John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
^^^^^ This means "implied" by definition, David. When I introduced "implication" I actually looked up the definition and used it word for word.I don't believe there has to be one verse that explicitly states something to have Scripture say something.
You rightly say that Scripture does not explicitly state your theory but then you say it nonetheless says it (teaches it, I take you to mean). This is implication.
Nowhere does Scripture state that God was wrathful towards Christ.
Nowhere does Scripture state that God punished Christ.
Nowhere does Scripture state God must punish sin in order to forgive sinners.
Nowhere does Scripture state God is incapable of forgiving upon human repentance (it actually states the contrary).
Nowhere does Scripture state that Christ drank the cup of divine wrath.
Nowhere does Scripture state that Christ was punished instead of us.
Nowhere does Scripture state that divine justice is retributive justice.
Those are facts. You feel that the Bible says those things without actually stating them. You say (not state, but "say" as you use the term) that Scripture implies these things. But they are actually foreign to the text of Scripture.
The problem is that if any ONE of these extra-biblical (to the text) things are incorrect then Penal Substitution Theory itself is a false doctrine. In other words, if you are wrong about even one of those ideas you feel implied in the Bible then you are falsely teaching others and building on a false foundation.