He paid for/appeased the wrath of God towards sins.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2
- Thread starter Darrell C
- Start date
- Status
You have a couple of terms mixed up, brother. Let me help.
Jesus purchased/redeemed/ransomed us from the bondage of sin and death.
Jesus propitiates/turns aside God's wrath towards us.
He paid for/took that wrath, which allows God to call us now justified all who receive Him thru faith!
Please don't take offence, but I have no interest in discussing your unsupported ideas. Even if your tradition was not [Edit: opposite of what the Bible states] (even if it did not deny Scripture) I wouldn't take your word for it. You would have to provide Scripture.
And we both know you can't because no passage exists to prove your theory.
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.....sin does not really have to be punished?
Sin itself cannot be punished.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Icon, are you really being serious about this?
Let's pretend that God poured all His wrath for sin out upon the Son or taking your statement "sin does ...(leaving "not" out) have to be punished" then, what now?
Is there no eternal flames? Is there no wages of sin?
Just what is the "wages of sin?" Is it not death? And do not ALL die? Do not the Scriptures state that "it is appointed for man to die?" Where is the wrath of God in that?
What what about the estate of unbelief, or even the penalty associated with the eternal flames? If God's wrath is poured out upon the Son, then there is no eternal torment, just as the RCC would publish. Where is the wrath in that?
If God's wrath is extinguished, then there is no wrath, and no need for even one to believe. One may eat, drink and be merry, in all manner of evil and God's wrath has been poured out upon the Christ.
Or, are you attempting to promote that God's wrath was only partially or particularly poured out, and that the Christ's sufferings were for only a select few, in violation of John's writing? This is actually what some do extrapolate from the PSA theory, and as I have shown in other threads about the blood, it is not Scriptural.
All I am doing is extrapolating the theory to its logical conclusions, conclusions that others who have passed into heresy and apostasy have long embraced - deniers of the lake of fire and that God can be appeased by works of the flesh.
agedman said: ↑
Such do not create doctrine, but can certainly be supportive of doctrine. Darrell said,
Did I not start the post and finish saying essentially the same thing?
For those who do not remember, here it is:
And then at the end,
Remember, I don't have much of a short term memory, but I try not to change saddles while the horse is running.
Such do not create doctrine, but can certainly be supportive of doctrine. Darrell said,
Does anyone find it inconsistent that he disagrees and then toward the end of his post agrees?
Did I not start the post and finish saying essentially the same thing?
For those who do not remember, here it is:
"The early church did support doctrine often taught by singing of songs, and of course especially the Psalms which are taken as inspired."
And then at the end,
"Such do not create doctrine, but can certainly be supportive of doctrine."
Remember, I don't have much of a short term memory, but I try not to change saddles while the horse is running.
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.
Well the Scripture declares rather clearly that He did. You are trying to present a horse chestnut as being a chestnut horse!
Psalm 22 is rather clearly messianic. David did not have his hands and feet pierced (v.16), nor did anyone cast lots for David's clothing (v.18). It is Christ who was forsaken by the Father. 'O My God, I cry out in the daytime, but you do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent' (v.2). 'Now from the sixth hour to the ninth hour there was darkness in the land' (Matthew 27:45). In His six hours upon the cross, He endured the absence of the Father's felt presence in the light and in the dark. Why? Because He was enduring for that time the fate of sinners. 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction [away] from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
I quite agree that being forsaken by the Father was an entirely new experience for the Lord Jesus. Even when He was in extremis in Gethsemane, the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43). But on the cross, the Son was utterly alone. Even His mother and the apostle John, I think, had left Him before the sixth hour (John 19:27). Because, if the Christ as our Substitute did not suffer being forsaken by the Father, then we will have to suffer it ourselves.
What are we getting down to here?....Does sin exist if no one commits it? I do not do philosophy.
Hey Darrell,
Scripture teaches that Christ did indeed share in humanity to the fullest (to include laying down His own life). He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, became sin for us. And He took upon Himself the wages of sin that we will all share – that is, death.
But the Theory of Penal Substitution does not stop there. They assume that Christ took that penalty not only for us, but that this was our penalty for our sins taken so that we would not suffer that penalty.
Do you see the problem? Christ never came that we would not die but that we would have life in Him. The Theory of Penal Substitution spiritualizes the Atonement to refer to a hypothesized spiritual death that Adam died and mankind shares. But Scripture teaches that it is appointed to man once to die (a physical death) and then the Judgment (which is Christ-centered).
It depends on what you mean by “vicariously”. If you mean that Christ died so that we would not die, then no. But if you mean that Christ suffered for our benefit or advantage, then yes. (Both are legitimate ways of using “vicarious; vicarious sacrifice, and substitutionary”, so I thought I’d clarify).
The reason I have an issue with the theory is not just because it is absent from Scripture, but because it does damage to Scripture itself. It spiritualizes the Atonement in a manner that is foreign to the Bible and ignores the primary concept at hand – that is, walking in the Light with our hope in the Resurrection.
But it also denies passages that states God will not visit His wrath upon the righteous, or cause His Righteous One to suffer, or condemn the righteous. You see, if God was wrathful towards Christ then there is no hope in the faithfulness of God to deliver us. If He is not faithful to His word concerning His Holy One, then wouldn’t it be silly to think He’d be faithful to us?
Scripture teaches that Christ did indeed share in humanity to the fullest (to include laying down His own life). He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, became sin for us. And He took upon Himself the wages of sin that we will all share – that is, death.
But the Theory of Penal Substitution does not stop there. They assume that Christ took that penalty not only for us, but that this was our penalty for our sins taken so that we would not suffer that penalty.
Do you see the problem? Christ never came that we would not die but that we would have life in Him. The Theory of Penal Substitution spiritualizes the Atonement to refer to a hypothesized spiritual death that Adam died and mankind shares. But Scripture teaches that it is appointed to man once to die (a physical death) and then the Judgment (which is Christ-centered).
I like to surprise.
It depends on what you mean by “vicariously”. If you mean that Christ died so that we would not die, then no. But if you mean that Christ suffered for our benefit or advantage, then yes. (Both are legitimate ways of using “vicarious; vicarious sacrifice, and substitutionary”, so I thought I’d clarify).
The reason I have an issue with the theory is not just because it is absent from Scripture, but because it does damage to Scripture itself. It spiritualizes the Atonement in a manner that is foreign to the Bible and ignores the primary concept at hand – that is, walking in the Light with our hope in the Resurrection.
But it also denies passages that states God will not visit His wrath upon the righteous, or cause His Righteous One to suffer, or condemn the righteous. You see, if God was wrathful towards Christ then there is no hope in the faithfulness of God to deliver us. If He is not faithful to His word concerning His Holy One, then wouldn’t it be silly to think He’d be faithful to us?
Oh my, Martin, you [damage the doctrine of the Trinity] in this post!
Christ was alone on the Cross not from the Father abandoning the Son, for that is impossible, the trinity is a union of three in one.
Rather, the Father withheld support from the Son.
You rightly state that such support was in the garden as it was in other places such as the desert. But, that support was no longer available, and that the statement of Psalm 22 be seen, Christ is able to lift himself up and quote as He exhaled the opening words. No doubt the Jews who were very familiar with the psalms would recognize the statement and as the Christ again collapsed and His lungs filled, they could not but see all that the psalm encompassed lived out before them.
What a wonderful picture of testimony is given that even our Lord would witness to the passer by, while in such agony!
But what is remarkable, is that Psalm 22, in which give the very thoughts of our Lord, gives not the slightest hint that God's wrath was being poured out upon the Son in retribution for becoming sin. Not a single word.
And what IS given in that Psalm? That God DID rescue Him!!!! See the second half of verse 21?
God did not pour out wrath, but came in that time of need, and hence the Son could say, "Papa, into your hands I commend my Spirit." Christ did not die alone, but talking to the Father, a unity that was unbroken.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status