Bible Study According to Caldwell

[John Caldwell]

Ok, I would place the Trinity on the same level as the atonement in importance wouldn't you?

It depends. I do not place ideas about "personhood" or "natures" on the same level (depending on how they are defined/ used. But I do agree the doctrine that Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God, that He and the Father are One, that the Spirit is the Spirt of God (God's Spirit) is essential to our faith - as is the Atonement.

That does not mean we have to find one verse stating either doctrine. But our foundational doctrines should (IMHO) actually be stated in Scripture.

Think of them as building blocks. Build on the Word, not sand.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I thought better of my statement when typing it. It's like an oyster....someone had to be the first guy to eat one while everyone else stood aside in befuddlement. So sometimes what we see now as common was at one time unique. We see this in Calvin's articulation of the atonement (he cracked that oyster a few centuries ago and now we have all kinds of bivalve mollusk connoisseurs).

LoL! That's an excellent analogy. I'm in Louisiana, so that one would work especially well down here.

 

[amadeus]

Ty HIH...I'm no where near as advanced as most on here but, I always move forward! Many of the commentaries I do not understand so, I do look up Greek and Hebrew translations when I come across hard to understand bible verses. He has grown my faith, and given me clarity about what real faith looks like and since then, it has been awesome, I have true PEACE, no longer worry or fret as I have experienced such answered prayer...just wanting His will over mine everyday And only recently have I truly experience His Joy! Never understood that in real time before...all I can say to that is WOW and THANK YOU LORD!!!

Nothing wrong with consulting the commentaries. It is only different from consulting a brother and sister on this forum in that the writers of the commentaries cannot amplify any more nor do they respond to specific questions you might want to ask. Those writers likely some of time wrote down what they received from God themselves. Sometimes they, like us, may have written their own fleshly conclusions or mixed conclusions... So always go the only One who is always right before deciding too definitely one way of the other. Sometimes, we may have to simply wait for God's time on it.

 

[reformed1689]

It depends. I do not place ideas about "personhood" or "natures" on the same level (depending on how they are defined/ used. But I do agree the doctrine that Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God, that He and the Father are One, that the Spirit is the Spirt of God (God's Spirit) is essential to our faith - as is the Atonement.

That does not mean we have to find one verse stating either doctrine. But our foundational doctrines should (IMHO) actually be stated in Scripture.

Think of them as building blocks. Build on the Word, not sand.

Which is why I can't understand why you don't hold to penal substitution.

 

[John Caldwell]

Which is why I can't understand why you don't hold to penal substitution.

I do not hold Penal Substitution Theory because what separates Penal Substitution Theory from other theories (the "narrative" or how the "dots" are connected) is not stated in Scripture.

In other words, Penal Substitution Theory does not meet my criteria to hold it as a foundational doctrine as I believe our Atonement doctrines are at the core of how we understand the gospel itself. It simply is not, for me, a place for theory.

That said, I respect your decision to disagree. We all make our own decisions and test our doctrines.

 

[reformed1689]

I do not hold Penal Substitution Theory because what separates Penal Substitution Theory from other theories (the "narrative" or how the "dots" are connected) is not stated in Scripture.

In other words, Penal Substitution Theory does not meet my criteria to hold it as a foundational doctrine as I believe our Atonement doctrines are at the core of how we understand the gospel itself. It simply is not, for me, a place for theory.

That said, I respect your decision to disagree. We all make our own decisions and test our doctrines.

I just don't understand your position. There is the same amount of evidence for Penal Substitution as their is for the Trinity yet you hold to the Trinity and deny Penal Substitution. Makes no sense.

 

[Nancy]

I prefer commentaries that deal with a specific book (and not even an entire commentary set). What I do is look at the credentials of the author based on the book that he or she is presenting.

For example, I like Leon Morris' works on John. Although I do not hold N.T. Wright's view on the NPP (and am not Anglican), he is probably one of the most knowledgeable scholars when it comes to Paul. I like Gordon Fee's books on exegesis (Fee is Pentecostal, but I believe his work with the biblical languages above par).

This does not mean that I adopt the author's conclusions. But each of them seem able to present other views fairly objectionably (although we all favor our own view...of course).

Thank you John, I have not read any of these men's commentary's, bot will check them out.

 

[John Caldwell]

I just don't understand your position. There is the same amount of evidence for Penal Substitution as their is for the Trinity yet you hold to the Trinity and deny Penal Substitution. Makes no sense.

I will try to explain, David.

To me the very basic teaching of the Trinity is that:

1. the Spirit is the Spirit of God (stated in Genesis and Matthew) and sent by the Father and Son (stated in the Gospels and Acts)

2. God is One (stated in Deut. & James)

3. The Father and Son are one (stated in the Gospels)

4. The Word was, in the beginning, with God and was God (stated in John)

That is the basic and fundamental doctrine of the Trinity upon which I would develop other understandings. Additional (extra-biblical) ideas may be true but I cannot hold them as if they were Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory teaches:

1. The Father poured His wrath out on the Son (not stated in Scripture)

2. Divine Justice is retributive justice in type (not stated in Scripture)

3. God punished Jesus in our stead (not stated in Scripture)

4. Sin can only be forgiven through or after they are punished (not in Scripture)

5. Simple forgiveness upon repentance is unjust (contrary to Scripture)

So they are not the same (you are making a mistake in the comparison).

A better comparison would be Penal Substitution Theory to Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology.

To illustrate

We see your line of arguing in our contemporary news with the impeachment show.

Like you do here the DNC does with Trumps phone call and repeats the transcript of a phone call and tells us it means what it does not say. I believe Trump was seeking political ammo BUT that is my opinion (and I really do not fault him for it) and I would never stand in the idea because in the end it is not substantiated by the actual text of the call.

 

[John Caldwell]

I just don't understand your position. There is the same amount of evidence for Penal Substitution as their is for the Trinity yet you hold to the Trinity and deny Penal Substitution. Makes no sense.

David,

I hope my explanation helped you to understand why I am so insistent (towards me, not others) that my foundation be stated in Scripture. I also hope I have corrected the misunderstanding that I believe essential doctrine be stated in one verse or place within the biblical text.

I appreciate that you are able to recognize that Penal Substitution Theory is not actually stated in the text of Scripture. I was not able to do so for decades (like some here I never paused to consider that the word "chastisement" is used over 50 times in Scripture but referring to "punishment" only twice). I suppose we take for granted some of what we are taught. Your recognition concerning the Theory is admirable, even though we disagree to the accuracy of the Theory itself.

I hope I answered your question about why Penal Substitution Theory does not meet my standard to hold due to the importance of the Atonement.

Given that you acknowledge Penal Substitution Theory is not stated in the biblical text, and that you seem to hold it as a basic/ vital doctrine, what basis do you use to hold the Theory as true when other theories, while perhaps less dogmatic in ways, are more dependent on the actual text of Scripture?

 

[reformed1689]

I will try to explain, David.

To me the very basic teaching of the Trinity is that:

1. the Spirit is the Spirit of God (stated in Genesis and Matthew) and sent by the Father and Son (stated in the Gospels and Acts)

2. God is One (stated in Deut. & James)

3. The Father and Son are one (stated in the Gospels)

4. The Word was, in the beginning, with God and was God (stated in John)

That is the basic and fundamental doctrine of the Trinity upon which I would develop other understandings. Additional (extra-biblical) ideas may be true but I cannot hold them as if they were Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory teaches:

1. The Father poured His wrath out on the Son (not stated in Scripture)

2. Divine Justice is retributive justice in type (not stated in Scripture)

3. God punished Jesus in our stead (not stated in Scripture)

4. Sin can only be forgiven through or after they are punished (not in Scripture)

5. Simple forgiveness upon repentance is unjust (contrary to Scripture)

So they are not the same (you are making a mistake in the comparison).

A better comparison would be Penal Substitution Theory to Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology.

To illustrate

We see your line of arguing in our contemporary news with the impeachment show.

Like you do here the DNC does with Trumps phone call and repeats the transcript of a phone call and tells us it means what it does not say. I believe Trump was seeking political ammo BUT that is my opinion (and I really do not fault him for it) and I would never stand in the idea because in the end it is not substantiated by the actual text of the call.

No verse talks about the wrath of God being poured out on Christ? Or Christ being the payment for our sin? Come on John, I know you read the Bible....

1 John 4:10
1 John 2:2
2 Cor. 5:21
Romans 3:25
1 Peter 3:18
Romans 6:23
Isaiah 53

I could keep going....

 

[reformed1689]

I appreciate that you are able to recognize that Penal Substitution Theory is not actually stated in the text of Scripture.

That's not exactly what I said. I said it is as much in Scripture as the doctrine of the Trinity.

I hope I answered your question about why Penal Substitution Theory does not meet my standard to hold due to the importance of the Atonement.

You answered, but I still believe you are employing a double standard and I don't think that standard is biblically based but that is another discussion for another time.

Given that you acknowledge Penal Substitution Theory is not stated in the biblical text, and that you seem to hold it as a basic/ vital doctrine, what basis do you use to hold the Theory as true when other theories, while perhaps less dogmatic in ways, are more dependent on the actual text of Scripture?

Again, I DO NOT acknowledge that it is not stated in the Biblical text. It most certainly is, just like the Trinity.

 

[John Caldwell]

No verse talks about the wrath of God being poured out on Christ? Or Christ being the payment for our sin? Come on John, I know you read the Bible....

1 John 4:10
1 John 2:2
2 Cor. 5:21
Romans 3:25
1 Peter 3:18
Romans 6:23
Isaiah 53

I could keep going....

The problem is none of the verses you have supplied state that God was wrathful towards Christ.

"Propitiation" does have wrath in view, but the definition does not make the propitiator the object of wrath (I know you know this, I am clarifying for others who may read the post). A Propitiation is an atonement that has in focus wrath being appeased or diverted from a third party.

Why do you believe those passages should be read as if referring to God being wrathful to Christ?

 

[John Caldwell]

That's not exactly what I said. I said it is as much in Scripture as the doctrine of the Trinity.

You answered, but I still believe you are employing a double standard and I don't think that standard is biblically based but that is another discussion for another time.

Again, I DO NOT acknowledge that it is not stated in the Biblical text. It most certainly is, just like the Trinity.

Sorry. I must have misunderstood your point (I thought your point was that the Trinity was not stated in the actual text of Scripture, which had me wondering about you a bit).

This makes it much easier.

Please provide one verse that states in its text God punished Christ instead of punishing us by putting in bold those words.

I will do the same for my view of the Trinity when I get back home if you still do not understand what I mean.

Thanks.

 

[reformed1689]

Sorry. I must have misunderstood your point (I thought your point was that the Trinity was not stated in the actual text of Scripture, which had me wondering about you a bit).

This makes it much easier.

Please provide one verse that states in its text God punished Christ instead of punishing us by putting in bold those words.

I will do the same for my view of the Trinity when I get back home if you still do not understand what I mean.

Thanks.

I've already done this. But you need look no further than the crucifixion itself, the torture before and during, and all. You want to deny PSA, that is up to you, you are wrong, but it is your right to be wrong.

 

[John Caldwell]

I've already done this. But you need look no further than the crucifixion itself, the torture before and during, and all. You want to deny PSA, that is up to you, you are wrong, but it is your right to be wrong.

No, David. You have not. You have not provided EVEN ONE VERSE that states in the text God poured His wrath upon Christ. I do not understand how you think that you did (it's like Adam Schiff thinking Trump's call actually states Trump was bribing another country to investigate a political opponent).

Here are two of the verses YOU say states God poured out His wrath on Christ. Please highlight the words that you think states God was wrathful towards Christ so that we can all see:

Romans 3:25 whom God set forth [to be] a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;

1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


Obviously (to probably most of the members on this board) you cannot because the words you claim present are in fact absent the actual text.

 

[reformed1689]

No, David. You have not. You have not provided EVEN ONE VERSE that states in the text God poured His wrath upon Christ. I do not understand how you think that you did (it's like Adam Schiff thinking Trump's call actually states Trump was bribing another country to investigate a political opponent).

Just like there is not one verse that states there is a Trinity. That's not how biblical interpretation works John which is the WHOLE POINT of this thread.

Unlike you, I don't believe there has to be one verse that explicitly states something to have Scripture say something.

 

[John Caldwell]

Just like there is not one verse that states there is a Trinity. That's not how biblical interpretation works John which is the WHOLE POINT of this thread.

Unlike you, I don't believe there has to be one verse that explicitly states something to have Scripture say something.

Red herring fallacy.

No one has said that our doctrine must be stated in one verse.

No one has even said that Scripture has to explicitly state something to have it say something.

A conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated is called an "implication". What you are saying is that Scripture implies Penal Substitution Theory and you are attributing what you believe Scripture implies as being equal to what is actually written.

I am saying that we can and probably must believe some things on implication.
BUT I am also saying that we need to be able to explain how and why we come to the conclusion something is actually implied in Scripture.

Here is where you have failed to support your theory. You provide a verse stating "a" and tell us that this implies "b". But you have not argued how you get from "a" to "b". You just give us a verse and claim it's implied.

More importantly is my personal view (what I hold but am not forcing on you even as you try to belittle my position) that essential, base, and foundational doctrines need to be stated rather than "implied".

The reason is when we read Scripture and determine that God is implying what God did not actually say (like He is punishing Jesus instead of punishing us) we are including our reasoning into the mix by deciding what God "really" means.

 

[reformed1689]

A conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated is called an "implication". What you are saying is that Scripture implies Penal Substitution Theory and you are attributing what you believe Scripture implies as being equal to what is actually written.

Scripture only implies that there is a Trinity, yet you hold to that.

I am saying that we can and probably must believe some things on implication.
BUT I am also saying that we need to be able to explain how and why we come to the conclusion something is actually implied in Scripture.

Ok, so I don't see the problem here.

You just give us a verse and claim it's implied.

I would say it is a little more than implied actually, it's pretty explicit.

More importantly is my personal view (what I hold but am not forcing on you even as you try to belittle my position) that essential, base, and foundational doctrines need to be stated rather than "implied".

So then you do not believe the Trinity is foundational? Because it is not stated.

The reason is when we read Scripture and determine that God is implying what God did not actually say (like He is punishing Jesus instead of punishing us) we are including our reasoning into the mix by deciding what God "really" means.

It does say that Christ was punished for us. Isaiah 53:5. THe chastisement of our peace. Here is the meaning of that word:

3. LN 38.1–38.13 punishment, i.e., an infliction of a judicial penalty based on a standard (Pr 16:22; Isa 53:5), note: for niv text in Pr 7:22, see 4591;

 

[John Caldwell]

As a basic doctrine of the Trinity this is what I hold:

1. God is One.
2. The Father is God
3. The Son and the Father are One.
4.The Spirit is the Spirit of God (God’s Spirit).

I find this explanation sufficient to deal with passages. So now let's see if I can back this up as stated in Scripture or if it is, as you say, merely implied:

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! Deuteronomy 6:4
Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Galatians 3:20
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Corinthians 8:6
I [Jesus] and the Father are One. John 10:30
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form Colossians 2:9
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom Corinthians 3:17
This is what the Lord says – Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6
The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job 33:4
And the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters Genesis 1:2
My spirit shall not strive with man forever Genesis 6:3

You are wrong, David. What I hold as a foundational definition of the Trinity is actually stated in Scripture - not, as you say, implied.

But you cannot do this with Penal Substitution Theory. You can only tell us that Christ died for us which implies God punished Jesus instead of us. Consider how much error has seeped into our faith by this line of reasoning. You cannot argue against any heresy consistently because your opponent can simply fall back on your support and say "it's not stated, but that's what is said...it's implied".

That is the danger when we gravitate towards elevating our own reasoning and understanding as if it were what Scripture actually "says". You end up on sandy ground. You end up elevating yourself to the position of God (you, not Scripture, becomes the "word" of God by explaining what God "really" means). And people see this. When you argue against them they can identify that your view is just as subjective as any other religion.

That's my caution to you. Stop relying on what you feel God wanted to say, what you feel God implied in Scripture, and instead rest on what is actually written. Hold opinions, but do so on non-essential doctrines. Hold your theories, but never build on them. Your house of cards will not stand to Scripture because in truth it is foreign to the actual text of Scripture.

 

[reformed1689]

As a basic doctrine of the Trinity this is what I hold:

1. God is One.
2. The Father is God
3. The Son and the Father are One.
4.The Spirit is the Spirit of God (God’s Spirit).

I find this explanation sufficient to deal with passages. So now let's see if I can back this up as stated in Scripture or if it is, as you say, merely implied:

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! Deuteronomy 6:4
Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Galatians 3:20
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Corinthians 8:6
I [Jesus] and the Father are One. John 10:30
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form Colossians 2:9
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom Corinthians 3:17
This is what the Lord says – Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6
The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job 33:4
And the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters Genesis 1:2
My spirit shall not strive with man forever Genesis 6:3

You are wrong, David. What I hold as a foundational definition of the Trinity is actually stated in Scripture - not, as you say, implied.

But you cannot do this with Penal Substitution Theory. You can only tell us that Christ died for us which implies God punished Jesus instead of us. Consider how much error has seeped into our faith by this line of reasoning. You cannot argue against any heresy consistently because your opponent can simply fall back on your support and say "it's not stated, but that's what is said...it's implied".

That is the danger when we gravitate towards elevating our own reasoning and understanding as if it were what Scripture actually "says". You end up on sandy ground. You end up elevating yourself to the position of God (you, not Scripture, becomes the "word" of God by explaining what God "really" means). And people see this. When you argue against them they can identify that your view is just as subjective as any other religion.

That's my caution to you. Stop relying on what you feel God wanted to say, what you feel God implied in Scripture, and instead rest on what is actually written. Hold opinions, but do so on non-essential doctrines. Hold your theories, but never build on them. Your house of cards will not stand to Scripture because in truth it is foreign to the actual text of Scripture.

I noticed you ignored my point that Penal Substitution is actually explicitly stated in Isaiah 53:5. You also miss what I am saying. You have to take MULTIPLE parts of Scripture to arrive at the Trinity. I am saying the same thing is true for PSA BUT Scripture IS clear that Christ did take our punishment in Isaiah 53:5.