• 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!

Propitiation do you know what it means?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
This thread is interesting because I have noticed that the idea of penal substitution and propitiation is held in high esteem by Calvinist and Fundamentalist Christians alike. So when I hear that the concept is under attack recently I start asking why? And sure enough:

"Again, champions of Christus Victor often define the work of the cross as a nonviolent protest against social or institutional evils such as nationalism, militarism, or racism. The cross is understood not as a work of the love or grace of God but rather of the powers of evil that God overcomes".
Christus Victor: The Salvation of God and the Cross of Christ - Fuller Studio

If you haven't seen the other thread about the Christus Victor theory of atonement this may be confusing but what I suspected all along was that, if penal substitution is under attack recently, and from areas that are not known to be theologically precise then you can bet that the real reason will be politics."
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Their rejection of the ideas of Penal Substitution Theory is not something which should sway us.

is makes them UNBIBLICAL on this Fundamental Doctrine. The Penal Substituation Atonement of Jesus Christ, is most certainly not a "theory", as some wrongly assume, but Biblical FACT.

Those who reject or deny this, and against the Bible.
 

ntchristian

Active Member
I need to correct the first two verses which should be :

Romans 3:25
Hebrews 2:17

These are the four times this word is placed in the NT and of the four there are two variations.

In passages Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 10:17 it is used in the sense of the Mercy Seat in the OT Temple and it means to cover or conceal. But the mercy seat is not the object of this word but what happened to the mercy seat. The blood of the sacrifice for sin was placed on the mercy seat thus cleansing the place for God's presence. Atonement was made and God's judgement or wrath was appeased reconciling man to God. This of course is a picture of Jesus and His work on the cross. the very death of the Goat and the Bull and its blood spread on the Mercy Seat cannot be seen as anything other than appeasement of wrath.

The Passover itself can only be understood as appeasement of God's wrath.

Exo 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.

Even still looking at OT passages such as:

To the choirmaster: according to Shushan Eduth. A Miktam of David; for instruction; when he strove with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah, and when Joab on his return struck down twelve thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt. O God, you have rejected us, broken our defenses; you have been angry; oh, restore us.
You have made the land to quake; you have torn it open; repair its breaches, for it totters.
You have made your people see hard things; you have given us wine to drink that made us stagger.

Psalm 60:1-3

Now I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you, and judge you according to your ways, and I will punish you for all your abominations.
And my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. I will punish you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst. Then you will know that I am the LORD, who strikes.

Ezekiel 7:8-9

Behold, the name of the LORD comes from afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of fury, and his tongue is like a devouring fire; His breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck; to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray.
You shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept, and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.
And the LORD will cause his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devouring fire, with a cloudburst and storm and hailstones.

Isaiah 30:27-30

The very brutal beating and the way in which Jesus died should be clear evidence of the nature of sin and just how wrathful God is in dealing with it. To argue against the wrath of God being laid on Jesus is to downplay the nature of sin and how God both sees and responds to it. Such an attitude allows sinners to come to the cross standing upright rather than falling prostrate unable to bear the weight of their sin. Further it misrepresents the character of God.

In the passages of 1 John 4:10 and 1 John 2:2

This is a similar but different use of the word but the meaning is still the same. Albert Barnes puts it this way:

"The proper meaning of the word is that of reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favorable. The idea is, that there is anger or wrath, or that something has been done to offend, and that it is needful to turn away that wrath, or to appease."

Nelsons dictionary defines propitiation as "appeasement".

Further, expiate is not synonymous with propitiation they are, in fact, two very different words. According the Leon Morris in his book "Atonement" he states very clearly that propitiation means "turning away of anger" and expiate means "making amends of a wrong". Replacing one with the other changes not only the tone of the passage but its clear intent and meaning. The followers of Zane Hodges like to do this.

Folks this topic is a Hill on which to die. The downplaying of the satisfaction of God's wrath is an evil of our day and should have no place in orthodox Christianity.

"Satisfaction of God's wrath" was a concept unknown until Anselm. I wonder how it feels for a Baptist to share so much with Romanism.
 

ntchristian

Active Member
This thread is interesting because I have noticed that the idea of penal substitution and propitiation is held in high esteem by Calvinist and Fundamentalist Christians alike. So when I hear that the concept is under attack recently I start asking why? And sure enough:

"Again, champions of Christus Victor often define the work of the cross as a nonviolent protest against social or institutional evils such as nationalism, militarism, or racism. The cross is understood not as a work of the love or grace of God but rather of the powers of evil that God overcomes".
Christus Victor: The Salvation of God and the Cross of Christ - Fuller Studio

If you haven't seen the other thread about the Christus Victor theory of atonement this may be confusing but what I suspected all along was that, if penal substitution is under attack recently, and from areas that are not known to be theologically precise then you can bet that the real reason will be politics."

So, is it politics that the EOC has held to Christus Victor from its beginning until today?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
is makes them UNBIBLICAL on this Fundamental Doctrine. The Penal Substituation Atonement of Jesus Christ, is most certainly not a "theory", as some wrongly assume, but Biblical FACT.

Those who reject or deny this, and against the Bible.
Not really. The early church (and Christianity prior to the Reformation) was biblical. I suspect the Apostolic Church was as well.

What makes doctrine biblical is an adherence to Scripture, not specific interpretations or theories.

As Penal Substitution Theory is a systematic doctrine and not present in God's Word (in "what is written") it is unbiblical to hold others to that standard.
 

ntchristian

Active Member
is makes them UNBIBLICAL on this Fundamental Doctrine. The Penal Substituation Atonement of Jesus Christ, is most certainly not a "theory", as some wrongly assume, but Biblical FACT.

Those who reject or deny this, and against the Bible.

The NT, early church, church of the first millennium, and EOC, as well as many Anabaptists, would disagree. PSA is an invention of legalist Reformers -- it is a product of its times. It has nothing to do with original Christianity.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Not really. The early church (and Christianity prior to the Reformation) was biblical. I suspect the Apostolic Church was as well.

What makes doctrine biblical is an adherence to Scripture, not specific interpretations or theories.

As Penal Substitution Theory is a systematic doctrine and not present in God's Word (in "what is written") it is unbiblical to hold others to that standard.
Its much more biblical then Christ is Victor or Moral govt views!
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
"Satisfaction of God's wrath" was a concept unknown until Anselm. I wonder how it feels for a Baptist to share so much with Romanism.

This is a false argument.
Historical Reflections on Substitutionary Atonement - Fuller Studio

As to the sharing so much with Romanism. Of course we share quite a bit. Some of the earliest and most basic confessions are shared. The idea that love and good works must follow saving faith is shared except Romanists mix it into justification. Years ago I stumbled across some writing on the Trinity by then Cardinal Ratzinger and thought it was pretty good. I have Thomas Kempis "The Imitation of Christ" and love it. I watch "Father Brown" mysteries, like the priest in "Les Miserables" and of course the fly fishing priest in "The Quiet Man". It took Martin Luther over a year after posting the 95 theses to finally leave the Roman church. I'm willing to be patient with you too.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I suspected all along was that, if penal substitution is under attack recently, and from areas that are not known to be theologically precise then you can bet that the real reason will be politics."

So, is it politics that the EOC has held to Christus Victor from its beginning until today?

Notice I said "recently". We live in a day when few people bother to be theologically precise. So when I start hearing that there is a sudden popular interest in an old theory I think there will be an alternative reason - an it is usually political. By the way, JonC is theologically precise and I do not in any way want to infer that he has anything else in view but theological accuracy. But the original article I linked shows that politics is a reason for the "RECENT" attacks on PSA. Just think, if you can wipe out Calvinism and Fundamentalism you can take over the infrastructure of the denominations and have a very effective political force. I have watched the T4G conferences, and the Gospel Coalition moving quickly to peel off conservatives from "acceptable" Christianity.
 

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
The early church (and Christianity prior to the Reformation) was biblical

Some in the early church taught the Ransom Theory of the Atonement as fact, that Jesus Christ paid a "ransom" to the devil for the lost souls of sinners! This is completely against what the Bible Teaches.

Some in the early church, also accepted some of the "Apocryphal" books Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and actually used them for their doctrines!

HOW can you say that there were "biblical"?
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The NT, early church, church of the first millennium, and EOC, as well as many Anabaptists, would disagree. PSA is an invention of legalist Reformers -- it is a product of its times. It has nothing to do with original Christianity.

This is baloney as has been explained. But two comments. For a Roman Catholic to bring up Eastern Orthodoxy is rich since they excommunicated each other years ago. But more importantly, Anabaptists should not be connected with modern day Baptists. We are far apart in doctrine and any direct influence of actual Anabaptists on modern day Baptists is hard to prove.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Some in the early church taught the Ransom Theory of the Atonement as fact, that Jesus Christ paid a "ransom" to the devil for the lost souls of sinners! This is completely against what the Bible Teaches.

Some in the early church, also accepted some of the "Apocryphal" books Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and actually used them for their doctrines!

HOW can you say that there were "biblical"?
Heresy had crept in early on even among some Ecf!
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Satisfaction of God's wrath" was a concept unknown until Anselm. I wonder how it feels for a Baptist to share so much with Romanism.

Just stop, dont be a key board warrior. If you cannot disagree without that petty attitude dont engage me.
 

ntchristian

Active Member
Just stop, dont be a key board warrior. If you cannot disagree without that petty attitude dont engage me.

Amazing how many Protestants don't seem to realize what they share with Roman Catholicism. The Reformation didn't reform the RC view of atonement, just took it, expanded it, and made it worse. One thing I will not engage you on is your personal attacks. I guess it's just part of your character that you can't help. However, I know that both of us are still on our way to total sanctification, neither of us having arrived yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top