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

[Iconoclast]

"agedman,

JonC said: ↑
Sin itself cannot be punished.

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?

Sin......does not exist unless there is a sinner.

God does not cast sin into hell...but those who commit sins.
God does not hate the sin, but love the sinner. He hates both the sin and the sinner outside of Christ.
You are suggesting in these two threads that sin does not have to be punished.

I am suggesting that all sin is punished...in the sinner himself or the Divine substitute.

Others have suggested correctly the same thing.
No word games or calling it a theory is going to get this out of the scriptures.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Wrath of God Was Satisfied: Substitutionary Atonement and the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention

In its earliest phase, modern theological liberalism developed open antipathy to the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Theologians such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism, rejected the claim that the death of Christ is substitutionary or vicarious. Christ did not die in the place of sinners, bearing the wrath of a righteous God, Schleiermacher insisted. Instead, Christ’s death and resurrection demonstrated God’s love so that human beings might rightly love him. Albrecht Ritschl proposed a similar form of the moral influence theory of the atonement—Christ died as a revelation of the depth of God’s love toward sinners.

As theological liberalism spread to the United States, the Protestant liberals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries adopted the German model, rejecting any substitutionary or vicarious understanding of the atonement and proposing variations of the moral influence theory. Others, following the pattern set by Rudolf Bultmann, proposed existentialist understandings of the cross and resurrection. Most of the adherents to these theories denied the wrath of God against sinners at the cross, which was presented as a political act with a great moral lesson. Many of them denied as mere myth the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

While the vast majority of Southern Baptists resisted the temptation to revise the faith in order to meet the demands of the modern liberal worldview, some within the Southern Baptist academy were doing their best to shift the denomination to a more liberal position. Ground zero for this effort was New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The seminary in New Orleans was by no means the most liberal of the Southern Baptist seminaries at the time, and it would not tolerate such teaching now, but its faculty once included a trio of professors who attempted to shift Southern Baptists away from the advocacy of penal substitutionary atonement. These three men, over the course of three successive generations, influenced a host of young seminarians and many pastors beyond the seminary’s campus.

The first was Theodore R. Clark. In 1959, Clark published the book that eventually led to his removal from the New Orleans seminary faculty. That book, Saved by His Life: A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Reconciliation and Salvation, was published by Macmillan, a major secular publisher in New York City. This was considered a rare achievement for a young Southern Baptist theologian, but the book almost immediately incited controversy. The main thrust of Clark’s book was revealed in the title. Clark argued that Christians put far too much emphasis on the death and resurrection of Christ as the foundation for the salvation of sinners. He argued that the life of Christ is equally important for our salvation. But he also denied that the righteousness of God and the righteous demands of the law required a penal sacrifice. Clark openly rejected “theologies of the cross” that propose that “the crucified Jesus was regarded as man’s substitute or as man’s sin bearer, taking man’s place so that God’s wrath would fall on him rather than on sinful man.”

 

[JonC]

"agedman,




Sin......does not exist unless there is a sinner.

God does not cast sin into hell...but those who commit sins.
God does not hate the sin, but love the sinner. He hates both the sin and the sinner outside of Christ.
You are suggesting in these two threads that sin does not have to be punished.

I am suggesting that all sin is punished...in the sinner himself or the Divine substitute.

Others have suggested correctly the same thing.
No word games or calling it a theory is going to get this out of the scriptures.

Are you saying sin or the sinner will be punished?

 

[JonC]

The Wrath of God Was Satisfied: Substitutionary Atonement and the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention

In its earliest phase, modern theological liberalism developed open antipathy to the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Theologians such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism, rejected the claim that the death of Christ is substitutionary or vicarious. Christ did not die in the place of sinners, bearing the wrath of a righteous God, Schleiermacher insisted. Instead, Christ’s death and resurrection demonstrated God’s love so that human beings might rightly love him. Albrecht Ritschl proposed a similar form of the moral influence theory of the atonement—Christ died as a revelation of the depth of God’s love toward sinners.

As theological liberalism spread to the United States, the Protestant liberals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries adopted the German model, rejecting any substitutionary or vicarious understanding of the atonement and proposing variations of the moral influence theory. Others, following the pattern set by Rudolf Bultmann, proposed existentialist understandings of the cross and resurrection. Most of the adherents to these theories denied the wrath of God against sinners at the cross, which was presented as a political act with a great moral lesson. Many of them denied as mere myth the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

While the vast majority of Southern Baptists resisted the temptation to revise the faith in order to meet the demands of the modern liberal worldview, some within the Southern Baptist academy were doing their best to shift the denomination to a more liberal position. Ground zero for this effort was New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The seminary in New Orleans was by no means the most liberal of the Southern Baptist seminaries at the time, and it would not tolerate such teaching now, but its faculty once included a trio of professors who attempted to shift Southern Baptists away from the advocacy of penal substitutionary atonement. These three men, over the course of three successive generations, influenced a host of young seminarians and many pastors beyond the seminary’s campus.

The first was Theodore R. Clark. In 1959, Clark published the book that eventually led to his removal from the New Orleans seminary faculty. That book, Saved by His Life: A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Reconciliation and Salvation, was published by Macmillan, a major secular publisher in New York City. This was considered a rare achievement for a young Southern Baptist theologian, but the book almost immediately incited controversy. The main thrust of Clark’s book was revealed in the title. Clark argued that Christians put far too much emphasis on the death and resurrection of Christ as the foundation for the salvation of sinners. He argued that the life of Christ is equally important for our salvation. But he also denied that the righteousness of God and the righteous demands of the law required a penal sacrifice. Clark openly rejected “theologies of the cross” that propose that “the crucified Jesus was regarded as man’s substitute or as man’s sin bearer, taking man’s place so that God’s wrath would fall on him rather than on sinful man.”

?? What does this have to do with 1 John?

 

[Darrell C]

Well the Scripture declares rather clearly that He did.

No, David, erroneously...declares He did.

Psalm 22
King James Version (KJV)

11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.


This is uttered in a time of desperation, it does not mean that God forsook David.

And Christ, quoting David, essentially affirms His messianic role.

Now let's look at another Messianic Psalm:


Psalm 31
King James Version (KJV)


1 In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.

2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

4 Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength.

5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.


Is this not also a saying of Christ on the Cross?

Now,let's see David's conclusion of God's salvation in this Psalm:


Psalm 31:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes: nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee.


Christ's quotation of David is meant for you to correlate it to Psalms speaking of Him, and unless you balance all of them, you will be missing part of how we should understand this.

God at no time forsook David, and at no time forsook His Son.

That is an impossibility, for God cannot forsake Him self.

You are trying to present a horse chestnut as being a chestnut horse!

No, just pointing out yet another obvious truth which is misunderstood.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Psalm 22 is rather clearly messianic.

I said that.

David did not have his hands and feet pierced (v.16),

Well, its funny that this is the one time it is not translated Lion, which could also speak of the persecution David is undergoing at the time.

nor did anyone cast lots for David's clothing (v.18).

David was in a state of deprivation. This is likely euphemistic, in application to David, for the loss of his station.

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).

This is true, but, He also states...


Psalm 22:23-25
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.


This is in agreement with:


Hebrews 5:7
King James Version (KJV)

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;

'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.

He didn't:

John 16:32
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.

What hour is in view, Martin?


John 8:28-30
King James Version (KJV)

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

Why? Because He was enduring for that time the fate of sinners.

But the fate of sinners is Eternal Separation.

Not possible, even in a temporary context...for God to be separated from Himself.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

'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).

Christ did not go to Hell.

That is what is in view here (in the above quote), Eternal Judgment.

Christ said "It is finished" and it was finished...through His physical death.

I quite agree that being forsaken by the Father was an entirely new experience for the Lord Jesus.

He didn't.

Keep the Psalm together:


Psalm 22:23-25
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

Even when He was in extremis in Gethsemane, the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him (Luke 22:43).

Not relevant.

But on the cross, the Son was utterly alone.

Not at all:

John 16:32
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.

Even His mother and the apostle John, I think, had left Him before the sixth hour (John 19:27).

Everyone forsook Him, Martin, because there were at that time no believers in a New Covenant context.

Only the Father was with Him.

If you would simply read the entire Psalm you would see that David's perspective was in a time of persecution and deprivation, which did not change God's perspective:


Psalm 22:23-25
King James Version (KJV)

23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

Because, if the Christ as our Substitute did not suffer being forsaken by the Father, then we will have to suffer it ourselves.

Not a necessity.

Consider that men received atonement and remission of sins which was valid...through the physical death of an animal.


Hebrews 9:11-14
King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


The use of the term "blood" speaks of physical death, not some spiritual imposition of Eternal Judgment which could not be considered "eternal" or everlasting to being with.

I know you must defend your view, but, I would just ask you to take into consideration what is said in this post.

Thanks for the response, really had to dig in on this one, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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?

I see a problem with the view that the wrath the lost are faced with was visited on the Lord, but, I also see a bit of a problem in how you word your objection, so again, bear with me.

Christ did take our penalty, though His death in our stead is not to be equated with the Second Death. The Second death does not come into the equation because...

...Christ was guiltless, therefore His death is sufficient to account for the deaths we would have died.

So I am having a little trouble with your wording here.

Christ never came that we would not die but that we would have life in Him.

Both are equally true, Jon. We do not "die" because we now have life. This is not a physical context, but spiritual. Though we have life, odds are that we will die physically (Lord come quickly!).


John 10:28
King James Version (KJV)

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.


The lost, on the other hand, have "life," but are dead, and will die twice, both physically, as well as spiritually in the Second death, where they enter into Eternal Separation, complete absence from life and the the potential for life:


John 6:49-53
King James Version (KJV)


49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


All men are conceived and born...dead. The only means of Eternal Life is faith in Christ, believing on His Death, burial, and Resurrection.

That is how He gave "His flesh" to us to eat.


Continued...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh my, Martin, you destroy 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.

Agedman,
When you accuse me of destroying the Trinity ( I notice that @JonC has no rebuke for you ), you also accuse Spurgeon and a whole host of other great theologians and preachers (citations available on request).

When Paul says, 'Demas has forsaken me, having loved the world' (same Greek word, enkataleipo), does he mean that Demas is actually still with him but has withdrawn his support? When the wicked in Psalm 71:11, say, "God has forsaken him (same Hebrew word azab): pursue him and seize him for no one will rescue him," do they suppose that God is still with David but has withdrawn support? That's not even what 'forsake' means in English. Go and read The Forsaken Merman by Matthew Arnold and see if his wife has temporarily withdrawn her support for him

There is a threeness in the Trinity as well as a oneness.

 

[Darrell C]

The Theory of Penal Substitution spiritualizes the Atonement to refer to a hypothesized spiritual death that Adam died and mankind shares.

I view Adam as having died in a spiritual sense, meaning, while in the Garden he had access to "everlasting life" which was through access to the Tree of Life. That was for physical life, though, and in my view not to be confused with the Life Christ came to bestow upon those that believe.

Because of his new condition, one which was a state of separation from God and ensured physical death, all mankind since has shared in that fate.

But Scripture teaches that it is appointed to man once to die (a physical death) and then the Judgment (which is Christ-centered).

And when one is judged in a condition of separation from God, which takes place after they are resurrected...

...they die:


Revelation 20:13-15
King James Version (KJV)

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


If they teach Christ endured this, then it is error.

I like to surprise.

And most people like being surprised, lol.

It depends on what you mean by “vicariously”. If you mean that Christ died so that we would not die, then no.

That is precisely what vicarious means.

Christ died so that we would not have to die:


John 11:49-51
King James Version (KJV)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

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).

Christ "suffering" did not atone for our sins, His death did.

Had He not died, Atonement would not have been effected. So too in the pattern of animal sacrifice, the animal had to die. Even when there was a scapegoat.

Christ is, so to speak, the scapegoat. Because He lives.

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.

Like I said, there are worse theories, and there are people who think some theories "do harm," but that is not always the reality. Take for example the Pre-Trib Rapture, wish I had a nickel for every time someone has said "This theory does great harm!" Just not the reality.

But I myself view Christ's death as vicarious for the sinner, He died that we not have to. So "substitution" is, in my view, not only Biblical but a necessary doctrinal understanding.

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.

On this we agree. Christ did not undergo that wrath.

You see, if God was wrathful towards Christ then there is no hope in the faithfulness of God to deliver us.

Christ suffered at the hands of wicked men, not God. But, we must maintain our understanding recognizing that it was God that gave Christ that cup and baptism of suffering.

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?

There is nothing silly in complete faith in what Christ has done for us. But I don't think those who embrace a view that Eschatological Wrath was imposed on Christ would be found to have any less faith in the Sacrifice of Christ either, so this debate is a little silly in itself to me, lol.

I do not view Christ as ever being forsaken, others do, and likely we both have just as much faith in Christ and do not see this as something that effects our faith in the salvation He has bestowed to us.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

When the wicked in Psalm 71:11, say, "God has forsaken him (same Hebrew word azab): pursue him and seize him for no one will rescue him," do they suppose that God is still with David but has withdrawn support?

Just a suggestion, brother, but its not a good idea to base truth on what the wicked say.



I will say I don't see a denial of the Trinity in your position, because in view is Christ's physical Being, rather than His Eternal. Often that distinction is not considered when we look at certain issues.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

Just a suggestion, brother, but its not a good idea to base truth on what the wicked say.



I will say I don't see a denial of the Trinity in your position, because in view is Christ's physical Being, rather than His Eternal. Often that distinction is not considered when we look at certain issues.


God bless.

the hypostatic union does not allow separation

If God is pouring wrath out on the Son Then He is pouring wrath out on a member of the trinity.

If the Father is seen as abandoning the Son, that too cannot take place. The trinity cannot abandon a member.

Do you all not hold Christ is God in the flesh?

 

[agedman]

to hold to PSA theory of God abandoning the Son and pouring wrath out on the Son is a violation of the revealed truth concerning the trinity.

I will “forsake” this thread. Meaning I will watch while withdrawning support.

 

[Iconoclast]

?? What does this have to do with 1 John?

Hello JonC
I know you like to muse and consider all kinds of things....many of us do to varying degrees.

I could be mistaken but whenever the word propitiation shows up, it has to do with this topic. The term includes all parts of the atonement and your original objection to Archangel was off because of this fact.
There is no propitiation apart from a bearing of the wrath of God by the Divine substitute.

It is as if....you want to discuss the circulatory system, but not mention the work of the heart. You mention arteries or veins ...but not the heart being tied in somehow.

 

[JonC]

I view Adam as having died in a spiritual sense, meaning, while in the Garden he had access to "everlasting life" which was through access to the Tree of Life. That was for physical life, though, and in my view not to be confused with the Life Christ came to bestow upon those that believe.

Because of his new condition, one which was a state of separation from God and ensured physical death, all mankind since has shared in that fate.




And when one is judged in a condition of separation from God, which takes place after they are resurrected...

...they die:


Revelation 20:13-15
King James Version (KJV)

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


If they teach Christ endured this, then it is error.




And most people like being surprised, lol.




That is precisely what vicarious means.

Christ died so that we would not have to die:


John 11:49-51
King James Version (KJV)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;





Christ "suffering" did not atone for our sins, His death did.

Had He not died, Atonement would not have been effected. So too in the pattern of animal sacrifice, the animal had to die. Even when there was a scapegoat.

Christ is, so to speak, the scapegoat. Because He lives.




Like I said, there are worse theories, and there are people who think some theories "do harm," but that is not always the reality. Take for example the Pre-Trib Rapture, wish I had a nickel for every time someone has said "This theory does great harm!" Just not the reality.

But I myself view Christ's death as vicarious for the sinner, He died that we not have to. So "substitution" is, in my view, not only Biblical but a necessary doctrinal understanding.




On this we agree. Christ did not undergo that wrath.




Christ suffered at the hands of wicked men, not God. But, we must maintain our understanding recognizing that it was God that gave Christ that cup and baptism of suffering.




There is nothing silly in complete faith in what Christ has done for us. But I don't think those who embrace a view that Eschatological Wrath was imposed on Christ would be found to have any less faith in the Sacrifice of Christ either, so this debate is a little silly in itself to me, lol.

I do not view Christ as ever being forsaken, others do, and likely we both have just as much faith in Christ and do not see this as something that effects our faith in the salvation He has bestowed to us.


God bless.

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

I believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is referring to a physical death and not a spiritual one. In fact, I believe that the passages above deny the Theory of Penal Substitution as a whole.

The reason I say that the Theory fails in terms of Christ bearing our sin and dying the death we deserve is not because I believe that Christ did not do both of those. It is because we also die (as Paul indicates, we are speaking of the physical death). Christ did not prevent us from dying physically, but rather He gives us spiritual life and we have a hope in the Resurrection that we will also be resurrected bodily.

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you saying sin or the sinner will be punished?

Each and every single sin will be punished in the individual sinner according to the perfect and righteous judgment of God.

 

[Darrell C]

the hypostatic union does not allow separation

We see the concept of separation here:


Philippians 2
King James Version (KJV)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


But the "separation" in view does not impose separation as found in man's usual condition when conceived and born, which is...completely separated from God and the Life of God.

Christ was not thus separated, but, in taking on human flesh we see the concept of separation which has to be maintained in order to correlate to Biblical Doctrine. God did not in His Eternal Being become human leaving Heaven bereft of His presence.

So we would agree that separation from an eternal perspective is impossible (and this is the problem I see arising in how some are presenting "Penal Substitution"), but, we do not nullify the separation the Son had from His Glory which He had in the Father before the world was created:


John 17
King James Version (KJV)

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

If God is pouring wrath out on the Son Then He is pouring wrath out on a member of the trinity.

Again, that concept is not totally foreign to Biblical Doctrine:


Matthew 20:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.



John 18:11
King James Version (KJV)

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?


Where you are making a mistake is inserting the concept of Eternal Judgment into your argument, making it thus as false an argument as those presented by those who impose this into the theory of penal substitution.

It is, in my view, the going to of extremes by both sides to the exclusion of that which is valid. Which is a typical mistake we see in numerous debated issues. The best example is the debate over free will: Arminians impose understanding into natural men, Calvinists impose regeneration as prerequisite to faith. Both are wrong.

If the Father is seen as abandoning the Son, that too cannot take place. The trinity cannot abandon a member.

And I agree with that one hundred percent, and have not just stated it, but supported it with Scripture.

Perhaps you have a Hymn you could interject into the discussion.

Do you all not hold Christ is God in the flesh?

First, don't include me in your "You alls," because you often have problems understanding what I explain to you in explicit detail, so don't comment on something that has nothing to do with what I actually hold to.

Secondly, you have no right to say another member is "denying the Trinity," particularly one who has likely preached more sermons teaching the Trinity than you have spent in study of the subject.

Third, it is God in the flesh which is the issue you are not fully grasping: we have to carefully distinguish what is relevant to His Humanity and what is relevant to His Deity. What Christ suffered was in the flesh, that is evident by His declaration of "It is finished" while still on the Cross. When Christ was Hungry the Trinity was not hungry, the Christ was. When Christ was tired the Trinity was not tired, the Christ was.

The separation we see deals with His humanity, not His Deity. When Christ suffered, it was His Humanity that felt the blows, felt the pain, felt the thirst.

And all of it was according to His Redemptive Plan.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Hello JonC
I know you like to muse and consider all kinds of things....many of us do to varying degrees.

I could be mistaken but whenever the word propitiation shows up, it has to do with this topic. The term includes all parts of the atonement and your original objection to Archangel was off because of this fact.
There is no propitiation apart from a bearing of the wrath of God by the Divine substitute.

It is as if....you want to discuss the circulatory system, but not mention the work of the heart. You mention arteries or veins ...but not the heart being tied in somehow.

You are mistaking. The term was not actually "propitiation" but the word ἱλασμός. It is translated either expiation, atonement, or propitiation. I believe the previous verses lean towards the word propitiation because John has in mind Jesus as our advocate and the forgiveness of our sins. But to say that the word means "bearing wrath" is completely wrong and given his credentials @The Archangel should know this. He handled Scripture poorly, and there was no excuse for the error.

That is not to argue for or against his position. But you have to consider that the text itself is not expounding on the word. While it could support that Jesus propitiated God's wrath by bearing it, it could also be (as Luther suggested) that Christ propitiated God's wrath by virtue of His divinity and innocence, thereby "outweighing" the charges against us. Even Origen's position (flawed as it is) would fit in the definition of propitiation (although the subject being propitiated is grossly misunderstood).

We have to be faithful to the text first. And then we can discuss theology. When we do it the other way around we are putting Scripture under our own interpretations. And, I'll add, we would do well to constantly search God's Word to correct/refine our understanding.

 

[JonC]

Each and every single sin will be punished in the individual sinner according to the perfect and righteous judgment of God.

So sins are not "transferable" from one person to another (justice demands that the individual be punished for his or her action, not the action be punished)?

 

[Darrell C]

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

I believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is referring to a physical death and not a spiritual one.

The above is not specifically relevant to the context of the discussion, because we distinguish the Life-Giving Spirit from those made alive.

Unlike Christ, we do not have power to take our lives back up, and are dependent on Him.

I don't think we can equally equate Christ, God in flesh, to men when it comes to our being. His Being was quite separate from our own, in that He was not the product of procreation, but in fact created Himself the very flesh He would inhabit.

In fact, I believe that the passages above deny the Theory of Penal Substitution as a whole.

I would agree to the extent that Paul distinguishes in no uncertain words between Christ and men, as Scripture always does.

The most troubling issue I have with this debate is that it seems to upset you a fair amount, brother, and I just don't think you need to let this bother you.

The reason I say that the Theory fails in terms of Christ bearing our sin and dying the death we deserve is not because I believe that Christ did not do both of those. It is because we also die (as Paul indicates, we are speaking of the physical death). Christ did not prevent us from dying physically, but rather He gives us spiritual life and we have a hope in the Resurrection that we will also be resurrected bodily.

Agreed. That was what most of the last post dealt with.

We must distinguish between life and death in every context, as to whether it is temporal or eternal, physical or spiritual.

Men gain spiritual life when they are made alive in Christ. That is what new birth is all about.

So far the only thing I would object to in regards to "penal substitution" is imposing eternal judgment into what Christ suffered. But we have to acknowledge that Christ did die in the stead of the sinner, just as we see in the Old Testament type of animal sacrifice.


God bless.