How did God view the Atonement ?

He did do that and without faith no one’s sins are forgiven and atonement is not made. Think of the blood on the doorposts that was applied by faith on Passover night when the death angel was sent . Those who applied the blood were saved, those who didn’t died.
You are a bit off in comparing those two things as though they were identical. The first is a shadow of what is to come, the second is the reality and no where does the NT say that we apply the blood the blood of Jesus. It is applied to us. The first was a lamb. The second was the Christ.
 
You are a bit off in comparing those two things as though they were identical. The first is a shadow of what is to come, the second is the reality and no where does the NT say that we apply the blood the blood of Jesus. It is applied to us. The first was a lamb. The second was the Christ.
Nope He is our Passover as He taught His disciples on the night He was betrayed with the bread and wine .

hope this helps !!!
 
I explained it in the rest of the post. See posts 12-15.
I read them and though you say many things, nowhere in them does anything begin with who God is---the theology of God. In your support of no penal substitution you leave out a part of His character and existence that is equal in its stability and trustworthiness as His mercy and His love and His faithfulness. And that is His justice. If sin does not go unpunished according to His decree, then He is a liar. Justice and mercy kiss at the cross. SIns of the sinner meet their justice, satisfying a just God. Now mercy can be extended without making a liar out of Himself. Why do you think He required the animal sacrifices in the interim? So He could show mercy while we waited for the day when Christ was born and the day in which He died, and the day in which He was resurrected.
 
Nope He is our Passover as He taught His disciples on the night He was betrayed with the bread and wine .

hope this helps !!!
That still does not solve the issue that was actually raised. I know He was our Passover. Is He a lamb? Are the door posts marked with His blood? Are only the first born saved?
 
Nope He is our Passover as He taught His disciples on the night He was betrayed with the bread and wine .

hope this helps !!!

How dare you compare Jesus to a slaughtered lamb, God doesn't want murdered animals!!!

He who sacrifices a lamb, is as if he breaks a dog's neck; (Isa. 66:3 NKJ)

"The purpose of the sacrificed lamb, was anti-Egyptian iconoclasm."

 
Sure it does I go into great detail about all the misnomers taught with the atonement. Expiation is the answer.
In the biblical discussions of the atoning work of Christ, several key ideas are used to give a comprehensive understanding of the way in which we are rescued from sin and its consequences by the death of Christ. One idea is ransom (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; cf. Job 33:24, 28; Ps. 49:7–8). From the interchange of words for ransom and redemption, we learn that these two concepts are closely related. They speak of a price to be paid that is deemed sufficient for the release of a captive or a slave from those who have captured or have legal right to him (Num. 25:48–55; cf. Rom. 3:24–25; Eph. 1:7). Propitiation is elemental to the price of ransom and redemption. This indicates that the ransom given by Christ that brings redemption to sinners is exacted through Christ’s enduring divine wrath (1 John 4:10). God’s pre-temporal love for sinners made the incarnation and wrath-bearing necessary as means to achieve his purpose of redemption. This wrath is an expression of fitting justice to be inflicted for the sins of those for whom he died, who by this death are delivered from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). We find Paul stating this succinctly in writing that this propitiation is a demonstration of God’s “righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).

This work of Christ is also presented in Scripture as substitutionary in nature. Its voluntary nature, essential for its truly substitutionary effect, can hardly be separated from its substitutionary character. Jesus himself set the theme by teaching that he would die in the stead of his people, his sheep (John 10:15, 17, 18; Matt. 1:21; Rom. 4:25; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 5:25; Col. 2:14; Titus 2:14; Heb. 2:17; 9:26, 28; 1 Pet. 3:18).

The death of Christ also is set forth as an example. Though some in the history of this doctrine have gravitated to this idea as the primary power of Christ’s death, Scripture does not present it as the substance of what was accomplished in his death. Rather, the objective substance itself serves as a model of how completely we must commit ourselves to the will of God (1 Pet. 2:21). If Christ can be patient and joyful (Heb. 12:1–2) in going to a death that involved unmitigated divine wrath, we as his redeemed ones should be patient and joyful in suffering for his sake. The example theories as discussed below lose their motivational power unless founded on true substitutionary propitiation.

All of these ideas are prominent in the history of theories about the atonement. The different concepts have been alternately set forth as the leading idea around which the other aspects were synthesized as contributing factors. These views propose that something objectively substantial in Christ’s death is necessarily connected with forgiveness and acceptance before God. The death of Christ is seen as materially effecting the sinner’s forgiveness of sin and release from the enslavement to sin and susceptibility to divine wrath. Another view, a minority stream of thought, focuses on the subjective impact the death of Christ has on the sinner to create a desire to repent of sin, to love God, and to serve him faithfully; God needs nothing else for his gracious reception of such a returning sinner. Both the moral example theory and the moral government view fall within this framework.

How did the Church fathers view Atonement?

 
In the biblical discussions of the atoning work of Christ, several key ideas are used to give a comprehensive understanding of the way in which we are rescued from sin and its consequences by the death of Christ. One idea is ransom (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; cf. Job 33:24, 28; Ps. 49:7–8). From the interchange of words for ransom and redemption, we learn that these two concepts are closely related. They speak of a price to be paid that is deemed sufficient for the release of a captive or a slave from those who have captured or have legal right to him (Num. 25:48–55; cf. Rom. 3:24–25; Eph. 1:7). Propitiation is elemental to the price of ransom and redemption. This indicates that the ransom given by Christ that brings redemption to sinners is exacted through Christ’s enduring divine wrath (1 John 4:10). God’s pre-temporal love for sinners made the incarnation and wrath-bearing necessary as means to achieve his purpose of redemption. This wrath is an expression of fitting justice to be inflicted for the sins of those for whom he died, who by this death are delivered from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). We find Paul stating this succinctly in writing that this propitiation is a demonstration of God’s “righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26).

This work of Christ is also presented in Scripture as substitutionary in nature. Its voluntary nature, essential for its truly substitutionary effect, can hardly be separated from its substitutionary character. Jesus himself set the theme by teaching that he would die in the stead of his people, his sheep (John 10:15, 17, 18; Matt. 1:21; Rom. 4:25; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 5:25; Col. 2:14; Titus 2:14; Heb. 2:17; 9:26, 28; 1 Pet. 3:18).

The death of Christ also is set forth as an example. Though some in the history of this doctrine have gravitated to this idea as the primary power of Christ’s death, Scripture does not present it as the substance of what was accomplished in his death. Rather, the objective substance itself serves as a model of how completely we must commit ourselves to the will of God (1 Pet. 2:21). If Christ can be patient and joyful (Heb. 12:1–2) in going to a death that involved unmitigated divine wrath, we as his redeemed ones should be patient and joyful in suffering for his sake. The example theories as discussed below lose their motivational power unless founded on true substitutionary propitiation.

All of these ideas are prominent in the history of theories about the atonement. The different concepts have been alternately set forth as the leading idea around which the other aspects were synthesized as contributing factors. These views propose that something objectively substantial in Christ’s death is necessarily connected with forgiveness and acceptance before God. The death of Christ is seen as materially effecting the sinner’s forgiveness of sin and release from the enslavement to sin and susceptibility to divine wrath. Another view, a minority stream of thought, focuses on the subjective impact the death of Christ has on the sinner to create a desire to repent of sin, to love God, and to serve him faithfully; God needs nothing else for his gracious reception of such a returning sinner. Both the moral example theory and the moral government view fall within this framework.

How did the Church fathers view Atonement?

I always go to Christ who is God as my primary source of truth. His teaching must not contradict anyone else in scripture. If there seems to be a contradiction then it is with mans understanding on the topic not from Jesus teaching. He is God and He is the authority on all things. Not once did Jesus even hint Hid death was propitiation as taught by the reformers meaning appeasing an angry deity- that concept is pagan. That is why propitiation is not a good translation, expiation is the better translation and meaning in 1 John.

How did He view His own death- the atonement ?

We see God the Son described His own death, the Atonement in 4 ways. Theology begins with God. He said His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation

1
- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 Substitution, Ransom

2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18 Substitution, Ransom

3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15 Substitution, Ransom

4- Jesus viewed His death as the Passover John 6:51

5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a Ransom for many- Matthew 20:28

6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- Substitution, John 10:11

7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- Substitution

8 -This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28- Expiation

The N.T. writers' emphasis on the atonement is on the side of expiation rather than propitiation, which is only used twice in the epistle of 1 John. Gods’ wrath is still future and will judge those who reject His Sons atonement for sin. Gods’ wrath was not poured out on the Son for sin otherwise there would be no future wrath from God because of sin.

If we were to read propitiation ( appease an angry god as the meaning ) in 1 John 4:10 look at how absurd if reads.

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to appease our angry god , to appease His anger, to appease his angry self etc.......for our sins.

That makes no sense at all theologically , grammatically or contextually. It’s a contradiction, an oxymoron.



hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25

"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"

This is the passage that Luther was struggling with in yesterday's post and begins with Paul's statement "Now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe". We saw that this righteousness "apart from law" was about God setting things right when we trust in him to work for us and in us. It involves a fundamental change in how we understand righteousness and justice, not as performance, but "apart from law" as something God does for sinners. But how does that work? All are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" but how did it come? In the next verse (3:25) Paul says it was through the cross. And here we find that word (at least in King James) "propitiation".

Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us". It is vital to note that virtually no major proponent of Penal Substitution sees the cross as God's favor being purchased through sacrifice (which is what propitiation means) since this represents a pagan idea of sacrifice. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ p.174) Calvin writes "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us"(Institutes II 16:4)

Secondly, since it is God who makes the propitiation this amounts to "God paying God". You cannot propitiate yourself any more than you can steal from yourself or bribe yourself. What it amounts to is a word being stretched beyond the breaking point until it no longer fits. Propitiation is a concept that comes from a pagan understanding of the sacrifices where the sacrifice purchased the gods favor and humor. That is not the case here since it is God who makes the offering of himself.

So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy". Many new translations render Hislateron for this reason as "expiate" because the Temple Sacrifices to not have an element of appeasing of wrath in them and thus this seems to be a more fitting translation if it refers to the Mercy Seat in the Temple. Expiation literally means "to make pious" (similar to sanctify) and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means. We are "made favorable" (propitiation) when our sin is removed (expiation). The problem is not that God is unwilling or unloving (propitiation), but that our sin causes a real break in relationship. As with any relationship, that break must be mended. This is what expiation refers to. Expiation is about cleaning or removing of sin and has no reference to quenching God's righteous anger. The difference is that the object of expiation is sin, not God. Grammatically, one propitiates a person, and one expiates a problem. You cannot expiate (remove) a person or God, nor can one propitiate (make favorable) sin. Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us. Again not because God then suddenly loved us, but because the break in the relationship was mended.

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the atonement dealing with God's wrath. Leon Morris for instance argued for the translation of "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 because he said the thrust of Paul in Romans up til then had been on God's wrath. This is true. However the way that that wrath was dealt with was not though the anger of God being pacified through a gift (propitiation) but rather though God actually solving the problem by removing our sin as a doctor remove3s a cancer (expiation) thus making us "right".

Given then that virtually no proponent of Penal Substitution uses the word propitiation (or appeasement) as it is actually defined in English, it seems a bad word to use that leads to a false understanding of God as one who demands to be paid before he will love us rather than a God who pays what he does not owe because he loves us so much and gives his own life for us. God is not "made favorable" to us through a gift, rather God makes us favorable by giving his life.derek flood

hope this helps !!!
 
Here are the only three uses of “propitiation” in the KJV:

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation (G2435) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Rom 3:25-26)

“And he is the propitiation (G2434) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)

“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (G2434) for our sins.” (1 John 4:10)

As we will see, this is a very poor word to use to translate the original Greek.

Here are the definitions given for the Greek words used for propitiation:

Original Word Definitions

G2434 ἱλασμός hilasmos hil-as-mos’

a root word; n m;
AV-propitiation 2; 2
1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

G2435 ἱλαστήριον hilasterion hil-as-tay’-ree-on
from a derivative of G2433; n n;
AV-propitiation 1, mercyseat 1; 2
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation
1a)
used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory
1b) an expiatory sacrifice
1c) an expiatory victim

Since G2435 comes from G2433 we should look at that word:

2433 ἱλάσκομαι hilaskomai hil-as’-kom-ahee
middle voice from the same as 2436; v;
AV-be merciful 1, make reconciliation 1; 2
1) to render one’s self, to appease, conciliate to one’s self
1a) to become propitious, be placated or appeased
1b) to be propitious, be gracious, be merciful
2) to expiate, make propitiation for

There is only one other verse that uses “hilasterion” (G2435):

“And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; (G2435) of which we cannot now speak particularly.” (Heb 9:5)

That verse suggests that “hilasterion” is a place where mercy is given – quite different from the usual meaning of propitiation.

So, if that word had been used in Romans 3:25, would that give the verse a different meaning?

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation mercy seat …”

It literally means “a place or means of reconciliation, a place where atonement or unity and at-one-ment takes place.”

The only two verses that use “hilaskomai” (G2433) are:

“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful (G2433) to me a sinner.” (Luke 18:13)

“Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for (G2433) the sins of the people.” (Heb 2:17)

Those verses do not suggest anything like propitiation. What are the effects of the translation of a word meaning mercy seat as propitiation? They can’t be good.

Where did the Concept of Propitiation Come From?

Many (if not all) pagan cultures embrace the concept of propitiation and appeasement. Here is another example of modern misunderstanding:

“… Propitiation is an ancient word, which we as Christians have in common with other world religions. To propitiate a god is to offer a sacrifice that turns aside the god’s wrath. Anyone who believes in a god knows that they need some way to stay on the friendly side of that god. So they give gifts to the god, or serve in the temple, or give alms. And if the god is angry with them, they pay a price, or make a sacrifice, or find some way to soothe the god’s anger: they propitiate him.”(https://maney.us/blog/2014/03/25/trevin-wax-pagan-propitiation-vs-biblical-propitiation/)

Do we really need a way to stay on the friendly side of God? What about “God is love”?

Here are verses using “propitiation” (in the KJV):

“God presented Jesus as the way and the means of restoration. Now, through the trust established by the evidence of God’s character revealed when Christ died, we may partake of the Remedy procured by Christ. God did this to demonstrate that he is right and good — because in his forbearance he suspended, for a time, the ultimate consequence of us being out of harmony with his design for life — yet he has been falsely accused of being unfair. 26 He did it to demonstrate at the present time how right and good he is, so that he would also be seen as being right when he heals those who trust in Jesus.” (Rom 3:25-26, )

“This is what real love is: It is not that we have loved God, or that we have done something to get him to love us, but that he loved us so much that he sent his Son to become the Remedy and cure for the infection of sin and selfishness so that through him we might be restored into perfect unity with God.” (1 John 4:10, ) https://characterofgod.org/propitiation-definition/

hope this helps !!!
 
@Johann both are referenced at the bottom of the post- derek and characterofgod.

And I'm not asking anyone to agree as I'm showing the other side of propitiation which is expiation which is what Jesus said about His own death and atonement- He said nothing about wrath and anger from the Father.

So like I said earlier Jesus is my primary source for everything about God, His nature, character, attributes etc..... since He is God and came to reveal who God is to the disciples and us in the gospels.

If one wants to understand the Trinity and the relationships within the Godhead one only needs to read Jesus teachings. He goes into great detail about the Father and the Holy Spirit. If one wants to understand Jesus death and atonement then one only needs to start with His teaching and work form that foundation.

And since Jesus Himself said the entire OT was about Him then what He has to say about His own death takes priority. I work from Christs teaching with my Theology and work out from there. My theology is Christocentric. He is the centerpiece from which I work out from. The teaching of the Apostles must line up with His teachings. He promised them He would guide them into all truth. So their truth must line up with His truth. If there is something the Apostles/Prophets said that doesn't line up with Jesus teaching then its our misunderstanding of what they taught that is wrong. They do not contradict Jesus but confirm Jesus teaching. This is why I reject the reformed teaching of PSA. Its the opposite of what Jesus taught. There was not wrath from the Father towards the Son, no anger, retribution, vengeance. There was absolute and perfect love between Them at all times, no anger needing to be soothed.

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
@Johann both are referenced at the bottom of the post- derek and characterofgod.
All I'm saying is that the Church fathers had it right and Protestantism-with it's various branches, are still in disagreement on many major doctrinal doctrines.
I'm not trying to pick a fight brother.
All good?
Johann.
 
All I'm saying is that the Church fathers had it right and Protestantism-with it's various branches, are still in disagreement on many major doctrinal doctrines.
I'm not trying to pick a fight brother.
All good?
Johann.
I didn't think for a moment you were brother. I was just providing some outside sources that affirm my view on the Atonement.
 
How did God view His own death, atonement for sin ?

We see God the Son described His own death, the Atonement in 4 ways. Theology begins with God. He said His death was a Substitution, a Ransom, a Passover, a Sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- Expiation.

1- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 Substitution, Ransom

2-No man takes my life I lay it down and I will take it up again- John 10:18 Substitution, Ransom

3- I lay My life down for the sheep- John 10:15 Substitution, Ransom

4- Jesus viewed His death as the Passover John 6:51

5-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a Ransom for many- Matthew 20:28

6-I Am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep- Substitution, John 10:11

7-Jesus said in John 11:50- nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish- Substitution

8 -This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins- Matthew 26:28

Who put Jesus to death, who was responsible ?

Acts 2:23
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 2:36
“Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Acts 4:10- Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…

Acts 5:30- The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree

Matthew 16:21
From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life

Matthew 20:18-19
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will deliver Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life."

Matthew 27:1- When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

Matthew 27:35- When they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments by casting lots.

Mark 15:24- And they crucified Him. They also divided His garments by casting lots to decide what each of them would take


conclusion: The One who made Atonement for my sins completely left out PSA and not once mentioned it or hinted at it in any way, shape or form. He said His death was a substitution, ransom, Passover, sacrifice and for forgiveness of sins- expiation. There was no wrath from the Father to the Son. The anger, wrath, vengeance, retribution as the Apostles taught in Acts and Jesus taught in the gospels came from evil and wicked men.

hope this helps !!!
I need to study this topic some more and you have made some good points for me to consider for studying.
 
Back
Top Bottom