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

Doesn't mean 54 is. Which is a problem when reading and thinking that the two are connected about the same topic.

The 54 about God resolving and bringing back the people, (enlarging the tent) and the future estate of the result of the work of the messiah.

Just as all prophets, often the presentation of the suffering messiah is not separated from the discussion of the blessings of the Messiah as King.

Isaiah is presenting both aspects. In 53 he is showing the suffering, in 54 he is presenting the hope and promise of God for the Messiah as King, this is why it is focused not upon Christ but upon the land, the city, the people, the nations, ...

Look, here is proof from the Scriptures:

5“For your husband is your Maker,
Whose name is the LORD of hosts;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel,
Who is called the God of all the earth.

6“For the LORD has called you,
Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit,
Even like a wife of one’s youth when she is rejected,”
Says your God.

7“For a brief moment I forsook you,
But with great compassion I will gather you.​

He goes on to show how Israel will flourish.

Now, it occurs to me that those who are premillennial will recognize this aspect probably sooner then the non-premill. Because the non-premill cannot picture a future kingdom reign of the Christ on this earth and so must at times conform Scriptures such as Isaiah 54 into some preconceived scheme.

But am I wrong in thinking that you are pre-mill?

 

I can't tell you how happy I am to be able to write something you can't disagree with. I think I'm going to put it in every post in future.

It's the pope and the bears in the woods again.

 

Perhaps some who are accepting of PSA do not understand that even the "Satisfaction Theory" does not discard the wrath of God.

PSA is not the only theory that deals with the wrath of God.

What PSA does that is inappropriate to the truth of Scriptures is assign that God poured His wrath out on the Son.

The Nicene Creed sets some of the basic truths presented in Scriptures.

Here is a quote concerning the focus of this thread:

"He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father."
​

Now an aspect that everyone should understand. It is the presentation order.

He suffered....... was crucified - two separate events in the time line of the creed holders.

It is as I have stated, The suffering, the blood letting was from the garden to the resurrection grave. Not just on the Cross.

And note: The Nicene creed does not include the wrath of God being poured out upon the Son.

 

Jesus was mindful of the Bowl of wrath from the OT God had prepared to render judgement upon the nations and His own people who disobeyed him, and he knew that far wrse than physical death would be facing isolation/being forsaken by God during that time he experienced those Bowls of wrath meant for us!

 

Jesus was slain in our stead, does God pour out wrath upon those not in christ or not?

 

Yeshua, you are presenting thoughts about Scriptures in which you are assuming are correct.

But, the way you are presenting them, the support is lacking.

The bowls of wrath for the nations and the people, were never presented in Scriptures as poured out upon the Christ. That is just someones preconception run to exuberance.

 

Two completely different issues.

Jesus was slain in our stead.

God commands bowls of wrath to be poured out upon the nations in Revelations.

There is no Scriptures that state the bowls of wrath were poured out upon the Christ.

 

God pours out his wrath upon sinners, and Jesus died in our place before God, and He received the same as all sinners do in judgement!

 

In what place do you find that Jesus "received the same as all sinners do in judgement?"

I don't find such in the Scriptures.

Rather, I see that he bore our sins, took our sins, carried our sins, and as such was labeled as a sinner (for that was the expression of the law).

But, even in such, at no place does the Scripture present Christ as sinning.

He did not.

Therefore, the aspect of God being obliged to pour out wrath upon Him, is a false premise.

There was no such need.

Anymore, than the typical doctor has to inject the transfusion blood into himself before he carries it to the beside of the patient.

I am able (still capable) of carrying, and more often do spill what I carry. But such does not enter my body, does not corrupt me.

Christ was never corrupted by what he bore in our stead.

Therefore, it is not foundational that God would even be less than overjoyed at the crucifixion.

 

So, then, what are you arguing that the blood does?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found in the Bible and in the ECFs. There were no 500 page University theses on P.S. back then because it was generally accepted. It was entirely possible to hold Satisfaction and Christus Victor theories at the same time since they were not mutually exclusive back then.

But the Scripture tells us that the cross is a stumbling-block to the Jews, and so it was for Trypho. He wrote, 'But whether Chrsit should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, in the Scriptures that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by suffering cursed by God.'

Justin Martyr replies, after answering Trypho's concern, the Christ was not cursed for His own sins, 'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse.....If those who are under this [Mosaic] law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths...etc.'

He continues, 'If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will.......'
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew.

It's quite brief, but the Lord Jesus took upon Himself the curse of God that had rested on 'the whole human family.' That is why He was crucified although He had committed no sin. It is a clear statement of Penal Substitution. Christ endured the punishment due to us and took the curse upon Mankind to fall upon Himself.

 

So you're essentially arguing for Anselm's Satisfaction Theory?

The Archangel