The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum A response to D.Ponter and T.Byrne's Dualism.

Permit me to interject just one thing here in regard to your apologetic against David Ponter &co. It has to do with the matter of "Propitiation", a term which has been the target of many over the years no doubt to the fact that the original and correct biblical use of the term is odious to their senses. For example, the translators of the RSV substituted "expiation" for "propitiation", the reason for doing so I will explain below. Also the NIV is even more objectionable where it has substituted, "sacrifice of atonement" for "propitiation".

The common thread that runs through and seems to be undergirding these substitutions is the aversion and/or outright rejection of the first of the two elements which propitiation addresses:

1. To appease the wrath of an offended party.
2. The removal of that which has caused the offense.

Due to the rampant infection of humanism into the modern church, it is held by the majority of professing Christians that "God loves you" (indiscriminately and without qualification), e.g., "God loves you just the way you are." Thus, there is no place for a God who is angry, never mind hates sinners. That truth too has been conveniently distorted and served up as, "God hates sin but loves the sinner." Thus the first element of propitiation has to do with God's wrath against sinners of which Christ effectively appeased.

The second element is the manner in which God's wrath was appeased, i.e., the removal of that which caused the offense to begin with; aka: sin. This Christ accomplished by becoming a substitute (Grk: huper, in behalf of) and receiving the just penalty/punishment due for the transgression of the law. In classic Reformed theology Christ's atonement is therefore referred to as being a "vicarious substitutionary" atonement.

Without BOTH of these two elements being acknowledged, the atonement of Christ is incorrectly understood and woefully diminished, i.e., made ineffective to deal with the problem of sinners being made right before and with God. And as Paul_S so wisely pointed out, a full atonement can only be secured when both Christ's active and passive obedience are acknowledged. If there is a logical order to Christ's atonement it would doubtless be, 1) Passive and 2) Active, albeit the perfect righteousness was secured before His crucifixion but temporally applied afterward. Having paid the penalty for sin/sinners (elect), Christ's righteousness is thus able to be applied (imputed) to those who believe. Without God's wrath first having been appeased and the offense removed, God would not and could not impute that alien righteousness to anyone; it's a legal matter. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,