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
John doesn't believe that Christ took the penalty for our sin instead of us.

I believe Christ died for our sins, suffered the penalty for our sins and we are redeemed by His blood and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

Okay, so far you are believing the same thing, and are fundamentally correct in my opinion.

David, what else then is John believing that you don't? John, same question about David.

I first want to hear you say what you think the other is saying. Then we can find out what corrections in perception needs to happen, because so far is appears you believe the same. Let's see if that is true in other areas, or if that there IS a significant difference WORTH fighting so hard for.
 
Last edited:

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I believe the "cup" Christ dreaded was the suffering and death of the Cross. Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He who knew no sin was suffering the wages of sin.
I am glad that you now accept that the sinless Christ became sin for us - that is one thing less for us to argue about - but to what end was He suffering the wages of sin and how does it help us?
Christ told the Disciples that they would share that cup. Do you believe they did? If so, why did they also have to drink this "cup of God's wrath"? If not, why did Jesus lie to them?
I answered this in the very post you have quoted.
It is obvious that James' and John's cup of suffering could not be redemptive; they were sinners.
What the Lord Jesus meant is simply that they would suffer as He would. Despite His various warnings, they had no idea of what He was about to go through and imagined it to be easy. But James is martyred in Acts 12:2 and John, although Church history tells us that although he did not suffer death as a martyr, he did suffer some pretty horrendous persecution.

Perhaps I can add a little detail for you. Suffering did not come to an end with the passion of Christ. Paul wrote, 'I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the Church' (Colossians 1:24). This does not mean that Christ's death upon the cross was somehow lacking in its redemptive power - God forbid! - but there was and is more suffering to be done to bring the Gospel of Christ to a perishing world, suffering that goes on to this day in many countries. James and John would suffer for that very purpose, but their death was not redemptive. The Lord Jesus ends the section (v.45) by saying, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.' James and John are not coupled with this. Only the Christ could accomplish the work of redemption.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Okay, so far you are believing the same thing, and are fundamentally correct in my opinion.

David, what else then is John believing that you don't? John, same question about David.

I first want to hear you say what you think the other is saying. Then we can find out what corrections in perception needs to happen, because so far is appears you believe the same. Let's see if that is true in other areas, or if that there IS a significant difference WORTH fighting so hard for.
Well now I am confused because up until now @John Caldwell has seemingly been saying Christ did not take our penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharismaticLady

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
So even though Christ is all the fulness of the deity in bodily form, God in heaven separated himself from God on earth thus dividing the Trinity? This same Paul said “God cannot deny himself”
Thanks for your interesting comments and my apologies for not taking notice of your posts earlier.
There is a 'threeness' as well as a 'oneness' in the Persons of the Trinity, and they enjoy an asymmetric relationship. The Father sends the Son, but the Son does not send the Father; the Son prays to the Father but the Father does not pray to the Son. The Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, but neither Father nor Son proceeds from the Spirit.
So it is not meaningless to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

I have written an article on this which covers it in more detail. You can access it if you're interested at Penal Substitution and the Trinity
Would it not do less violence to the immutability of God to simply say Jesus was in fact all the fullness of the Godhead descending into hell for the purpose of ransom and conquest? Who did Jesus Ransom us from? We were not slaves to God, we were slaves to sin. The purchase freed us from Satan, sin, death and hell. Satan was the master, sin was the chains, death was the wage and hell was where he had been consigned by the law and wanted to take us all.
So do you believe that God paid a ransom to Satan? That was Origen's view, but I cannot accept it for a moment. satan is the thief who comes only to steal and kill and to destroy. Satan was defeated on the cross, not bought off.
But PSA would tell us that God was playing pretend with Jesus on the cross. He pretended Jesus sinned when he actually didn't. God pretended Jesus was worthy of death when he actually wasn't. Then when it was all over God stopped pretending and treated Jesus the way he really deserved.
There was nothing 'pretend' about what our Saviour suffered. All our sins were laid upon His sinless shoulders (1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:5) and He paid the penalty that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Or does it make more sense to say God let Satan kill Jesus in order to to reclaim the keys to hell and death. That puts God on our side while not forsaking His son.
God giving His Son into the power of Satan???? God forbid!
For if God forsake his Son then who can he not forsake. But as it is written, “never will I leave you never will I forsake you.” If God was pretending it was Satan and men that were out of the loop not Jesus.
This is to miss the point. It is precisely because our Lord was forsaken that we never will be.
Christ being made a curse for us cannot mean God ever ceased to love Jesus for one second.
Here I agree with you absolutely. Never did the Lord Jesus cease to be the Beloved Son.
Nor did God leave Jesus.
“Behold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.” John 16:32
At that point He was not alone. Even in Gethsemane the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him for the ordeal ahead. But there was no angel by the cross during those three hours of darkness. You cannot under any circumstances make "My God, My God! Why have You forsaken Me?" read, "My God, My God, You haven't forsaken Me,"

Thanks again for your interesting comments.[/QUOTE]
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Which brings back the original question I posed to you. If God could just forgive upon repentance, why did Christ have to die?
Ah! The $64,000 question. Without Penal Substitution we have the Father treating the Lord Jesus as a sort of whipping boy.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Okay, so far you are believing the same thing, and are fundamentally correct in my opinion.

David, what else then is John believing that you don't? John, same question about David.

I first want to hear you say what you think the other is saying. Then we can find out what corrections in perception needs to happen, because so far is appears you believe the same. Let's see if that is true in other areas, or if that there IS a significant difference WORTH fighting so hard for.
What we believe is very different.

@David Taylor believes (correct me if I make a mistake, David) :

1. Redemption centers on our "sin debt" being paid.
2. Our "sin debt" is the demands of divine justice that must be satisfied in order for God to justly forgive sinners.
3. A just God must punish sin (or will be unjust).
4. God punished Jesus for our sins I stead of punishing us.
5. Jesus experienced the full wrath if God against the sins of the elect thereby paying the price for the sins of the elect.

I believe:

1. Christ became a curse for us and bore our sins in His flesh.
2. Christ suffered the wages of human sin (death) on the Cross.
3. The work of Christ freed mankind from the bondage of sin and death.
4. Where the curse of sin had been death (physical death) in Adam, Christ as the Second Adam gives life. Those who perish do so because the Light has come into the world and men reject the Light. (Those who are not saved will face a Christ-centered judgment because Christ died for the who human family and the Father has given all judgment to the Son).
 

Steve Owen

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

1. Christ became a curse for us and bore our sins in His flesh.
What exactly do you mean by this? Who do you think cursed Him? And how and where did He bear our sins. What do you mean by 'bore our sins'?
2. Christ suffered the wages of human sin (death) on the Cross.
So what?
3. The work of Christ freed mankind from the bondage of sin and death.
How exactly did it do that?
4. Where the curse of sin had been death (physical death) in Adam, Christ as the Second Adam gives life.
How has Christ overcome the curse? I know He became a curse for us, but how exactly did that overcome the curse?
Those who perish do so because the Light has come into the world and men reject the Light.
So they don't perish because of their sins?
(Those who are not saved will face a Christ-centered judgment because Christ died for the who human family and the Father has given all judgment to the Son).
How do you define the word 'for' here? What did His death achieve?

I am delighted that you are preparing an extended explication of your views. I hope that it will include answers to these questions, but please feel free to answer them earlier if you wish.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What we believe is very different.

@David Taylor believes (correct me if I make a mistake, David) :

1. Redemption centers on our "sin debt" being paid.
2. Our "sin debt" is the demands of divine justice that must be satisfied in order for God to justly forgive sinners.
3. A just God must punish sin (or will be unjust).
4. God punished Jesus for our sins I stead of punishing us.
5. Jesus experienced the full wrath if God against the sins of the elect thereby paying the price for the sins of the elect.

I believe:

1. Christ became a curse for us and bore our sins in His flesh.
2. Christ suffered the wages of human sin (death) on the Cross.
3. The work of Christ freed mankind from the bondage of sin and death.
4. Where the curse of sin had been death (physical death) in Adam, Christ as the Second Adam gives life. Those who perish do so because the Light has come into the world and men reject the Light. (Those who are not saved will face a Christ-centered judgment because Christ died for the who human family and the Father has given all judgment to the Son).

cc: @David Taylor

In my book you are both right to the degree you have stated if David agrees, so I don't see why you two are acting like mere babes in Christ. Mind you, I'm not calling either one of you a babe! LOL

My personal beliefs of Jesus dying in our place for our sins is the same.

I know where David stands, I think, but not sure where John stands on one of my own peculiar differences. The difference between does Christ's death and blood cover sin while it remains, or take away our sin completely, even the desire to commit future sins. That is part of PS in my book. I'm the latter. What are you John? Or another?

Other related areas which should have posts of their own. Like:

1. Is everyone who accepts Christ's sacrifice for us the elect?
2. Did Jesus die for some in the world that would never accept Him, putting the burden on Christ to choose, rather than on ourselves?
3. Does everyone have a choice in whether or not they can accept Christ or not?
4. Did Christ's sacrifice for our sins take away ALL our past sins, then giving us power to not commit willful sins again? Or did Christ's sacrifice for our sins take away ALL our past, present and future sins we have no control over committing?
5. Does Christ's Spirit draw all men to Him, or just those who will accept Him? Is the act of rejecting Christ even possible if never given a choice?
6. Is the standing of "saved" when we first accept Christ, or determined at the end of our life. In other words, must we endure to the end, or make a declaration and then live your life in sin, but know you are still saved?
7. Is true repentance a one time act, or required everyday?
8. What was the number one reason Jesus came? To free us from obeying the Law? To free us from the punishment of sin? To free us from our sin nature? What did we inherit from Adam? Need for the Law, punishment of death, the weakness to commit willful sins
 
Last edited:

Jane_Doe22

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2018
5,241
3,442
113
116
Mid-west USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@CharismaticLady,

I believe Christ died for our sins, suffered the penalty for our sins and we are redeemed by His blood and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

But I do not believe God punished Christ instead of punishing us, that sin itself can be punished, or that God had to punish sin before he could forgive us for our sins.

The difference in views is not minor. Even before Penal Substitution Theory was articulated there was disagreement between the classic understanding (my view) and the Latin view (the view from which Penal Substitution Theory would eventually evolve).
Trying to understand your view here--

Why did Christ suffer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: reformed1689

Jane_Doe22

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2018
5,241
3,442
113
116
Mid-west USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
AMEN!!!!!
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Trying to understand your view here--

Why did Christ suffer?
Because it was through suffering that He "learned obedience" and was "made perfect" so that He would be a High Priest. His suffering relates to his humanity as He became the "second Adam" or the "Firstborn". I believe He had to suffer and die under the curse, experience the wages of sin (be completely "Adam" yet without sin) in order to be able to represent mankind.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
cc: @David Taylor


In my book you are both right to the degree you have stated if David agrees, so I don't see why you two are acting like mere babes in Christ. Mind you, I'm not calling either one of you a babe! LOL


My personal beliefs of Jesus dying in our place for our sins is the same.


I know where David stands, I think, but not sure where John stands on one of my own peculiar differences. The difference between does Christ's death and blood cover sin while it remains, or take away our sin completely, even the desire to commit future sins. That is part of PS in my book. I'm the latter. What are you John? Or another?


Other related areas which should have posts of their own. Like:


1. Is everyone who accepts Christ's sacrifice for us the elect?

2. Did Jesus die for some in the world that would never accept Him, putting the burden on Christ to choose, rather than on ourselves?

3. Does everyone have a choice in whether or not they can accept Christ or not?

4. Did Christ's sacrifice for our sins take away ALL our past sins, then giving us power to not commit willful sins again? Or did Christ's sacrifice for our sins take away ALL our past, present and future sins we have no control over committing?

5. Does Christ's Spirit draw all men to Him, or just those who will accept Him? Is the act of rejecting Christ even possible if never given a choice?

6. Is the standing of "saved" when we first accept Christ, or determined at the end of our life. In other words, must we endure to the end, or make a declaration and then live your life in sin, but know you are still saved?

7. Is true repentance a one time act, or required everyday?

8. What was the number one reason Jesus came? To free us from obeying the Law? To free us from the punishment of sin? To free us from our sin nature? What did we inherit from Adam? Need for the Law, punishment of death, the weakness to commit willful sins

I do stand in a very difficult position to understand (especially from our culture and mindset).

I once held, believed, taught, and preached Penal Substitution Theory and in many ways it is the cornerstone of evangelical Protestant religion today. We come by it naturally.

When I became convicted that the Theory was not biblical I had to read Scripture apart from the theory (which was very hard). I may not be the best at articulating my position but if you are familiar with C.S. Lewis and his works then you have encountered what has been called the "classic" view. You can also see it in early church writings.

The difficult part for me was that it does not always ask the questions I was accustomed to being answered by Penal Substitution Theory because those questions do not make sense outside of the Theory.

For example, David asked “if Christ were not required to be punished for our sin what would happen to our guilt”. Outside of Penal Substitution Theory the question itself is asinine. We are guilty. Nothing changes our guilt. We are, however, forgiven. Nothing happens to our guilt.

Beyond that, how would Christ being punished for our sins prevent us from being punished? In the Bible sin and punishment does not work that way.

If David kills Steve and I’m arrested and executed, but DNA tests later prove it was David then David is not off the hook. This warped sense of retributive justice applied to Scripture in Penal Substitution Theory just does not work. Aquinas was absolutely correct that one person cannot be justly punished for the sins of another.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John, don't you know that is what David believes too? Instead means substitute.
What I mean is that I believe Jesus died for our sins, to redeem mankind - NOT instead of us but for us. I do not believe Christ was a substitute but a representative (along the line of a "second Adam" or representative of the "new man").
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How is that any different than what I am saying?
Jesus suffered what mankind will suffer for our sins, became a curse for us, yet He was without sin. He suffered a penalty and died for our sins (for our redemption). "For", David. That is the difference. You believe it was "instead" of us but I believe it was for (as in purposed).