To ignore the "Details" listed here (and already posted) simply because you find them "inconvenient" when you tell your story about Calvinism - is not "a compelling form of debate".
</font>[/QUOTE]IT IS compelling that you turn a blind eye to these clear objective findings on the "appeasement" aspect of propitiation - I will admit that.
But the facts remain.
So also the point.
In Christ,
Bob
The high cost of a believer rejecting Jesus Christ
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Apr 13, 2005.
Page 10 of 10
-
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully the previous posts will help clarify WHY it would be important NOT to use the Pagan POV and WHY the Hebrew concept of "atoning Sacrifice" and "sin offering" were the ESTABLISHED views of atonement that would be needed RATHER than the pagan concept of "propitiation" as the correct "translation to ENGLISH" for Hilasmos in the case of 1John 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their use of Hilasmos therefore has to be the HEBREW "scripture" context as we see in Lev 16 and Ezek 44. Atoning Sacrifice and "Sin offering" are correct.
When John writes in 1John 2 he is helping to create/establish the Christian church. He does not use the ENGLISH word Propitiation - he uses the GREEK term Hilasmos that "can" have the Pagan idea of Propitiation - which is "appeasement" as has been documented here FOR the word Propitiation.
But it can also be given the HEBREW/Biblical/Scriptural - OT (exegetically sound) meaning of Atoning-Scrifice or sin-offering. Concepts fully established in Lev 16 where the SAME word is used and in Ezek 44 where the SAME word is used.
Obviously the Hebrew OT IS the Bible - the SCRIPTURE that John and Paul are using for THEIR context.
Turning a blind eye to inconvenient facts - does not turn your failed argument into a successful one.
That method would only work with the "Already convinced" who ask for no evidence/reason/logic.
In Christ,
Bob -
The use of the term "Sin offering" for the atoning sacrifice in Lev 16 "The Lord's goat" is obvious. In fact at times it is ONLY identified as "the sin offering". THIS is the context for HILASMOS that John and Paul would have been familiar with.
The idea of "atoning sacrifice" simple SHOWS explicitly that link between the Lev 16 definitive statement on ATONEMENT and its frequent use of HILASMOS for the SACRIFICE!
An "obvious point" I know - but in debates with Calvinism it is often the role of the Arminian position to "continually point out the obvious" just as it is consitently the role of the Calvinist POV to obfuscate it.
I suppose we are used to that by now.
In Christ,
Bob -
-
Second you put both "details" and "inconvenient" in quotation marks yet I never used either word. Quotation marks are used to do one of two things, the first is to indicate you are quoting somebody else, and the second is to indicate that the usage of a word in a manner other than its accepted lexical meaning. As you are not quoting me I will have to assume you mean that the "details" are not all that detailed and that "inconvenient" really means convenient.
Third, misrepresenting and twisting what I said is not "a compelling form of debate" either.
Your simple error is to think that the definitions you cite equate sin offering with atonement. They are not identical in meaning although they do overlap a bit. To think that all sin offering in the OT is also atonement is simply to fail to understand the sin offerings offered at times other than the Day of Atonement. And to say that propitiation which is an historic doctrine of the Christian faith is pagan is simply a display of Modernism which ignores the historic position Christians have taken since the time of the Apostles. -
What I do find is a remarkable reliance on the ravings of C. H. Dodd and very little reliance on the bible and the historic position of Christendom.
To use the long accepted theological term propitiation does not mean that God has had His anger toward us somehow appeased by the sacrifice, but that we will not now experience the painful consequences of sin that we otherwise would have experienced. -
[ April 19, 2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ] -
-
To ignore the "Details" listed here (and already posted) simply because you find them "inconvenient" when you tell your story - is not "a compelling form of debate".
I offer the correction with my sincerest appologies.
In fact I was about to post along those lines and ask why in the world you were arguing this case in a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" style when your argument for denying the obvious - seems to have no "gain" for Calvinism.
Again - just stating the obvious.
I can work with either one - thouch clearly you can not.
So fin - "Sin Offering".
Since you are not Calvinist - I am not sure why you want to balk at 1John 2:2 at all.
Do you care to elaborate?
In Christ,
Bob -
My point is that the 1John 2 idea of Christ dying as our sin offering (or Atoning SACRIFICE) is clearly portrated IN the Atonment chapter of Lev 16 and is certainly the ponit of the text.
As we find in 1Cor 5 "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain" so in 1John 2 we find that Christ IS THE sin offering of atonement - in fact it is using the same Hilasmos of Lev 16.
It does not appear to promote EITHER the Arminian or Calvinist positions to deny this obvious fact of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
#2. Historians DO recognize in the historic use of "propitiation" the Greek pagan concept of "APPEASEMENT" AND that this concept of "appeasement" was present at the time of the writing of 1John 2. But John would be using the Lev 16 idea of HILASMOS not the pagan "APPEASEMENT" from that is central to "propitiation".
Hence the commentary noted that "propitiation" is not valid in 1John 2.
In Christ,
Bob -
Page 10 of 10