Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
???
The idea that future sin is no longer a problem between God and a believer is anti-gospel and anti-Scriptural. You’re sins are forgiven, taken away and you are reconciled with God, now a slave to righteousness, not to the sin that opposes and separates you from Him. That’s the package, the status Christ achieves for us. To trample on that by continuing in sin is to mock God. It would be as if you stole money from me and someone else paid it back for you and I was appeased by that act, forgiving your debt, no longer at odds with you, our friendship restored. Except, that then you continued to steal money from me. My friendly attitude would not, and should not, remain. Nothing would be changed by the debt-payers act, justice was not restored, transgressions continue. In the gospel we’re to change, to become new creations as we begin to now show the same love to others that has been shown to us. Otherwise, we don’t even know God. Jesus’ solution to the problem of sin isn’t to ignore it, but to triumph over it, to take it away.So can we agree that propitiation means that God’s wrath is satisfied irrespective of man’s actions?
Once again, we are talking about propitiation. We are talking about what God does, not what man does.The idea that future sin is no longer a problem between God and a believer is anti-gospel and anti-Scriptural. You’re sins are forgiven, taken away and you are reconciled with God, now a slave to righteousness, not to the sin that opposes and separates you from Him. That’s the package, the status Christ achieves for us. To trample on that by continuing in sin is to mock God. It would be as if you stole money from me and someone else paid it back for you and I was appeased by that act, forgiving your debt, no longer at odds with you, our friendship restored. Except, that then you continued to steal money from me. My friendly attitude would not, and should not, remain. Nothing would be changed by the debt-payers act, justice was not restored, transgressions continue. In the gospel we’re to change, to become new creations as we begin to now show the same love to others that has been shown to us. Otherwise, we don’t even know God. Jesus, solution to the problem of sin isn’t to ignore it, but to triumph over it, to take it away.
And even if that takes several rounds of forgiveness, at some point in our lives we must not remain a blatant offender of God, engaging in the deeds of the flesh that Scripture tells us will keep us from ever seeing Him. That is to crucify Christ all over again, Heb 6:6.
So i post a link to an article whose title is???
It would be nice if you addressed the OP.
It’s a discussion forum. I’m not going to try to make you participate. But I could flood the page with links from Puritans. But I don’t see how that makes for a good debate.So i post a link to an article whose title is
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY PROPITIATION?And you post ? and ask would i address the OP. Now that is funny.
DOES IT ONLY COUNT IF WE ACCEPT IT?
It’s a discussion forum. I’m not going to try to make you participate. But I could flood the page with links from Puritans. But I don’t see how that makes for a good debate.
My sincere apologies. I missed that post. I’ll address it now.-
And i posted a post containing words to discuss, right before i posted the post with links.
This cannot be true since unbelief itself is a sin. In fact, there could be an argument made that it’s the greatest of all sins in that it ignores the very Creator of life Himself. Romans 1 makes it clear that everyone knows who God is, yet willfully suppresses that knowledge.-No because the issue that causes a person to end up in the lake of fire is not sin, as all sin has been forgiven.
Why then does a person end up in the lake of fire, because that person remained an unbeliever their whole earthly life. A person who remains an unbeliever, that never was a believer. They never received God's free gift of Eternal Life (salvation) and became a born again child of God.
So the only place for a person who lacks the life of God is the lake of fire. At the great white throne one is not sent to the lake of fire, till their name is not found in The book of Life. Sin is never mention as a reason, why because sin has been forgiven.
Yes, we’re talking about what God expects of man, once appeased and reconciled. Gods wrath isn’t satisfied irrespective of man’s actions IOW. For example, if a man were to turn from his faith once having the knowledge of Christ, no longer remaining in Him, no longer believing in, hoping in, or loving Him, let alone committing grave deeds of the flesh such as those listed in Gal 5 which in themselves constitute acts against faith, hope, and love, acts against God, He won’t be pleased. If we don’t do good, if we don’t overcome sin, then we won’t be seeing Him.Once again, we are talking about propitiation. We are talking about what God does, not what man does.
No, we are talking about propitiation. It’s my OP. I’m pretty confident that I know that the topic is.Yes, we’re talking about what God expects of man, once appeased and reconciled. Gods wrath isn’t satisfied irrespective of man’s actions IOW. For example, if a man were to turn from his faith once having the knowledge of Christ, no longer remaining in Him, no longer believing in, hoping in, or loving Him.
By the OP you appear to be defining propitiation as covering all sins such that God could never send anyone, who’s received propitiation, to hell for committing them. I’m contesting that definition.No, we are talking about propitiation. It’s my OP. I’m pretty confident that I know that the topic is.
Then if propitiation doesn’t satisfy God’s wrath against all sin, then it must do something else. You’ve yet to define exactly what that is.By the OP you appear to be defining propitiation as covering all sins such that God could never send anyone, who’s received propitiation, to hell for committing them. I’m contesting that definition.
No, you’ve described what man should do. You haven’t defined what propitiation is. We can tell by post 43 that it isn’t a satisfaction of God’s wrath by the work of the Son because according to you, man must do something. So in 1 John 2:2, you’ve introduced something that isn’t in the text.Not at all, if you've read post #43.
Not at all. God is appeased, but won't be if we foolishly continue in sin.No, you’ve described what man should do. You haven’t defined what propitiation is. We can tell by post 43 that it isn’t a satisfaction of God’s wrath by the work of the Son because according to you, man must do something. So in 1 John 2:2, you’ve introduced something that isn’t in the text.
So regardless of what Christ did to appease the Father, it’s your contention that man can undo that.Not at all. God is appeased, but won't be if we foolishly continue in sin.
Yes, we can destroy our relationship with Him all over again. You have this beautiful offer, to come to know and to love and serve God. It begins with faith in Him. But having come to this knowledge we can trample on it: Heb 10:26, 2 Pet 2:20-22, making a shipwreck of our faith even as God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth": 1 Tim 1:19, 2:4.So regardless of what Christ did to appease the Father, it’s your contention that man can undo that.
So to sum up, what you do is greater than what Christ does since you can undo it.Yes, we can destroy our relationship with Him all over again.
Jesus atoned for all man's sin. 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 show that Jesus provides atonement for all people - but as I will show that atonement is applied conditionally.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?