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

[Zaatar71]

Yes. Throughout Scripture we read that God forgives sins, but this forgiveness is not arbitrary. Per Scripture God forgives sins when the sinner repents ("turns from sin", turns from "a mind set on the flesh", "turns to God", "sets [their] mind on the Spirit").

Penal Substitution Theory was a reform of Aquinas' theory based on the 16th century judicial philosophy that justice demands a penalty be imposed for a crime (otherwise justice is not accomplished). The role of a judge is ensure the balance of justice is satisfied (a criminal cannot be pardoned for a crime without the penalty being satisgied as this would create a judicial deficit).

That judicial philosophy was common even up to a couple of centuries ago, however it has declined significantly in modern thought.

BUT this judicial philosophy lives on in the Penal Substitution Theory as its foundation. The idea is that God cannot forgive sins (crimes in the secular sence). Aquinas' philosophy allowed for one person to take satisfactory punishment as a substitute for another (not punishment for sin but a punishment that satisfies God) as long as both parties were willing. But this would not satisfy the 16th century philosophy (it would leave a judicial deficit).

Penal Substitution Theory reformed Aquinas' theory by moving the "problem" from merit to justice and changing satisfactory punishment to simple punishment.

God cannot forgive sins but He can punish the innocent instead of the wicked so that the wicked escape punishment.

Not interested in your ideas of church history. You have offered no scripture at all

A few facts -

1. Every cult believes the men they follow were given by God. Mormons believe Joseph Smith received Hod's teachings. SDA's believe Ellen White's visions were God given.

2. It is a fact that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Chriatianity. It is limited to some - not all - Christians influenced by the teachings of a couple of Reformers.

We can know that the Apostalic Church did not believe Penal Substitution Theory because its teachings are not recorded in the Bible. We know the Early Church did not believe Penal Substitution Theory because we have their writings as well. We even know how Penal Substitution Theory came to be (and why it contains Augustine's error regarding sin from the mistranslation of Romans 5:12 in the Vulgate).

I do, however, understand that disagreeing with men, even Christian men, to follow God can be uncomfortable. People put their eggs in a traditional basket and hope for the best. My counter point is that we have God's Word. Why not follow it instead?

John Murray, and Al martin are not cult leaders. You cannot deal with what they have offered. More of your false history

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[Zaatar71]

WGT,Shedd
In the majority of the passages, however, which speak of Christ's sufferings and death, the preposition "ὑπέρ" (hyper) is employed: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for (ὑπέρ) you" (Luke 22:19–20); "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51); "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for (ὑπέρ) his friends" (John 15:13); "Christ died for (ὑπέρ) the ungodly; while we were yet sinners Christ died for (ὑπέρ) us" (Rom. 5:6–8); "he delivered him up for (ὑπέρ) us all" (Rom. 8:32); "if one died for (ὑπέρ) all then all died" (2 Cor. 5:14–15); "he made him to be sin for (ὑπέρ) us" (2 Cor. 5:21); "being made a curse for (ὑπέρ) us" (Gal. 3:13); "Christ gave himself for (ὑπέρ) us an offering and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2, 25); "the man Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for (ὑπέρ) all" (1 Tim. 2:5–6); Christ "tasted death for (ὑπέρ) every man" (Heb. 2:9); Christ "suffered the just for (ὑπέρ) the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18).

The preposition ὑπέρ, like the English preposition for, has two significations. It may denote advantage or benefit, or it may mean substitution

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[Zaatar71]

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.

You have failed to interact with what has been offered, You seek to dismiss it. You do not really grasp the gospel evidently. I have no choice but dismiss your non responsive entries. Thanks for trying.

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.

The apostles were used by God to write the NT, which contains PSA in that which was written. You have failed once again to interact to the many posts showing what scripture teaches. If you want to give your revised version, start a thread on your own. Professor John Murray is known worldwide. I am not sure if you are known anywhere??? Have you written or published anything, anywhere? I think not.
So again, try your ideas on a new thread. No one seems interested in what you are saying, all off topic. Thanks again

 

[JonC]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Zaatar71]

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]

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.

 

[Brightfame52]

@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]

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".

 

[Dave...]

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.

 

[JonC]

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).

 

[Zaatar71]

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;

1 John 2 Greek interlinear, parsed and per word translation, free online

The entire chapter 1 John 2 interlinear (Greek/English), translated word by word and with Greek grammar parsing codes, free online

www.abarim-publications.com

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]

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;

1 John 2 Greek interlinear, parsed and per word translation, free online

The entire chapter 1 John 2 interlinear (Greek/English), translated word by word and with Greek grammar parsing codes, free online

www.abarim-publications.com

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.