Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by HeirofSalvation, Dec 11, 2012.
An interesting article here:
What does "propitiation" mean?
It's a transliteration....it has no English equivalent. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.
Good Article. Here's a few other troublesome verses:
1 Timothy 4:10 - For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
2 Peter 2:1 - But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Most of us would not say any of these verses are saying that all will be saved. So we must come up with another solution:
-Jesus is the Savior of some who are lost?
-Jesus bought some who are lost?
-Jesus died for the sins of some who are lost?
It raises the question of what "dying for their sins", "savior", and "bought them" actually means.
I don't have a perfect answer, except to say I don't think it is biblical accurate to say that Jesus Atonement is actually applied to every single person, but that the only sin punished in hell is unbelief...since there seem to be many verses about being judged for our sins and deeds themselves...although I suppose the end result is the same.
I think you are on the right track...You are ever a thoughtful poster....2 Peter 2:1 gives me a special pause...here is God saying (and in so many words) that there are "false teachers" and "false prophets" that he states unequivocally he "bought them".... I just think this is a Biblical argument worth consideration:
2Pe 2:1 ¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
As far as I can tell..........unless one re-writes this Scripture to say what it doesn't say, Jesus "bought" the "false prophets" and the "false teachers"....
That's simply Bible. It's a Bible statement. It needs no special "teaching" to understand. It says what it says, and it says that Jesus "bought" obviously un-saved and un-redeemed persons...as clarified later in the same verse with this statement:
bring upon themselves swift destruction.......Their further damnation is clearly IMO demonstrated, in the same verse, by the fact that they teach "damnable heresies" A "damnable" heresy, is a heresy about the salvation or gospel message...and yet those "false prophets" and "teachers" who teach truly "damnable" heresies were "bought"....
It doesn't take a Theologian to explain that...it's entailed in one verse. I am sure that James White and others can explain to us that that verse doesn't actually SAY what it says.......but, they will do so by explaining that, well, it DOESN'T SAY what it obviously says.
Interestingly, you didn't answer the question. So I'll provide the answer:
"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ."*
Charles C. Ryrie (1999-01-11). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Kindle Locations 5503-5504). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.*
2434 hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. 2434 (hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath, on all confessed sin. By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate 2434 /hilasmós ("propitiation").
Now plug that definition into 1John 2:2
1John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Hello universalism. The whole worlds sins have been paid for and Gods wrath against those sins has been satisfied.
Look, Grasshopper, I know that there are meaningful Theologically derived explanations of what "propitiation" is. Do you think that I was suggesting that the word was inherently meaningless? I think you do. I think you were of the opinion that I was attempting to suggest that the term "propitiation" was meaningless and insignifigant to English-speakers....I'm not. What I am saying is true...there is NO English equivalent for the term. It is a transliteration, and all meanings for it are Theologically derived...
Thus, when you attempt to make a statement by suggesting what you think is a self-evident answer, you would be wise to use a term which is anotatively meaningful in the language in which you enter a debate:
"Propitiation" is not an "ANOTATIVELY" meaningful word in English.
Due to Theological derivations, it has become "CONOTATIVELY" meaningful...
What I said was, and remains true..."Propitiation" is a transliteration of Greek characters which have no equivalent in English....all meaning is Theologically derived.
I answered the question perfectly and accurately. I just didn't answer it the way you WANTED me to. Welcome to the internet. I answered it sufficiently in response to precisely how you phrased your question....
I'm not so stupid as to think you weren't begging for more with your obviously leading question...I'm just going to make you state your non-curious and leading questions more honestly... I would rather you make statements when you intend to make statements instead of try to lead people with questionnairres...You asked a VERY simple question...I gave you the simplest answer possible, and it was absolutely accurate and true....don't blame me if I can easily see right through what you think was a cleverly devised trap....It simply wasn't that clever.
Ryrie's answer...(and I like Ryrie) is a Theologically derived one...it still remains a transliteration with absolutely NO, I repeat, NO direct translation into English...That's the question you asked, and I provided the real answer. Learn young grasshopper.
My favorite part is the double jeopardy part although I disagree with the thrust of the article.
he said, " Calvinists like to argue that if Christ died for all men’s sins then they should be atoned for when they die since God cannot be just in punishing them for the sins He laid upon Christ on the cross. First of all, no one is saved merely by the atonement of Christ. That Jesus died on the cross or shed His blood saves no one. Even Calvinists acknowledge this. We are saved by grace through faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:23-26). Scripture is clear that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). If Christ died for the elect only then it logically follows that the elect are born saved, regenerated, and sinless. Yet all Calvinists agree that they were sinners and now are saved by grace through faith. How can this be if Christ died for the sins on the cross and paid their sin debt? How can God place the sins of the elect on Christ and then still call people to repent of sins that He has already forgiven them of and did not see because they were in Christ? It is illogical."
The double jeopardy issue is complicated and mysterious from either view. In a sense either view can be labelled illogical so the attack is unfair IMO.
From the non-cal side we have Christ dying for all sins of all mankind, even paying for the sins of the dead. In this view, people die and go to hell on the basis of resisting Christ not for their own sins. If you try to reconcile a universal atonement and people going to hell, you end up with Christ paying for sins and the sinner paying for the same sins which is why its called, "double jeopardy".
From a cal side their is no problem with double jeopardy because the atonement is exact for deceased, living, and future saints. The problem he calls illogical is that a saint at one point in his life is unconverted and dead in his sins while Christ also has paid for his sins. It seems like double jeopardy, but in my mind is not an issue. The reason I say this is that while Christ has died for the person's sins he still is unborn until God applies the blessing of atonement to him. So we were always loved and destined to be in Christ by God but as it played out in reality God had to do the work of regeneration on our behalf where He lead us to trust in Christ and realize what He had done in our place. The best way to sum it up is that were were lost and dead in sin, yet in God's ultimate will we were never condemned because He always knew us. Our sin hurt us and separated us from God, but at the exact time He came and saved us bringing us to Himself as He from eternity past had planned to do.
As for the underlined statements above, I believe they sound pretty bad. Nobody is saved by the atonement alone? I think one of the problems in our Christian culture is the exaltation of faith to the degree that it is added to the atonement, which is what he said. This is why we have churched full of unconverted people trying to come to God by a type of fleshly faith that was not originated by the Spirit. I don't see our faith as the deal breaker with God as if the ball is in our court and He has laid out the path. The way I see it in Scripture, God comes down and saves us from our sin, in the process of His work there is this an amazing thing that happens through the Spirit working in our hearts that opens up our eyes and our hearts in a way that produces what we call faith. Faith is what we live by and how we interact with the reality God has brought to our hearts concerning Jesus. It is from us, not originating from our fleshly will, but rather a response to His. This is the real meaning of "by grace through faith." Grace is where faith comes from, the will of God. Faith is a beautiful instrument where we come to God by His grace (work of the Holy Spirit) as opposed to our twisted motives that come from our natural fleshly means. I would strongly contend and most would agree that a natural and fleshly soul is light years from the reality of faith. Any attempt for a lost person to exercise faith apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit is a huge underestimation of sin.
BTW....as a non-cal...I agree with you completely about the "double-jeopardy" argument...truth be told, I don't think the "double-jeopardy" argument actually holds regardless of which view you espouse...I reject the entire line of argument whole-sale....I think it is possibly the most ill-concieved and shallow objection levelled by either Calvinist or non-Calvinist alike....I think you are essentially Calvinist (I'm not) but, I am glad you brought up that particular objection...I think that argument is stupid regardless of which side you take on certain issues....
But, if I may ask...what do you think about the argument as presented in the article??? I am not married to it, or anything...I just posted it, to make people think and consider....do you have another comment about the suggestions posted in the article?? I would like to hear from you.
Thanks for the kind response .
I started going through each passage mentioned in the article where john used the word "world". I started to respond to it, but to be honest i have not given his article fair enough thought to say anything. As a calvinist im going to do all i can to reject it (jk). There is a lot to consider in his article. My biggest concern is the angle he is coming from might be to limited to agree with his view. I may look into it further after work for a better response.
On a side note whether a cal or arm is looking at the book we are highly biased and subconciously looking for our view in the writing (im a recovering addict ). I think best interpretations come when we lose our agendas which the article had. A bit of a turn off.
When a word does not have a direct English counterpart it simply means there is no direct translation. It does not mean that it has no definition. You did not answer the question.
Are people condemned for unbelief in jesus as messiah, or by being in the fall of Adam, already born to perdition unless/until,God saves them?