Propitiation

[JonC]

None of the six other usages of kosmos in 1 John 2 means 'people.'
1 John 2:15-17. 'Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not from the Father, but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.'
The use of kosmos in these verses rather clearly does not refer to human beings. It refers to the world as it lies under Satan, as in Bunyan's Vanity Fair.


I have repeatedly said that 'propitiation is a noun. It really would help if you read my posts before replying to them.

Amen!

All of them do. It is people who has lustful eyes, pride, etc. These qualities do not exist except in people.

You say "Propitiation" is a noun but treat it as if it were a verb (otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion that Jesus being the Propitiation for all human sin equates to all people's sins being propitiated).

Do you understand what a noun is as opposed to a verb?

If the verse said "He propitiates for our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world" then your conclusion would be correct.

BUT the verse does not say that. Jesus IS the Propitiation for all sin. He IS the Way (the ONLY Way).

And, this Propitiation is set forth - not applied. It must be received by faith. Christ actively propitiates for believers.


This may help. Think of the Levitical system.

The atoning sacrifice was made avaliable. The blood was shed (the sacrifice was offered). That blood was for forgiveness. But it was not until the blood was applied to the altar that atonement was made.

The existence of the atoning sacrifice (the shedding of blood) was not "making atonement for the sins of the people".

The blood shed (noun) was taken into the Tabernacle where the priest "made atonement (verb) for the sins of the people".

If the Isralites stopped at the offering (the shedfing of blood; the atoning sacrifice) no atonement would have been made. Had they not offered the sacrifice (shedding of blood) the priest would not have been able to take the blood into the Tabernacle to "make atonement".


You just have your grammar mixed up.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinism has misunderstood the word of God and missed the truths of God.

Some are comfortable with trusting a man made view but I would rather go with the biblical view.

What we need to do is start with God's Word and be careful not to leave His words. The biblical text IS the doctrine we need to hold.

First of all, I apologize if I am guilty of this too but I wish we could stop ending nearly every post with a gratuitous insult against Calvinism along with an extremely arrogant assertion that you of course are superior to all those poor misinformed souls of the past. (Except, apparently, the distant past, prior to the middle ages.) As far as I know the only really nasty thing I say is that anyone who fights against and actually condemns penal substitution is probably not a Christian - which I stand by. (And I do not include those who did not write about it or recognize or understand it - only those who, with full knowledge and understanding, would ridicule and oppose it.)

You say "Propitiation" is a noun but treat it as if it were a verb (otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion that Jesus being the Propitiation for all human sin equates to all people's sins being propitiated).

Yes. That is because it is a noun that describes an action (a verb). I can go to a "run", an actual event that happens in time but I cannot escape the fact that only those who ran participated in "the run" and had anything to do with the reality of the event. I think we are all saying the same thing in the case of propitiation and the way Jon and Silverhair are describing it does not bother me as a practical explanation.

BUT the verse does not say that. Jesus IS the Propitiation for all sin. He IS the Way (the ONLY Way).

And, this Propitiation is set forth - not applied. It must be received by faith. Christ actively propitiates for believers.

Since it happened at a point in time and we are humans who came later I admit that the simplest explanation is indeed that it is a thing available that we can draw on so to speak, by faith. And while I think it's true that 1John is specifically addressed to believers who might sin and the extension, in context, then would be to believers all over the world, since Jon and Silverhair also believe that this would be for believers all over the world as to application - are we not saying the same thing?

This may help. Think of the Levitical system.

The atoning sacrifice was made avaliable. The blood was shed (the sacrifice was offered). That blood was for forgiveness. But it was not until the blood was applied to the altar that atonement was made.

The existence of the atoning sacrifice (the shedding of blood) was not "making atonement for the sins of the people".

Once again, I have no problem with that except I noticed you do that also to try to split up the "atonement" into logical steps in order to deny penal substitution in other places. Just because something is complicated enough that it requires more than one sentence of thought for it to have meaning - that does not mean the concept can be separated completely. In other words, in the atonement, the fact that the blood had to be applied does not mean that the necessity of the death of the sacrifice (along with all the meaning attached to a bloody, violent death) is null and void. In the definition of atonement, and in the definition of propitiation for that matter, there is an irreducible complexity that causes the words to lose their meaning if split too far. So having said this about atonement, I would say that the same occurs with propitiation in that there will be no one who is finally lost who at the same time God is fully propitiated towards, in spite of how we might want to dissect meanings and classify nouns and verbs.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is a mistake. "Propitiation" is a noun. Nobody's sins were propitiated on the Cross (God set forth His Son AS A Propitiation through His blood to be recieved by faith).

If I have the only cure for all human cancer which must be given as an injection this does not mean that everybody is cured from cancer. Only those who recieve the cure are cured. But this does not change the nature of the cure itself.

Christ is the Propitiation for all sin. There is no other. He is the Way. There is no other way.

But to say one's sins are propitiated the Propitiation must be received by faith.

As usual, you are adding to the Scriptures. Moreover, you do not appear to understand what a propitiation (noun) is. We are the offending party (sinners) We do not need to be propitiated (verb); God does. It is God who set Christ forth as a propitiation (noun) - not to propitiate (verb) us, but to satisfy His own justice - to propitiate Himself, and because He set Him forth, we know that God is propitiated (verb).
Nor do our sins need to be 'propitiated' (verb). Our sins are doing just fine. It is God who must be propitiated (verb) in respect of them or we are in deep trouble. In fact the word 'faith' [Gk. pistis] appears only once in 1 John (5:4). The main subject of the letter is the Christian walk, and the context of 2:1-2 is how sinning Christians are made right with God.

All of them do. It is people who has lustful eyes, pride, etc. These qualities do not exist except in people.

Please @JonC, think for a moment. Doesn't our Lord tell us to love our neighbour? How can we do that if we are not to love the people in the world? 1 John 2:15-17 is not referring to people, but the world as it exists under Satan.

You say "Propitiation" is a noun but treat it as if it were a verb (otherwise you would not have come to the conclusion that Jesus being the Propitiation for all human sin equates to all people's sins being propitiated).

Again, people's sins do not need to be appeased or propitiated. It is God who needs to be propitiated.

Do you understand what a noun is as opposed to a verb?

Better than you, I think.

If the verse said "He propitiates for our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world" then your conclusion would be correct.

If He said that it would be gobbledegook (He didn't say it).

BUT the verse does not say that. Jesus IS the Propitiation for all sin. He IS the Way (the ONLY Way).

No! No! No! Jesus does not propitiate sins! He takes them away (John 1:29). He propitiates the Father in respect of His people's sins.

And, this Propitiation is set forth - not applied. It must be received by faith. Christ actively propitiates for believers.

What does this even mean? Do you think that sometimes God is propitiated by the cross and sometimes He isn't

This may help. Think of the Levitical system.

The atoning sacrifice was made avaliable. The blood was shed (the sacrifice was offered). That blood was for forgiveness. But it was not until the blood was applied to the altar that atonement was made.

The existence of the atoning sacrifice (the shedding of blood) was not "making atonement for the sins of the people".

The blood shed (noun) was taken into the Tabernacle where the priest "made atonement (verb) for the sins of the people".

If the Isralites stopped at the offering (the shedfing of blood; the atoning sacrifice) no atonement would have been made. Had they not offered the sacrifice (shedding of blood) the priest would not have been able to take the blood into the Tabernacle to "make atonement".

Just a word on this: the Levitical sacrifices are finished; They exist only as types and shadows. But who is the offerer under the Levitical system? Who is the priest? Who is the offering? Christ, Christ and Christ. He has done everything necessary to redeem us and propitiate God. I posted on this a while back, and I don't have time to go through it all again. Read Hebrews 9 & 10 where it is all explained.

You just have your grammar mixed up.

Yeah, right. One of us does, but I'm afraid it's you. If it was just your grammar (and spelling) it wouldn't be so bad, but your theology is in an even worse state.


I will leave it there. I still have a ton of stuff to do with two sermons to prepare for next Lord's day.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would say that the same occurs with propitiation in that there will be no one who is finally lost who at the same time God is fully propitiated towards, in spite of how we might want to dissect meanings and classify nouns and verbs.

Yep!

 

[JonC]

First of all, I apologize if I am guilty of this too but I wish we could stop ...

It would be better, Dave.

To be honest, it has been a long time since I entertained the possibility that you or Martin were actually interested in legitimate discussions. That may be wrong of me as people change.

You and @Martin Marprelate have constantly belittled "Christus Victor" and the few members on this forum that hold it. You treat it as a condiment (not as the Ransom view itself), constantly saying it is new, was never really held (individualistic interpretation), etc. I took your posts as defending a camp at all costs.

If you are sincere then apology accepted and I apologize for assuming your motives.

But if you are sincere then we pretty much need to begin anew and discuss the topic biblically to explore where one another differs using the same standard - Scripture (not the Early Church writings, not the Anabaptists, not the Puritians...but God's Word).

That would be nice as it is why I joined this board a couple of decades ago. But those decades have taught me it can not happen here. We could try again, I suppose.