• 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!

The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Not interested in your ideas of church history. You have offered no scripture at all
I have offered Scripture. You simply did not recognize it as Scripture (I just used quotation marks).

That said, I have not stated my view.....all I stated of my belief was that God is faithful to forgive those who repent (Ezekiel 18, Acts 3, 1 John 1, 2 Peter 3, . . .).

You have without any Scripture supporting your philosophy. You provided verses but then went on to state your theory which is unrelated to the verses you provided.

Bit I will give you a chance -

Provide a verse stating Jesus died instead of us.
Provide a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.
Provide a verse stating that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance and belief.


I know you can find those things in the writings of the men you follow, but I do not recognize those men as the authority for my faith. Use the Bible.

This is a complete falsehood/, It shows you do not understand the word. Thanks for trying.
The Apostolic church taught psa as they taught scripture as given by God. You do not understand the language of substitution as is written.
Yes, I know both English and Greek. In both cases, both speak of Chriat.

While I studied Greek at the graduate level, I am mot sure you have. So let's just look at the English.

Here is the passage in question:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Now, in the English language (and the Grerk) the topic is Christ as the Propitiation, not those who benefit from the propitiation. You should have picked up on this with the first verse (we have an Advocate, who IS the Propitiation for sins).

I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.

What you did was read into the passage by making assumptions. You want it to say something ir dies not say, so you pretend it does.

If English is your first language, and you simply struggle with the fundamental parts of the language (nouns, verbs, etc) then take the time to diagram sentences. Identify the subject, the adverbs, etc. It may help you to write them out (we had to in school).

If you the your time, diagram the sentences, identify the subject, etc. it may help you keep from making such elementary mistakes.

The Apostolic church taught psa as they taught scripture as given by God. You do not understand the language of substitution as is written.
No, you are confused. The Apostolic Church is the church that existed during the time of the Apostles. They taught what was written in Scripture. The theories you are talking about came much later.

Anselm developed Substitution Theory which was focused on Jedus restoring the honor man robbed of God. Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, replacing honor with merit.

Aquinas want a bit more in detail. Until Aquinas nobody entertained the idea that Jesus could be punished instead of sinners. Aquinas developed a system where (he believed) an innocent person could justly be punished insteadbof a guilty person provided both parties were willing and the punishment was not the punishment due the crime committed.

Calvin (a lawyer by education) reformed Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with justice, and satisfactory punishment with simple punishment.

All three were based on Augustines error. Augustine developed what became the Catholic doctrine of sin. But this was based on the Vulgate which mistranslated "eph hō" as "in quo".


History is important. As you demonstrate with your ignorance of history (which is strange as we have the documdnts) is that by ignoring history it repeats itself.

This is why you can only rely on writings of mem who write what you believe rather than God's Word.


I may interpret some passages incorrectly, but at least I am sticking to Scripture.

Thanks for your response. You have offered your ideas on it!

God does both... he punishes sins either in the sinner, Divine wrath poured out directly resulting in second death,

or the Divine substitute. Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the biblical answer, not an "interpretation, but rather an exposition of the various texts many of which are contained in the PDF. No one here will be able to contest, or refute this PDF, or the sermon transcripts offered.
People who call this a theory in trying to explain away an exposition of the texts, fail big time from what I can see.
Thanks again for your participation on this thread.

Anyone who reads this thread, is welcome to quote any portion of what has been offered, the scriptures used, and then offer your response yo what you quote, and try and show how you think they missed the truth. I have not seen anyone ever do that.
Thank you for the information. I am more interested, however, in what God said.

Jehovah Witnesses believe their theologians correct. Mormons believe their theologians correct. I get that you believe the men you follow are correct in their additions to Scripture.

I have no issue with much of what you have posted.

The issue I have is when what you posted teaches unbiblical ideas.

For example -

We all believe that Christ died for our sins and we were purchased by His blood.

But Penal Substitution theorists merely use that truth to prop up their theory. They change it to Jesus dying instead of us, suffering God's wrath, etc.

That is not exposition. That is eisegesis.

Penal Substitution Theory adds to Scripture. The theory was created via reforming another theory (which h was created by reforming another theory).

Try reading the Bible without using the theory. What is actually written in God's Word is complete and makes sence. All Penal Substitution Theory does is offer a theory which os different from Scripture and different from traditional Chriatianity.

I can say your theory is unbiblical because it is foreign to the actual text of Scripture.

You cannot say my position is unbiblical because it is what is written in Scripture.


Years ago I discussed this and was condemned for using too much Scripture without adding to it
The charge was "all you do is quote the Bible". Guilty as charged.

It is not my fault that penal substitution theorists believe Scripture does not make sense. The Spirit guides those of us who believe and opens up Scripture - not bia exposition but by a realization Scripture itself makes sence. Even though interpretations differ we rely on God's Word (different focuses and interpretations of some verses).

You need to use more honest words than exposition. Penal Substitution Theory adds what is not there and denies what is there.
 

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
1 John 2:2 is about Christ (He is the Propitiation). It neither includes or excludes anybody. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World.
Yeah it does exclude them under wrath in the world.

Ok....show me.

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

I see that Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world.
But the subject of the sentence seems to be Jesus.
And the sentence seems identify Jesus as the Propitiation
I also see that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the world.

If you could, highlight (put in bold) the part of the sentence that excludes or includes men.


Thanks.
God has to show you. If you understood propitiation you would not question it. I cant give you understanding.

@JonC

God has shown me.

Evidently He has not if you believe Christ is the propitiation for them under His wrath and shall die in their sins.

???? I said that the verse states Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, without including people.

If I say medicine A is the cure for disease B I am not soeaking of people.


Try reading the verse again, this time without assuming. Your assumptions made you deny Scripture.

Another example - Paul said God revealed to him the mystery of Christ (inclusion of Gentiles, in that passage). BUT it was not through the special revelation you claim to possess (it was through "what is written" in the Old Testament....specifically in Genesis 12). Paul did not add to or change Scripture as you so freely do.
You lost me, seems like you all over the place. However those for whom Christ is their propitiation, all their sins are forgiven, God is merciful to their sins and unrighteousness. Its a Covenant Blessing Heb 8: 12

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The word merciful is the greek word hileós:

Merciful, propitious, gracious

So God is propitious towards the whole world Of 1 Jn 2:2 jew and gentile elect, He remembers no more all their unrighteousness and iniquities

And that's because of Christ Blood shed for them satisfying His Justice for all their sins, and He is at peace with them for Christs sake.

So nobody under wrath is part of 1 Jn 2:2 world


Yes, God is favorable to those who believe.

I was pointing out that you mistranslated 1 Jn 2:2. The actual verse is speaking of Jesus as the Propitiation (or atoning sacrifice) for the sins of the whole world. This is not mercy applied (Paul speaks of this elsewhere).

I am not "all over the place. I am strictly at 1 Jn 2:2. You, however, are reaching left and right to add to the verse.

The issue still remains that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement os unbiblical (which is why you have not been able to provide any verses stating what the theory teaches).
He is merciful towards their unbelief , unrighteousness, iniquities. You cant exclude unbelief from our unrighteousness and iniquity.

@JonC

You added that God is merciful towards unbelief, unrighteousness, etc. to that verse.

No I didn't, I got that from Heb 8:12

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Thats a benefit of propitiation, the word merciful here means propitious, its in the same word family of propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 its all premised on the atoning sacrificial death of Christ appeasing Gods wrath and acts favorable towards them.

And yes God is merciful to unbelief, Paul experiences 1 Tim 1:13

13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

@JonC

But I was talking about 1 John 2:2 (different book, different Apostle, different audience).

Doesn't matter, its the same propitiation. And its limited to only those in the human race that are not under Gods wrath.

@JonC

Don't we need to be in Him to receive that propitiation? It's still available to everyone, right?

The only requirement for the propitiation of Christ to be applied to a person is that Christ died for their sins. And all who belongs to that group will be given Faith to believe in Him. This concept of "available to everyone" is not scriptural, its man made
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yeah it does exclude them under wrath in the world.
Ok....show me.

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

I see that Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world.
But the subject of the sentence seems to be Jesus.
And the sentence seems identify Jesus as the Propitiation
I also see that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the world.

If you could, highlight (put in bold) the part of the sentence that excludes or includes men.


Thanks.

God has to show you. If you understood propitiation you would not question it. I cant give you understanding.
God has shown me.

The difference between our views is that I believ we are to leamonot on our understanding but on every word from God, and I believe God's Word is perfect and complete.

So I can look at the verse and see that you ate adding to Scripture.

I understand that you believe God gave you a special revelation. Ellen White and Joseph Smith had the same belief.

What the Spirit does is reveal to us truths that are in Scripture (not soecial revelations to add to Scripture)


That is how I know you are teaching a false doctrine. I can compare your words - what you say God told you - with what God actually said. By the Holy Spirit I can easily discern that you are adding to God's Word.

I can prove this (and have proved this) by going directly to God's Word.


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

You say that verse states that people are excluded.

So ultimately I have a choice - believe you or believe God. I choose God.

What you should have done was test the spirit that gave you that special revelation. Had you done so you would have read the verse and discerned the spirit influencing you (giving you that special revelation) was not of God because it led you away from God's Word (caused you to add to Scripture and change the meaning).

But I get it. Christianity in our nation has fallen to a great extent. People want shallow "truths" and avoid God's actual words at all costs. Rather than God, these "Christians" trust in men. I suspect this is why the Way is narrow. We must trust God, believe His Word. But it is in human nature to replace God with man and His Word with human theories.

This is why I encourage you to test those special revelations you have against the actual Word of God. Many cults would not exist today had their leaders been more faithful.

@JonC



Evidently He has not if you believe Christ is the propitiation for them under His wrath and shall die in their sins.
???? I said that the verse states Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the world, without including people.

If I say medicine A is the cure for disease B I am not soeaking of people.


Try reading the verse again, this time without assuming. Your assumptions made you deny Scripture.

Another example - Paul said God revealed to him the mystery of Christ (inclusion of Gentiles, in that passage). BUT it was not through the special revelation you claim to possess (it was through "what is written" in the Old Testament....specifically in Genesis 12). Paul did not add to or change Scripture as you so freely do.

You lost me, seems like you all over the place. However those for whom Christ is their propitiation, all their sins are forgiven, God is merciful to their sins and unrighteousness. Its a Covenant Blessing Heb 8: 12

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

The word merciful is the greek word hileós:


Merciful, propitious, gracious

So God is propitious towards the whole world Of 1 Jn 2:2 jew and gentile elect, He remembers no more all their unrighteousness and iniquities

And that's because of Christ Blood shed for them satisfying His Justice for all their sins, and He is at peace with them for Christs sake.

So nobody under wrath is part of 1 Jn 2:2 world
Yes, God is favorable to those who believe.

I was pointing out that you mistranslated 1 Jn 2:2. The actual verse is speaking of Jesus as the Propitiation (or atoning sacrifice) for the sins of the whole world. This is not mercy applied (Paul speaks of this elsewhere).

I am not "all over the place. I am strictly at 1 Jn 2:2. You, however, are reaching left and right to add to the verse.

The issue still remains that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement os unbiblical (which is why you have not been able to provide any verses stating what the theory teaches).

He is merciful towards their unbelief , unrighteousness, iniquities. You cant exclude unbelief from our unrighteousness and iniquity.
You are misquoting 1 Jn 2:2

1 Jn 2:1-2. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

When we sin we have an Advocate in Jesus.
Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins.
He is the Propitiation not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world

You added that God is merciful towards unbelief, unrighteousness, etc. to that verse.

I am not denying God's mercy towards unbelief but I am saying you are not grasping the verse we are discussing.

I can omit thise things from 1 Jn 2:2 because John (and God) omitted them in that verse.


What is John talking about in 1 Jn 2:1?

He is explaining that when we (the audience is believers) sin we have an Advocate in Jesus.

What is John saying in 1 Jn 2:2?

That our Advocate is the Propitiation for all sin.

This does not mean that Jesus is the Advocate for the lost when they sin (they ARE) excluded here.
BUT this does not mean that Jesus is less than the only Propitiation for human sin.


There is a good book I recommend titled "Grasping God's Word" by Duvall and Hays. Many Christiabs start "studying" Scripture as you have - all over the place, hitting on themes but missing what is said


I encourage you to slow down, think about what is actually written in the passages you are reading. Consider how John builds his argument. Look at what he says in verse 1 and then how he supports this in verse 2.

What you are doing is starting with a conclusion and then looking for biblical support. This is why you slaughter God's Word.

You are smart and articulate. Just slow down and give Scripture the respect (more respect) than you would reading a fantasy novel. It may help you to write down the verses and diagram them at first. But over time (quickly, I think, given your ability to think things through) you will begin with more faithfulness to the text.

@JonC



No I didn't, I got that from Heb 8:12

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Thats a benefit of propitiation, the word merciful here means propitious, its in the same word family of propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2 its all premised on the atoning sacrificial death of Christ appeasing Gods wrath and acts favorable towards them.

And yes God is merciful to unbelief, Paul experiences 1 Tim 1:13

13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
But I was talking about 1 John 2:2 (different book, different Apostle, different audience).

You are all over the place. John was talking specifically about Jesus as our Advocate and His status as rhe Propitiation for human sin.

Slow down, respect God's Word for what is actually being said.
 
Last edited:

Zaatar71

Active Member
Ok....show me.

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

I see that Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world.
But the subject of the sentence seems to be Jesus.
And the sentence seems identify Jesus as the Propitiation
I also see that Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the world.

If you could, highlight (put in bold) the part of the sentence that excludes or includes men.


Thanks.
Is the sins of the whole world in the text?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Is the sins of the whole world in the text?
Yes (at least in the Greek text, I don't know how every translator presented it in English).

But ultimately the verse is saying there is no other propitiation other than Christ for sin.

Paul does apply this elsewhere, but that is not what the specific verse states.

On other words, I am not addressing whether some or all have their sins propitiation but what is stated in the actual verse.

It matters greatly.

It matters what John is saying AND what Paul was saying.

John tells us that Jesus IS the Propitiation for human sin (everybody) and that those who believe have an Advocate with this Propitiation.

The writer of Hebrews tells is thar God forgives. But this looks to what John called our Advocate (Paul our Mediator).

In Christ we, who believe, escape the wrath to come.

But if we ignore 1 John 2:2 because we like other truths we miss what God is saying in the verse.

It has caused some even to rewrite Scripture (that "whole world" refers to all groups of people) needlessly. They ignored 1 Jn 2:2 and simply saw the word "propitiation".

I just wanted to throw this into the mix for clarity. I don't know if it changes anything. Can somebody put the point of contention into Laymen's terms for me?
My argument is that John, in 1 Jn 2:2, is supporting Jesus' position as our Advocate by pointing out He is the Propitiation for all human sin.

John is not getting into who is gathered. John already said that He advocates for us (Christians).

1 Jn 2:2 simply identifies Jesus as the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

I believe that we have to take Scripture for what it was communicating. We need to consider the audience. We need to look at the context.

BUT we DO NOT need to read other passages and other truths into verses.

Now, if we were building a theory about a topic then we would gather passages, still taking each for what they were saying, and look at them together.

Fir "Propitiation" in 1 Jn 2:2 it always, even if combined with other verses, expresses the truth that Chriatians have an Advocate who is the only Propitiation for the sins of mankind.

I am saying we have to be faithful to Scripture.

Here is another example.

John 3:16 uses "so" (some translations) to mean "thusly". It is a misinterpretation to say John 3:16 speaks of how great God's love is for us. This is not because the misinterpretation is untrue (His love for us is great, and other passages tell is this) but because that is not what John 3:16 is saying.

The reason this is important is because when we misinterpret a passage - EVEN when the misinterpretation is true - we miss what the passage is actually saying.

Don't we need to be in Him to receive that propitiation? It's still available to everyone, right?

*-----------------*

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
I split my reply because there were two issues - 1) I had been addressing a misinterpretation and addition to 1 Jn 2:2 and 2) your questions.

Don't we need to be in Him to receive that propitiation? It's still available to everyone, right?

This is what John was speaking of when he said we have an Advocate if we sin. One has to be "in Christ" to have Jesus (the Propitiation for the sins of mankind) as sn Advocate (or, in Hebrews, a Mediator).

But 1 Jn 2:2 is not about recieving that propitiation (that was covered in verse 1).
 

Dave...

Active Member
1 John 2:2 is about Christ (He is the Propitiation). It neither includes or excludes anybody. He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World.

I just wanted to throw this into the mix for clarity. I don't know if it changes anything. Can somebody put the point of contention into Laymen's terms for me? I'm getting that it's just about if Jesus needed to satisfy God's justice on our behalf? Don't we need to be in Him to receive that propitiation? It's still available to everyone, right?

*-----------------*

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
 

Zaatar71

Active Member
Yes (at least in the Greek text, I don't know how every translator presented it in English).

But ultimately the verse is saying there is no other propitiation other than Christ for sin.

Paul does apply this elsewhere, but that is not what the specific verse states.

On other words, I am not addressing whether some or all have their sins propitiation but what is stated in the actual verse.
You claimed you studied the Greek but maybe you never quite finished your studies??? found this online; that in italics is NOT in the text.
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

You can see the actual greek here;

and he having been made agreeable he is about of the of errors of us not about of the of our only but and about of whole of the of world order.

The sins of is not in the greek text as you stated ,so while you were trying to help, it looks like you are not a trusted guide on the greek text. I see another Poster, Van, tries to offer on greek words, but without success

Now we could agree that there is no other propitiation other than the Lord Jesus Christ, for anyone any where in the world who eventually. is drawn savingly to Jesus.
Your theology that you express [ and of course you are welcome and free to express it] puts you in what I would understand to be the jaws of error.
The propitiation was and is actual / not potential which you suggest.
The atonement was actual /not potential as you suggest.

What might be helpful is for you to start a thread where you try and explain what you keep posting as your method of ,as you say,
"what is written'...which when examined by itself you be found wanting.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You claimed you studied the Greek but maybe you never quite finished your studies??? found this online; that in italics is NOT in the text.
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

You can see the actual greek here;

and he having been made agreeable he is about of the of errors of us not about of the of our only but and about of whole of the of world order.

The sins of is not in the greek text as you stated ,so while you were trying to help, it looks like you are not a trusted guide on the greek text. I see another Poster, Van, tries to offer on greek words, but without success

Now we could agree that there is no other propitiation other than the Lord Jesus Christ, for anyone any where in the world who eventually. is drawn savingly to Jesus.
Your theology that you express [ and of course you are welcome and free to express it] puts you in what I would understand to be the jaws of error.
The propitiation was and is actual / not potential which you suggest.
The atonement was actual /not potential as you suggest.

What might be helpful is for you to start a thread where you try and explain what you keep posting as your method of ,as you say,
"what is written'...which when examined by itself you be found wanting.
No, I finished my studies (masters degree in theology, summa cum laude).

ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου is a genitive phrase meaning "of the whole world".

ὅλου means "whole" or "complete".
κόσμου means "world".

The καὶ points to "sins".

In my opinion this is evident in English without the transkator clarifying by outting "sins" in italics.

Translations are not "word matches" (it is not just finding an Engkish word rhat natches the Greek). Languages are more different.

But I was looking at "whole world" as I assumed you understood the concept of the language (that the second applied to the first). I sometimes forget how indoctrated some people are. My apologies.

A major problem in our churches today is biblical illiteracy (something you aptly demonstrated). The good news is this can be fixed. The bad news is many are too indoctrinated to even care.

Yes....Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins, not ours only but for the whole world.


The reason you cannot grasp that the second part is also for sins is your indoctrination into a tradition.

What did you think that Jesus is the propitiation for in terms of the whole world? Good deeds? Righteousness?

The word "propitiation" looks towards wrath or anger, something that needs to be turned aside.
 

Zaatar71

Active Member
No, I finished my studies (masters degree in theology, summa cum laude).

ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου is a genitive phrase meaning "of the whole world".

ὅλου means "whole" or "complete".
κόσμου means "world".

The καὶ points to "sins".

In my opinion this is evident in English without the transkator clarifying by outting "sins" in italics.

Translations are not "word matches" (it is not just finding an Engkish word rhat natches the Greek). Languages are more different.

But I was looking at "whole world" as I assumed you understood the concept of the language (that the second applied to the first). I sometimes forget how indoctrated some people are. My apologies.
The word sins of is not in the text, so that changes the meaning. If you are apologizing for your condescending remarks, I could accept your apology. What you suggest that you "sometimes forget" is that people have been indoctrinated??? So if Prof.Murray teaches something from scripture , it would be indoctrination, but if you post your opinions, based on your philosophy, it is not indoctrination, I see.
A major problem in our churches today is biblical illiteracy (something you aptly demonstrated).
Another condescending remark. In fact several others have noticed that you and your ideas, contradict the biblical teaching, and the fact that you have not directly quoted the material offered, and then your attempted refutation indicates the possible location of biblical illiteracy. maybe you should hold off on your series of condescending comments, Don't you think? It was you that suggested that English might be my second language, wasn't it? Yeah, it was you I think it was back around post 24,or 25 you made this statement;
{ I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.}
The good news is this can be fixed. The bad news is many are too indoctrinated to even care.

Yes....Jesus is the Propitiation for our sins, not ours only but for the whole world.


The reason you cannot grasp that the second part is also for sins is your indoctrination into a tradition.

What did you think that Jesus is the propitiation for in terms of the whole world? Good deeds? Righteousness?

The word "propitiation" looks towards wrath or anger, something that needs to be turned aside.
So, we see you have to add words to the text, to make it say something the text itself does not say? okay...Are you going to start a thread on your philosophy of hermeneutics? Then we can discuss that without disrupting any other thread! Thanks for your sort of attempted response.

@JonC



The only requirement for the propitiation of Christ to be applied to a person is that Christ died for their sins. And all who belongs to that group will be given Faith to believe in Him. This concept of "available to everyone" is not scriptural, its man made
Yes, the poster attempts to add words to the text, to make it be a potential propitiation as if their sins had God's wrath turned away as if they were the same as the first part of the statement which references believers. Evidently, he does not stick to what is written as he claims over and over.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@JonC



The only requirement for the propitiation of Christ to be applied to a person is that Christ died for their sins. And all who belongs to that group will be given Faith to believe in Him. This concept of "available to everyone" is not scriptural, its man made
The issue we were discussing was Scripture. My point had nothing to do with various theories, their merits or lack thereof.

I was simply saying that 1 John 2:2 does not apply itself to any people group. Verse 1 does apply Christ as an Advocate (in the present tense) should a Christian sin, so verse 1 does apply to a people group. But "propitiation in verse 2 is descriptive of Christ, not a group of men.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes, the poster attempts to add words to the text, to make it be a potential propitiation as if their sins had God's wrath turned away as if they were the same as the first part of the statement which references believers. Evidently, he does not stick to what is written as he claims over and over.
No, I am not adding words. I am also not trying to make propitiation apply to everybody or anybody.

I am going directly from what the text states.

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

Adding "sins" in brackets in 2(b) does not change the meaning. I believe it is unnecessary as only an illiterate fool would think John was not speaking of sins.

But this does not make propitiation apply to everybody.

Is English your second language? I asked before, but I do not recall if you answered. If it is, I highly recommend you obtain a translation of Scripture in a language you are more comfortable with. If not, I highly recommend taking an English class, or purchasing a textbook of the language.

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

You deny Scripture for no reason. This verse does not disprove your theory. You dont need to change it.

You may need oi change 1 Jn 2:1 to make your theory work, or at least explain away Christ as our Advocate in the present, but you do not need to add to or change verse 2.
 

Zaatar71

Active Member
The issue we were discussing was Scripture. My point had nothing to do with various theories, their merits or lack thereof.

I was simply saying that 1 John 2:2 does not apply itself to any people group. Verse 1 does apply Christ as an Advocate (in the present tense) should a Christian sin, so verse 1 does apply to a people group. But "propitiation in verse 2 is descriptive of Christ, not a group of men.
When he says In the first part he is the propitiation for our sins, he is speaking of believers..Ie, My little children;
2 My little children, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin: and if any one may sin, an advocate we have with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one,

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

It no where says he is the propitiation for those who remain unsaved in the world. Anyone, and everyone believing, for them He is the only propitiation, there is no other Acts4;12

You are wrong.

While I agree the second "of sins" (the one in italics) is unnecessary, the readon it is unnecessary is the fact that it does not change the meaning of the verse.

The reason it does not change the meaning of the verse is the ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον in the passage.

You asked about my education, suggesting that I may have not completed my studies because I use the NASB (which omits the "for sins" you read in the italics as it is unnecessary to the meaning).

I thought you were simply wondering based on my replies, unaware that we are using different translations. I guess you were condescending based on my question of you.

But no, I was not being condescending. I was asking because you seem not to fully grasp the English language.
Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that you do not grasp biblical doctrine, or language as you should.
That might be why we do not agree at all. you seem to not fully grasp biblical teaching or concepts.

In the English language that "for sins" does not change the meaning.
It changes the meaning because the bible teaches an actual propitiation on behalf of the Covenant children. Not on behalf of the unsaved world. The poster Brightflame and others have pointed this out to you several times. You do not agree, that is of course your right.
The "but also" is a correlative conjunction. Correlative conjunction connect two grammatically equal parts of a sentence.

ἡμετέρων is a passive noun. μόνον is an adverb.

So, applying this to the verse you can see that the "for sins" is in the verse (the language of the verse, not the actual word as the verse uses a passive noun to identify "for sins").

It is unnecessary to clarify by putting "for sins" in italics, except as an attempt to clarify for those who are less proficient in English than most adults (probably most teens).

That is why I asked, seriously, if English was your second language.
Your double talk, is an excuse to avoid the real issue here.
"and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world".


Out of curiosity, what exactly did you think Jesus was the propitiation for, if not "our sins"?
If you thought it was for "our sins", what did you think "not only ours" was referring to????
Not for ours only, would be speaking of others who have not yet, been savingly drawn to saving faith as those Children here are described.
I agree the verse does not state that Jesus is the propitiation for any peoole group (saved or lost). It is speaking of Jesus, not mankind. He is the Propitiation for not onky our sins but the whole world.

The part you are speaking about is men having their sins propiated.

This was verse 1 - that if we sen we have an Advocate in Christ Jesus. This applies to believers.

Verse 1 already states that Jesus is our Advocate (present tence), if we sin. This applies to those in Christ. John bases this Advocacy on Jesus being the Propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but the whole world. There is no other propitiation for sins.
you cannot have it both ways. You avoid yet still, all the language of substitution offered here. Feel free to quote from Albert Martin, or John Murray, and give your offering of how they missed something, that you think you see. Thanks again for your response.

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


Out of curiosity, what exactly did you think Jesus was the propitiation for, if not "our sins"?
If you thought it was for "our sins", what did you think "not only ours" was referring to????
It is referring to those anywhere in the world, who have not been savingly drawn to Jesus yet, but in time will be united to Christ savingly as they already were. Again I repeat for the third time, propitiation is only for the elect of God, who are scattered worldwide, who will be united to Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit, bring them to spiritual life, from out among the unsaved Spiritually dead. That is who it is speaking of. Thanks for your good question. Are you a known professor, like John Murray, or perhaps a pastor like Albert N. Martin who has served in God's kingdom for most of their lives. Have to written books, or published sermons in the public places, that can be read or listened to?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The word sins of is not in the text, so that changes the meaning. If you are apologizing for your condescending remarks, I could accept your apology. What you suggest that you "sometimes forget" is that people have been indoctrinated??? So if Prof.Murray teaches something from scripture , it would be indoctrination, but if you post your opinions, based on your philosophy, it is not indoctrination, I see.

Another condescending remark. In fact several others have noticed that you and your ideas, contradict the biblical teaching, and the fact that you have not directly quoted the material offered, and then your attempted refutation indicates the possible location of biblical illiteracy. maybe you should hold off on your series of condescending comments, Don't you think? It was you that suggested that English might be my second language, wasn't it? Yeah, it was you I think it was back around post 24,or 25 you made this statement;
{ I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.}

So, we see you have to add words to the text, to make it say something the text itself does not say? okay...Are you going to start a thread on your philosophy of hermeneutics? Then we can discuss that without disrupting any other thread! Thanks for your sort of attempted response.
You are wrong.

While I agree the second "of sins" (the one in italics) is unnecessary, the readon it is unnecessary is the fact that it does not change the meaning of the verse.

The reason it does not change the meaning of the verse is the ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον in the passage.

You asked about my education, suggesting that I may have not completed my studies because I use the NASB (which omits the "for sins" you read in the italics as it is unnecessary to the meaning).

I thought you were simply wondering based on my replies, unaware that we are using different translations. I guess you were condescending based on my question of you.

But no, I was not being condescending. I was asking because you seem not to fully grasp the English language.

In the English language that "for sins" does not change the meaning.

The "but also" is a correlative conjunction. Correlative conjunction connect two grammatically equal parts of a sentence.

ἡμετέρων is a passive noun. μόνον is an adverb.

So, applying this to the verse you can see that the "for sins" is in the verse (the language of the verse, not the actual word as the verse uses a passive noun to identify "for sins").

It is unnecessary to clarify by putting "for sins" in italics, except as an attempt to clarify for those who are less proficient in English than most adults (probably most teens).

That is why I asked, seriously, if English was your second language.


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


Out of curiosity, what exactly did you think Jesus was the propitiation for, if not "our sins"?
If you thought it was for "our sins", what did you think "not only ours" was referring to????

When he says In the first part he is the propitiation for our sins, he is speaking of believers..Ie, My little children;
2 My little children, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin: and if any one may sin, an advocate we have with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one,

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

It no where says he is the propitiation for those who remain unsaved in the world. Anyone, and everyone believing, for them He is the only propitiation, there is no other Acts4;12
I agree the verse does not state that Jesus is the propitiation for any peoole group (saved or lost). It is speaking of Jesus, not mankind. He is the Propitiation for not onky our sins but the whole world.

The part you are speaking about is men having their sins propiated.

This was verse 1 - that if we sen we have an Advocate in Christ Jesus. This applies to believers.

Verse 1 already states that Jesus is our Advocate (present tence), if we sin. This applies to those in Christ. John bases this Advocacy on Jesus being the Propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but the whole world. There is no other propitiation for sins.

It is referring to those anywhere in the world, who have not been savingly drawn to Jesus yet, but in time will be united to Christ savingly as they already were. Again I repeat for the third time, propitiation is only for the elect of God, who are scattered worldwide, who will be united to Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit, bring them to spiritual life, from out among the unsaved Spiritually dead. That is who it is speaking of. Thanks for your good question. Are you a known professor, like John Murray, or perhaps a pastor like Albert N. Martin who has served in God's kingdom for most of their lives. Have to written books, or published sermons in the public places, that can be read or listened to?
No. It is referring to Christ. He IS the Propitiation not only for our sins but also of the World. Think "human sin" without exception (no people group, the Subject here is Christ Himself).

We know this because of the previous verse (the conjunction καὶ).


If you put the passage together it may be better for you to grasp:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.


If we (Believers, the target audience) sin then we have an Advocate in Christ Jesus.
This limits the advocacy of Christ to believers.
And (the conjunction καὶ)
He Himself is the Propitiation
Propitiation is referring to Jesus' role or identity, not to man
For our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Christ is the Propitiation for all human sin. There is no other.
But having ones sins propiated is a result of Him advocating (present tense) with the Father.


An example -

We have a cure in vaccine A, and this vaccine is not only our (those who took it) cure for disease A but also for the whole world. Not all will take it, but that has no bearing on the vaccine.

Again, you need to refresh on the English language.

You are talking about sins being propitiated, not propitiation.
Propiation is something that propitiates.
Christ IS the propitiation for all sins.
This does not mean everybody has had their sins propiated for.

John presents Christians being forgiven by the advocacy (in Hebrews, the mediation) of Christ based on Himself being the Propitiation.

Basic English, brother.


There are many known professors and theologians that disagree with your theories. Most theologians and professors did not, for example, even believe Penal Substitution Theory (the theory you are trying to mold every passage to fit). So I could ask you why you reject the classic theologians, or professors like Hosclaw,Craig, Smith....or Early Church theologians like Irenaeus, Athanasius, or Gregory.

David Lipscom was a theologian and founder of a seminary who wrote extensively. This does not mean he was right.

It Is not difficult to find men who teach any position. Men are not the criteria for our faith.


Bottom line is that you are wrong, and obviously I'll equipped in the English language to the extent you cannot grasp the subject of a clause. Christ is the Propiation. Not man. Not the elect (except being that Jesus is the Elect), not the lost.

Christ Himself is the propitiation.
 

Zaatar71

Active Member
No. It is referring to Christ. He IS the Propitiation not only for our sins but also of the World. Think "human sin" without exception (no people group, the Subject here is Christ Himself).
No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue.
We know this because of the previous verse (the conjunction καὶ).


If you put the passage together it may be better for you to grasp:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
That is not in any way different from the material offered throughout this thread.
If we (Believers, the target audience) sin then we have an Advocate in Christ Jesus.
This limits the advocacy of Christ to believers.
Now, you make a correct statement here, as that is exactly what the biblical teaching of PSA. teaches. You avoiding the scriptural language of substitution seek to avoid. I have started a thread on "what is written" to demonstrate this.
And (the conjunction καὶ)
He Himself is the Propitiation
Propitiation is referring to Jesus' role or identity, not to man
For our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
No one cited here has said anything different than that. Perhaps you are not reading carefully? Is that how you missed it?
Christ is the Propitiation for all human sin. There is no other.
Christ is the propitiation for all human sin that are performed by those IN Christ. In saving union to The Lord Jesus Christ, not to sinners who die in their sins. They will receive the full wrath of God, which has not been propitiated from them, notice; jn.8:
24 I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'
But having ones sins propiated is a result of Him advocating (present tense) with the Father.
Yes, no one has said otherwise. Can you quote where anyone denied this? I do not think you can.
An example -

We have a cure in vaccine A, and this vaccine is not only our (those who took it) cure for disease A but also for the whole world. Not all will take it, but that has no bearing on the vaccine.

Again, you need to refresh on the English language.

You are talking about sins being propitiated, not propitiation.
Propiation is something that propitiates.
Christ IS the propitiation for all sins.
This does not mean everybody has had their sins propiated for.
Now, you are resorting to a form of double talk, where you contradict what you have posted previously, we can let those who read see it for themself.
John presents Christians being forgiven by the advocacy (in Hebrews, the mediation) of Christ based on Himself being the Propitiation.
Again, you post something that no one has spoken against. You offer such clear statements in an attempt to make as if you believed what was posted by these sources when in fact you posted against them. You once again are welcome to do such a thing, but those who read can see it for themselves.
Basic English, brother.
I understand basic English, despite your posts that suggest otherwise. You question my knowledge of English, which is not the subject of this thread, is it? I question your understanding of the gospel and your reading accurately what is offered. This also is not the subject of this thread.
There are many known professors and theologians that disagree with your theories
Well my friend, you are welcome to them. perhaps you could offer such threads on your own,
. Most theologians and professors did not, for example, even believe Penal Substitution Theory (the theory you are trying to mold every passage to fit).
That is your opinion. I can make such a statement also. I can say that all real Christians believe the biblical teaching of PSA.
So I could ask you why you reject the classic theologians, or professors like Hosclaw,Craig, Smith....or Early Church theologians like Irenaeus, Athanasius, or Gregory.
I am not bound to search all manner of error. We are here to look at scripture, not your rewrites and opinions on church history. Early Church theologians offered to us the Roman catholic Church which I am not bound by.
David Lipscom was a theologian and founder of a seminary who wrote extensively. This does not mean he was right.

It Is not difficult to find men who teach any position. Men are not the criteria for our faith.
I will search out those I find to be God given trusted guides, as you are quite welcome to do the same.
Bottom line is that you are wrong, and obviously I'll equipped in the English language to the extent you cannot grasp the subject of a clause.
Thanks for offering such a high opinion of yourself. My view is that you do not grasp the correct view of the heart of the gospel. You have offered and I have responded .Those who read will see what is written here.
Christ is the Propiation. Not man.
No one said that! here is exactly what I am pointing out! Can you quote where anyone said such a thing. This false claim does not make your wrong view to have any merit.
Not the elect (except being that Jesus is the Elect), not the lost.

Christ Himself is the propitiation.
Now we get to it then, you are one who denies that God has elected and died for His Covenant Children. Now I understand what this about.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue.

That is not in any way different from the material offered throughout this thread.

Now, you make a correct statement here, as that is exactly what the biblical teaching of PSA. teaches. You avoiding the scriptural language of substitution seek to avoid. I have started a thread on "what is written" to demonstrate this.

No one cited here has said anything different than that. Perhaps you are not reading carefully? Is that how you missed it?

Christ is the propitiation for all human sin that are performed by those IN Christ. In saving union to The Lord Jesus Christ, not to sinners who die in their sins. They will receive the full wrath of God, which has not been propitiated from them, notice; jn.8:
24 I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'

Yes, no one has said otherwise. Can you quote where anyone denied this? I do not think you can.

Now, you are resorting to a form of double talk, where you contradict what you have posted previously, we can let those who read see it for themself.

Again, you post something that no one has spoken against. You offer such clear statements in an attempt to make as if you believed what was posted by these sources when in fact you posted against them. You once again are welcome to do such a thing, but those who read can see it for themselves.

I understand basic English, despite your posts that suggest otherwise. You question my knowledge of English, which is not the subject of this thread, is it? I question your understanding of the gospel and your reading accurately what is offered. This also is not the subject of this thread.

Well my friend, you are welcome to them. perhaps you could offer such threads on your own,

That is your opinion. I can make such a statement also. I can say that all real Christians believe the biblical teaching of PSA.

I am not bound to search all manner of error. We are here to look at scripture, not your rewrites and opinions on church history. Early Church theologians offered to us the Roman catholic Church which I am not bound by.

I will search out those I find to be God given trusted guides, as you are quite welcome to do the same.

Thanks for offering such a high opinion of yourself. My view is that you do not grasp the correct view of the heart of the gospel. You have offered and I have responded .Those who read will see what is written here.

No one said that! here is exactly what I am pointing out! Can you quote where anyone said such a thing. This false claim does not make your wrong view to have any merit.

Now we get to it then, you are one who denies that God has elected and died for His Covenant Children. Now I understand what this about.
Ok....now you are being dishonest (lying on the public forum).

The statement that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory is not a matter of opinion. Penal Substitution Theory belongs to a sect of Protestants influenced by the Reformation.

The number of non-Penal Substitution theorists who were theologians or professors is greater than the number who were Penal Substitution theorists. Again, it's the English language tripping you up again. "Most" refers to this greater number.

This does not mean that I agree with those theologians and professors....or even that they agreed among themselves.

I can point out where you repeatedly denied that 1 John 2:2 is speaking of Christ as the Propitiation (you kept applying it to the elect).


I never denied that Chriat died for His elect. You are lying again. Do you not know that kying is a sin against God? It is "bearing fakse witness". (Given your struggle grasping the English language I'll go ahead and inform you that "bearing" in "bearing false witness" has nothing to do with the animal...it means you are lying).


Jesus is God's Elect (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35). This does not mean that those who are "in Christ" are also not the elect (they were chosen in Him before the foundation of the World").


Maybe instead of reading what all those men think you should read your Bible. Or have you lined out all of the passages you disagree with?
 

Zaatar71

Active Member
Ok....now you are being dishonest (lying on the public forum).
Another accusation on your part, and still no attempt to address the pages of material offered directly
The statement that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory is not a matter of opinion.
Oh, but it is...it is your opinion, and no one I know shares it. You are welcome to your opinion, and notice I do not accuse you of lying!
Penal Substitution Theory belongs to a sect of Protestants influenced by the Reformation.
This is your opinion and nothing more.
The number of non-Penal Substitution theorists who were theologians or professors is greater than the number who were Penal Substitution theorists.
Nothing but your flawed opinion once again,no one is following you down this rabbit trail.
Again, it's the English language tripping you up again. "Most" refers to this greater number.
Again, it is you trying and failing to be condescending, but we see right through that.
This does not mean that I agree with those theologians and professors....or even that they agreed among themselves.
No one really cares about your opinion as it is not fact.


I can point out where you repeatedly denied that 1 John 2:2 is speaking of Christ as the Propitiation (you kept applying it to the elect).
okay, offer a direct quote and we will see who is posting truth or error. Perhaps you do not understand english as written,lol
here is a direct quote from me,lol from post 41...No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue. Do you understand what i wrote in English? Can you quote me saying otherwise as you claim?
I never denied that Chriat died for His elect. You are lying again.
Another accusation?
Do you not know that kying is a sin against God?
I Know that. That is why I am offering you correction on your false accusations, lol
It is "bearing fakse witness". (Given your struggle grasping the English language I'll go ahead and inform you that "bearing" in "bearing false witness" has nothing to do with the animal...it means you are lying).
Another sad accusation on your part! I would let those who read this thread observe who it doing what!
Jesus is God's Elect (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35).
Yes, you are posting a truth here.
This does not mean that those who are "in Christ" are also not the elect (they were chosen in Him before the foundation of the World").
okay, so you agree then that the Covenant children are individually elected unto salvation In Christ?
Maybe instead of reading what all those men think you should read your Bible.
I do read my bible everyday, yet another false accusation and personal attack from you! Is that what you do? Attack people who do not follow you down a false path. Not everyone follows your opinions.
Or have you lined out all of the passages you disagree with?
I believe in a way that shows how the scripture cannot be broken, and i agree with scripture, despite your accusations. Thanks again for this important feedback!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Another accusation on your part, and still no attempt to address the pages of material offered directly

Oh, but it is...it is your opinion, and no one I know shares it. You are welcome to your opinion, and notice I do not accuse you of lying!

This is your opinion and nothing more.

Nothing but your flawed opinion once again,no one is following you down this rabbit trail.

Again, it is you trying and failing to be condescending, but we see right through that.

No one really cares about your opinion as it is not fact.



okay, offer a direct quote and we will see who is posting truth or error. Perhaps you do not understand english as written,lol
here is a direct quote from me,lol from post 41...No one has denied that Jesus Himself is the propitiation. Not the pastors and teachers quoted. That is not the issue. Do you understand what i wrote in English? Can you quote me saying otherwise as you claim?

Another accusation?

I Know that. That is why I am offering you correction on your false accusations, lol

Another sad accusation on your part! I would let those who read this thread observe who it doing what!

Yes, you are posting a truth here.

okay, so you agree then that the Covenant children are individually elected unto salvation In Christ?

I do read my bible everyday, yet another false accusation and personal attack from you! Is that what you do? Attack people who do not follow you down a false path. Not everyone follows your opinions.

I believe in a way that shows how the scripture cannot be broken, and i agree with scripture, despite your accusations. Thanks again for this important feedback!
I did not accuse you of lying for being unaware that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory. That I chalked up to ignorance. The majority today hold Satisfaction Theory and reject Penal Substitution Theory. I believe it is wrong, so I am with you in holding a minority view. I just disagree with your minority view and you disagree with mine (I can say mine was the majority view at one time, you cannot....so there's that).

But it is not an opinion (that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Christianity. It is a fact. Truth is not subjective, no matter your opinion.

Yes, I know that when I posted Jesus was God's Elect I was posting truth.

The readon I called you a liar (and stand by that statement) is that when I said that Jesus is God's Elect and wuoted 1 Jn 2:2 that "He Himself is the Propitiation" you quoted it and replied that I denied God chose His covenant children and that Jesus died for them.

I never posted anything like that. I just quoted Scripture. You siimply lied, and there is no getting around that fact.

No, you fo not agree with Scripture. I think at some level you know this or you would not have been posting the opinions of men who agree with you rather than God's Word.

Scripture cannot be broken. This dies not mean we should change Scrioture to blend together every concept into one. You can't say Jesus wept because He walked on water simply because both are true statements.

John tells us that Jesus advocates for us if we sin, that He is the Propitiation for the sins of rhe World. John is not talking about people groups, but that Christians have an Advocate in Christ Jesus snd He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also for the World.

I understand your philosophy cannot handle God's Word, at least how you hold it. But that is a you problem, a subjective problem. Scripture is objective. Scripture does not care about your feelings or "your truth". We have "what is written".
 

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
The issue we were discussing was Scripture. My point had nothing to do with various theories, their merits or lack thereof.

I was simply saying that 1 John 2:2 does not apply itself to any people group. Verse 1 does apply Christ as an Advocate (in the present tense) should a Christian sin, so verse 1 does apply to a people group. But "propitiation in verse 2 is descriptive of Christ, not a group of men.
Yeah but Christ is the propitiation for a people group the world of God's elect from amongst the Jews and gentiles. You seem to be very unsure about what you really understand about propitiation!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yeah but Christ is the propitiation for a people group the world of God's elect from amongst the Jews and gentiles. You seem to be very unsure about what you really understand about propitiation!
My point is this is not what John was saying.

He says that if Christians sin we have an Advocate in Jesus who is the Propitiation for all sin.

There are other places where you could make your argument, but this verse neither supports or refute your position. You just zoned in on the word "propitiation" (which several Calvinist theologians think should be translated "atonement" as it includes propitiation....I disagree as I think propitiation is good).

Propitiation is easily understood. It is not a "biblical" word but a word used in the Bible. It means something that allows the avoidance of wrath or anger.

Propitiation is the "something" (a sacrifice, an apology, flowers, etc). Propitiated is what you are talking about.
 

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
My point is this is not what John was saying.

He says that if Christians sin we have an Advocate in Jesus who is the Propitiation for all sin.

There are other places where you could make your argument, but this verse neither supports or refute your position. You just zoned in on the word "propitiation" (which several Calvinist theologians think should be translated "atonement" as it includes propitiation....I disagree as I think propitiation is good).

Propitiation is easily understood. It is not a "biblical" word but a word used in the Bible. It means something that allows the avoidance of wrath or anger.

Propitiation is the "something" (a sacrifice, an apology, flowers, etc). Propitiated is what you are talking about.
Christ propitiation is valid for anybody he died for even before they believe, for he paid for the sins of his sheep before they were believers that's why they become believers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top