Necessarily Implied Doctrine vs True Church Doctrine

[Martin Marprelate]

If you do not believe that Scripture states that the Father, Son, and Spirit is God and that God is One then perhaps you need to pick up your Bible and read.


It does not matter if one believes that this is called the “Trinity”. What matters is that the doctrine is expressly stated in Scripture.

Once again, you cannot find me a text that states expressly that Father, Son and Spirit is God (unless you accept 1 John 5:7). But nevertheless, we all believe it because the doctrine is necessarily contained in Scripture.
If you do not believe that God was punishing our sins in the Lord Jesus then perhaps you need to pick up your Bible and read.
It does not matter if one believes that this is called 'Penal Substitution.' What matters is that the doctrine is necessarily contained in Scripture.
But in fact your definitions are wrong. God was not punishing the Lord Jesus for our sins, He was punishing our sins in Jesus; He was the 'sin-bearer.' There is an important difference, and I have pointed it out to you many times before.

'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself inn the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind' (Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach).

 

[Reformed]

God was not punishing the Lord Jesus for our sins, He was punishing our sins in Jesus; He was the 'sin-bearer.' There is an important difference, and I have pointed it out to you many times before.

This is an important distinction. The Lord Jesus Christ suffered the punishment for our sins. He did not face the wrath of the Father as a transgressor. In fact, no atonement could be achieved if He was a transgressor.

 

[JonC]

Once again, you cannot find me a text that states expressly that Father, Son and Spirit is God (unless you accept 1 John 5:7). But nevertheless, we all believe it because the doctrine is necessarily contained in Scripture.
If you do not believe that God was punishing our sins in the Lord Jesus then perhaps you need to pick up your Bible and read.
It does not matter if one believes that this is called 'Penal Substitution.' What matters is that the doctrine is necessarily contained in Scripture.
But in fact your definitions are wrong. God was not punishing the Lord Jesus for our sins, He was punishing our sins in Jesus; He was the 'sin-bearer.' There is an important difference, and I have pointed it out to you many times before.

'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself inn the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind' (Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach).

Are you talking about finding passages stating the Father, Son, and Spirit are God and God is One IN ONE PLACE in Scripture? If so, then you have severely mussed the point. If you are denying Scripture as a whole states the Father, Son, and Spirit are God and God is One then I question your literacy.

I never asked that Scripture state in one place the doctrines we hold. When I gave you my view of the Atonement I referenced both OT and NT passages. Out doctrines are derived systematically. I trust you understand the difference between "Systematic Theology" and "Biblical Theology".

I was asking for a place where one basic element of Penal Substitution Theory was stated...notvtge entire theory. Just that one element upon which the Theory held together.

That is why you have been engaging a straw man (unless, of course, you are denying a passage exists stating each elrment of the doctrine of the Trinity....but again, this would reflect on your readong and not the biblical text itself).

 

[JonC]

This is an important distinction. The Lord Jesus Christ suffered the punishment for our sins. He did not face the wrath of the Father as a transgressor. In fact, no atonement could be achieved if He was a transgressor.

I agree. When I held the Theory this was an important point I drove home. Christ bore our sins. Christ was not literally made to be sin but our sins were laid on Him. (I borrowed from Luther and explained this as a great exchange).

That said, even this explanation is problematic. To view God as punishing our sins in Christ or laid on Christ is not logical because "sins" cannot be punished. Ultimately the "problem" some have will bleed through as the distinction is one without a difference (those who would argue that God would have been unjust to punish Christ on that ground normally agree the sins were ours).

The better explanation is that this is God taking our sins upon Himself (rather than viewing it as God punishing our sins laid on Christ). That is to say that God took the punishment we deserved, the consequences of our sins, in the person of Christ (emphasize Jesus is God).

While I disagree with the Theory now, I believe any disagreement needs to be on honest ground. Too often in these types of discussions people engage dishonestly (creating strawman arguments). There is no benefit in that type of argument.

My disagreement with the Theory is an honest one. And it is one that cannot be settled with Scripture because the part I reject is not in Scripture. The difference is in reasoning and interpretation.

That has been my point on the BB with this topic. I do not want people to abandon their understanding but I do believe it is important to understand that Systematic Theology involves Biblical Theology and human reasoning. Often times what separates Christians in terms of doctrine is how they reason out Scripture....i.e., what we bring to the game.

That is the case here. We all have presuppositions. I should be able to explain mine and others should explain theirs. This is "iron sharpening iron". Accusing others of ignoring Scripture is not. In fact accusing others of ignoring Scripture is usually dishonest ad hominem.

Scripture is not the difference. Scripture is objective. Our understanding and readoning is never completely objective (no matter how hard we try).

 

[JonC]

So, death is not a penalty demanded by God's Law? So "shedding blood" of those who shed blood is ("thou shalt not commit murder") not a penalty for that sin? If death is simply part of being flesh rather than a PENALTY for sin, then on what basis did Israel administer death as a penalty for violating many of God's laws? Indeed, the sacrificial system prevented the death of Israelites when they sinned against God.

The truth is that death is God's penalty for violating His law and is not just part of being made flesh because sin entered the world by sin and is the "condemnation" for violating God's law.

Yes, it is. But this is part of our disagreement. You choose to interpret Scripture by spiritualizing it, which may be correct, but I don't. This shows an important difference in how we are viewing things (and perhaps can show you how I affirm the passages you provided and why I chose to ignore the post). I view the Law as purposed as a witness to the redemption to come by showing us our sin (not as showing us righteousness....even the righteousness of Christ). Hence the consequences of sin is death. Is this a penalty? It is as a transgressor of the Law. But even before the Law, between Adam and Moses, men died because men sin. Christ came as adam (lower case) to be the Last Adam and deliver mankind from the bondage of sin and death. All men are delivered from this bondage in the context that all will be raised - some to life and some to the "second death".

 

[Aaron]

In theological discussions (recently with a discussion of Penal Substitution Theory) a term often crops up. This term is “necessarily implied”.

The problem with the term is that it bridges the gap between two opposing methods of viewing Scripture by bring both exegesis and eisegesis together as an acceptable mode of “interpretation”. Quite simply, if it is not actually in the text of Scripture one can say it is “necessarily implied” as a way of masking the eisegesis, or the foreign element being brought into the text.

Anything can be said to be “necessarily implied” if it is expected to be believed but in fact foreign to the biblical text itself. Infant baptism is “necessarily implied”. The sinlessness of Mary is “necessarily implied”. Peter as the first Church Bishop is “necessarily implied”. The primacy of Rome is “necessarily implied”. And Penal Substitution Theory is “necessarily implied”.

In our previous discussion this is where @The Biblicist departs from the doctrine of the “true church”. Christian doctrine has historically and at its core rested upon what is written rather than what is implied. Interpretations may vary, and this was an issue of discussion and debate (e.g., the Jerusalem counsel Luke mentions in the book of Acts).

But the idea of “necessarily implied” is just a mask to retain philosophical or religious traditions, often flavors of Roman Catholicism, within one’s doctrine without admitting to the average church member that the doctrine they are being fed is not actually written in the text of Scripture.

We have to start being mindful of what is actually written in Scripture. We have to abandon these false ideas of the church - that it rests upon “Church dogma” and what is “implied” in Scripture rather than what is written and written again.

At this time we have entire denominations resting not only their soteriological views but their understanding of the gospel itself on what they see “necessarily implied” in Scripture rather than what is actually stated.

Throughout history there has always been a “true church” in the sense of those who hold a correct understanding of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I would encourage those here to consider how much has been built on the Reformed view of Penal Substitution Theory rather than on Scripture itself. How much of your doctrine is “necessarily implied” and how much is actually stated in Scripture?

The Resurrection is necessarily implied in the account of the burning bush, and Christ held the Sadducees accountable to know it from that narrative.

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. Mark 12:26-27.​

 

[JonC]

The Resurrection is necessarily implied in the account of the burning bush, and Christ held the Sadducees accountable to know it from that narrative.

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. Mark 12:26-27.​

And in Genesis 3.

But the doctrine of the Resurrection is stated in Scripture. That is an important difference.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, it is.

What is? Are you saying death is a penalty under law? How can that be IF death is merely part of being flesh as we are going to die anyway whether we are without sin (Christ) or with sins????
THIS IS THE THIRD LINE, BUT DON'T STOP HERE - READ THE ENTIRE POST.

But this is part of our disagreement. You choose to interpret Scripture by spiritualizing it, which may be correct, but I don't.

What have I spiritualized? I have not spiritualized "death"! Paul and Ezekiel and other Biblical writers speak and view "death" as a "condemnation" a penalty for violating God's Law:

Ezek. 18:21 ¶ But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

You say death is not a penalty for violating the law of God, you say death is not a penalty for sin but death is simply part of being made flesh. Ephesians 2:1 and Revelation 20:15 demonstrate that "death" is more comprehensive than mere physical death and is inseparable from sin or violation of God's law and is a penalty/condemnation. This is not spiritualization but it is obvious that the ephesians had not physically died and yet they were "dead in tresspasses and sins" and that type of death is not cessation but is immediately characterized as their spiritual condition (Eph. 2:2-3; 4:18-19) which is actively manifest in their rebellion against God. Revelation 20 demonstrates another aspect of "death" which is yet future that describes condemnation in a place with regard to their whole person but it is not physical death. Yet both are penal consequences for violating God's Law and are judgements against sin.

However, your view necessarily denies that atonement for sinners requires physical death of Christ because you deny that death is the condemnation/penalty for violating God's law and thus is not the penalty of sin but merely part of becoming flesh. Hence, your view denies death as necessary in the atonement in the Levitical law as well as in its antitype the very person of Christ.

This shows an important difference in how we are viewing things (and perhaps can show you how I affirm the passages you provided and why I chose to ignore the post). I view the Law as purposed as a witness to the redemption to come by showing us our sin (not as showing us righteousness....even the righteousness of Christ).

Why then is regeneration described as the Law of God being written upon our hearts and that is described as "true holiness and righteousnesss"???? (Ezek. 36:26; Jer. 31:33 quoted as the "new" covenant in Hebrews 8:10-13)?????

Paul repudiates your "view" that the Law does not show us "righteousness....even the righteousness of Christ" as Paul explicitly says that it reveals BOTH - the knowledge of sin and the knowledge of God's righteousness:

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom. 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Did not Christ summarize the whole law by the TWO Great Commandments? Did not Paul summarize the law by one word "love" the Lord thy God? Nobody is saying the law can convey tht righteousness to anyone but as David said, it is a "light" unto his path and as Paul says that his inward man "delights in the law of God". Why? Because it reveals the righteousness of God as well as the knowledge of sin and so it is described in the negative "thou shalt NOT" as well as in the positive "love."

Hence the consequences of sin is death. Is this a penalty? It is as a transgressor of the Law.

Did Adam transgress God's law in Genesis 2:17 and therefore death was the penalty for that transgression?

You cannot have it both ways jon! Either it is merely the cause of being in the flesh or it is the penalty for sin? The former is repudiated by Moses (Gen. 2:17) and by Paul (Rom. 5:12) as death is not associated with merely being made flesh but has its entrance into this world with the entrance of sin. So, that demands it is the PENALTY of sin or the "condemnation" for sin as Paul describes it in Rom. 5:15-19.

But even before the Law, between Adam and Moses, men died because men sin.

Don't restrict God's law to Mosaic Law as though God's Law was confined to Moses. God's law existed before Moses. God told Noah that if any man shed another man's blood then his blood would be shed - that is the Law of God. Prior to Mount Sinai God chastened Israel for violating his laws especial His sabbath (Gen.18) BEFORE he gave the ten commandments.

You are quoting from Romans 5:13-14 and Paul is arguing that UNIVERSAL death was in the world prior to the Mosaic law and therefore UNIVERSAL death cannot be attributed to violating Jewish law. Infants die in the womb and so UNIVERSAL death cannot be attributed to violation of the law of conscience. The only law prior to Moses that can account for UNIVERSAL death is the violation of God's Law in Genesis 2:17. He is arguing that all man "have sinned" in Adam, and that is why by "one man's disobedience many....be dead...condemned....made sinners" because all mankind existed as one undivided human nature acting together as one man. That is why it is just for infants to die in the womb because they sinned in Adam as one undivided human nature as one person.

Christ came as adam (lower case) to be the Last Adam and deliver mankind from the bondage of sin and death. All men are delivered from this bondage in the context that all will be raised - some to life and some to the "second death".

Why did Christ, who is sinless, have to die? Why did he "die for our sins" if death is merely part of being flesh and death is NOT a penal condemnation for sin? If it is not a penal condemnation for sin then why must animals die to secure atonement under Levitial law? Why would Christ offer his life it is unncessary to obtain atonement for sin? If death is not a penal condemnation for sin, but Christ is simply delivering us from what the flesh "yeilds" due to its temporal nature then why should he die at all since He is God who could raise the others from death previous to the cross. Why the cross, if death is not a penal condemnation of sin, why not do a Elijah and just be taken up to heaven and then exercise resurrection power when he comes from heaven without the cross?

You can't have it both ways! Either death is the natural "yeild" of being in the flesh or it is the penalty for sin. If you claim the former than the cross is unnecessary and divine power is sufficient to conquer his death for himself and for others. If it is the penalty of sin then the atonement demands the cross because the atonement is Penal in nature as the legal satisfaction for violating God's law.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, it is.... Hence the consequences of sin is death. Is this a penalty? It is as a transgressor of the Law.

Did Adam transgress God's Law in Genesis 2:17??? ANSWER: Yes! Was that sin which entered this world the PENAL consequence/condemnation for sin? ANSWER: Yes! Paul says that Adam's disobedience yeilded "condemnation" and that "condemnation" is defined in verse 17 as "death" and that is why we come into this world "condemned already" and the evidence is infants suffer death in the womb without individually violating any laws of conscience or Jewish law.

Does the Levitical law for atonement demand death of the animal or is there remission of sins without the shedding of blood?? ANSWER: Yes! Where there is no death there is no atonement for sins. Hence, the atonement is PENAL satisfaction toward sin.

Is this "shedding of blood" in the Levitical sacrifice due to the sins of the people - "for the people" "because of their transgressions "(Lev. 16)? ANSWER: Yes, and therefore the atonement is PENAL satisfaction in nature as it REQUIRES DEATH BECAUSE OF SINS WITHOUT WHICH THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS.

Hence, the cross was NECESSARY for the remission of our sins as death is the penal consequence of sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

I view the Law as purposed as a witness to the redemption to come by showing us our sin (not as showing us righteousness....even the righteousness of Christ).

Why then is regeneration metaphorically described as "THE LAW" being written upon our hearts and asserts it is the knowledge of God's "true holiness and righteousness"???

Jer. 31: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Paul says that Jeremiah is speaking of the "new" covenant

Heb. 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

2 Cor. 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.....Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Rom. 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good....22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

If the law of God does not reveal the true righteousness and holiness of God, thus revealing the knowledge of God, then why does the Bible metaphorically describe the new birth, the inward new man in terms of God's Law?????

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you talking about finding passages stating the Father, Son, and Spirit are God and God is One IN ONE PLACE in Scripture? If so, then you have severely mussed the point. If you are denying Scripture as a whole states the Father, Son, and Spirit are God and God is One then I question your literacy.

I never asked that Scripture state in one place the doctrines we hold. When I gave you my view of the Atonement I referenced both OT and NT passages. Out doctrines are derived systematically. I trust you understand the difference between "Systematic Theology" and "Biblical Theology".

I was asking for a place where one basic element of Penal Substitution Theory was stated...notvtge entire theory. Just that one element upon which the Theory held together.

That is why you have been engaging a straw man (unless, of course, you are denying a passage exists stating each elrment of the doctrine of the Trinity....but again, this would reflect on your readong and not the biblical text itself).

I assume that you were brought up with the doctrine of the Trinity; that it is part of your 'tradition.' If not, I don't think you would speak so lightly of the truth of that doctrine. It is by no means as simple as you make it out to be, or the IWs would be out of business.
Until the age of 38, I knew nothing of the Trinity other than the name. I had heard Father, Son and Spirit called 'The Holy Trinity, but I had no idea what that meant. The first step on the road to my salvation was, paradoxically, the Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door. I was out at work; Mrs Marprelate would take the literature in order to get rid of them. I would read the stuff when I got home. As I recall it, 30 years later, what that literature said was strangely similar to what we're being told on this board.

The JWs assured me, wrongly, that the Trinity had no basis in Scripture. We are being told, wrongly, that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution has no basis in Scripture.

The JWs told me, wrongly, that the ECFs did not hold to the Trinity. We are being told, in the face of multiple evidence to the contrary, that the ECFs did not hold to P.S.

The JWs told me, wrongly, that Constantine was responsible for the Doctrine of the Trinity. We are being told, wrongly, that Calvin was the instigator of P.S.

The JWs constantly demanded a text that stated the Doctrine of the Trinity. In the same way, we are being asked for a single Bible text to prove P.S. It is the wrong way to establish doctrine. The devil can find Bible texts.

The JWs explained away, 'I and the Father are One,' and concentrated on 'The Father is greater than I.' They had their own specious interpretations to explain away John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6 and other Trinitarian proof texts. In the same way, obvious proof texts for P.S. like Isaiah 53:6 and 1 Peter 2:24 are being glossed over, and, frankly, not much being put in its place.

The JWs told me, wrongly, that since God cannot be tempted (James 1:13) and the Lord Jesus was tempted, Jesus cannot be God. I was also told that it was unthinkable for the one true God to be carried about by Satan and set down on the pinnacle of the Temple and on a high place (Matthew 4:5, 8; Moslems also use this argument). Here we are being told, in bald defiance of the clearest possible text, that it is impossible for Christ to be forsaken by the Father.

To sum up: the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the 'slam-dunk' you make it out to be. If it were, the Arian heresy and the growth of Unitarianism in the 18th Century would never have happened. It is established by careful Biblical study and exegesis (2 Timothy 2:15). Exactly the same is true of the precious Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

I assume that you were brought up with the doctrine of the Trinity; that it is part of your 'tradition.'

Kind of. We were taught that God is One, and that the Father and Son are both God. I am not sure if we were actually taught that God's Spirit was also divine or if we simply took it as self evident.

But we were not taught really taught what would pass as a more formal doctrine (e.g., same nature, different persons, etc.). Having attended a Christian university and then seminary, I can't tell you when a more "proper" definition came into my mind as it kind of blends together. But I suspect prior to college as I studied theology back then.

That said, I think we can agree Scripture states that the Spirit is God (at least in the creation account). I think that we can agree that Scripture states that the Father is God (Jesus prayed to our Father in heaven). And I think we can agree that Scripture states that God is One.

Are you saying that the Bible does not state that Jesus is God?

THAT SAID: If you are unable to find that Jesus is God in the Bible I hope you still believe it as you think it is "implied'. But at the same time you would be foolish (and unbiblical) to build upon it as a foundation to other doctrines. My recommendation would be that you study a little more (it is actually written in the Bible itself).

This is the difference between stayed and possibly implied. I can provide verses not only hinting at but stating each element of my doctrine of the Trinity. You cannot provide even one verse stating one of the few criteria presuppositions at the foundation of your theory. I suspect this is why you are leaning so hard on what could be implied.

 

[JonC]

Why then is regeneration metaphorically described as "THE LAW" being written upon our hearts and asserts it is the knowledge of God's "true holiness and righteousness"???

Jer. 31: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Paul says that Jeremiah is speaking of the "new" covenant

Heb. 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

2 Cor. 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.....Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Rom. 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good....22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

If the law of God does not reveal the true righteousness and holiness of God, thus revealing the knowledge of God, then why does the Bible metaphorically describe the new birth, the inward new man in terms of God's Law?????

Because it is written to a people under the Law who are, it will turn out, unable to keep it.

This is called "regeneration", "recreation", "being made new", "being made a new creation".

Jesus was not justified through the Law. The Law was fulfilled in Him. These are VERY different things. Likewise, those who are in Christ are not justified by the law but the law becomes a testimony of who we are.

Have you ever considered that, just perhaps, the purpose of God's moral law was to bear testimony of God's righteousness rather than become its source?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Kind of. We were taught that God is One, and that the Father and Son are both God. I am not sure if we were actually taught that God's Spirit was also divine or if we simply took it as self evident.

But we were not taught really taught what would pass as a more formal doctrine (e.g., same nature, different persons, etc.). Having attended a Christian university and then seminary, I can't tell you when a more "proper" definition came into my mind as it kind of blends together. But I suspect prior to college as I studied theology back then.

That said, I think we can agree Scripture states that the Spirit is God (at least in the creation account). I think that we can agree that Scripture states that the Father is God (Jesus prayed to our Father in heaven). And I think we can agree that Scripture states that God is One.

Are you saying that the Bible does not state that Jesus is God?

THAT SAID: If you are unable to find that Jesus is God in the Bible I hope you still believe it as you think it is "implied'. But at the same time you would be foolish (and unbiblical) to build upon it as a foundation to other doctrines. My recommendation would be that you study a little more (it is actually written in the Bible itself).

This is the difference between stayed and possibly implied. I can provide verses not only hinting at but stating each element of my doctrine of the Trinity. You cannot provide even one verse stating one of the few criteria presuppositions at the foundation of your theory. I suspect this is why you are leaning so hard on what could be implied.

The word 'implied' is your word which you have foisted onto me, though I have not used it. This is, of course, your customary practice. . I follow the 1689 Confession in believing that the doctrine of the Trinity, like that of Penal Substitution is 'Necessarily Contained.' I pointed this out in my post #29.
But the Trinity is not expressly stated in Scripture. As I said, if it were, the JWs would be out of business. Simply to quote Philippians 2:6 and think 'job done' is useless. Any Unitarian or JW has his answer pat for why that verse does not mean what we believe it does. It is necessary to delve much deeper. That is why there are lengthy books on the subject.

Now you asked for Biblical evidence for P.S. I wrote an extended treatment of this a year or more ago at your request. Here it is again. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution It is by no means exhaustive; I did not cover the O.T. sacrifices which @The Biblicist has rightly mentioned. But the texts are there. They have to be studied with an open mind and understood.

All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on the Christ. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc.) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21; Romans 3:31). Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).

Now in your post #44, you wrote:

To view God as punishing our sins in Christ or laid on Christ is not logical because "sins" cannot be punished.

This is fallacious reasoning. Sins are always committed by someone; they do not exist in a vacuum. God, the righteous Judge, will always punish sin by punishing those who commit them. 'I will not justify the wicked' (Exodus 23:7). Our sins were laid upon Christ and He has paid the penalty for them in full (Isaiah 53:5), satisfying the outraged justice of God (1 John 2:2). More than that, when Christ died on the cross, believers were crucified with Him through their union with Him (Romans 6:8 etc; Galatians 2:20; Colossians 2:20; 3:3).

 

[JonC]

The word 'implied' is your word which you have foisted onto me, though I have not used it. This is, of course, your customary practice. . I follow the 1689 Confession in believing that the doctrine of the Trinity, like that of Penal Substitution is 'Necessarily Contained.' I pointed this out in my post #29.
But the Trinity is not expressly stated in Scripture. As I said, if it were, the JWs would be out of business. Simply to quote Philippians 2:6 and think 'job done' is useless. Any Unitarian or JW has his answer pat for why that verse does not mean what we believe it does. It is necessary to delve much deeper. That is why there are lengthy books on the subject.

Now you asked for Biblical evidence for P.S. I wrote an extended treatment of this a year or more ago at your request. Here it is again. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution It is by no means exhaustive; I did not cover the O.T. sacrifices which @The Biblicist has rightly mentioned. But the texts are there. They have to be studied with an open mind and understood.

All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on the Christ. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc.) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21; Romans 3:31). Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).

Now in your post #44, you wrote:

This is fallacious reasoning. Sins are always committed by someone; they do not exist in a vacuum. God, the righteous Judge, will always punish sin by punishing those who commit them. 'I will not justify the wicked' (Exodus 23:7). Our sins were laid upon Christ and He has paid the penalty for them in full (Isaiah 53:5), satisfying the outraged justice of God (1 John 2:2). More than that, when Christ died on the cross, believers were crucified with Him through their union with Him (Romans 6:8 etc; Galatians 2:20; Colossians 2:20; 3:3).

The reason is your theory is not "necessarily contained". That is my point. It is not contained in the text of Scripture at all. You believe it necessarily implied because otherwise your theory falls apart.

No verse states, implies, or necessarily contains that God punished sin apart from punishing the persons who sinned. It simply is not there.

This does not make your theory wrong, but it does mean you should be capable of defending the presuppositions at the foundation of the theory. Many who hold the Theory have - so it is not an impossibility. My point is that you can't. You just jump from "plainly stated" to "necessarily contained" to try and hide the fact that you can not pinpoint where the biblical text ends and the reasoning begins.

This is why I was drawn to seminary to begin with - too many people hold views they can only defend within an "echo chamber". I am not trying to get you to change your view. I am trying to get you to wake up and defend it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Because it is written to a people under the Law who are, it will turn out, unable to keep it.

Paul identifies this as the "new" covenant and he is writing to the Romans and the Corinthians which are Gentiles. Look at the texts I gave you! The law of God that was written on "tables of stone" is what is written on the heart in regeneration under the NEW covenant. The "inward man" delights in the "law of God." My point is that the law of God does indeed reveal the righteousness of God!

Jesus was not justified through the Law. The Law was fulfilled in Him. These are VERY different things. Likewise, those who are in Christ are not justified by the law but the law becomes a testimony of who we are.

What are you talking about? Nobody is arguing for this!

Have you ever considered that, just perhaps, the purpose of God's moral law was to bear testimony of God's righteousness rather than become its source?

What are you talking about? Nobody is arguing for this! Nobody has argued that the Law of God is the "source" of God's righteousness!!!! That would be absurd! However the law of God has its source in the "righteousness of God" and it reveals that righteousness as proven by the new birth metaphorically described as God writing his law upon the heart. If the Law of God did not reveal his own righteousness it would not be written on the heart in regenerartion because what is written upon the heart in regeneration is "true holiness and righteousness."

Jon, your theory has been thoroughly and completely repudiated.

 

[JonC]

Jon, your theory has been thoroughly and completely repudiated.

You do not even know what I believe (you've never bothered to find out) except that I disagree with you.

Every time we start a discussion about what I believe you (and @Martin Marprelate ) shut any discussion down by posting Scripture and your opinions of what you think it implies.

 

[The Biblicist]

You do not even know what I believe (you've never bothered to find out) except that I disagree with you.

Every time we start a discussion about what I believe you (and @Martin Marprelate ) shut any discussion down by posting Scripture and your opinions of what you think it implies.

Yeah, right! We don't know what you believe????? I hear your pain, we just should not use scripture and give our interpretations! We should just let you philosophize and decide who is right and wrong! Shame on us!

 

[JonC]

Yeah, right! We don't know what you believe????? I hear your pain, we just should not use scripture and give our interpretations! We should just let you philosophize and decide who is right and wrong! Shame on us!

No. Use Scripture but leave off the philosophical opinions.

I will decide who is right and who is wrong (as will you).

My point is you have to use the Bible (the biblical text) as your criteria when you step outside that echo chamber. No one who holds a different view finds your opinions persuasive. You have to lean on what is written, not wgat you believe God would hsve written had He had more room on the scroll.

And you don't know what I believe because you don't care (which is fine, but don't pretend otherwise). I know what you believe and I disagree with your interpretation. That is all there is to it.

 

[JonC]

Wow. It only took me 3 years to get tired this line of "dialogue". I'm on a roll...maybe I'll try to get in shape (other than round) next.

My purpose with this topic was never to combat the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (although I do believe it extraordinarily superficial and man centered).

My intent was to see if there was an explanation for the basis presupposed by the Theory (for the assumptions or reasonings implemented) that I had not considered because I once affirmed the Theory as well. I have read several in a few journals defending the Theory but was surprised a group here were unaware that the Theory was even one of several held among Christians today.

Insofar as my view, I believe.....nah, even if you cared I don't think you'd get it. And if you did it'd probably not answer all of your questions (which seems to be the crux of any good theory....to some, anyway).