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!

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think we all can know @David Taylor is lost when it comes to understanding and defending his theory as he has already resulted to calling people liars. He lost any argument before he could even muster up a defence for his view.

BTW, @Mark Deckard is right. Penal Substitution Theory is a reworking of medieval theology. It did not take on its present forum until the 16th century.
No, I called your posts lies because that is exactly what they are.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, I called your posts lies because that is exactly what they are.
No. You resorted to that behavior because you could not defend your own view. I gave you a bit of a hint on how you could defend your theory by telling you how I did when I held the Theory. Look into the Law and the sacrificial system and perhaps you can articulate an explanation we can discuss.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No. You resorted to that behavior because you could not defend your own view. I gave you a bit of a hint on how you could defend your theory by telling you how I did when I held the Theory. Look into the Law and the sacrificial system and perhaps you can articulate an explanation we can discuss.
Your lie is that you keep saying I have done nothing to put up an explanation or defense of my position. Yet that is an outright falsehood and you know it. I've done it MULTIPLE times. You just reject it.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yep, I even posted an article about this earlier in this thread. However, certain members like to lie about what we have or have not posted.

cc: @John Caldwell
None of the ECF's expressed Penal Substitution Theory as they did not present God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ. Justin Martyr is one many seek to reinvent as teaching the Theory (ignoring his pre-recapitilation reaching and his understanding on Christ experiencing the curse for the entire "human family").

Probably the biggest reason I am opposed to the new attempt at these theorists to redefine themselves is their utter disregard for history and the actual words of those who have gone before.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your lie is that you keep saying I have done nothing to put up an explanation or defense of my position. Yet that is an outright falsehood and you know it. I've done it MULTIPLE times. You just reject it.
You have not stated anything in defence of your theory. You gave us verses and told us what you think they mean, that it possible given the language, and you believe it the only interpretation based on the context - but you never explained how you reasoned out that meaning.
 
Last edited:

Jane_Doe22

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2018
5,241
3,442
113
116
Mid-west USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Don't you remember? It was a Mormon seminary.
You never told me where you went to seminary. I did not realize you were (or had been Mormon) but that makes sense with a few of the things you have said. If I recall, LDS "seminary" is a youth training program.

(Actual LDS Christian jumping in here)

Seminary with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't an equivalent program to like a Baptist Christian Seminary is. A Baptist Christian seminary is a college (frequently graduate) multi-year degree program with the focus of training professional preachers. Whereas an LDS Christian seminary is a high-school level program, wherein the class gets together 5 days a week for an hour for scripture study with the focus of general day-to-day discipleship. Both programs are good, but it's an apples-and-eggs comparison.

Are you serious?

As a Mormon why did you think Christ had to die?

Penal Substitution Theory is not the reason Christ died. Until you understand that you cannot move to a biblical understanding of the Cross. You are missing the entire point.
(Disclaimer: I have not been following this discussion and am just jumping in now)

Jesus Christ was the perfect sacrificial lamb, voluntarily wounded and slain for our sins. It is through this sacrifice we can be washed clean.
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(Actual LDS Christian jumping in here)

Seminary with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't an equivalent program to like a Baptist Christian Seminary is. A Baptist Christian seminary is a college (frequently graduate) multi-year degree program with the focus of training professional preachers. Whereas an LDS Christian seminary is a high-school level program, wherein the class gets together 5 days a week for an hour for scripture study with the focus of general day-to-day discipleship. Both programs are good, but it's an apples-and-eggs comparison.


(Disclaimer: I have not been following this discussion and am just jumping in now)

Jesus Christ was the perfect sacrificial lamb, voluntarily wounded and slain for our sins. It is through this sacrifice we can be washed clean.
That's what I thought. My friend's son is going to seminary (LDS) and on a mission trip. I did not know if there was another type. I only know of the LDS because of my friends who are Mormon, so it's only about as much as we discuss.

So basically @Steve Owen would have gone through LDS seminary when he was in high school (or shortly after). While I disagree with Mormonism I do like that they teach their own members rather than sending them off.

Does LDS teaching view the Cross as God punishing Jesus?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jane_Doe22

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just as well.

I tried asking what they thought about a Scripture but these children want to keep fighting.
That's because this child has given up on any meaningful discussion with the other kid. I already know what he's going to say..."you're a liar...a liar...a liar...." as he pounds the floor in a tantrum :rolleyes:

But you are more than welcome to ask me about what I think about a scripture. I do not pretend to have all the answers but I am more than willing to tell you what I believe and why I believe it (except for eschatology...I really do not care too much about that area of study).
 

Steve Owen

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

Have you ever considered that your Mormon education may be influencing how you understand the Reformed teachers you now follow? At the very least it seems to be confusing how you interpret Scripture.

I appreciate that you examined your views and moved from a Mormon tradition to embrace what you saw as more correct. But this is not a smorgasbord - you can not be Mormon with a pinch of Reformed and a sprinkling of Baptist.

What you seem to hold is an amalgamation of several competing ideas. This is probably why you cannot articulate an explanation for your view - you are like a reed blown by the wind.

Many Reformed Baptists would consider your Mormon doctrines heresy. I suppose many Mormons would see your Reformed beliefs heresy.

But your LDS background and education does explain some of what you have carried into Scripture here. Had you mentioned your Mormonism earlier I would have understood your presuppositions a bit (I have discussed some of this with LDS friends).

What I think @Steve Owen may be pointing to is his (or his former) LDS view that the Atonement was not primarily the Cross but the Garden of Gethsemane and that is where He became our redeemer and truly suffered, the Cross being where He was lifted up. But his ideas still seemed mixed with Reformed views so I am not sure. He may just be someone in the transition between two competing theologies.
Your irony sensor seems to be malfunctioning. As you know very well, it was you, in a private message, who falsely accused me of being a Mormon, something which I regard as tantamount to saying that I'm not a Christian.
I am no more a Mormon than I am Wicca. And no, I have not the slightest intention of telling you where I went to school, university or seminary. I'll tell anyone else, but not you.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your irony sensor seems to be malfunctioning. As you know very well, it was you, in a private message, who falsely accused me of being a Mormon, something which I regard as tantamount to saying that I'm not a Christian.
I am no more a Mormon than I am Wicca. And no, I have not the slightest intention of telling you where I went to school, university or seminary. I'll tell anyone else, but not you.
You are mistaken. I never "accused you" of being Mormon as that is an odd accusation.

What I said was that like my Mormon friends there are areas of your religion on this topic that is too foreign from the classic understanding to provide a common ground of debate.

You are wrong to use Mormonism as a "bad word", a joke or "sarcasm" even if you believe they are not saved. Obviously I disagree with LDS doctrine (or I would be Mormon, and they disagree with me or they would be Baptist). But in many ways LDS doctrine is closer to Scripture on this topic than your religious philosophy.

You need to stop trying to convince everyone your sect has cornered the hidden truth you believe implied in Scripture. No one is trying to convert you. What we are asking is how you get from Scripture to your theory (to better understand your reasoning and the philosophies you apply in your theology).

The same is true with LDS doctrine. I would love to learn more of @Jane_Doe22 's beliefs even though she and I would never hold the same beliefs. That, IMHO, is the benefit of this type of forum. We can learn about one another' s faith without having to attack one another for their faith.

But for that to happen you have to be able to explain your religion (not just give verses and declare yourself correct). You need to show how you get from the text of Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory rather than just stating it is obvious as it definitely is not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jane_Doe22

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
You are mistaken. I never "accused you" of being Mormon as that is an odd accusation.

What I said was that like my Mormon friends there are areas of your religion on this topic that is too foreign from the classic understanding to provide a common ground of debate.
:rolleyes: These were your actual words:
John Caldwell said:
I consider your religion to be akin to Mormonism
Now my 'religion' is, as you know perfectly well, is the one held by countless evangelicals including Bunyan, John Owen, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones in the past, and John Piper, Mark Dever, Timothy George and J.I. Packer today. You are under no obligation to agree with these people, but do you consider the 'religion' to be 'akin to Mormonism'? Your swift resort to falsehood and innuendo when your debating skills fail you does you no credit.

The rest of your post is too contemptible to merit a reply, save this bit at the bottom.
But for that to happen you have to be able to explain your religion (not just give verses and declare yourself correct). You need to show how you get from the text of Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory rather than just stating it is obvious as it definitely is not.
As you and everybody else reading this thread know, I have laid out my case for Penal Substitution in some depth on this board already The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution and you have steadfastly refused to interact with it.
Now you have asked me some direct questions:
John Caldwell said:
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"?
I am quite happy to answer these questions, but, before I spend time and energy doing so, I want your firm, public promise that you will explain your 'religion' and the views of your 'sect' (your words, not mine) in the same depth as I have set out The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Are you prepared to do that? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Throughout several “debates” some who advocate the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement have offered a verse as evidence of their position while the verse itself is far from proving their point. Basically, they through up a verse and then state their opinion (illustration: John 3:16 tells us that limma beans are nasty, therefore if you disagree you disagree with God…it does not state that but it nevertheless says it because that’s how theology works).

I am going to look at a few of these instances and claims starting with מוּסָר (the word often translated “chastening” or “chastisement” in Isaiah 53:5).

What we have seen on this forum is some offering the passage and making the claim that “the chastisement of (or for) our peace was upon him” a clear statement of Penal Substitution when it is in fact far from a statement (much less a clear one) of the Theory. (This was done by @Enoch111 in Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory” and by @Steve Owen in Calvinism)

The Hebrew word used in Scripture translated as “chastening” or “chastisement” is מוּסָר‎ (
(mûsr). It is used 50 times in Scripture. Most of the time (30 times) it is used to mean “instruction”. It also means correction, bond, and discipline. In terms of Christ it can be related to the Greek word μανθάνω (instruction) as found in Hebrews 5:8 (“Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”).

The word “chasten” means (1) to correct by punishment or suffering, (2) to prune of excess or pretense, or(3) to cause to be humble or restrained. (Merriam-Webster).

Mounce (Complete Expository Dictionary) notes that the word can mean "correction" or "discipline". There are several Hebrew words that point to punishment, but the one we are dealing with here does not.

So we have a few things to consider. The English word could mean punishment, but this is one of several choices. The related Greek word does not mean punishment but could mean discipline or instruction.

The point is not that using the word to mean “punishment” is impossible linguistically (although scholars of the language have stated it is not a related meaning). The point is that those who hold Penal Substitution Theory need to explain why they choose this meaning, especially since it is not necessarily considered one of the meanings of Hebrew word and does not fit with the Greek word expressing the purpose of “the things which [Christ] suffered”.

The problem is those who hold Penal Substitution Theory offer a verse as “proof” when it is in fact far from evidence the theory is correct and then they try to silence anyone from pointing this out by insulting them and obscuring the issues.

What needs to take place is those who would interpret the word as "punishment" need to explain the reasoning behind their interpretation.
well ty, vm. Scribes, huh?
We're a bloodthirsty lot aren't we :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But in many ways LDS doctrine is closer to Scripture on this topic than your religious philosophy.
Oh boy, this tells me all I need to know.
You need to stop trying to convince everyone your sect has cornered the hidden truth you believe implied in Scripture.
It's not implied, it's flat there.
obvious as it definitely is not.
You must not read Scripture.
As you and everybody else reading this thread know, I have laid out my case for Penal Substitution in some depth on this board already The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution and you have steadfastly refused to interact with it.
EXACTLY. Not only does he refuse to interact with what we put forth, he lies about it and says we didn't put anything forth because he knows nobody is going to go back through and read the whole thread. Very deceitful.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
:rolleyes: These were your actual words:

Now my 'religion' is, as you know perfectly well, is the one held by countless evangelicals including Bunyan, John Owen, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones in the past, and John Piper, Mark Dever, Timothy George and J.I. Packer today. You are under no obligation to agree with these people, but do you consider the 'religion' to be 'akin to Mormonism'? Your swift resort to falsehood and innuendo when your debating skills fail you does you no credit.

The rest of your post is too contemptible to merit a reply, save this bit at the bottom.

As you and everybody else reading this thread know, I have laid out my case for Penal Substitution in some depth on this board already The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution and you have steadfastly refused to interact with it.
Now you have asked me some direct questions:

I an quite happy to answer these questions, but, before I spend time and energy doing so, I want your firm, public promise that you will explain your 'religion' and the views of your 'sect' (your words, not mine) in the same depth as I have set out The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Are you prepared to do that? Yes or no?
Often the difference is not the doctrines people hold but how people hold these doctrines.

John Piper has, for example, gone into detail about how he arrives at his conclusions (he is able to explain how he gets from Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory). C. S. Lewis rejected Penal Substitution Theory and could explain how he gets from Scripture to his belief.

You cannot. Your theories are your religion as you hold these ideas others have developed without being able to explain the ideas themselves. You can't even expound on the underlying judicial philosophy of the Theory.

In other words, where some hold Penal Substitution Theory as their understanding of Scripture you hold it as a borrowed belief you probably have no right to hold.