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

No, David, erroneously...declares He did.

Psalm 22
King James Version (KJV)

11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.


This is uttered in a time of desperation, it does not mean that God forsook David.

And Christ, quoting David, essentially affirms His messianic role.

Now let's look at another Messianic Psalm:


Psalm 31
King James Version (KJV)


1 In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.

2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

4 Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength.

5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.


Is this not also a saying of Christ on the Cross?

Now,let's see David's conclusion of God's salvation in this Psalm:


Psalm 31:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes: nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee.


Christ's quotation of David is meant for you to correlate it to Psalms speaking of Him, and unless you balance all of them, you will be missing part of how we should understand this.

God at no time forsook David, and at no time forsook His Son.

That is an impossibility, for God cannot forsake Him self.

No, just pointing out yet another obvious truth which is misunderstood.




Continued...

 

I said that.

Well, its funny that this is the one time it is not translated Lion, which could also speak of the persecution David is undergoing at the time.

David was in a state of deprivation. This is likely euphemistic, in application to David, for the loss of his station.

This is true, but, He also states...


Psalm 22:23-25
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.


This is in agreement with:


Hebrews 5:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

He didn't:

John 16:32
King James Version (KJV)

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

What hour is in view, Martin?


John 8:28-30
King James Version (KJV)

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

But the fate of sinners is Eternal Separation.

Not possible, even in a temporary context...for God to be separated from Himself.


Continued...

 

Christ did not go to Hell.

That is what is in view here (in the above quote), Eternal Judgment.

Christ said "It is finished" and it was finished...through His physical death.

He didn't.

Keep the Psalm together:


Psalm 22:23-25
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

Not relevant.

Not at all:

John 16:32
King James Version (KJV)

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Everyone forsook Him, Martin, because there were at that time no believers in a New Covenant context.

Only the Father was with Him.

If you would simply read the entire Psalm you would see that David's perspective was in a time of persecution and deprivation, which did not change God's perspective:


Psalm 22:23-25
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

Not a necessity.

Consider that men received atonement and remission of sins which was valid...through the physical death of an animal.


Hebrews 9:11-14
King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

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?


The use of the term "blood" speaks of physical death, not some spiritual imposition of Eternal Judgment which could not be considered "eternal" or everlasting to being with.

I know you must defend your view, but, I would just ask you to take into consideration what is said in this post.

Thanks for the response, really had to dig in on this one, lol.


God bless.

 

I see a problem with the view that the wrath the lost are faced with was visited on the Lord, but, I also see a bit of a problem in how you word your objection, so again, bear with me.

Christ did take our penalty, though His death in our stead is not to be equated with the Second Death. The Second death does not come into the equation because...

...Christ was guiltless, therefore His death is sufficient to account for the deaths we would have died.

So I am having a little trouble with your wording here.

Both are equally true, Jon. We do not "die" because we now have life. This is not a physical context, but spiritual. Though we have life, odds are that we will die physically (Lord come quickly!).


John 10:28
King James Version (KJV)

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.


The lost, on the other hand, have "life," but are dead, and will die twice, both physically, as well as spiritually in the Second death, where they enter into Eternal Separation, complete absence from life and the the potential for life:


John 6:49-53
King James Version (KJV)


49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


All men are conceived and born...dead. The only means of Eternal Life is faith in Christ, believing on His Death, burial, and Resurrection.

That is how He gave "His flesh" to us to eat.


Continued...

 

I view Adam as having died in a spiritual sense, meaning, while in the Garden he had access to "everlasting life" which was through access to the Tree of Life. That was for physical life, though, and in my view not to be confused with the Life Christ came to bestow upon those that believe.

Because of his new condition, one which was a state of separation from God and ensured physical death, all mankind since has shared in that fate.

And when one is judged in a condition of separation from God, which takes place after they are resurrected...

...they die:


Revelation 20:13-15
King James Version (KJV)

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


If they teach Christ endured this, then it is error.

And most people like being surprised, lol.

That is precisely what vicarious means.

Christ died so that we would not have to die:


John 11:49-51
King James Version (KJV)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Christ "suffering" did not atone for our sins, His death did.

Had He not died, Atonement would not have been effected. So too in the pattern of animal sacrifice, the animal had to die. Even when there was a scapegoat.

Christ is, so to speak, the scapegoat. Because He lives.

Like I said, there are worse theories, and there are people who think some theories "do harm," but that is not always the reality. Take for example the Pre-Trib Rapture, wish I had a nickel for every time someone has said "This theory does great harm!" Just not the reality.

But I myself view Christ's death as vicarious for the sinner, He died that we not have to. So "substitution" is, in my view, not only Biblical but a necessary doctrinal understanding.

On this we agree. Christ did not undergo that wrath.

Christ suffered at the hands of wicked men, not God. But, we must maintain our understanding recognizing that it was God that gave Christ that cup and baptism of suffering.

There is nothing silly in complete faith in what Christ has done for us. But I don't think those who embrace a view that Eschatological Wrath was imposed on Christ would be found to have any less faith in the Sacrifice of Christ either, so this debate is a little silly in itself to me, lol.

I do not view Christ as ever being forsaken, others do, and likely we both have just as much faith in Christ and do not see this as something that effects our faith in the salvation He has bestowed to us.


God bless.

 

Just a suggestion, brother, but its not a good idea to base truth on what the wicked say.



I will say I don't see a denial of the Trinity in your position, because in view is Christ's physical Being, rather than His Eternal. Often that distinction is not considered when we look at certain issues.


God bless.

 

We see the concept of separation here:


Philippians 2
King James Version (KJV)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


But the "separation" in view does not impose separation as found in man's usual condition when conceived and born, which is...completely separated from God and the Life of God.

Christ was not thus separated, but, in taking on human flesh we see the concept of separation which has to be maintained in order to correlate to Biblical Doctrine. God did not in His Eternal Being become human leaving Heaven bereft of His presence.

So we would agree that separation from an eternal perspective is impossible (and this is the problem I see arising in how some are presenting "Penal Substitution"), but, we do not nullify the separation the Son had from His Glory which He had in the Father before the world was created:


John 17
King James Version (KJV)

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Again, that concept is not totally foreign to Biblical Doctrine:


Matthew 20:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.



John 18:11
King James Version (KJV)

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?


Where you are making a mistake is inserting the concept of Eternal Judgment into your argument, making it thus as false an argument as those presented by those who impose this into the theory of penal substitution.

It is, in my view, the going to of extremes by both sides to the exclusion of that which is valid. Which is a typical mistake we see in numerous debated issues. The best example is the debate over free will: Arminians impose understanding into natural men, Calvinists impose regeneration as prerequisite to faith. Both are wrong.

And I agree with that one hundred percent, and have not just stated it, but supported it with Scripture.

Perhaps you have a Hymn you could interject into the discussion.

First, don't include me in your "You alls," because you often have problems understanding what I explain to you in explicit detail, so don't comment on something that has nothing to do with what I actually hold to.

Secondly, you have no right to say another member is "denying the Trinity," particularly one who has likely preached more sermons teaching the Trinity than you have spent in study of the subject.

Third, it is God in the flesh which is the issue you are not fully grasping: we have to carefully distinguish what is relevant to His Humanity and what is relevant to His Deity. What Christ suffered was in the flesh, that is evident by His declaration of "It is finished" while still on the Cross. When Christ was Hungry the Trinity was not hungry, the Christ was. When Christ was tired the Trinity was not tired, the Christ was.

The separation we see deals with His humanity, not His Deity. When Christ suffered, it was His Humanity that felt the blows, felt the pain, felt the thirst.

And all of it was according to His Redemptive Plan.


God bless.

 

The above is not specifically relevant to the context of the discussion, because we distinguish the Life-Giving Spirit from those made alive.

Unlike Christ, we do not have power to take our lives back up, and are dependent on Him.

I don't think we can equally equate Christ, God in flesh, to men when it comes to our being. His Being was quite separate from our own, in that He was not the product of procreation, but in fact created Himself the very flesh He would inhabit.

I would agree to the extent that Paul distinguishes in no uncertain words between Christ and men, as Scripture always does.

The most troubling issue I have with this debate is that it seems to upset you a fair amount, brother, and I just don't think you need to let this bother you.

Agreed. That was what most of the last post dealt with.

We must distinguish between life and death in every context, as to whether it is temporal or eternal, physical or spiritual.

Men gain spiritual life when they are made alive in Christ. That is what new birth is all about.

So far the only thing I would object to in regards to "penal substitution" is imposing eternal judgment into what Christ suffered. But we have to acknowledge that Christ did die in the stead of the sinner, just as we see in the Old Testament type of animal sacrifice.


God bless.