Quoting Calvin

[Hammster]

1 John 2:2 says Jesus was the propitiation for the whole world - so Jesus paid for the sin of the whole world - it's paid for and waiting to be received - because it is a free gift - John 3:16

which scripture are you using for wrath

Propitiation means that God's wrath is satisfied. So was it satisfied for the whole world?

 

[Truthfrees]

Propitiation means that God's wrath is satisfied. So was it satisfied for the whole world?

propitiation means atonement - reparation - expiation

wrath is not a part of the inherent meaning of propitiation

you're extending it past it's inherent meaning - connecting it to more

the "more" needs to be included in the scripture

 

[Hammster]

propitiation means atonement - reparation - expiation

wrath is not a part of the inherent meaning of propitiation

you're extending it past it's inherent meaning - connecting it to more

the "more" needs to be included in the scripture

You're wrong about the definition, but let's work with what you've got.

Expiation means to take away. The image is of the scapegoat. So how does that fit with "the whole world"?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

I don't know what your interpretation is. Just posting verse references don't help. But I can assume that you think that 1 John 2:2 means that Christ is the propitiation for every person who ever lived.

Propitiation means something. It means that God's wrath is saitified. No more anger. If that's the case, then why is there hell?

However, if we correctly conclude that John meant not just Jews, but people from throughout the world, then we can avoid the appearance of universalism.

And the Us in Romans is exactly that. Paul is assessing himself and the Roman audience he's writing to.

Context.

Propitiation (noun) does not mean God's wrath is satisfied. It means 'appeasing sacrifice.'

It isn't atonement; it is 'atoning sacrifice.'

Using a wrong definition, then throwing out a philosophical claim to ignore scripture based on that incorrect definition that scripture does not use, does not bolster your interpretation.

Did slaughtering the Passover lamb automatically appease God? No! Some of the blood of the appeasing sacrifice had to be applied to the door for the angel of death to pass over.

Did the pitch automatically save Noah from the flood? No! Noah had to cover the ark in pitch and enter it for the covering pitch to protect him from the flood.

I went through all that with the Greek and relevant scripture in my previous posts.

As scripture clearly says, the atoning sacrifice must be received in faith (Rom 3:2.)

Jesus didn't automatically save everyone on the cross - but He did die for everyone as atoning sacrifice (propitiation) on the cross. Only those who receive the sacrifice by faith actually have the blood applied to their lives and are saved.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

See the straw man Thread. There are other references.

Giving scripture in context and with other scripture to back it up, as scripture is the best interpreter of scripture, is not an example of a strawman argument. Responding to short questions with an in-depth counterargument is not the definition of a strawman either.

Examples of strawmen arguments would be things like, "if you believe Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, you must believe in universalism" or "if you believe unregenerate man can respond to the gospel in faith you must believe in works based salvation."

Strawmen arguments construct a 'false' version of an opponents argument, using different definitions or personal philisophical speculation, to try and make the opponents argument seem nonsensical or heretical without actually engaging it with scripture or debate.

 

[Hammster]

Propitiation does not mean God's weather is satisfied. It means 'appeasing sacrifice.'

And the definition of appeasing is...?

 

[Hammster]

Giving scripture in context and with other scripture to back it up, as scripture is the best interpreter of scripture, is not an example of a strawman argument. Responding to short questions with an in-depth counterargument is not the definition of a strawman either.

Examples of strawmen arguments would be things like, "if you believe Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, you must believe in universalism" or "if you believe unregenerate man can respond to the gospel in faith you must believe in works based salvation."

Strawmen arguments construct a 'false' version of an opponents argument, using different definitions or personal philisophical speculation, to try and make the opponents argument seem nonsensical or heretical without actually engaging it with scripture or debate.

Not relevant to my post. It was directed to TF for a specific reason.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

And they are out of context.

I gave several posts discussing the larger context of I Cor 15:1-4, which is I Cor 15:1-11 where Paul discusses his past presentation of the gospel to them which they had received before moving on on in the rest of the chapter to build off truths stemming from it (such as the ressurection.) I also gave other scriptures, summaries of their placement in scripture, and links that expand on many of the points with further context, scripture, Greek word use, etc.

How is that 'out of context?' So far, you have not provided any alternate scripture to refute or proved the context to different, but have simply claimed your interpretation of I Cor 15:1-4 as truth and dismissed what the passage says as "not really what he said" in a very confusing manner.

Are we working off two separate definitions of what the term 'context' means? Does context mean to you that I must accept the tenets of TULIP as axioms and interpret anything I read through that lens rather than starting with scripture? I am having a hard time understanding what you feel to be agreeable 'context' - as posting the scriptures with their surrounding verses, giving summaries of what a large passage says in relation to a verse inside it, and posting other relevant scriptures that expand on the same topic do not seem to count for you.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Let me try again, since you avoided my questions completely.

Was Christ the propitiation? Did His death satisfy God's wrath? If so, what does it mean that His wrath was satisfied?

Christ was the propitiation (atoning sacrifice.) The atoning sacrifice only satisfies God for those who receive it in faith. (Rom 3:25)

ἱλασμός (hilasmos) - noun
Short Strong's Definition: a propitiation, atoning sacrifice
hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. (Used in I Jn 2:2, I Jn 4:10)

ἱλαστήριον (hilastérion) - noun
Short Strong's Definition: a sin offering, covering
Definition: 1) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation,
2) A place of propitiation, such as the covering of the ark, the mercy-seat, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement to appease God's wrath on sin.
(Used in Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5)

Note that the sacrifice does not automatically confer the appeasement by death alone; its blood must be applied, such as to the mercy seat for atonement, the doorposts for allowing the Angel of death to pass over, etc.

So Christ's death alone did not satisfy God's wrath for anyone, but rather Jesus' applied blood (to the mercy seat (Heb 9:12-14) and to our lives (Rom 9:5) satisfies God's justice for believers, causing Him to grant forgiveness, as Jesus was both the atoning sacrifice AND the High Priest who applied it to the mercy seat (Heb 2:17.)

Note that the High Priest was required to actually "make propitiation" with the blood of the propitiation (atoning sacrifice or covering.)

ἱλάσκομαι (hilaskomai) - verb
Short Strong's Definition: I have mercy on, forgive
Definition:
(1) I have mercy on, show favor to, appease, propitiate
(2) trans. with object of sins: I forgive, pardon, conciliate, extend propitiation, show mercy by satisfying (literally, propitiating) the wrath of God on sin

This is the verb of Heb 2:17, where Jesus as High priest actually applies the blood of the atoning sacrifice (Himself) to the mercy seat.

 

[Hammster]

I gave several posts discussing the larger context of I Cor 15:1-4, which is I Cor 15:1-11 where Paul discusses his past presentation of the gospel to them which they had received before moving on on in the rest of the chapter to build off truths stemming from it (such as the ressurection.) I also gave other scriptures, summaries of their placement in scripture, and links that expand on many of the points with further context, scripture, Greek word use, etc.

How is that 'out of context?' So far, you have not provided any alternate scripture to refute or proved the context to different, but have simply claimed your interpretation of I Cor 15:1-4 as truth and dismissed what the passage says as "not really what he said" in a very confusing manner.

Are we working off two separate definitions of what the term 'context' means? Does context mean to you that I must accept the tenets of TULIP as axioms and interpret anything I read through that lens rather than starting with scripture? I am having a hard time understanding what you feel to be agreeable 'context' - as posting the scriptures with their surrounding verses, giving summaries of what a large passage says in relation to a verse inside it, and posting other relevant scriptures that expand on the same topic do not seem to count for you.

Alternate scripture? I don't need alternate scripture. If I said to a group of believers that Christ died for their sins, would that mean that I told them when witnessing that Christ died for their sins? No. So can we determine how Paul did evangelize? Yes. We can look through Acts. And he never took that approach.

 

[Hammster]

Christ was the propitiation (atoning sacrifice.) The atoning sacrifice only satisfies God for those who receive it in faith. (Rom 3:25)

ἱλασμός (hilasmos) - noun
Short Strong's Definition: a propitiation, atoning sacrifice
hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. (Used in I Jn 2:2, I Jn 4:10)

ἱλαστήριον (hilastérion) - noun
Short Strong's Definition: a sin offering, covering
Definition: 1) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation,
2) A place of propitiation, such as the covering of the ark, the mercy-seat, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement to appease God's wrath on sin.
(Used in Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5)

Note that the sacrifice does not automatically confer the appeasement by death alone; its blood must be applied, such as to the mercy seat for atonement, the doorposts for allowing the Angel of death to pass over, etc.

So Christ's death alone did not satisfy God's wrath for anyone, but rather Jesus' applied blood (to the mercy seat (Heb 9:12-14) and to our lives (Rom 9:5) satisfies God's justice for believers, causing Him to grant forgiveness, as Jesus was both the atoning sacrifice AND the High Priest who applied it to the mercy seat (Heb 2:17.)

Note that the High Priest was required to actually "make propitiation" with the blood of the propitiation (atoning sacrifice or covering.)

ἱλάσκομαι (hilaskomai) - verb
Short Strong's Definition: I have mercy on, forgive
Definition:
(1) I have mercy on, show favor to, appease, propitiate
(2) trans. with object of sins: I forgive, pardon, conciliate, extend propitiation, show mercy by satisfying (literally, propitiating) the wrath of God on sin

This is the verb of Heb 2:17, where Jesus as High priest actually applies the blood of the atoning sacrifice (Himself) to the mercy seat.

Read Hebrews 8-10. He is the High Priest, and He did apply the blood. And just the the atonement in Leviticus 16, it's for those who it's intended for. And it does something. You have it not doing anything, but just being potential and waiting on man to do something. That's nowhere to be found in the description of Christ's atonement in Hebrews.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Read Hebrews 8-10. He is the High Priest, and He did apply the blood. And just the the atonement in Leviticus 16, it's for those who it's intended for. And it does something. You have it not doing anything, but just being potential and waiting on man to do something. That's nowhere to be found in the description of Christ's atonement in Hebrews.

Jesus died as the atoning sacrifice for all men (I Jn 2:2) - not for His sins only, but for the sins of the whole world.

Jesus applied the blood to the mercy seat as High Priest shortly after His ressurection. (Heb 2:16-17, Heb 7:26-28, etc.)

However, Jesus is not the High Priest 'of the whole world,' and applying His blood to the mercy seat affects only those under His priesthood:

"For surely it is not the angels He helps, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

What people are in His priesthood? The people of Israel - true/spiritual Israel, not physical Israel (Rom 9:6-33, Gal 4, etc.) How do we become His people and priests under His headship? Faith!

Jesus is both the sacrifice who died to cover sin (for everyone, once and for all at the cross) and the High Priest (who made appeasement with the sacrifice by applying the blood to the mercy seat for the forgiveness of the people of God.)

Man is not the sacrifice, nor is man the High priest. However, man must do something - the work God requires - receive the blood sacrifice by faith! (Rom 9:5, Jn 6:28-29, etc.) Only then are they under the covering of the sacrifice.

 

[Hammster]

Propitiation does not mean God's weather is satisfied. It means 'appeasing sacrifice.'

And the definition of appeasing is...?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

And the definition of appeasing is...?

I already went through the definition of propitiation (noun) as used in I John 2:2 and other places in prior posts.

However, the verb 'appeasement' does shed light on the topic as used in scripture:

"Moreover, the rest of the oil that is in the priest's palm he shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed, to make appeasement (atonement) on his behalf before the LORD." Lev 14:29

Here appeasement (Hebrew 'kaphar') is to cover over, pacify, make propitiation - as an action/verb.

The object, in this case, that allows for the atonement is oil. The oil on its own, despite being the object providing for appeasement, doesn't appease unless it is placed on the forehead by the priest.

A slightly different word, which is sometimes translated with the English appease, is used in Ezek 16:42 - 'shaqat.' Here, the term means to be quiet, pacified, or settled. In this passage (Ezek 16:35-42) God says he will be appeased when Jerusalem pays the sentence He proclaims on it for their sins.

These are just a couple of the many examples the OT gives of appeasement through paying the penalty for sin personally, or of a vessel of appeasement (oil, blood sacrifice, etc.) being applied on one's behalf.

In the NT, the only instance I can find of a word sometimes translated appease is Acts 16:39. Appease might not be the best fit, as the Greek parakaleó is closer to entreat, appeal, or admonish in this context.

In English, the definition of appease is to pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands, or relieve or satisfy a feeling, or to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; to soothe.

However, the English definition has minimal bearing on the topic. When studying scripture it is best to take the underlying language and its definition where possible. While English synonyms and similar concepts can help us understand the Hebrew/Greek, we shouldn't pull out one English synonym, let alone part of a phrase, and work from or speculate from its definition while ignoring the original language, the context, or the other scriptures that shed light on the topic.

 

[Hammster]

I already went through the definition of propitiation (noun) as used in I John 2:2 and other places in prior posts.

However, the verb 'appeasement' does shed light on the topic as used in scripture:

"Moreover, the rest of the oil that is in the priest's palm he shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed, to make appeasement (atonement) on his behalf before the LORD." Lev 14:29

Here appeasement (Hebrew 'kaphar') is to cover over, pacify, make propitiation - as an action/verb.

The object, in this case, that allows for the atonement is oil. The oil on its own, despite being the object providing for appeasement, doesn't appease unless it is placed on the forehead by the priest.

A slightly different word, which is sometimes translated with the English appease, is used in Ezek 16:42 - 'shaqat.' Here, the term means to be quiet, pacified, or settled. In this passage (Ezek 16:35-42) God says he will be appeased when Jerusalem pays the sentence He proclaims on it for their sins.

These are just a couple of the many examples the OT gives of appeasement through paying the penalty for sin personally, or of a vessel of appeasement (oil, blood sacrifice, etc.) being applied on one's behalf.

In the NT, the only instance I can find of a word sometimes translated appease is Acts 16:39. Appease might not be the best fit, as the Greek parakaleó is closer to entreat, appeal, or admonish in this context.

In English, the definition of appease is to pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands, or relieve or satisfy a feeling, or to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; to soothe.

However, the English definition has minimal bearing on the topic. When studying scripture it is best to take the underlying language and its definition where possible. While English synonyms and similar concepts can help us understand the Hebrew/Greek, we shouldn't pull out one English synonym, let alone part of a phrase, and work from or speculate from its definition while ignoring the original language, the context, or the other scriptures that shed light on the topic.

So basically, propitiation means appeasing sacrifice, and appeasing means to make propitiation.

That sort of circular definition doesn't really help.

 

[Truthfrees]

You're wrong about the definition, but let's work with what you've got.

Expiation means to take away. The image is of the scapegoat. So how does that fit with "the whole world"?

Jennifer's definition is better than mine

i was pressed for time - sorry

i'm trying to understand why the answer i gave several posts back was not acceptable to you

are you trying to say that if Christ paid/atoned/appeased for the whole world - then the whole world would as a result have no choice but to be saved and going to heaven - and because we know not everyone is going to be saved "the whole world" can't really mean the whole world?

 

[NeedyFollower]

As a former Calvinist , I speak with no authority other than as a "former Calvinist" . I realize that many things are debated which have been debated for centuries. As most followers of the Lamb of God will acknowledge, we dearly seek for the truth, we want assurance of salvation, we wished not to be deceived and be found unfateful or worse on "That Day " . What is worse than unfaithfulness ? Causing someone else to err from the truth with our theology. I do believe in some of the points of Calvin but I keep in mind that Calvin was schooled initially as a Catholic priest, showed a very real lack of mercy with Michael Servetas in my opinion and did not demonstrate to Servetas the mercy that God showed to a sinner like John Calvin. Spiritual pride is the worse kind because it causes blindness and when one has a following , it cause the inability to say " I was wrong . " All of Geneva followed Calvin . Do men gather figs from a thistle ? Is this a straw man argument ? No , it is argument against theology . You will know a tree by it's fruits. Both Armenian and Calvin school of thought have not always wrought lowliness , gentleness , meekness , love and patience through out the years .

The Lord Jesus I know personally , is lowly and meek. Does not get involved in the affairs of the world but rather the affairs of the heart.

I realize I am not quoting scripture but rather history and opinion but I believe the scriptures are clear about mercy and how we are top be wise as serpents and harmless as doves . My point is this . Be careful of theology . You do not want to show up on judgement day with a very strong argument based on theology and be totally lacking in love and humility for God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud . May we seek the Lord Jesus Himself and not Jesus through the theology of men .

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

So basically, propitiation means appeasing sacrifice, and appeasing means to make propitiation.

That sort of circular definition doesn't really help.

If you don't know the English definition of propitiation, I could see it being confusing and would recommend that you look at the rest of the Greek definitions for the various terms/verses involved which I already posted.

Basically, propitiation in I John 2:2, I Jn 4:10, Rom 3:25, and Rom 9:5 is a noun, not a verb. It refers to some form of offering or object (Such as a sacrifice) to appease (satisfy) an offended party. In the case of the last two verses, it can also refer to the place satisfaction is made, such as the mercy seat.

"Make propitiation" in Heb 2:17 and Lk 18:13 is a verb, not a noun.

The noun refers to the object or method through which satisfaction comes. The verb refers to the action of making satisfaction.

As shown repeatedly throughout scripture, the object's existence alone or the existence of a place satisfaction is made does not automatically mean that satisfaction is or will be made.

In the case of Jesus as the (noun) sacrifice (innocent who died) for the sins of the whole world, the blood had to be applied to the mercy seat for the actual satisfaction to take place. And that satisfaction only covers those in God's kingdom who are under Christ the High priest, which we become part of by receiving the sacrifice through faith (Rom 9:25.)

 

[Truthfrees]

As a former Calvinist , I speak with no authority other than as a "former Calvinist" . I realize that many things are debated which have been debated for centuries. As most followers of the Lamb of God will acknowledge, we dearly seek for the truth, we want assurance of salvation, we wished not to be deceived and be found unfateful or worse on "That Day " . What is worse than unfaithfulness ? Causing someone else to err from the truth with our theology. I do believe in some of the points of Calvin but I keep in mind that Calvin was schooled initially as a Catholic priest, showed a very real lack of mercy with Michael Servetas in my opinion and did not demonstrate to Servetas the mercy that God showed to a sinner like John Calvin. Spiritual pride is the worse kind because it causes blindness and when one has a following , it cause the inability to say " I was wrong . " All of Geneva followed Calvin . Do men gather figs from a thistle ? Is this a straw man argument ? No , it is argument against theology . You will know a tree by it's fruits. Both Armenian and Calvin school of thought have not always wrought lowliness , gentleness , meekness , love and patience through out the years .

The Lord Jesus I know personally , is lowly and meek. Does not get involved in the affairs of the world but rather the affairs of the heart.

I realize I am not quoting scripture but rather history and opinion but I believe the scriptures are clear about mercy and how we are top be wise as serpents and harmless as doves . My point is this . Be careful of theology . You do not want to show up on judgement day with a very strong argument based on theology and be totally lacking in love and humility for God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud . May we seek the Lord Jesus Himself and not Jesus through the theology of men .

well said

i was thinking something similar - when we all get to heaven we will feel like fools for fighting over things that will be proven wrong

we are all trying our best to understand the things God says to us in scripture

the humble thing to do would be discuss these ideas as people who THINK we understand it correctly - but KNOW that only God will prove to be infallible - and our understanding severely faulty

God Bless you for an excellent informative post

ps. i'm not arminian or calvinist either - but i like some of the theology from both camps

 

[Hammster]

Jennifer's definition is better than mine

i was pressed for time - sorry

i'm trying to understand why the answer i gave several posts back was not acceptable to you

are you trying to say that if Christ paid/atoned/appeased for the whole world - then the whole world would as a result have no choice but to be saved and going to heaven - and because we know not everyone is going to be saved "the whole world" can't really mean the whole world?

No, I'm saying that if Christ's death satisfied God's wrath, there would be nobody in hell. Hell is a punishment for sin. If Christ bore the punishment, what would they be in hell for?