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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then you aren't understanding the argument. either Jesus died for the whole world OR just for believers. You can't have it both ways. The fact that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world means that God would have had to pour out His wrath on His Son FOR THE WHOLE WORLD...meaning no future wrath. So you have to get your own ideas straight.
You seem to think whole world always means every individual man. It doesn't.

Look at it this way. Game 7 of the world series this year the commentator said "The eyes of the whole world are watching this moment" does that mean literally every person was watching the game? Of course not. So why do you force that view onto the biblical text despite passages saying it was not for every individual?
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,800
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If all men, meaning every individual man, were atoned for, then all are saved.


Wrong thinking. The provision of salvation is for all men...but the resurrection is for they who are justified in His life.

So you are confusing death with life.

AND...you are trying to justify yourself as an individual...but you will be blind to that of course.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a cop out (and most likely a veiled admission you cannot defend your theory).

Most Christians have not held Penal Substitution Theory (either today or historically). Most evangelical Protestants do, but you are not on an evangelical Protestant forum so you are in a minority not only with Christianity in general, with historic Christianity, but here as well. So no, you do not escape the burden of proof. I'd say "nice try" but I find the attempt cowardice (it was not a "nice try" but a "turn tail and run").

I stated what I believe and why. We all have the burden of proof to defend our understanding and explain how we get from Scripture to our belief. You have not done this (probably because you are unable to do so).

Your "appeal to the masses" is a logical fallacy, BTW. You should know better.
My appeal is to the language of the text. You have to show why your understanding is correct and the expert language analysis is wrong. Perhaps you aren't able to do so?

That's not cowardice on my part. That is honest academic linguistics. What reason is there to say that translators for centuries have somehow gotten this wrong from all sorts of theological leanings? You tried to claim it is only the Reformed camp that claim this meaning but that is not even close to true.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The word is listed as punishment as a viable definition in MANY lexicons.
I can offer two off hand that disagrees (Strongs and Mounce, as I referenced already).

You have not yet offered any reference that states מוּסָר to be defined as "punishment".
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,800
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I'm not confusing anything. But then again, you think nobody sins after salvation so what do you know?


You are batting 100 in falsehood. I am in the minority of modern believers who believes that in Christ is no sin.

I don't believe we are imprisoned in Christ anymore than we are always to be imprisoned in sins. Salvation is by grace through faith...and we are free to move either way.
 
Last edited:

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My appeal is to the language of the text. You have to show why your understanding is correct and the expert language analysis is wrong. Perhaps you aren't able to do so?

That's not cowardice on my part. That is honest academic linguistics. What reason is there to say that translators for centuries have somehow gotten this wrong from all sorts of theological leanings? You tried to claim it is only the Reformed camp that claim this meaning but that is not even close to true.
No. Your appeal is to your own theory. You hold a fairly new and minority view in opposition to the "classic view" and claim your view is the only and obvious possible conclusion of the text. I never claimed it is only the Reformed camp that claims this meaning (that is a lie on your part). I claimed that only Reformed people (and I specified not "reformed" meaning Calvinistic but a "product of the Reformation") hold the view because the definition is dependent on Penal Substitution Theory which is a product of the Reformation. There is no one "camp" as these people do not work together (John Wesley was probably the strongest supporter of Penal Substitution Theory and while Arminianism is definitely Reformed in terms of the Reformation it is not of the "Reformed camp" in terms of Calvinism).

There is absolutely nothing "academic" about your refusal to explain how you arrive at your theories or your treatment of your unlisted secret lexicons as a smorgasbord from which to choose a meaning you like.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CharismaticLady

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,800
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world gives God the initiative...ALWAYS. God can have mercy even on bad people. But religious people want to judge God and others. They want the initiative. Just as the Pharisees did in their time.

But many will be saved on that day that had no idea who Jesus is in their lives. God is righteous not like Rumpelstiltskin who got angry when someone didn't know his name.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The idea of mousar is with the purpose of learning. But you can't make people think!
I've found many here are unable to defend their belief and simply "double down" and fight rather than explaining how they have interpreted any passage as they truly do not know. This is the danger of indoctrination. These guys have found one of the simplest (and probably most humanistic) theologies within Christianity under which to disciple themselves - I suspect because it makes no demands of them either in this life or the next.

It is biblical illiteracy on display. Centuries ago we had this issue but Scripture was not commonly available. Applying the principle of to whom much is given I believe now the level of illiteracy is a sin because these guys have Scripture yet prefer theory and tradition over God's Word.

I suppose I was once the same. It is sad not because they cling to superstition (they do) but because of the truth this superstition overshadows in their theology. They shackle the gospel in humanistic dogma and wonder why Christianity appears powerless to so many.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,800
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I've found many here are unable to defend their belief and simply "double down" and fight rather than explaining how they have interpreted any passage as they truly do not know. This is the danger of indoctrination. These guys have found one of the simplest (and probably most humanistic) theologies within Christianity under which to disciple themselves - I suspect because it makes no demands of them either in this life or the next.

It is biblical illiteracy on display. Centuries ago we had this issue but Scripture was not commonly available. Applying the principle of to whom much is given I believe now the level of illiteracy is a sin because these guys have Scripture yet prefer theory and tradition over God's Word.

I suppose I was once the same. It is sad not because they cling to superstition (they do) but because of the truth this superstition overshadows in their theology. They shackle the gospel in humanistic dogma and wonder why Christianity appears powerless to so many.


I encourage you in your patient defense of the humble approach to the bible and it's teachings. Let all men be wrong but let God be honoured in the truth and never dishonoured by spreading lies about Him and His ways. :)

Hosea 7:13 Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I encourage you in your patient defense of the humble approach to the bible and it's teachings. Let all men be wrong but let God be honoured in the truth and never dishonoured by spreading lies about Him and His ways. :)

Hosea 7:13 Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me.
I have learned that all we can (and should) do is defend ourselves against evil while standing the truth. The World will accept any Christ that meets their expectations and fits in their theories. But they will always reject the truth of God's Word because to them it is foolishness.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,800
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I have learned that all we can (and should) do is defend ourselves against evil while standing the truth. The World will accept any Christ that meets their expectations and fits in their theories. But they will always reject the truth of God's Word because to them it is foolishness.

I don't like the idea of defending myself...but just to stand in the truth so as to speak from that place. The best defense of the truth will always be the practice of the truth.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't like the idea of defending myself...but just to stand in the truth so as to speak from that place. The best defense of the truth will always be the practice of the truth.
True. I was thinking the "armor of God" but that is not self defence (it is clothing ourself in truth and standing) . That was not the best word choice on my part.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is false. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Are you going to change the bible..or just deny what it says?
How am i changing the bible? Do you even read the references i cite? Do you know the word 'world' i.e. cosmos has numerous meanings depending on the context.

Gal 6:14
14 But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.NASB

In your wooden literal interpretive hermenutic how is the world crucified? Or does it mean something else?
God judges. It isn't for you to apply the blood of Jesus to yourself or they whom you approve of. How dare you be so arrogant?
I've said nothing arrogant. Your faux rage is noted. And salvation is absolutely an individual/personal thing. YOU must have faith, and believe and repent. Thats on you. And i said nothing about me approving of anyone elses applying Jesus' blood. Can you say straw man?
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not by shielding them from God's wrath...but by rescuing them from the jaws of the wolf.


Then you aren't understanding the argument. either Jesus died for the whole world OR just for believers. You can't have it both ways. The fact that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world means that God would have had to pour out His wrath on His Son FOR THE WHOLE WORLD...meaning no future wrath. So you have to get your own ideas straight.


You have shown your lack of understanding and reasoning. You are adding your own ideas...which you have been indoctrinated into thinking that they are your own...into the text. The bible is far different than what you are making it to be. You will find that you are way off track...IF you were to limit your opinions in favour of the biblical text.


All men were atoned for on the cross. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

So you also lack understanding of salvation...and many other things. So no wonder you don't get the bible.

Jesus was also resurrected to justify the saints...by they entering into His resurrection life...away from sin.
Will there be anyone in hell? I guess we can start there.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,800
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
How am i changing the bible? Do you even read the references i cite? Do you know the word 'world' i.e. cosmos has numerous meanings depending on the context.

Gal 6:14
14 But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.NASB

In your wooden literal interpretive hermenutic how is the world crucified? Or does it mean something else?

God doesn't love the world system...but His creation. God is a Father to the fatherless...regardless of religious affiliation.

But it is here that your understanding breaks down. Just admit that the bible is a book of confusion to you!

Or do you think that God loves the world's systems?

But in any case you are smokescreening a lack of understanding. God indeed loved the world...not just the church. There is no way to make the world (cosmos) to mean the ekklesia.
I've said nothing arrogant. Your faux rage is noted. And salvation is absolutely an individual/personal thing. YOU must have faith, and believe and repent. Thats on you. And i said nothing about me approving of anyone elses applying Jesus' blood. Can you say straw man?

Actually it is God that justifies...not people justifying themselves... even if they believe in Jesus. Nowhere in the bible do people justify themselves (without incurring wrath) for their own beliefs...ok maybe the Pharisees....and the Israelites of old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stunnedbygrace

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I can offer two off hand that disagrees (Strongs and Mounce, as I referenced already).

You have not yet offered any reference that states מוּסָר to be defined as "punishment".

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;

James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).


4148. מוּסָר musar (416b); from 3256; discipline, chastening, correction:—chastening(3), chastise(1), correction(3), discipline(18), disciplines(1), instruction(20), punishment(2), reproof(1), warning(1).

Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

But all such discipline becomes futile through the resistance and stubbornness of those to whom it is given (cf. Jer 2:30; 5:3; 7:28; 17:23; 32:33). Isaiah 53:5 adds “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (RSV “the chastisement that made us whole”). This is clearly a context of substitutionary atonement. Here the Servant of the Lord is seen as taking “the severe punishment” vicariously, more clearly revealing God’s merciful ways of dealing with his rebellious (pešaʿ) people through redemptive judgment and suffering.

Paul R. Gilchrist, “877 יָסַר,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 387.

2. more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God יהוה ˊמ‍ chastening of Yahweh. b. of man.

Richard Whitaker et al., The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).

discipline n., the imposition of painful consequences or other disadvantages upon someone for their disobedience as part of a process of improving someone’s character or actions: Dt 11:2; Is 30:32; 53:5; Je 7:28; 30:14; Ho 5:2; Pr 15:10 (7×)

The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017).


chas•tise \(ˌ)chas-ˈtīz\ verb transitive
chas•tised; chas•tis•ing [Middle English chastisen, alteration of chasten] 14th century
1: to inflict punishment on (as by whipping)


Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Owen

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are batting 100 in falsehood. I am in the minority of modern believers who believes that in Christ is no sin.

I don't believe we are imprisoned in Christ anymore than we are always to be imprisoned in sins. Salvation is by grace through faith...and we are free to move either way.
Actually batting 100 is awful. So hes awful at falsehood....nice compliment. Now if he batted 1000, well then you might have said what you were trying to say. I'd take 100 at falsehood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reformed1689