The high cost of a believer rejecting Jesus Christ

To ignore the "Details" listed here (and already posted) simply because you find them "inconvenient" when you tell your story about Calvinism - is not "a compelling form of debate".

</font>[/QUOTE]IT IS compelling that you turn a blind eye to these clear objective findings on the "appeasement" aspect of propitiation - I will admit that.

But the facts remain.

So also the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully the previous posts will help clarify WHY it would be important NOT to use the Pagan POV and WHY the Hebrew concept of "atoning Sacrifice" and "sin offering" were the ESTABLISHED views of atonement that would be needed RATHER than the pagan concept of "propitiation" as the correct "translation to ENGLISH" for Hilasmos in the case of 1John 2.

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

In failing to pay attention to the details given so far - you have also added to that problem - your above use of a circular argument by trying to "create" a Christian BACKGROUND/History for "propitiation" by the time John writes 1John 2 or Paul writes Romans 3. They did not have previous context for English words in the first century.

Their use of Hilasmos therefore has to be the HEBREW "scripture" context as we see in Lev 16 and Ezek 44. Atoning Sacrifice and "Sin offering" are correct.

When John writes in 1John 2 he is helping to create/establish the Christian church. He does not use the ENGLISH word Propitiation - he uses the GREEK term Hilasmos that "can" have the Pagan idea of Propitiation - which is "appeasement" as has been documented here FOR the word Propitiation.

But it can also be given the HEBREW/Biblical/Scriptural - OT (exegetically sound) meaning of Atoning-Scrifice or sin-offering. Concepts fully established in Lev 16 where the SAME word is used and in Ezek 44 where the SAME word is used.

Obviously the Hebrew OT IS the Bible - the SCRIPTURE that John and Paul are using for THEIR context.

Turning a blind eye to inconvenient facts - does not turn your failed argument into a successful one.

That method would only work with the "Already convinced" who ask for no evidence/reason/logic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The use of the term "Sin offering" for the atoning sacrifice in Lev 16 "The Lord's goat" is obvious. In fact at times it is ONLY identified as "the sin offering". THIS is the context for HILASMOS that John and Paul would have been familiar with.

The idea of "atoning sacrifice" simple SHOWS explicitly that link between the Lev 16 definitive statement on ATONEMENT and its frequent use of HILASMOS for the SACRIFICE!

An "obvious point" I know - but in debates with Calvinism it is often the role of the Arminian position to "continually point out the obvious" just as it is consitently the role of the Calvinist POV to obfuscate it.

I suppose we are used to that by now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

IT is still a purpose clause, or result clause (they are closely linked).

If you understood limited atonement, then you would know the answer to this question. I get tired of repeating myself. John 3:16 is right to say "whosoever believes." Why do you want to leave off the believing? Calvinists believe that whosoever believes will be saved. The question of limited atonement is What did Christ die to do? Did he die to save, or did he die to make salvation possible? The answer is both, and the limited atonement view affirms the former, as well as the latter. Salvation is possible for all who believe. And if every single person in teh world believes, no more is required than has already been offered. However, the atonement is a payment (not a possibility) for the elect.

 

Criticism noted. Please ignore that phrase "about Calvinism". It should be corrected to read


To ignore the "Details" listed here (and already posted) simply because you find them "inconvenient" when you tell your story - is not "a compelling form of debate".

I offer the correction with my sincerest appologies.

In fact I was about to post along those lines and ask why in the world you were arguing this case in a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" style when your argument for denying the obvious - seems to have no "gain" for Calvinism.

It is an easier form of emphasis than doing the 3 character sequence to start bold type and then the 4 character sequence to stop it.

Again - just stating the obvious.

I use the quote convention for HTML to show what you type. Have you noticed that?

"Now" you are talking like a true Calvinist!

I guess you would need details at some point to back up your assertions/claims/accusations.

IF you had read the "details" you would notice that I said "Either one will work" and have no problem with your insisting that 1John 2 be "Sin offering" rather than "Atoning Sacrifice".

I can work with either one - thouch clearly you can not.

So fin - "Sin Offering".

Since you are not Calvinist - I am not sure why you want to balk at 1John 2:2 at all.

Do you care to elaborate?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I did not say that all sin offerings were confined to the Lev 16 Atonement - however in the daily sin offerings - atonement was conveyed as well.

My point is that the 1John 2 idea of Christ dying as our sin offering (or Atoning SACRIFICE) is clearly portrated IN the Atonment chapter of Lev 16 and is certainly the ponit of the text.

As we find in 1Cor 5 "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain" so in 1John 2 we find that Christ IS THE sin offering of atonement - in fact it is using the same Hilasmos of Lev 16.

It does not appear to promote EITHER the Arminian or Calvinist positions to deny this obvious fact of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

#1. I know of NO doctrine called "propitiation".

#2. Historians DO recognize in the historic use of "propitiation" the Greek pagan concept of "APPEASEMENT" AND that this concept of "appeasement" was present at the time of the writing of 1John 2. But John would be using the Lev 16 idea of HILASMOS not the pagan "APPEASEMENT" from that is central to "propitiation".

Hence the commentary noted that "propitiation" is not valid in 1John 2.

In Christ,

Bob