Penal Substitution Theory and the presupposed (eisegesis) definition of מוּסָר in Isaiah 53:5

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And all sins are lawlessness or violations of the Law.

1 John 3:9 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

If all sin is lawlessness, then we are totally without sin, but can you really say that even while walking in the Spirit? John also says that there are two types of sin. 1 John 5:16-17

Sins unto death
Sins NOT unto death

Sins of lawlessness in 1 John 3:4 is the context of 1 John 3:9 above. Same chapter. Those are sins unto death. We know this because under the Law there was no sacrifice for those who broke one of the Ten Commandments, the Law. They were commanded by God to put them to DEATH.

So what is a sin NOT unto death. We see in Numbers 15:22-29 there WAS sacrifice for those who sinned unintentionally, or unwittingly (without intent). What were these sins called? Leviticus 5:15 tells us they are trespasses, and this is why only trespasses and not sins of lawlessness are in the Lord's Prayer. What also is the difference? Sins of lawlessness are against God. Sins of trespass are against each other. But as long as we forgive each other their trespasses against us, so will the Father automatically cleanse us of those trespasses as in 1 John 1:7, Matthew 6:14-15.

The goal of the indwelling Holy Spirit in us regarding sin, is to bear fruit unto righteousness, and part of that is forgiving each other and not taking offense. We may not murder each other, but we do provoke each other as seen daily on the forums. This has got to stop. Especially by people claiming to be teachers and pastors, myself included.
 
Last edited:

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If all sin is lawlessness, then we are totally without sin...
Why don't you just believe the Bible instead of concocting your own theology (like Caldwell and Episkopos)? Here is what 1 John 3:4 says:

New International Version
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
New Living Translation
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.
English Standard Version
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
Berean Study Bible
Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.
Berean Literal Bible
Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
New American Standard Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
New King James Version
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Now I trust you will respond with "Thank you for correcting my false beliefs and putting me on the right track".
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Penal Substitution is not a theory. It is Gospel Truth. And we do not need to look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers (or any so-called scholars or theologians) to see if they had a correct understanding of Bible truth. Sometimes they did, and sometimes they did not. And they certainly did not write by Divine inspiration.

WHAT DOES PENAL SUBSTITUTION MEAN?
Theopedia provides us with a satisfactory summary of the meaning of penal substitution: “Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.”

The word “penal” is related to penalty, particularly crimes committed by criminals. But it is also applicable to sins committed by sinners. There is a penalty for every crime or infraction of the laws of the land. And there is also a divine penalty for every sin committed. We see divine penalties applied in the Flood of Noah’s day as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (among other cities and nations in the Bible).

The word “substitution” simply means that someone other than the criminal or the sinner has been punished for the crime or sin committed. It would be similar to having two brothers in a court of law where one of them has been convicted of being a murderer. The other brother would approach the judge and ask that the death penalty be applied to him, so that his guilty brother can go free. The penalty would not change, but the one who paid the penalty would have been substituted. And the demands of justice would have been met.

GOD IS THE ULTIMATE RIGHTEOUS JUDGE
God has many attributes and many offices. One of them is that God is the Divine Judge of all humanity. There are numerous Scriptures which proclaim that God is the Divine Judge, and that all His judgments are righteous.

And the heavens shall declare His righteousness: for God is Judge Himself. Selah. (Ps 50:6) But God is the Judge: He putteth down one, and setteth up another. (Ps 75:7) Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the Righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing. (2 Tim 4:8) Here Christ is the Judge, and indeed God the Father has handed over all judgment to Christ: Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

THE PENALTY FOR SINS AND WICKEDNESS IS DIVINE WRATH
Throughout Scripture we see that Christ was indeed the perfect and only substitute for all mankind. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). Had there been no cross, every sinner (all humanity) would be judged as guilty of death. And that would include the first (or physical) death as well as the second (or spiritual and eternal) death, which is separation from God in the Lake of Fire, and which expresses the wrath of God against sin.

For those who do not understand (or believe) that it is wrath, we have these Scriptures: 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) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them...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. (Rom 1:18,32; 2:8,9) And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: (Rev 14:9,10)

THE LAMB OF GOD TOOK UPON HIMSELF THE WRATH OF GOD
When Christians reflect upon the sufferings of Christ on the cross, they often focus on the physical pain and excruciating agony of that cross (the worst form of Roman punishment). But God would have us focus on the anguish within the soul of Christ while He bore the wrath of God within Himself. While the word “wrath” does not appear in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Christ, we must be clear that that is what was applied to Christ. The sufferings of Christ within His soul and spirit were indeed the experience of the wrath of God against sin -- the Second Death -- which is also seen as the *sword* of punishment which pierced His holy soul.

People who deny this are in fact mocking the finished work of Christ who cried "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Your explanation is what makes Penal Substitution Theory one of several theories of the Atonement.

You assume the "cup" Christ "drank" and "shared" with his Disciples is the "cup of God's wrath" even though Scripture uses the word "cup" to symbolize other than God's wrath and Scripture tells us that the Righteous are not objects of God's wrath.

You assume that divine justice is retributive in type.

You assume that we do not experience the consequences of sin (physical death).

You assume that "spiritual death" or the "second death" is the judgment of the Father on sin rather than a Christ-centered judgment although Scripture tells us that ALL judgment is given to the Son.

You assume that divine justice and God's law is the driving factor of redemption in the face of Scripture which glorifies in this righteousness apart from the law.

You assume God's offering of His Son was punitive.

Make no mistake, the Penal Substitution Theory is ONE theory of atonement among several. This does not mean it is false. But it does mean it has to be defended and the indoctrinated who are incapable of even recognizing the difference between Penal Substitution Theory and Scripture are not capable of defending the view they hold.
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why don't you just believe the Bible instead of concocting your own theology (like Caldwell and Episkopos)? Here is what 1 John 3:4 says:

New International Version
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
New Living Translation
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.
English Standard Version
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
Berean Study Bible
Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.
Berean Literal Bible
Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
New American Standard Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
New King James Version
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Now I trust you will respond with "Thank you for correcting my false beliefs and putting me on the right track".
I do have one question you may be able to answer - When Jesus spoke of the "cup" and said that his Disciples would indeed share the "cup" he was about to drink, does this make his Disciples co-redeemers in your opinion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Episkopos

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What this means is your reply should have been "I believe the word means "punishment" because (whatever reason you hold). Instead you and @David Taylor kept insisting the interpretation "punishment" is a possible definition of the word and you believe the verse says Christ was punished (no reason except you believe it to be the proper definition).
Actually I believe I have said MANY scholars agree that is what it means here.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You have said that words like "wound", "crush", and "stripe" means "punishment". But we all know that is foolishness. I'm a retired combat soldier so I can also tell you that "shot", "pierced", "stabbed", and "stubbed toe" also does not mean "punishment".
We have not said those words mean punishment. This is a strawman argument. We said those words IN CONTEXT show it means punishment.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Actually I believe I have said MANY scholars agree that is what it means here.
MANY scholars disagree that it is what it means here as well.

My request was for you to defend your interpretation. Just saying there are smart people who agree with you does not mean your theory is correct. There are Many scholars who are atheists, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.

You set your standards too low.

So again, are you ae to explain why your theory should be entertained? Can you defend how you get from Scripture to your theory?

Or is this just another example where whatever you feel is implied in the verse actually trumps what is written in the text?
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
More nonsense. We have given from Scripture, you just reject it outright.
You have given us Scripture and your interpretation of Scripture. BUT you have not justified or explained your interpretation except to say it is a possible meaning.

I gave you Scripture, my interpretation, and how I arrived there. That is what you cannot, apparently, do.

I simply do not believe your opinions and feelings (or anyone's opinions and feelings) are enough to defend your theory. It is too subjective.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We have not said those words mean punishment. This is a strawman argument. We said those words IN CONTEXT show it means punishment.
False assertion. You should have said "I have not said".

This is one problem, David.

By your standard Abraham was wrathful to Isaac as he punished him by laying him on that altar and would have punished him by pouring his wrath upon his son if God had not stayed his hand.

Your theory is based on assumptions. The problem is that you seem incapable of defending your theory.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have explained why 'chastening' or 'chastisement in Isaiah 53:5 must have reference to punishment -the context demands it - and you have only been able to say, 'tain't so!

This is a false assertion. What you did was say that Isaiah must be a reference to punishment because words like “wounded” and “stripes” are use therefore it has to be a punishment. That is, of course, nonsense. I was wounded, but not punished, in Bosnia. I had friends who were pierced with metal but they were not being punished by the enemy or by our government who sent them there.
But you have said neither what you think 'pierced for our transgressions' means, nor how you believe God can be just and the justifier bof the one who believes in Jesus unless divine justice is satisfied.

This is also dishonest. I stated that I believe Christ suffered at the hands of wicked men but that this was by the predetermined plan of God as stated in Acts 3. I also said that I believe the word “chastening” is correct as it corresponds with Christ being “made perfect” and “learning obedience” through his suffering. I said that I believe these New Testament passages and Isaiah 53 are stating the same thing hence my rejection of adding “punishment” to the verse. I also stated that I believe this was the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (God is just and the justifier of sinners – not through the law but through this act of sacrifice and resurrection, i.e., this recreation of mankind).

I gave you an account of my Christian life and education a while back on another board
If so I do not recall. You are the one who brought my education into the discussion here. I told you that I attended Montgomery College, Troy State University, Liberty University, and Liberty Theological Seminary. I studied psychology, computer programming, business administration, literature, and have a Bachelors in Religion and a Masters of Arts in Theological Studies (M.A.T.S.). I studied both Greek and Hebrew (mostly Greek) at a graduate level and hermeneutics at a graduate level. I have some post-graduate studies in Greek and Church History.

Now, I do not know what your education background is. You say you told me at one time, but I really do not recall. Since you bring it up, what seminary did you attend? What is your formal education in theology?

It really would not matter (I greatly respect Tozer and he had no formal education) except that you made it an issue.
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Steve,

All that I have asked here was that those who believe "chasten" Isaiah 53:5 means "punishment" explain why.
And I have told you why times without number. The context demands it. More below.
For example, I believe the word refers to a type of instruction/ discipline The reason I believe this is twofold. 1) Out of the 50 times the word appears in the Old Testament, 76% of the times the word is used it means a type of instruction/ discipline. 4% of the time it can mean "punishment". This is excluding usage in this passage. 2) I believe Isaiah 53 is referring to the same suffering discussed in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8 with τελειόω and μανθάνω (made perfect and learned). I believe that Isaiah 53:5 is speaking of the same thing - Christ being made perfect and "learning obedience" through suffering.
We agree then, that 'punishment is within the semantic range of musar. But how do you get from 'learning obedience' to 'The chastisement for our peace was upon Him'? And how does it fit with the rest of verse s 5 & 6? And what do you think our Lord was learning? I asked you before, did He not already know obedience?
What this means is your reply should have been "I believe the word means "punishment" because (whatever reason you hold). Instead you and @David Taylor kept insisting the interpretation "punishment" is a possible definition of the word and you believe the verse says Christ was punished (no reason except you believe it to be the proper definition).
Because the context demands it. More below.
You have said that words like "wound", "crush", and "stripe" means "punishment". But we all know that is foolishness. I'm a retired combat soldier so I can also tell you that "shot", "pierced", "stabbed", and "stubbed toe" also does not mean "punishment".
This is the craziest thing I have ever heard from you, and that is saying something! If a soldier is shot, pierced etc. for transgressions, iniquities etc. and it pleased his commanding officer to have it done, that means punishment!
That is why it means that Christ took upon Himself our sins and paid the just penalty for them. Because the Commanding Officer had held a Court Marshall, found us guilty and sentenced us to death, and after death the [further] judgement (Hebrews 9:29). We 'were all by nature children of wrath.' But the Lord Jesus has stood before the firing squad on our behalf and taken the bullets for us. So the Commanding Officer has carried out the sentence, but we, the guilty squaddies, go free. If you don't like the extended military metaphors, you started them.
This is the reason I had said I'd rather withdraw from our discussion. You decide words mean whatever you want them to mean (as long as you can find a commentator to agree) and that's your "proof". I just did not see any reason to continue a discussion because until you can articulate how you get from Scripture to your interpretation there is nothing to debate.
No one is forcing you to continue, just close the door on your way out; but your continual bleating is special pleading. You know perfectly well that my argument is entirely scriptural, and you know equally well that I have laid it out in considerable detail. Your problem is that you're not winning and your pride is hurting. Now, if you're going to continue, man up, and instead of complaining about my posts, present your own case in detail All we've had from you is that it's the 'classic' position, but you don't seem able to articulate it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why don't you just believe the Bible instead of concocting your own theology (like Caldwell and Episkopos)? Here is what 1 John 3:4 says:

New International Version
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
New Living Translation
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.
English Standard Version
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
Berean Study Bible
Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.
Berean Literal Bible
Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
New American Standard Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
New King James Version
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Now I trust you will respond with "Thank you for correcting my false beliefs and putting me on the right track".

No, because what you wrote is exactly what I said! The sin in 1 John 3:4 is LAWlessness. Whose law? God's law, which are the commandments.

But Scripture also says that there is sin unto death, and sin not unto death. And these are committed by brethren, so you can't say that the sin unto death is the unbelief of the unsaved as many erroneously say. So Enoch, what is the sin not unto death and the sin unto death? Do you know the difference or are you going to continue to ignore that Scripture shows a difference and say that "sin is sin," which comes out of the Reformation, not Scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Steve,

All that I have asked here was that those who believe "chasten" Isaiah 53:5 means "punishment" explain why.

For example, I believe the word refers to a type of instruction/ discipline The reason I believe this is twofold. 1) Out of the 50 times the word appears in the Old Testament, 76% of the times the word is used it means a type of instruction/ discipline. 4% of the time it can mean "punishment". This is excluding usage in this passage. 2) I believe Isaiah 53 is referring to the same suffering discussed in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8 with τελειόω and μανθάνω (made perfect and learned). I believe that Isaiah 53:5 is speaking of the same thing - Christ being made perfect and "learning obedience" through suffering.

What this means is your reply should have been "I believe the word means "punishment" because (whatever reason you hold). Instead you and @David Taylor kept insisting the interpretation "punishment" is a possible definition of the word and you believe the verse says Christ was punished (no reason except you believe it to be the proper definition).

You have said that words like "wound", "crush", and "stripe" means "punishment". But we all know that is foolishness. I'm a retired combat soldier so I can also tell you that "shot", "pierced", "stabbed", and "stubbed toe" also does not mean "punishment".

This is the reason I had said I'd rather withdraw from our discussion. You decide words mean whatever you want them to mean (as long as you can find a commentator to agree) and that's your "proof". I just did not see any reason to continue a discussion because until you can articulate how you get from Scripture to your interpretation there is nothing to debate.

I told you what I believe and why I believe it. It is thus far all subjective on your end. A hint for your belief (as I once held it anyway) may be found in the sacrifice system and the nature of the law. But you do not seem to even know that.
I had decided to stop conversing with you and David. But neither of you could respect that so I will continue. Perhaps another will read and realize you have proved unwilling to even attempt a defence of your conclusions (you just state a verse and then your opinion as if you accomplished something).

Why do you believe the "cup" Christ spoke of and shared with His Disciples was God's wrath?

Why do you believe God had to punish Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us in order to forgive man?

Why do you believe divine justice is retributive justice?

Why do you believe we escape the wages of sin yet still die?

Why do you believe "wound", "pierce" and "stripes" means "punishment"?

Since you brought up and questioned my education, and I told you, what is yours (what seminary did you attend and what is its affiliation)? What degree did you earn?
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, I had decided to stop conversing with you and David. But neither of you could respect that so I will continue. Perhaps another will read and realize you have proved unwilling to even attempt a defence of your conclusions (you just state a verse and then your opinion as if you accomplished something).

Why do you believe the "cup" Christ spoke of and shared with His Disciples was God's wrath?

Why do you believe God had to punish Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us in order to forgive man?

Why do you believe divine justice is retributive justice?

Why do you believe we escape the wages of sin yet still die?

Why do you believe "wound", "pierce" and "stripes" means "punishment"?

Since you brought up and questioned my education, and I told you, what is yours (what seminary did you attend and what is its affiliation)? What degree did you earn?[/QUOTE]

This is confusing. Looks like I missed a lot of your conversations. I just got a nonsensical post from one of them with just Isaiah "53!" that's all, and not what he is even referring to like I'm a mind reader. I bet he'll dis me for not knowing what he means. I had complained he just throws out name calling and never quotes a scripture. Maybe this was his way or proving me wrong in his childish way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, I had decided to stop conversing with you and David. But neither of you could respect that so I will continue. Perhaps another will read and realize you have proved unwilling to even attempt a defence of your conclusions (you just state a verse and then your opinion as if you accomplished something).

Why do you believe the "cup" Christ spoke of and shared with His Disciples was God's wrath?

Why do you believe God had to punish Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us in order to forgive man?

Why do you believe divine justice is retributive justice?

Why do you believe we escape the wages of sin yet still die?

Why do you believe "wound", "pierce" and "stripes" means "punishment"?

Since you brought up and questioned my education, and I told you, what is yours (what seminary did you attend and what is its affiliation)? What degree did you earn?

This is confusing. Looks like I missed a lot of your conversations.[/QUOTE]
@Steve Owen is posting a PM I sent him on the public forum.

I had sent him a PM telling him I was withdrawing from discussing the topic with him because I did not see an advantage to it. Steve cannot explain how he goes from Scripture to his conclusion and that is the only thing worth discussing.

I guess did not want to end our dialogue.

All you can expect is name calling and insults. I don't think @David Taylor has any clue how to defend his view so this childishness is all he can do. He thinks if you do not adopt his theory you reject Scripture. He has elevated himself and his opinions that far.
 
Last edited: