Propitiation

[JonC]

Maybe if you would go through, point by point like I did and respond to each point to explain what you think is misinterpreting Scripture, maybe I can figure out what you are talking about.

I will tonight (I work tonight). Maybe we can see where we actually differ more clearly.

 

[Silverhair]

I don't think there is as much of a difference as you think in this. Yes, in the case of "whole world" I believe it is limited to the believers John is addressing in the passage and in addition believers who come later and from areas around the whole world. And I make this distinction because "propitiation" is a seldom used word in the Bible and it is a word of action in that it involves the actual restoring of the relationship with God, the placating of wrath against us and these things only happen to those who come by the obedience of faith - even though such ones may be anywhere in the world or at any time.

In the case of "world" in John 3:16, I believe there is no reason that doesn't mean everyone in the world because the offer that if you believe you will be saved is an absolute, universal offer. That being so, the verse is saying then that God's love was toward the whole world, meaning everyone. "Propitiation" is the actual effecting of the relationship to God and it can only occur to those who are saved and is actually a part of the description of them being saved - therefore it cannot mean everyone. Even in John 3:16 there is a limiting factor applied in that "whosoever believeth in him" is the one who benefits from God's love. I realize there is a lot of overlap and apparent contradiction from the various theological views in this but as far as I can tell even Calvin himself had a universal view of "world" in John 3:16. I don't know what he said, if anything, about 1John because I don't have my commentary any more on my Kindle.

Dave you do realize that the word propitiation can be both a noun and a verb. In these three verses Rom_3:25, 1Jn_2:2 & 1Jn_4:10 it is in the noun form and is telling us what Christ is. He is the means of appeasing God.

In Heb_2:17 it is in the verb form and that is telling us what Christ did.

The first three verses do not support your view. Both you and Martin have missed that in your responses and because of that have made the same error. John is not saying the whole world is appeased but rather that Christ is the only means by which the whole world can be appeased.

 

[Ben1445]

You are reasoning away Scripture.

Sin is not a fine to be paid. It is a wage (a penalty) that is earned.

And is reckoned of debt without faith. Thank you Paul for the use of the word debt.

"Sin produces death". Christ died to defeat the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil.

This is where you credit Satan too much.

Satan only uses death to his advantage. Jesus took the strength out of the power of death. Death has no more sting. Jesus changed a formidable weapon into nothing.

God has described justice (do not punish the Just, do not clear the guilty).

You are adding to the text by imposing the idea that the just means the Just.

It is you who is adding to “what is written.”

You seem to have chosen "easy believism" because it "tickles your ears".

You show your ignorance.

But this is because that neo-Christian faith views sins very lightly, divine justice very superficially.

You justify yourself. And your justification of yourself does not preach against me. Your actions on the board are not done in secret. You are the acting definition of neo-Christianity that you accuse me of. Go review your own posting history.

You just did that by equating sins to a fine that must be paid.

Like Paul says, if it is not reckoned of faith, it is reckoned of debt.

If you equate sin to anything for illustration you should go all the way - make it the worst crime (even then it would not measure up to the depravity it is).

Okay, you have been sentenced for your worst crime and if it is a life sentence, the value you must give is equal to your life until you breath your last breath. You must give that to the jurisdiction of someone else.
Or a death sentence: you must give your life to be shorted. Your life is forfeited to equalized your debt to society and satisfy the judgment against you.
That is why when folks get out people say they have paid their debt to society.

You molested a small child and murdered him and his mother. You are guilty and sentenced to death. After passing sentence the judge's son comes forward and says he will take your sentence so you go free.

Yes. Jesus did that.(not for me personally strictly by your example) That is why He offers eternal life, because we may all take part in the second death except for the gift of God.

Even that is superficial compared to the depravity of sin (and obviously to the justice of God as it is unjust to clear the guilty and to punish the Just).

You say I make light of sin, but in order for you to see the filthiness of sin, you must make it sound as bad as you can. I don’t have any problem seeing sins against the authorities and against my neighbor as egregious.

 

[DaveXR650]

The first three verses do not support your view. Both you and Martin have missed that in your responses and because of that have made the same error. John is not saying the whole world is appeased but rather that Christ is the only means by which the whole world can be appeased.

I think the difference is the same as what occurs in discussions in the scope of atonement. In both cases, if all you are saying is that propitiation is available to anyone in the whole world who might come to Christ then I agree. But I don't think it requires that we claim then that it is actually universal. The reason being, as the Calvinist would say, is that the terms mean an actual real thing taking place and like you mentioned, can be used even as a verb.

It would be like if I said "I have enough red paint that I can paint every single person in the whole world red". So I could universally offer to do so and it be a true offer. But the fact still is that if I paint you red - you are truly and literally painted red. I believe that a universal use of propitiation in 1 John would be like saying "he painted everyone red" or "propitiates God for everyone" which has to mean that actual propitiation took place for everyone - which is not true. Propitiation, atonement, and even my silly being painted red, is an obvious real action that either is, or isn't. If it is, you are saved (or painted red), if not, it could still be that the "offer" stands and is a real offer - but the difference, and I hope you can see it, is propitiation or atonement cannot be kept in buckets and exist as such like paint. There is where the illustration breaks down and it's why I think using those words like you are is slightly off. You mentioned the noun/verb use of propitiation. And you are using propitiation as if it was in a bucket, like my red paint. The difference is that my bucket of paint really is a "thing" and if I paint someone that becomes the true meaning of what occurs - the fact that the verb and noun "paint" is the same English word is incidental. "Propitiation" or "atonement" only have significance or meaning as to what they do and have no meaning as a substance that could be kept because their only meaning is as they are being applied or done. That is what a Calvinist is worried about if you say atonement or propitiation is universal. To him, he sees it as if you were saying universally, everyone gets painted red, when what you mean is that everyone is being offered a red paint job, and there is plenty of red paint in a bucket, to go around. Obviously, if everyone gets painted red they are truly painted, not potentially painted or offered to be painted. If everyone's sins are atoned for, or if God is propitiated towards everyone - they are saved, not potentially saved. And while that does make atonement or propitiation particular for those saved - it does not mean that the "offer" is not there for everyone.

 

[JonC]

Penal

Substitution

Doublespeak

I don’t know what you are talking about. I’m not sure if you believe what you believe.

Doublespeak is finding penal aspects and substitution aspects and then declaring it to be penal substitution.

Penal substitution is one term (it is the type of substitution... like representative substitution, ontological substitution, satisfactory substitution, etc.).

Christ did not die as a penal substitute (taking the penality instead of us). He is a representative substitute (the Son of Man, Second [last] Adam, the Firstborn).


That is your first error. You see where man faces death which is the power of Satan as a wage for our sins. Then you rightly say death is a penalty for sin, but wrongly attribute it to satisfying divine justice when Scripture places it under the power of the devil holding mankind in bomdage.

Your second error is assuming since we suffer Satan's power as a penalty or wage produced by sin that any substitution must be penal substitution.

It would have been better for you had ypu chosen to trust in God and His words rather than relatively new theories about the Atonement. Scripture defines Scripture.


In fact, that is the path we will go working through Isaiah 53. We will just look at what God says.

 

[JonC]

And is reckoned of debt without faith. Thank you Paul for the use of the word debt.


This is where you credit Satan too much.

Satan only uses death to his advantage. Jesus took the strength out of the power of death. Death has no more sting. Jesus changed a formidable weapon into nothing.

You are adding to the text by imposing the idea that the just means the Just.

It is you who is adding to “what is written.”


You show your ignorance.


You justify yourself. And your justification of yourself does not preach against me. Your actions on the board are not done in secret. You are the acting definition of neo-Christianity that you accuse me of. Go review your own posting history.


Like Paul says, if it is not reckoned of faith, it is reckoned of debt.


Okay, you have been sentenced for your worst crime and if it is a life sentence, the value you must give is equal to your life until you breath your last breath. You must give that to the jurisdiction of someone else.
Or a death sentence: you must give your life to be shorted. Your life is forfeited to equalized your debt to society and satisfy the judgment against you.
That is why when folks get out people say they have paid their debt to society.


Yes. Jesus did that.(not for me personally strictly by your example) That is why He offers eternal life, because we may all take part in the second death except for the gift of God.


You say I make light of sin, but in order for you to see the filthiness of sin, you must make it sound as bad as you can. I don’t have any problem seeing sins against the authorities and against my neighbor as egregious.

You are not making sence. I do not justify myself.

I merely stated that the idea divine justice can be satisfied by punishing sins on Another is a neo-Christian faith (it is relatively new to Christianity). It is based on a failed (in terms of moral justice) 16th century judicial philosophy. Today the philosophy only exists in civil law (contractual rather than moral, ethical, or criminal) and your theory. It was John Calvin's focus as a law student (Calvin was not a theologian by education).


Sin is a much greater issue than you are willing to believe. God's righteousness is far greater than you will admit.

In comparison to traditional Christianity Calvinism minimizes sin and takes a very low view of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Christ died to defeat the power of the one who holds the power of death - that is the devil.

He certainly did that, but that was not all He did, was it?
1 Peter 1:18-19. 'Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver and gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.'
1 John 1:7. 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.'
Our Lord redeemed us and cleansed us with His own blood.

God has described justice (do not punish the Just, do not clear the guilty).

Well, you yourself are making God out to be a liar because you have said that you believe Isaiah 53:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise [or 'crush'] Him; He has put Him to grief.' So you believe that God was pleased to bruise or crush the Lord Jesus and to put Him to grief. How do you square that with your quoted remark? I know how it is squared, but I don't think you do, or if you do, you are mighty reluctant to share it.

I agree the curse is penal, just like the wages of sin being death, the death that sin produces, is also penal.

I agree that Christ bore our sins, died for our sins, is the Son of Man, shared in our humanity, is the second Adam. This is indeed substitutionary.

I disagreed about penal substitution.

I agree with the passages that you provide. I disagree that the Bible teaches your philosophy. Instead I believe the Bible teaches God's words.

This is a remarkable statement. It is almost exactly how the 18th Century Unitarians refused to engage with their opponents. They said they just believed the Bible and never said what they believed the Bible taught. If they were still living today, I'm sure they would be proud of you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Dave you do realize that the word propitiation can be both a noun and a verb. In these three verses Rom_3:25, 1Jn_2:2 & 1Jn_4:10 it is in the noun form and is telling us what Christ is. He is the means of appeasing God.

In Heb_2:17 it is in the verb form and that is telling us what Christ did.

The first three verses do not support your view. Both you and Martin have missed that in your responses and because of that have made the same error. John is not saying the whole world is appeased but rather that Christ is the only means by which the whole world can be appeased.

Once again you are adding words to the sacred text. The word 'means' does not appear, and nor does 'only.' The Lord Jesus is not the 'means of appeasing God,' He is the propitiation (yes, it's a noun) of our sins. As I wrote before, I fully agree that Christ is the only way for anyone to be saved. But that is not what the text is saying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are not making sence.

PLEASE! If you want us to take you seriously, learn to spell senSe. the word only has five letters; it really isn't hard to spell properly but you have misspelt it dozens of time. We all make typos from time to time, but to spell the word wrongly every time you use it is ignorance.

 

[DaveXR650]

In comparison to traditional Christianity Calvinism minimizes sin and takes a very low view of God.

Owen, somewhat of a Calvinist, complained that people were emphasizing the advocacy of Christ for those who sin over the idea listed first "that we sin not". They also said that any sin, persisted in, could result in damnation. They also taught that the smallest sin was an infinite offence against a Holy God and that the only way for finite man to pay for it was to suffer forever since the only aspect of man that is infinite was that he lasts forever. More importantly, they taught that it was necessary that Christ die and bear our our sins in his own body on the cross. And that we were saved by his blood.

In exactly which way does "traditional Christianity" correct the supposed Calvinist tendency to minimize sin and take a very low view of God? Do you mean to attack God's right for justice when we have sinned against him? Or claim that his desire for propitiation regarding sinful humans is what, childish? Or is it that a man's own repentance should be elevated in importance over the work of Christ on our behalf? Or, do you take the Socinian view that God should and does simply forgive us with no need for propitiation or justice - and thus this view shows a more mature God who is above all the penal substitution stuff? Or is it that the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the devised plan of salvation totally outside of ourselves as humans, is unnecessary because if he wants to forgive us our sins he just can. Or is is that traditional Christianity might be able to devise it's own system of asceticism or penance or deeds of repentance rather than relying so much upon Christ's work for us - does that honor God more? Please explain.

 

[JonC]

PLEASE! If you want us to take you seriously, learn to spell senSe. the word only has five letters; it really isn't hard to spell properly but you have misspelt it dozens of time. We all make typos from time to time, but to spell the word wrongly every time you use it is ignorance.

Yep. Typing fast on phone. Get over it.

 

[Ben1445]

Doublespeak is finding penal aspects and substitution aspects and then declaring it to be penal substitution.

Penal substitution is one term (it is the type of substitution... like representative substitution, ontological substitution, satisfactory substitution, etc.).

Christ did not die as a penal substitute (taking the penality instead of us). He is a representative substitute (the Son of Man, Second [last] Adam, the Firstborn).


That is your first error. You see where man faces death which is the power of Satan as a wage for our sins. Then you rightly say death is a penalty for sin, but wrongly attribute it to satisfying divine justice when Scripture places it under the power of the devil holding mankind in bomdage.

You have pulled Satan out of the lineup of judgment in the garden and made him the judge. You have your theology wrong.

Your second error is assuming since we suffer Satan's power

Your perspective is off here. I don’t assume that we are being punished by Satan.

as a penalty or wage produced by sin that any substitution must be penal substitution.

It would have been better for you had ypu chosen to trust in God and His words rather than relatively new theories about the Atonement. Scripture defines Scripture.

I can say the same of you. It would be better if you just trust what the Bible says and not spend so much time on “doctrinal” rabbit holes.

In fact, that is the path we will go working through Isaiah 53. We will just look at what God says.

That is good.

 

[Ben1445]

You are not making sence. I do not justify myself.

I merely stated that the idea divine justice can be satisfied by punishing sins on Another is a neo-Christian faith (it is relatively new to Christianity). It is based on a failed (in terms of moral justice) 16th century judicial philosophy. Today the philosophy only exists in civil law (contractual rather than moral, ethical, or criminal) and your theory. It was John Calvin's focus as a law student (Calvin was not a theologian by education).


Sin is a much greater issue than you are willing to believe. God's righteousness is far greater than you will admit.

I don’t know what you are talking about. You would call me a liar if I said that about you. What is your justification for saying this about me?

In comparison to traditional Christianity Calvinism minimizes sin and takes a very low view of God.

You don’t listen. I’m not a Calvinist. Never have been. Ask the Calvinists. They will tell you.

 

[JonC]

Owen, somewhat of a Calvinist, complained that people were emphasizing the advocacy of Christ for those who sin over the idea listed first "that we sin not". They also said that any sin, persisted in, could result in damnation. They also taught that the smallest sin was an infinite offence against a Holy God and that the only way for finite man to pay for it was to suffer forever since the only aspect of man that is infinite was that he lasts forever. More importantly, they taught that it was necessary that Christ die and bear our our sins in his own body on the cross. And that we were saved by his blood.

In exactly which way does "traditional Christianity" correct the supposed Calvinist tendency to minimize sin and take a very low view of God? Do you mean to attack God's right for justice when we have sinned against him? Or claim that his desire for propitiation regarding sinful humans is what, childish? Or is it that a man's own repentance should be elevated in importance over the work of Christ on our behalf? Or, do you take the Socinian view that God should and does simply forgive us with no need for propitiation or justice - and thus this view shows a more mature God who is above all the penal substitution stuff? Or is it that the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the devised plan of salvation totally outside of ourselves as humans, is unnecessary because if he wants to forgive us our sins he just can. Or is is that traditional Christianity might be able to devise it's own system of asceticism or penance or deeds of repentance rather than relying so much upon Christ's work for us - does that honor God more? Please explain.

Yes, John Owen focused heavily on refraining from sin. His short book, The Mortification of Sin, should be a must read for any Christian. I am in no means saying that we cannot learn from errant Christians of the past (Owen, Calvin, Wesley, Finney, Moody). We can gather ideas and inspiration from books. The problem comes in when we cannot identify where they went wrong.

Traditional Christianity (pre-Reformation Christianity, especially but not excluding Catholic theology) viewed sin as a much greater “problem” than to be solved by “collecting a sin debt”. They viewed divine justice as divine righteousness (probably because it is the same word in the New Testament). So the law was one manifestation of God’s righteous, but as a manifestation it was not God’s righteousness itself (it was just, but it was more of a witness rather than justice itself).

Calvin, however, viewed the atonement as solving a different “problem”. He was educated as a lawyer and a student of a 16th century philosophy that had gained popularity at the time. This is how he viewed justice, and what he applied to Scripture as divine justice. This is how PSA came into being. Secularly it was the role of the judge to avenge the law, every crime must be punished in order to satisfy the demands of justice. Calvin applied this to the Atonement (God must punish every sin in order for justice to be satisfied, literal divine forgiveness is impossible because it would make God unjust).

The problem is this minimizes sin by assuming that the remedy for sin is punishment, and also by assuming that it is impossible for God to literally forgive sins (the best God can do is punish sins on Christ so that the sinner can escape the wrath to come).

Traditional Christianity holds sin as a much greater and pervasive problem. Punishment cannot remedy the problem. God will never clear the guilty. We were guilty. At judgment we must be condemned, not as punishment itself (punishment is a means to an end) but to achieve righteousness (flesh and blood will not enter the kingdom of God; the wicked will not enter the kingdom of God).

Traditional Christianity also holds that God’s righteousness is greater. God will not simply forget a sin or let a sin go unpunished because Christ was punished for that sin. The guilty man must be punished. God will never punish the Just, or clear the guilty. Why? Because God is holier than PSA theorists will accept.


Both traditional Christianity and Calvinism relies totally on Christ's work, His blood shed for us, Christ dying for our sins, Christ as our Mediator.

But Calvinism minimizes the Cross and Christ's work.

 

[JonC]

You have pulled Satan out of the lineup of judgment in the garden and made him the judge. You have your theology wrong.


Your perspective is off here. I don’t assume that we are being punished by Satan.

I can say the same of you. It would be better if you just trust what the Bible says and not spend so much time on “doctrinal” rabbit holes.


That is good.

I have not pulled Satan out of the line up (that does not even make sense). I simply quoted the passage.

We are not being punished. Punishment is the Judgment (it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment). The "Day of Wrath" has not yet arrived. But in that day the wicked will face God's wrath and an eternal punishment. They will be cast into the Lake of Fire (this is the second death).

 

[JonC]

I don’t know what you are talking about. You would call me a liar if I said that about you. What is your justification for saying this about me?

Saying what about you? That sin is much greater an offense than you will admit? My justification is our conversation on this thread.

You did say the same about me (repeatedly). I did not call you a liar. I once held your philosophy (even before I was a Calvinist).

Historically Calvinism pre-dates TULIP (that was an outgrowth of Calvinism). In terms of the Atonement Calvinism meant only one thing - Calvin's theory based on Calvin's judicial philosophy (PSA). That was the distinctive called "Calvinism" (that and viewing the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic).

 

[Ben1445]

Saying what about you? That sin is much greater an offense than you will admit? My justification is our conversation on this thread.

Quote me.

You did say the same about me (repeatedly). I did not call you a liar. I once held your philosophy (even before I was a Calvinist).

I’m not sure you know what my philosophy is.

Historically Calvinism pre-dates TULIP (that was an outgrowth of Calvinism). In terms of the Atonement Calvinism meant only one thing - Calvin's theory based on Calvin's judicial philosophy (PSA). That was the distinctive called "Calvinism" (that and viewing the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic).

I’m still not a Calvinist. Ask them.

 

[Ben1445]

I have not pulled Satan out of the line up (that does not even make sense). I simply quoted the passage.

Misinterpreted it.

We are not being punished. Punishment is the Judgment (it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment). The "Day of Wrath" has not yet arrived. But in that day the wicked will face God's wrath and an eternal punishment. They will be cast into the Lake of Fire (this is the second death).

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Genesis 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Nothing about punishment in here? Really?

 

[JonC]

Misinterpreted it.


Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Genesis 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Nothing about punishment in here? Really?

I did not interpret it. I stayed it in the context it was given (the Atonement).

Did God punish Adam by cursing the ground? We cannot say it was a punishment (God later describes the change in creation, the futility, as something God did in hope). Same with pain in childbirth.

But if this is the punishment for sin (pain in childbirth and a cursed ground) you need to work that into your atonement philosophy.

Did Jesus suffered the punishment for sin you identify (pain in childbirth, working the land)? I doubt He experienced the former but perhaps He did the latter.


Anyway... what is this kick about "no punishment in here? Really?"?

I never said that was not punishment.

I said divine judgment, when God separates the nations as a shepherd seperates sheep from goats; the judgment that comes to all men after they die; the day of wrath.

It would be just for God to punish Eve for her sin. Why? Because she was guilty of that sin.


Do you believe that "punishing the innocent and clearing the guilty are both abominations to God"?

Do you believe "it is wrong to punish the Just"?

Do you believe God forgives sins OR foes God have to punish sins in order to satisfy the demands of justice?


The issue is only partly the passages you reject. It is also what you add to God's words.

God says "He bore our sins bodily". We both agree on that point. Where we disagree is your theory that this means God also punished Jesus instead of us.


If you stuck with God's words we may still disagree on some points, but not on the Atonement. We may emphasize different aspects but we would believe the same gospel.

Where I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ you believe that gospel as interpreted through the philosophy of John Calvin. Others believe it as interpreted through Martin Luther, or Aquinas, or Joseph Smith.

Believe what you will, but be prepared to live or die with the consequences of your decision. I know I am, as I doubt God's words will ever fail.

 

[JonC]

Quote me.

Did you ever pay any fines for your children? Or maybe your parents for you?
Broken windows any expenses ever that came as a result of someone’s actions that caused a penalty or debt?

Did you engage in abominable activity and pay for someone else’s ticket or pay the damages, or have you been the recipient of abominable activity?

When Jesus gave Himself, it is not God searching out someone innocent to blame and making them suffer.
It is God taking the responsibility upon Himself and showing men mercy.
It is not like looking into a crowd of people and picking an unrelated innocent person. It is God stepping in and intercepting our penalty on our behalf.
Afterwards, it is God who imputes sin to unbelievers and righteousness to believers.

That is a very superficial belief (it is historic Calvinism) that minimizes sin and divine justice.

Sins cannot be remedied by punishment.

You mention Eve being punished for her sin by pain in childbirth. Do you believe that all women who have children are forgiven of their sins because they have pain in childbirth???

You have adopted Calvin's theory of Atonement. This is probably because the Methodist church was the largest and most influential denomination in the US early on (the second was the Presbyterians) and both adopted basic Calvinism when it comes to the Atonement. You were influenced and chose man over God.

I did the same. I read PSA into those passages as well, adding to God's words.

I know traditional Christianity makes no sense to you. When I was in your shoes I was also baffled at how strange early Christian beliefs were.

I can't help you there. I can only tell you that God's words really do make sense without adding to them or taking away from them. You have to do the work to correct your own understanding.