What is Propitiation and is it really the heart of the gospel?

[Martin Marprelate]

"On behalf of" does not mean "instead of", period.

It very frequently does, as I have shown.

If you do something instead of another, this can be on that person's behalf.

Yes. It very frequently is.

A vehicle is not a red pickup truck. But the red pickup truck can be a vehicle.

You are obsessed with red pickup trucks. I think you should buy one.

We were not under the curse of the law. Abraham was not under the curse of the law

We, and he were under the curse of the law - not the Mosaic law, but neither we nor Abraham can/could keep God's righteous laws in our own strength.

That verse speaks of the Mosaic Law which applied to the generation to which it was given and their descendents until it was fulfilled.

Here is the passage you misuse:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is [a]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Exactly. We cannot keep God's righteous laws and therefore we are all, without exception, under God's wrath. 'For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin' (Rom. 3:9). That is why the world is as it is and why 'the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.' The Galatians, having received the Gospel of free grace, were in danger of going back under the law, but that does not change the VERY simple point that Jew and Gentile alike are under God's curse (c.f. Gen 3:17-19), and Christ has redeemed us from that curse by becoming a curse for us.

This is the problem with your faith. You start with a theory and then flip through God's words picking and choosing verses you think can be misused to support that philosophy.


That said, Christ did take the curse of the Law upon Himself. But it was not "instead of us", or even "instead of them".

Yes it was. Christ took the curse upon Himself; believers are no longer under the curse. Penal Substitution.

It was so "that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

Exactly so. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, but that was only made possible by Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross (Rom. 3:25), and that same grace is given to us as well (Rom. 3:26)

I wish you could understand God's words. I know it is impossible for you. You have set your mind, here, on the flesh. You put your hand to the plow and looked back to philosophers who caught your eye. The flesh cannot grasp that which is spiritual.

Stop leaning on your understanding and lean on God's words. Read the bible, not for snippets you can extract to properly up your theories but for what is actually written.


Your post above proves you lack understanding. It proves you are willing to rip apart Scripture hunting for verses you can misuse.

Daniel 7:8. '... And there in this [little] horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No quotations needed.

No quotations available. You just make stuff up as you go along.

 

[JonC]

It very frequently does, as I have shown.

Yes. It very frequently is.

You are obsessed with red pickup trucks. I think you should buy one.

We, and he were under the curse of the law - not the Mosaic law, but neither we nor Abraham can/could keep God's righteous laws in our own strength.

Exactly. We cannot keep God's righteous laws and therefore we are all, without exception, under God's wrath. 'For we ahve previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin' (Rom. 3:9). That is why the world is as it is and why 'the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.' The Galatians, having received the Gospel of free grace, were in danger of going back under the law, but that does not change the VERY simple point that Jew and Gentile alike are under God's curse (c.f. Gen 3:17-19), and Christ has redeemed us from that curse by becoming a curse for us.

Yes it was. Christ took the curse upon Himself; believers are no longer under the curse. Penal Substitution.

Exactly so. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, but that was only made possible by Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross (Rom. 3:25), and that same grace is given to us as well (Rom. 3:26)

Daniel 7:8. '... And there in this [little] horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.'

No, you completely misrepresented the passage in Galations in order to try and make it fit your theory. You have been guilty of this more times than I can count over the past decade and a half.

You do not get to rewrite the Bible in your image.

That said, of course we would not have been able to keep the law if we had been under it. But that is not the point of the passage.

Go back and read the chapter in full.

 

[JonC]

No quotations available. You just make stuff up as you go along.

No. I figured you could answer for yourself.

Do you believe Jesus suffered God's wrath against our sin or do you believe that wrath were propitiated?

It is not a hard question, and you cannot have it both ways without liberal theology and "double-speak".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

ἀντί ("for", "because of") It is used as a preposition in the passage. Figuratively it could mean "this for that" (in place of"),

It often does. E.g. Matthew 2:22.

but not in the verse you are trying to misrepresent.

You mean the verse you are trying (and failing) to misrepresent. Why not?

 

[DaveXR650]

No quotations needed. If you do not believe Jesus experienced the punishment of God for our sins all I have to say is "praise God!"

If you do believe that then you do not believe Christ propitiated that wrath.

Do you believe Jesus suffered God's wrath against our sin or do you believe that wrath were propitiated?

It is not a hard question, and you cannot have it both ways without liberal theology and "double-speak".

I don't really understand your logic here. It's not a question of having it both ways. That is what happened and that is a description of how the wrath was propitiated. You have made up a dilemma that does not in fact exist.

 

[JonC]

I don't really understand your logic here. It's not a question of having it both ways. That is what happened and that is a description of how the wrath was propitiated. You have made up a dilemma that does not in fact exist.

My logic is this is NOT what God's word actually says happened. It is conflicting ideas within your theory (which is why so many preferred "expiation" over "propitiation").

The problem is you actively oppose what is written in Scripture. Your liberal theology has failed you.


What did you say when I pointed out that the Bible says over 2 dozen times that the priest made atonement by applying the blood; that it is the application of the blood that cleanses; that God would see the applied blood and death would pass over; that it is Christ's blood when applied (recieved) by faith that cleanses...?

You said that was like asking how the doorframe were built.

That was quite a lot of passages to dismiss merely to support your understanding.

My logic is that the flesh cannot understand the things of the spirit. It is impossible.

 

[JonC]

Ok.....let's go through this again.

1. In the Old Testament the Israelites offered sacrifices, what they considered "gifts" of obedience.

They killed an animal.

The priest took the blood and applied it to the altar to "make atonement" for the sins of the people.

2. At the Exodus, the Israelites killed a lamb and applied the blood to the door post. Hod said if He saw the blood applied He would keep the destroyer from entering that house.

3. God set forth His Son as a Propitiation by His blood to be received by faith.

4. Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

5. Jesus gave Himself as a guilt offering.

6. It was God's will to bruise Him, to crush Him

7. It is by His stripes we are healed.


We are supposed to complete dismiss so much of Scripture (look at so much of God's words as insignificant, like how door frames were built) and blindly follow the understandings of a fairly small sect of men claiming to know what the Bible "really teaches when properly understood".

No.

God's words stand even against the false doctrines of men like @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 . They may fall, but NEVER God's words.


Christians need to constantly rework their understsnding, bringing it ever closer to God's words, rather than trying to conform His words to their understanding.

We, who are saved, may hold different views BUT we do not lean on our own understanding. We lean on the words that come forth from God.

Many will say "Lord, Lord," only to hear "I never knew you".

This is NOT a game of winning an argument. This is life or death. If you have read this thread (or the passages that have been provided) then you know at some level you are going to have to choose who to follow. Men or God, human understanding about what the Bible "really" teaches or the very words that come from God.

God did not stutter. His words are plain. If they seem irrelevant, like how ancient door frames were built, stick around with His Word rather than replacing it with theory. Clarity will come.

Do not lean on your understanding lest you be carried away by philosophy. There will be a point if no return, the acceptable hour will pass.

Theology is not the answer. What ithers say is really taught is not the answer. Even our own understanding is not the answer.

God is the answer. And we have His words.

 

[DaveXR650]

My logic is this is NOT what God's word actually says happened. It is conflicting ideas within your theory (which is why so many preferred "expiation" over "propitiation").

The problem is you actively oppose what is written in Scripture. Your liberal theology has failed you.

I'll leave the differences between expiation and propitiation to those with graduate degrees. Either way, it is what happened, it is scriptural. And where did we suddenly start calling this "liberal" theology. Almost all the modern objections, many of which do indeed come straight from Socinus, are from true liberal theologians. You know as well as I do that the real problem they have with "propitiation" is not the precise meaning, but that it shows a side of God they don't like to admit. He hates sin, is pure, and has chosen (if scripture is to be accepted as inspired) to reveal that to us as producing "wrath".

You said that was like asking how the doorframe were built.

You said yourself, after 2 posts truly refuting that, that you finally had figured out that I was making fun of you. Yet you bring this up again. Are you actually going to refute this?

My logic is that the flesh cannot understand the things of the spirit. It is impossible.

I definitely agree with that. This is being proven over and over.

 

[JonC]

I'll leave the differences between expiation and propitiation to those with graduate degrees.

Why? They are basic English words. Like...9th grade words.

I mean...you must have read Dickens in High School. Hawthorne? Conrad?

I knew you were not seriously asking about door frames. You were mocking God (minimizing the passages I provided). Otherwise you would have addressed the fact that the sacrifice was not the atonement itself.

It is not what would be considered modern liberalism. I thought I clarified that point. It is liberal in terms of the PSA theorists view of Scripture.

At one time Christians took God's words ("what is written", the actual biblical text) more seriously than you are willing to view Scripture. Well, not all "Christians" (there was always a liberal movement in handling the Bible).


What I see is "Christians" moving away from God's words and increasingly to the understsnding of men they agree with.

I will stick with God.

 

[DaveXR650]

I knew you were not seriously asking about door frames. You were mocking God (minimizing the passages I provided). Otherwise you would have addressed the fact that the sacrifice was not the atonement itself.

I wasn't minimizing any passages unless you can find one that states that the construction of a doorframe in an Israelite's house was part of the atonement. And I certainly wasn't mocking God. Now you have accused me of that twice, and I think that is at least equivalent to doubting a fellow member's salvation. You illustrate what I was trying to say in your post by your continued insistence that one can separate out the violent death of the sacrifice from the applying of the blood. I stand by the charge that this is very poor understanding of scripture.

 

[JonC]

I wasn't minimizing any passages unless you can find one that states that the construction of a doorframe in an Israelite's house was part of the atonement.

I said that at the Exodus it was not the killing of the Lamb but the applying of the blood that God required for death to pass over. Kill a lamb, refuse to apply the blood on the door post, you would be toast (well...the first born).

I said in the OT sacrifices it was not the killing of the animal by the people but the priest applying the blood that "made atonement for the sins of the people".

I said that there OT priest applied the blood at the entrance of the Tabernacle for cleansing (killing the animal did not cleanse).

I said that God set forth His Son as a propitiation through His blood to be relieved, and relieved by faith, that it is His blood that cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

You said my posts were like asking how door frames were built. But those were God's words I posted, not mine. You were mocking God's words, attributing them as irrelevant and meaningles, because they did not support your theory regarding OT sacrifices.

You are too accustomed to drinking the kool-aid, just soaking in what those who share you view tell you.

Those passages, God's words, ARE important regardless of your understanding.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

In the past you pointed to the significance of the OT sacrifices. You indicated that sacrificing these animals pointed to the Atonement.

What I want you to do is explain your reasoning.

While shedding the blood of the sacrifice was required for atonement it was the priest applying the blood that Scripture calls "making atonement for the sins of the people".

In the OT the sacrifice was a "gift" of obedience with the atonement coming afterwards.

Likewise, Christ gave Himself as a guilt offering, was obedient even to death. God set Him forth as a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith.

Can you explain how this sacrifice system points to your theory?



I am trying to see how you can defend your theory with God's words.

If it is just your understanding, what you and men who agree with you think is really taught by the Bible, then say so. We hold different standards and will never see eye to eye unless you accept God's words as greater than men's understanding (which I doubt will happen). I certainly will not return to "the wisdom of man".

 

[DaveXR650]

I said that at the Exodus it was not the killing of the Lamb but the applying of the blood that God required for death to pass over. Kill a lamb, refuse to apply the blood on the door post, you would be toast (well...the first born).

Jon. This must all be looked at together. In Revelation 13:8 there is a reference that refers to "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world". You would not want to make a claim that that refutes passages that refer to the application of the blood, or the blood as washing away sins. To make such claims would be extremely poor use of scripture. Those who say that the blood for instance washes away sin do not put that up against Christ's death being a penal substitution. All I am saying is that the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, even though it did not actually remove sin, was instituted by God. It was not as Greg Boyd says, a toleration and redirecting of already in place Israelite pagan sacrifices. So therefore I believe they describe a real significant action from start to finish, with further proof of this in the book of Hebrews.

So the death of the sacrifice by slaying it was indeed part of what the animal sacrifices were intended to show in the atonement. And here again, your odd exegesis could lead someone to say that since the OT sacrifices were said to please God that in a sense they were truly atoning sacrifices and did propitiate God by their obedience. But true as that is it does not diminish Hebrews where it is explained that Jesus himself was the point of all that and that the whole system pointed to Him. And, this is very important, Hebrews explains that the sacrifices in the OT did not actually take away sin - only Christ could do that and only once. But you don't want to read all those passages with the idea of putting one up against the other.

 

[JonC]

Jon. This must all be looked at together. In Revelation 13:8 there is a reference that refers to "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world". You would not want to make a claim that that refutes passages that refer to the application of the blood, or the blood as washing away sins. To make such claims would be extremely poor use of scripture. Those who say that the blood for instance washes away sin do not put that up against Christ's death being a penal substitution. All I am saying is that the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, even though it did not actually remove sin, was instituted by God. It was not as Greg Boyd says, a toleration and redirecting of already in place Israelite pagan sacrifices. So therefore I believe they describe a real significant action from start to finish, with further proof of this in the book of Hebrews.

So the death of the sacrifice by slaying it was indeed part of what the animal sacrifices were intended to show in the atonement. And here again, your odd exegesis could lead someone to say that since the OT sacrifices were said to please God that in a sense they were truly atoning sacrifices and did propitiate God by their obedience. But true as that is it does not diminish Hebrews where it is explained that Jesus himself was the point of all that and that the whole system pointed to Him. And, this is very important, Hebrews explains that the sacrifices in the OT did not actually take away sin - only Christ could do that and only once. But you don't want to read all those passages with the idea of putting one up against the other.

I think you missed the point of the passages I posted. I am saying we have to look at Scripture as a whole AND that it all matters (the OT sacrifice system do not negate Revelation OR vice versa).

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The OT sacrifices (those "gifts" of obedience) IS important. Christ's obedience to death is vital. Christ giving Himself as a guilt offering is very important.


BUT we are discussing the atonement itself (the forgiveness of sins).


Yes, the people needed to slay the lambs and goats. But it was after this that death passed over, it was after this that the priest "made atonement for the sins of the people).

And it is after God setting forth His Son as a propitiation through His blood that we recieve atonement... it must be "received through faith".


Your "explation" is no explanation at all. Can you try again, this time addressing what the biblical text states about the atonement?

Scripture differentiates between the Lamb slain and the blood applied (both in the OT and NT). The Early Church did as well. How do you account for this?

 

[DaveXR650]

Your "explation" is no explanation at all. Can you try again, this time addressing what the biblical text states about the atonement?

No. This was done on the first page. Look. To be honest, the Baptist Board, if it wants to remain a viable place of discussion, if it continues to allow you to come on with such prejudice every time something related to the atonement is put up, will have to, or maybe it already has, take the decision that penal substitutionary atonement has no place on this site. I thought at first that maybe it was a Calvinist issue and that possibly there was an effort to get Calvinists off here. That can't be it because although it is true that some Calvinists take a view that PSA cannot exist without 5 point Calvinism, many many others, who are not Calvinists at all - are putting out some of the best stuff in defense of PSA.

I honestly don't know what else to say that has not already been said many times. Since I started this thread I could request that it be closed but I don't mind at all if others want to continue.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I said in the OT sacrifices it was not the killing of the animal by the people but the priest applying the blood that "made atonement for the sins of the people".

I said that there OT priest applied the blood at the entrance of the Tabernacle for cleansing (killing the animal did not cleanse).

I had hoped to avoid getting bogged down in discussions of what happened in the sacrifices and what the pecise meanings might be. But Heigh-ho!
Leviticus 1:3. 'If his [the Israelite's] offering is a burnt offering of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tanernacle of meeting before the LORD. Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.'
Here it is the placing of the offerer's hand on the animal that brought about atonement. Not all offerings were for the purpose of atonement, any more than they are today (Romans 12:1; Phil. 4:18 etc.), but this one, at any rate did not depend on the priests to make atonement, although they still sprinkled th blood around the altar. If we want to discuss O.T. sacrifices, I think we would be better of discussing the Yom Kippur in Lev.16.
But today, Jesus Christ is our great High Priest, has made one perfect sacrifice of sins forever. His blood was not offered in the Temple on earth, day after day, by human, sinful priests, but By Himself, once for all, to the Father in the true heavenly tanernacle (Hebrews 9:14 etc.).

 

[JonC]

I had hoped to avoid getting bogged down in discussions of what happened in the sacrifices and what the pecise meanings might be. But Heigh-ho!
Leviticus 1:3. 'If his [the Israelite's] offering is a burnt offering of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tanernacle of meeting before the LORD. Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.'

This is not a sin or guilt offering. See what I mean about you ripping out verses to twist them into supporting your theory.

You just proved my point.

And yes - The people brought the burnt offering and it was accepted to make atonement. BUT NOT AS AN ATONEMENT FOR SIN.

The olah was a burnt offering for devotion.

And continue.

" You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting....You are to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall splash its blood against the sides of the altar. You are to cut it into pieces, and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar."

Who shed the blood? The priests? No.

The people killed the animal. What did Aaron's sons and the priests do? Can you guess? Applied the blood.

AND this was not even a sin offering!!

But you made a huge point against your theory. The word atonement was not for sin alone. It was also for devotion to God. It signifies being reconciled - not making amends or paying a debt. In your example it has nothing to do with forgiving sins. And still it was not accomplished by applying the blood.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is not a sin or guilt offering. See what I mean about you ripping out verses to twist them into supporting your theory.

You just proved my point.

And yes - The people brought the burnt offering and it was accepted to make atonement. BUT NOT AS AN ATONEMENT FOR SIN.

Leviticus 1:3. 'If his [the Israelite's] offering is a burnt offering of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tanernacle of meeting before the LORD. Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.'
Readers will notice that there is no mention of atonement in the Grain Offering (Lev. 2) and the Peace Offering (Lev. 3), but there is in the Burnt Offering. Go figure! It is worth noting that the priests has to sprinkle the blood of the Peace Offering all around the altar, but apparently it did not make atonement.

 

[atpollard]

If I could make an observation as a bystander:

Love the exchange (I want to hear the exegesis for both sides), but the tone … not so much.
As a Baptist, we are supposed to be more tolerant of “Individual Soul Liberty” and as Christians, people with different opinions could end up as next door neighbors for ETERNITY.

So by all means “Once more into the breach” … but with Love.