Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

[agedman]

Darrell, thank you for at least attempting to address the questions. Below is a response to a few of your answers.

While I would not equate the Wrath of God in judgment with Christ's death, we do see that those who will be judged will face that, which is what Christ has caused us not to be headed for.

That God is the One that arranged that which Christ suffered is not a debatable issue:


Matthew 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)

21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

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.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


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?


Secondly, I would like to see the Biblical Basis for "God destroying the City because of the Crucifixion."

I agree.

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

But this is off topic, and I am premillennial and not preterits.

I don't see a question in this.

Again, God's wrath has been effected on numerous occasions. There is more than one Day of the Lord.

God's wrath is nearly always portrayed in the Scriptures from a human view in which God allows catastrophic events that occur when His protection is withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


God bless.

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

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

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

That is exactly why the PSA theory fails.

Christ suffered, no doubt.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Exactly. That's all we get. You post passages about Christ bearing our sin, passages we all affirm, and then pretend it proves what you add to those verses.

The challenge remains open. Just using Scripture (no commentary, no adding "bore God's wrath", etc.), prove Penal Substitution Theory.

It's just outside your grasp, Τάνταλος, but only because you stand under the wrong tree.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help laughing. You're a scream! You ought to be on the stage (preferably the first one out of town ). I post 14 Scripture extracts and you moan, "Oh how I wish there was some Scripture to deal with!" But you can't do it. You couldn't exegete your way out of a wet paper bag! You have never made any attempt to deal with either the Scripture or the theology of Penal Substitution. I don't know what you were doing in the Theology 101 lessons at the seminary or whatever it was you went to. Either looking out the window or throwing paper darts at the girl across the classroom, I suppose. You just argue like a J.W. "Where does the Bible say Trinity? Where does the Bible say Trinity?"

You're making a fool of yourself, and try to cover it by beating up on Y1. Either answer my posts in a sensible fashion or admit that you can't do it.

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help laughing. You're a scream! You ought to be on the stage (preferably the first one out of town ). I post 14 Scripture extracts and you moan, "Oh how I wish there was some Scripture to deal with!" But you can't do it. You couldn't exegete your way out of a wet paper bag! You have never made any attempt to deal with either the Scripture or the theology of Penal Substitution. I don't know what you were doing in the Theology 101 lessons at the seminary or whatever it was you went to. Either looking out the window or throwing paper darts at the girl across the classroom, I suppose. You just argue like a J.W. "Where does the Bible say Trinity? Where does the Bible say Trinity?"

You're making a fool of yourself, and try to cover it by beating up on Y1. Either answer my posts in a sensible fashion or admit that you can't do it.

You post 14 Scripture that in absolutely no way, shape, or form prove Penal Substitution Theory. Do you remember when you tried to say 1 John proved the Theory? then you thought it was implied because you believed it.

And remember the fiasco with your "lexicon" that turned out to be a commentary "proving" the text demanded your THEORY? Just can't make stuff like this up....But you do anyway.

You never provided Scripture supporting Penal Substitution Theory. What you offered was passages supporting penal substitution, but they were passages we all affirmed.

You just don't seem to grasp that the part where we depart is not Scripture but the theory you hold along side it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You assume that I do not accept what is written, yet did you not see the reference to Job? The same word is used with the same sense. Now, who was allowed to grieve Job?

My dear friend, Job knew exactly who had grieved him: 'The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away' (Job 1:21).

The matter is HOW was the Lord bruised, wounded, put to grief? It was allowed. It was not by direct action of a God incensed by the Son bearing sin and the retribution of pouring wrath upon Him.

Ultimately, what manner of wound, bruise, chastisement was not inflicted by human hands upon the Christ?

But what part of it was not according to God's 'purpose determined beforehand to be done' (Acts 4:28). It was not merely 'allowed,' it was determined by God to be done.

Isaiah does not state that God poured out his wrath upon the son, and the historical evidence is that He allowed such injury by human hands who were performing what they considered (most of them anyway) the desires of a holy God.

But as I have just shown above, it was the desire of a holy God. It was also the desire of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, agreed in the counsels of the Trinity in eternity past. "And truly, the Son of man goes as it has been determined....." (Luke 22:22). "No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself" (John 10:18).

Therefore, in what manner then do you see Isaiah stating God's wrath was poured out upon the Son? For I just do not see such even in looking at the original language.

It is simply there in the text: 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him.' Who bruised Christ? The LORD did, and it pleased Him to do so. That is the plain and simple reading of the text.

Also, I have explained several times that the Father never ceased to love the Son; that would be impossible. The cross is the culmination of the great plan of salvation agreed among the Trinity before time began. God's wrath was never against Christ, but against sin. Christ was made sin for us and God punished sin in Him.

You were doing very well in statement until that last sentence.

I will use a human example:

You owe the banker money. Will the banker be thankful the money is paid, or be extremely angry?

The trouble is that I cannot pay the money; I cannot discharge my debt. Christ is my 'surety' (Hebrews 7:22) or guarantor. He must pay the debt that I owe in full, and this is what He has done. He has lived the life of perfect righteousness and obedience that I could not live, and He has suffered the penalty that I deserved to pay.

Once the debt is paid, the banker (God the Father) will be very happy. It was 'For the joy set out before Him' that Christ 'endured the cross, scorning its shame.' And now 'God has also highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name.....'

It's bed-time in Britain and yours was quite a long post. I will try to finish my reply tomorrow sometime.
But I want to thank you for your thoughtful post. It is a pleasure to debate with you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You post 14 Scripture that in absolutely no way, shape, or form prove Penal Substitution Theory.

Prove it.

Do you remember when you tried to say 1 John proved the Theory? then you thought it was implied because you believed it.

You chose 1 John as a text. I have shown you where Penal Substitution is to be found in it, and quoted two learned commentators who agree with me. You have never made any attempt to answer me.

And remember the fiasco with your "lexicon" that turned out to be a commentary "proving" the text demanded your THEORY? Just can't make stuff like this up....But you do anyway.

You're right; I couldn't make it up, but you do. It wasn't my lexicon,

You never provided Scripture supporting Penal Substitution Theory. What you offered was passages supporting penal substitution, but they were passages we all affirmed.

I have provided Scripture supporting the DOCTRINE of Penal Substitution, none of which you have challenged. But you can make amends right now by dealing with my Post #122. But you won't do it; you'll just talk the thread out until it gets closed and think you've won.

You just don't seem to grasp that the part where we depart is not Scripture but the theory you hold along side it.

You're right; it's not Scripture because you never use any The problem is you.

 

[agedman]

My dear friend, Job knew exactly who had grieved him: 'The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away' (Job 1:21).

But what part of it was not according to God's 'purpose determined beforehand to be done' (Acts 4:28). It was not merely 'allowed,' it was determined by God to be done.
But as I have just shown above, it was the desire of a holy God. It was also the desire of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, agreed in the counsels of the Trinity in eternity past. "And truly, the Son of man goes as it has been determined....." (Luke 22:22). "No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself" (John 10:18).
It is simply there in the text: 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him.' Who bruised Christ? The LORD did, and it pleased Him to do so. That is the plain and simple reading of the text.

But, Martin, ultimately, nothing you have given in Scripture indicates that God poured His wrath out upon the Son as retribution for the Son doing exactly what the Father had predetermined, pre-prepared, and formed the Son in the flesh to accomplish.

Plain and simple reading does not say, God was pleased to pour his wrath out on the Son, or even, it pleased the Lord to vindictively crush the Son for doing what the Father obliged and form the Son to accomplish.

So, even IF one agrees that God did reach out of heaven with His spiritual hand and smacked the Savior as to bruise and crush Him, there is no indication that it was done out of Wrath. Nor is there any place in Scriptures that even hints that such actually was done, not in the type, not in the statement of the thoughts of Christ on the Cross, and not in the portrayal of the lamb in the Revelation not in any prophecy, nor the sum of all the Scriptures. It just is a human invention that fails from lack of true Scripture support.

More, the only other place in which the word alignment is similar enough to see the action (Job) there is no wrath of God that bruises and crushes.

The support just isn't from the Scriptures.

 

[JonC]

Prove it.

You chose 1 John as a text. I have shown you where Penal Substitution is to be found in it, and quoted two learned commentators who agree with me. You have never made any attempt to answer me.

You're right; I couldn't make it up, but you do. It wasn't my lexicon,

I have provided Scripture supporting the DOCTRINE of Penal Substitution, none of which you have challenged. But you can make amends right now by dealing with my Post #122. But you won't do it; you'll just talk the thread out until it gets closed and think you've won.

You're right; it's not Scripture because you never use any The problem is you.

You state scripture and then throw in something not in the passage and say "prove it". The proof is it isn't there!

The point is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is one of many theories. You can't seem to grasp this, so I don't hold out much hope you will ever be able to see Scripture apart from your tradition, much less be able to evaluate the theory against Scripture.

 

[agedman]

BTW,

The Isaiah 53:10 verse as translated by the NIV gives a clearer understanding:

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
​

The ESV states 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.​

The דָּכָא (to crush) can also be translated "caused to crush" as used in Job 6:9 where it says:

“Would that God were willing to crush me,
That He would loose His hand and cut me off!"


​

So in reality, the plain reading from the Hebrew is really not all that supportive of PSA.

But now, it is time that I resolve to leave this thread.

I really appreciate all the wonderful interaction, and trust that we have all grown in wisdom and understanding in the discussion.

Blessing to all.

 

[Iconoclast]

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

WHAT WRATH??? WHAT PENALTY???

Vine has an interesting insight

The subject of the wrath of God recurs throughout the first part of the Epistle (Ro 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22). In this Epistle, which treats especially of the gospel, the differing attributes of God are set forth in a manner which reveals His character as a whole. While the gospel reveals Him as infinitely merciful, His mercy is not characterized by leniency toward sin. The Scriptures never reveal one attribute of God at the expense of another. The revelation of His wrath is essential to a right understanding of His ways in grace." (Collected writings of W. E. Vine)

 

[JonC]

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

WHAT WRATH???

I don't believe anyone is denying God's wrath, or biblical penal substitution. Scripture teaches that it is appointed to men once to die and then the Judgment. Throughout Scripture we are warned of God's wrath.

The point, however, is that the Righteous are never recipients of this wrath. Scripture itself does not present God as being wrathful to Christ. For this we have to turn to theory.

Until one can recognize their understanding and interpretation from the Scripture they are understanding and interpreting they can evaluate neither.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3 AM Pacific.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify something here.

The biblical doctrine of penal substitution teaches that God put forth Christ as a propitiation for the sins of the world, Christ bore our sins, suffered the punishment that we deserve, the chastisement for our well being fell upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement teaches that God accomplished what the biblical doctrine of penal substitution describes by pouring His wrath out upon Christ, by punishing Jesus with the punishment for our sins. Typically the Theory of Penal Substitution views this chastisement not as Scripture describes regarding the Cross (the beating, the crushing, the humiliation, and the death) but spiritually.

Throughout this thread no one had denied or opposed the biblical doctrine of penal substitution. But several here (myself included) question the Theory of Penal Substitution. And several seem by their dialogue unable to distinguish between the two.

 

[The Archangel]

Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify something here.

The biblical doctrine of penal substitution teaches that God put forth Christ as a propitiation for the sins of the world, Christ bore our sins, suffered the punishment that we deserve, the chastisement for our well being fell upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement teaches that God accomplished what the biblical doctrine of penal substitution describes by pouring His wrath out upon Christ, by punishing Jesus with the punishment for our sins. Typically the Theory of Penal Substitution views this chastisement not as Scripture describes regarding the Cross (the beating, the crushing, the humiliation, and the death) but spiritually.

Throughout this thread no one had denied or opposed the biblical doctrine of penal substitution. But several here (myself included) question the Theory of Penal Substitution. And several seem by their dialogue unable to distinguish between the two.

While you havn't "denied" Penal Substitution, you've certainly tried to redefine it. What you are not denying is what your redefinition is; what you are denying is what Penal Substitution actually is. Your claim(s) about affirming Penal Substitution are nothing more than Orwellian double-speak.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

While you havn't "denied" Penal Substitution, you've certainly tried to redefine it. What you are not denying is what your redefinition is; what you are denying is what Penal Substitution actually is. Your claim(s) about affirming Penal Substitution are nothing more than Orwellian double-speak.

The Archangel

Not at all. I say exactly what I mean. I affirm the biblical doctrine of penal substitution (that the chastisement for our well being fell upon Him, He bore our sins in His flesh, and by His stripes we are healed), but I do reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (that this was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon Christ and punishing Him with the wrath reserved for our sins).

I am not saying that the two are the same (which would be "double speak"). I am saying that I affirm biblical penal substitution but not the Theory of Penal Substitution. I affirm what the Scripture says, but not what the theory says of that Scripture.

Given your background, I trust you can understand the difference.

 

[The Archangel]

Not at all. I say exactly what I mean. I affirm the biblical doctrine of penal substitution (that the chastisement for our well being fell upon Him, He bore our sins in His flesh, and by His stripes we are healed), but I do reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (that this was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon Christ and punishing Him with the wrath reserved for our sins).

I am not saying that the two are the same (which would be "double speak"). I am saying that I affirm biblical penal substitution but not the Theory of Penal Substitution. I affirm what the Scripture says, but not what the theory says of that Scripture.

Given your background, I trust you can understand the difference.

You assume Scripture does not affirm the "theory," but you haven't proven it. You think you have, but you haven't. Double speak is not what you say it is. In the Orwellian idea, doublespeak is to redefine a term and then to, essentially, affirm the redefinition.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

You assume Scripture does not affirm the "theory," but you haven't proven it. You think you have, but you haven't. Double speak is not what you say it is. In the Orwellian idea, doublespeak is to redefine a term and then to, essentially, affirm the redefinition.

The Archangel

I know 1984 verry well. Doublespeak is saying one thing to mean another.

Proving the Theory is your job - You hold it, not me. My proof is simply it's absence from Scripture.

Get with the game, bro.

 

[The Archangel]

I know 1984 verry well. Doublespeak is saying one thing to mean another.

Apparently, you don't know it as well as you think you might.

My proof is simply it's absence from Scripture.

Fallacy: Begging the Question

Get with the game, bro.

This. Is. No. Game.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Apparently, you don't know it as well as you think you might.



Fallacy: Begging the Question



This. Is. No. Game.

The Archangel

Funny. You present a theory and ask me to prove that Theory wrong. When I say it is wrong because it is not in Scripture you believe that is begging the question. Brings to mind the term "lost in the sauce".

My proof your theory is not biblical is the fact it is not in the Bible.

 

[The Archangel]

Funny. You present a theory and ask me to prove that Theory wrong. When I say it is wrong because it is not in Scripture you believe that is begging the question.

I've never asked you to prove penal substitution (as we define it). You've just always assumed that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from scripture, which it is not. What you have not proven and the question you are begging is your assertion that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from scripture.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

I've never asked you to prove penal substitution (as we define it). You've just always assumed that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from scripture, which it is not. What you have not proven and the question you are begging is your assertion that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from scripture.

The Archangel

Before we began (you and I) it had already been established that the Theory of Penal Substitution held that God punished Jesus in our place for our sins (God poured his wrath upon Christ and punished Him with the punishment we were due).

Insofar as biblical penal substitution, we all believe that. It's the philosophy of the Theory which separates us.

 

[The Archangel]

Before we began (you and I) it had already been established that the Theory of Penal Substitution held that God punished Jesus in our place for our sins (God poured his wrath upon Christ and punished Him with the punishment we were due).

Insofar as biblical penal substitution, we all believe that. It's the philosophy of the Theory which separates us.

Which has nothing to do with your unproven assumption that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from Scripture. To call our view a philosophy is to further beg the same question you’ve been begging all along.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk