These two sentences are logically incompatible. Context dictates interpretation, but that particular context is the one in which the author uses the word or words, not our "theological lens." In other words, our lens does not fundamentally change the author's usage or intended meaning.
Your sentences above seem to suggest that my "lens" can change the authors meaning. It certainly cannot.
I have indeed studied hermeneutics in great depth, but why should the "where" matter?
The Archangel
Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by JonC, Mar 6, 2018.
Page 5 of 9
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
-
I know theories and interpretations differ, but you should be able to look at Scripture without automatically applying to it your chosen theory. You have not thus far proved able to accomplish this basic step.
Read the text. Read what is written. Here we should agree but we dont. Scripture itself is objective. From there we develop doctrine, application, and theories (which is where disagreements should arise). But you have to start by allowing the text to speak. -
-
-
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
I have read the text, what is written. You, if you are denying penal substitution or propitiation, have to redefine what is there. Many have taken it upon themselves to do so by trying to understand propitiation as "expiation," which simply does no justice to the word ἱλαστήριον.
The Archangel -
https://www.ligonier.org/.../two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiati.. -
-
-
So all those who believe that Jesus suffered the very wrath of God in our stead are all fools? And Sproul did believe in Pst....
-
R.C. Sproul was not the "fool" you pretend him to be. He was a godly man and a scholar. He, along with many who disagreed with him on this topic, tried to remain faithful to Scripture. I personally disagree with him on several issues (to include infant baptism, ecclesiology, and his theory of atonement). But this does not mean Sproul was a fool. As I stated before, while Sproul would never have defined "propitiation" to mean "bearing wrath" he did believe this was the way Christ appeased God's wrath. You should be ashamed of yourself, @Yeshua1 , for dragging such a godly man through the dirt.The fact he passed away not so long ago makes your comments that much more disgraceful. -
-
But the claim was not that "propitiation" means "averting the anger" or "appeasing God's wrath". I believe that this is true. This is exactly what Christ did. He appeased God's wrath towards us (I still need to read why F.F. Bruce objected to "propitiation").
The claim was that the word "propitiation" is not defined as "appeasing God's wrath" but "bearing God's wrath". I believe it remains that those who believe in Penal Substitution Theory believe that Jesus propitiated God's wrath by bearing it, but the word "propitiate" itself does not necessitate that definition. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
The Archangel -
Set aside your presuppositions and deal honestly with the biblical text. Even if your theory were correct it would not excuse such eisegesis. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
If you don’t have penal substitution, you don’t have atonement.
The Archangel
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
ἱλασμός appears twice in Scripture – both in 1 John (1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10)
1 John 2:1-14 1 John 1:5-2:6 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
What is the context? Is it God’s wrath, or bearing God’s wrath? No. The context of propitiation in 1 John 2 is the advocacy of Christ as the propitiation (the One who propitiates). Does the context demand this mean Christ propitiates by bearing God’s wrath? No, it does not. God’s wrath is not even mentioned in the passage except perhaps as assumed by the word choice “propitiation” (and here only as a propitiation, or an atonement which appeases God’s wrath – which is implied in that the Advocacy is linked to the forgiveness of sins mentioned in the previous verses).
1 John 4:7-12 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
What is the context? Is it God’s wrath, or bearing God’s wrath? No. The context of propitiation in 1 John 4:10 is actually God’s love manifested in sending His only begotten Son that we might live. The only reason to use the word “propitiation” is that it is what was used in chapter 2 (the only other time the word appears in Scripture). But no mention of Jesus bearing God’s wrath.
'Come on....we're waiting....I don't want to hear your theories or how Christ bore God's wrath - show us where ἱλασμός means "bearing wrath" because of the context it is used in the passages. -
Here is F.F. Bruce’s comments (the one I couldn’t recall before):
We need not stay to enquire whether ‘expiation’ or ‘remedy for defilement’ would be a preferable rendering of hilasmos; ‘propitiation’ or ‘atonement’ will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God but something which God as provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance – guilt, with its attendant retribution, the ‘punishment’ which is banished by ‘perfect love’. (The Epistles of John) -
-
Page 5 of 9