Propitiation

[fhansen]

So to sum up, what you do is greater than what Christ does since you can undo it.

It would only be greater if my freedom and ability to undo it was against His will. Since He wants us to "own" our justice, our righteousness, our moral choices to the greatest extent possiile, as any good parent does, then God allows us the freedom to choose wrong. It's been that way since Eden and hasn't changed. That's why He lays out the choices for us, as well as the consequences for failing to make the right ones.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Since Jesus took upon Himself the “sin of the world,” (John 1:29), His atonement is therefore available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved? God Himself established the condition.

Numbers 21:8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.​

​

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”​

Jesus is the Savior for all men. 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved and in keeping 1 Timothy 4:10 says that God is the Savior of all men - but salvation is only applied to believers. Notice that although 1 Timothy 4:10 says that God is the Savior of all men, especially establishes a distinction for believers. Only believers are saved (John 5:24).

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.​

​

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.​

​

Summary. Jesus died for everyone so that anyone in the world who believes in Him will be saved. God loved the world and gifted it with a Savior, so that if anyone in the world believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life. So, if anyone should perish in unbelief, they perished despite an atonement that was sufficient for their salvation.

The problem is that the verse in question doesn’t say that the satisfaction of God’s wrath was made available. It says that He is the propitiation. So according to John, it’s a done deal.

 

[biblelesson]

On the cross, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. So, salvation is offered to the world but only through Christ. And if we don’t accept Christ, we cannot be saved from sin.

The reason: in order to live forever man must possess a body like God’s, but after Adam’s fall, every person born was now born with Adam’s sin nature; Adam’s seed. And this is what created a problem for God, and for man. The Bible says in Adam all die.

For God to rectify this, man would have to have a nature that could live in order to receive eternal life. He would have to Have a God seed, 1 John 3:9.

God could not just “zap” every human being and say “walla” now you have a new nature.

There is a process. To accomplish saving man from death, first His Son had to die who possessed a completely different nature from man. The Bible says Jesus came “in the likeness” of sinful flesh. When Jesus was born, he was not born with man’s seed, he was born of the Holy Ghost. So He did not have the Ademic nature.

Because for every sin there must be death, Jesus sacrificed Himself for us; He was the only One that could do it.

So now to solve the issue of a changed nature so man can now live forever: every person in the world can now be saved if they except and believe on Christ for the remission of the individual’s sins. Once that person accepts Christ, Christ’s imparts a new nature into the believer, God’s seed, the Holy Spirit. So then because at Christ’s death on the cross, God was reconciling the world unto Himself, He crucified the old nature on the cross with Christ.

So because believers Have the new nature in Christ, when they are resurrected, their Ademic nature remains on the cross, and they are raised with the new nature received from Christ which permits them to live forever in a glorified body Just as Christ Has.

But anyone who does not receive Christ cannot receive the new nature, because it’s only through the One who is a propitiation for us. So that person when they die and are resurrected are resurrected with the old Ademic nature. God has already said, in Adam all die. So that person will not live forever with Christ, but they will live for ever in eternal domination.

That’s the reality of the situation.

 

[Hammster]

It would only be greater if my freedom and ability to undo it was against His will. Since He wants us to "own" our justice, our righteousness, our moral choices to the greatest extent possiile, as any good parent does, then God allows us the freedom to choose wrong. It's been that way since Eden and hasn't changed. That's why He lays out the choices for us, as well as the consequences for failing to make the right ones.

Is God’s wrath satisfied for the sins that cause the disfellowship?

 

[Hammster]

On the cross, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. So, salvation is offered to the world but only through Christ. And if we don’t accept Christ, we cannot be saved from sin.

The reason: in order to live forever man must possess a body like God’s, but after Adam’s fall, every person born was now born with Adam’s sin nature; Adam’s seed. And this is what created a problem for God, and for man. The Bible says in Adam all die.

For God to rectify this, man would have to have a nature that could live in order to receive eternal life. He would have to Have a God seed, 1 John 3:9.

God could not just “zap” every human being and say “walla” now you have a new nature.

There is a process. To accomplish saving man from death, first His Son had to die who possessed a completely different nature from man. The Bible says Jesus came “in the likeness” of sinful flesh. When Jesus was born, he was not born with man’s seed, he was born of the Holy Ghost. So He did not have the Ademic nature.

Because for every sin there must be death, Jesus sacrificed Himself for us; He was the only One that could do it.

So now to solve the issue of a changed nature so man can now live forever: every person in the world can now be saved if they except and believe on Christ for the remission of the individual’s sins. Once that person accepts Christ, Christ’s imparts a new nature into the believer, God’s seed, the Holy Spirit. So then because at Christ’s death on the cross, God was reconciling the world unto Himself, He crucified the old nature on the cross with Christ.

So because believers Have the new nature in Christ, when they are resurrected, their Ademic nature remains on the cross, and they are raised with the new nature received fro Christ which permits them to live forever.

But anyone who does not receive Christ cannot receive the new nature, because it’s only through the One who is a propitiation for us. So that person when they die and are resurrected are resurrected with the old Ademic nature. God has already said, in Adam all die. So that person will not live forever with Christ, but they will live for ever in eternal domination.

That’s the reality of the situation.

So…what is propitiation as in view of the OP? The OP isn’t about what we do, but what Christ did.

 

[fhansen]

The problem is that the verse in question doesn’t say that the satisfaction of God’s wrath was made available. It says that He is the propitiation. So according to John, it’s a done deal.

Well, it is available, and that's why we have the choice to begin with. And He is the propitiation. And it's a done deal. Because of what He did, we all now have access to God; the veil is torn.

 

[fhansen]

Is God’s wrath satisfied for the sins that cause the disfellowship?

No, as I said we can destroy the relationship by sinning, That sin, that returning to the flesh, itself, is to undo what Jesus did for us as it leads to death. He died so that you can overcome the sin that leads to death. This happens as reconciliation/union with God takes place. But we can surely unreconcile ourselves, crucifying Christ all over again.

 

[biblelesson]

So…what is propitiation as in view of the OP? The OP isn’t about what we do, but what Christ did.

Animal sacrifices under the old law appeased God for Israel, which those sacrifices was a foreshadowing of Jesus’s sacrifice, which is the same appeasement, or propitiation, but to now offer eternal life.

 

[Hammster]

Well, it is available, and that's why we have the choice to begin with. And He is the propitiation. And it's a done deal. Because of what He did, we all now have access to God; the veil is torn.

The verses isn’t talking our choice, though. It’s talking about what’s done. And you don’t, in practice, think it’s done.

 

[Hammster]

No, as I said we can destroy the relationship by sinning, That sin, that returning to the flesh, itself, is to undo what Jesus did for us as it leads to death. He died so that you can overcome the sin that leads to death. This happens as reconciliation/union with God takes place. But we can surely unreconcile ourselves, crucifying Christ all over again.

So then you can’t say that Christ’s wrath was propitious for all sins. It was only propitious for some. Sounds similar to limited atonement.

 

[Hammster]

Animal sacrifices under the old law appeased God for Israel, which those sacrifices was a foreshadowing of Jesus’s sacrifice, which is the same appeasement, or propitiation, but to now offer eternal life.

I don’t see that propitiation offers eternal life. It just makes it possible by removing the sin debt. However, it does mean that hell is no longer an option.

 

[bling]

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.

I agree with one of your conclusions: “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.”

It would also be totally unjust for God to choose to not save some people that are just like the people God does save.

This has to do with the huge topic of atonement and the one part of Christ being the atonement sacrifice for all people.

First off: Just because Christ is the atonement sacrifice for all people does not mean, atonement has taken place for all people. There is much more to atonement than just the sacrifice itself. Atonement is a process, all mature adults can go through which is much more than just a onetime event.

I am not a big fan of the English word “propitiation” used to translate the Greek word “hilasmos” which is also translated: atoning sacrifice, expiation and reconciliation. The previous description of Jesus is an Advocate.

If you insist on using “wrath”, we need to realize this is the Father’s “wrath” toward both Christian and non-Christian, children.

This is the absolute greatest Loving Father who is very willing (like all wonderful parents) to forgive their children, but that is not the only responsibility of a Loving parent toward their rebellious disobedient child. Really great Loving parents will also see to Loving just/fair disciplining of their children if at all possible. The problem is not with the Loving parent or God, the problem is with the rebellious disobedient feeling comfortable standing reconciled by the parent (or God).

How did the first century Jews who went though the atoning process for their sins understand it:

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, sinners goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if all is done right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 (The sacrifice) As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but the sacrifices are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God’s wrath would not be satisfied with a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

 

[biblelesson]

I don’t see that propitiation offers eternal life. It just makes it possible by removing the sin debt. However, it does mean that hell is no longer an option.

Hammster, I and many others have provide biblical answers to the question. Take time to read and study.

 

[fhansen]

So then you can’t say that Christ’s wrath was propitious for all sins. It was only propitious for some. Sounds similar to limited atonement.

Limited atonement means that His death was propitious for some people (for all sin, past, present, and future, I believe) wheras my position is that it was proptious for all people but that they may or may not bother to respond. I think some history could also be helpful here:

In the very early church wherever it existed it was held, mainly due to several bible passages: Matt 12:22-30, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 12:10, but also 1 John 5:16-17, 2 Pet 2:20-22, Heb 6:4, Heb 10:26-31, that any serious or grave sin/return to the flesh after conversion made a person unredeemable (it was considered, for example, that there was no forgiveness for adultery or murder after conversion). These were "sins that lead to death". Becoming a follower of Christ entailed turning away from sin and the ways of the world and to God. Most had given up much to become Christians and so were very serious about sin and believed very differently from so many of today's viewpoints such that no one would even have a clue back then as to where those novel beliefs came from.

By the efforts of Callixtus, an early bishop of Rome, against much resistance, that teaching would eventually be modified throughout the whole church. With an understanding of the love and unending mercy of God, and His desire that none should perish but all come to repentance, he taught that no sin was unforgivable if a person had a true change of heart. Much penance would be required back then, and much time before they were fully considered acceptable back into the fold, but it was then understood that they would be restored back to union with God and His church. This would eventually become the universal church teaching. Callixtus, himself, would be martyered around 222 AD.

 

[John Mullally]

The problem is that the verse in question doesn’t say that the satisfaction of God’s wrath was made available. It says that He is the propitiation. So according to John, it’s a done deal.

You cannot take scripture(s) in isolation. In Post 60, I showed from several other scripture passages that the atonement is applied conditionally - only those who believe receive the benefit of the atonement.

What is your take on your own question?

 

[Hammster]

Hammster, I and many others have provide biblical answers to the question. Take time to read and study.

I’m quite aware of the answers. That’s why I’m providing cross-examination. Take the time to ponder the questions.

 

[Hammster]

Limited atonement means that His death was propitious for some people (for all sin, past, present, and future, I believe) wheras my position is that it was proptious for all people but that they may or may not bother to respond. I think some history could also be helpful here:

In the very early church wherever it existed it was held, mainly due to several bible passages: Matt 12:22-30, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 12:10, but also 1 John 5:16-17, 2 Pet 2:20-22, Heb 6:4, Heb 10:26-31, that any serious or grave sin/return to the flesh after conversion made a person unredeemable (it was considered, for example, that there was no forgiveness for adultery or murder after conversion). These were "sins that lead to death". Becoming a follower of Christ entailed turning away from sin and the ways of the world and to God. Most had given up much to become Christians and so were very serious about sin and believed very differently from so many of today's viewpoints such that no one would even have a clue back then as to where those novel beliefs came from.

By the efforts of Callixtus, an early bishop of Rome, against much resistance, that teaching would eventually be modified throughout the whole church. With an understanding of the love and unending mercy of God, and His desire that none should perish but all come to repentance, he taught that no sin was unforgivable if a person had a true change of heart. Much penance would be required back then, and much time before they were fully considered acceptable back into the fold, but it was then understood that they would be restored back to union with God and His church. This would eventually become the universal church teaching. Callixtus, himself, would be martyered around 222 AD.

You limit the atonement in that it didn’t pay for all sins. Limit means to restrict or confine. That’s what your view does in that God’s wrath isn’t applied to all sins.

 

[Hammster]

You cannot take scripture(s) in isolation. In Post 60, I showed from several other scripture passages that the atonement is applied conditionally - only those who believe receive the benefit of the atonement.

What is your take on your own question?

My answer is in the OP. The point of the OP is what Christ has done, and its extent. It’s not about our response.

 

[biblelesson]

I’m quite aware of the answers. That’s why I’m providing cross-examination. Take the time to ponder the questions.

Is your cross-examination related to questions outside the Bible? Or are you trying to understand the biblical explanation?

 

[Hammster]

Is your cross-examination related to questions outside the Bible? Or are you trying to understand the biblical explanation?

My cross-examination is to challenge what you say. It’s easy to post an opinion. It’s much harder to defend it.