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

[John Caldwell]

Oh boy, this tells me all I need to know.

It's not implied, it's flat there.

You must not read Scripture.

EXACTLY. Not only does he refuse to interact with what we put forth, he lies about it and says we didn't put anything forth because he knows nobody is going to go back through and read the whole thread. Very deceitful.

I must have missed your explanation. For that I apologize.

Other than providing verses, your conclusion/ interpretation of those verses and stating your theories are possible given the language I have missed your explanation.

Exactly how do you get from the passages you quote to your conclusions? What is the reason for viewing "chasten" as "punishment"?

Why was that "cup" Christ drank and shared with His Disciples God's wrath?

Instead of just insulting me and calling me a liar just give me your explanation I overlooked.

 

[reformed1689]

What is the reason for viewing "chasten" as "punishment"?

John I have explained this I don't know how many times and I'm not going to do it again.

Let me ask you this, if it is not punishment, if it is not wrath, WHY did God not just forgive? Why was the atonement necessary at all? Why did Christ have to die at all? Why did he have to suffer at all?

And furthermore, what happens with our guilt?

 

[Steve Owen]

Often the difference is not the doctrines people hold but how people hold these doctrines.

John Piper has, for example, gone into detail about how he arrives at his conclusions (he is able to explain how he gets from Scripture to Penal Substitution Theory). C. S. Lewis rejected Penal Substitution Theory and could explain how he gets from Scripture to his belief.

You cannot. Your theories are your religion as you hold these ideas others have developed without being able to explain the ideas themselves. You can't even expound on the underlying judicial philosophy of the Theory.

In other words, where some hold Penal Substitution Theory as their understanding of Scripture you hold it as a borrowed belief you probably have no right to hold.

One of us cannot explain our theories, but it isn't I. The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution That is certainly not a book or a PhD thesis, but it is a setting out of the doctrine in considerably more detail than is usual on this forum.

Now, earlier I posted:

I am quite happy to answer these questions, but, before I spend time and energy doing so, I want your firm, public promise that you will explain your 'religion' and the views of your 'sect' (your words, not mine) in the same depth as I have set out The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Are you prepared to do that? Yes or no?

Still waiting.

 

[Steve Owen]

Why was that "cup" Christ drank and shared with His Disciples God's wrath?

From my O.P. in The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution
So we come to the concept of the cup of God’s wrath. In Gethsemane, our Lord prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39). What was this cup which the Lord Jesus dreaded so much to drink? It is the cup of God’s wrath. ‘For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink’ (Psalm 75:8; c.f. Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 13:13; 25:15; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Revelation 14:9-10 etc.). It represents God’s righteous judgement against a wicked world. This cup the Lord Jesus must drink down to the very dregs. All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on Him. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc. ) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable. Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).
End of extract.

Now the question is legitimately asked, what about our Lord's conversation with James and John in Mark 10:35ff?
It is obvious that James' and John's cup of suffering could not be redemptive; they were sinners.
What the Lord Jesus meant is simply that they would suffer as He would. Despite His various warnings, they had no idea of what He was about to go through and imagined it to be easy. But James is martyred in Acts 12:2 and John, although Church history tells us that although he did not suffer death as a martyr, he did suffer some pretty horrendous persecution.

 

[John Caldwell]

From my O.P. in The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution
So we come to the concept of the cup of God’s wrath. In Gethsemane, our Lord prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39). What was this cup which the Lord Jesus dreaded so much to drink? It is the cup of God’s wrath. ‘For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red. It is fully mixed and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drink’ (Psalm 75:8; c.f. Isaiah 51:17, 22; Jeremiah 13:13; 25:15; Ezekiel 23:32-34; Revelation 14:9-10 etc.). It represents God’s righteous judgement against a wicked world. This cup the Lord Jesus must drink down to the very dregs. All the wrath and punishment due to those whom He came to save was poured out on Him. ‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:6). ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree….’ (1 Peter 2:24). ‘It pleased the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief’ (Isaiah 53:10). Why would it please the Father to bruise or crush His beloved (Luke 3:22 etc. ) Son? Because by His suffering, the Son magnified God’s law and made it honourable. Sin was punished in full, so that God ‘might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:26).
End of extract.

Now the question is legitimately asked, what about our Lord's conversation with James and John in Mark 10:35ff?
It is obvious that James' and John's cup of suffering could not be redemptive; they were sinners.
What the Lord Jesus meant is simply that they would suffer as He would. Despite His various warnings, they had no idea of what He was about to go through and imagined it to be easy. But James is martyred in Acts 12:2 and John, although Church history tells us that although he did not suffer death as a martyr, he did suffer some pretty horrendous persecution.

I believe the "cup" Christ dreaded was the suffering and death of the Cross. Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He who knew no sin was suffering the wages of sin.

Christ told the Disciples that they would share that cup. Do you believe they did? If so, why did they also have to drink this "cup of God's wrath"? If not, why did Jesus lie to them?

 

[John Caldwell]

John I have explained this I don't know how many times and I'm not going to do it again.

Let me ask you this, if it is not punishment, if it is not wrath, WHY did God not just forgive? Why was the atonement necessary at all? Why did Christ have to die at all? Why did he have to suffer at all?

And furthermore, what happens with our guilt?

I knew you wouldn't (and anticipated this smoke screen). I explained how I reached my conclusions twice. You have not done it at all as evidenced by your inability now.

Scripture conditions forgiveness on repentance. We needed a "second Adam", a High Priest. We needed to be freed from the bondage of sin and death.

That is why Christ had to suffer and die. He had to be like us in every way yet without sin. He had to be God-man to reconcile mankind to God. The "chastening" had to fall on Him, He had to "learn obedience" and be "made perfect" from the things He suffered.

What happens with our guilt? Have you not read Scripture??? There is no condemnation in Christ. It would be unjust to condemn those recreated in Him for sins towards which they have already died.

Why do you believe redemption was accomplished through the law?

Why do you believe it would be just to punish the innocent for the crimes of other people?

 

[John Caldwell]

One of us cannot explain our theories, but it isn't I. The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution That is certainly not a book or a PhD thesis, but it is a setting out of the doctrine in considerably more detail than is usual on this forum.

Now, earlier I posted:

Still waiting.

I will (I will start a thread when back home, I am at a nuclear site and about to leave my phone in the vehicle for now).

 

[John Caldwell]

These were your actual words:

Now my 'religion' is, as you know perfectly well, is the one held by countless evangelicals including Bunyan, John Owen, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones in the past, and John Piper, Mark Dever, Timothy George and J.I. Packer today. You are under no obligation to agree with these people, but do you consider the 'religion' to be 'akin to Mormonism'? Your swift resort to falsehood and innuendo when your debating skills fail you does you no credit.

The rest of your post is too contemptible to merit a reply, save this bit at the bottom.

As you and everybody else reading this thread know, I have laid out my case for Penal Substitution in some depth on this board already The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution and you have steadfastly refused to interact with it.
Now you have asked me some direct questions:

I am quite happy to answer these questions, but, before I spend time and energy doing so, I want your firm, public promise that you will explain your 'religion' and the views of your 'sect' (your words, not mine) in the same depth as I have set out The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Are you prepared to do that? Yes or no?

I do consider your view akin to Mormonism. There are doctrines that would prevent debate over this issue between Mormons and my view (we do not share the same presuppositions) just as there are barriers between your philosophy here and the classic view (the view I hold). It would at least be very difficult, if not impossible, to debate as your position is a millenia removed from traditional Christian belief.

But we still can learn of each other and why we hold our views.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I would like to jump in here albeit very late in the discussion. I’d like to point out some things that I feel are compelling to this consideration.
First of all there is a long held misnomer that God “abandoned” Jesus and turned his back on him at the cross. This is a favorite meme among many preachers during Easter and Passion oriented messages. However this is based entirely upon the misunderstanding of the declaration, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.”
This was never specifically narrated by the gospels as God having forsaken Jesus, nor did any Apostle ever state Jesus was forsaken by God. In fact that declaration was the first and identifying title line among Jews of Psalms 22 which Jesus was pointing to due to the fact that it contained so many prophetic descriptions of what was happening in that very hour. “I am being torn apart by lions”, “they pierced my hands and my feet.” “I am being poured out like water.” are blatant signals that he was fulfilling the scripture.
The one that is contained within Ps 22 that demolishes the misnomer of God actually forsaking Jesus is in Psalms 22:24 “For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”
Furthermore this medieval notion that God was pouring out his wrath on Jesus on the cross cannot be found in scripture. It is a notion synthesized hundreds of years after the Apostles. They never said such things. What we see at the cross is not God pouring out his wrath on Jesus, but corrupt and sinful men pouring out THIER wrath on Jesus. We see God pouring out his LOVE through Jesus upon the rage filled humanity, refusing to retaliate against those who were hating him. In fact we do not see Jesus divided from God on the cross, for God is indivisible. If that were not true Jesus could not have prayed to the Father on the cross, “Father forgive them they know not what they do.” Are we to believe Jesus was being ignored at that moment because he was utterly despised and rejected? No in fact if you read carefully in Isiah it identifies the suffering servant by saying “WE esteemed him despised and rejected of God.” It was and has been mans perception and interpretation for many years.
I would also point out that neither the Jews who conspired and shouted crucify him, nor the romans who swung the hammer to nail were under the control or influence of the Holy Spirit. They were controlled by Satan and it was Satans wrath that was clearly brutalizing the Savior. Jesus was dying the death he did not deserve out of love for mankind, and of this love sacrifice the father was pleased that hewas smitten and afflicted. Not because God needed a virgin thrown i to a volcano, but because a champion must harrow hell itself in order to enter into death and the grave for the purpose of defeating it with his indestructible life. Why is it we are baptized? It is identification with his death burial and resurrection. This is where salvation occurred. Jesus forgave people on earth before the crucifixion, if PSA is necessary Jesus should have never been able to say “That you may know the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins..” The death by the cross was the demonstration of the height and depth and length and width of Gods love AND it was the vehicle whereby God tasted death for all men. It was not a satisfaction of Gods wrath. It was a satisfaction of Gods love.

This is most excellent!

 

[reformed1689]

You have not done it at all as evidenced by your inability now.

This is not an inability and it is a lie to say I have not done so, I have. I am simply not going to do it again just because you can't seem to recall me doing it.

That is why Christ had to suffer and die. He had to be like us in every way yet without sin. He had to be God-man to reconcile mankind to God. The "chastening" had to fall on Him, He had to "learn obedience" and be "made perfect" from the things He suffered.

So it did NOT have to be death on a cross? It did not have to include physical beatings etc? Is that what you are saying? I just want to be clear.

What happens with our guilt? Have you not read Scripture??? There is no condemnation in Christ. It would be unjust to condemn those recreated in Him for sins towards which they have already died.

Of course I have read Scripture. But if Christ was not required to be punished for our sin, what would have happened with our guilt? How do you deal with the penalty for sin?

 

[John Caldwell]

This is not an inability and it is a lie to say I have not done so, I have. I am simply not going to do it again just because you can't seem to recall me doing it.

So it did NOT have to be death on a cross? It did not have to include physical beatings etc? Is that what you are saying? I just want to be clear.

Of course I have read Scripture. But if Christ was not required to be punished for our sin, what would have happened with our guilt? How do you deal with the penalty for sin?

You are not making sense.

"If Christ were not required to be punished for our sin what would happen to our guilt" is a nonsensical question that shows your captivity to a failed philosophy.

 

[reformed1689]

You are not making sense.

"If Christ were not required to be punished for our sin what would happen to our guilt" is a nonsensical question that shows your captivity to a failed philosophy.

Do you believe sin must be punished, yes or no?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Do you believe sin must be punished, yes or no?

I am so confused. Can you tell me in a nutshell what you see that John believes that is different than what you others believe that is causing so much strife? Is it merely semantics like it seems to me, or something actually fundamental?

 

[reformed1689]

I am so confused. Can you tell me in a nutshell what you see that John believes that is different than what you others believe that is causing so much strife? Is it merely semantics like it seems to me, or something actually fundamental?

John doesn't believe that Christ took the penalty for our sin instead of us. That wasn't the purpose of the cross if I understand him correctly. He doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement.

 

[John Caldwell]

Do you believe sin must be punished, yes or no?

Do you believe sin can be punished?

Scripture speaks of sin as an act and as a power. These things cannot be punished. People who commit sin can be punished for their sin.

 

[reformed1689]

Do you believe sin can be punished?

Scripture speaks of sin as an act and as a power. These things cannot be punished. People who commit sin can be punished for their sin.

Now you are arguing semantics and, I daresay, are probably being difficult on purpose. Let me rephrase the question then, do you believe that people are to be punished for the sins they commit?

 

[John Caldwell]

John doesn't believe that Christ took the penalty for our sin instead of us. That wasn't the purpose of the cross if I understand him correctly. He doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement.

@CharismaticLady,

I believe Christ died for our sins, suffered the penalty for our sins and we are redeemed by His blood and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

But I do not believe God punished Christ instead of punishing us, that sin itself can be punished, or that God had to punish sin before he could forgive us for our sins.

The difference in views is not minor. Even before Penal Substitution Theory was articulated there was disagreement between the classic understanding (my view) and the Latin view (the view from which Penal Substitution Theory would eventually evolve).

 

[John Caldwell]

Now you are arguing semantics and, I daresay, are probably being difficult on purpose. Let me rephrase the question then, do you believe that people are to be punished for the sins they commit?

No. It is an important distinction.

Steve has explained that it was our sins being punished in Christ instead of us being punished for our sins.

I believe people will be punished or forgiven. Scripture repeatedly states that God will forgive men upon repentance. I believe this is true.

 

[reformed1689]

No. It is an important distinction.

Steve has explained that it was our sins being punished in Christ instead of us being punished for our sins.

I believe people will be punished or forgiven. Scripture repeatedly states that God will forgive men upon repentance. I believe this is true.

Which brings back the original question I posed to you. If God could just forgive upon repentance, why did Christ have to die?

 

[reformed1689]

suffered the penalty for our sins

What do you think Substitutionary atonement is?