:6). 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). And the use by Peter of 'tree' rather than 'cross' reminds us that Christ also bore the curse that our sins brought upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:13). Sin has been punished, in Christ; God's righteousness has been upheld, in Christ; we are free from condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1), because we become 'the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21), because He has borne our sins, every last bit of them, and God looks at us and sees the perfect, unblemished righteousness of Christ.

I shall be pasting that on every reply I make to your posts until you actuallymake some effort to answer it.

What you were talking about in 1 John was not "biblical exposition", but a simple application of theology/theory. John is not speaking of Christ bearing wrath at all (neither by use of "propitiation" or biblical context). That does not mean your theory is wrong, but nowhere is it the subject of 1 Jn 2:2. If you see it there then you are reading into the text. And I already...actually....dealt with the text. You thus far refused (you affirmed a belief that Christ bore God's wrath, dealt with commentary on the topic of God expressing his anger and wrath on Christ, but thus far have not actually dealt with the actual text of John 2:2).

Deal with what I wrote then. Show how the context of 1 John 2:2 does not include 1 John 1:5, for example. Show how God can be both faithful and just whilst still forgiving our sins, in the light of the various verses I quoted.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That's what Fred A. Morgan contends in The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenental Argument.

Morgan argues that the change of wording from the Westminster to the Second London was specifically aimed at practices such as paedobaptism.

The name is Malone, not Morgan, but otherwise you are spot on. The WCF Article XXVIII:IV states, 'not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or more, believing parents, are to be baptized.' The Scripture 'proof' for that is Genesis 17:7-10, which of course, nowhere speaks of baptism. Baptists therefore would say that the consequence is not good, and certainly not necessary. For the confessional Baptist, there needs to be clear evidence in the Scriptures

 

[JonC]

Yes. You were covertly agreeing with my statement that 1 John 1 indicates that the word should be translated as "propitiated" because it has in view the turning aside of God's wrath. That's what threw me off. We usually don't agree so easily .

This is hardly earth-shattering. So the word is translated in all the best English Bibles. However, as I showed, the surrounding context and the comparing of Scripture with Scripture clearly reveals that Penal Substitution is in view.

'.......God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.' We note that darkness cannot abide in the presence of God (Revelation 22:5), and that light and darkness in John are spiritual rather than physical. Thus we see the darkness of ignorance in Nicodemus (John 3:2), and the darkness of sin in Judas (John 13:30). If we are walking in darkness, we can have no fellowship with God (v.6). Yet, 'if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1:8). How can we ever be right with God? How can sinners walk in the light?

'Eternal light! Eternal Light!
How pure that soul must be
When, placed within Thy searching sight,
It shrinks not, but with calm delight
Can live and look on Thee?

.......Oh, how shall I whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the Ineffable appear
And on my naked spirit bear
The uncreated beam?

But verse 8 tells us that 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' How can He do that? God is faithful; that is, He is true to His character and true to His word, which states that He is 'By no means clearing the guilty' (Exodus 34:7). He declares, 'I will not justify the wicked' (Exodus 23:7). God is just: the wicked must be punished. How can He forgive us? We see the remarkable similarity of 1 John 1:5-2:2 and Romans 3:21-26. '.......That [God] might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.'

'There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
And offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit's energies,
An advocate with God.'

God's law must be upheld; the guilty must be punished; God's wrath, 'Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men' must be appeased. And this is done by the Lord Jesus Christ. 'He Himself is the propitiation for our sins......' Sin has been punished in Him (Isaiah 53:6). 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). And the use by Peter of 'tree' rather than 'cross' reminds us that Christ also bore the curse that our sins brought upon us (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:13). Sin has been punished, in Christ; God's righteousness has been upheld, in Christ; we are free from condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1), because we become 'the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21), because He has borne our sins, every last bit of them, and God looks at us and sees the perfect, unblemished righteousness of Christ.

I shall be pasting that on every reply I make to your posts until you actuallymake some effort to answer it.

Deal with what I wrote then. Show how the context of 1 John 2:2 does not include 1 John 1:5, for example. Show how God can be both faithful and just whilst still forgiving our sins, in the light of the various verses I quoted.[/QUOTE]
That is off topic. My complaint was allowing theology to change the be meaning of words. You are jumping from the actual text to the theory. Everything seems to go back to the Theory with you (I wasn't even arguing against the Theory).

I will say that 1 John in no way demands the Theory of Penal Substitution, and that you are reading it into the text. I will walk through the passage with you on a new thread when I get to a computer.

 

[rsr]

The name is Malone, not Morgan, but otherwise you are spot on. The WCF Article XXVIII:IV states, 'not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or more, believing parents, are to be baptized.' The Scripture 'proof' for that is Genesis 17:7-10, which of course, nowhere speaks of baptism. Baptists therefore would say that the consequence is not good, and certainly not necessary. For the confessional Baptist, there needs to be clear evidence in the Scriptures

Sorry.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry.

Not at all! Mistakes are easy to make as I know only too well.