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

[Nondenom40]

I wonder how symbolic the language may be.

When asked Tim Keller once assured someone that Hell was not a literal lake of fire but then explained he believed it was the language symbolic for something far worse.

I've never heard of tim keller but the bible is rife with language of hell being real, the lake of fire being real and those that go there it is forever.

Rev 20:15
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. NASB

The verse i cited before says hell was created for the devil and his angels. So that tells me its very real as the devil and his angels are very real.

 

[John Caldwell]

No the same class is taught using "Grasping God's Word" as the main text. However, I think you stray from that and come up with your own ideas.

That was a good book. I have recommended it as a basic introduction to biblical studies (I am surprised you mentioned that one with your rejection of reliance on the text of Scripture, but it does emphasize principle as the transferable aspect of Scripture). Did you also study the Hermeneutical Spiral and Gordon Fee's works on hermeneutics (I don't recall the titles)?

Also, given the dislike for Mounce, who does Liberty use as a text and what lectures for the languages. When I was a student we relied heavily on Mounce (which I have to admit is probably why I favor him on the topic here).

 

[Nondenom40]

I agree that Christ was pierced for our transgressions. I do not agree that this means that God pierced Jesus instead of piercing us in order to pay our sin debt.

I am saying that “stricken”, “smitten”, “afflicted”, “wounded”, “bruised”, “stripes” etc do not state that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

No offense but but unless you can prove WE atone for our own sin your posts here are confusing. We can't pay our sin debt which is why Jesus was born sinless, lived His perfect life, died and was raised again. "It is finished" means something more than He simply died. Those that go to hell can never pay their debt either. Which is why they spend eternity there. Jesus paid my debt; Col 2:14 because i can't do it, no one can. If i could pay my own debt there would have been no need for Jesus to pay my ransom; Mk 10:45. It sounds like your confusing a couple of different ideas here.

 

[John Caldwell]

I've never heard of tim keller but the bible is rife with language of hell being real, the lake of fire being real and those that go there it is forever.

Rev 20:15
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. NASB

The verse is cited before says hell was created for the devil and his angels. So that tells me its very real as the devil and his angels are very real.

Tim Keller is a Presbyterian preacher. He is a very good speaker (although he kinda says the same thing over again). I like watching his lectures.

That comment, basically that Hell is bad to the extent it is beyond our grasp, was interesting and for some reason stuck with me.

If you are Reformed or a Calvinist you will probably appreciate his sermons (probably more than me).

 

[reformed1689]

(I am surprised you mentioned that one with your rejection of reliance on the text of Scripture, but it does emphasize principle as the transferable aspect of Scripture).

Where do you get me having a rejection on the reliance of the text of Scripture? NEVER have I said that.

Did you also study the Hermeneutical Spiral and Gordon Fee's works on hermeneutics (I don't recall the titles)?

I don't recall that specifically. But if you find the titles let me know.

Also, given the dislike for Mounce, who does Liberty use as a text and what lectures for the languages. When I was a student we relied heavily on Mounce (which I have to admit is probably why I favor him on the topic here).

I have never said I have a dislike for Mounce. Why do you think I don't like Mounce?

 

[John Caldwell]

No offense but but unless you can prove WE atone for our own sin your posts here are confusing. We can't pay our sin debt which is why Jesus was born sinless, lived His perfect life, died and was raised again. "It is finished" means something more than He simply died. Those that go to hell can never pay their debt either. Which is why they spend eternity there. Jesus paid my debt; Col 2:14 because i can't do it, no one can. If i could pay my own debt there would have been no need for Jesus to pay my ransom; Mk 10:45. It sounds like your confusing a couple of different ideas here.

It depends on what you mean. The confusion is that we are approaching the topic very differently. Where you start affects where you end.

We do, in fact, experience the consequences of our sin. We die (our spirit is separated from our body). It is appointed to man once to die and then the judgment. The judgment is Christ centered (the Father has given all judgment to the Son). Those in Christ are not judged.

The idea that divine justice is some type of bond upon God that God must expend His wrath (like a child having a tantrum) on someone before He can forgive us is not biblical.

The difference is that I have found when Scripture offers retributive justice it is expressed as worldly and not divine justice.

That is the difference between our views (my position does not answer the questions your view asks as the "classic view" approaches the "sin problem" differently).

 

[Nondenom40]

Tim Keller is a Presbyterian preacher. He is a very good speaker (although he kinda says the same thing over again). I like watching his lectures.

That comment, basically that Hell is bad to the extent it is beyond our grasp, was interesting and for some reason stuck with me.

If you are Reformed or a Calvinist you will probably appreciate his sermons (probably more than me).

I'm a Christian. Thank you.

 

[John Caldwell]

never said I have a dislike for Mounce. Why do you think I don't like Mounce?

I mean that you dislike Mounce's conclusion on the topic of the OP, not personally or as a whole. I think I had @Steve Owen 's reply in mind when I responded.

But my argument here was from the Mounce reference I had provided.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm a Christian. Thank you.

As opposed to Reformed or Calvinist?

 

[Episkopos]

When referring to hell, its fire, a lake of fire. Which is forever..

Matt 25:41
41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;NASB

2 Thess 1:8-9
8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, NASB

If eternal life is eternal. Then eternal destruction is eternal as is the punishment due to rejecting Christ.

Outer darkness is eternal...and people actually live there...for ever. (unlike hell where people perish)

Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

 

[Episkopos]

Jesus purchased the world back from the devil? Gotta verse for that? The world doesn't belong to the devil, it belongs to God who created it. Jesus' death was not some strategy of the devil, its was Gods plan of redemption for the world. The last thing the devil wanted was to put Jesus to death. No death, no resurrection. This is bible 101.

The weakness of God is greater than the strength of men.

You need a lot of instruction if you are going to sort out who is God and who is the devil. Of course you are not going to believe that the devil took control of the world through sin...when Satan took control through subverting Adam...so that he offered the world to Jesus as a sub-principality to his own reign. You will say that he was just "acting" like sin was real and that men were sold under sin. But Jesus came here to save the world from sin...and He needed to triumph over the principalities to free us. This is a spiritual issue and the real reason Jesus came to earth. To save us from the POWER of sin...and not just it's effects. Jesus came to topple the power of the devil. But His kingdom is NOT of this world. Hence your confusion on this issue.

Col. 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Did Jesus spoil God's power structures? Or the devil's?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hey, Steve, I thought I would read this thread. I have a question for you. You said:

Moreover, John the Baptist described the Lord Jesus as 'The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (John 1:29).

Which do you believe:
1. Jesus takes away our desire to sin.
2. Jesus takes away our punishment for the sins we keep committing?
3. Other - what?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Personally i don't think penal substitutional atonement has to be terribly hard to understand.

Apart from Jesus we bear the wrath of God.
Those in Christ do not bear the wrath of God.

For those who are saved, where did the wrath go? Jesus took it for us. We broke Gods law, i.e. we've sinned. When you break the law you are now in the penal system. Charges are drawn up, you see a judge and you are sentenced. In the bible we all have sinned; Romans 3:23. Everyone has a certificate of debt which has things written on it which are hostile to us. But for the saved, ours is nailed to the cross; Col 2:14. He became sin for us, we receive His righteousness; 2 Cor 5:21. There is no condemnation for those in Christ; Romans 8:1.

The whole idea revolves around sin and Gods wrath. Either you own your sin and Gods wrath abides on you or Jesus takes your sin and you have peace with God; Romans 5:1. I don't see the difficulty.

I know I'm late to the party and this is from page one. I have a question for you regarding this:

For those who are saved, where did the wrath go? Jesus took it for us. We broke Gods law, i.e. we've sinned. When you break the law you are now in the penal system. Charges are drawn up, you see a judge and you are sentenced.

The charges were dropped - we were acquitted. The wrath of God is only for the disobedient. We were cleansed of all sin. You say we then receive the righteousness of Jesus. Did Jesus sin? If we receive His righteousness, do we continue in sin?

Romans 6:
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

There is no condemnation for those in Christ; Romans 8:1.

There is a short version, and the correct version which includes the condition. Which are you believing?

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

8 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

 

[John Caldwell]

Great observations @CharismaticLady

This is a problem with Penal Substitution Theory. It does not believe that the “charges were dropped” or that “we are acquitted”. It holds that God is a slave to a humanistic sense of retributive justice and therefore must punish someone for a sin before that sin can be forgiven; so God punishes the Righteous, makes the Righteous a child of wrath, in order to forgive the unrighteous.

It is a horrible philosophy, but when it was articulated and applied to the Atonement during the Reformation period it resonated with the judicial philosophy of the day.

 

[reformed1689]

(like a child having a tantrum)

This is your own idea. Not an equivalent.

That is the difference between our views (my position does not answer the questions your view asks as the "classic view" approaches the "sin problem" differently).

You keep saying the classic view but it is not classic. When people use those types of terms they use that to try and prop up their position.

The weakness of God is greater than the strength of men.

God has a weakness? What God do you serve?

The charges were dropped - we were acquitted.

No, the penalty was paid for. Not charges dropped.

 

[Nondenom40]

As opposed to Reformed or Calvinist?

Yes. I've never cared for labels.

 

[Episkopos]

God has a weakness? What God do you serve?

1 Corinthians 1:25
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


God has chosen the way of weakness to confound the futility of human strength and brain power.

 

[Nondenom40]

It depends on what you mean. The confusion is that we are approaching the topic very differently. Where you start affects where you end.

No, i think we've been clear about what this is about.

We do, in fact, experience the consequences of our sin.

No one has even brought this up. Of course there are consequences for sin in this life. In the next? It depends where you stand. Youre either in Christ or not. Those are your only two choices.

We die (our spirit is separated from our body). It is appointed to man once to die and then the judgment. The judgment is Christ centered (the Father has given all judgment to the Son). Those in Christ are not judged.

No one has objected to this either. Except to add that believers are judged at the bema seat. However that judgement has nothing to do with our eternal destination but rather our reward.

The idea that divine justice is some type of bond upon God that God must expend His wrath (like a child having a tantrum) on someone before He can forgive us is not biblical.

I agree, 'like a child....' no thats not biblical. "Expend His wrath on someone BEFORE He can forgive us?" Never heard of that either. Not sure where all that is coming from as no one has advocated for any of that.

The difference is that I have found when Scripture offers retributive justice it is expressed as worldly and not divine justice.

Whats worldly justice? The fact we are all judged after death means Gods justice is divine, not worldly.

That is the difference between our views (my position does not answer the questions your view asks as the "classic view" approaches the "sin problem" differently).

Your position creates more questions. Like the ones i've just posed. When talking about penal substitutional atonement we are talking about ultimately where Gods wrath abides. Who owns it? If you die in your sin you own it, for eternity. If Jesus owns it then its been nailed to the cross. This is propitiation..making satisfaction for or expiation. Both related to sacrifice and atonement. We are basically talking past each other. What youre arguing is not penal substitution.

 

[John Caldwell]

You keep saying the classic view but it is not classic.

You are confused. I am not calling my position "classic" but pointing to the fact the position I hold is called the "classic view" (as opposed to the "Latin view" to include Penal Substitution Theory). Are you sure you paid attention in seminary? These are not uncommon terms.

God has a weakness? What God do you serve?

For some reason I am not surprised you did not recognize this as God's words (written by Paul)....which puts a twist on the "what God you serve" comment.

 

[John Caldwell]

No, i think we've been clear about what this is about.


No one has even brought this up. Of course there are consequences for sin in this life. In the next? It depends where you stand. Youre either in Christ or not. Those are your only two choices.
No one has objected to this either. Except to add that believers are judged at the bema seat. However that judgement has nothing to do with our eternal destination but rather our reward.

I agree, 'like a child....' no thats not biblical. "Expend His wrath on someone BEFORE He can forgive us?" Never heard of that either. Not sure where all that is coming from as no one has advocated for any of that.


Whats worldly justice? The fact we are all judged after death means Gods justice is divine, not worldly.

Your position creates more questions. Like the ones i've just posed. When talking about penal substitutional atonement we are talking about ultimately where Gods wrath abides. Who owns it? If you die in your sin you own it, for eternity. If Jesus owns it then its been nailed to the cross. This is propitiation..making satisfaction for or expiation. Both related to sacrifice and atonement. We are basically talking past each other. What youre arguing is not penal substitution.

There are a lot of things associated with Penal Substitution Theory and this thread. You are right, one thing leads to another.

Penal Substitution Theory is based on worldly philosophy (on 16th century humanism dealing with retribitive justice). Basically, the Theory holds that "simple forgiveness" is impossible for God. God cannot forgive someone upon repentance because the sin has created a debt that must be paid. For God to forgive sin this "sin debt" (the demands of retribitive justice") must be satisfied. So God transfered our sins to Christ and punished Him in our place (punished our sins in Christ) thus making forgiveness possible.

It has to do with worldly philosophy (Scripture states that God is just to forgive the repentant).