The high cost of a believer rejecting Jesus Christ

[BobRyan]

TCassidy said --
I just understand that the theological definition of "propitiation" has nothing whatsoever to do with the pagan concept of appeasing the angry gods.

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".

I suppose I could leave it as an exercise for the reader to determin if "sin offering" and "Atoning Sacrifice" are valid synonyms given the Lev 16 model for "atonement".

I am happy with either one in this case.

As for "propitiation" and the context established from Greek myths and Greek gods.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Propitiation \Pro*pi`ti*a"tion\, n. [L. propitiatio: cf. F.
propitiation.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor
of an offended person; the act of making propitious.
[1913 Webster]

2. (Theol.) That which propitiates; atonement or atoning
sacrifice; specifically, the influence or effects of the
death of Christ in appeasing the divine justice, and
conciliating the divine favor.
[1913 Webster]

He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins.
--1 John ii.
2.
[1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) :

propitiation
n 1: the act of placating and overcoming distrust and animosity
[syn: placation, conciliation]
2: the act of atoning for sin or wrongdoing (especially
appeasing a deity) [syn: expiation, atonement]

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/propitiation

c. The Greek and Jewish concept of propitiation

Zondervan writes that

‘In classic pagan usage, the word propitiation...was used of averting the wrath of the gods. Renewed favour with heaven was won for the offender by his offering a gift or sacrifice to atone for his trespass’

while Morris comments that

‘...it was often held that the gods became angry with their worshippers and that they had to be appeased by choice offerings’

In the Greek world, the words translated by ‘propitiation’ were used in conjunction with the gods of a particular area, nation or even of an individual.

The ancients looked at the disasters of life around them and saw the hand of their gods in them - each incident (whether personal or corporate) was to them a demonstration of their wrath. But no-one was quite sure why the gods got angry. So they tried to propitiate them (turn away their anger to gain divine favour) by various acts of piety and service such as sacrifice, rituals, vows, dances and, even, games.

So, for instance, a failed crop of the staple diet of that nation or tribal group couldn’t go uninterpreted as the result of the anger of their chosen god - and there became the necessity to ‘appease’ their anger by certain actions. There was also a necessity to continuously offer to the gods to try and keep in their favour, so we see annual rituals (such as the celebration of the solstices) that tried to convey to their gods the reverence and awe in which they were held.

But still the people weren’t always certain just what made their gods angry - trial and error may give pointers in certain directions but there was seldom a time when they could pin-point a particular action that, if they were to do it again, would provoke a similar response.

http://www.arlev.clara.net/propitia.htm#4

</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

 

[BobRyan]

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.

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

TCassidy -
Hopefully your previous posts will help you clarify your thinking in regards to the Christian theological meaning of "propitiation" as being quite different from the irrelevant pagan concept, and that "atonement" and "sin offering" are not theologically interchangeable concepts. There were many "sin offerings" in the OT that were not offered on the Day of Atonement.

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

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by icthus:
Yeh, I noticed that both Cassidy and Larry (and any other Calvinist) seem to ignore what the Greek Lexicons have to say on the two places where "kosmos" is used.

You mean the way you ignore what the Greek lexicons say when they give "deliverer" as a translation of "swthr?"

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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".

Three points. The first is that I am not telling a story about Calvinism as, if you had read my posts you would already know, I am not a Calvinist!

Second you put both "details" and "inconvenient" in quotation marks yet I never used either word. Quotation marks are used to do one of two things, the first is to indicate you are quoting somebody else, and the second is to indicate that the usage of a word in a manner other than its accepted lexical meaning. As you are not quoting me I will have to assume you mean that the "details" are not all that detailed and that "inconvenient" really means convenient.

Third, misrepresenting and twisting what I said is not "a compelling form of debate" either.

Your simple error is to think that the definitions you cite equate sin offering with atonement. They are not identical in meaning although they do overlap a bit. To think that all sin offering in the OT is also atonement is simply to fail to understand the sin offerings offered at times other than the Day of Atonement. And to say that propitiation which is an historic doctrine of the Christian faith is pagan is simply a display of Modernism which ignores the historic position Christians have taken since the time of the Apostles.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Turning a blind eye to inconvenient facts - does not turn your failed argument into a successful one.

You seem to be having a problem sticking to the truth. I have not turned a blind eye to any facts, and I find absolutely nothing about the historic Christian understanding of propitiation to be inconvenient.

What I do find is a remarkable reliance on the ravings of C. H. Dodd and very little reliance on the bible and the historic position of Christendom.

To use the long accepted theological term propitiation does not mean that God has had His anger toward us somehow appeased by the sacrifice, but that we will not now experience the painful consequences of sin that we otherwise would have experienced.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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.

Well, if you are going to continue to be dishonest about me and what I believe then it is obvious we no longer have a foundation of truth and ethical conduct on which to base any further discussion.

[ April 19, 2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

I did not see you respond to my reply, showing that the subjunctive with "hina" is also used for "uncertainity" in Scripture, as it does in 2 Thess 2:16. Can you check this in the Greek and come back to me?

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

If you believe that "God so loved the world", as referring to "all of mankind". Then, how can you continue to believe in Limited Atonement? For, the "whosoever believes" in the verse has to the refer to "whosover" from "all of mankind". Right?

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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".

Originally posted by TCassidy:
Three points. The first is that I am not telling a story about Calvinism as, if you had read my posts you would already know, I am not a Calvinist!

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.

TCassidy --
Second you put both "details" and "inconvenient" in quotation marks yet I never used either word.

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.

TCassidy
Quotation marks are used to do one of two...

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

TCassidy -
I will have to assume you mean that the "details" are not all that detailed and that "inconvenient" really means convenient.

"Now" you are talking like a true Calvinist!

TCassidy
Third, misrepresenting and twisting what I said is not "a compelling form of debate" either.

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

TCassidy
Your simple error is to think that the definitions you cite equate sin offering with atonement.

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

 

[BobRyan]

TCassidy said
They are not identical in meaning although they do overlap a bit. To think that all sin offering in the OT is also atonement is simply to fail to understand the sin offerings

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.

TCassidy

And to say that propitiation which is an historic doctrine of the Christian faith is pagan

#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

 

[BobRyan]

Landkarten zur Bible, prepared by Karl Elliger, revised by Siegfried Mittmann. Designed by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart and Kartographisches Institut Helmut Fuchs Leonberg. Copyright ©1963, 1978, 1990 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission.

Electronic text hypertexted and prepared by OakTree Software, Inc.
Version 3.3

40.12 i°lasmo/ß, ouv m; i°lasth/riona, ou n: the means by which sins are forgiven — ‘the means of forgiveness, expiation.’
i°lasmo/ßÚ aujto\ß i°lasmo/ß e?stin peri« tw?n a?martiw?n hJmw?n ‘(Christ) himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven’ 1Jn 2:2.
i°lasth/rionaÚ o§n proe÷qeto oJ qeo\ß i°lasth/rion dia» thvß pi÷stewß ‘God offered him as a means by which sins are forgiven through faith (in him)’ Ro 3:25.


Though some traditional translations render i°lasth/rion as ‘propitiation,’ this involves a wrong interpretation of the term in question. Propitiation is essentially a process by which one does a favor to a person in order to make him or her favorably disposed, but in the NT God is never the object of propitiation since he is already on the side of people. i°lasmo/ß and i°lasth/riona denote the means of forgiveness and not propitiation.