Propitiation

[Hammster]

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.
— 1 John 2:1-2

It’s is commonly understood that propitiation is the atoning sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath. That’s the definition I’m going with here. Looking at this passage, we can conclude one of two things. God's wrath was satisfied for some or for all. Those who think it’s for all take “whole world” prima facia and say God loved the whole world and bore the sins of every man. Those who say it’s only for some look at the context and see the “our sins” as John’s immediate audience, and “whole world” as indicating that it’s just not his audience, but others throughout the world.

My argument against the former is that if God’s wrath is satisfied by His Son’s sacrifice, then He would be unjust for sending anyone to hell. It would be akin to someone paying off my house in full, yet the bank foreclosing on my house. That would not be just.

So it’s best to see “whole world” as referencing people throughout the world, as opposed to every single person in the world.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Outside of universalism isn't that the only view we're left with?

 

[Hammster]

Outside of universalism isn't that the only view we're left with?

I would think so. Or some third way which would make it unjust for God to sentence anyone to hell, yet also unjust for admitting unbelievers into heaven.

 

[fhansen]

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.
— 1 John 2:1-2

It’s is commonly understood that propitiation is the atoning sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath. That’s the definition I’m going with here. Looking at this passage, we can conclude one of two things. God's wrath was satisfied for some or for all. Those who think it’s for all take “whole world” prima facia and say God loved the whole world and bore the sins of every man. Those who say it’s only for some look at the context and see the “our sins” as John’s immediate audience, and “whole world” as indicating that it’s just not his audience, but others throughout the world.

My argument against the former is that if God’s wrath is satisfied by His Son’s sacrifice, then He would be unjust for sending anyone to hell. It would be akin to someone paying off my house in full, yet the bank foreclosing on my house. That would not be just.

So it’s best to see “whole world” as referencing people throughout the world, as opposed to every single person in the world.

Sometimes I’m not so sure whether Jesus’ sacrifice was really intended strictly to appease God’s wrath, or to demonstrate and prove that God (Jesus, BTW), while totally opposed to sin, still loves man, His very own creation, uncompromisingly, and forgives all sin as man is willing to turn and respond to that love himself, once he’s seen and comprehended it. Enmity comes from man, not God, IOW.

 

[Hammster]

Sometimes I’m not so sure whether Jesus’ sacrifice was really intended strictly to appease God’s wrath, or to demonstrate and prove that God (Jesus, BTW), while totally opposed to sin, still loves man, His very own creation, uncompromisingly, and forgives all sin as man is willing to turn and respond to that love himself, once he’s seen and comprehended it. Enmity comes from man, not God, IOW.

What’s your redefinition of propitiation, then?

 

[fhansen]

What’s your redefinition of propitiation, then?

Something had to be done about sin alright, but we have to keep in mind that it was God, Himself, driven by pure love, who was appeasing Himself, for our sakes. Now, whether we care enough to return that love, whether we care whether or not our sin has been paid for and forgiven, is another question. But He publicly demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it is. Either way forgiveness has no effect if not accepted. We must reciprocate after knowing what He’s done for us which is why, for example, Matt 6:14-15 tells us that He won’t forgive our sins unless we forgive others theirs. The parable of the unforgiving servant shows the same idea.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I would think so. Or some third way which would make it unjust for God to sentence anyone to hell, yet also unjust for admitting unbelievers into heaven.

Well you know the old adage, people send themselves to hell.

 

[Hammster]

Something had to be done about sin alright, but we have to keep in mind that it was God, Himself, driven by pure love, who was appeasing Himself, for our sakes. Now, whether we care enough to return that love, whether we care whether or not our sin has been paid for and forgiven, is another question. But He publicly demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it is. Either way forgiveness has no effect if not accepted. We must reciprocate after knowing what He’s done for us which is why, for example, Matt 6:14-15 tells us that He won’t forgive our sins unless we forgive others theirs. The parable of the unforgiving servant shows the same idea.

So again, what’s your definition of propitiation?

 

[fhansen]

So again, what’s your definition of propitiation?

To appease, reconcile.

 

[Hammster]

To appease, reconcile.

But not really, though. Your first post suggested a sorta appeasement or a sorta reconciliation.

 

[fhansen]

But not really, though. Your first post suggested a sorta appeasement or a sorta reconciliation.

No, God does His part while proving that His mercy and love are greater than His anger, then calls us to do our part. He doesn't need to do any of it, to create us to begin with for that matter, and yet He's willing to suffer an excrutiating death to prove that love, in order to draw us to that love which is man's created purpose. That's propitiation God-style, something humans rarely model. But why would we expect Him to do as we do anyway?

 

[Hammster]

No, God does His part while proving that His mercy and love are greater than His anger, then calls us to do our part. He doesn't need to do any of it, to create us to begin with for that matter, and yet He's willing to suffer an excrutiating death to prove that love, in order to draw us to that love which is man's created purpose. That's propitiation God-style, something humans rarely model. But why would we expect Him to do as we do anyway?

What exactly is appeased?

 

[fhansen]

What exactly is appeased?

The demand for justice regarding sin. But so that we'll know His love-that's the only thing that can draw man to Him, to know that we sin and that a price must be paid for it while simultaneously knowing that His love causes Him to pay that price Himself.

 

[Hammster]

The demand for justice regarding sin.

I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that because of Christ’s death, justice is no longer demanded?

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that because of Christ’s death, justice is no longer demanded?

Because of Christ's death past injustices are paid for and future justice is made possible in God's creation.

 

[Hammster]

Because of Christ's death past injustices are paid for and future justice is made possible in God's creation.

Well, that’s close to limited atonement, but not how I would define it.

 

[fhansen]

Well, that’s close to limited atonement, but not how I would define it.

Ok, either way it's not llimited atonement if God wants all to come to repentance and be saved, but leaves it contingent on man's response.

 

[Hammster]

Ok, either way it's not llimited atonement if God wants all to come to repentance and be saved, but leaves it contingent on man's response.

It’s limited according to you. It’s only good for past injustices and future justice, but not all justice.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

...

That's propitiation God-style, something humans rarely model.

Do you have a human example of this modelling?

Something had to be done about sin alright, but we have to keep in mind that it was God, Himself, driven by pure love, who was appeasing Himself, for our sakes.

This is a concept I never understood. How is it possible for one to appease oneself? Can you do that? Basically like, you break my window. and I pay for it? All is good as long as you ask forgiveness?

 

[fhansen]

Do you have a human example of this modelling?

We see instances of human self-sacrifice, such as a solider diving on a grenade to save his partners. People sacrifice in other "lesser" ways as well.