Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

[Yeshua1]

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.

.

God pouring on Jesus His wrath allowed the death to be effectual!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Those are verses pulled out of Scripture. I agree. Now go back and read the entire context without adding your Theory and see what you have. I guarantee it won't be the Theory of Penal Substitution.

Why put so much weight in a theory anyway, when we have Scripture at our finger tips?

Martin and I have been defending the Pst with the Bible, its just that you have already determined that its wrong, mere man made tradition, something Calvin just dreamed up!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you mean what qualifies Christ as our advocate it is because not only is He God’s Son but He also became man and suffered as man and bearing our sins was obedient unto death. If you mean what does Christ do as our advocate, He intercedes for us with the Father.Christ does not need a line of defense as this is not a human courtroom and He is victorious. No. He says “Martin Marprelate, you are forgiven.” Sure. I was thinking of F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes; Eerdmanns, 1994, pg. 50. “”We need not stay to enquire whether ‘expiation’ or ‘remedy for defliement’ would be a preferable rendering of hilasmos; ‘propitiation’ or ‘atonement’ will do well enough, if we use either word in its biblical sense – not as something which men must do to placate God, but something which God has provided in His grace to bring men into His presence with the assurance that they are accepted by Him, since He has removed the barrier that kept them at a distance – guilt, with its attendant retribution, the ‘punishment’ which is banished by ‘perfect love.’

The Father has to have His wrath appeased for in order to reconcile and justify sinners, so when did that happen?

 

[Yeshua1]

The NIV gives a bit clearer statement (though I am not usually that friendly toward the NIV):

Isaiah 53:

10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makesc his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
​

Throughout Scriptures HOW does God cause suffering?

By withdrawing His support and allowing the fallen forces of both humankind and nature to prevail.

Hence, the very cry of or Lord, “Father, why have you forsaken me?”

God’s statements concerning the treatment of the redeemer were purposefully fulfilled not out of some wrath, but because of design set down over the millennia concerning the redemption.

Other versions highlight various perspectives of this passage.

The ESV gives this from Isaiah 53:

10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;g
when his soul makesh an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
​

It seems to highlight that the Fatherks reaction (for lack of a better word) at watching the Son at the crucifixion was to pronounce blessing and not wrath.

The NASB makes the declaration that of an “if/then” statement.

10But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (then)
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
​

The point being that at no place is the wrath of God poured out upon the Son on display or even suggested by Isaiah.

God the Father delight wa in having His own Son crushed/bruised/pierced thru for our sales, and Jesus agreed to that, as he looked forward to His resurrection and sinners now brought back to God!
Crushed/bruised/forsaken are all in there!

 

[JonC]

speakest for thyself John Alden?

No. I was speaking of those who would alter the passage to read "He was punished with our punishment for our sins as God poured His wrath upon Christ".

My comment was that you see the Theory of Penal Substitution as the "obvious" meaning of the passage when the text itself neither demands nor confirms the conclusion. You do not seem to recognize Penal Substitution Theory as a theory.[/QUOTE]
I

Propitiation itself is defined as the wrath of God being appeased/paid for by someone, who allows God to now reconcile lost sinners back to Himself!

Yes. It has wrath or negative consequences in view. I could try to propitiate my wife by buying her flowers should I miss her birthday.

 

[JonC]

The Father has to have His wrath appeased for in order to reconcile and justify sinners, so when did that happen?

In the imagination of the Reformers.

 

[Iconoclast]

Southern Baptist Convention > On The Necessity Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
WHEREAS, On the cross of Christ Jesus the perfect love of God perfectly applies the perfect justice of God to satisfy the perfect holiness of God in order to redeem sinners (Romans 3:26); and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement in effect denies the holy and loving God the exercise of His justice, the overflow of which in a sinful world is the outpouring of His just retributive wrath; and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement thus displays in effect the denial of the perfect character of the one true God; and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement constitutes false teaching that leads the flock astray (Acts 20:28) and leaves the world without a message of a sin-cleansing Savior (Romans 5:6–11); and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement necessarily compromises the biblical and historical doctrines of propitiation, expiation, ransom, satisfaction, Christus Victor, Christus Exemplar, and more; and

WHEREAS, The Lord promised a warrior-savior who would crush the head of the serpent to obliterate the enemy (Genesis 3:15; Romans 16:20; Revelation 19:11–16); and

WHEREAS, The sacrificial system of the Old Testament culminated in the blood sacrifice of a spotless lamb on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:11–19); and

WHEREAS, Jesus Himself unveiled the salvific mission that necessitated His incarnation (Hebrews 2:17) when He said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28); and

WHEREAS, The confession of the Scriptures is that Christ is our passive and active righteousness, forgiving all our sin by His death and imputing to us all His righteousness through faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9); and

 

[JonC]

Martin and I have been defending the Pst with the Bible, its just that you have already determined that its wrong, mere man made tradition, something Calvin just dreamed up!

No, unfortunately you have not. You have extracted a few verses and blended them with your theory to declare Penal Substitution Theory correct. And you have posted a bunch of passages that we all agree upon.

Have you ever wondered why it's called Penal Substitution THEORY?

 

[JonC]

Southern Baptist Convention > On The Necessity Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
WHEREAS, On the cross of Christ Jesus the perfect love of God perfectly applies the perfect justice of God to satisfy the perfect holiness of God in order to redeem sinners (Romans 3:26); and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement in effect denies the holy and loving God the exercise of His justice, the overflow of which in a sinful world is the outpouring of His just retributive wrath; and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement thus displays in effect the denial of the perfect character of the one true God; and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement constitutes false teaching that leads the flock astray (Acts 20:28) and leaves the world without a message of a sin-cleansing Savior (Romans 5:6–11); and

WHEREAS, The denial of penal substitutionary atonement necessarily compromises the biblical and historical doctrines of propitiation, expiation, ransom, satisfaction, Christus Victor, Christus Exemplar, and more; and

WHEREAS, The Lord promised a warrior-savior who would crush the head of the serpent to obliterate the enemy (Genesis 3:15; Romans 16:20; Revelation 19:11–16); and

WHEREAS, The sacrificial system of the Old Testament culminated in the blood sacrifice of a spotless lamb on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:11–19); and

WHEREAS, Jesus Himself unveiled the salvific mission that necessitated His incarnation (Hebrews 2:17) when He said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28); and

WHEREAS, The confession of the Scriptures is that Christ is our passive and active righteousness, forgiving all our sin by His death and imputing to us all His righteousness through faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9); and

I didn't know you were SBC.

 

[Iconoclast]

I didn't know you were SBC.

i had been attending a small sbc church for awhile, but did not transfer my membership. I wanted to meet with the pastor and ask some questions about a few concerns we had, and if he was happy with the direction the church was going in...
My wife questioned Him a bit and i started to do it with a couple of emails...but a few weeks ago he asked us to move on...lol...very sad.

 

[JonC]

i had been attending a small sbc church for awhile, but did not transfer my membership. I wanted to meet with the pastor and ask some questions about a few concerns we had, and if he was happy with the direction the church was going in...
My wife questioned Him a bit and i started to do it with a couple of emails...but a few weeks ago he asked us to move on...lol...very sad.

I've always attended SBC churches, but for the church and not the SBC. Many will reject some resolutions, but I like that the F&M at least provides some common ground.

 

[Iconoclast]

I've always attended SBC churches, but for the church and not the SBC. Many will reject some resolutions, but I like that the F&M at least provides some common ground.

I am more comfortable in ARBCA. circles.
This pastor sides more with the so called traditionalists but I thought he might be open to differing views and us trying to help. The Church needs plenty of help.....but he felt threatened evidently. It was hard to sit through the unscriptural altar calls, and rededications anyhow, but we were trying to Blend in with our baptist friends who are very local to us....but there was no room at the inn.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, unfortunately you have not. You have extracted a few verses and blended them with your theory to declare Penal Substitution Theory correct. And you have posted a bunch of passages that we all agree upon.

Have you ever wondered why it's called Penal Substitution THEORY?

It makes more biblical sense than any other theory on the Atonement!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am more comfortable in ARBCA. circles.
This pastor sides more with the so called traditionalists but I thought he might be open to differing views and us trying to help. The Church needs plenty of help.....but he felt threatened evidently. It was hard to sit through the unscriptural altar calls, and rededications anyhow, but we were trying to Blend in with our baptist friends who are very local to us....but there was no room at the inn.

Would you agree with that statement on the PST that you posted though?

 

[JonC]

It makes more biblical sense than any other theory on the Atonement!

That is subjective and the issue should not be which makes more sense to us but which represents what Scripture says.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is subjective and the issue should not be which makes more sense to us but which represents what Scripture says.

Where in your system is the wrath of God appeased than?

 

[JonC]

Where in your system is the wrath of God appeased than?

In Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

In Christ.

So jesus took that wrath due us?

 

[JonC]

So jesus took that wrath due us?

No. Jesus did not prevent us from dying. He gives us life. All judgment is given to Him, and He Himself is the propitiation for sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Jesus did not prevent us from dying. He gives us life. All judgment is given to Him, and He Himself is the propitiation for sin.

He was the sin bearer, which meant he assumed on the very wrath owned to us