Counsel Wanted for My Theological Conclusions

[BobRyan]

Your "argument" doesn't consider the actual definition of the word "propitiation."

It is merely "borrowed" and is used in the Greek OT LXX when the term for atonement is normally in Hebrew.


C. LXX

1. The noun hilasmos appears only five times in the canonical portions of the LXX and three times in the apocryphal writings.
2. It is used to translate Hebrew kippurim (syr!P|K!), which is the plural form of the noun kippur.
3. It was derived from kaphar as used in the Piel stem.
4. It was used in the name of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, “Day of Atonement” (Lev. 25:9).

It is impossible to inject the Greek Pagan concept of propitiating the angry deity "man so sacrificed that God relented" into Lev 25:9 or Lev 16.

In the Bible it is "God so LOVED the HE GAVE" -- a concept totally foreign to the greek pagan form of the term for "propitiation"

Thus in 1 John 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for our sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole world" NIV



Ezek 45:20

20 And they shall take of its blood, and shall put [it] on the four horns of the altar, and upon the four corners of the propitiatory, and upon the base round about, and they shall make atonement for it

20 καὶ οὕτως ποιήσεις ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ μηνὶ μιᾷ τοῦ μηνὸς λήμψῃ παρ᾿ ἑκάστου ἀπόμοιραν καὶ ἐξιλάσεσθε τὸν οἶκον

ἐξιλάσεσθε atonement, ransom, propitiatory offering

ἐξίλασμα

 

[BobRyan]

So, it must be that the "whole world" goes along with how John typically uses "world," which is NOT talking about every person.

Redefining "world" in this case "whole world" to mean "not really every perrson" ... is merely the "need" of Calvinism -- it is not any form of exegesis

Goes along with the "need" to avoid the "God so LOVED that HE GAVE" form of the Gospel that we have in the Bible and select exclusively the pagan-context for propitiation which is either "man so sacrificed that God relented" or that "Christ so sacrificed that God relented" -- AS If either Christ is not God or that the pagan-greek form of propitiation could ever have been of the form "the angry gods were tortured to the point of relenting"

 

[Yeshua1]

Your "argument" doesn't consider the actual definition of the word "propitiation." Many have denied the Greek simply because they don't think God would do such a thing. However, the biblical authors, by using the word they used when others were available tell us that God does indeed do such a thing--taking His just and righteous wrath out on Christ as our substitute, thereby changing His disposition toward those who would believe.

Of course, the reason people want to redefine "propitiation" is because they don't like the implications, and so many read their own presuppositions into a word that clearly doesn't mean what you wish it did. They try to define God rather than letting Him define Himself.

Now, the 1 John 2:2 passage is a bit problematic. But, despite your denials, we know what propitiation means. So, it must be that the "whole world" goes along with how John typically uses "world," which is NOT talking about every person. Of course, this is another issue with presupposition. It isn't so much that "world" can't refer to all kinds of people, or the world' system, etc., it's just that you don't want it to. And, because you don't want it to mean what it actually means--because it offends your delicate sensibilities--you seek to change the meaning of the text, which is helping no one.

The Archangel

The world would referring to those whom the death of Christ actually was an atonement for, His own elect, and not all sinners period.

 

[Yeshua1]

Torturing God appeases His wrath??

its not torture in the sense you suggest, but the full wrath of a Holy God towards sin coming down upon the One who chose to be the Sin Bearer for His own people.
Jesus suffered "torture" of His own free will, in order to have some to be saved and reconciled back to God!

 

[BobRyan]

its not torture in the sense you suggest, but the full wrath of a Holy God towards sin coming down upon the One who chose to be the Sin Bearer

Sounds like God "paying" not "God getting paid" --- and the payment is in the form of "torment" of suffering... i.e. torture.

Jesus suffered "torture" of His own free will,

Jesus IS God. God was IN Christ reconciling the World to Himself. God was not "getting paid" God was "getting tortured".

Calvinism uses the grocery-store model for sin and payment where God "gets paid" for the groceries that you buy - and once they are bought God has nothing more to say about it - after all "He got paid in full".

But that is not how Atonement works - that is not what happened at the cross. At the Cross "God PAID".

 

[Yeshua1]

Sounds like God "paying" not "God getting paid" --- and the payment is in the form of "torment" of suffering... i.e. torture.




Jesus IS God. God was IN Christ reconciling the World to Himself. God was not "getting paid" God was "getting tortured".

Calvinism uses the grocery-store model for sin and payment where God "gets paid" for the groceries that you buy - and once they are bought God has nothing more to say about it - after all "He got paid in full".

But that is not how Atonement works - that is not what happened at the cross. At the Cross "God PAID".

The method used was the Penal Substitution Atonement view.