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

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
For example, the idea that God poured out His wrath on Jesus in order to punish us does not really make sense. Saying that God poured His wrath on Christ, Jesus drank the "cup" of God's wrath, yet God was never wrathful towards Jesus is also counterproductive. On the surface it seems to make the Theory sound more biblical, but scratch the surface and it is nonsense.

What is nonsense is you keep trying to change what is being said. He is not pouring out wrath on Jesus to punish us. He is pouring out wrath on Jesus to enact the penalty of our sin that Jesus took on himself in our place.

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
Also, hermenutics is not about taking a verse from Genesis and matching it with a verse from John and a few from Isaiah. This is a dangerous practice that can be used to justify just about any doctrine, theory or heresy.

Actually hermenuetics DOES look at the whole of Scripture.

John Caldwell · Dec 4, 2019

David Taylor said:
Actually hermenuetics DOES look at the whole of Scripture.

If you even consider that hermeneutics you've got a larger issue than just a reliance on your theory.

Hermeneutics is not gathering verses to mash together and support a theory. It is bouncing around.

Hermeneutics is much more narrow.

What you mean (to make it a correct statement) is Systematic Theology incorporates all of Scripture, Historical Theology, philosophy, etc, but relies on Biblical Theology. Biblical Theology, however, is also more narrow than the whole of Scripture.

(I have those references from Liberty if you want to borrow them sometimes).

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
If you even consider that hermeneutics you've got a larger issue than just a reliance on your theory.

Hermeneutics is not gathering verses to mash together and support a theory. It is bouncing around.

Hermeneutics is much more narrow.

What you mean (to make it a correct statement) is Systematic Theology incorporates all of Scripture, Historical Theology, philosophy, etc, but relies on Biblical Theology. Biblical Theology, however, is also more narrow than the whole of Scripture.

(I have those references from Liberty if you want to borrow them sometimes).

But to ignore the whole of Scripture is NOT proper hermeneutics. And you know that from the exact same classes.

John Caldwell · Dec 4, 2019

David Taylor said:
What is nonsense is you keep trying to change what is being said. He is not pouring out wrath on Jesus to punish us. He is pouring out wrath on Jesus to enact the penalty of our sin that Jesus took on himself in our place.

Steve Owen said:
God, of course, was never wrathful towards Jesus. He was always the 'Beloved Son.' I don't know how many times I have to state that. However, our sins (or sinfulness if you prefer) were punished in Him. Isaiah 53:5-6, 10. Only an utter determination to avoid the plain meaning of the text can deny it... But again, God did not punish the sinless Christ; He punished us in Christ.

You liked it when Steve said it. And it was Steve I was addressing. Stop playing Adam Schiff.

Bottom line is the Theory is more myth than Bible.

John Caldwell · Dec 4, 2019

David Taylor said:
But to ignore the whole of Scripture is NOT proper hermeneutics. And you know that from the exact same classes.

I agree. That is not what you are doing with your theory, though. When you base your religion on these things you see as implied this is eisegesis.

This is like the impeachment hearing. We read the same document. I do not believe we can make a case for what is not actually said except as a mild unfounded opinion. You make your case on what you feel is implied.

We have different standards.

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
You liked it when Steve said it. And it was Steve I was addressing. Stop playing Adam Schiff.

Bottom line is the Theory is more myth than Bible.

Steve is saying the same thing I am saying.

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
I agree. That is not what you are doing with your theory, though. When you base your religion on these things you see as implied this is eisegesis.

And you can't have it both ways though. That is what I am doing and it is not a theory it is Scripture.

John Caldwell said:
This is like the impeachment hearing. We read the same document. I do not believe we can make a case for what is not actually said except as a mild unfounded opinion. You make your case on what you feel is implied.

I'm not making a case on something implied. I am making a case on something explicit but it is not explicitly in one singular passage that you try to demand that it be.

John Caldwell said:
We have different standards.

I have a biblical standard, you have John's philosophy.

John Caldwell · Dec 4, 2019

David Taylor said:
And you can't have it both ways though. That is what I am doing and it is not a theory it is Scripture.

I'm not making a case on something implied. I am making a case on something explicit but it is not explicitly in one singular passage that you try to demand that it be.

I have a biblical standard, you have John's philosophy.

What makes it a theory is what it brings into Scripture. Penal Substitution Theory is not a collection of biblical passages or ideas. It is based on these things that we have been discussing which are not actually in the Bible.

You pretend anyone who disagrees with you rejects Scripture. What we reject is your interpretation and presuppositions. And it only takes one of your assumptions to be wrong for the theoretical house of cards to come crashing down.

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
It is based on these things that we have been discussing which are not actually in the Bible.

We must be having very different discussions. I wonder about your mental competence....

John Caldwell said:
You pretend anyone who disagrees with you rejects Scripture.

On certain topics, absolutely.

John Caldwell said:
What we reject is your interpretation and presuppositions.

And you are wrong.

John Caldwell said:
And it only takes one of your assumptions to be wrong for the theoretical house of cards to come crashing down.

Good thing it's not theoretical or assumptions but taken directly from Scripture. I know that is a foreign idea to you.

John Caldwell · Dec 4, 2019

I do not fault anyone for their religious views, even Penal Substitution Theory.

But people need to realize exactly where they really stand.

Penal Substitution Theory depends on several ideas that are not actually in Scripture. If any of these extra-biblical concepts are wrong then Penal Substitution Theory is a false doctrine.

Scripture does not state that Adam died spiritually.

Scripture does not state that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Scripture does not state that Jesus suffered instead of us suffering.

Scripture does not refer to the Cross as divine punishment.

Scripture does not attribute retributive justice theory to God.

Penal Substitution Theory is too extra-biblical a theory to be considered because of the influence our understanding of the Atonement has on other doctrines.

People will decide for themselves. Some will build on God's Word. Some will build on the sand of their understanding and myths. As for me, I am going to follow God the best I can. This means holding a greater respect for Scripture than building on what some see as implied.

The disgrace is people like @David Taylor and @Enoch111 try to distract from the facts by calling those who disagree with them liars, saying they reject verses (which can never be provided), ridicule other faiths, insult and blow smoke but never actually explain why their presuppositions are correct.

David Taylor has expressed the opinion foundation doctrines are not stated but implied in Scripture. This is how he said theology is done (he cannot find passages that actually confirm by statement the Godhead). This is eisegesis by definition. He sees what is not actually stated as actually "being there", yet ask him to highlight those words and he will only have a temper tantrum.

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
I do not fault anyone for their religious views, even Penal Substitution Theory.

I should hope you don't fault people for holding to Scripture.

John Caldwell said:
Penal Substitution Theory depends on several ideas that are not actually in Scripture. If any of these extra-biblical concepts are wrong then Penal Substitution Theory is a false doctrine.

And what exactly about Substitutionary Atonement is not in Scripture?

John Caldwell said:
Scripture does not state that Adam died spiritually.

Yes, actually it does. I've already shown we are dead in sin.

John Caldwell said:
Scripture does not state that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

I guess the cross is just a myth then?

John Caldwell said:
Scripture does not state that Jesus suffered instead of us suffering.

Actually, again, yes it does. Read the Gospels, read Isaiah.

John Caldwell said:
Penal Substitution Theory is too extra-biblical a theory to be considered because of the influence our understanding of the Atonement has on other doctrines.

Again, what part of Substitutionary Atonement is extra-biblical. Be specific.

John Caldwell said:
As for me, I am going to follow God the best I can.

The I suggest you start following all of Scripture, and not only the parts you wish to consider valid for your views.

John Caldwell said:
This means holding a greater respect for Scripture than building on what some see as implied.

Here you go lying again. It is not implied. It is actually there.

John Caldwell · Dec 4, 2019

David Taylor said:
I should hope you don't fault people for holding to Scripture.

And what exactly about Substitutionary Atonement is not in Scripture?

Yes, actually it does. I've already shown we are dead in sin.

I guess the cross is just a myth then?

Actually, again, yes it does. Read the Gospels, read Isaiah.

Again, what part of Substitutionary Atonement is extra-biblical. Be specific.

The I suggest you start following all of Scripture, and not only the parts you wish to consider valid for your views.

Here you go lying again. It is not implied. It is actually there.

OK. "Man up", David.

Provide one verse that states Adam died a spiritual death (NOT your interpretation or theory but a real verse).

That is just three words - Adam died spiritually.

We can build from there (or your entire myth fails).

reformed1689 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
OK. "Man up", David.

Provide a verse that states that Adam died a spiritual death.

Already did. Thanks for playing.

Enoch111 · Dec 4, 2019

John Caldwell said:
That is just three words - Adam died spiritually.

This is just as ludicrous as asking someone to show you the word "Trinity" in the Bible before you will believe it.

The proof that Adam and Eve died spiritually on the day that they disobeyed is right there in Scripture. But not the way you want it to be.

1. God had said to Adam that on the day that he would eat of the forbidden fruit he would SURELY DIE. Since God says what He means, and means what He says, they surely died spiritually though not physically on that day.

2. The evidence of spiritual death was the desire of Adam and Eve to hide from God. They separated themselves from God, and that in essence is the second death.

3. The proof that they experienced spiritual death is in the fact that they were driven out of Eden, where they had formerly had perfect fellowship with God.

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Gen 3:23,24)

VictoryinJesus · Dec 4, 2019

Episkopos said:
Jesus suffered because people dumped their sins on Him. Jesus didn't come looking to take sins upon Himself. Jesus was without sin. And that's the problem for mankind. People judged Jesus as if He was just a man...and a false prophet.

So He bore with the condemnation of people.

So you are seeing this religiously rather than realistically and spiritually.

People always persecuted the prophets. Was it God who poured out His wrath on the prophets of old? No, it was mankind who did that!

So if you can think that God was angry at His Son...then He would also have been angry with all His servants.

I think that many have God all wrong.

Agree it is men filled with wrath that destroy. (As you mentioned killing the prophets, and Jesus...) But do they, these men enraged, do it for the sake of the word? If not, then who does it for the sake of the Word?
Mark 4:17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

Matthew 24:9-10 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. [10] And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

you said: “if you can think that God was angry at His Son...” God dealt with Jesus Christ as a Son. Not as a bastard but fulfilled Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

The resurrection proclaims Christ endured and therefore the Son of God and not a bastard. 2 Corinthians 6:9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;

Point is, God dealt with Him as a Son. Does God do that which is evil to a Son? No God gives good gifts to His children. I’ve always heard God looked down on His Son and only saw sin and not a Son...if that where true then would the Son endure in: He lives. And is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

VictoryinJesus · Dec 4, 2019

Episkopos said:
He suffered the contradictions of sinners.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. [3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

Steve Owen · Dec 5, 2019

John Caldwell said:
Some of these ideas only make sense if Penal Substitution Theory is assumed and overlaid on Scripture.

For example, the idea that God poured out His wrath on Jesus in order to punish us does not really make sense. Saying that God poured His wrath on Christ, Jesus drank the "cup" of God's wrath, yet God was never wrathful towards Jesus is also counterproductive. On the surface it seems to make the Theory sound more biblical, but scratch the surface and it is nonsense.

Needless to say, you have given to reason for for your rejection, save to say that it 'does not really make sense.' What you mean is that it doesn't make sense to you because your theology is wretchedly earth-bound. The reason for it all is that on the cross, 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalms 85:10). God's love and His justice are in perfect harmony.

Also, hermeneutics is not about taking a verse from Genesis and matching it with a verse from John and a few from Isaiah. This is a dangerous practice that can be used to justify just about any doctrine, theory or heresy.

You asked for a verse; I gave you some. Had you asked for hermeneutics, I would have referred you to my article that I have linked several times and which you avoid like the plague.

John Caldwell · Dec 5, 2019

Enoch111 said:
This is just as ludicrous as asking someone to show you the word "Trinity" in the Bible before you will believe it.

The proof that Adam and Eve died spiritually on the day that they disobeyed is right there in Scripture. But not the way you want it to be.

1. God had said to Adam that on the day that he would eat of the forbidden fruit he would SURELY DIE. Since God says what He means, and means what He says, they surely died spiritually though not physically on that day.

2. The evidence of spiritual death was the desire of Adam and Eve to hide from God. They separated themselves from God, and that in essence is the second death.

3. The proof that they experienced spiritual death is in the fact that they were driven out of Eden, where they had formerly had perfect fellowship with God.

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Gen 3:23,24)

You are confused.

I am not asking that the words "Penal Substitution Theory" appear in Scripture. I am asking for verses stating the elements of the theory.

I am asking for a verse that states Adam died spiritually.

I am asking for a verse that states God poured His wrath upon Christ.

I am asking for a verse that states Christ died instead of us dying.

I am asking for a verse that states God condemned His "Righteous One".

I am asking for a verse that states Christ's suffering was divine punishment.

I am asking for a verse that edviences divine justice to be retributive justice in type.

By your own admission they do not exist.

This is why Penal Substitution Theory is a theory.

Not only do you believe all of those extra-biblical ideas but you use them as a foundation of your faith as you lean not on God's Word but your own understanding.

The evidence is plain. It was when you accused me of rejecting Scripture yet proved incompetent in providing even one passage those of us who disagree with your theory reject.

I encourage you to turn to Scripture in your studies rather than theory, myth, and superstition. Make God's Word rather than religious philosophy the foundation of your faith.

John Caldwell · Dec 5, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Needless to say, you have given to reason for for your rejection, save to say that it 'does not really make sense.' What you mean is that it doesn't make sense to you because your theology is wretchedly earth-bound. The reason for it all is that on the cross, 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalms 85:10). God's love and His justice are in perfect harmony.

You asked for a verse; I gave you some. Had you asked for hermeneutics, I would have referred you to my article that I have linked several times and which you avoid like the plague.

No one is rejecting that God is both just and the justifier of sinners.

I do not care about your hermeneutics because I believe your method flawed (we all have to decide our standards here).

I agree that you gave me a lot of verses. The problem is that you have not provided any that prove or even state the elements you assume in Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory is humanistic philosophy (it is founded in 16th century humanism). It elevates man and human sin above God. It is human philosophy. And it is unbiblical as evidenced by the fact you are unable to provide even one verse stating the elements that make up the theory.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads