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

[reformed1689]

Why do you believe sin can be transfered from one person to another?

Because the Bible said it can be and was transferred to Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:13; Romans 4:25

 

[reformed1689]

When I write a Scripture, I also teach about it. Miles down the road, you just throw out a text like Isaiah 53 and nothing...

Again, read the whole thread. I hate repeating myself and can't help it if you are too lazy to read it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Because the Bible said it can be and was transferred to Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:13; Romans 4:25

But none of the verses you provide teach that sin is transferable. We all agree God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, laid upon Him our iniquities (literally, our infirmity). But you are talking as if God could justly transfer our sins from us to Christ and punish Christ for our sins instead of us. The verses you offer do not teach that, do how Fo you get there????

Don't just give us a few verses and offer your opinion. Explain how you get from Scripture to your conclusion.

 

[reformed1689]

But none of the verses you provide teach that sin is transferable. We all agree God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, laid upon Him our iniquities (literally, our infirmity). But you are talking as if God could justly transfer our sins from us to Christ and punish Christ for our sins instead of us. The verses you offer do not teach that, do how Fo you get there????

Don't just give us a few verses and offer your opinion. Explain how you get from Scripture to your conclusion.

John you are wasting my time. I've explained this, others have explained this, you reject it. That's fine, it's your right. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I have explained this in other threads already.

Besides, you are talking about justice in your own understanding, not God's.

 

[John Caldwell]

Again, read the whole thread. I hate repeating myself and can't help it if you are too lazy to read it.

@CharismaticLady has actually engaged and explained her view. You have just provided verses and gave your unsupported opinion.

You seem to be the lazy one.

 

[John Caldwell]

John you are wasting my time. I've explained this, others have explained this, you reject it. That's fine, it's your right. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself when I have explained this in other threads already.

Besides, you are talking about justice in your own understanding, not God's.

No, you have not. Others have noticed the same thing.

You give us a verse or a chapter and then your opinion of what it means. We all know the passages and your conclusions.

What we are interested in is how you arrive at your theories. "It is what it is" type of explanation just does not cut it.

Why do you expect everyone else to share your presuppositions?

 

[reformed1689]

@CharismaticLady has actually engaged and explained her view. You have just provided verses and gave your unsupported opinion.

You seem to be the lazy one.

The fact that you continually lie to say I have not engaged and explained my views is exhausting.

 

[reformed1689]

No, you have not. Others have noticed the same thing.

The only ones who have "noticed the same thing" are your little band of people who parrot the same thing and like each other's posts while putting for the same lies. You should repent by the way.

Why do you expect everyone else to share your presuppositions?

Strawman

 

[John Caldwell]

This is why I PM'd @David Taylor and @Steve Owen.

All we get is passages and their unsubstantiated opinions.

We all affirm the same Scripture. We know their conclusions. What we need to know to have a discussion is how they get from Scripture to their conclusions.

Without knowing how they get from Scripture to theory we have no basis of discussion.

 

[John Caldwell]

The only ones who have "noticed the same thing" are your little band of people who parrot the same thing and like each other's posts while putting for the same lies. You should repent by the way.

Strawman

Again, can you explain how you get from the text of Scripture to your conclusions?

Why do you think the "cup" Christ drank and shared with His disciples was God's wrath? Why did He tell the Disciples they would also drink of that cup if He did it I stead of them?

 

[reformed1689]

This is why I PM'd @David Taylor and @Steve Owen.

All we get is passages and their unsubstantiated opinions.

We all affirm the same Scripture. We know their conclusions. What we need to know to have a discussion is how they get from Scripture to their conclusions.

Without knowing how they get from Scripture to theory we have no basis of discussion.

Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death. The PAYMENT for sin is death. But the gift of God is ETERNAL life. So it is eternal life vs eternal death. Christ made the payment that was due for sin by taking our sin in him. Now, the eternal death is a separation. The Father forsook Christ on the Cross and his wrath was given to him as a replacement sacrifice for our punishment (Is. 53.5). Therefore, we DO NOT HAVE ETERNAL DEATH because of the work of Christ and his conquering of death and the separation of God.

 

[John Caldwell]

The fact that you continually lie to say I have not engaged and explained my views is exhausting.

Why do you believe Isaiah 53 speaks of God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ?

 

[reformed1689]

Why do you believe Isaiah 53 speaks of God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ?

Because it flat out says Christ was punished.

 

[John Caldwell]

Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death. The PAYMENT for sin is death. But the gift of God is ETERNAL life. So it is eternal life vs eternal death. Christ made the payment that was due for sin by taking our sin in him. Now, the eternal death is a separation. The Father forsook Christ on the Cross and his wrath was given to him as a replacement sacrifice for our punishment (Is. 53.5). Therefore, we DO NOT HAVE ETERNAL DEATH because of the work of Christ and his conquering of death and the separation of God.

So you assume this is eternal life vs eternal death (rather than the historic position that this is physical death vs a resurrected life). What makes you come to this conclusion?

Why do you think the Cross was God's wrath, and what do you do with the passages that state God will not condemn the righteous and the righteous are not children of wrath (coupled with Christ being God's Righteous One and the firstborn)?

 

[John Caldwell]

Because it flat out says Christ was punished.

In your mind, perhaps.

But in the actual Bible it says that the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him. It does not say "punished" much less "punished by God instead of God punishing us). While punished may be a possible word ( 4% of the times used it refers to punishment, although not divine punishment) the verse does not state such. You are just offering an unsubstantiated opinion.

Have you ever considered this could refer to Christ becoming a curse for us, becoming human and suffering the wages of sin for us (not instead of us but to redeem mankind)?

This is what I mean about presuppositions. It is not right for you to alter God's word to suit your theories. You can argue it means punishment only if you can provide an argument as to why.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Again, read the whole thread. I hate repeating myself and can't help it if you are too lazy to read it.

Two hundred and forty two posts. Yeah, right. You just are not a gentleman.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The fact that you continually lie to say I have not engaged and explained my views is exhausting.

Maybe a hint, like which verse in Isaiah 53? Is that too much to ask?

 

[reformed1689]

Why do you think the Cross was God's wrath, and what do you do with the passages that state God will not condemn the righteous and the righteous are not children of wrath (coupled with Christ being God's Righteous One and the firstborn)?

Please give the passages in reference and context.

 

[reformed1689]

Maybe a hint, like which verse in Isaiah 53? Is that too much to ask?

Read the title of the thread.

 

[reformed1689]

This is what I mean about presuppositions. It is not right for you to alter God's word to suit your theories. You can argue it means punishment only if you can provide an argument as to why.

Because of context and the rest of Scripture. And, despite your denial, the word here is punishment Mounce not withstanding.