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

[reformed1689]

But always as a father who chastens his own son. Chastening is with love that sees to the maturing of the one being chastened. God is love.

Piercing, Bruising, Killing, that was all seen to the maturing of Christ?

 

[John Caldwell]

Piercing, Bruising, Killing, that was all seen to the maturing of Christ?

Chastening (Scripture says by God's predetermined plan at the hands of wicked men). Most scholars see this "being made perfect" as applying to Christ's purpose in redemption, not that He was less than perfect.

 

[Episkopos]

Piercing, Bruising, Killing, that was all seen to the maturing of Christ?

That's what evil men did to Jesus...not God. You have some confusion going on there...

God allowed the devil to play his hand...in His weakness He still defeated the devil. God outmaneuvered the devil to bring life to mankind...eternal life and this through the resurrection of the Lord.

 

[John Caldwell]

@David Taylor 's "explanation" is the word means "punished" because he assumes the contest is speaking of God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon His Son.

This is eisegesis and the reason he cannot justify his view.

 

[reformed1689]

@David Taylor 's "explanation" is the word means "punished" because he assumes the contest is speaking of God punishing Christ instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon His Son.

This is eisegesis and the reason he cannot justify his view.

I notice you didn't actually engage with my argument. Pretty dishonest John.

 

[reformed1689]

That's what evil men did to Jesus...not God. You have some confusion going on there...

Right... the Roman soldiers pierced Christ for my sin. Bruised him for my transgressions. They may have been the agent, but it was God orchestrating it.

 

[Episkopos]

Right... the Roman soldiers pierced Christ for my sin. Bruised him for my transgressions. They may have been the agent, but it was God orchestrating it.

You aren't getting the idea that Jesus took OUR abuse...the hatred of a Cain against an Abel. Not God's abuse. Did God kill Abel? No, Cain did.

You have a locked in "idée fixe" based on a hypnotic spell from listening to preachers of the heretical notion.

You have simply been indoctrinated through a mass hypnosis.

 

[John Caldwell]

I notice you didn't actually engage with my argument. Pretty dishonest John.

Your argument was that "chasten" means "punishment" because the things Christ suffered was divine punishment. That is just assumption. Nothing to engage except to say provide evidence instead of shifting the assumptions to a different place.

 

[reformed1689]

Your argument was that "chasten" means "punishment" because the things Christ suffered was divine punishment. That is just assumption. Nothing to engage except to say provide evidence instead of shifting the assumptions to a different place.

No, you asked why I believed it means chasten in Is. 53:5.

I said nothing in my argument about divine, human, etc. I simply gave the context showing why it means punishment in that verse and why men who are much more educated than you are I agree. MANY men agree. Experts. The few who do not agree their arguments are flimsy at best. So it is also dishonest to say there is nothing to engage. This just shows, as I have known for quite some time, you are not interested in honest conversation (though you proclaim you are). You have your ideas. Anyone who goes against your idea is wrong. You belittle anyone or lie about anyone who disagrees with you. You conveniently ignore things they say and make straw man arguments about what they did (or in many cases did not) say. It is pointless to engage with you because you are a dishonest person.

 

[John Caldwell]

.
You have a locked in "idée fixe" based on a hypnotic spell from listening to preachers of the heretical notion.

You have simply been indoctrinated through a mass hypnosis.

This is @David Taylor 's issue. He cannot read those verses without carting into them his indoctrination.

It was difficult for me as well. God convicted me after I preached a sermon advocating Penal Substitution Theory that I had preached my theory instead of Scripture. This drove me to Scripture. I wrote down Penal Substitution Theory along with all corresponding passages on a couple of white boards. Then I erased what was not in Scripture. The entire theory is overlaid uopn Scripture to create a narrative foreign to Scripture itself. I started studying to see if there was a plain meaning obscured by the theory I held.

It is difficult and not for the lazy by any means. It is hard to reexamine our beliefs. But this is an area where choosing one theory can easily obscure what Scripture actually teaches. @David Taylor is in that trap now.

 

[John Caldwell]

No, you asked why I believed it means chasten in Is. 53:5.

I said nothing in my argument about divine, human, etc. I simply gave the context showing why it means punishment in that verse and why men who are much more educated than you are I agree. MANY men agree. Experts. The few who do not agree their arguments are flimsy at best. So it is also dishonest to say there is nothing to engage. This just shows, as I have known for quite some time, you are not interested in honest conversation (though you proclaim you are). You have your ideas. Anyone who goes against your idea is wrong. You belittle anyone or lie about anyone who disagrees with you. You conveniently ignore things they say and make straw man arguments about what they did (or in many cases did not) say. It is pointless to engage with you because you are a dishonest person.

I am delighted you do not believe the Cross was divine punishment. That is a good start.

The issue, though, is the word does not mean "punishment" at all. You assume the things Christ suffered was punishment but cannot say why.

 

[Episkopos]

I don't think that authority is understood very well in the church.

How did we inherit Adam's sin in the first place? How do we begin in Adam?

Through the surrendered authority of Adam to the devil by disobedience to God and the devil replacing Adam as the lord over this world. Consequently we take on the sins of Adam through the power of the air...the evil of the principality that we draw from by the influence of that power over us in the world. We draw on this sin from early on...about 2 years old. We learn to survive by empowering our own egos to do our own will.

(Of course indoctrinated people will not be able to think this through)

Jesus came to overthrow the principalities and powers over mankind...that enslave mankind to sin. As such He took all the abuse of that power upon Himself...even to the death on the cross. It was the powers of THIS world that put Jesus to death. But God had a master strategy in mind. He knew what the powers would do.

So God made something good out of something bad. God lost His creation through the disobedience of the weakness of man...but regained it by the obedience of the power held "as in weakness" of His only Son. He beat the devil and freed mankind through the resurrection of Jesus. Death could not hold the divinity and the sinless perfection of Jesus. Only sin brings death...not eternal life. Eternal life trumps death. Jesus IS life.

So then the eternal life of Jesus is God's gift to mankind...when we enter into Him so as to walk as He walked.

This is not a religious scheme...it is life in power and action.

All who enter into Him cease from sin...because they are connected above all other principalities and powers. They walk in Zion.

But this understanding is far above the carnal mind.

 

[reformed1689]

I am delighted you do not believe the Cross was divine punishment. That is a good start.

The issue, though, is the word does not mean "punishment" at all. You assume the things Christ suffered was punishment but cannot say why.

More lies.

 

[John Caldwell]

Good defense. LOL. You can’t defend your position except to claim it means “punishment” because of the context so you resort to calling me a liar. Way to go hero.


Punishment is a penalty or sanction as retribution for an offense or transgression of a legal or moral code.

Scripture teaches that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Abraham was not punishing his only begotten son when he laid him on the alter.

The priests were not punishing the sacrificial animals when they bled and killed them.

The Romans were not even punishing Christ when they abused and crucified Him (they were appeasing the Jews who handed Him over to be killed after finding no fault in him).

And the Jews were not punishing Jesus but rebelling against God as they also could not provide a transgression but instead killed Christ as foretold by Jesus in the parable of the Landowner.


If you want to try to defend you theory you are going to have to explain why you have decided that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. You claim the one word means punishment because of the context, so you now have to explain this context.

Are you able to defend your view (how you get from Scripture to “punishment”, or is this just something you believe because it is what you have been taught?

 

[reformed1689]

Good defense. LOL. You can’t defend your position except to claim it means “punishment” because of the context so you resort to calling me a liar. Way to go hero.

No, I said you lied because you keep claiming I said and believe things that I haven't and don't.

Punishment is a penalty or sanction as retribution for an offense or transgression of a legal or moral code.

Yes, like sin.

Scripture teaches that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

Ah yes, the law, and is the law the entire moral code of God? No.

Abraham was not punishing his only begotten son when he laid him on the alter.

Who claimed that he was?

The priests were not punishing the sacrificial animals when they bled and killed them.

And notice they did not actually atone for sin with finality. They were merely a symbol. Are you suggesting Christ is only a symbol?

The Romans were not even punishing Christ when they abused and crucified Him (they were appeasing the Jews who handed Him over to be killed after finding no fault in him).

Agreed, but that is a Red Herring.

And the Jews were not punishing Jesus but rebelling against God as they also could not provide a transgression but instead killed Christ as foretold by Jesus in the parable of the Landowner.

Right, because it had to happen in God's design.

If you want to try to defend you theory you are going to have to explain why you have decided that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. You claim the one word means punishment because of the context, so you now have to explain this context.

I have done this at least five times in this thread. You lie if you say I haven't.

Are you able to defend your view (how you get from Scripture to “punishment”, or is this just something you believe because it is what you have been taught?

Can and have defended it. You keep lying saying I haven't.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Right, because I never give Scripture to back up my claims. More false witness. Besides, what happened to you putting me on ignore?

And yes, verse 5 does give us an answer as does verse 6. You and I agree about our iniquities being placed on Him. The Bible directly states this. However, @John Caldwell seems to think not.

Not the site's ignore, but I would ignore what your write if there is no Scripture to discuss. That ended when you at least wrote Isaiah 53. As for John Caldwell, I haven't read all his posts to other people, just when I'm alerted.

Yes, verse 5 says they are our iniquities, but not that they were placed ON Him. That is in verse 6. But, yes, we agree.

As far as wrath, God's wrath is against the sin, and the only thing that was actually pure enough to take away our sin so we are clean, rather than just temporarily covering our sins while we remain dirty until the next year as with the blood of bulls and goats, is the blood of God. I know you argue for cover, but that is just not thorough enough for God. That was just like putting a new tarp over a cesspool, and the tarp was replaced year after year. Jesus cleaned out the sewage itself and took the filth away completely. The filth was our sins against God personally, as in disobeying His laws. Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit so we can bear fruit and grow up to maturity to deal lovingly with each other. That is why Paul called the Corinthians babes in Christ. They showed no maturity or discernment at all and kept committing trespasses against each other, but in their immaturity they even allowed someone committing a sin unto death against God in their midst that called himself a Christian. Paul said not to even have lunch with such a person.

Now, David, there are things I believe that you don't. Can you calmly give me Scripture and your thoughts about the subject, and not me personally, so we can discuss like Christians, and maybe even grow in our understanding of Scripture? I look forward to your reply.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Not sure if that was meant to be a point of agreement but it actually is. Check out the Fishhook theory of atonement. One of the earliest in existence dating back to first century. Long before PSA.

Yes, I agree. Look at the bottom of your post. I gave you a "like."

 

[John Caldwell]

No, I said you lied because you keep claiming I said and believe things that I haven't and don't.


Yes, like sin.


Ah yes, the law, and is the law the entire moral code of God? No.


Who claimed that he was?


And notice they did not actually atone for sin with finality. They were merely a symbol. Are you suggesting Christ is only a symbol?

Agreed, but that is a Red Herring.

Right, because it had to happen in God's design.


I have done this at least five times in this thread. You lie if you say I haven't.


Can and have defended it. You keep lying saying I haven't.

I must have missed your explanation.

This is what I understand you to have explained:

1. the word used for "chastening" can mean "punishment"
2. you believe it means "punishment" because of how you view the context of the passage
3. you view words like "bruise" to indicate "punishment"

What I have apparently missed is your reason for interpreting those things as "punishment".

Why do you believe that Christ was experiencing a punishment, and who do you believe was inflicting this punishment on Christ (who do you think was punishing God)?

 

[CharismaticLady]

@Episkopos , @David Taylor , @John Caldwell , @Steve Owen

What did Jesus suffer that brought Him to obedience?

Hebrews 5:
6 As He also says in another place:

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”;

7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

 

[Episkopos]

@Episkopos , @David Taylor , @John Caldwell , @Steve Owen

What did Jesus suffer that brought Him to obedience?

Hebrews 5:
6 As He also says in another place:

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”;

7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

He suffered the contradictions of sinners.