Yes, I know what the Theory of Penal Substitution teaches. You don't have to keep repeating it.
Do you have any passages you would like to discuss?
-
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 ?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Do you have any passages you would like to discuss?
1 Peter 2:24 means what to you?
1 Peter 2:21-25 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
It means that Christ Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. Christ is the "last Adam", who offered Himself a guilt offering for us. He who knew no sin became sin that we might have life.
What part of that are you having difficulty understanding apart from adding that God was wrathful towards Christ and punished Him with our punishment?
The offering Christ made was to His Father, as the One to bear our sins and to taste death and endure wrath of God!
Scripture actually says all of that except the last part (that's where your theory comes in, I suppose). But you are dong much better. You earned a 75% biblical this time. Way to go buddy!
Actually, you are the one 75 % on this!
No, You are mistaken, friend....you're my mistaken friend.
1. Scripture tells us that Christ presented himself an offering to God (Isaiah 53)
2. Scripture tells us that Christ bore our sins (1 Peter 2)
3. Scripture tells us that Christ tasted death for all men (Hebrews 2)
4. Scripture does not tell us that Jesus endured God's wrath.
You believe all four parts correct. That's 75% biblical, 25% theory.
I agree with the first three (the statements that are actually found in the Bible. That puts me at 100% and I get a big
on my report card.Why is it such a big deal to you that Jesus willingly bore the full wrath of God for us on the Cross?No, You are mistaken, friend....you're my mistaken friend.
1. Scripture tells us that Christ presented himself an offering to God (Isaiah 53)
2. Scripture tells us that Christ bore our sins (1 Peter 2)
3. Scripture tells us that Christ tasted death for all men (Hebrews 2)
4. Scripture does not tell us that Jesus endured God's wrath.
You believe all four parts correct. That's 75% biblical, 25% theory.
I agree with the first three (the statements that are actually found in the Bible. That puts me at 100% and I get a big
The biggest deal with me is that it isn't put that way in Scripture. But I do understand that it is a theory, so I can deal with that. The problem is that so many seem not to recognize that fact and are unable to distinguish between Scripture and theory. This is not limited to Penal Substitution Theory, I know, but we Baptists have a serious problem with putting tradition over Scripture.
Another issue is that this theory is built upon to create other doctrines. @Van is right that without the Theory of Penal Substitution the system of Calvinism would fall (it would have to be reworked to maintain the 5 points). So the entire system is based not on Scripture itself but theory.
Another problem is that our faith in God to deliver us is directly related to the Father's faithfulness to the Righteous One (to Christ). We are assured that we are not children of wrath because Christ was not a child of wrath.
I'll add that the Theory of Penal Substitution also rejects many passages that applies to God and to righteousness as applying to Christ.
The first clue when someone is getting off the path theologically is when they post van is right
Unless you can align your statement with Scriptures it remains opinion.
The prayer of the righteous is effectual.
The working of the Scripture is effectual.
The suffering of the assembly is effectual.
Nope, no place is effectual aligned with God pouring out His wrath upon the Son.
Unless you can show your statement supported by Scripture, it remains unsupported opinion.
Certainly!
But God did not do the wounding, crushing, bruising...
Humankind thought wrongly as Isaiah states that it was retribution by God, but Isaiah states it just wasn’t the truth.
Isaiah refutes your thinking.
Truth is, PSA thinking of a retribution by God for His Son bearing sin is exactly why Isaiah put the “but” - the indication of an opposing view- in his statement.
Did not the ungodly thieves along with the religious righteous claim that IF He were the Christ God wouldn’t allow such suffering and would miraculously take Him from the cross? Yet, because the Father didn’t, it certainly (in their minds) proved God was displeased.
Same attitude drives the PSA thinking concerning God pouring out wrath.
You need to understand that the PSA of convention churches is more often (imo) held more in lines as satisfaction and not embracing God’s wrath poured out upon Christ.
However, in presenting, many pastors and teachers use great exuberance to portray a vicious God, dangling sinners over the pit of hell, ready to drop them into the eternal flames unless they repent, get saved, are baptized, and join the church.
So, more often the typical non-thinking pew sitter will absorb the words as if they are correct, when the presentation is mere opinion based and not founded in Scripture.
.
But, Van is correct in this point.
This is one reason that more are realizing the failure of the hold on limited atonement and moving to the limit being on those chosen to believe.
The huge problem comes, also, from that statement of the wrath of God being poured out upon the Son, the extrapolation is either not all the wrath (limited atonement- an incomplete or insufficient amount of blood for all) or there remains no more of God’s wrath (a violating Scriptures).
But when one acknowledges the principle that God did not pour out wrath upon the Son, but was well pleased with the offering presented, then the purity of redemption is founded upon the Soverieng choice from among the all for whom the blood was shed, those that are granted belief.
Either the truth of Scriptures wins our one must wrestle the theory causing difficulty and division.
agedman,
No...this shows you are in error. Your thoughts do not resemble the language of scripture....There is a penalty to be paid....Gal4;4
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
They had to bought back with a price...it is particular
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
emnity had to be removed
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
the language of justice is central...suffering for sin is central....substitution is central...
It is the biblical language of a Covenant death of the mediator and surety...pure substitution.
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
No...this shows you are in error. Your thoughts do not resemble the language of scripture....There is a penalty to be paid....Gal4;4
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
They had to bought back with a price...it is particular
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
emnity had to be removed
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
the language of justice is central...suffering for sin is central....substitution is central...
It is the biblical language of a Covenant death of the mediator and surety...pure substitution.
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
First, Galatians does not present God pouring wrath out on the Son.
Second, the word translated “redeemed” actually encompasses a matter of purchase, literally to buy out of an estate. Such as one is purchased from being owned as a slave, or purchased off the market.
Third, no one is disputing the suffering. The dispute is in the assumption that the suffering was God pouring out His wrath upon the Son.
Fourth, the language is not that of suffering because of God’s wrath being poured out upon the Son, but the “suffering FOR” is an all encompassing (covering all the bases) that nothing remain unresolved.
The “For” is not given to the meaning of “because” as it would need to be for it to be conformable as confirming the wrath of God poured out on the Son, but is given in the sense of the Christ suffering through to the finish, and (again) in total completion that no aspect be unresolved when one is brought to God.
Fifth, surety is the word stronger, more secure, guarantee...
Again, neither Galatians, Peter, nor Hebrews supports the PSA theory that God poured His wrath out upon the Son.
Last edited:
I think it best to enlarge upon point 2 in the above post.
There are three statement concerning redemption in Scripture.
In Galatians is that of purchase made. It is not that of punishment endured, but that of one who goes to the slave market.
The three pictures are:
One is purchased as one purchases a slave (the slave has no say in the purchase.
One is taken off of the market that they can never be again sold into slavery.
One is adopted full heir with all rights and privelages as the heir.
There are three statement concerning redemption in Scripture.
In Galatians is that of purchase made. It is not that of punishment endured, but that of one who goes to the slave market.
The three pictures are:
One is purchased as one purchases a slave (the slave has no say in the purchase.
One is taken off of the market that they can never be again sold into slavery.
One is adopted full heir with all rights and privelages as the heir.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I really have no idea how you can claim this when scripture clearly states the following:
Isaiah 53:10
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10 ESV, emphasis mine)
The language here in Isaiah is not passive; it is active. God is the one doing the crushing, as seen in the parallelism between the first and second line.Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10 ESV, emphasis mine)
The Archangel
Not speaking for @agedman , but perhaps this will help you to understand how:
Acts 2:22-28
22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
25 "For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN.
26 'THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE;
27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.
28 'YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'
Scripture presents God as offering Christ, as delivering him over by his predetermined plan. And Scripture presents God as not preventing Christ's death, but raising him up again, putting an end of the agony of death.
But Scripture never presents Christ as being afflicted by God, or as God being wrathful to Christ. For that, one has to turn to theory.
- Status