"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

[JonC]

JonC,



I do not agree. Scripture does settle the matter

You are right. Scripture DOES settle the matter.

Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world (in the epistle, the only other uses of "world" is mankind, as Calvin noted "without exception"...even the Egyptians who drowned).

So Scripture settles it. You are wrong. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of mankind, period.

And Scripture tells us that those who are not saved will die in their sins.

The problem, however, is your theology cannot accept Scripture in this case. So it does something horrendous- it bends the text to theology because it cannot handle the truth that Christ is the propitiation for all yet all are not saved (this is not a problem for Calvinism, but it is for "calvinism" as evidenced by Calvin and Edwards).

The reason this is such a horrible sin is the word "world" actually occurs several times in the letter referring to all. Yet "calvinists" change the meaning on this one occurance without cause except their simplistic error.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

As I've stated I have not insulted you but I no desire to be on friendly terms (I do not desire you and I to be more familiar than is warranted to discuss issues). If you think you see an insult between the lines then you have my sincere apology and I invite you to reexamine the post (they were worded very carfully and very intentionally).

I am suggesting you do not interact with me or my posts

Scripture states that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all men.

No.it does not...it never says THE SINS OF ALL MEN

This is a verse (it is not one of the scholars you want banned from the conversation)

.

Again, I never used this language. I do not need a spokesman the misquotes my words
I am asking once again, stop doing this

The "all men" is clarified in the verse (as Calvin rightely identified as "without exception" and Augustine alluded to with his conviction that Christ died for the sin of the human race as a whole).

Whatever...

The problem with excluding the commentaries of other men [/QUOTE]
I never said I exclude commentaries.....you are saying this

is that when you come up with an idea that is unsubstianted by other Christians then you are without a doubt wrong.

strawman?

Men disagree and you may find yourself agreeing with one who holds the same phiosophy as you, but if you stand alone (or in a very small sect)

your opinion, I do not agree with your assessment

then you are on very dangerous grounds. This is even more highlighted when you are dismissing scholars who dedicadted their entire lives to God's Word simply because you don't want to consider the "words of men".

I never said this once again. I do not want you as a spokesman

[QUOTE]God gave these men to the faith. We do not blindly follow them, and even they disagreed with each other. But we should not dismiss their contributions so lightly.

I never said this once again. I do not want you as a spokesman

Anyway, to restate - it was John (the Apostle, not Calvin) who wrote that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. I referenced Calvin to show my insistance this is "the sins of all men without exception" is within orthodox Calvinism (since you phrased your reply that my "Calvinism"is somehow not Calvinism).

Your opinion, I do not share it.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC

You are right. Scripture DOES settle the matter.

Glad you agree
I will leave it here,

2 and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

"The sins of" is not in there.

 

[JonC]

JonC,



I am suggesting you do not interact with me or my posts



No.it does not...it never says THE SINS OF ALL MEN
.

Again, I never used this language. I do not need a spokesman the misquotes my words
I am asking once again, stop doing this



Whatever...

I never said this once again. I do not want you as a spokesman



Your opinion, I do not share it.

You quoted me.

Either way I decline.

Scripture states that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men. That is not an opinion. That is God's word.

What does "world" mean in all other occurrences in the letter? Why change it here?

 

[JonC]

"JonC


Glad you agree
I will leave it here,

2 and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

"The sins of" is not in there.

καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστινπερὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐπερὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνονἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦκόσμου.


and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

 

[Iconoclast]

You quoted me.

Either way I decline.

Scripture states that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men. That is not an opinion. That is God's word.

What does "world" mean in all other occurrences in the letter? Why change it here?

never says the sins of all men

 

[JonC]

never says the sins of all men

Yes, it actually does.

"Not only for ours" refers to sins.

καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστινπερὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐπερὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνονἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦκόσμου.

Out of curiosity, what on earth did you think Christ was the propitiation for if not sin????


Do you understand the word? It is not a "bible word" but has become antiquated.

Is an atoning sacrifice with the purpose of turning aside the wrath of a deity (here, of God). It has sin in view.

This is why I am suggesting you utalize a good commentary (granted, Calvin is out dated, but I like his works).

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, it actually does.

"Not only for ours" refers to sins.

καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστινπερὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐπερὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνονἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦκόσμου.


This is why I am suggesting you utalize a good commentary (granted, Calvin is out dated, but I like his works).

Not so....it is speaking of the sins of believers whose sins were propitiated. ...
and not for ours only...but the whole world....
That is any remaining believer who God will draw to himself worldwide...not for the ungodly, who remain dead in Adam...their sins are not propitiated, God's wrath still abides on them.

So the sin, is only that of those who believe.even though they are scattered worldwide.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Yes, it actually does.

"Not only for ours" refers to sins.

see post 109...

καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστινπερὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐπερὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνονἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦκόσμου.

Out of curiosity, what on earth did you think Christ was the propitiation for if not sin????

He turns away the wrath that abides upon those among mankind who are being saved. I do not think you understand propitiation as it relates to the gospel as Paul explained it:
romans3;
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Do you understand the word?

Yes I do. However it looks like you might have missed those lectures in school.
Here as Paul explains the heart of the gospel the word is used of those who have
1]faith in his blood

2]those who have been justified freely
3]he is the just and the justifier of Him WHO BELIEVES in Jesus....

not "all men" as you post.

from preceptaustin;
Is (estin) is in the present tense signifying that Jesus is continually the propitiation. This is good news for sinners such as myself who are daily in need of an Advocate Who is qualified. Indeed, He sits in His glorified body even now at the right hand of the Father and not only pleads for mercy for us but also intercedes for us. (Ro 8:34, Heb 7:25) O, what a Savior, what a Lord!

2434) (hilasmos akin to hileōs = merciful, propitious) in the NT (only here and 1Jn 4:10) refers to a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God and thereby makes God propitious (favorably inclined or disposed, disposed to be gracious and/or merciful, ready to forgive) toward us.

It is not a "bible word" but has become antiquated.

Is an atoning sacrifice with the purpose of turning aside the wrath of a deity (here, of God). It has sin in view.

I know exactly what the word means, and have no need for you to suggest i do not know what it means. To suggest it was for all men is error plain and simple..

This is why I am suggesting you utalize a good commentary (granted, Calvin is out dated, but I like his works).[/QUOTE]

I do not need your suggestions as far as what to read. It looks as if those who are looking at have not plotted a correct course for your theological sailboat.

 

[Iconoclast]

You quoted me.

Either way I decline.

Scripture states that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men. That is not an opinion. That is God's word.

What does "world" mean in all other occurrences in the letter? Why change it here?

John MacArthur links hilasmos with the mercy seat in the Old Covenant...

The term propitiation, in definition and application, is most notably a biblical and theological word. It is a translation of hilasmos, which means “appeasement,” or “satisfaction.” Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross satisfied the demands of God’s justice, thus appeasing His holy wrath against believers’ sins. Several related words provide additional understanding of the nature of propitiation. The verb hilaskomai, “to make satisfaction for,” occurs in Luke 18:13 and Hebrews 2:17. Hilasterion refers to the sacrifice of atonement required to placate God’s wrath (cf. Rom. 3:25). The translators of the Septuagint (Lxx) used this term (hilasterion) to designate the mercy seat, which establishes propitiation’s link to the Old Testament sacrificial system (Read Ex 25:10-22, esp Ex 25:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

The mercy seat was the lid or cover of the ark, situated between the divine Shekinah glory cloud above the ark and law tablets inside the ark. Because the priests sprinkled the seat with blood from the (animal) sacrifices (Ed: See the inefficacy of animal blood in Heb 10:4, Heb 10:11), it was the place at which atonement for sin occurred. The sprinkled blood thus stood between God (the Shekinah) and His broken law (the tablets). The sacrificial blood of animals never did placate God (cf. Heb. 7:26-28; 9:6-15; 10:1-18), but it pictured the future sacrifice of Christ that would fully satisfy the Father (Heb. 9:23-28; cf. Isa. 53:6, 10; Matt. 20:28; Eph. 5:2). If the Old Testament sacrificial system had appeased God’s wrath once and for all, the Jews would not have continued endlessly to bring burnt offerings (Lev. 1:3-17; 6:8-13), sin offerings (Lev. 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30), and trespass offerings (Lev. 5:14-6:7; 7:1-10) over the centuries. (NT Commentary on 1, 2, 3 John & Jude)precept austin;

 

[1689Dave]

Not all are called. Those that are not will not be saved.

But this still leaves an atonement gutted of its ability to pay for sin. In fact, it ignores it completely and makes calling without justification the means of salvation.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't think that is the necessary logical conclusion of @JonC position. You can (and must) with his position say that Christ must not have died for all sin. But there is no reason to force them to say that he did not die for any sin.

Logically, according to universalist, Christ's death had nothing to do with sin or all would be saved.

 

[1689Dave]

That is where you are mistaken, but I think it may be because you cannot see how Christ could have died for human sin in toto except universal salvation be the result.

If you could understand the opposing view (within Calvinism itself) then an interesting discussion may be had.

The reason I think this is you have continued to say the same thing (if this then that) without defending the assumptions inherent between the cause and effect. It is poor form and a fallacy.

According to the logic of "Evangelical" universalism, Christ did not pay for the least sin or all would be saved. Which BTW is what hard core universalists claim.

 

[JonC]

Not so....it is speaking of the sins of believers whose sins were propitiated. ...
and not for ours only...but the whole world....
That is any remaining believer who God will draw to himself worldwide...not for the ungodly, who remain dead in Adam...their sins are not propitiated, God's wrath still abides on them.

So the sin, is only that of those who believe.even though they are scattered worldwide.

Why do you believe this (please explain how you arrive at that conclusion as this is the tooic of the OP).

 

[JonC]

According to the logic of "Evangelical" universalism, Christ did not pay for the least sin or all would be saved. Which BTW is what hard core universalists claim.

I am not an evangelical universalist. I am a Calvinist.

According to pre-Beza Calvinism Christ died for the sin of mankind without exception. By the early seventh century there had developed two primary views (depending on one's philosophical approach to Scripture).

Neither logically concluded with universal salvation. The "straw-man" is a result of taking the view that Christ died for the sin of mankind and placing it within the understanding that the Atonement was a business-type transaction. It is easy to say the logical conclusion is universalism if one does this, but it is not being honest to the views.

 

[JonC]

John MacArthur links hilasmos with the mercy seat in the Old Covenant...

The term propitiation, in definition and application, is most notably a biblical and theological word. It is a translation of hilasmos, which means “appeasement,” or “satisfaction.” Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross satisfied the demands of God’s justice, thus appeasing His holy wrath against believers’ sins. Several related words provide additional understanding of the nature of propitiation. The verb hilaskomai, “to make satisfaction for,” occurs in Luke 18:13 and Hebrews 2:17. Hilasterion refers to the sacrifice of atonement required to placate God’s wrath (cf. Rom. 3:25). The translators of the Septuagint (Lxx) used this term (hilasterion) to designate the mercy seat, which establishes propitiation’s link to the Old Testament sacrificial system (Read Ex 25:10-22, esp Ex 25:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

The mercy seat was the lid or cover of the ark, situated between the divine Shekinah glory cloud above the ark and law tablets inside the ark. Because the priests sprinkled the seat with blood from the (animal) sacrifices (Ed: See the inefficacy of animal blood in Heb 10:4, Heb 10:11), it was the place at which atonement for sin occurred. The sprinkled blood thus stood between God (the Shekinah) and His broken law (the tablets). The sacrificial blood of animals never did placate God (cf. Heb. 7:26-28; 9:6-15; 10:1-18), but it pictured the future sacrifice of Christ that would fully satisfy the Father (Heb. 9:23-28; cf. Isa. 53:6, 10; Matt. 20:28; Eph. 5:2). If the Old Testament sacrificial system had appeased God’s wrath once and for all, the Jews would not have continued endlessly to bring burnt offerings (Lev. 1:3-17; 6:8-13), sin offerings (Lev. 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30), and trespass offerings (Lev. 5:14-6:7; 7:1-10) over the centuries. (NT Commentary on 1, 2, 3 John & Jude)precept austin;

The term "propitiation", like "sacrifice", "offering", "heavens", "dirt", "cup", "man", etc. is a word.

Words have meanings. Part of the problem people have is they ignore that words have meanings - that these words were not invented by Scripture but were preexisting.

You have a bad habit of allowing your "theology" to interpret Scripture and define words. It is impossible to discern the truth of Scrioture so handicapped.

 

[Iconoclast]

The term "propitiation", like "sacrifice", "offering", "heavens", "dirt", "cup", "man", etc. is a word.

Words have meanings. Part of the problem people have is they ignore that words have meanings - that these words were not invented by Scripture but were preexisting.

You have a bad habit of allowing your "theology" to interpret Scripture and define words. It is impossible to discern the truth of Scrioture so handicapped.

Words are defined by their biblical usage.
When the Holy Spirit uses them in a clear way in scripture,that trumps any secular idea.
My theology is just fine as I could have added a dozen more theologians to the examples I offered who share the view I put forth.
You seem to read dark motives into my posts.
That these truths elude you is something for you to work on.
Perhaps if you read some commentaries, and word study books it might remove obstacles that have blocked your path.
Others agree with my posts. Again I do not think you are able to follow the train of thought here.
Perhaps someone else can help you sort this out.
Read over Biblicists posts again, as he offered post after post of helpful verses. Write out, or print out his posts and list each verse and it will have a positive influence .
I have offered what I can ,but at this time you do not welcome these truths.
No Calvinist that I know of expresses the ideas you offer. You evidently are a "calvinist" of a "different kind liking almost every anti Calvinist post offered.
Maybe another like minded person will come forward and help you. I do not know of any who view you as a Calvinist at all. That is not here not there however. I am just trying to solve this puzzle.
Thanks for your responses on this matter.

 

[JonC]

Words are defined by their biblical usage.
When the Holy Spirit uses them in a clear way in scripture,that trumps any secular idea.
My theology is just fine as I could have added a dozen more theologians to the examples I offered who share the view I put forth.

The problem with that idea (that words are REDEFINED by the Holy Spirit's use) is that it ignores the original audience alltogether.

It is the definition of biblical illiteracy. One's theology says something so they define words based on what their theology teaches them Scripture is speaking of. It is eisegesis, period.

If your theology disagrees with Scripture then redefine your theology NOT Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

That's just plain stupid (the statement, not you) - no one is denying the substutionary nature of the Atonement. No one is denying the unsaved will die in their sins.

Wait a minute, was there not a whole thread a while back where you were arguing against Substitutionary Atonement?

 

[JonC]

@1689Dave ,

How one views the issue depends on the philosophy employed. Both views existed for a long time within Calvinism and it is fair to say the view Christ was the propitiation for all sin without exception was there from the beginning of Calvinism as this was John Calvin's position. Both views may have been there (which may explain why Calvin felt it necessary to add "without exception").

It depends on "logical order" (which is not the order of decrees but the order we consider these decrees).

If I believe that God chose a people out of fallen man, then there is no issue with Christ as the propitiation for all human sin (both your view and my view can fit here). If, however, I believe that Creation is post-election (in order) logic would dictate your position without room for mine.