Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

[HankD]

Since PSA claims Christ's death paid for the specific sins of each and every Elect person when Jesus died, then why doesn't 1 John 1:7 say Christ's blood has cleansed us for all our sins? Folks, no answer will be forthcoming.

There are two realities when it comes to the dimension of time: God's and ours.

In God's reality our sins were dealt with in eternity from the foundation of the world.
Ours - though the totality of our sin is propitiated we SEE them as they pass by in the time continuum and as such we acknowledge them in what we call "the present tense".

 

[Darrell C]

In God's reality our sins were dealt with in eternity from the foundation of the world.

Please show that in Scripture, and then deny the numerous passages that show that Eternal Redemption and Eternal Remission was accomplished at the time of the Cross, and that it was then that men were made sons of God.

And I'll only give you one passage for each Biblical Truth for you to counter:


Eternal Remission of Sins and Eternal Redemption at the time of the Cross...through the blood (death) of Christ, which did not take place prior to the creation of the world, but took place some two millennia ago:

Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Men were not made sons of God until the Incarnation, and when we balance this...


John 1:11-13
King James Version (KJV)

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


...with the rest of Scripture, we see that the Cross is necessary to men being reconciled to God and immersed into Him in Eternal Union.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In a previous thread the following comments were made, requesting that I look again at 1 John 2:2 as demanding the Theory of Penal Substitution.

I want to do this by being faithful and honest with Scripture (not just jumping around throughout the Bible to systematically defend one theory or another). The question is whether or not 1 John demands the Theory, not the correctness of Penal Substitution Theory but God's Word.

Jon, would you give me your understanding of Penal Substitution, so I might understand why it is you are so opposed to the doctrine/theory?


God bless.

 

[Van]

Yet another example, HankD, where according to you, scripture does not mean what it says because it conflicts with man-made doctrine.

The fact is 1 John 1:7 demonstrates PSA is false theology.

The truth folks is the wrath due to "the totality of our sin is propitiated" when and only when God transfers us into Christ, into the propitiatory shelter of Christ. For example, take a closer look at Hebrews 9:15 where only those called (during their lifetime - referring to being placed in Christ) receive eternal inheritance.

 

[Darrell C]

For example, take a closer look at Hebrews 9:15 where only those called (during their lifetime - referring to being placed in Christ) receive eternal inheritance.

Perhaps you are the one that should "take a look," or better, try some study of Hebrews 9:15:


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


The obvious fact is that the Old Testament Saints were made perfect/complete when "we" were, at the time of the Cross.

That means...they received eternal redemption. Retroactively. Postmortem.


God bless.

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to those who post 4 verses then address a part of one.
Did he address the "New Testament" the one applicable to PSA? Nope.
Perhaps self-study should be considered by all.

 

[HankD]

Please show that in Scripture, and then deny the numerous passages that show that Eternal Redemption and Eternal Remission was accomplished at the time of the Cross, and that it was then that men were made sons of God.
.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Any passage related to an earthly ministry has to do with our perception of event entities here in the time continuum.

IOW God created time so that everything would not happen at once.

For Him its a done deal.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
Please show that in Scripture, and then deny the numerous passages that show that Eternal Redemption and Eternal Remission was accomplished at the time of the Cross, and that it was then that men were made sons of God.https://www.baptistboard.com/bible/revelation/13:8/

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This refers to God's foreknowledge, it does not teach...

In God's reality our sins were dealt with in eternity from the foundation of the world.

At the Creation of the World, or rather at some point after, God established vicarious animal sacrifice to deal with sin. And that is what "dealt" with the sins of men from Adam until Christ.

The above verse specifies, as does Jude and 2 Peter 2, the damned, not those who would be eternally redeemed and eternally forgiven through the Blood (Death) of Christ.

You were not forgiven, redeemed, and eternally indwelt until you turned to Christ. You were not born having your sins "dealt with."

Any passage related to an earthly ministry has to do with our perception of event entities here in the time continuum.

A little too much Sci-Fi Channel, perhaps?

God created time for man to exist in, as well as the physical universe. Each man has a point in that time when he is conceived, born, and grows up. Each man (and woman) will at some point in time hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ (in this Age), turn to Christ, and at that moment be saved. It is then that their sin is dealt with.

IOW God created time so that everything would not happen at once.

Could you show me that in Scripture?

For Him its a done deal.

Tell that to Him when He was in the Garden. When He was hanging on the Cross. For that matter, when men made Him weep.

Time is an important word:


Galatians 4
King James Version (KJV)

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Jesus died for all, but did not died to atone for all in the sense of saving all sinners!

Jon, would you give me your understanding of Penal Substitution, so I might understand why it is you are so opposed to the doctrine/theory?


God bless.

Sure. But first, I am mostly opposed to those who cannot distinguish between the Theory of Penal Substitution (or any other theory) and Scripture itself. I can fellowship, worship, and study with people who hold to the Penal Substitution Theory without hesitation.

I define the Penal Substitution Theory as the theory formulated by the Reformers as an extension of Satisfaction Theory: Christ died as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ and he, in our stead, bore the punishment that would have otherwise been ours. God, having received full payment for our sins by visiting the wrath due sinners upon Christ could forgive sinners without compromising divine justice.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 John 1:5-10
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
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.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

God is light. In Him there is no darkness at all. I do not understand how this verse can be taken as proof of the Theory of Penal Substitution. No one is claiming that God actually became sin, or that God looked upon Christ as if He were sin. God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Perhaps you would like to show me where I claimed that 1 John 1:5 on its own proved Penal Substitution. What I said and you quoted is :

the surrounding context [of 1 John 2:2] and the comparing of Scripture with Scripture clearly reveals that Penal Substitution is in view.

The serious student of the Bible will ask himself what God being light actually means. I wrote that in John (in the NT in fact) light and dark are spiritual rather than physical. You have not said whether or not you agree with that, but this is what Joel Beeke says: 'The kingdom of darkness is characterized by sin, falsehood, evil, error, heresy and corruption, The kingdom of light is characterized by holiness, purity, righteousness and truth. Between these two kingdoms there is a great gulf that cannot be bridged by man.'

John is speaking of life in Christ. If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

But on what basis? If God is 'by no means clearing the guilty' how does the blood of Christ cleanse us from sin? Is Christ just a 'whipping boy,' meaning that we sin and God gives Jesus a slap instead of us? God forbid! If God does not clear the guilty, we have somehow to be found innocent.

The point is that Christ cleanses us of all sin for in Him there is no darkness.

How can God be faithful and just while forgiving sinners? The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. Romans 3:26 speaks of this very thing - God overlooked the sins of the past (before Christ) for the demonstration of His righteousness, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ. None of the theories deny this passage. We could look, for example (I am not advocating the theory, just offering an example), at the Satisfaction Theory which would say that Christ's "purity, innocence and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, outweighed all of the sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account."

Your theology is desperately attenuated at this point. Again I ask, on what basis does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin?

The claim that 1 John 1:5 proves the Theory of Penal Substitution is nonsense.

I never said it did, but I haven't finished yet.

 

[Darrell C]

Sure. But first, I am mostly opposed to those who cannot distinguish between the Theory of Penal Substitution (or any other theory) and Scripture itself. I can fellowship, worship, and study with people who hold to the Penal Substitution Theory without hesitation.

I define the Penal Substitution Theory as the theory formulated by the Reformers as an extension of Satisfaction Theory: Christ died as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ and he, in our stead, bore the punishment that would have otherwise been ours. God, having received full payment for our sins by visiting the wrath due sinners upon Christ could forgive sinners without compromising divine justice.

Well, its seems pretty obvious that Christ's physical death satisfied the death owed by ourselves, because He does make it clear, as He dies...it is finished.

I'm not sure, because I don't make it a habit of study of the doctrines of men, if this theory suggests a "spiritual imparting of the sins of those who would be saved on Christ," but, it seems that would then make Christ guilty, denying His right to die as the sinless Lamb of God.

The penalty for sin is death. Physical death. If a man dies for his sin, without the benefit of Christ dying that death for him, he remains separated from God with no reason for access to God after death. He will then die the second death, which takes place when the lost of all time are raised physically from the dead and cast into Eternal Separation from God in Hell.

The second death is the death that I see as paying the penalty for sin, because God in His forbearance allows even the wicked (usually, there are exceptions to this for both the lost and the unsaved (i.e., Ananias and Sapphira, those who partake of Communion unworthily, the Flood, the Conquest of Canaan, Sodom and Gomorrah)) to live their lives and die of natural causes, which does not pay the penalty. Hence the necessity of the second death.

Ok, just thinking out loud, thanks for clarifying what you object to. Seems like it would be a great discussion.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps you would like to show me where I claimed that 1 John 1:5 on its own proved Penal Substitution. What I said and you quoted is :

The serious student of the Bible will ask himself what God being light actually means. I wrote that in John (in the NT in fact) light and dark are spiritual rather than physical. You have not said whether or not you agree with that, but this is what Joel Beeke says: 'The kingdom of darkness is characterized by sin, falsehood, evil, error, heresy and corruption, The kingdom of light is characterized by holiness, purity, righteousness and truth. Between these two kingdoms there is a great gulf that cannot be bridged by man.'
But on what basis? If God is 'by no means clearing the guilty' how does the blood of Christ cleanse us from sin? Is Christ just a 'whipping boy,' meaning that we sin and God gives Jesus a slap instead of us? God forbid! If God does not clear the guilty, we have somehow to be found innocent.

Your theology is desperately attenuated at this point. Again I ask, on what basis does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin?

I never said it did, but I haven't finished yet.

The problem is that 1 John in its entirety neither proves nor supports the Theory of Penal Substitution. What you are doing is reading the Theory into the passages for your "ah ha" moment.

 

[JonC]

Well, its seems pretty obvious that Christ's physical death satisfied the death owed by ourselves, because He does make it clear, as He dies...it is finished.

I'm not sure, because I don't make it a habit of study of the doctrines of men, if this theory suggests a "spiritual imparting of the sins of those who would be saved on Christ," but, it seems that would then make Christ guilty, denying His right to die as the sinless Lamb of God.

The penalty for sin is death. Physical death. If a man dies for his sin, without the benefit of Christ dying that death for him, he remains separated from God with no reason for access to God after death. He will then die the second death, which takes place when the lost of all time are raised physically from the dead and cast into Eternal Separation from God in Hell.

The second death is the death that I see as paying the penalty for sin, because God in His forbearance allows even the wicked (usually, there are exceptions to this for both the lost and the unsaved (i.e., Ananias and Sapphira, those who partake of Communion unworthily, the Flood, the Conquest of Canaan, Sodom and Gomorrah)) to live their lives and die of natural causes, which does not pay the penalty. Hence the necessity of the second death.

Ok, just thinking out loud, thanks for clarifying what you object to. Seems like it would be a great discussion.


God bless.

There are a few distinctions I think important. Both aspects of penal and substitution exist in Scripture. This is granted. It's what Penal Substitution Theory does with those aspects that fails.

You are right that the penalty of sin is physical death. It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment (which is Christ centered). But Christ dying for our sins does not mean He died a physical death so that we will not die a physical death. He died so that we would have life.

The Theory of Penal Substitution misses the atonement completely. It misrepresents the Father offering His Son. It minimalizes Christ while elevating man. It diminishes our hope in a bodily resurrection. It views the cross as not only freeing man from death but also freeing God to act as both are slaves to sin - man under the Law, God to divine justice. It ignores biblical forgiveness. It presupposes a humanistic sense of justice.

 

[HankD]

This refers to God's foreknowledge,

I have been down this road SO many times Darrell, no offense brother, it won't make any difference just as I know you will not change your thinking.

But that is OK. I am simply explaining my view which I have derived from scripture.

I understand its not an acceptable view for you.

You did ask for an explanation about 1 John 1:7.

I gave you mine concerning the reality of time - Our God lives in eternity not the time continuum.
He does however enter it.

 

[Darrell C]

But Christ dying for our sins does not mean He died a physical death so that we will not die a physical death. He died so that we would have life.

You have hit the nail on the head, brother.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I have been down this road SO many times Darrell, no offense brother, it won't make any difference just as I know you will not change your thinking.

No offense taken, but can I ask...why would I "change my mind?"

You have said nothing that even contributes to what is being discussed (between you and I). You have ignored the points raised, and the Scripture given.

Hank, you realize debate is when two people hold opposing views and discuss their support for those views, right?

I don't think a change of mind is called for here, I think a change of the "road" you are on" is in order, lol.

I agree, this is how it usually goes. You say something, I challenge it, and you tell me I need to embrace your view without telling me why.

But that is OK. I am simply explaining my view which I have derived from scripture.

I can't possibly see how you can consider an opinion about time as "explaining your view."

But hey, to each his own.

I understand its not an acceptable view for you.

How could it possibly be? I don't have a "view" to work with, just something about God creating time so "all things don't happen at once."

And no response to the Scripture which shows irrefutably that there is a time when Christ came, and a time when Eternal remission, Eternal Redemption, and Eternal Union began in time.

You did ask for an explanation about 1 John 1:7.

I gave you mine concerning the reality of time - Our God lives in eternity not the time continuum.
He does however enter it.

I don't recall asking about 1 John 1:7. I think that is someone else who didn't observe the "right to your opinion."



P.S.-Please still give the dog a good scratch for me.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

There are a few distinctions I think important. Both aspects of penal and substitution exist in Scripture. This is granted. It's what Penal Substitution Theory does with those aspects that fails.

You are right that the penalty of sin is physical death. It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment (which is Christ centered). But Christ dying for our sins does not mean He died a physical death so that we will not die a physical death. He died so that we would have life.

The Theory of Penal Substitution misses the atonement completely. It misrepresents the Father offering His Son. It minimalizes Christ while elevating man. It diminishes our hope in a bodily resurrection. It views the cross as not only freeing man from death but also freeing God to act as both are slaves to sin - man under the Law, God to divine justice. It ignores biblical forgiveness. It presupposes a humanistic sense of justice.

Agreed.

It might be noted that ALL still physically die, a direct result of the sinfulness of the flesh being paid the wage. Being redeemed does not prevent and end of this body,

The grave is not victorious, death has no sting because of the death and resurrection. Not because God poured out wrath upon the Son.

.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 John 2:1-6
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;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.


John continues the discussion by urging the believer not to sin. But if we do we have an Advocate with the Father, which is Jesus Christ.

How is the Lord Jesus Christ our advocate? What is His line of defence? Does He say, "Father, Martin Marprelate is innocent? That would be a lie under any circumstances but one. Does He say, "Yes, he's guilty, but there are extenuating circumstances"? Does He plead leniency because of my ignorance of the law? Does He argue that my good deeds outweigh the bad (James 2:10)? No! He shows His pierced hands and feet, and declares, "Father, I have paid the price of this man's sin. All his sin and wickedness was laid upon me on the cross, and I have borne it, and My perfect righteousness has been credited to him (2 Corinthians 5:21). There is no case to answer" (Romans 8:1). I am 'justified;' declared righteous on legal grounds.
James Candlish, in his commentary on 1 John, speaks of 'righteous forgiveness.' 'Faithful and just to forgive us our sins.'

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

The debatable part of this passage is the Greek word ἱλασμός, which has been translated as propitiation, expiation, and atonement.

I believe the word should be translated "propitiation" because it looks to Christ as Mediator in order to address our sins and turn aside its consequences.

I agree. A propitiation is a sacrifice or offering that turns away wrath More than that, it is that action of propitiation rather than the effect that is in view [My recollection of the Greek is that nouns that end in -μός have to do with action and those that end in -μα have to do with effect] . If I were to upset Mrs Marprelate and forfeit wifely smiles and favours, I might try to make amends by buying her a bunch of flowers. that would be an attempt at a propitiation. But of course, I would not know if a mere bunch of flowers would actually propitiate her righteous anger. But we know that God is propitiated by the sufferings of Christ because 'God set Him forth as a propitiation.'

In a previous discussion on this verse, the following claim was made:

Romans 3 says that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation. Propitiation is the key word. By definition it is bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin.

The error here is that by definition propitiation does not mean "bearing the just and righteous anger and wrath of God against sin", what I have been told is assumed by many evangelicals. "Propitiation" simply means the turning aside of wrath or consequences.

@The Archangel will have to answer for himself. The lexical definition is as I described it above, but the context of both Romans 3:25-26 and 1 John 1:5-2:2 show that Christ was indeed bearing our sin and suffering instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to us as the penalty for sin so that God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

Expiation, on the other hand, is the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing. It is taking away guilt by payment or penalty. I believe F.F. Bruce is correct in that expiation exceeds what the text is stating.

Can you give me the quotation please? I have glanced quickly at Bruce's commentary on Romans and I didn't see it there. Perhaps it's somewhere else. But 'propitiation' suits me fine.

When we look at words we need to look at the context of what is written. Context, not a lexicon, drives interpretation.

On this we are agreed.

Again, nothing in this text demands the Theory of Penal Substitution.

On the contrary, the justice of God demands it.

 

[HankD]

No offense taken, but can I ask...why would I "change my mind?"

You have said nothing that even contributes to what is being discussed (between you and I). You have ignored the points raised, and the Scripture given.

Hank, you realize debate is when two people hold opposing views and discuss their support for those views, right?

I don't think a change of mind is called for here, I think a change of the "road" you are on" is in order, lol.

I agree, this is how it usually goes. You say something, I challenge it, and you tell me I need to embrace your view without telling me why.




I can't possibly see how you can consider an opinion about time as "explaining your view."

But hey, to each his own.




How could it possibly be? I don't have a "view" to work with, just something about God creating time so "all things don't happen at once."

And no response to the Scripture which shows irrefutably that there is a time when Christ came, and a time when Eternal remission, Eternal Redemption, and Eternal Union began in time.




I don't recall asking about 1 John 1:7. I think that is someone else who didn't observe the "right to your opinion."



P.S.-Please still give the dog a good scratch for me.


God bless.

oops yes I got your post confused with Van's so that is good reason for the confusion -- my bad.

Anyway - I'm done.

 

[agedman]

Paul presents propitiation in terms of the furniture and processes related to the temple furniture.

John presents propitiation as that which was applied (the blood).

Both are necessary, but the suffering was not the blood, not the furniture.

Some mix suffering into both blood and furniture.

A suffering tortured sacrifice is never pictured as a type in the OT.