Opening up this statement of belief

[atpollard]

God set forth Jesus as a Propitiation. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It pleased God to crush Him, He died by the means of the wicked, but this was God's predetermined plan.

While the verbiage is Biblical, as a native English reader with no formal theology education, it holds the exact same ambiguity as the scripture verse quoted.

Of what value is meaningless TRUTH?

He (Jesus)
is the Propitiation (object that turns aside wrath and reconciles)
for the sins (actions contrary to the character of God)
of the whole world. (“World” has a multitude of meanings … )

So is Jesus the object that reconciles to God the contrary actions of …
… the planet on which we dwell (most common definition of world)
… every person that has ever existed (“That’s universalism, Patrick.” -Lutheran Satire reference)
… the system that sets itself up in opposition to God (a common Biblical use of world, but a strange meaning here)
… is there another meaning of world???

Was the purpose of a statement of faith not to increase clarity?

 

[atpollard]

I am wondering how God the Father could possibly forsake God the Son without being separated from Him? Thee bible teaches us that on the cross, Jesus was bearing the sins of His people. Surely that is why Gd the Father, Who is perfectly holy, separated Himself from His sin-bearing, though sinless, Son.

Layman question (this TRINITY thinking gives me a headache): Was not God the Son also “perfectly Holy”? He cannot be separated from himself (Hypostatic Union stuff). [now I need an aspirin]

 

[JonC]

I am wondering how God the Father could possibly forsake God the Son without being separated from Him?

God the Father could forsake the Son to suffer and die on the cross.


A good example of this is seen in Psalm 22 which starts with the Servant crying out out "why have you forsaken me?: The next part is the Servant trusting in God's faithfulness, that God will never abandon Him. As the Psalm progresses we see that God is there, and although the Servant suffers God will deliver Him.

But the Servant is forsaken to suffer and die. Evil surrounds Him. They pierce His hands and feet. They divide His garments. But God remains with Him, and has not hidden His face from Him. God delivers Him not from death but through death. And they will declare His righteousness.


That is one example of how Jesus could be forsaken to suffer and die without God leaving Him.

Many (I am one) believe that Psalm 22 foreshadowed the Cross (it foretold the Cross). We bueve that Suffering Servant is Chriat. So we do not, obviously, believe God separated from Christ.

But if you do not believe Psalm 22 is about Jesus at least it demonstrates how One could be forsaken to suffer and die without God separating from that person.



Another example is in common language. If a husband withholds financial support for a wife reliant on that support she is considered forsaken by her husband even though her husband has not separated from her.

If a doctor withholds medical aid he forsakes the patient even if never leaving the patients bedside.

Why on earth would you believe God separated from God? That denies so many passages in God's Word (at least for that moment).

 

[Van]

While the verbiage is Biblical, as a native English reader with no formal theology education, it holds the exact same ambiguity as the scripture verse quoted.

Of what value is meaningless TRUTH?

He (Jesus)
is the Propitiation (object that turns aside wrath and reconciles)
for the sins (actions contrary to the character of God)
of the whole world. (“World” has a multitude of meanings … )

So is Jesus the object that reconciles to God the contrary actions of …
… the planet on which we dwell (most common definition of world)
… every person that has ever existed (“That’s universalism, Patrick.” -Lutheran Satire reference)
… the system that sets itself up in opposition to God (a common Biblical use of world, but a strange meaning here)
… is there another meaning of world???

Was the purpose of a statement of faith not to increase clarity?

No need to claim the the meaning of the Greek word translated "world" by many versions, might mean something other than humanity. Rocks, trees, mountains do not sin.

Does becoming the means of reconciliation necessarily mean He reconciles every individual of humanity? No, of course not, so the concept does not say nor suggest universalism.

Yes, sometimes the Greek word translated "world" is used to refer to the fallen value system of humanity, but not in this verse. (1 John 2:2)

The effort to hide the meaning of the word, why some say it has more than a half dozen meanings, is to obscure the meaning of the whole of humanity, to support the false doctrine Jesus became the means of reconciliation only for those foreseen individuals supposedly chosen before creation, a mistaken viewpoint.

 

[JonC]

While the verbiage is Biblical, as a native English reader with no formal theology education, it holds the exact same ambiguity as the scripture verse quoted.

Of what value is meaningless TRUTH?

He (Jesus)
is the Propitiation (object that turns aside wrath and reconciles)
for the sins (actions contrary to the character of God)
of the whole world. (“World” has a multitude of meanings … )

So is Jesus the object that reconciles to God the contrary actions of …
… the planet on which we dwell (most common definition of world)
… every person that has ever existed (“That’s universalism, Patrick.” -Lutheran Satire reference)
… the system that sets itself up in opposition to God (a common Biblical use of world, but a strange meaning here)
… is there another meaning of world???

Was the purpose of a statement of faith not to increase clarity?

The statement (God's word" does not need to be increased in clarity. God's Word needs to be understood, perhaps in light of other passages, and accepted.

In the actual passages the word "Propitiation" is a noun. Nobody is automatically reconciled to God because Christ exists. He IS the propitiation for the sins for the whole World.

Another passage makes this even more clear for those still confused. On the criss God was reconciling mankind to Himself, not counting sins against them therefore we urge men to be reconciled to God.

The only time Jesus is presented (in the Bible) as offering propitiation to God is as a High Priest interceding on behalf of Christians when they sin. The other three instances speak of Christ as the Propitiation (as the One in Whom we escape the wrath to come).

I believe that Scripture itself takes care of any ambiguity. Now, people will dusagree on interpretation, but it will be on interpretation of God's words.

For examole, in the passage here (1 Jn 2:2), many think the word should be "expiation" (Christ as the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world). Others think it should be "propitiation" (Christ as the One in Whom we escape the wrath to come). Others (like FF Bruce) think it should be "atoning sacrifuce" (Chrisr as the Lamb who takes away sin and rhe One in Whom we escape the wrath to come).


All three are legitimate interpretations. I do not know which John had in mind, but it does not change the actual passage.


But there are also illegitimate interpretations (eisegesis) that read into the text. These may change the nown to a verb, or add philosophical ideas to the text.

In the Bible we escape the wrath to come, we are forgiven of our sins, when we repent and believe, have a new heart and mind, are made new creations in Christ, are refined as gold and silver is refined, die to the flesh and are made alive in Christ, are born of the Spirit, and ultimately are conformed into the image of Christ.


The reason people look to God punishing Jesus instead of us to forgive us is they hold on to a defunct judicial philosophy which today only survives in a few religious sects. They view justice as demanding every crime be punished. And they apply this failed philosophy to divine justice, ignoring that justice was satisfied in Christ apart from the law (the "old man" ultimately dies and we are in the image of Christ while the wicked will perish).

 

[atpollard]

The statement (God's word" does not need to be increased in clarity. God's Word needs to be understood and accepted.

It is difficult to accept in any meaningful way what cannot be understood.

“He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.”

Here are the definitions for “world” (Is Jesus the propitiation for every meaning of “world”?)

1a: the earthly state of human existence
1b: life after death —used with a qualifier
(the next world)

2: the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it

3: individual course of life : CAREER

4: the inhabitants of the earth : the human race

5a: the concerns of the earth and its affairs as distinguished from heaven and the life to come
5b: secular affairs

6: the system of created things : UNIVERSE

7a: a division or generation of the inhabitants of the earth distinguished by living together at the same place or at the same time
(the medieval world)

7b: a distinctive class of persons or their sphere of interest or activity
(the academic world)
(the digital world)

8: human society
(withdraw from the world)

9: a part or section of the earth that is a separate independent unit

10: the sphere or scene of one's life and action
(living in your own little world)

11: an indefinite multitude or a great quantity or distance
(makes a world of difference)
(a world away)

12: the whole body of living persons : PUBLIC
(announced their discovery to the world)

13: KINGDOM sense 4
(the animal world)

14: a celestial body (such as a planet)

 

[Van]

I see a post offering, apparently, an English dictionary list of meanings for the English word "world." Everyone should know we do not read back into the original language words, the meanings of the English words used to translate them.

What translators strive to do is find the original language word meaning, based on the word's range of meanings in contemporary texts, indicated the context of the text being translated.

In other words, the exact opposite of the premise of the post listing English usages.

How is the Greek word translated "world" in 1 John 2:2 used in New Testament scripture? The NASB translates the Greek Genitive singular masculine noun as "world" about 72 times. The Apostle John uses "Kosmos" G2339 in the N-GSM form about 24 times, with five of those being in 1 John.

Let us look at those 5 usages and see how John used the Greek work "Kosmos" in the same grammatical form as in 1 John 2:2.

1 John 2:2 NASB as footnoted and scrubbed of italic additions.
and He Himself is the means of reconciliation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

Since only cognizant beings sin, humanity, the whole human race, item 4 of post #26, is the obvious meaning.

1 John 2:16 NASB
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

Here the human characteristics of fallen humanity are in view, thus humanity, item #4 is in view.

1 John 3:17 NASB95
But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart]against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Here, those born anew are to share the goods "of humanity" with others.

1 John 4:5 NASB
They are from the world, therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.

Here, again, the word is used to refer to fallen humanity, and they speak reflecting humanity's fallen value system, and those of fallen humanity listen to their fallen viewpoints.

1 John 4:14 NASB scrubbed of italic additions
We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son, the Savior of the world.

Here, again, John uses Kosmos to refer to fallen humanity. And note that the verb "sent" is not a completed action, but a past action with ongoing affect. God is still reconciling humanity, one sinner at a time to Himself.

In summary, the truth some seem to be obfuscating, is 1 John 2:2, and He Himself is the means of reconciliation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole of humanity and not just a subset. But being the means does not mean everyone has received the reconciliation, that is why we have the ministry of reconciliation, begging the lost to be reconciled to God.

 

[Bow Wow]

I am wondering how God the Father could possibly forsake God the Son without being separated from Him? Thee bible teaches us that on the cross, Jesus was bearing the sins of His people. Surely that is why Gd the Father, Who is perfectly holy, separated Himself from His sin-bearing, though sinless, Son.

I don't know how one can forsake the other. I don't know how God separated himself from Jesus since we are told they are the same person.

I'm not so sure our understanding of God will ever be agreed upon. Different Baptist Churches - same thing. Some are Calvinist, some are literal 6 day. Some are Preterist. Some are pre-trib and some post.

 

[KenH]

I don't know how God separated himself from Jesus since we are told they are the same person.

There is one God who subsists in three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonC]

I don't know how one can forsake the other. I don't know how God separated himself from Jesus since we are told they are the same person.

If the Old Testament is right, God did not seperate from Jesus so I wouldn't worry about such claims making sense.

 

[JesusFan]

If the Old Testament is right, God did not seperate from Jesus so I wouldn't worry about such claims making sense.

That is the mystery and Paradox, as Jesus before the Father had to be treated as if was literally sin incarnated, yet all of time stayed sinless and Holy

 

[JonC]

EVERYING address to you by me is in the bible, and if you just want to call that all philosophy, will end up with a deficient theology

No, I certainly would not call what is in the Bible "philosophy".

What I mean by "philosophy" is how people reason out ("philosophy") to arrive at what they believe is being taught.

A theory is what people arrive at then their conclusion is not in the biblical text. A theory is subjective. The biblical text is not.

Obviously nothing that you have posted, and very little of what you ever post, is in the Bible.

IF your faith were actually in the Bible then you would be able to quote God's words without having to say what you really think it teaches.

 

[JonC]

That is the mystery and Paradox, as Jesus before the Father had to be treated as if was literally sin incarnated, yet all of time stayed sinless and Holy

It is not a paradox. Psalm 22 is a prophesy of the Cross.

 

[JesusFan]

It is not a paradox. Psalm 22 is a prophesy of the Cross.

It is beyond our minds to fully understand how one as the sin bearer can become sin for us, to be treated by Holy God the Father as Chief sinner, and yet still remain sinless Himself

 

[JesusFan]

No, I certainly would not call what is in the Bible "philosophy".

What I mean by "philosophy" is how people reason out ("philosophy") to arrive at what they believe is being taught.

A theory is what people arrive at then their conclusion is not in the biblical text. A theory is subjective. The biblical text is not.

Obviously nothing that you have posted, and very little of what you ever post, is in the Bible.

IF your faith were actually in the Bible then you would be able to quote God's words without having to say what you really think it teaches.

Have w
quoted to you and fellow posters several times scriptures, yet keep being said to be not truth of the word, just philosophy

 

[JonC]

It is beyond our minds to fully understand how one as the sin bearer can become sin for us, to be treated by Holy God the Father as Chief sinner, and yet still remain sinless Himself

Only when one goes from Scripture into theory. The reason is not that it is beyond our minds but that the theory is wrong.

For example, Christ being made sin is understandable if one allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.

This does not work for the rest of your post because it is not in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Have w
quoted to you and fellow posters several times scriptures, yet keep being said to be not truth of the word, just philosophy

No. I agree with the passages quoted.

When you post your understanding about what you think the Bible teaches but say that is what the Bible says then you are guilty of making false accusations against God.

We have to be more respectful of God and more careful with His words than you are allowing.

 

[JonC]

@JesusFan

So we keep on track I will again post what you consider to be a new belief akin to the theology of NT Wright (and what @Zaatar71 called foolishness).

What I want you to do is provide the parts you find so unbiblical (just reply with the copied parts) so that I can explain how I got to the belief from God's Word.

Here is what I have told you I believe:

God created Adam from the dust, planted a Garden and placed Adam there. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil . God told Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit he would die. Adam transgressed God’s command and his eyes were opened. God told Adam that because of his transgression he would work the land (the land was cursed) until he died, for he was dust and to dust he would return. God told the Serpent that he would put enmity between him and the woman, and between their offspring, that He would crush its head and he would strike His heel.

Adam had become like God, knowing good and evil. So that he would not take from the Tree of Life and live forever, God cast Adam out of the Garden, back to the place from which he was created.
Through Adam’s sin death entered the world and spread to all man, for all have sinned. Sin was in the world before God gave the Law, but sin was not charged against people as a transgression as they did not break a command. Nevertheless, death reigned even where there was no law because of sin.

Just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man, Christ, the many will be made righteous.

The wages of sin is death, for sin produces death. Death spread to all because all have sinned. It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. I believe that God became man (truly man) like us but without sin. He bore our sins bodily on the cross. God became one of us so that we would become like Him and share in His glory.

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus. Jesus bore our sins bodily, He died for our sins, He was made sin for us. Men esteemed Him as stricken by God but it is by His stripes we were healed.

God set forth Jesus as a Propitiation. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It pleased God to crush Him, He died by the means of the wicked, but this was God's predetermined plan.

Christ became a life giving Spirit. Although we die so shall we live. God recreates us in Chriat and conformed us into the image of Christ. In Christ there is no condemnation and we escape the wrath to come.