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

[Darrell C]

Due to the other thread being closed and not getting the chance to respond to a couple threads, I would like to now address those and perhaps keep the discussion going, since there is some value, in my view, in threshing out this issue:


@JonC

Darrell C said: ↑
You would have to be more specific about what it is you see Peter as explaining. Again, I don't usually get involved in debates over doctrines of men.


They can be fun sometimes, though.


God bless.

Acts 2:22-36 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN. THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.' Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified."

Apart from the fact that God never abandoned Himself I think we both agree on that), I don't think this is going to be a very strong argument, seeing that it deals primarily with Christ after His Death.

And I just want to clarify, the issue is that you are opposed to the concept of God pouring out His wrath on Christ, right?


God bless.

 

[agedman]

Yes,

Ultimately, the problem of penal substitution theory is not that the Christ suffered. I don’t know of any who would even attempt such thinking; rather, it is the presentation that the suffering was God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.

There just is no Scripture support for such thinking.

 

[JonC]

Due to the other thread being closed and not getting the chance to respond to a couple threads, I would like to now address those and perhaps keep the discussion going, since there is some value, in my view, in threshing out this issue:


@JonC


Apart from the fact that God never abandoned Himself I think we both agree on that), I don't think this is going to be a very strong argument, seeing that it deals primarily with Christ after His Death.

And I just want to clarify, the issue is that you are opposed to the concept of God pouring out His wrath on Christ, right?


God bless.

Yes. Nowhere in Scripture is God presented as being wrathful to His Son. Nowhere is Jesus presented as taking the punishment for our sins in our place so that we can be forgiven.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes,

Ultimately, the problem of penal substitution theory is not that the Christ suffered. I don’t know of any who would even attempt such thinking; rather, it is the presentation that the suffering was God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.

There just is no Scripture support for such thinking.

So you sort of think he's suffered as a victim of a hate crime?

 

[Darrell C]

@agedman

Darrell C said: ↑
Secondly, I would like to see the Biblical Basis for "God destroying the City because of the Crucifixion."

Now the "Biblical basis" is the statement of Christ as to the relative future of both those who heard Him and the destruction of the temple. When the leaders said, "Let His blood be upon us and our children," it was not just a statement of their own determination, but as was the case in an earlier account a statement of (Imo) prophetic value which was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans literally plowed the earth so that no trace of the temple would be seen.

And it remains that it was Rome, not God, that destroyed the earthly building/s. We need to be careful about implying that God has anything to do with the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27, many mistakenly identify "the prince who is to come" as Christ, thus attributing the destruction his people cause, in implication (because that would have to be the logical conclusion), to Christians.

We can see God's Sovereignty involved as this was (70 AD) a "Day of the Lord," in that it involved judgment on His people, who had rejected Christ, and were not allowed to continue to worship as they had for so long.

I think we can view Christ as "destroying the Temple," but not the city, that was an act attributed to the wrath of man for the most part.

Darrell C said: ↑
This has, in my view, particular relevance to the Incarnation, and speaks of His dealing with the weaknesses of the flesh.

He didn't spiritually bear our griefs and sorrows, any more than He spiritually had our sins "poured into Him.

I am not certain where you are headed with this, but I agree with the song writer's statement:
"He took my sin and my sorrows and made them His very own,
He bore my burdens to Calvary and suffered and died alone." (I Stand Amazed by Charles Gabriel)

Where I am headed is that we shouldn't spiritualize that which isn't meant to convey a spiritual meaning above the language used. In other words, I am simply saying I see His bearing our griefs and sorrows, as I said, as referring to HIs taking on of the weaknesses of the flesh, and that which man experiences due to that.

You are in fact confirming Martin's view in saying you believe this...

"He took my sin and my sorrows and made them His very own,

At no time is guilt for sin correctly attributed to the sinless Son of God. Not while He was "tortured," not when He died, not while He proclaimed victory over sin (completely), not when He resurrected, and not when He ascended on high.

Darrell C said: ↑
I would suggest that just being among men was a form of suffering for God manifest in the flesh.

Again, that God is the One that designed the Redemptive Plan and executed it, there is no conflict with God being seen as the One that arranged the sufferings of Christ.

Using words like "torture" might appeal to the emotions, but the fact is God did arrange for that cup, and for that baptism (of suffering), but the Good News is that He is also the One that drank of it.


God bless.

However, at no point was all that was done to the Christ to be considered as God's wrath poured out upon the Son.

And I agree with that.

God arranged for the torture, approved of the torture, was pleased by the Crucifixion - for that purpose Christ came into the world.

He didn't approve of the Crucifixion, He suffered it:


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;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


Sacrifice, even that of Christ, was a necessity, not something God took pleasure in.

But the Scriptures do not present that God poured His wrath out upon the Son at the crucifixion.

I agree, because that would demand an eternal context to Christ making atonement, and His Death was sufficient to appease the wrath that was earmarked for those redeemed through Christ.

It is more an annulling of a death sentence (in an eternal perspective) than an exchange of those sentenced.

That is exactly why the PSA theory fails.

I think its an issue where perhaps some extremes are taken on both sides.

Christ suffered, no doubt.

The suffering was purposed, prophecies spoke of such, and types were presents as words in pictures. But throughout, there was no wrath filled God pouring out displeasure upon an abandoned Son (as I have heard some preach). Such is just not Scripture based.

And again, agreed, because it is an absolute impossibility that God should be separated from Himself. Not while He was on earth in human form, not while He was being brutalized by men, and not when He died.

He was able, before giving out His last breath, and giving up the Ghost, to say "It is finished."

All that was left was to proclaim victory to the spirits in prison, liberate the Just from Hades, rise from the dead, return to Heaven, and send the Comforter that men might be made alive in Him.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

So you sort of think he's suffered as a victim of a hate crime?

Why would you think such?

What is Scripturally supported is that aspects of the crucifixion from the time of the garden to the resurrection is given in type, prophecy, psalms. and/or even by the words of Christ.

Throughout the presentations, there is no aspect of the treatment as portrayed or stated as being the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son.

Such does not occur in Scriptures and yet has been accepted as the truth. Yet it did not start as such.

Just under a thousand years ago (as best records would indicate) the following poem was written by Bernard (referred to as Bernard of Clairvaux b.1091)

1 O sacred Head, now wounded,
with grief and shame weighed down,
now scornfully surrounded
with thorns, Thine only crown.
O sacred Head, what glory,
what bliss till now was Thine!
Yet, though despised and gory,
I joy to call Thee mine.

2 What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered
was all for sinners' gain;
mine, mine was the transgression,
but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
'Tis I deserve Thy place;
look on me with Thy favor,
vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

3 What language shall I borrow
to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
for this, Thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never,
outlive my love for Thee.

4 Be near when I am dying,
O show Thy cross to me!
And, for my succor flying,
come, Lord, to set me free.
These eyes, new faith receiving,
from Thee shall never move;
for he who dies believing
dies safely in Thy love.
​

 

[Darrell C]

Yes. Nowhere in Scripture is God presented as being wrathful to His Son.

This I agree with.

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

This I cannot agree with.

Romans 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


Vicarious death is the very concept seen in the provision of the Old Testament, the animal died in the stead of the sinner.

Christ took upon Himself the death owed to us, His death being vicarious, Himself in our stead.

Above Paul makes the point, "Some might die for a righteous or good man, but Christ died for us though we were sinners." I think we see vicarious death as in view here as well.

We do not die, being in Christ, because He died for us.

One more:


2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 21
King James Version (KJV)

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


I think we need to view the concept given in vicarious animal death the significance it has in regards to Christ dying for us. It is not just a matter that He died, but He died in our stead, just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior, so that the sinner did not have the penalty of sin, which is death, exacted upon himself.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

1 O sacred Head, now wounded,
with grief and shame weighed down,
now scornfully surrounded
with thorns, Thine only crown.
O sacred Head, what glory,
what bliss till now was Thine!
Yet, though despised and gory,
I joy to call Thee mine.

2 What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered
was all for sinners' gain;
mine, mine was the transgression,
but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
'Tis I deserve Thy place;
look on me with Thy favor,
vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

3 What language shall I borrow
to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
for this, Thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never,
outlive my love for Thee.

4 Be near when I am dying,
O show Thy cross to me!
And, for my succor flying,
come, Lord, to set me free.
These eyes, new faith receiving,
from Thee shall never move;
for he who dies believing
dies safely in Thy love.

We do not support Doctrine with poems, unless they are Inspired.

Hope everyone has a blessed day, try to save at least one page for when I get back, lol.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Apart from the fact that God never abandoned Himself I think we both agree on that), I don't think this is going to be a very strong argument, seeing that it deals primarily with Christ after His Death.

You are faced, I'm afraid, with the fact that the Father forsook the Son. It may caused you problems in your theological understanding, but it is simply the case. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
There are several other things that the Father does to the Son, which are difficult to understand if you think of God doing them to God: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (John 5:26). The Father sends the Son, gives the Son, raises the Son from the dead, exalts the Son and glorifies the Son. The Son loves and obeys the Father and glorifies Him. FWIW, The Spirit sends the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and glorifies Him (John 16:14).

So why should it be thought impossible that the Son should propitiate the Father or that the Father should forsake the Son when it is so clearly written in Scripture that it happened?

[I have had long discussions on this board over whether to 'abandon' is somehow different from to 'forsake.' I hope we can avoid that particular argument]

 

[agedman]

You are in fact confirming Martin's view in saying you believe this...

No, for Martin's view is that God poured wrath upon the Son. I do not.

Christ suffering was not God pouring wrath upon the Son.

He didn't approve of the Crucifixion, He suffered it:

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;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
​

Sacrifice, even that of Christ, was a necessity, not something God took pleasure in.

In this we disagree.

Hebrews is not discussing the Savior's sacrifice, but all that went before were insufficient to accommodate in full what was necessary for redemption.

Therefore, the words "He taketh away the first (that which He had no pleasure), that He may establish the second."

The pleasing is respondent in the slain lamb taking the scroll in Rev. 5 and of course the Isaiah 53:10 "The Lord was pleased..." (NASB)

This aspect is one of the specific disagreements carried by those who would embrace the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son and those who do not find such as the attitude of God.

 

[agedman]

You are faced, I'm afraid, with the fact that the Father forsook the Son. It may caused you problems in your theological understanding, but it is simply the case. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
There are several other things that the Father does to the Son, which are difficult to understand if you think of God doing them to God: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (John 5:26). The Father sends the Son, gives the Son, raises the Son from the dead, exalts the Son and glorifies the Son. The Son loves and obeys the Father and glorifies Him. FWIW, The Spirit sends the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and glorifies Him (John 16:14).

So why should it be thought impossible that the Son should propitiate the Father or that the Father should forsake the Son when it is so clearly written in Scripture that it happened?

[I have had long discussions on this board over whether to 'abandon' is somehow different from to 'forsake.' I hope we can avoid that particular argument]

I take it that you assume the word "forsake" means abandon, and not withhold support?

Taking that you might, then the question arises:
Did not Christ state, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”

How is it that Christ would commit His spirit to one that abandoned Him?

On the matter of the Father raising the Son from the dead:

Did not the Son say, "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."(John 10:18)

Though three, the trinity is not severable. For a short time The Word became flesh, but it never was not The Word. For a more short time The Word suffered, but it was never not The Word.

See, ultimately, there is no authority behind considering The Father abandoning The Word, nor that in some manner The Father would pour wrath out upon The Word.

 

[agedman]

This I agree with.



This I cannot agree with.

Romans 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


Vicarious death is the very concept seen in the provision of the Old Testament, the animal died in the stead of the sinner.

Christ took upon Himself the death owed to us, His death being vicarious, Himself in our stead.

Above Paul makes the point, "Some might die for a righteous or good man, but Christ died for us though we were sinners." I think we see vicarious death as in view here as well.

We do not die, being in Christ, because He died for us.

One more:


2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 21
King James Version (KJV)

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


I think we need to view the concept given in vicarious animal death the significance it has in regards to Christ dying for us. It is not just a matter that He died, but He died in our stead, just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior, so that the sinner did not have the penalty of sin, which is death, exacted upon himself.


God bless.

Darrell,

You miss read JonC.

JonC posted about the punishment, not the death.

The punishment did not lead to the death.

The death was purposed by The Christ at the exact time He determined to allow the fleshly form He took on to expire.

 

[JonC]

This I agree with.



This I cannot agree with.

Romans 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


Vicarious death is the very concept seen in the provision of the Old Testament, the animal died in the stead of the sinner.

Christ took upon Himself the death owed to us, His death being vicarious, Himself in our stead.

Above Paul makes the point, "Some might die for a righteous or good man, but Christ died for us though we were sinners." I think we see vicarious death as in view here as well.

We do not die, being in Christ, because He died for us.

One more:


2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 21
King James Version (KJV)

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


I think we need to view the concept given in vicarious animal death the significance it has in regards to Christ dying for us. It is not just a matter that He died, but He died in our stead, just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior, so that the sinner did not have the penalty of sin, which is death, exacted upon himself.


God bless.

Hey Darrell,

I think that you may have misunderstood my comment.

What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus died in our place by God punishing Him with our punishment.

I agree that Christ died for us. I agree that the One died for the all. I agree that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. I agree that Christ died for the ungodly.

I affirm the doctrine of penal substitution (what is taught in Scripture) but not the Theory of Penal Substitution (that all of that was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon His Son as a punishment to satisfy His justice rather than pouring that wrath on me and you).

 

[agedman]

We do not support Doctrine with poems, unless they are Inspired.

Hope everyone has a blessed day, try to save at least one page for when I get back, lol.


God bless.

This is truly a sad reflection to make.

The early church did support doctrine often taught by singing of songs, and of course especially the Psalms which are taken as inspired.

Much doctrine is referenced to the Psalms. The principles of such doctrine are also found in the earliest known written hymns.

One is the "Phos Hilaron" ("Hail gladdening light") which was an old Hymn when St. Basil the Great (329-379 AD) remarked of how cherished it was in the churches.

Perhaps the one that has retained favor and is still sung in churches in this age is "Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silence." Written and sung probably even before "Phos Hilaron."

Great Hymns always support doctrine.

What is sad is that you do not see that doctrine is supported by "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs."

Such do not create doctrine, but can certainly be supportive of doctrine.

1. Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
   And with fear and trembling stand;
   Ponder nothing earthly-minded,
   For with blessing in His hand,
   Christ our God to earth descendeth,
   Our full homage to demand.
2. King of kings, yet born of Mary,
   As of old on earth He stood,
   Lord of lords, in human vesture,
   In the body and the blood;
   He will give to all the faithful
   His own self for heav’nly food.
3. Rank on rank the host of heaven
   Spreads its vanguard on the way,
   As the Light of light descendeth
   From the realms of endless day,
   That the pow’rs of hell may vanish
   As the darkness clears away.
4. At His feet the six-winged seraph,
   Cherubim with sleepless eye,
   Veil their faces to the presence,
   As with ceaseless voice they cry:
   “Alleluia, Alleluia,
   Alleluia, Lord Most High!”

 

[Yeshua1]

No, for Martin's view is that God poured wrath upon the Son. I do not.

Christ suffering was not God pouring wrath upon the Son.




In this we disagree.

Hebrews is not discussing the Savior's sacrifice, but all that went before were insufficient to accommodate in full what was necessary for redemption.

Therefore, the words "He taketh away the first (that which He had no pleasure), that He may establish the second."

The pleasing is respondent in the slain lamb taking the scroll in Rev. 5 and of course the Isaiah 53:10 "The Lord was pleased..." (NASB)

This aspect is one of the specific disagreements carried by those who would embrace the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son and those who do not find such as the attitude of God.

Jesus stood in the place of sinners, became the sin offering to God for/in our stead, so God dealt with Him as all lost sinners will be dealt!Its just that Jesus experienced in 3 Hours what lost feel for all eternity!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Darrell,

I think that you may have misunderstood my comment.

What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus died in our place by God punishing Him with our punishment.

I agree that Christ died for us. I agree that the One died for the all. I agree that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. I agree that Christ died for the ungodly.

I affirm the doctrine of penal substitution (what is taught in Scripture) but not the Theory of Penal Substitution (that all of that was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon His Son as a punishment to satisfy His justice rather than pouring that wrath on me and you).

God's judgment against Sin has to have one able and willing to beat the price for sin though!

 

[JonC]

Jesus stood in the place of sinners, became the sin offering to God for/in our stead, so God dealt with Him as all lost sinners will be dealt!Its just that Jesus experienced in 3 Hours what lost feel for all eternity!

What passage is this?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Darrell,

I think that you may have misunderstood my comment.

What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus died in our place by God punishing Him with our punishment.

I agree that Christ died for us. I agree that the One died for the all. I agree that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. I agree that Christ died for the ungodly.

I affirm the doctrine of penal substitution (what is taught in Scripture) but not the Theory of Penal Substitution (that all of that was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon His Son as a punishment to satisfy His justice rather than pouring that wrath on me and you).

No wrath of God towards sin/sinners being appeased/atoned for, no way God can grant salvation towards lost sinners, as someone has to still atone for own sins!

 

[JonC]

God's judgment against Sin has to have one able and willing to beat the price for sin though!

Do you have a passage in mind or is this theoretical musings?

 

[JonC]

No wrath of God towards sin/sinners being appeased/atoned for, no way God can grant salvation towards lost sinners, as someone has to still atone for own sins!

Jesus is that atonement. He is the propitiation for sin.