Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2

Yes,

Ultimately, the problem of penal substitution theory is not that the Christ suffered. I don’t know of any who would even attempt such thinking; rather, it is the presentation that the suffering was God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.

There just is no Scripture support for such thinking.

 

So you sort of think he's suffered as a victim of a hate crime?

 

Why would you think such?

What is Scripturally supported is that aspects of the crucifixion from the time of the garden to the resurrection is given in type, prophecy, psalms. and/or even by the words of Christ.

Throughout the presentations, there is no aspect of the treatment as portrayed or stated as being the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son.

Such does not occur in Scriptures and yet has been accepted as the truth. Yet it did not start as such.

Just under a thousand years ago (as best records would indicate) the following poem was written by Bernard (referred to as Bernard of Clairvaux b.1091)

1 O sacred Head, now wounded,
with grief and shame weighed down,
now scornfully surrounded
with thorns, Thine only crown.
O sacred Head, what glory,
what bliss till now was Thine!
Yet, though despised and gory,
I joy to call Thee mine.

2 What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered
was all for sinners' gain;
mine, mine was the transgression,
but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
'Tis I deserve Thy place;
look on me with Thy favor,
vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

3 What language shall I borrow
to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
for this, Thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never,
outlive my love for Thee.

4 Be near when I am dying,
O show Thy cross to me!
And, for my succor flying,
come, Lord, to set me free.
These eyes, new faith receiving,
from Thee shall never move;
for he who dies believing
dies safely in Thy love.
​

 

You are faced, I'm afraid, with the fact that the Father forsook the Son. It may caused you problems in your theological understanding, but it is simply the case. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
There are several other things that the Father does to the Son, which are difficult to understand if you think of God doing them to God: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (John 5:26). The Father sends the Son, gives the Son, raises the Son from the dead, exalts the Son and glorifies the Son. The Son loves and obeys the Father and glorifies Him. FWIW, The Spirit sends the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and glorifies Him (John 16:14).

So why should it be thought impossible that the Son should propitiate the Father or that the Father should forsake the Son when it is so clearly written in Scripture that it happened?

[I have had long discussions on this board over whether to 'abandon' is somehow different from to 'forsake.' I hope we can avoid that particular argument]

 

No, for Martin's view is that God poured wrath upon the Son. I do not.

Christ suffering was not God pouring wrath upon the Son.

In this we disagree.

Hebrews is not discussing the Savior's sacrifice, but all that went before were insufficient to accommodate in full what was necessary for redemption.

Therefore, the words "He taketh away the first (that which He had no pleasure), that He may establish the second."

The pleasing is respondent in the slain lamb taking the scroll in Rev. 5 and of course the Isaiah 53:10 "The Lord was pleased..." (NASB)

This aspect is one of the specific disagreements carried by those who would embrace the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son and those who do not find such as the attitude of God.

 

I take it that you assume the word "forsake" means abandon, and not withhold support?

Taking that you might, then the question arises:
Did not Christ state, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”

How is it that Christ would commit His spirit to one that abandoned Him?

On the matter of the Father raising the Son from the dead:

Did not the Son say, "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."(John 10:18)

Though three, the trinity is not severable. For a short time The Word became flesh, but it never was not The Word. For a more short time The Word suffered, but it was never not The Word.

See, ultimately, there is no authority behind considering The Father abandoning The Word, nor that in some manner The Father would pour wrath out upon The Word.

 

Darrell,

You miss read JonC.

JonC posted about the punishment, not the death.

The punishment did not lead to the death.

The death was purposed by The Christ at the exact time He determined to allow the fleshly form He took on to expire.

 

This is truly a sad reflection to make.

The early church did support doctrine often taught by singing of songs, and of course especially the Psalms which are taken as inspired.

Much doctrine is referenced to the Psalms. The principles of such doctrine are also found in the earliest known written hymns.

One is the "Phos Hilaron" ("Hail gladdening light") which was an old Hymn when St. Basil the Great (329-379 AD) remarked of how cherished it was in the churches.

Perhaps the one that has retained favor and is still sung in churches in this age is "Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silence." Written and sung probably even before "Phos Hilaron."

Great Hymns always support doctrine.

What is sad is that you do not see that doctrine is supported by "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs."

Such do not create doctrine, but can certainly be supportive of doctrine.

1. Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
   And with fear and trembling stand;
   Ponder nothing earthly-minded,
   For with blessing in His hand,
   Christ our God to earth descendeth,
   Our full homage to demand.
2. King of kings, yet born of Mary,
   As of old on earth He stood,
   Lord of lords, in human vesture,
   In the body and the blood;
   He will give to all the faithful
   His own self for heav’nly food.
3. Rank on rank the host of heaven
   Spreads its vanguard on the way,
   As the Light of light descendeth
   From the realms of endless day,
   That the pow’rs of hell may vanish
   As the darkness clears away.
4. At His feet the six-winged seraph,
   Cherubim with sleepless eye,
   Veil their faces to the presence,
   As with ceaseless voice they cry:
   “Alleluia, Alleluia,
   Alleluia, Lord Most High!”

 

Jesus stood in the place of sinners, became the sin offering to God for/in our stead, so God dealt with Him as all lost sinners will be dealt!Its just that Jesus experienced in 3 Hours what lost feel for all eternity!

 

God's judgment against Sin has to have one able and willing to beat the price for sin though!

 

No wrath of God towards sin/sinners being appeased/atoned for, no way God can grant salvation towards lost sinners, as someone has to still atone for own sins!