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

Sorry, but no, it isn't the case, lol.

Christ quotes David, and God forsook neither of them. I don't have much time this evening, so I would exhort you to look at Psalm 22 again, study it in detail, and see if a case can be made for God forsaking David.

I will give you one passage which shows that God did not forsake Christ on the Cross, and shows who did forsake Him:


John 16:28-32
King James Version (KJV)

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

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.


When did the disciples scatter? Was it not when Christ was taken?

I would suggest to you the reason the Lord quotes David is to, once again, tie Himself to the Messianic Prophecy of the Old Testament.

This is actually a great discussion point, and could stand a thread of its own. Let me know if you want to look at this in more detail.


Continued...

 

Don't really see anything difficult when we consider Jesus Christ was God.

And at no time was God separated from Himself.

The only point I would point something out on is emboldened:


John 10:17-18
King James Version (KJV)

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

On the first, agree wholeheartedly.

On the second, well...

You present an impossibility. God cannot, ever, be separated from Himself. God has no need to turn away from sin, as though He cannot gaze upon it. He does that every day in the life of every individual who has ever lived, and will live.

You won't get any argument from me, because I reject the idea that God forsook His Son.

Again


John 16:28-32
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.


Consider also:

Hebrews 5:6-7
King James Version (KJV)

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

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;


Not forsaken, but having the Father with Him, Who was paying close attention.




God bless.

 

So you do see Christ as taking upon Himself our sins?

That our sins actually became Christ's sin?

If that were the case, then He would be disqualified as the Lamb without spot.

Hebrews 10 is discussing His sacrifice:


Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:


Much of the Book is discussing His Sacrifice, it is central to the Doctrine of the Writer.

Particularly in this Chapter, where His Sacrifice is contrasted with the sacrifices of the Law.

Correct, He takes away the first Covenant that He might establish the Second (and this is in relation to Israel as a Nation, which is why he calls the Covenant of Law the "First").

Here...


Hebrews 10:29
King James Version (KJV)

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


...we see that His Blood, that is His death on the Cross...is that by which He establishes the New Covenant.

Seen also here:


Matthew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



Mark 14:24

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



1 Corinthians 11:25
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Doesn't mean we impose a quality of "being pleased."

Particularly when we are told He was not:


Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;


If He did not have pleasure in animals dying in the stead of the sinner, its a sure bet He definitely had no pleasure in the Son dying.

And I don't embrace that view, so it isn't relevant to the points raised, lol.

So I will maintain my position, in that God suffered vicarious sacrifice by His grace and mercy, but, He took no pleasure in it, and He would rather that it was not a necessity.


God bless.

 

This is what was said:

JonC said: ↑

Nowhere is Jesus presented as taking the punishment for our sins in our place so that we can be forgiven.

The punishment for sin is...death.


God bless.

 

But Jon, He did.

The penalty for sin is death, and that is precisely what Christ took upon Himself, and this is the cup and baptism of suffering given Him (in His incarnate form) of the Father.

But now I am beginning to understand better where you are coming from, so bear with me.

Whew! Had me worried for a minute there, lol.

Outstanding.

And see this is a little surprising, and probably because I am just getting into the discussion.

So just to clarify, you do believe Christ died vicariously for the sinner, just as the pattern of animal sacrifice presented.

To be honest I don't really have a problem with the concept, unless it is likened to Eternal Punishment, which was not necessary for Christ to atone for our sin. It still remains that what Christ suffered, both in being brutalized my men, and, just the grief and sorrow of taking on human flesh, was orchestrated by God Himself. He formulated the Remedy by which He could begin to make sons of God of sinners through Eternal Union with Himself, and, He carried it out.

Again, bear with me, it might take a bit to know exactly where you stand. For a bit there I thought you had a problem with vicarious death correlated to Christ's dying in our stead.


God bless.

There are far worse concepts found in doctrines of men.

 

Don't be sad, once you understand what I am saying you will be forced to agree, and ou can have joy in knowing you won't make that mistake again.

No, the Early Church did not support Doctrine with songs.

And if you remember, I qualified my remark:

Unfortunately you do not present a Psalm in the post, but something written which is extrabiblical.

We support Doctrine only by the Word of God, not that which we have of men who were not Biblical Writers.

I agree, but...they don't support doctrine.

You can't go around, for example, saying "The Bible teaches the Trinity, haven't you ever heard Saved by the Crucified One?"

They may represent Doctrine, but they don't support it.

Only the Word of God can do that.

Not unless they are found in Scripture, as I said.

I don't. But don't be sad. Causes wrinkles, you know...

Bingo.

And you can use the Word of God to support the found in this, but you cannot use this to support Biblical Doctrine. Now if you want to say it supports your doctrine, that's okay, but, I doubt many are going to view this as a sound method of supporting Doctrine.


God bless.

 

Wanted to revisit this, because, well...its interesting, lol.

Here is the quoted verse:


Isaiah 53:10
King James Version (KJV)

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.


I would suggest that the "pleasing" here speaks to God's intent in executing (no pun intended) the Redemptive Plan, rather than a connotation of God being "pleased" at His Son being brutalized.

We see that in the following verse where we see the same word used:



Isaiah 55:11 King James Version (KJV)

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.


So in view is God's intention to accomplish something, rather than a "pleasing" in a context of "delight."


God bless.

 

There is no inconsistency in what I have said.

And the point was hymns, unless they are inspired...do not support doctrine. I did not say you were saying they create doctrine. That's a Charismatic issue.

Learn the lesson, move on.


God bless.