Calvinism

[CharismaticLady]

By 'people,' you mean yourself, I assume. In your utter determination not to see what is so blatantly there you have decided not to interact with the chain of texts that I've offered which decisively prove the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. There is no more I can do to help you.

Good to see you quoting well-known Biblical scholars. Why don't you try Bertrand Russell next, or Mahatma Gandhi?

Hi Steve,

This "Doctrine of Penal Substitution" sounds denominational. I don't recognize the title, but do recognize that Jesus died to take away the sins of the world. Can you explain what that title means, and what your denomination is?

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Steve,

This "Doctrine of Penal Substitution" sounds denominational. I don't recognize the title, but do recognize that Jesus died to take away the sins of the world. Can you explain what that title means, and what your denomination is?

My church is non-denominational. It belongs to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches www.fiec.org.uk
Penal Substitution is likewise non-denominational. The definition that I've been using is this: that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

Let's go through Isaiah 53:4ff.
'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.........' Here at once is substitution. He has made our burdens His (Matthew 8:16-17; Revelation 21:4).
'.......Yet we [emphatic pronoun] esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted......' And in this the Bible does not say we were wrong. Where we were wrong is in our understanding of why He was stricken.
'.......But He was wounded for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon Him......' we can stop there, I think. Chastisement is a penalty and He suffered it instead of us. that is penal substitution. But who is responsible for this chastisement?
Two questions:
1. Who transferred our iniquities to Christ? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (v.6).
2. Who punished Him? 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10). It is God the Father who has 'chastised' the Son. To chastise someone is to punish him. And God the Father has punished Christ in the place of us. Penal Substitution.

There's more to it than that; the 'curse' part is found in Galatians 3:13. But that's all I've got time for.

I'm going to be off the board for a week or two, so I'm sorry if I haven't answered all your questions. I an speaking at a mini-conference (sounds grander than it is) on Saturday and preaching on Sunday, so I need to prepare. One of the talks is on Penal Substitution. I'll post a link.

 

[CharismaticLady]

My church is non-denominational. It belongs to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches www.fiec.org.uk
Penal Substitution is likewise non-denominational. The definition that I've been using is this: that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

Let's go through Isaiah 53:4ff.
'Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.........' Here at once is substitution. He has made our burdens His (Matthew 8:16-17; Revelation 21:4).
'.......Yet we [emphatic pronoun] esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted......' And in this the Bible does not say we were wrong. Where we were wrong is in our understanding of why He was stricken.
'.......But He was wounded for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon Him......' we can stop there, I think. Chastisement is a penalty and He suffered it instead of us. that is penal substitution. But who is responsible for this chastisement?
Two questions:
1. Who transferred our iniquities to Christ? 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (v.6).
2. Who punished Him? 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief' (v.10). It is God the Father who has 'chastised' the Son. To chastise someone is to punish him. And God the Father has punished Christ in the place of us. Penal Substitution.

There's more to it than that; the 'curse' part is found in Galatians 3:13. But that's all I've got time for.

I'm going to be off the board for a week or two, so I'm sorry if I haven't answered all your questions. I an speaking at a mini-conference (sounds grander than it is) on Saturday and preaching on Sunday, so I need to prepare. One of the talks is on Penal Substitution. I'll post a link.

Yes, I believe that too, but of course you believe Jesus did more than that for us, don't you? How does that affect us today. I'll wait for your answer. Have fun!

 

[John Caldwell]

'.....Yet we [emphatic pronoun] esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted......' And in this the Bible does not say we were wrong

Scripture does not say the "we" (the "wicked men" who crucified Christ) were not right. In fact, the language suggests otherwise ("but He was wounded for our transgressions").

'.......But He was wounded for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon Him......'

That is Scripture.

Chastisement is a penalty and He suffered it instead of us. that is penal substitution.

BUT that is Steve's idea. Scripture speaks of God chastisement as a discipline (not a punishment) whereby God accomplishes His purposes in the lives of a believer. NEVER is this wrath (at least in the Bible). Stephen was stoned to death. This served God's purposes. But God was not punishing Stephen.

God was not pouring out His wrath on Peter when he "drank of the cup" by sharing the "cup" Christ took on the Cross.

Paul was not being punished with that thorn in the flesh.

The issue is not Scripture but what you add, Steve. That is where I disagree - not Scripture but the presuppositions that make your doctrine a theory.

NOTE: I am not saying this to argue with Steve. He sees what he sees.

I am saying this so that others who pass by may pay very close to what Scripture states and the assumption that takes Steve (and others) to a conclusion.

 

[Steve Owen]

Scripture does not say the "we" (the "wicked men" who crucified Christ) were not right. In fact, the language suggests otherwise ("but He was wounded for our transgressions").

Your presupposition that "we" is those who crucified Christ is without evidence.

BUT that is Steve's idea. Scripture speaks of God chastisement as a discipline (not a punishment) whereby God accomplishes His purposes in the lives of a believer. NEVER is this wrath (at least in the Bible). Stephen was stoned to death. This served God's purposes. But God was not punishing Stephen.

This is simply wrong as I have pointed out to you before. The word translated 'chastisement' in Isaiah 53:5 is musar. It is also found in Deuteronomy 11:2-4 and Jeremiah 30:14. The first refers to the destruction of Pharaoh's army at the Red Sea, and the second one reads, '.....For I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy. With the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of your iniquities.' That certainly looks like wrath to me! The issue is not Scripture, but what you subtract, John.

And your red herring of Stephen, Peter and Paul is not relevant. Nowhere are they described as having been 'pierced for our iniquities' or that by their wounds we are healed.

 

[John Caldwell]

Your presupposition that "we" is those who crucified Christ is without evidence.

This is simply wrong as I have pointed out to you before. The word translated 'chastisement' in Isaiah 53:5 is musar. It is also found in Deuteronomy 11:2-4 and Jeremiah 30:14. The first refers to the destruction of Pharaoh's army at the Red Sea, and the second one reads, '.....For I have wounded you with the wound of an enemy. With the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of your iniquities.' That certainly looks like wrath to me! The issue is not Scripture, but what you subtract, John.

And your red herring of Stephen, Peter and Paul is not relevant. Nowhere are they described as having been 'pierced for our iniquities' or that by their wounds we are healed.

I know it looks like wrath to you - that's my point.

musar means instruction 20 times, discipline 18 times, and punishment twice.

Why do you believe it means "punishment" in this case?

Why would God commit what Scripture states is an abomination by punishing Christ?

While you are at it, why do you believe Jesus told the disciples they'd share His "cup" if this "cup" is God's punishment?

Do you even believe that both acquitting the guilty and convicting the righteous are abominations to God?

You are not defending how you connect the dots. I think you just want us to overlook your assumptions (or you are blind to them). It is not wrong to assume things, Steve. You just need to provide the reason you make the leap from what is stated to your conclusion.

This is why, BTW, the doctrine of Penal Substitution has been one of the Theories of Atonement since it was articulated.

 

[John Caldwell]

I am not going to discuss this with @Steve Owen as I believe it fruitless.

The word translated "chastisement" is used 50 times. Most of the time it refers to discipline and instruction. 2 times it means punishment (not here).

The only reason Steve interprets it as "punishment" here is his theology demands it.

This is called eisegesis. And it is a good example of the error.

The sad part is not that people doing this come up with unbiblical theories but that they miss out on what Scripture is actually stating (they reject what is written in favor of what they see it implies).

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. Thomas Hardy

 

[Enoch111]

musar means instruction 20 times, discipline 18 times, and punishment twice. Why do you believe it means "punishment" in this case? Why would God commit what Scripture states is an abomination by punishing Christ?

John,
You are not opposing Steve Owen in this matter, while wrongly accusing him of eisegesis. You have gone from opposing Calvinism to opposing Gospel truth.

In Isaiah 53:5 musar does indeed mean punishment, and in the context of the rest of that chapter and the rest of Gospel truth, it means that God poured out His wrath against sin upon Christ, when He was made *SIN* for us.

Both Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs show that the word *chastisement* used in Isaiah 53:5 means punishment (regardless of what it can mean in other contexts).

Strong's Concordance
musar: discipline, chastening, correction
Original Word: מוּסָר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: musar
Phonetic Spelling: (moo-sawr')
Definition: discipline, chastening, correction

Brown-Driver-Briggs
2 more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God, יהוה ׳מ Proverbs 3:11 chastening of Yahweh; שׁדַּי׳מ Job 5:17; מוּסָֽרְךָ Isaiah 26:16; שְׁלוֺמֵנוּ עָלָיו ׳מ Isaiah 53:5 chastisement of (i.e. leading to) our peace was upon him; ׳לקח מ Jeremiah 2:30; Jeremiah 5:3;Jeremiah 7:28; אַכְזָרִי ׳מ Jeremiah 30:14 chastisement of a cruel one, ᵑ0, but read ׳מוּסָר א cruel chastisement, Gf and especially Gie; לְכֻלָּם ׳אני מ Hosea 5:2 I am a chastisement for them all.

So in your zeal to reject Penal Substitution you are now opposing the truth. Which means that you will go down the slippery slope of false doctrines. Unless you repent and acknowledge that Steve is correct in his understanding, when he said :That certainly looks like wrath to me! The issue is not Scripture, but what you subtract, John.

As to this question:Why would God commit what Scripture states is an abomination by punishing Christ? The answer is found in Scripture. When Christ was nailed to that cross He was made a curse for us: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13)

Christians need to be willing to back off when they are going off the rails.

 

[Enoch111]

This "Doctrine of Penal Substitution" sounds denominational.

It is not denominational, but those are simply theological terms for Bible truth.

*Penal* refers to penalty, and Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole world when He was crucified, suffered, bled, and died. The wages of sin is death, and Christ experienced the full brunt of God's wrath against sin, and even experienced the agonies of the second death.

*Substitution* means that Christ did not die for Himself, but became the sole Substitute for all of mankind. That is because He is both God and Man, and could therefore become the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

Now the Calvinists will claim that Christ died only for the *elect* but that is totally false. Just as Adam brought sin and death on the whole human race, Christ brought deliverance from sin and death to the whole human race. But in order for His sacrifice to be efficacious for us, we must obey the Gospel.

 

[CharismaticLady]

It is not denominational, but those are simply theological terms for Bible truth.

*Penal* refers to penalty, and Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole world when He was crucified, suffered, bled, and died. The wages of sin is death, and Christ experienced the full brunt of God's wrath against sin, and even experienced the agonies of the second death.

*Substitution* means that Christ did not die for Himself, but became the sole Substitute for all of mankind. That is because He is both God and Man, and could therefore become the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

Now the Calvinists will claim that Christ died only for the *elect* but that is totally false. Just as Adam brought sin and death on the whole human race, Christ brought deliverance from sin and death to the whole human race. But in order for His sacrifice to be efficacious for us, we must obey the Gospel.

If you are not a Calvinist, as I totally thought you were (sorry), what are you - Lutheran? I'm not totally up on all the OSAS denominations.

 

[John Caldwell]

John,
You are not opposing Steve Owen in this matter, while wrongly accusing him of eisegesis. You have gone from opposing Calvinism to opposing Gospel truth.

In Isaiah 53:5 musar does indeed mean punishment, and in the context of the rest of that chapter and the rest of Gospel truth, it means that God poured out His wrath against sin upon Christ, when He was made *SIN* for us.

Both Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs show that the word *chastisement* used in Isaiah 53:5 means punishment (regardless of what it can mean in other contexts).

Strong's Concordance
musar: discipline, chastening, correction
Original Word: מוּסָר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: musar
Phonetic Spelling: (moo-sawr')
Definition: discipline, chastening, correction

Brown-Driver-Briggs
2 more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God, יהוה ׳מ Proverbs 3:11 chastening of Yahweh; שׁדַּי׳מ Job 5:17; מוּסָֽרְךָ Isaiah 26:16; שְׁלוֺמֵנוּ עָלָיו ׳מ Isaiah 53:5 chastisement of (i.e. leading to) our peace was upon him; ׳לקח מ Jeremiah 2:30; Jeremiah 5:3;Jeremiah 7:28; אַכְזָרִי ׳מ Jeremiah 30:14 chastisement of a cruel one, ᵑ0, but read ׳מוּסָר א cruel chastisement, Gf and especially Gie; לְכֻלָּם ׳אני מ Hosea 5:2 I am a chastisement for them all.

So in your zeal to reject Penal Substitution you are now opposing the truth. Which means that you will go down the slippery slope of false doctrines. Unless you repent and acknowledge that Steve is correct in his understanding, when he said :That certainly looks like wrath to me! The issue is not Scripture, but what you subtract, John.

As to this question:Why would God commit what Scripture states is an abomination by punishing Christ? The answer is found in Scripture. When Christ was nailed to that cross He was made a curse for us: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13)

Christians need to be willing to back off when they are going off the rails.

Why do you believe the cross was God pouring out His wrath on Christ?

 

[Steve Owen]

This is positively my last post for a while, but I can't let this nonsense pass.

I know it looks like wrath to you - that's my point.

No. Your point is that in spite of all the most obvious evidence you refuse to accept that the Lord Jesus suffered the wrath of God against sin.

musar means instruction 20 times, discipline 18 times, and punishment twice.

Why do you believe it means "punishment" in this case?

Because of Hermeneutics 101 Look at the context, Dumbo! The context is God's punishment of the Lord Jesus for our sins. 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities..........and by His stripes we are healed.' Now are you going to pop into the middle of that, 'The instruction for our peace was upon Him'? In the context it makes no sense! Musar can certainly mean instruction or discipline, but it also means the punishment that comes when instruction is ignored. Read Job 36:10-12; Jeremiah 7:28-29; 32:33 etc. You asked somewhere back along if God's justice is corrective or retributive. The answer of course, both. Corrective judgments which are ignored lead to retributive judgments (eg. Amos 4:6-12). For 38 years I ignored the instruction and discipline of the Lord. If Jesus Christ has not taken upon Himself the punishment and wrath (Psalms 7:11 again!) that was due to me then it awaits me on the Last Day.

Why would God commit what Scripture states is an abomination by punishing Christ?

We need to be careful here; God was punishing sin in Christ. 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us......' 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' All our sins were imputed to Him. He was personally innocent, but legally guilty.

While you are at it, why do you believe Jesus told the disciples they'd share His "cup" if this "cup" is God's punishment?

The Apostles most certainly drank of the cup of Christ's sufferings if Church history is to be believed, but their sufferings were obviously not redemptive. That Christ's sufferings were both redemptive and propitiatory is shown by Mark 10:45 coming almost immediately after the conversation of Mark 10:35-40.

Do you even believe that both acquitting the guilty and convicting the righteous are abominations to God?

Of course I do. The Lord Jesus was not 'convicted' by God. As I wrote above, He was 'made sin' for the purposes of securing redemption for His people, but then vindicated by His resurrection (Romans 1:4). 'By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.'

You are not defending how you connect the dots. I think you just want us to overlook your assumptions (or you are blind to them). It is not wrong to assume things, Steve. You just need to provide the reason you make the leap from what is stated to your conclusion.

All the explanations I have given here (except the bit about musar) I have given you before, if not here, then on another forum. Your problem is that you don't read what I write, or if you do, you immediately forget it.

This is why, BTW, the doctrine of Penal Substitution has been one of the Theories of Atonement since it was articulated.

Penal Substitution is a widely accepted doctrine of the Church. That you don't accept that says more about your stubbornness that it does about P.S.

 

[Giuliano]

Because of Hermeneutics 101 Look at the context, Dumbo! The context is God's punishment of the Lord Jesus for our sins. 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities..........and by His stripes we are healed.'

Leviticus 22:24 Ye shall not offer unto the Lord that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.

 

[John Caldwell]

This is positively my last post for a while, but I can't let this nonsense pass.

No. Your point is that in spite of all the most obvious evidence you refuse to accept that the Lord Jesus suffered the wrath of God against sin.

Because of Hermeneutics 101 Look at the context, Dumbo! The context is God's punishment of the Lord Jesus for our sins. 'But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities..........and by His stripes we are healed.' Now are you going to pop into the middle of that, 'The instruction for our peace was upon Him'? In the context it makes no sense! Musar can certainly mean instruction or discipline, but it also means the punishment that comes when instruction is ignored. Read Job 36:10-12; Jeremiah 7:28-29; 32:33 etc. You asked somewhere back along if God's justice is corrective or retributive. The answer of course, both. Corrective judgments which are ignored lead to retributive judgments (eg. Amos 4:6-12). For 38 years I ignored the instruction and discipline of the Lord. If Jesus Christ has not taken upon Himself the punishment and wrath (Psalms 7:11 again!) that was due to me then it awaits me on the Last Day.

We need to be careful here; God was punishing sin in Christ. 'God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us......' 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' All our sins were imputed to Him. He was personally innocent, but legally guilty.

The Apostles most certainly drank of the cup of Christ's sufferings if Church history is to be believed, but their sufferings were obviously not redemptive. That Christ's sufferings were both redemptive and propitiatory is shown by Mark 10:45 coming almost immediately after the conversation of Mark 10:35-40.

Of course I do. The Lord Jesus was not 'convicted' by God. As I wrote above, He was 'made sin' for the purposes of securing redemption for His people, but then vindicated by His resurrection (Romans 1:4). 'By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.'

All the explanations I have given here (except the bit about musar) I have given you before, if not here, then on another forum. Your problem is that you don't read what I write, or if you do, you immediately forget it.

Penal Substitution is a widely accepted doctrine of the Church. That you don't accept that says more about your stubbornness that it does about P.S.

Why do you believe the Father poured His wrath out on His Son?

You claim it is the context, Steve. And I do not doubt you believe it is the context. But why do you see it this way when Scripture itself does not provide that context?

 

[Enoch111]

If you are not a Calvinist, as I totally thought you were (sorry), what are you - Lutheran? I'm not totally up on all the OSAS denominations.

I am a non-denominational Biblicist. And the eternal security of the believer is a primary Bible doctrine. But it is not a license to sin. Quite the opposite.

 

[Enoch111]

Why do you believe the cross was God pouring out His wrath on Christ?

For the simple reason that either Christ bore the wrath which was due to you, or you will bear that wrath. But there is no escaping the wrath of God against sin.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile... But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 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. (Romans 1:18; 2:8,9; 3:5,6,19,20)

So the whole world is guilty before God, therefore the whole world is subject to God's wrath. That wrath is expressed in the second death and the Lake of Fire. But Christ was made SIN for us so that He would bear that wrath upon His own holy soul, and thereby quench the wrath of God against those who believe on Him. But the ones who do not obey the Gospel remain subject to the wrath of God.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

 

[CharismaticLady]

I am a non-denominational Biblicist. And the eternal security of the believer is a primary Bible doctrine. But it is not a license to sin. Quite the opposite.

So if it isn't a license to sin, then what do you believe happens to a person if they willfully sin and never repents? Are they still saved?

 

[Enoch111]

So if it isn't a license to sin, then what do you believe happens to a person if they willfully sin and never repents? Are they still saved?

You have read about the sin unto death. That applies. But there are also other means that God uses for the chastisement of His children.

But salvation is a GIFT of God's grace (John 11:25,26; Rom 6:23). No one should doubt that.

 

[John Caldwell]

For the simple reason that either Christ bore the wrath which was due to you, or you will bear that wrath. But there is no escaping the wrath of God against sin.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile... But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 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. (Romans 1:18; 2:8,9; 3:5,6,19,20)

So the whole world is guilty before God, therefore the whole world is subject to God's wrath. That wrath is expressed in the second death and the Lake of Fire. But Christ was made SIN for us so that He would bear that wrath upon His own holy soul, and thereby quench the wrath of God against those who believe on Him. But the ones who do not obey the Gospel remain subject to the wrath of God.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)

I agree that the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. I also agree that he who believes on the Son will see life, and he who does not will not but the wrath of God abides on him. It is, in fact, through Christ that we escape the wrath to come. Good verses, but they do not come close to answering the question.


Are you saying that you believe Jesus was ungodly and unrighteous?

Do you believe that Jesus was evil?

Or do you believe that God condemned the righteous (thus becoming an Abomination Himself)?

Why do you believe that God poured out His wrath on Christ?

 

[CharismaticLady]

You have read about the sin unto death. That applies. But there are also other means that God uses for the chastisement of His children.

But salvation is a GIFT of God's grace (John 11:25,26; Rom 6:23). No one should doubt that.

So you believe a Christian committing a sin unto death, God lets their body die, and saves their soul? BTW, that is not what these verses mean if you are counting on them:

1 Corinthians 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1 Corinthians 5:5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.