Search results

It has been suggested that מוּסָר in Deuteronomy 11:2-3 supports the idea that Christ's work was in fact God punishing Christ instead of punishing us. (See @Steve Owen 's claim, Post#4, Penal Substitution Theory and the presupposed (eisegesis) definition of מוּסָר in Isaiah 53:5 )...

Context does matter. But so do words (they have meanings which are perhaps not as subjective as some may like). Regardless, when people decide a word has a new, obscure, or minority meaning they need to provide reasoning for rejecting the more "normal" meaning AND for using the meaning they...

List them and explain why out of all possibilities and more common meanings "punishment" is the better choice. Also, are you aware of any Bible translations that translate the word as "punishment"? If so, what are they?

That you think so is my point. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. This means (literally) that He is an atoning sacrifice through which wrath is averted. What it does not mean (granted, it does not itself reject) is that propitiation is accomplished through punishment. My question of you...

Red herring fallacy. Wrath is very real. And it is in Christ we escape the wrath to come. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. Propitiation has wrath in view. I never disagreed. What I disagree with is Penal Substitution Theory (those ideas you can't quite defend), not Scripture. Where we...

Words do mean different things. Context drives interpretation. But we have to stick with meanings of words as well. If I say I ate my car, using "car" to mean "lunch" thinking context would make that clear you would think me an idiot. God is not an idiot. But more than this - even if...

I believe that the verse says that Jesus was pierced through for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, that the chadtening for our wellbeing fell upon Him and by His stripes we are healed. I do not understand what you mean by "where did this wrath go?" Wrath, like sin, is not a...

Sorry, I missed the post (must be the turkey....not you but dinner :p ). As Mounce notes, "punishment" is not within the semantic range of מוּסָר -BUT even if it were it would be dependent on anyone who chooses the word to defend it's choice. My comment was that it is in the range of the...

@Nondenom40 , @Steve Owen , and @Enoch111 It is obvious that I believe Penal Substitution Theory a false and distracting doctrine that has weakened the Church. But that is not the topic here. This is your chance to defend your view of this verse (I'll look at other verses on different threads...

I do not agree that people have no right to disagree with Penal Substitution Theory simply because many who hold the theory cannot defend it via Scripture. That is why I have (and will continue) to ask how you (and other's of your tradition, my former tradition) get from the data (Scripture) to...

I agree that Penal Substitution Theory is not hard at all to understand. And I agree the whole idea revolves around sin and wrath (within a specific philosophy of justice). I also believe it is false (I lean towards the "classic view" on this issue. To the point of the OP - do you believe...

@Enoch111, I apologize for the confusion. While there are several instances like this the reference for the OP is Isaiah 53:5. I must not have stated the verse by oversight. Are you saying you believe the verse means our "punishment" was laid on Christ? If so, are you able to justify that...

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...

For anyone who may read this thread and wonder: I am not aware of any passages that I have rejected, although I do reject the Penal Substitution Theory. I am thankful @Enoch111 is willing to back up his post by providing passages I consider alongside the ones I already affirm rather than making...

I did not mean to deny even one verse of Scripture. If I did, I assure you it was unintentional and it is something that I need to address in my own theology. The charge that I (and all who hold different theories of Atonement) have in fact rejected the gospel and the work of Christ is serious...

Here are a few things that make the above definition a theory. 1. Scripture states that Christ died for our sins and that by His work (by His stripes) we are healed. BUT Scripture itself does not teach that Christ’s death was as a substitute for sinners (Scripture uses the explanation of...

Penal Substitution Theory is one of several theories of atonement (others include Moral Influence Theory , Ransom Theory, Ontological Substitution Theory, Recapitulation Theory, and so forth). What makes it a theory is not Scripture but the theory which hold penal and substitution aspects of...

I believe a better idea (or term) as a starting point than "satisfying justice", is "righteous". What I mean is making a person "right" with God. The law tells that sinners are enemies of God and by nature objects of God's wrath. The normal solution to make people right with God is that God...

Good evening, Marks. I guess the best start towards an answer would be me making a start towards, and asking you, a question: It seems like you are suggesting that in order for justice to be satisfied crime must be punished. Under the law I agree that this is this is true. But why in terms of...

Somewhat. I believe it is an error to look at the Cross and see primarily the forgiveness of sins. I say this because Scripture does not take that approach (the Cross, for example, in Paul's writing is the death of one type of man in the hope of another type). So it involves the forgiveness of...