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

You are not correct.

In discussing the Trinity, it is proper to call the One-God-Three-Person idea a "Hypostasis." The joining together of God and Man in the person of Christ is called the "Hypostatic Union." These things are two different things.

Christ is the God-Man for all eternity and, as such, that hypostatic union is eternal. However, Christ became man, not the Trinity, and so it is incorrect to say that God is a hypostatic union.

For you to be correct in what you said, you would have to be--essentially--a modalist.

The Archangel

 

What YOU said is essentially what I stated.

That prior to the incarnation, there was the trinity - three in one as was and is commonly used among Baptists. For example in the hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy." More words could have been used to state three distinct persons in one God - the Word, the Father, the Spirit - but I didn't think that you would need that level of clarity.

What you consider and term the hypostasis to mean and what the common people may think the term means may not be the same. So, long ago I stopped using that term in reference to the trinity for it is just not clear in the common person's understanding and can most certainly lead one into embarking on the journey to modalism. Therefore, the term never entered my mind when I posted. But, I figured sense you brought it up, I needed to give more clarity to why it wasn't used.

Therefore, as YOU did affirm, AFTER the incarnation, at the point of the hypostatic union, "Christ is the God-Man for all eternity and, as such, that hypostatic union is eternal.

That is nearly exactly what I stated, "From the point of the incarnation, the trinity forever includes the hypostatically union of God and man in The Christ."

Should I say you are not incorrect and then repeat what you said?

Or are you actually submitting that the Christ (hypostatic union of God and man) stands apart from the Spirit and the Father and not part of the trinity? Is that not called "nontrinitarianism?"

Are you suggesting that the hypostatic union of the Word (which John called God) becoming flesh established a exalted creature that was not part of the trinity?

For if that is your contention, then it is you that remains clearly wrong.

The trinity is the Christ, the Father, the Holy Spirit. Three persons of God.


This is foundational teaching, and you should have recognized the truth of what I posted, for as it stands, there is no place to hold securely to the trinity and for acceptance as some have of the Father pouring out wrath upon the Son (a person of the trinity) as some in this thread hold.

It is in fact a violation of the holiness and union of the trinity, much less such thinking is totally unsupportable by the Scriptures as repeatedly demonstrated in multiple threads.

But, now, I again must retreat into the shadows on this thread.

 

Oh, so you're abandoning the thread, are you? Or are you not forsaking it, but merely withdrawing support?

 

The point I was making is that azab means 'forsake,' not 'withdraw support.'

Yes, but you might try.
Isaiah 54:7
'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you.'
Psalm 30:5.
'For His anger is but for a moment, His favour is for life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.

These texts speak of God's people, but they speak of a temporary forsaking and a brief period of anger (presumably against sin). They could both speak of the Christ, who was forsaken by the father on the cross, but afterwards 'exalted....to the highest place;' who bore the righteous anger of God against sin, 'for the joy set out before Him.'

He suffered anguish that we might know the joy of sins forgiven.

He was cast out that we might be brought in.

He was treated as an enemy that we might be welcomed as friends.

He surrendered to hell’s worst that we might attain heaven’s best.

He was stripped that we might be clothed with righteousness.

He was wounded that we might be healed.

He was made a shameful spectacle that we might inherit glory.

He endured darkness that we might experience eternal light.

He wept that all tears might be wiped from our eyes.

He groaned that we might sing songs of praise.

He endured all pain that we might know endless health.

He wore a crown of thorns that we might wear a crown of victory.

He bowed His head that we might lift up ours in heaven.

He died that we might live forever
[Taken from a Puritan prayer in The Valley of Vision, ed. Arthur Bennet (Banner of Truth, 1975)]

 

Martin,

This caught my eye and I thought it needed a bit of enlargement.

"Azab" does mean forsake, but it also does most certainly mean, withhold support, let go, set free, refuse (help) ...

Here is an online source that will show that it doesn't not mean to need to mean abandon, which some want to appoint to the word.
`azab - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

It might be of interest to note that in Arabic, it means troubled, allowed or brought into pain, a difficulty, typically such as brought upon oneself.


Thank you for catching my attention to this.

I am not (as you can see) abandoning, but a few times, I sense the need to withhold from posting so fervently and take a very minor position.

I so enjoy the sweet banter of thinking over the principles of Scripture.

My, what shall we do in the eternity when we will know all mysteries?

 

Agedman, I am so glad that you have not forsaken the thread. I am always delighted to converse with you. I trust that this will not be merely a temporary activity but will continue into eternity, though doubtless we shall have full agreement then.
I will only say that according to my trusty Young's Analytical Concordance, Azab is translated 'forsake' 123 times and 'leave' 60-odd times in the KJV. The translators never found it necessary to translate the word as 'withdraw support.'
I have also consulted my equally trusty Oxford English Dictionary and I find that 'renounce, 'give up,' 'desert' and 'abandon' are given as synonyms for 'forsake,' but not 'withdraw support.'

 

Yes, as is typical in the use, the definitions and synonyms given are adjusted in time to fit the popular use.

Do you remember the promise of our Lord, "I will never leave you nor forsake you?"

It presents a wonderful picture in the original. I won't send you back (return for credit) nor will I leave you behind.

Besides, in what manner could the Trinity ever forsake (abandon) one of the persons?

What security would that present to believers to know that if the Trinity would abandon one of its own persons, what guarantee that it wouldn't abandon them?

This is part of the reason the Arminian thinking consider that God will give them back to a lost estate. They teach that God abandoned the Son on the Cross.

Are not those of us who embrace the Doctrines of Grace slipping into a similar entrapment by agreeing with such an abandonment at the Cross by the Father?

 

The answer, very briefly, is because Christ is the propitiation for our sins. He has drunk the cup of God's wrath that we would otherwise have to drink. Part of that cup is separation from God. It is precisely because Christ was forsaken by the Father for those hours upon the cross that God promises, "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

I hope to work that out in more detail as I have time, on the new thread I have opened.

 

You seem to have a very, very difficult problem with reality. I have not insisted what you are claiming, and you are claiming I've said something I have not said, which is sadly typical of you. Hermeneutics does involve more than a lexicon.

This is what I've been saying: With the word ἱλασμός, there are four specific occurrences in the New Testament. ἱλασμός does not appear in 1 John 2 as a hapax legomenon and John is not the only one to use the word. Paul uses the word in Romans 3. If the 1 John 2:2 passage contained ἱλασμός as a hapax legomenon, then--and only then--would you have a leg upon which to stand. As it is Paul's usage informs John's meaning, and Paul's meaning is quite clear. Also, the usage in the Old Testament informs John's meaning, and the Old Testament meaning is quite clear.

What you are doing is reading a single word, myopically looking at the lexicon, and ignoring everything else. ἱλασμός is not the only word that points to the atonement. English words, such as "ransom," "bought," etc. also refer to the atonement and inform our understanding on many different facets.

What is more, you're infantile obsession with this one occurrence of this one word leads you to error. Would you look a the word "Firstborn," for example and insist that Jesus was the first created being (similar to the Arians and Jehovah's witnesses)? Of course not. To rightly discern the meaning, you would need to look at the lexical definition, the context of the usage, any historical understanding of what the word meant and/or what it has been used for, and how the Bible uses the word in other passages and contexts. That's what hermeneutics is... Not this cockamamie gobbledygook that's been drooling out of your mouth for the past week or so where you navel-gaze at one word in one context and disallow any real work that has been done on the understanding of the word.

The Archangel