Can you answer a question? What does propitiation mean?
The Hebrew term "kaphar" (H3722) means to 'make atonement', 'propitiate', 'cover over [sin]', 'cleanse', etc, and is used about 90 times in the Old Testament (mostly in regards to sacrifices, which we would expect). I will highlight (in red) some very clear examples of atonement/propitiation taking place in the Old Testament (where "kaphar" appears) that doesn't involve a transfer of punishment at all, but rather a 'turning away of wrath' all together.
Propitiation is translated from the Greek hilasterion, meaning "that which expiates or propitiates" or "the gift which procures propitiation".[citation needed] The word is also used in the New Testament for the place of propitiation, the "mercy seat". Hebrews 9:5. There is frequent similar use of hilasterion in the Septuagint, Exodus 25:18 ff. The mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:14), representing that the righteous sentence of the Law had been executed, changing a judgment seat into a mercy seat (Hebrews 9:11-15; compare with "throne of grace" in Hebrews 4:14-16; place of communion, Exodus 25:21-22).
Another Greek word, hilasmos, is used for Christ as our propitiation. 1 John 2:2; 4:10, and for "atonement" in the septuagint (Leviticus 25:9). The thought in the Old Testament sacrifices and in the New Testament fulfillment, is that Christ completely satisfied the just demands of our Holy Father for judgment on sin, by his death on the Cross of Calvary.[citation needed]
God, in view of the cross, is declared righteous in having been able to justify sins in the Old Testament period, as well as in being able to forgive sinners under the New Covenant (Romans 3:25,26; cf. Exodus 29:33, note).[original research?]
Edit: Two questions really.
Did this same John also write the passage John 11:51-52?
Yes and before you start,
Limited Atonement
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.
Notice Piper has injected his private Calvinistic interpretation at the very end, he has to, because the emphasis doesn't exist in normal reading comprehension. Any average person will not associate the two verses and say to themself "I see no difference". This one is of his own creation.
John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."
1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11)."
Again, Piper is forced to inject his own Calvinistic interpretation into the scene...But did you catch what else he did? Remember the sticky web of Calvinism gets you to agree with their definitions without even knowing it. Just above, Piper asserted that Christ's sacrifice literally brought salvation, and did not merely open the door for anyone to walk through. He did this by fusing his interpretation of "propitiation" to the common understanding of "salvation" to make them one and the same, and used it to prove his point.
The fact of the matter is, that yes, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the entire world, but no, that does not mean salvation is automatically thrust upon the propitiated for. Piper is arguing from a false presumption that propitiation=salvation, and he provides no verses to support this. To understand flawlessly what Christ's payment on the cross was really about, see Sacrificial Confusion.
Piper's remaining arguments, such as Romans 8:32, and Titus 2:14, are all based on this presumption--that propitiation automatically forced salvation onto the Calvinist's interpretation of the elect.
This is a classic argument by Calvinism, which I have also answered in refuting Matt Slick. Like Slick, Piper also uses elsewhere the old "Not for the world, but but them that thou has given me" verse, which again, is answered thoroughly here.
But one more thing on the L of the TULIP.
2nd Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
So how can someone, in this aspect of the doctrine, have been bought by Christ, regenerated, and yet end up denying Him and destroying themself? Mighty big contradiction there.
From,
Refuting John Piper
I await your answers!
If you lose this debate I challenge you to admit calvinism is not Biblical, and renounce that Un-Biblical teaching, if you win,(that is by proving it) I will become a calvinist.
