Monsieur Calvin and UN-Limited Atonement?

[Guest]

Mark,

You said:

Does anyone here see that word "propitiation" in that text?
What seems so simple is simply being ignored!

I saw the word; the sentence would have been rather awkward witout it. What is your point?

[Guest]

Does anyone here see that word "propitiation" in that text?
What seems so simple is simply being ignored!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation

Mark

What makes you think the word "propitiation" is being ignored? Perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your remarks.

Robin

[Guest]

Does anyone here see that word "propitiation" in that text?
What seems so simple is simply being ignored!

I don't see the word "propitiation" in the that text.

The reason I don't is because it isn't in that text, or any other text in the New Testament. The is a gross mistranslation of the Greek word "hilasmos"!

Such a translation suggests that He (Jesus) was offered to the Father as an appeasement so that we wouldn't suffer judgment for our sins. This concept is pure heathenism, a concept which has crept into Christendom and greatly distorted the truth of the gospel.

I suggest that each one of you who thinks this is an accurate translation might consider doing an objective study of "hilasmos" and its meaning, untainted by any preconceptions concerning propitiation or appeasement.

[_tartanarmy]

This concept is pure heathenism, a concept which has crept into Christendom and greatly distorted the truth of the gospel.

Paidion, that is simply stunning....Moving along

I mention the word "propitiation" because it deals with the wrath of God being appeased through the offering of Christ upon the cross.

1Jo 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

You guys misread the text.
Propitiation appeases all for whom the atonement is made.
You turn this passage on its head, and teach by the "plain" reading, that everyone has had their sins "appeased".
That would lead to universalism. Key being "propitiation".

The author is not saying what you guys are saying.
Here is the same author (John) with what is called a "parallel passage"

Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.

Or, we could put them side by side for a wee bit more clarity,



Just trying to help. John is referring to "us" as the Jews, and the "whole world" as the elect Gentiles scattered throughout the whole world.

And he also says in revelation to be clear,

Rev 5:9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst
purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,

Mark

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

hil-as-mos'
atonement, that is, (concretely) an expiator: - propitiation.

This is what e-Sword gave me as a translation for "hilasmos". Are you saying that the word should be translated differently?

Thank you,
Robin

[_tartanarmy]

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number:
2434

Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling hil-as-mos
Hilasmos
'
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Masculine

1. an appeasing, propitiating
2. the means of appeasing, a propitiation
Translated Words
KJV (2) - propitiation, 2;

NAS (2) - propitiation, 2;

Verse Count
KJV NAS

1 John 2

1 John 2

[_tartanarmy]

The Meaning of “hilasmos” in 1Jn. 2:2... A Word Study

The Problem

Some translate “hilasmos” as “expiation” (RSV) and others as “propitiation” (NKJV).
“The two concepts [expiation and propitiation] are really very different. Propitiation means the turning away of anger; expiation is rather the making amends for a wrong. Propitiation is a personal word; one propitiates a person.

Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime….If we speak of expiation our meaning is that there is an impersonal process by which the effects of sin are nullified….But if we speak of propitiation we are thinking of a personal process.

We are saying that God is angry when people sin and that, if we are to be forgiven, something must be done about that anger. We are saying further that the Death of Christ is the means of removing the Divine wrath from sinners” (Leon Morris, The Atonement, 151-152).

Wescott and Dodd

They prefer the translation “expiation.” They argue that the idea is not that of appeasing one who is angry against the offender; but the altering of character of that which from without occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship.

They argue that hilasmos changes man not God.
They further argue that in all the contexts of “hilasmos” words have meanings like “to cleanse from sin” or “to have mercy.” They do not mean “to remove anger.”
In addition, the words are classed with words like “grace” and “forgiveness” and mean “to sanctify” or “cancel sin” and have nothing to do with anger.

Why “propitiation” is Rejected

God doesn’t change
The term “propitiation” is used in extra-biblical texts speaking of human beings “paying off” fickle false Gods.The human emotion of anger and wrath is not to be attributed to God. He is above our petty angers and what He feels must be so different from human anger that we should abandon the concept when we talk about God. (C.f. Morris 155-156; 173)

The Evidence - Definitions

Thayer’s

An appeasing, propitiating, expiation

Easton’s

03007 3007 3007 Propitiation, that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners.

In 1Jo 2:2 4:10 Christ is called the “propitiation for our sins.” Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is “the propitiation,” because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured.

The Evidence - Definitions

ISBE
Terms and Meaning: The word is Latin and brings into its English use the atmosphere of heathen rites for winning the favor, or averting the anger, of the gods.

Many modern writers (compare Sanday and Headlam), would understand hilasterion as “expiatory sacrifice.” While this is not impossible, it is better to take the word in the usual sense of “mercy-seat.” It is not necessary to complicate the illustration by bringing in the idea of priest at all here, since Paul does not do so; mercy-seat and sacrifice are both in Christ.

All heathen and unworthy conceptions are removed from the Christian notion of propitiation by the fact that God Himself proposed, or “set forth,” Christ as the “mercy-seat,” and that this is the supreme expression of ultimate love. God had all the while been merciful, friendly, “passing over” man’s sins with no apparently adequate, or just, ground for doing so.

Now in the blood of Christ sin is condemned and expiated, and God is able to establish and maintain His character for righteousness, while He continues and extends His dealing in gracious love with sinners who exercise faith in Jesus. The propitiation originates with God, not to appease Himself, but to justify Himself in His uniform kindness to men deserving harshness.

The Evidence - Usage

Classical Greek – means of appeasing,
propitiation, to win one’s favor; in all listed
classical examples “averting anger” seems to
capture the sense of the word.

Extra-biblical Koine – Propitiation is the natural
sense of the word according to Deissmann.
Moulton and Milligan give extra-biblical
examples; all of which seem to mean
propitiation.

The Evidence - Usage

OT
The verbal form “hilaskomai” is found 10 times in the LXX.
6 times there is explicit mention of wrath in the immediate context, once the people are under the sentence of death, twice the psalmist is greatly afflicted, and the one other regards an action that provokes God’s wrath above all others – idolatry.

(See Lam. 3:42; Exod. 32:14; Psa. 78:38)

“Ekhilaskomai” used 110 times in the LXX (never in the NT).
The word is used in contexts where God is offended and a ransom is given to avert God’s anger.

“hilasterious” a noun used 27 times in the LXX (22 of which refer to the mercy seat or cover to the Ark of the Covenant).

“hilasmos” used 10 times in the LXX – most (8 of 10) in atonement contexts

“hileos” an adjective used 35 times in the LXX, particularly to describe God as He turns His anger from His people.

The Evidence - Usage

NT
“hilasmos” – 1Jn. 2:2; 4:10
“hilasterion” – Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:5 (“mercy seat”)

Rom. 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;25 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (C.f. Morris – 169)

The Evidence - Usage

NT
“hilaskesthai” – Luke 18:13; Heb. 2:17
In both of these texts the word is used in connection with “mercy.” Mercy – God not giving us what we deserve, wrath.“hileos” – Mtt. 16:22; Heb. 8:12 – Mtt. 16,
Peter rebukes Christ, Heb. 8 – related
again to mercy.

Conclusion

The word is used in contexts where God’s anger and wrath are definitely in view. In the Day of Atonement contexts (Lev. 16), the high priest offered a bull and a goat as a sacrifice in respect to the sins of the priesthood and those of the people.

He then took the blood and sprinkled it on the “hilasterion” mercy seat. The act represented the cleansing of the people and thus placated the anger of God.

The word is used in contexts where sins have offended God and sacrifice, petition, or repentance is the response of the people or a priest. As a result, God is “merciful” and “forgives.” His anger is averted and the people are cleansed. Mercy assumes that God anger and wrath are being withheld due to sacrifice, petition, or repentance.

In all extra-biblical uses of the word it clearly means to avert anger.
Etymologically, the word means “to render pleasant” – thus in English “hilarity – hilarious.”

Thus, Jesus is the sacrifice that not only is the means of cleansing and forgiving the sinner (1Jn. 1:9), but also is the sacrifice that appeases the anger of God (1Jn. 2:2). The sacrifice of Christ affects both God and man.

Christ as Propitiation

“It is an appeasement of the wrath of God by the love of God through the gift of God” (Stott).

The initiative is not taken by man, even by
Christ, but by God Himself in sheer unmerited love.
His wrath is not averted by any external gift, but
by His own self-giving to die the death of sinners.

[_tartanarmy]

Perhaps the above poster (Paidion) is in the Christadelphian cult.
Or is really trying desperately to avoid what the word means.

Read these people on Propitiation!

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/foru ... pid=196804

[Guest]

Hello Turretinfan,

Robin,
Are you accusing me of reading into Calvin? Or into Scripture? Or accusing Calvin of reading into Scripture?

It looks like Calvin, and you(if you agree with Calvin) are guilty of reading your views into scripture.

Lets look at the verse in question.

1 John
2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world

The only way a Calvinist can reconcile these verses to their view is by change the meaning of "the whole world", and this is how Calvin did it:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

Clearly this is Calvin using eisegesis.

Turretinfan wrote:

Since I don't present any Scriptural analysis, it would be presumptive to assume that is based on eisegesis.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Do you agree with Calvin's interpretation of John 2:1-2?

Thank you,
Robin



Robin

I think that debating whether Calvin was right is beyond the scope of this thread.

-Turretinfan

[Guest]

The author is not saying what you guys are saying.
Here is the same author (John) with what is called a "parallel passage"

Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.

Just trying to help. John is referring to "us" as the Jews, and the "whole world" as the elect Gentiles scattered throughout the whole world.

What makes these passages parallel, Mark? Certainly not the contexts of each statement. Perhaps I am missing something.

I can find many parallel statements in the Gospels, and many in the letters of Paul, especially Collosians and Ephesians, but why should we accept these as parallel?

There is nothing in John's epistile to lead one to the conclusion that he is speaking of Jews and Gentiles there.

1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
1Jo 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
1Jo 2:1 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;
1Jo 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1Jo 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.

John doesn't say that he is writing to Jews, (which would help your case), and there is no reason why the words "we", "us" and "ours" in all the other verses in this context should not be interpreted as speaking of the same people the as the "ours" in the verse in question, namely, the recipiants of John's epistle (and all believers). The one's who have an "advocate".


The only controversial "ours" in this whole passage (whole epistle?) is the one that clearly refutes the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.

The "our's" in 2:2 refers back to all of the other uses of we, us, and ours in the preceding verses.

There is no tension at all between non-Calvinist understanding of this verse and John 11:52. They are both true. Jesus died not only for the Jews, but for the all the children of God everywhere. He also died not only for us who believe, but for "all men" (cf. 1 Tim 4:10).


God bless,