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

[The Archangel]

I return to clarify.

From the point of the incarnation, the trinity forever includes the hypostatically union of God and man in The Christ.

But, surely you know this.

You are not correct.

In discussing the Trinity, it is proper to call the One-God-Three-Person idea a "Hypostasis." The joining together of God and Man in the person of Christ is called the "Hypostatic Union." These things are two different things.

Christ is the God-Man for all eternity and, as such, that hypostatic union is eternal. However, Christ became man, not the Trinity, and so it is incorrect to say that God is a hypostatic union.

For you to be correct in what you said, you would have to be--essentially--a modalist.

The Archangel

 

[agedman]

You are not correct.

In discussing the Trinity, it is proper to call the One-God-Three-Person idea a "Hypostasis." The joining together of God and Man in the person of Christ is called the "Hypostatic Union." These things are two different things.

Christ is the God-Man for all eternity and, as such, that hypostatic union is eternal. However, Christ became man, not the Trinity, and so it is incorrect to say that God is a hypostatic union.

For you to be correct in what you said, you would have to be--essentially--a modalist.

The Archangel

What YOU said is essentially what I stated.

That prior to the incarnation, there was the trinity - three in one as was and is commonly used among Baptists. For example in the hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy." More words could have been used to state three distinct persons in one God - the Word, the Father, the Spirit - but I didn't think that you would need that level of clarity.

What you consider and term the hypostasis to mean and what the common people may think the term means may not be the same. So, long ago I stopped using that term in reference to the trinity for it is just not clear in the common person's understanding and can most certainly lead one into embarking on the journey to modalism. Therefore, the term never entered my mind when I posted. But, I figured sense you brought it up, I needed to give more clarity to why it wasn't used.

Therefore, as YOU did affirm, AFTER the incarnation, at the point of the hypostatic union, "Christ is the God-Man for all eternity and, as such, that hypostatic union is eternal.

That is nearly exactly what I stated, "From the point of the incarnation, the trinity forever includes the hypostatically union of God and man in The Christ."

Should I say you are not incorrect and then repeat what you said?

Or are you actually submitting that the Christ (hypostatic union of God and man) stands apart from the Spirit and the Father and not part of the trinity? Is that not called "nontrinitarianism?"

Are you suggesting that the hypostatic union of the Word (which John called God) becoming flesh established a exalted creature that was not part of the trinity?

For if that is your contention, then it is you that remains clearly wrong.

The trinity is the Christ, the Father, the Holy Spirit. Three persons of God.


This is foundational teaching, and you should have recognized the truth of what I posted, for as it stands, there is no place to hold securely to the trinity and for acceptance as some have of the Father pouring out wrath upon the Son (a person of the trinity) as some in this thread hold.

It is in fact a violation of the holiness and union of the trinity, much less such thinking is totally unsupportable by the Scriptures as repeatedly demonstrated in multiple threads.

But, now, I again must retreat into the shadows on this thread.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Oh, so you're abandoning the thread, are you? Or are you not forsaking it, but merely withdrawing support?

 

[Darrell C]

That would be a difference. I don't see Christ dying in our stead but that we may live (as a federal head along the lines of Adam).

If you don't see Christ dying in the stead of the sinner, as the animal did under Old Testament provision for atonement and remission of sins, then I can see how you would have a problem with "Penal Substitution."

Only have a few minutes this afternoon so I will get back to you on this at some point.

I'd say rather than delivering us from physical death He delivers us through it (dying to the flesh, being made alive in Him with the hope firmly in being made bodily anew).

Physical death is not really a relevant issue to the focus of the life Christ came to bestow. New Birth is a spiritual resurrection of something that never had life to begin with, lol.

For those caught up in the Rapture there will be no need to die physically, they will be "resurrected" in bodies that will also have life it they never had.

That life is everlasting, because we are made like unto Christ in glorification.

When sinners die physically they do not make the payment for their sin with that death, they pay for that sin in the Second Death, and that does not atone for their sin. So we must remove the physical aspects of our existence from the equation of sin and how the penalty is atoned for when we think of what Christ came to bestow upon men He would reconcile unto Himself.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I fail to see the relevance.

Again, just because the wicked state David is forsaken doesn't mean he was.

The point I was making is that azab means 'forsake,' not 'withdraw support.'

Nehemiah 9:30-32

Yes, but you might try.
Isaiah 54:7
'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you.'
Psalm 30:5.
'For His anger is but for a moment, His favour is for life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.

These texts speak of God's people, but they speak of a temporary forsaking and a brief period of anger (presumably against sin). They could both speak of the Christ, who was forsaken by the father on the cross, but afterwards 'exalted....to the highest place;' who bore the righteous anger of God against sin, 'for the joy set out before Him.'

He suffered anguish that we might know the joy of sins forgiven.

He was cast out that we might be brought in.

He was treated as an enemy that we might be welcomed as friends.

He surrendered to hell’s worst that we might attain heaven’s best.

He was stripped that we might be clothed with righteousness.

He was wounded that we might be healed.

He was made a shameful spectacle that we might inherit glory.

He endured darkness that we might experience eternal light.

He wept that all tears might be wiped from our eyes.

He groaned that we might sing songs of praise.

He endured all pain that we might know endless health.

He wore a crown of thorns that we might wear a crown of victory.

He bowed His head that we might lift up ours in heaven.

He died that we might live forever
[Taken from a Puritan prayer in The Valley of Vision, ed. Arthur Bennet (Banner of Truth, 1975)]

 

[Darrell C]

Nor did David have his hands and feet pierced and his clothes divided up by lot.

Okay, so we're even: you don't believe David had his hands and feet pierced and his clothes divided up by lot and I don't believe he was forsaken of God.

Both of us are denying something implied in David's words, yet all you have is the Lord quoting David.

I have The Lord and David's statement that he was not forsaken:


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.


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.


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.


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.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Psalm is not about David; it is about Christ.

The Psalm has its first application to David. Just because it is Messianic doesn't mean we ignore this.

Psalm 22
King James Version (KJV)

6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.


Was the Lord a worm?

Does this...


Psalm 69
King James Version (KJV)

1 Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul.

2 I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.

3 I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God.

4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.

5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.


Apply only to the Lord?

Or this...


Psalm 38
King James Version (KJV)

1 O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.

2 For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.

3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.


...or this...


Psalm 40:6-12
King James Version (KJV)

6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest.

10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.

...?

Surely you don't deny an application to David in Psalm 22?


Continued...

 

[JonC]

If you don't see Christ dying in the stead of the sinner, as the animal did under Old Testament provision for atonement and remission of sins, then I can see how you would have a problem with "Penal Substitution."

Only have a few minutes this afternoon so I will get back to you on this at some point.




Physical death is not really a relevant issue to the focus of the life Christ came to bestow. New Birth is a spiritual resurrection of something that never had life to begin with, lol.

For those caught up in the Rapture there will be no need to die physically, they will be "resurrected" in bodies that will also have life it they never had.

That life is everlasting, because we are made like unto Christ in glorification.

When sinners die physically they do not make the payment for their sin with that death, they pay for that sin in the Second Death, and that does not atone for their sin. So we must remove the physical aspects of our existence from the equation of sin and how the penalty is atoned for when we think of what Christ came to bestow upon men He would reconcile unto Himself.


God bless.

Not only that, but I don't see the OT priest as punishing the sacrificial animal with the punishment due man. I view it instead as a propitiation.

I believe Christ suffered in the flesh so we would have spiritual life (a propitiation turning aside the judgement to come). But I do not believe Jesus suffered that judgment to come (which has been reserved for Satan and his demons as death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire).

 

[Darrell C]

Just because David wrote it doesn't mean that he is the subject. Have a read of 1 Peter 1:10-12 which explains this.

I understand fully the inspiration of the Spirit, Martin. That doesn't mean we deny an application to David, or that David wrote within his understanding.

This actually goes against the point you are trying to make, rather than help it.

The Lord Jesus cries out, "My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me?" I think I'll believe Him rather than doubt His word.

You don't seem to think these relevant...

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.


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.


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.


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.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

But note that these words were spoken at the ninth hour ( Mark 15:33-34).

I don't see it as being as relevant as you seem to.

God heard His cry (Psalm 22:21-24) and the darkness was lifted, and communion between father and Son restored.

There is nothing to suggest communion between the Father and the Son was broken.

Don't you understand the impossibility of the Eternal Son of God being separated from the Eternal Father? You are saying...God was fractured.

that is why our Lord declared, "It is finished!" It was.

He declared "It is finished" because He had accomplished what was necessary. It was finished...with His death.

Would you suggest that if He had not died Atonement would have been made?

And He could commend His spirit to the Father and dismiss it (Luke 23:46; John 19:30).

He died.

That finished it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The point I was making is that azab means 'forsake,' not 'withdraw support.'

I look at forsaking as forsaking. We are not at odds in what it means.

Yes, but you might try.
Isaiah 54:7
'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you.'
Psalm 30:5.
'For His anger is but for a moment, His favour is for life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.

These texts speak of God's people, but they speak of a temporary forsaking and a brief period of anger (presumably against sin).

Well at least you are honest about misapplying this to the Lord.

I will raise you...


2 Timothy 2:13
King James Version (KJV)

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

They could both speak of the Christ, who was forsaken by the father on the cross, but afterwards 'exalted....to the highest place;' who bore the righteous anger of God against sin, 'for the joy set out before Him.'

Well, if you're in the habit of making things speak of those they do not, I guess there is no argument I can present to convince you.

He suffered anguish that we might know the joy of sins forgiven.

He was cast out that we might be brought in.

He was treated as an enemy that we might be welcomed as friends.

He surrendered to hell’s worst that we might attain heaven’s best.

He was stripped that we might be clothed with righteousness.

He was wounded that we might be healed.

He was made a shameful spectacle that we might inherit glory.

He endured darkness that we might experience eternal light.

He wept that all tears might be wiped from our eyes.

He groaned that we might sing songs of praise.

He endured all pain that we might know endless health.

He wore a crown of thorns that we might wear a crown of victory.

He bowed His head that we might lift up ours in heaven.

He died that we might live forever
[Taken from a Puritan prayer in The Valley of Vision, ed. Arthur Bennet (Banner of Truth, 1975)]

I am not denying He suffered, but, He suffered at the hands of men.

He died a physical death and when He did...it was finished. If you want to call that the Wrath of God against sin, great, but you have no Biblical Authority for it. All you have is a quotation of David who also said...


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.

...and testimony of the Lord spoken here:


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;


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.


Was the Father only with Him from the third hour until the sixth? Then...God forsook Himself and there was no communion?

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, Martin, but, if that is what you have to prove God "poured out His wrath on Christ" and you are satisfied with that, okay.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Not only that, but I don't see the OT priest as punishing the sacrificial animal with the punishment due man. I view it instead as a propitiation.

Think about having your throat cut and being bled out.

While perhaps not precisely torture, the animal didn't likely enjoy it.

I believe Christ suffered in the flesh so we would have spiritual life (a propitiation turning aside the judgement to come).

So do I.

But I do not believe Jesus suffered that judgment to come

Neither do I.

That is not possible seeing that Eternal Judgment is everlasting.

(which has been reserved for Satan and his demons as death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire).

Agreed.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Think about having your throat cut and being bled out.

While perhaps not precisely torture, the animal didn't likely enjoy it.




So do I.




Neither do I.

That is not possible seeing that Eternal Judgment is everlasting.




Agreed.


God bless.

I don't believe the priests were punishing the animals (not do I believe Tyson is punishing its chickens) much less punishing them with man's punishment. Now, if you want to argue for Aquinas' definition of "satisfaction punishment" then I'd be closer to agree.

 

[agedman]

The point I was making is that azab means 'forsake,' not 'withdraw support.'

Martin,

This caught my eye and I thought it needed a bit of enlargement.

"Azab" does mean forsake, but it also does most certainly mean, withhold support, let go, set free, refuse (help) ...

Here is an online source that will show that it doesn't not mean to need to mean abandon, which some want to appoint to the word.
`azab - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

It might be of interest to note that in Arabic, it means troubled, allowed or brought into pain, a difficulty, typically such as brought upon oneself.


Thank you for catching my attention to this.

I am not (as you can see) abandoning, but a few times, I sense the need to withhold from posting so fervently and take a very minor position.

I so enjoy the sweet banter of thinking over the principles of Scripture.

My, what shall we do in the eternity when we will know all mysteries?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

This caught my eye and I thought it needed a bit of enlargement.

"Azab" does mean forsake, but it also does most certainly mean, withhold support, let go, set free, refuse (help) ...

Here is an online source that will show that it doesn't not mean to need to mean abandon, which some want to appoint to the word.
`azab - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

It might be of interest to note that in Arabic, it means troubled, allowed or brought into pain, a difficulty, typically such as brought upon oneself.


Thank you for catching my attention to this.

I am not (as you can see) abandoning, but a few times, I sense the need to withhold from posting so fervently and take a very minor position.

I so enjoy the sweet banter of thinking over the principles of Scripture.

My, what shall we do in the eternity when we will know all mysteries?

Agedman, I am so glad that you have not forsaken the thread. I am always delighted to converse with you. I trust that this will not be merely a temporary activity but will continue into eternity, though doubtless we shall have full agreement then.
I will only say that according to my trusty Young's Analytical Concordance, Azab is translated 'forsake' 123 times and 'leave' 60-odd times in the KJV. The translators never found it necessary to translate the word as 'withdraw support.'
I have also consulted my equally trusty Oxford English Dictionary and I find that 'renounce, 'give up,' 'desert' and 'abandon' are given as synonyms for 'forsake,' but not 'withdraw support.'

 

[agedman]

Agedman, I am so glad that you have not forsaken the thread. I am always delighted to converse with you. I trust that this will not be merely a temporary activity but will continue into eternity, though doubtless we shall have full agreement then.
I will only say that according to my trusty Young's Analytical Concordance, Azab is translated 'forsake' 123 times and 'leave' 60-odd times in the KJV. The translators never found it necessary to translate the word as 'withdraw support.'
I have also consulted my equally trusty Oxford English Dictionary and I find that 'renounce, 'give up,' 'desert' and 'abandon' are given as synonyms for 'forsake,' but not 'withdraw support.'

Yes, as is typical in the use, the definitions and synonyms given are adjusted in time to fit the popular use.

Do you remember the promise of our Lord, "I will never leave you nor forsake you?"

It presents a wonderful picture in the original. I won't send you back (return for credit) nor will I leave you behind.

Besides, in what manner could the Trinity ever forsake (abandon) one of the persons?

What security would that present to believers to know that if the Trinity would abandon one of its own persons, what guarantee that it wouldn't abandon them?

This is part of the reason the Arminian thinking consider that God will give them back to a lost estate. They teach that God abandoned the Son on the Cross.

Are not those of us who embrace the Doctrines of Grace slipping into a similar entrapment by agreeing with such an abandonment at the Cross by the Father?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, as is typical in the use, the definitions and synonyms given are adjusted in time to fit the popular use.

Do you remember the promise of our Lord, "I will never leave you nor forsake you?"

It presents a wonderful picture in the original. I won't send you back (return for credit) nor will I leave you behind.

Besides, in what manner could the Trinity ever forsake (abandon) one of the persons?

What security would that present to believers to know that if the Trinity would abandon one of its own persons, what guarantee that it wouldn't abandon them?

This is part of the reason the Arminian thinking consider that God will give them back to a lost estate. They teach that God abandoned the Son on the Cross.

Are not those of us who embrace the Doctrines of Grace slipping into a similar entrapment by agreeing with such an abandonment at the Cross by the Father?

The answer, very briefly, is because Christ is the propitiation for our sins. He has drunk the cup of God's wrath that we would otherwise have to drink. Part of that cup is separation from God. It is precisely because Christ was forsaken by the Father for those hours upon the cross that God promises, "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

I hope to work that out in more detail as I have time, on the new thread I have opened.

 

[JonC]

@The Archangel made a comment that seems to have confused the issue of the OP (it certainly seems to have confused a couple of other members involved in this thread).

The issue is not whether people believe that God was wrathful towards Christ. The issue is not whether a great many scholars hold this theory (indeed, many do). The issue is one of being faithful to the biblical text (one of allowing Scripture to be Scripture).

As far as I know, no legitimate scholar exists who has determined that 1 John demands “ἱλασμός” be defined as “wrath bearing” (although, as I stated early on, many believe propitiation accomplished by God being wrathful towards Christ). None of the “proofs” that have been provided prove otherwise. The issue I am speaking of is one of hermeneutics, not systematic theology.

Until now I had not encountered a seminary graduate who openly insisted hermeneutics involved reading back in to the biblical text doctrines that are systematically derived and developed from Scripture. Typically the argument is that systematic theology is built upon biblical theology, not the opposite. I am not questioning this pastor's education, or integrity - but if this is truly what is being taught in the seminary then the old issue of liberalism has once again resurfaced. We can't afford to allow our theologies drive interpretation (even correct theology).

 

[The Archangel]

@The Archangel made a comment that seems to have confused the issue of the OP (it certainly seems to have confused a couple of other members involved in this thread).

The issue is not whether people believe that God was wrathful towards Christ. The issue is not whether a great many scholars hold this theory (indeed, many do). The issue is one of being faithful to the biblical text (one of allowing Scripture to be Scripture).

As far as I know, no legitimate scholar exists who has determined that 1 John demands “ἱλασμός” be defined as “wrath bearing” (although, as I stated early on, many believe propitiation accomplished by God being wrathful towards Christ). None of the “proofs” that have been provided prove otherwise. The issue I am speaking of is one of hermeneutics, not systematic theology.

Until now I had not encountered a seminary graduate who openly insisted hermeneutics involved reading back in to the biblical text doctrines that are systematically derived and developed from Scripture. Typically the argument is that systematic theology is built upon biblical theology, not the opposite. I am not questioning this pastor's education, or integrity - but if this is truly what is being taught in the seminary then the old issue of liberalism has once again resurfaced. We can't afford to allow our theologies drive interpretation (even correct theology).

You seem to have a very, very difficult problem with reality. I have not insisted what you are claiming, and you are claiming I've said something I have not said, which is sadly typical of you. Hermeneutics does involve more than a lexicon.

This is what I've been saying: With the word ἱλασμός, there are four specific occurrences in the New Testament. ἱλασμός does not appear in 1 John 2 as a hapax legomenon and John is not the only one to use the word. Paul uses the word in Romans 3. If the 1 John 2:2 passage contained ἱλασμός as a hapax legomenon, then--and only then--would you have a leg upon which to stand. As it is Paul's usage informs John's meaning, and Paul's meaning is quite clear. Also, the usage in the Old Testament informs John's meaning, and the Old Testament meaning is quite clear.

What you are doing is reading a single word, myopically looking at the lexicon, and ignoring everything else. ἱλασμός is not the only word that points to the atonement. English words, such as "ransom," "bought," etc. also refer to the atonement and inform our understanding on many different facets.

What is more, you're infantile obsession with this one occurrence of this one word leads you to error. Would you look a the word "Firstborn," for example and insist that Jesus was the first created being (similar to the Arians and Jehovah's witnesses)? Of course not. To rightly discern the meaning, you would need to look at the lexical definition, the context of the usage, any historical understanding of what the word meant and/or what it has been used for, and how the Bible uses the word in other passages and contexts. That's what hermeneutics is... Not this cockamamie gobbledygook that's been drooling out of your mouth for the past week or so where you navel-gaze at one word in one context and disallow any real work that has been done on the understanding of the word.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

You seem to have a very, very difficult problem with reality. I have not insisted what you are claiming, and you are claiming I've said something I have not said, which is sadly typical of you. Hermeneutics does involve more than a lexicon.

This is what I've been saying: With the word ἱλασμός, there are four specific occurrences in the New Testament. ἱλασμός does not appear in 1 John 2 as a hapax legomenon and John is not the only one to use the word. Paul uses the word in Romans 3. If the 1 John 2:2 passage contained ἱλασμός as a hapax legomenon, then--and only then--would you have a leg upon which to stand. As it is Paul's usage informs John's meaning, and Paul's meaning is quite clear. Also, the usage in the Old Testament informs John's meaning, and the Old Testament meaning is quite clear.

What you are doing is reading a single word, myopically looking at the lexicon, and ignoring everything else. ἱλασμός is not the only word that points to the atonement. English words, such as "ransom," "bought," etc. also refer to the atonement and inform our understanding on many different facets.

What is more, you're [Edited] obsession with this one occurrence of this one word leads you to error. Would you look a the word "Firstborn," for example and insist that Jesus was the first created being (similar to the Arians and Jehovah's witnesses)? Of course not. To rightly discern the meaning, you would need to look at the lexical definition, the context of the usage, any historical understanding of what the word meant and/or what it has been used for, and how the Bible uses the word in other passages and contexts. That's what hermeneutics is... [Edited: insults removed]

The Archangel

The subject of the OP is whether 1 John demands the Theory of Penal Substitution (it is a continuation of another thread). What has been used repeatedly is the claim that the word translated “expiation”, “atonement”, or “propitiation” should be translated as “propitiation” with the meaning of “bearing wrath” and therefore demanding the Theory of Penal Substitution correct.

On post# 40 Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history? you reject the common definition of “propitiation” to be an appeasement of wrath and insist that it means “to bear the wrath of God”. This is contradicts many of our sources.

For example, in his commentary on Romans Schreiner explains Romans 2:25 as “God himself took the initiative to satisfy and appease his own wrath”, and “the appeasement of God’s wrath is accomplished through the blood of his Son”. Other sources you contradict (that share your theology) include John Piper, F.F. Bruce, and D.A. Carson.

The reason that I stay on this topic (on what you considered to be an “infantile obsession”) regarding how accurately we handle the biblical text itself is because I find it utmost important. I understand, however, that you do not. It is for this reason I have decided not to engage most of your replies to my post. There are certain presuppositions that must be met before I am willing to enter into arguments on the common ground of Christian discourse. One of these is sola scriptura (and by this I mean founding our theology on the text of Scripture itself rather than reading into that text systematically developed theories).

When people insist on interpreting the biblical text through their own theologies, theories, and presuppositions then there is no room for discussion. If one argues that “propitiation” means “bearing wrath” then they cannot view the Theory of Penal Substitution within its proper context (as a product of systematic theology). This is a weakness of “paraphrased” translations of Scripture. You may disagree, but it really does matter what Scripture states. The text is that important, and while you are wrong in viewing such respect for the text of Scripture as "infantile" when faced with your theology, you are right that faithfulness to that text is an obsession of mine. Perhaps it is an obsession that may serve you well also.