Penal Substitution and the Trinity

[Martin Marprelate]

More recently:

Those are my beliefs and my understanding of the Scriptures; they are not my traditions.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you @Jerome



In light of these quotes, and in light of the fact that the 1689 confession is in the Reformed Tradition, I've deleted my post apologizing for what I mistook as Martin's honest reply to my honest misunderstanding. I believe an agenda is surfacing here, one we've seen before.

Once again; those are my beliefs and my understanding of the Scriptures. I do NOT come from a Reformed tradition. Please stop saying that I do. Now that I have told you that I do not, to repeat that false statement would be a lie rather than an error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem still remains that the passage "...He became/was made sin..." must be dealt with and obviously in a contextual and consistent manner.

There are three reasons why hamartia cannot mean 'sin offering' in 2 Corinthians 5:21.


Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.

Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

 

[JonC]

Once again; those are my beliefs and my understanding of the Scriptures. I do NOT come from a Reformed tradition. Please stop saying that I do. Now that I have told you that I do not, to repeat that false statement would be a lie rather than an error.

I believe that the term 'Reformed Baptist' (meaning a Baptist in the Reformed tradition) goes back only to the mid 1960s...However, I use the term to describe myself because the older term 'Particular Baptist' tends to suggest a Baptist with fastidious table manners! More recently, I started describing myself as a '1689er,' because 'Reformed' is being downgraded to mean nothing more than someone who isn't liberal.

[QUOYE]
Your tradition is simply unbiblical.
If it is, you have certainly not demonstrated it. It is always a sure sign of someone losing an argument when he has to resort to cheap shots and insults. .

Quite right. OSAS is unbiblical.

But you don't listen; you're only interested in pushing your own unbiblical agenda.

it is not possible that he should then commend unbiblical traditions to Timothy. The Scripture cannot contradict itself.

That is Monergism. If some of the sheep do not hear His voice, not only is it unbiblical but it becomes synergistic

Never, ever did our Lord clinch an argument by referring to an unbiblical tradition.

What else but pride can lead a man to think that he is wiser than the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans and everyone else down through history, especially to come up with such a crackpot unbiblical nonsense as Hyper-preterism?

 

[JonC]

Those are my beliefs and my understanding of the Scriptures; they are not my traditions.

I do hold absolutely to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory.

I believe that the term 'Reformed Baptist' (meaning a Baptist in the Reformed tradition) ... I use the term to describe myself because the older term 'Particular Baptist' tends to suggest a Baptist with fastidious table manners!

[QUOYE]
Your tradition is simply unbiblical.
If it is, you have certainly not demonstrated it. It is always a sure sign of someone losing an argument when he has to resort to cheap shots and insults. .

Quite right. OSAS is unbiblical.

But you don't listen; you're only interested in pushing your own unbiblical agenda.

it is not possible that he should then commend unbiblical traditions to Timothy. The Scripture cannot contradict itself.

That is Monergism. If some of the sheep do not hear His voice, not only is it unbiblical but it becomes synergistic

Never, ever did our Lord clinch an argument by referring to an unbiblical tradition.

What else but pride can lead a man to think that he is wiser than the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans and everyone else down through history, especially to come up with such a crackpot unbiblical nonsense as Hyper-preterism?

 

[JonC]

People, we don't know each other. There is no need to wear your feelings on your sleeve. There is no need to report every time someone does not agree with something you said, or they view your theory as foreign to Scripture. This is a debate forum and we are adults, so we need to act as adults even when tempted to devolve in childishness.

People are going to disagree with you, sometimes things can get heated, and if you cannot walk away without feeling injured or feeling a need to retaliate then this really is not the place for you - at least not while you are feeling that way. There is no need for grown men and women to get their feelings hurt over a comment on an online forum by someone they do not really know. There is no need for people to continue to report that they do not like a word someone uses, or they don't like people thinking their view is not biblical. I know that this board does not host formal debates, but this is also not a romper room.

We all get carried away at times and say things we shouldn't. But my goodness, some are starting to get out of hand sensitive and downright childish. Nothing here is that important. Nothing here is worth giving in to mendacity to make a point. Don't give away your integrity to "win" an argument. If needed, simply walk away and cool off. Live to fight another day with your integrity intact.

 

[JonC]

There are three reasons why hamartia cannot mean 'sin offering' in 2 Corinthians 5:21.


Firstly, hamartia, the Greek word translated ‘sin’ never means ‘sin offering’ in the New Testament, though it sometimes does elsewhere.

Secondly, hamartia occurs twice in the verse, and it would be strange if it had two meanings in one sentence; but to say, “God made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us” makes no sense.

Thirdly, in John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of type of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? Well where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a type of Christ? He is a type of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin debt, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

And hamartia is also not used to mean "considered as a sinner". Context, not the lexicon, drives interpretation.

 

[The Archangel]

People, we don't know each other. There is no need to wear your feelings on your sleeve. There is no need to report every time someone does not agree with something you said, or they view your theory as foreign to Scripture. This is a debate forum and we are adults, so we need to act as adults even when tempted to devolve in childishness.

People are going to disagree with you, sometimes things can get heated, and if you cannot walk away without feeling injured or feeling a need to retaliate then this really is not the place for you - at least not while you are feeling that way. There is no need for grown men and women to get their feelings hurt over a comment on an online forum by someone they do not really know. There is no need for people to continue to report that they do not like a word someone uses, or they don't like people thinking their view is not biblical. I know that this board does not host formal debates, but this is also not a romper room.

We all get carried away at times and say things we shouldn't. But my goodness, some are starting to get out of hand sensitive and downright childish. Nothing here is that important. Nothing here is worth giving in to mendacity to make a point. Don't give away your integrity to "win" an argument. If needed, simply walk away and cool off. Live to fight another day with your integrity intact.

[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? [4] Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3–5 ESV)

Fact: You said:

You are a grown man - don't be silly. I have not resorted to "cheap shots" by calling your tradition "unbiblical". You have claimed several times the same if my position. That's the reason we are arguing- we each believe the other to be departing from Scripture.

Fact: You said:

Your tradition is simply unbiblical.

This contradiction is not open to interpretation. Even though you said

You misunderstood my reply.

It cannot be the case. You've tried to wiggle out of this type of absurdity before. Of course, with you, it's always the other guy's misunderstanding; it's never what you said. Well, in this case it is clearly what you said.

But, pushing your "logic" a bit further... You insist on being able to define your terms (such as "unbiblical," etc.) in your own way and on your own terms. However, you patently refuse to let anyone define his or her usage of a term (ie. @Martin Marprelate's use of the word "Reformed"). So, the privilege you afford to your self you absolutely refuse to afford to others.

This is not theory; this has been demonstrated.

Then, you launch into statements (such as the post at the top of this reply) which accuses everyone else of being childish. You know, a wise man said, "When you reach the bottom of the hole, you should stop digging." You would be wise to heed the wise man.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? [4] Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? [5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3–5 ESV)

Fact: You said:

​

Fact: You said:

​

This contradiction is not open to interpretation. Even though you said

​

It cannot be the case. You've tried to wiggle out of this type of absurdity before. Of course, with you, it's always the other guy's misunderstanding; it's never what you said. Well, in this case it is clearly what you said.

But, pushing your "logic" a bit further... You insist on being able to define your terms (such as "unbiblical," etc.) in your own way and on your own terms. However, you patently refuse to let anyone define his or her usage of a term (ie. @Martin Marprelate's use of the word "Reformed"). So, the privilege you afford to your self you absolutely refuse to afford to others.

This is not theory; this has been demonstrated.

Then, you launch into statements (such as the post at the top of this reply) which accuses everyone else of being childish. You know, a wise man said, "When you reach the bottom of the hole, you should stop digging." You would be wise to heed the wise man.

The Archangel

What I mean is that my use of "unbiblical" is not a cheap shot. Please read my post again.

I do believe that your tradition is unbiblical (just as @Martin Marprelate believes my tradition that holds to OSAS is "unbiblical"). Neither is an insult or a cheap shot.

 

[The Archangel]

What I mean is that my use of "unbiblical" is not a cheap shot. Please read my post again.

I do believe that your tradition is unbiblical (just as @Martin Marprelate believes my tradition that holds to OSAS is "unbiblical"). Neither is an insult or a cheap shot.

That is no longer the issue.

The Archangel

 

[Martin Marprelate]

People, we don't know each other.

You are quite right, we do not know each other. Why then do you continue to act as if you know anything about me?
My 'traditions' are agnosticism leavened with a small amount of High Church Anglicanism. My only religious family connection was my grandfather, who died before I was born, being a Sunday School teacher in a Unitarian church. I never entered any church that was not C of E until I was in my mid-thirties and never a Baptist Church until I was in my forties.

I never knew that there was any such thing as 'Reformed Theology' until I was past 40. That is why I take the strongest possible exception to being told I come from a 'Reformed Tradition.' I don't, and I'll thank people to stop suggesting that I do.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What I mean is that my use of "unbiblical" is not a cheap shot. Please read my post again.

I do believe that your tradition is unbiblical (just as @Martin Marprelate believes my tradition that holds to OSAS is "unbiblical"). Neither is an insult or a cheap shot.

You can call my understanding of the Scriptures 'unbiblical' until the cows come home and much I care. It is the word you use with that to which I object, so stop doing it.

 

[JonC]

That is no longer the issue.

The Archangel

This reminds me of a story that was told when I was young. I don't know of parents still tell it, but there is truth in the parable.

It's a story about a boy who would cry "wolf" and of the villagers would rush out. But there was no wolf. Until one day the wolf came and the boy cried, but no one believed him. And the wolf ate him.

 

[The Archangel]

This reminds me of a story that was told when I was young. I don't know of parents still tell it, but there is truth in the parable.

It's a story about a boy who would cry "wolf" and of the villagers would rush out. But there was no wolf. Until one day the wolf came and the boy cried, but no one believed him. And the wolf ate him.

Is that a threat?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

You can call my understanding of the Scriptures 'unbiblical' until the cows come home and much I care. It is the word you use with that to which I object, so stop doing it.

it is not possible that he should then commend unbiblical traditions to Timothy. The Scripture cannot contradict itself.

Never, ever did our Lord clinch an argument by referring to an unbiblical tradition.

I do hold absolutely to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory.

I believe that the term 'Reformed Baptist' (meaning a Baptist in the Reformed tradition) ... I use the term to describe myself because the older term 'Particular Baptist' tends to suggest a Baptist with fastidious table manners!

Which word?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What I mean is that my use of "unbiblical" is not a cheap shot. Please read my post again.

I do believe that your tradition is unbiblical (just as @Martin Marprelate believes my tradition that holds to OSAS is "unbiblical"). Neither is an insult or a cheap shot.

I have never said that your traditions are unbiblical (I neither know nor care what they are). Also, my comment that OSAS is unbiblical has been taken out of context, I think. My view on OSAS is considerably more nuanced than that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Which word?

Read my post #111.
But you have achieved your objective; I quit! I'm finished on this board so long as you're involved with it.

 

[Allan]

And hamartia is also not used to mean "considered as a sinner". Context, not the lexicon, drives interpretation.

Hmmm... Not sure you understand what a lexicon is/does. In very simple terms - The lexicon is designed to give the definition of a word based on it's contextual and historical usage. There is much more involved but knowing this it makes your statement sound senseless

 

[JonC]

I have never said that your traditions are unbiblical (I neither know nor care what they are). Also, my comment that OSAS is unbiblical has been taken out of context, I think. My view on OSAS is considerably more nuanced than that.

www.baptistboard.com/threads/why-jesus-said-i-never-knew-you.98181/page-3#post-2205483

www.baptistboard.com/threads/particular-that-is-reformed-baptists.106888/#post-2368067

www.baptistboard.com/threads/calvin-god-is-the-author-of-sin.103073/page-12#post-2280485

Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

Calvin: God is the Author of Sin

://www.baptistboard.com/threads/sola-scriptura-the-sufficiency-of-scripture.99648/page-4#post-2230452

Once again; those are my beliefs and my understanding of the Scriptures. I do NOT come from a Reformed tradition. Please stop saying that I do. Now that I have told you that I do not, to repeat that false statement would be a lie rather than an error.

I believe that the term 'Reformed Baptist' (meaning a Baptist in the Reformed tradition) goes back only to the mid 1960s...However, I use the term to describe myself because the older term 'Particular Baptist' tends to suggest a Baptist with fastidious table manners! More recently, I started describing myself as a '1689er,' because 'Reformed' is being downgraded to mean nothing more than someone who isn't liberal.

[QUOYE]
Your tradition is simply unbiblical.
If it is, you have certainly not demonstrated it. It is always a sure sign of someone losing an argument when he has to resort to cheap shots and insults. .

Quite right. OSAS is unbiblical.

But you don't listen; you're only interested in pushing your own unbiblical agenda.

it is not possible that he should then commend unbiblical traditions to Timothy. The Scripture cannot contradict itself.

That is Monergism. If some of the sheep do not hear His voice, not only is it unbiblical but it becomes synergistic

Never, ever did our Lord clinch an argument by referring to an unbiblical tradition.

What else but pride can lead a man to think that he is wiser than the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans and everyone else down through history, especially to come up with such a crackpot unbiblical nonsense as Hyper-preterism?

 

[JonC]

Hmmm... Not sure you understand what a lexicon is/does. In very simple terms - The lexicon is designed to give the definition of a word based on it's contextual and historical usage. There is much more involved but knowing this it makes your statement senseless

No, I know what a lexicon is.

Here is an example - look in Job 23. There you will read (NASB)

1 Then Job replied,
2 "Even today my complaint is rebellion; His hand is heavy despite my groaning.
3 "Oh that I knew where I might find Him, That I might come to His seat!

Now, look at the lexicon definition for meri (מְרִי‎). Mine has "rebellion, rebellion, rebellious one, etc.". If you explore a little deeper (look at the root) you'll find the word "bitter". So the word could be translated as rebellion or as bitter. The context favors "bitter" - Job's complaint has become bitter.

Likewise, look at who's hand is heavy. The NASB capitalizes this, indicating that it is God's hand. But this is dependent on the context, not the lexicon. Literally, we could translate this as "my hand is heavy on me in my groaning" (definitely if we use the MT).

The lexicon is a tool that helps us understand the meaning of words, but it is context that will always dictate translation.

And you don't have to stick with the simple terms, you can give me the hard ones - I can take it.