Bible Study According to Caldwell

[John Caldwell]

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

^^^^^ This means "implied" by definition, David. When I introduced "implication" I actually looked up the definition and used it word for word.

You rightly say that Scripture does not explicitly state your theory but then you say it nonetheless says it (teaches it, I take you to mean). This is implication.

Nowhere does Scripture state that God was wrathful towards Christ.
Nowhere does Scripture state that God punished Christ.
Nowhere does Scripture state God must punish sin in order to forgive sinners.
Nowhere does Scripture state God is incapable of forgiving upon human repentance (it actually states the contrary).
Nowhere does Scripture state that Christ drank the cup of divine wrath.
Nowhere does Scripture state that Christ was punished instead of us.
Nowhere does Scripture state that divine justice is retributive justice.


Those are facts. You feel that the Bible says those things without actually stating them. You say (not state, but "say" as you use the term) that Scripture implies these things. But they are actually foreign to the text of Scripture.

The problem is that if any ONE of these extra-biblical (to the text) things are incorrect then Penal Substitution Theory itself is a false doctrine. In other words, if you are wrong about even one of those ideas you feel implied in the Bible then you are falsely teaching others and building on a false foundation.

 

[John Caldwell]

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


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


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


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


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;

No. I did not ignore it.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

As you probably know the word translated "chastisement" (מוּסָר)‎ is used over 50 times in Scripture. It means punish twice. Most of the time it refers to instruction. Almost as many times as instruction it refers to discipline. (e.g., Christ being perfected through the things he suffered; our "chastisement" is not punishment but discipline as we are not children of wrath).

So while I appreciate the attempt you should have researched the word a little more because it is far from stating your position. What you need to do here is defend changing the term "chastisement" to "punishment" and you need to do this in reference to the Hebrew.

 

[reformed1689]

No. I did not ignore it.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

As you probably know the word translated "chastisement" (מוּסָר)‎ is used over 50 times in Scripture. It means punish twice. Most of the time it refers to instruction. Almost as many times as instruction it refers to discipline. (e.g., Christ being perfected through the things he suffered; our "chastisement" is not punishment but discipline as we are not children of wrath).

So while I appreciate the attempt you should have researched the word a little more because it is far from stating your position. What you need to do here is defend changing the term "chastisement" to "punishment" and you need to do this in reference to the Hebrew.

So even though scholars, much more qualified than you and I, determined that word in that context means punishment you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

 

[reformed1689]

Nowhere does Scripture state that God punished Christ.

Isaiah 53:5 definitely states this.

Those are facts.

No, that is your opinion, not fact. I have already proven your opinion wrong. You reject it, that is your right, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

You feel that the Bible says those things without actually stating them.

At least one of those things the Bible actually states specifically. Again you are wrong.

The problem is that if any ONE of these extra-biblical (to the text) things are incorrect then Penal Substitution Theory itself is a false doctrine. In other words, if you are wrong about even one of those ideas you feel implied in the Bible then you are falsely teaching others and building on a false foundation.

If is a big word. And Scripture is clear about Penal Substitution if you look at the whole of Scripture.

But if you want to stick to your interpretive double standards, I get that you don't feel you hold a double standard, then that is up to you. But you are still wrong.

 

[John Caldwell]

Isaiah 53:5 definitely states this.

No, that is your opinion, not fact. I have already proven your opinion wrong. You reject it, that is your right, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

At least one of those things the Bible actually states specifically. Again you are wrong.

If is a big word. And Scripture is clear about Penal Substitution if you look at the whole of Scripture.

But if you want to stick to your interpretive double standards, I get that you don't feel you hold a double standard, then that is up to you. But you are still wrong.

You reject that the word rendered "chastisement" refers to "instruction", most of the time and "discipline" almost as most while rarely meaning "punishment"??? . Lol..... OK.

Goes back to the oysters. Sometimes I have to remember to check out the water they were harvested from.

 

[Jay Ross]

@John Caldwell and @David Taylor

Not this bickering again. Please? Many on this forum are sick of this bickering, [inappropriate comment removed]

 

[John Caldwell]

So even though scholars, much more qualified than you and I, determined that word in that context means punishment you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

No. Only those scholars who are Reformed. Most have disagreed (for a long time the choice of "propitiation" was also highly debated even among the Reformed).

You don't get outside of your tradition much, do you?

 

[Episkopos]

Isaiah 53:5 definitely states this.

We were the ones who put Jesus to death...not God. God knows how to make people drop dead....just look at Ananias and Saphirra. God was angry at them...not His Son. God put the liars to death. But WE killed His Son.

Our sins did this. He bore our bad attitudes...our cruelties...our lack of love. He bore OUR kind of judgments...on Himself.

God didn't place these there...we did.

 

[John Caldwell]

@John Caldwell and @David Taylor

Not this bickering again. Please? Many on this forum are sick of this bickering, of who has the bigger donger, between you two.

Not bickering.

I think we have established we all agree on what Scripture states while we disagree on what we believe implied.

I had hoped he and I could discuss the reasons for believing these implications but I suppose I also knew better. I thought the chance was worth taking.

It had the potential for a good conversation. But I suppose I need to be much more selective when choosing who to engage. I was once just as dogmatic about my opinions as @David Taylor is now. I mellowed with age and no longer appreciate my understanding near as much as I appreciate Scripture. He will with time. He's a good guy.

 

[John Caldwell]

We were the ones who put Jesus to death...not God. God knows how to make people drop dead....just look at Ananias and Saphirra. God was angry at them...not His Son. God put the liars to death. But WE killed His Son.

Our sins did this. He bore our bad attitudes...our cruelties...our lack of love. He bore OUR kind of judgments...on Himself.

God didn't place these there...we did.

Careful.... You are moving closer to Scripture than some theories may allow. Lol.

 

[John Caldwell]

The point of the OP (Bible study according to me) is that the more fundamental a doctrine is the closer it should be to Scripture. Otherwise we run the risk of magnifying error in the development of our doctrines.

We all see things implied in Scripture. But we are called to stand on the Word of God and not our understanding.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

@John Caldwell and @David Taylor

Not this bickering again. Please? Many on this forum are sick of this bickering, of who has the bigger donger, between you two.

That's a ridiculous, immature and unnecessary post. Don't like the issue? Don't read it. That and you're not the spokesperson for "many" here. You really should apologize for your asinine post and language.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Isaiah 53:5 definitely states this.

No, that is your opinion, not fact. I have already proven your opinion wrong. You reject it, that is your right, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

At least one of those things the Bible actually states specifically. Again you are wrong.

If is a big word. And Scripture is clear about Penal Substitution if you look at the whole of Scripture.

But if you want to stick to your interpretive double standards, I get that you don't feel you hold a double standard, then that is up to you. But you are still wrong.

He's been proven wrong many, many times.

 

[Jay Ross]

That's a ridiculous, immature and unnecessary post. Don't like the issue? Don't read it. That and you're not the spokesperson for "many" here. You really should apologize for your asinine post and language.

I think you are also part of the problem. with your "ridiculous, immature and unnecessary post."

You are just as bad as the other two.

Perhaps it is you who "should apologize for your asinine post."

 

[John Caldwell]

I think you are also part of the problem. with your "ridiculous, immature and unnecessary post."

You are just as bad as the other two.

Perhaps it is you who "should apologize for your asinine post."

I am not sure who you are referencing but I accept that I am part of the "problem".

We are human and as such have interests that can be gotten and buttons that can be pushed.

For me, I am very much interested in the "why" of Penal Substitution Theory as I know the "what". That is always the road block to discussion. A minority says "by his stripes we are healed" proves God punished Christ instead of punishing us. I cannot pretend it does.

I held the Theory as my tradition as well. I now realize I was holding vain philosophy because I could not justify what I saw as implied.

Look through the threads concerning this topic and you will find absolutely no biblical proof the Theory is correct. (There can't be actual proof, which is why it is only one of several theories but it still needs defending). No one has even attempted (that I know of) to defend it. They just throw up a verse and make a completely unrelated conclusion.

But imagine if those who hold the theory were equipped to discuss the "why" of it and defend their presuppositions and inferences. That would be progress. That would be a good discussion.

But in over 20 years I have met only one person able to do that on these forums. I disagree with his conclusions (and process) but he was honest and able to explain how he got from Scripture to his conclusion. And I do not believe he is a member here.

No one here has even attempted the task.

That does not mean my questions and insistence on Scripture is immature or unnecessary. For me (granted, a finite human being who is far from the sharpest to in the shed) these questions are essential.

 

[reformed1689]

No. Only those scholars who are Reformed. Most have disagreed (for a long time the choice of "propitiation" was also highly debated even among the Reformed).

You don't get outside of your tradition much, do you?

First, I have only been in the Reformed camp for about a decade. But I have believed in PSA long before that because it is clearly in Scripture as I have already shown.

 

[reformed1689]

You reject that the word rendered "chastisement" refers to "instruction", most of the time and "discipline" almost as most while rarely meaning "punishment"??? . Lol..... OK.

Goes back to the oysters. Sometimes I have to remember to check out the water they were harvested from.

No I did not say that at all. What I said was that most scholars (language scholars) agree that here it means punishment. Not just of the Reformed camp.

 

[reformed1689]

I mellowed with age and no longer appreciate my understanding near as much as I appreciate Scripture. He will with time. He's a good guy.

I am using Scripture for my point of view. Thanks.

 

[reformed1689]

@John Caldwell and @David Taylor

Not this bickering again. Please? Many on this forum are sick of this bickering, of who has the bigger donger, between you two.

We were having a theological discussion. If you want to call that bickering that is fine, but this comment is off topic.

 

[reformed1689]

I am not sure who you are referencing but I accept that I am part of the "problem".

We are human and as such have interests that can be gotten and buttons that can be pushed.

For me, I am very much interested in the "why" of Penal Substitution Theory as I know the "what". That is always the road block to discussion. A minority says "by his stripes we are healed" proves God punished Christ instead of punishing us. I cannot pretend it does.

I held the Theory as my tradition as well. I now realize I was holding vain philosophy because I could not justify what I saw as implied.

Look through the threads concerning this topic and you will find absolutely no biblical proof the Theory is correct. (There can't be actual proof, which is why it is only one of several theories but it still needs defending). No one has even attempted (that I know of) to defend it. They just throw up a verse and make a completely unrelated conclusion.

But imagine if those who hold the theory were equipped to discuss the "why" of it and defend their presuppositions and inferences. That would be progress. That would be a good discussion.

But in over 20 years I have met only one person able to do that on these forums. I disagree with his conclusions (and process) but he was honest and able to explain how he got from Scripture to his conclusion. And I do not believe he is a member here.

No one here has even attempted the task.

That does not mean my questions and insistence on Scripture is immature or unnecessary. For me (granted, a finite human being who is far from the sharpest to in the shed) these questions are essential.

3 Reasons I Changed My Mind About Penal Substitution