How can you say that? One the one hand, you say God is still full of wrath and anger at sinners. Then on the other hand you say Christ did not propitiate that anger. Who does that leave - but the sinner himself responsible for propitiating God?
If faith propitiated God - then faith is a work - and begins with the awkward position of believing that God is angry at the sinner. It’s awkward because of the way such belief guts the cross of any meaning. Nothing happened there to change the situation. Faith ends up being little more than grabbing at straws as it tries to put meaning on what it has stripped of meaning. God is still angry and now really angry - Christ made matters worse if the reasoning of some theology is be believed.
Faith, then, doesn’t see the truth (it’s healthy function) - but takes on the unhealthy function of changing the truth and God Himself. God has forgiven mankind - that’s true whether it is believed or not.
But I continue to see the error repeated that it is one’s faith or repentance that earns forgiveness and resurrection - Christ having not truly won either.
RanRAN, perhaps the only way I can understand where you’re coming from is to ask you various questions. For example,
Do you believe that new convenant from Christ dying on the cross is a “unconditional covenant” or a “conditional covenant”?
The cross was a unilateral action between God and the God/man and the consequences were ontological at the deepest roots of being. We didn’t make a ‘covenant’ to be in Adam - we just were. Likewise, we didn’t make a ‘covenant’ to be in Christ - we just are. We must be born again (resurrected) and we all will be (without asking). So the terms you are using in your question seem like some invented theological terms that may pertain to something, but not to the cross.
RanRan,
What do you think is the “new covenant” that Jesus teaches about in Luke 22:20?
‘In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”’ NIV
‘… that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.’ Heb 9:15
I’ve said it many times - His mission was to set us free from death. He did that perfectly. ‘It is finished.’ It is not a quid pro quo - where WE need to add something or agree to make it so. This is not a re-run.
This is about new creatures - it is essentially ontological. So when Christ said we must be born again - He was talking about the resurrection.
RanRan, Thank you. Now I have a clearer understanding of the background to your comments. And I’m sorry that I forgot the teachings in some of your previous posts.
If I may, I have some more clarifying questions:
Do you believe that faith in Jesus is optional for salvation?
What do you believe about John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8?
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NIV)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–(Ephesians 2:8 NIV)
Do you agree that Jeremiah teaches that the new covenant is between God and the Israelites?
Heavens NO! Christ’s Church inherited all the promises. When God left the temple in 70ad and before that ripped the holies veil from top to bottom in 33ad - that was that. There’s no going back. The people of God is His Church. Te Jews are blinded to the fact that being Jewish is no advantage - God does not play favorites anymore. Someone should tell them instead of kowtowing to their fantasy.
I’m interested in hearing what your answers are to James’s questions.
No, faith is essential for seeing the truth. It is a type of sight and we all see dimly now as though we were looking through a veil. We all have different faiths - especially, as the teachings of His Church are rejected. So faith varies and merely having a faith doesn’t mean one possesses clarity or truth.
One day, after the resurrection, everyone will confess and worship Christ in truth and clarity. That may take some time or it may happen quickly when we all finally see Him as He is. His love for us will not fail in accomplishing that.
Blindness or partial blindness is a human malady - it seems to be universal.
Going back a moment while catching up in this thread…
As I think I explicitly said, numerous times: it isn’t the debate that’s the problem. (Though it helps, in a debate, to be actually debating what the other guy is talking about.) It’s the name-calling. This really should not have been all that difficult to understand.
But, to your credit, you’ve been doing better about that recently, at least in threads I’ve been watching. And thanks for that. 
On to the actual debating points, then:
I had previously asked before, several times, that the discussion on propitiation be moved back over to the thread concerning the NT usage of the term. As this has not yet been done, I have now copied the relevant post material over there myself. (I have left the posts here in this thread, too, though, for various reasons.)
They can be found in that thread starting here. (I copied the material into two comments, with Ran’s and Jim’s discussion being given its own summary/repost over there.)
I have been taking the opportunity of Christmas holiday weekend to catch up on several topically related threads; and this one was next on the list. As of this writing I haven’t commented on the material I copied from here, yet; but I hope to do so sometime this afternoon (assuming I have the energy to do so). It may be later this week, however, before I can finish compiling my replies to this material; and I’ll post them in that thread, instead of this one, when I’m done.
Ran - I’d be interested to know what sorts of areas you feel are your ‘blind spots’ so to speak. Following the debates can give the impression that each participant feels they have perfect sight in whatever they are pontificating on at that moment.
Maybe I should throw the question open to everyone in a new thread titled ‘In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king’ 
I can claim no sight whatsoever because I am not a believer - however, I feel the effects of all of your interactions as a form of witness to me in that unbelief.
Jeff, you are a nice guy but that badge wears thin after awhile.
Jeff, speaking for myself, I suspect that when we are arguing for our preferred view, many of can sound like we think we have more perfect insight than we acually know we have. On most doctrines, I have varying levels of uncertainty and certainly far from perfect insight. It seems like levels of assurance versus doubt range in some kind of concentric circles where issues of affirming love and basic moral goodness (and doubting that ultimate reality or God could be in contradiction to any meaningul sense of these) are in the center and most fundamentally trustworthy to me.
You are a blessing and yourself have certainly never come close to “wearing thin” (?) for me.
John,
I honestly have no idea what that means - can you please explain as I must have really banged on about whatever it is that’s worn so thin in the nearly 4 months you’ve been here
My time here on these boards has solidified me in my agnosticism - I am coming to accept living with large amounts of uncertainty. This thread has piqued my interest more in what the rest of you are unsure of than what you are sure of (as people with diametrically opposed views believe that each of them knows God’s mind on the issue - and they can’t both be right). Sadly humility lags way behind pride and arrogance at the moment.
I live with large amounts of uncertainty - but that doesn’t mean sitting on the fence by taking no position on anything. Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’. What do you think Christ meant by that appeal? I think He meant that right or wrong, take a stand.
If someone called Jesus ever actually said that. Maybe it was just retro fitted after the event.
I think he meant to say what you mean and mean what you say. The context was on swearing–you’re words ought to be true even if you’re not “swearing on the bible” — or on anything else. It certainly does not mean that we should just pick a position we’re not convinced of and take a stand on it.
I do not think we should take a stand on anything if we’re not convinced of it’s truth–what use is that? We are called to live according to what we believe is true and do good, as Paul says to Timothy:
… I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.
Sonia
btw, I appreciate Jeff very much–God exalts the humble
Ran,
As if to prove Jeff’s point that we all are arrogantly sure of our own positions that are opposite that of others, I feel pretty sure that in the context Matthew’s point is NOT to indicate that we are to just take a stand, regardless of what stand that is. Sonia’s interpretation perfectly reflects my own impression.
Having said that, I have found many of your contributions in recent weeks to be stimulating, cogent, and often more convincing than I sometimes have found your pieces. Thank you for helpfully addressing the substance of a number of recent threads.
Thanks for the kind words, Bob. And, of course, Sonia is right about the context.
It’s a general lesson in the NT that oaths are to be avoided - they lock us into a position that may turn out stifling or, at least embarrassing, Peter is an example of that. If Christ had demanded an oath from Peter that he would not deny him - Peter would have done so. I doubt if that would have changed things except to heap more guilt on poor Peter. If one can imagine more…
But taking a stand is good for the soul. It helps our faith solidify and congeal. Can you imagine a martyr for the faith who has not done so? Falstaff said that ‘desecration is the better part of valor’ but I’d rather be like Peter. ‘Damn the torpedoes’ sort of thing…
Taking a stand is not taking an oath - nothing is etched in stone - I can change my position - but that usually happens when life or another person from their stance convinces me to move. Debate is a wonderful way to grow one’s faith. The goal of debate is finding truth - expect to get a little bloodied in the pursuit. But in the meantime, let YOUR yes be yes - stand your ground. Fight hard for what measure of sight God has granted you and be ready to give ground to the truth you discover in the fight.