Propitiation

[JonC]

None of the six other usages of kosmos in 1 John 2 means 'people.'
1 John 2:15-17. 'Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not from the Father, but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.'
The use of kosmos in these verses rather clearly does not refer to human beings. It refers to the world as it lies under Satan, as in Bunyan's Vanity Fair.


I have repeatedly said that 'propitiation is a noun. It really would help if you read my posts before replying to them.

Amen!

All of them do. It is people who has lustful eyes, pride, etc. These qualities do not exist except in people.

You say "Propitiation" is a noun but treat it as if it were a verb (otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion that Jesus being the Propitiation for all human sin equates to all people's sins being propitiated).

Do you understand what a noun is as opposed to a verb?

If the verse said "He propitiates for our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world" then your conclusion would be correct.

BUT the verse does not say that. Jesus IS the Propitiation for all sin. He IS the Way (the ONLY Way).

And, this Propitiation is set forth - not applied. It must be received by faith. Christ actively propitiates for believers.


This may help. Think of the Levitical system.

The atoning sacrifice was made avaliable. The blood was shed (the sacrifice was offered). That blood was for forgiveness. But it was not until the blood was applied to the altar that atonement was made.

The existence of the atoning sacrifice (the shedding of blood) was not "making atonement for the sins of the people".

The blood shed (noun) was taken into the Tabernacle where the priest "made atonement (verb) for the sins of the people".

If the Isralites stopped at the offering (the shedfing of blood; the atoning sacrifice) no atonement would have been made. Had they not offered the sacrifice (shedding of blood) the priest would not have been able to take the blood into the Tabernacle to "make atonement".


You just have your grammar mixed up.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinism has misunderstood the word of God and missed the truths of God.

Some are comfortable with trusting a man made view but I would rather go with the biblical view.

What we need to do is start with God's Word and be careful not to leave His words. The biblical text IS the doctrine we need to hold.

First of all, I apologize if I am guilty of this too but I wish we could stop ending nearly every post with a gratuitous insult against Calvinism along with an extremely arrogant assertion that you of course are superior to all those poor misinformed souls of the past. (Except, apparently, the distant past, prior to the middle ages.) As far as I know the only really nasty thing I say is that anyone who fights against and actually condemns penal substitution is probably not a Christian - which I stand by. (And I do not include those who did not write about it or recognize or understand it - only those who, with full knowledge and understanding, would ridicule and oppose it.)

You say "Propitiation" is a noun but treat it as if it were a verb (otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion that Jesus being the Propitiation for all human sin equates to all people's sins being propitiated).

Yes. That is because it is a noun that describes an action (a verb). I can go to a "run", an actual event that happens in time but I cannot escape the fact that only those who ran participated in "the run" and had anything to do with the reality of the event. I think we are all saying the same thing in the case of propitiation and the way Jon and Silverhair are describing it does not bother me as a practical explanation.

BUT the verse does not say that. Jesus IS the Propitiation for all sin. He IS the Way (the ONLY Way).

And, this Propitiation is set forth - not applied. It must be received by faith. Christ actively propitiates for believers.

Since it happened at a point in time and we are humans who came later I admit that the simplest explanation is indeed that it is a thing available that we can draw on so to speak, by faith. And while I think it's true that 1John is specifically addressed to believers who might sin and the extension, in context, then would be to believers all over the world, since Jon and Silverhair also believe that this would be for believers all over the world as to application - are we not saying the same thing?

This may help. Think of the Levitical system.

The atoning sacrifice was made avaliable. The blood was shed (the sacrifice was offered). That blood was for forgiveness. But it was not until the blood was applied to the altar that atonement was made.

The existence of the atoning sacrifice (the shedding of blood) was not "making atonement for the sins of the people".

Once again, I have no problem with that except I noticed you do that also to try to split up the "atonement" into logical steps in order to deny penal substitution in other places. Just because something is complicated enough that it requires more than one sentence of thought for it to have meaning - that does not mean the concept can be separated completely. In other words, in the atonement, the fact that the blood had to be applied does not mean that the necessity of the death of the sacrifice (along with all the meaning attached to a bloody, violent death) is null and void. In the definition of atonement, and in the definition of propitiation for that matter, there is an irreducible complexity that causes the words to lose their meaning if split too far. So having said this about atonement, I would say that the same occurs with propitiation in that there will be no one who is finally lost who at the same time God is fully propitiated towards, in spite of how we might want to dissect meanings and classify nouns and verbs.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is a mistake. "Propitiation" is a noun. Nobody's sins were propitiated on the Cross (God set forth His Son AS A Propitiation through His blood to be recieved by faith).

If I have the only cure for all human cancer which must be given as an injection this does not mean that everybody is cured from cancer. Only those who recieve the cure are cured. But this does not change the nature of the cure itself.

Christ is the Propitiation for all sin. There is no other. He is the Way. There is no other way.

But to say one's sins are propitiated the Propitiation must be received by faith.

As usual, you are adding to the Scriptures. Moreover, you do not appear to understand what a propitiation (noun) is. We are the offending party (sinners) We do not need to be propitiated (verb); God does. It is God who set Christ forth as a propitiation (noun) - not to propitiate (verb) us, but to satisfy His own justice - to propitiate Himself, and because He set Him forth, we know that God is propitiated (verb).
Nor do our sins need to be 'propitiated' (verb). Our sins are doing just fine. It is God who must be propitiated (verb) in respect of them or we are in deep trouble. In fact the word 'faith' [Gk. pistis] appears only once in 1 John (5:4). The main subject of the letter is the Christian walk, and the context of 2:1-2 is how sinning Christians are made right with God.

All of them do. It is people who has lustful eyes, pride, etc. These qualities do not exist except in people.

Please @JonC, think for a moment. Doesn't our Lord tell us to love our neighbour? How can we do that if we are not to love the people in the world? 1 John 2:15-17 is not referring to people, but the world as it exists under Satan.

You say "Propitiation" is a noun but treat it as if it were a verb (otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion that Jesus being the Propitiation for all human sin equates to all people's sins being propitiated).

Again, people's sins do not need to be appeased or propitiated. It is God who needs to be propitiated.

Do you understand what a noun is as opposed to a verb?

Better than you, I think.

If the verse said "He propitiates for our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world" then your conclusion would be correct.

If He said that it would be gobbledegook (He didn't say it).

BUT the verse does not say that. Jesus IS the Propitiation for all sin. He IS the Way (the ONLY Way).

No! No! No! Jesus does not propitiate sins! He takes them away (John 1:29). He propitiates the Father in respect of His people's sins.

And, this Propitiation is set forth - not applied. It must be received by faith. Christ actively propitiates for believers.

What does this even mean? Do you think that sometimes God is propitiated by the cross and sometimes He isn't

This may help. Think of the Levitical system.

The atoning sacrifice was made avaliable. The blood was shed (the sacrifice was offered). That blood was for forgiveness. But it was not until the blood was applied to the altar that atonement was made.

The existence of the atoning sacrifice (the shedding of blood) was not "making atonement for the sins of the people".

The blood shed (noun) was taken into the Tabernacle where the priest "made atonement (verb) for the sins of the people".

If the Isralites stopped at the offering (the shedfing of blood; the atoning sacrifice) no atonement would have been made. Had they not offered the sacrifice (shedding of blood) the priest would not have been able to take the blood into the Tabernacle to "make atonement".

Just a word on this: the Levitical sacrifices are finished; They exist only as types and shadows. But who is the offerer under the Levitical system? Who is the priest? Who is the offering? Christ, Christ and Christ. He has done everything necessary to redeem us and propitiate God. I posted on this a while back, and I don't have time to go through it all again. Read Hebrews 9 & 10 where it is all explained.

You just have your grammar mixed up.

Yeah, right. One of us does, but I'm afraid it's you. If it was just your grammar (and spelling) it wouldn't be so bad, but your theology is in an even worse state.


I will leave it there. I still have a ton of stuff to do with two sermons to prepare for next Lord's day.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would say that the same occurs with propitiation in that there will be no one who is finally lost who at the same time God is fully propitiated towards, in spite of how we might want to dissect meanings and classify nouns and verbs.

Yep!

 

[JonC]

First of all, I apologize if I am guilty of this too but I wish we could stop ...

It would be better, Dave.

To be honest, it has been a long time since I entertained the possibility that you or Martin were actually interested in legitimate discussions. That may be wrong of me as people change.

You and @Martin Marprelate have constantly belittled "Christus Victor" and the few members on this forum that hold it. You treat it as a condiment (not as the Ransom view itself), constantly saying it is new, was never really held (individualistic interpretation), etc. I took your posts as defending a camp at all costs.

If you are sincere then apology accepted and I apologize for assuming your motives.

But if you are sincere then we pretty much need to begin anew and discuss the topic biblically to explore where one another differs using the same standard - Scripture (not the Early Church writings, not the Anabaptists, not the Puritians...but God's Word).

That would be nice as it is why I joined this board a couple of decades ago. But those decades have taught me it can not happen here. We could try again, I suppose.

 

[JonC]

As usual, you are adding to the Scriptures. Moreover, you do not appear to understand what a propitiation (noun) is. We are the offending party (sinners) We do not need to be propitiated (verb); God does. It is God who set Christ forth as a propitiation (noun) - not to propitiate (verb) us, but to satisfy His own justice - to propitiate Himself, and because He set Him forth, we know that God is propitiated (verb).

The problem is the word "propitiation" does not mean to satisfy justice. Here you are reading into Scripture. Christ being set forth (verb) as a Propitiation through His blood does not mean that the wrath towards us is "turned aside" as this Propitiation must be received by faith.

Wrath towards us is "turned aside" (propitiated) at the point that this Propitiation (Christ) is "received by faith" as it is "in Him that we escape the wrath to come".

You are reading into the text, and shortcutting Scripture to arrive at your philosophy.

I agree that the Law no longer applies to men. It is finished. BUT the author of Hebrews uses the Law to explain the Atonement because the Law was a witness of the New Covenant.

Under the Law the offering was presented, the blood of the sacrifice was shed, the propitiation was set forth. Then the high priest took that blood, entered the Tabernacle and "made atonement for the sins of the people".

Christ gave Himself as an offering. His blood was shed. Christ as our High Priest entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands. The blood is shed. The Propitiation is set forth. This Propitiation must be received by faith.

It is "in Christ" that "we escape the wrath to come".



The Propitiation is set forth.

 

[DaveXR650]

To be honest, it has been a long time since I entertained the possibility that you or Martin were actually interested in legitimate discussions. That may be wrong of me as people change.

Yeah see. You did it again. You just can't stop so no, there will be no possibility of legitimate discussion with you.

You and @Martin Marprelate have constantly belittled "Christus Victor" and the few members on this forum that hold it.

I believe Christus Victor and I have provided the citations where others like Owen, in their works believe it too. So not only have I not belittled it but I believe it is true. It is not true as THE explanation of the atoning work of Christ. I also believe Christ's work involves Recapitulation, but once again, not as the only or exclusive explanation of the atonement. I choose to take scriptures that can only be talking about penal substitution as they stand and I take similar writings of the ECF's that indicate penal substitution as they stand, without ignoring them. Owen spoke favorably of Anselm's work on satisfaction too. I even believe that Christ's obedience and submission to the Father acts as the supreme example for us to follow and I believe as everyone who believes in Christ's imputed active and passive righteousness - that his perfect life lived is indeed part of our salvation, like the Orthodox teach, except that it fits into the atonement differently. In other words, I'm not sure about others but I don't know if I have ever said that any of the other motifs or facets of the atoning work of Christ as expressed by these different groups as false or wrong. But I want to be clear, I also believe that no explanation of the atonement is complete without including penal substitution and let me be even more clear, penal substitution is at the core of the Atonement.

I think at this point I have enough of a comprehensive knowledge of what's being said to understand what is going on overall and let me just say that when I first got involved in these conversations I was only aware of the Socinian views and/or the modernist views as far as the methods being used to attack penal substitution. I did not know what the ECF's or the Orthodox were doing, or the Mennonite or Anabaptists, for that matter. At any rate, I don't really desire to discuss this anymore with you as I don't see much benefit as we go in circles. You also show a marked animosity for penal substitution as well as Calvinism yet you seem overly sensitive when you get it returned towards you. I'm sure you know that most Calvinism teaches that refusing penal substitution is damnable error. I try to see and understand how the Early Church would not emphasize it (even though I do see it in some of their writings) that aspect of the atonement. I take it that they were busy theologically with the deity of Christ, or not, and were under such persecution that loyalty and courage in staying with Christ seemed to be far more of a priority with them than say your personal relationship to God in relation to our own sin. And frankly, the ECF writings show a lot of error in other areas so I would not assume they knew everything either.

I do appreciate your attempt at explaining your views on that other current thread. It seemed clear enough to me, anyway, and related to the above discussion, should you come across any Early Church writings arguing against any of the concepts that later became penal substitution, please share the references. This would be important to me as I have stated earlier, I believe that there is a difference between actively attacking and refuting penal substitution and not writing about it. I am reading Anselm, and like Owen, am finding him impressive in his closeness to the principles of penal substitution although I do understand the differences.

But no, I don't see any use in continuing these circular arguments accompanied with insults and animosity.

 

[JonC]

As far as I know the only really nasty thing I say is that anyone who fights against and actually condemns penal substitution is probably not a Christian - which I stand by.

No, you have said many nasty things.

Your claim above is not that nasty (it is "another gospel", but I believe those who center their faith on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement are probably lost and will hear "I never knew you". So I do not mind you expressing your opinion as well.).

My point stating the fact that penal substitution did not ecist prior to the 16th century was not about the Middle Ages. It was more about encouraging people to learn how these theologies developed.

The reason is people, like you, accept the conclusions without evaluating how those conclusions came to be.

When I say PSA was a stark move towards heresy in minimizing sin and divine justice, the ultimate form of "easy believism", what am pointing out are the things you have not addressed.

You present punishment as satisfying the demands of divine justice. Why such a low view of God's righteousness? How does punishing a sin satisfy justice? Why does justice demand so little?

We have to discuss the philosophy you apply because that is what affects how you view God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Yeah see. You did it again. You just can't stop so no, there will be no possibility of legitimate discussion with you.

But so did you (in the very post you apologized).

For my part - until we agree otherwise I will continue as it may cause others to turn to Scripture.

Until you decide you want to turn back the clock and agree to an honest discussion this will remain on its current track.

I believe Christus Victor and I have provided the citations where others like Owen, in their works believe it too. So not only have I not belittled it but I believe it is true.

This is not true. But I am not sure you realize you insult others by your reductions.

Owen rejected Christus Victor (Owen taught that Christ suffered God's punishment against our sins, that Christ was a penal substitute).

To give you an example -

I believe that Christ bore our sins, died for our sins, that it pleased the Lord to crush Him, that He became a curse for us, that it is by His stripes we are healed.

It would be dishonest of me to say this means I believe PSA because that theory is more than those truths. I absolutely reject that Christ died as a penal substitute.

You claim that you and Owen believe that Christ was a penal substitute (you affirm PSA) but also that you reject that Christ was a penal substitute as you also hold Christus Victor.


What you do is take aspects you agree with in Christus Victor but not Christus Victor itself.

I also believe Christ's work involves Recapitulation, but once again, not as the only or exclusive explanation of the atonement.

This is interesting. It is rare to find a Baptist who believes Recapitulation. I disagree with you here. I do not believe that Christ came to undo Adam's disobedience. Instead I view Christ as bring in a New Covenant.

I do agree with Irenaeus about the nature of Christ as our substitute (as opposed to penal substitution). But this is common with all views prior to Aquinas.

.I even believe that Christ's obedience and submission to the Father acts as the supreme example for us to follow

@DaveXR650

You do not get it.

Believing Christ was victorious over Satsn is NOT Christus Victor. Believing Christ set a moral example is NOT Moral Influence Theory. Believing Christ brought honor to God is NOT Substitution Theory. Believing Christ brought in the Kingdom is NOT Governmental Theory. Believing Christ bore our sins is NOT Penal Substitution
Theory.


If you drive a Honda accord you cannot say you fly an aeroplane because they both move people.

You are taking adpects of positions, pretending those positions are the aspects you like, and claiming to hold all of these contradictory views.

One CAN hold PSA and aspects of Christus Victor. One CAN hold Christus Victor and aspects of PSA. One CANNOT hold PSA and Christus Victor.

I think at this point I have enough of a comprehensive knowledge of what's being said to understand what is going on overall and let me just say that when I first got involved in these conversations I was only aware of the Socinian views and/or the modernist views as far as the methods being used to attack penal substitution.

The problem is that no Socinian view has ever been used on the Baptist Board to argue against my view or PSA. The only Modernist view that I have seen ised against PSA is the "cosmic child abuse" argument- but I have not seen that one here in years (and I never made it).

But this goes back to your practice of picking out things that may appear to you as similar and linking it to a foreign position.

For example - although your argument against Christus Victor is the same argument Mormons make against Christis Victor, it would be dishonest to say you make Mormon arguments.

Why? Because Mormons are not the only group that rejects Christis Victor.

This goes back to you choosing insults as the only reason to equate Christus Victor arguments against PSA to Socinian (an anti-Trinitarian movement that rejects divine omniscience) is to insult.

That is dishonest, just as if I were to equate your arguments to Mormonism would be dishonest even though your arguments against Christus Victor is the same.

should you come across any Early Church writings arguing against any of the concepts that later became penal substitution, please share the references.

The problem is not the concepts. We all agree on the concepts. Christ bore our sins. The problem is the heresy Calvin came up using these concepts.

Look at Socinianism. You can find no Early Church writing arguing against the concepts that later became Socinianism. The problem was not the concepts but what these concepts became.

But no, I don't see any use in continuing these circular arguments accompanied with insults and animosity.

Yes, that was my point to you.

I am always willing to discuss theology. BUT only with an agreed upon presupposition - that God's Word be the standard (the "test").

Until you are willing to set aside insults and animosity, I think these arguments will just be shots fired at one another.

I tried to discuss Scripture with you in the past, but you quickly moved to insults and attacks. I do not mind responding in kind, but there is no profit in it.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I am willing to discuss theology. BUT I am not willing to walk on eggshells with you as you blatantly insult others who disagree with you.

Do not demand of others what you are unwilling yourself to provide.

For example - if you continue to link Christus Victor arguments against PSA to Socinianism you have no ground upon which to stand. The arguments I made predates Socinianism by two decades. If you continue then you need to apply your standard equally and confess to making Mormon arguments.


If you will be civil and discuss Scripture then I will return the civility.

Start anew. Continue this path. I will let you decide. It will have to be another thread due to the length of this one.

 

[JonC]

Thread closed due to length.

Please feel free to start another.