Let's start by reviewing the verses where that English word is used:
Rom 3:25 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;
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Paul (in Romans) uses the noun ιλαστηριον, and John uses the noun (in two different declensions) ιλασμος (1 John 2:2) and ιλασμον (1 John 4:10). They are all related Greek words, and both are ordinarily translated by some form of the verb propitiate.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines propitiate:
PROPI''TIATE, v.t. [L. propitio; pio. Eng. pity.]
To conciliate; to appease one offended and render him favorable; to make propitious.
Let fierce Achilles, dreadful in his rage,
The god propitiate and the pest assuage.
Now, let's go back to the verses. In the verses, John and Paul are saying that Jesus is the one who appeases the offense that our sins cause to God and render us favorable in God's sight.
Now, in the verse Romans 3, I don't think anyone is going to have heartburn about what the verse says: it says that the Father put the Son in the role of being an appeaser of wrath by means of his blood to all those who believe: namely by a declaration of Christ's righteousness to remit the previous state of sinfulness, and, of course, through God's forbearance.
1 John 4:10 similarly does not cause heartburn, because John is writing from the apostles to believers, so whether "our" means the apostles or "our" means the apostles and the believers to whom he is writing, it is Jesus who assuaged God's wrath against us on account of our sins.
I John 2:2 is the verse that may cause Arminians some chest pains. It says that Jesus is not just the propitiation for "our" sins but for the sins of the "whole world." The problem for some Arminians is that they have adopted an exhaustive, universalistic sense (instead of a generic, expansive sense) to the term "world" in other passages, and feel obliged to understand the word similarly here, especially when accompanied by the word "whole."
Thus, Arminians are faced either with universal propitiation (and consequently universal salvation), or universal hypothetical propitiation. The problem with the former interpretation is that it is abundantly clear from Scripture that some will not be saved. The problem with latter interpretation is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that John or Paul believes that the propitiation of our sins is hypothetical or potential, as opposed to actual. Another option would be to suggest that the propitiation does not save, i.e. that propitiation is just an intermediate position between lost and saved. This, however, is clearly inconsistent with Paul's use, and there is - again - no reason in context to suggest this alternative.
There is, however, another solution to the dilemma:
The phrase translated "whole world" could be used in the generic, expansive sense - such that John is contrasting himself together with the apostles and/or his readers ("our") with other people generally. There is some support for this sense, because John uses the phrase in 1 John 5:19:
1 John 5:18-19
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Of course, here the "whole world" cannot be used in an exhaustive, universalistic sense - for John has just contrasted the "we" with it.
Furthermore, there are other passages where the term is used simply to convey a large amount (e.g. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25) or a broad expansive geographic area (Matthew 26: 13, Mark 14:9, Romans 1:8). In fact, in terms of Scriptural usage, those are all of the other (i.e. except for the two uses in 1 John) uses of the phrase. In other words, the phrase never in Scripture clearly conveys the sense of "each and every person who has or will live on the planet Earth," as Arminians are prone to think.
If we view John's comment as magnifying the greatness of the scope of God's love (i.e. that he propitiated for the sins not just of first century believers, but for the huge multitude of the elect), then the dilemma evaporates. There is no longer any need to eisegetically invent a hypothetical propitiation or a non-saving assuagement of wrath as one of the works of Christ.
And do you know what is really interesting?
The same Greek word ιλαστηριον is used by Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the testimony, the place where God communed with Moses, the places where God appeared in a cloud to Moses, and the place where blood was offered to God. It is the place where blood was offered to obtain mercy, and the author of Hebrews indicates that this blood sacrifice pictured the blood sacrifice of Christ.
May God who is Love, cause us to be thankful for the propitiation accomplished by our High Priest,
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Don't forget Esther 7:10.
"And so the king's wrath was pacified" Once heard a sermon that said this verse is like the turning away of the wrath of the King of Kings. Not 100% analogy but...
--Godith
What I want to know, is how do you get greek characters to show in your blog text?
Thanks... I totally agree. My point in the forums was not that Christ had any sort of saving effect on the reprobate (neither hypothetical, nor "intermediate"). My point in the forum was that God's interim tolerance for the sins of the reprobate (i.e., the simple fact that the reprobate are still alive), is not out of the blue, but must be based on something. And that something must be the work of Christ. God, being perfectly just, cannot even for a moment forego justice. Even when he waits, he must have a just reason to wait.
I may be off base, but that was my point.
I'll try to work a link back to this post out of the forum... maybe they'll let "me" post it... if nothing else, you can't be spanked by the admins for what I do.
Dear TJ,
- The technical answer, I think, is that I use Unicode Greek - the non-technical answer is that cut and paste from a particular Greek New Testament I have, which has properly formatted Greek characters.
- Going toward the point on the forums:
a) I don't know whether the fact that God is longsuffering toward the reprobate is properly attributable to the work of Christ.
b) I agree that God has the right to exercise judgment immediately, but I think God can freely delay judgment without violating justice (he simply cannot do so forever).
c) Obviously, the reprobate do enjoy good things in this life both as derivative from the blessings God bestows on the elect, and gratutiously.
- I don't want to cause trouble on those forums, either directly or indirectly - so I won't be bothered if you change your mind and decide not to post a link.
-Turretinfan
I posted a better constructed (a relative term!) argument on what I'm getting at on my blog, along with a few interesting scriptures.
I'm not sure that all cases of reprobate prosperity is just "spillover" from elect blessings... and the question of "mere gratuity" is what I'm wondering about.
However, as I note on my blog, your point B does make sense and is what I have previously held to. That it will "all come out in the wash." Maybe that's all there is to it.
Orthodox wrote (in part of a long post that was not approved in whole): "Orthodoxy to the rescue. Orthodoxy teaches the opt-out system. Christ really propitiates the sins of the whole world, but some cancel it out by rejecting the savior."
I respond: If that's an accurate representation of Orthodoxy (though it is not in any of the 7 ECs that I've ever read) then Orthodoxy answers the question "who is able to separate us from the love of God" with "we are" and denies that the blood of Christ actually "purge[s] [our] conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (in contrast to Hebrews 9:14.
Such a gospel is "another gospel" - not Paul's gospel.
Otherwise, Orthodox, I direct you to other posts such as these:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
which address many of the verses and issues that you quote and assume to be helpful to your position.
If you'd like to interact with the presented exegeses of those verses, please feel free.
-Turretinfan
Dear Orthodox:
When you post long posts I have several options:
1) reject the whole thing and (apparently) offend you.
2) break the post up into manageable segments and place them under appopriate topics (which would be my preference if I had limitless time)
3) publish the whole thing and derail the combox onto a thousand tangents.
My reason for my redirection of you to various other posts was to encourage you to post your comments that were germane to those posts in the relevant comboxes.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to have taken the hint, and I'd rather not get sidetracked with a lengthy discussion of those verses in this combox.
If I find time, I'll pick option (2).
One germane comment you had, was an answer of "sure" to my question about whether the answer to "who is able to separate us from the love of God" was supposedly "we are" in Orthodoxy.
I appreciate your frank answer, and I'll be addressing that theology in due course. It's a theology of radical humanism - the one thing that has the ability to overcome God's love is man.
And, of course, it is not the "tradition" of Orthodoxy. There is no requirement that a person hold to such radical humanism in order to be Orthodox.
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that a Muslim-style "opt-out" system of salvation is really part of Orthodox "tradition" either - one can be Orthodox without holding to such a tradition.
Do you have evidence that "opt-out" is more than just the opinion of a few Orthodox church-men? In other words, do you have evidence that one MUST hold to an "opt-out" soteriology in order to be Othodox?
-Turretinfan
T: It's a theology of radical humanism - the one thing that has the ability to overcome God's love is man.
And, of course, it is not the "tradition" of Orthodoxy. There is no requirement that a person hold to such radical humanism in order to be Orthodox.
O: You are lecturing me on Orthodox tradition?
Adam became separated from God by his own decision. Satan became separated from God by his own decision. (radical angelism?).
T: Furthermore, I seriously doubt that a Muslim-style "opt-out" system of salvation is really part of Orthodox "tradition" either - one can be Orthodox without holding to such a tradition.
Do you have evidence that "opt-out" is more than just the opinion of a few Orthodox church-men? In other words, do you have evidence that one MUST hold to an "opt-out" soteriology in order to be Othodox?
O: It is opt-out in this sense. As is common knowledge, Orthodoxy does not teach an original sin that causes new born babies to be already guilty before God. A person chooses to become an enemy of God by sinning outside of God's grace. Therefore the person has opted out by their actions. This is common knowledge about Orthodox doctrine. I could point out many sources about Orthodox teaching on original sin, but I'm sure you're capable of finding them.
Besides which, you yourself claimed that the other option implies universalism. Since we are not universalists, ergo...
Orthodox:
No, I'm not lecturing you on Orthodox tradition, I'm demonstrating to the reader that Orthodoxy makes very few - and mostly negative - dogmatic claims.
You make lots of claims about what Orthodoxy says, but you're full of hot air: all you can do is quote churchmen (which you even fail to do here).
-Turretinfan
Do you understand how Orthodoxy works? Or are you just complaining about how it works?
I understand how it works, and I'm noting your epistemological underbelly on these issues.
You have no warrant for your opinions - at least nothing transitive. That's the problem.
I don't see much more point in continuing this particular dialog - do you?
Perhaps there is some more interesting topic.
-Turretinfan
T: "You have no warrant for your opinions"
O: Do you mean warrant in the technical sense of a document?
Your complaint is equivilent to me pointing out that you have no warrant for your particular canon of scripture.
The difference is though, that we acknowledge tradition as a sufficient foundation for knowledge, whereas you do not.
So if we have an epistemological underbelly, it only compares to your lack altogether of a belly.
"It is tradition. Look no further" - John Chrysostom
And I note that Chrysostom memorised the entire scriptures, and there was no greater proponent of the common man reading them than he.
O wrote: "So if we have an epistemological underbelly, it only compares to your lack altogether of a belly."
I respond: I don't have to have an epistemological belly, because I'm not the one making the assertion.
As previously wrote: "You have no warrant for your opinions - at least nothing transitive. That's the problem."
The fact that you personally consider it to be part of your tradition and the fact you quote a maxim attributed to John Chyrs. are not reasons that warrant anyone taking a second look at your ridiculous claims that communication with departed saints was a first century Christian practice.
Even if we could move that first fact to "it is part of your tradition" and not just that it is your personal opinion that it is part of your tradition, that would still not provide a persuasive reason, because we have no reason to trust your tradition as a whole.
The point is that there is no evidence to support Orthodoxy's claims that certain of its practices are authentic - and good reason to suppose that they are not authentic.
-Turretinfan
What, are we discussing 1st C prayer to saints now? I thought the topic at hand was propitiation.
Yes, there's "good" reasons to doubt lots of things. There are "good" reasons to believe Adam didn't live 6000 years ago, but that seems to be very little impediment to something like 75% of professing American Christians.
So the scholars tell us there are "good" reasons to suggest that 1 & 2 Timothy and 2 Peter are not authentic.
There's "good" reasons to think the world wasn't covered by a flood.
There are "good" reasons to think that men don't rise from the dead.
Being Christians, we don't seem to have too much trouble overcoming these problems do we?
On the other side of the coin, it is rather odd that the whole world was practicing prayer to saints, nobody disputes within three hundred years of Christ, with no whimper of controversy. Now think of how much the same church changed in the following 1700 years, which is to say, barely at all. Now consider how much dispute there was in the church over whether Christ was ηομοιουσιος or ηομοουσιος, and yet the whole cult of saints slipped in without anyone noticing.
I was using that particular aspect of your tradition (1st C saint-praying) as an example. We've clearly been off topic for the last few rounds of discussion.
***
I have documentation for Adam's age etc. I have an infallible historical source for my information.
***
Your argument is an argument from silence, namely: if it is wrong, how could it creep in without great public debate (which you phrase as "without anyone noticing").
***
Your comparison to Christology is interesting - but not compelling: Christ's divinity is self-evidently more central to Christianity than the manner in which we pray.
-Turretinfan
T: I have documentation for Adam's age etc. I have an infallible historical source for my information.
O: I have an infallible source for the correctness of petitioning the saints, namely the 7th ecumenical council.
Ahh you say, but the 7th council is not authentic, it is not contemporary with the apostles.
But your documentation for Adam is from the pentatuch which has always been understood to have been written by Moses which is considerably longer after Adam than the 7th council is after the apostles.
T: Your argument is an argument from silence, namely: if it is wrong, how could it creep in without great public debate (which you phrase as "without anyone noticing").
O: Arguments from silence are frequently employed. Textual critics employ the argument from silence that 1 Tim 3:16 was not employed in the Christological debates.
T: Your comparison to Christology is interesting - but not compelling: Christ's divinity is self-evidently more central to Christianity than the manner in which we pray.
O: The protestant claim frequently heard is that prayer = worship, therefore petitioning saints = worship. Wouldn't worship of something other than God be as central as anything in the faith? Or do you repudiate that argument?
O wrote: "I have an infallible source for the correctness of petitioning the saints, namely the 7th ecumenical council."
I respond: The 7th ecumenical council was not infallible. In any event, the 7th ecumenical council did not (as far as I can recall) make the claim that such petitions were made in the first two centuries after Christ or any of the millennia before Christ.
O wrote: "Ahh you say, but the 7th council is not authentic, it is not contemporary with the apostles."
I respond: True, it was not authentic or contemporaneous. What's more important, however, is that it was neither infallible nor precise.
O wrote: "But your documentation for Adam is from the pentatuch which has always been understood to have been written by Moses which is considerably longer after Adam than the 7th council is after the apostles."
I respond: Actually, it has always been understood that Moses wrote what God told Him to write - and God's observation of Adam was contemporaneous, infallible, and precise.
O wrote: "Arguments from silence are frequently employed."
I respond: So are arguments ad hominem and circular arguments. Frequent use does not make any of those fallacies legitimate.
O wrote: "The protestant claim frequently heard is that prayer = worship, therefore petitioning saints = worship. Wouldn't worship of something other than God be as central as anything in the faith? Or do you repudiate that argument?"
I respond: Clearly not. Logically, first one must identify God, before one can know who to worship and who not to worship. Look at the decalogue. More importantly, it seems probable that the corruption to worship was brought in under the same guise it is often defended, namely that it is not worship of the saints, but worship of God via the saints. If that is so, it would been presented as an issue of the second commandment (how we worship), not the first commandment (who we worship), and certainly not the introduction (who is God).
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment