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

[reformed1689]

I had decided to stop conversing with you and David. But neither of you could respect that so I will continue. Perhaps another will read and realize you have proved unwilling to even attempt a defence of your conclusions (you just state a verse and then your opinion as if you accomplished something).

Respect what? That you were going to quit responding to us? We never said we would quit conversing with you. You are the one who has decided to continue after saying you won't. So I guess you weren't honest there but don't try to paint it as if we dishonored some agreement. That's dishonest.

 

[reformed1689]

Why do you believe God had to punish Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us in order to forgive man?

No, but that is not what is being discussed.

Why do you believe we escape the wages of sin yet still die?

This depends on what you mean by death.

Why do you believe "wound", "pierce" and "stripes" means "punishment"?

Strawman as I have already pointed out.

I bet he'll dis me for not knowing what he means. I had complained he just throws out name calling and never quotes a scripture. Maybe this was his way or proving me wrong in his childish way.

Or you could just read the thread instead of engaging in ad hominem.

He has elevated himself and his opinions that far.

More ad hominem and false witness, yet I am the one you say hurls the insults? Yet here you are.... More dishonesty.

 

[reformed1689]

By your standard Abraham was wrathful to Isaac as he punished him by laying him on that altar and would have punished him by pouring his wrath upon his son if God had not stayed his hand.

No, that is not the same that is asinine John.

Your theory is based on assumptions. The problem is that you seem incapable of defending your theory.

No, I have defended it, you just reject it. That is your right.

 

[reformed1689]

BUT you have not justified or explained your interpretation except to say it is a possible meaning.

That is not true actually.

I simply do not believe your opinions and feelings (or anyone's opinions and feelings) are enough to defend your theory. It is too subjective.

Good thing I gave more than opinion and feeling.

 

[John Caldwell]

Respect what? That you were going to quit responding to us? We never said we would quit conversing with you. You are the one who has decided to continue after saying you won't. So I guess you weren't honest there but don't try to paint it as if we dishonored some agreement. That's dishonest.

When the two of you chose to take my request via PM to the public forum I changed my mind.

The reason is that I believe your religious philosophy (both the eisegesis and your theories) dangerous as it detracts from Kingdom work by fictionalizing God's work of and purpose for redemption. It is not so much the superstitions you have adopted (although they are troubling) but the truths they usurp.

I post not to engage you as you cannot justify your position (how you arrive there) as evidenced on this thread. I post so that others may think through their own views, hopefully they will consider my view as I have explained how I get from A to B, and prayerfully think this through. It is that important a doctrine.

 

[John Caldwell]

That is not true actually.

Good thing I gave more than opinion and feeling.

You said that you believe Penal Substitution Theory because of Isaiah 53.

Ironically, I reject Penal Substitution Theory because of Isaiah 53. But unlike you, I explained why.

 

[John Caldwell]

No, that is not the same that is asinine John.

No, I have defended it, you just reject it. That is your right.

I believe Abraham and Isaac foreshadow redemption. I understand you do not (I suppose you would had Abraham slaughtered his som as that would have fit better in the narrative you superimpose on Scripture).

Anyway, this was a point made in a missiology course (at Liberty). I have a friend who is a professor at DTS and they make the same point. When introducing the gospel they decided to start with Abraham and Isaac and this becomes a foreshadow of what is to come. The father offers the Son as a sin offering.

I thought it a good idea.

 

[reformed1689]

The reason is that I believe your religious philosophy (both the eisegesis and your theories) dangerous as it detracts from Kingdom work by fictionalizing God's work of and purpose for redemption. It is not so much the superstitions you have adopted (although they are troubling) but the truths they usurp.

This assumes actual esigesis exists, it doesn't, it also assumes superstitions, also not existent. More strawman and ad hominem. A staple for you.

W

Ironically, I reject Penal Substitution Theory because of Isaiah 53. But unlike you, I explained why.

With a pretty flimsy explanation.

 

[reformed1689]

I believe Abraham and Isaac foreshadow redemption.

Hmm, an idea you are bringing to the text. It was clearly a test of Abraham's faith and also an example that God provides the sacrifice necessary.

I suppose you would had Abraham slaughtered his som as that would have fit better in the narrative you superimpose on Scripture).

Not even sure what you are trying to say here. But I suspect it is strawman.

I thought it a good idea.

Keyword being idea.

 

[John Caldwell]

This assumes actual esigesis exists, it doesn't, it also assumes superstitions, also not existent. More strawman and ad hominem. A staple for you.

W

With a pretty flimsy explanation.

Look at your explanation:

1. You provide verses that do not state your theory.
2. You claim your theory is right because the words fall within the possible meanings.
3. You claim context dictates your conclusion although you cannot explain how when others come to a completely different conclusion from the context AND can explain why.
4. You have claimed your theory is implied in Scripture although not explicitly stated because that is how you believe theology is done.

The reason your theory is eisegesis is because not only is your theory not stated in the text of Scripture but you cannot even explain how it can be derived from Scripture except it be assumed.

 

[reformed1689]

2. You claim your theory is right because the words fall within the possible meanings.

Here is where you are wrong. I believe you said there wasn't one verse in Scripture that said Christ was punished. I provided a verse that states otherwise. Obviously you reject it but the meaning based on the context of the verse is crystal clear.

3. You claim context dictates your conclusion although you cannot explain how when others come to a completely different conclusion from the context AND can explain why.

Flimsy explanations at best.

4. You have claimed your theory is implied in Scripture although not explicitly stated because that is how you believe theology is done.

Now that is not what I said. I said that it is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. But I said if you are looking for one verse you will be disappointed and that is not how proper theology is done. (ex. The Trinity).

The reason your theory is eisegesis is because not only is your theory not stated in the text of Scripture but you cannot even explain how it can be derived from Scripture except it be assumed.

And of course this is a falsehood. I have explained in multiple threads how we get substitutionary atonement including, but not limited to, ROmans 6 and Is. 53.

 

[John Caldwell]

Hmm, an idea you are bringing to the text. It was clearly a test of Abraham's faith and also an example that God provides the sacrifice necessary.

Not even sure what you are trying to say here. But I suspect it is strawman.


Keyword being idea.

You can disagree that Abraham offering up his only begotten son foreshadows the Father offering His only begotten Son but that is the point - we can discuss it because I am able to explain my view. You cannot.

I believe that Isaiah 53 speaks of God offering His Son but not punishing Him because nowhere is divine punishment mentioned in the text. Instead I believe this parallels Jesus' parable of the rich landowner who sends his son to collect the profits at harvest and Christ being "made perfect" and "learning obedience" through the things He suffered.
I also believe God will not condemn the righteous and that the righteous are not children of wrath.

Why do you believe Isaiah 53 speaks of God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ?

 

[John Caldwell]

Here is where you are wrong. I believe you said there wasn't one verse in Scripture that said Christ was punished. I provided a verse that states otherwise. Obviously you reject it but the meaning based on the context of the verse is crystal clear.


Flimsy explanations at best.


Now that is not what I said. I said that it is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. But I said if you are looking for one verse you will be disappointed and that is not how proper theology is done. (ex. The Trinity).


And of course this is a falsehood. I have explained in multiple threads how we get substitutionary atonement including, but not limited to, ROmans 6 and Is. 53.

I believe Romans 6 teaches we are dead to sin and made alive in Christ and therefore His servants who obey His commands (to include not adding to Scripture).

How do you draw the idea that God punished Jesus I stead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ from Romans 6?

 

[John Caldwell]

No, but that is not what is being discussed.

This depends on what you mean by death.

Strawman as I have already pointed out.

Or you could just read the thread instead of engaging in ad hominem.

More ad hominem and false witness, yet I am the one you say hurls the insults? Yet here you are.... More dishonesty.

Fo you believe physical death is a wage of sin? If so, do you believe we will physically die (and why was this not paid by Christ) ? If not, why do we physically die?

 

[John Caldwell]

Here is where you are wrong. I believe you said there wasn't one verse in Scripture that said Christ was punished. I provided a verse that states otherwise. Obviously you reject it but the meaning based on the context of the verse is crystal clear.


Flimsy explanations at best.


Now that is not what I said. I said that it is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. But I said if you are looking for one verse you will be disappointed and that is not how proper theology is done. (ex. The Trinity).


And of course this is a falsehood. I have explained in multiple threads how we get substitutionary atonement including, but not limited to, ROmans 6 and Is. 53.

Why do you believe the "cup" Christ drank and shared with His disciples is God's wrath?

 

[John Caldwell]

Here is where you are wrong. I believe you said there wasn't one verse in Scripture that said Christ was punished. I provided a verse that states otherwise. Obviously you reject it but the meaning based on the context of the verse is crystal clear.


Flimsy explanations at best.


Now that is not what I said. I said that it is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. But I said if you are looking for one verse you will be disappointed and that is not how proper theology is done. (ex. The Trinity).


And of course this is a falsehood. I have explained in multiple threads how we get substitutionary atonement including, but not limited to, ROmans 6 and Is. 53.

Why do you believe sin can be transfered from one person to another?

How is God just to punish a righteous person for the sins of guilty people?

 

[John Caldwell]

Here is where you are wrong. I believe you said there wasn't one verse in Scripture that said Christ was punished. I provided a verse that states otherwise. Obviously you reject it but the meaning based on the context of the verse is crystal clear.


Flimsy explanations at best.


Now that is not what I said. I said that it is CLEARLY taught in Scripture. But I said if you are looking for one verse you will be disappointed and that is not how proper theology is done. (ex. The Trinity).


And of course this is a falsehood. I have explained in multiple threads how we get substitutionary atonement including, but not limited to, ROmans 6 and Is. 53.

Why do you think that divine justice is retributive justice?

Why do you present redemption as God's righteousness manifested through the law?

Why center redemption on justice?

Why can God not forgive based on repentance (as stated in Scripture)?

 

[CharismaticLady]

No, but that is not what is being discussed.

This depends on what you mean by death.

Strawman as I have already pointed out.

Or you could just read the thread instead of engaging in ad hominem.

More ad hominem and false witness, yet I am the one you say hurls the insults? Yet here you are.... More dishonesty.

Another post deplete of Scripture to discuss. Typical.

 

[reformed1689]

Another post deplete of Scripture to discuss. Typical.

What is Ironic is your post about my post not having Scripture didn't have Scripture! You seem to think every post must have a Scripture reference to be relevant...

 

[CharismaticLady]

What is Ironic is your post about my post not having Scripture didn't have Scripture! You seem to think every post must have a Scripture reference to be relevant...

When I write a Scripture, I also teach about it. Miles down the road, you just throw out a text like Isaiah 53 and nothing...