1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 13, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NIV gives a bit clearer statement (though I am not usually that friendly toward the NIV):

    Isaiah 53:
    10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
    and though the Lord makesc his life an offering for sin,
    he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
    and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
    Throughout Scriptures HOW does God cause suffering?

    By withdrawing His support and allowing the fallen forces of both humankind and nature to prevail.

    Hence, the very cry of or Lord, “Father, why have you forsaken me?”

    God’s statements concerning the treatment of the redeemer were purposefully fulfilled not out of some wrath, but because of design set down over the millennia concerning the redemption.

    Other versions highlight various perspectives of this passage.

    The ESV gives this from Isaiah 53:
    10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
    he has put him to grief;g
    when his soul makesh an offering for guilt,
    he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
    the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

    It seems to highlight that the Fatherks reaction (for lack of a better word) at watching the Son at the crucifixion was to pronounce blessing and not wrath.

    The NASB makes the declaration that of an “if/then” statement.
    10But the LORD was pleased
    To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
    If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (then)
    He will see His offspring,
    He will prolong His days,
    And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
    The point being that at no place is the wrath of God poured out upon the Son on display or even suggested by Isaiah.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
     
  3. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Exactly. He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our inniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him. And by His stripes we are healed.

    Scripture presents the atonement as penal and substitution and victory an love. But not Penal Substitution Theory.

    You can't read that passage without applying the Theory, can you?
     
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [QUOTE="JonC, post: 2400905, member: 12639"
    You can't read that passage without applying the Theory, can you?[/QUOTE]
    speakest for thyself John Alden?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    speakest for thyself John Alden?[/QUOTE]No. I was speaking of those who would alter the passage to read "He was punished with our punishment for our sins as God poured His wrath upon Christ".

    My comment was that you see the Theory of Penal Substitution as the "obvious" meaning of the passage when the text itself neither demands nor confirms the conclusion. You do not seem to recognize Penal Substitution Theory as a theory.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ditto on "those who would alter the passage".
     
  7. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, we need to be faithful to Scripture and recognize interpretation and theory from Scripture.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Getting an answer out of you is like getting blood out of a stone. Christ is our advocate and He intercedes with the Father on our behalf. How can one intercede with anyone without words? How can He intercede without pleading our case? Yes, the Biblical allusion is definitely to a court case. So what does he say, man?
    No, what you reject is the Scripture. Christ is our advocate. That is the Scripture, and you are rejecting it because your philosophy does not allow you to answer it. And that is why I am most opposed to the Theory of Penal Substitution.
    Tu quoque.
    Before I entered the discussion I supported it, but I am grateful to you insofar as you have driven me to search the Scriptures more thoroughly so that I have come to see the vital importance of the doctrine.
    I have read a fair amount by Bruce in the past, though I now have only two of his books. My main objection to his writing is that he gives too much respect to modern, unbelieving thought, but I suppose that is inevitable given his position in a secular university, and I can understand how that would endear him to you.
     
  9. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist

    First, I would point out that when I said Jon hit the nail on the head I mean that. Christs came to bestow life to men, life they had not previously received before. The Cross was the means by which Atonement was made, and by the resurrection we are immersed into God and born again, now having that life.

    I'm not all that interested in debating "penal substitution," but, I will say that my comments are centered on how Jon views it:

    I would agree that God did not visit His wrath on Christ in the sense that Christ bore our penalty, which would have meant eternal separation, an impossibility in itself. The penalty for sin is death, Christ died in our stead, and He deemed the penalty paid while still on the Cross.

    The sinner, though, will endure eternal separation.

    But again, I don't spend much time on doctrines of men. Usually, there are truths in both sides, so it is best just to stick with what Scripture teaches and not go to extremes which take us outside of the boundaries we are given in Scripture. Obviously I hold to substitution, because I view Christ dying in our stead, just as animals died in the stead of the sinner in previous Ages and that brought about atonement and remission (though on a temporal level). Perhaps if you stated some of the issues you guys disagree on?


    In the first verse what I see is Christ will magnify the Law and make it honorable, as opposed to men failing to keep it.

    In the second verse, "at the present time" contrasts those who were under Law, who were justified by obedience. You left out "...to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past..."

    And I view Propitiation here, since the context deals with a contrast between justification by the Law and that freely given by grace, as pointing to Christ's work in a reconciliatory sense, where we would draw a parallel between His blood (death) and the Mercy Seat. It holds within its its framework expiation, reconciliation, and a continuing quality of His redeeming work.


    God bless.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is because 1 John 2:1 is referencing a courtroom setting. Parakletos, as you must surely know, is a word used to denote a legal assistant, a counsel for the defence or, wait for it.......an advocate. But the reason for quoting Isaiah 42:21 is simply to note that God, in His salvation plan, would exalt His righteousness magnify His law-- 'by no means clearing the guilty.' But when Christ the sinless one is made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), we become the righteousness of God in Him so the Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake.
    Thomas Binney's hymn is based on 1 John 1:5ff and so I thought it might be helpful but if you don't like it you don't have to sing it ;). I see that you are allowed to quote F.F. Bruce but I am not allowed to quote Robert Candlish; how does that work? With regard to 'cherry-picking' verses, we are to compare Scripture with Scripture to find the truth. 'These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' That is what is called, 'rightly dividing the word of truth.' If you can't keep up, that is your problem, not mine.
    The fact is that the whole Scripture testifies to Penal Substitution, so I have a wide variety of texts to choose from. :)
    I think you'll find you are. :D
    What you are arguing against is the word of God, and you're not doing that very well.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is what I mean when I say you cannot get past your theory. You imagine Jesus standing in front God's throne mounting a defense for us. So you ask "How can Jesus do this without words? How can He intercede without pleading our case?"

    You are trapped in an allegory of your own making, brother. The use of "advocate" leads you to envision Christ standing before the Judge pleading our case. You are taking this to a very unbiblical level.

    Jesus IS God, and all judgment is given Him. Jesus does not have to convince God to let us live. We HAVE life in Him.

    No words needed. No pleading required. It is finished and redemption is here.
     
  12. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you're not interested in discussing the subject I won't detain you, but just point out a few things.
    1 Peter 2:24. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' The use of the word xulon, 'tree' rather than stauros, 'cross' is a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23 and Deuteronomy 28:27. 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us' (Galatians 3:13). He expiated the curse that was upon us by taking it upon Himself.
    God Himself deemed the penalty paid when the sun re-appeared at the ninth hour. Had Christ been a sinful man, he could not have paid our penalty at all had He suffered for all eternity, but as the sinless God-Man, His sufferings were of infinite worth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I just said I wasn't interested in discussing "penal substitution," and until you can show me that in Scripture I will stick with what is in there.


    You parsed my statement right in the middle, so I have put it back into its original context.

    First, the penalty for sinners is not just death, but everlasting death, which is the absence of the Life Christ bestows to the redeemed. Christ did not have to suffer that, His physical death was sufficient to atone for our sin.

    Secondly, note "on the tree," that is the significant aspect of this verse in relation to this discussion. He did not actually become a "curse," and I don't see that we have to see God pouring our sins into Christ in some spiritual manner.

    When animals were sacrificed they also took upon themselves the sins of the men they died for. The bull did not become an idolater spiritually, and the goat did not become a spiritual heathen.


    Right. While He was still on the Cross. It coincides with His physical death, right?


    Exactly. His death was sufficient based on His guiltless and sinless offering of Himself.

    On the other hand, the Justice of God is exacted in an eternal quality on those who pay their sin debt themselves.

    God has the right to exchange the death of His Son, to whom no blame could be imposed on, for the deaths of countless sinners.


    And I think everyone is in agreement with that, amen.


    God bless.
     
  14. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is @Martin Marprelate 's claim:

    The Father elected me to salvation. He chose me and drew me. He gave me to Christ. He offered Christ as a payment for me. He punished Jesus in my place and with my punishment so He can forgive me. And now Christ stands before the Father in a courtroom setting pleading for my life.

    Theory built on theory.
     
  15. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First of all, I imagine nothing.
    1 John 2:1b, NKJV. 'And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.'
    1 John 2:1, NIV. But if anyone does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence-- Jesus Christ the righteous One.'
    I am taking it to a totally Biblical level-- well someone's got to! If it is an allegory, it is a divine one, but in fact it is imagery. But the image is of Christ, our great High Priest, interceding for us before the Father. Read Exodus 28:29-30. Christ as High Priest bears the names of His people upon His heart and pleads His all-sufficient sacrifice of Himself before the Father.
    If that is so, why are we told, 'Therefore [Christ] is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them' (Hebrews 7:25)? You have your liberal philosophy; I am quoting the Scriptures. So, when He is making this intercession, what does He say or do?

    I know you dislike me quoting hymns, but too bad! They do at least show that I am not unsupported:

    'he died; but lives again,
    And by the throne He stands,
    There shows how He was slain,
    Opening His pierced hands:
    Our Priest abides and pleads the cause
    Of us who have transgressed His laws.'
    [John Cennick]

    'See where before the throne He stands,
    And pours the all-prevailing prayer,
    Points to His side and lifts His hands,
    And shows that I am graven there.'
    [Charles Wesley]

    'Jesus, my Great High Priest
    Offered His blood and died;
    My guilty conscience seeks
    No sacrifice beside.
    His powerful blood did once atone,
    And now it pleads before the throne.'
    [Isaac Watts]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ephesians 1:4.
    Romans 8:30; John 6:44.
    John 6:39.
    Romans 3:25-26; Revelation 5:9.
    2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.
    Hebrews 7:25; 1 John 2:1.
    Scripture all the way through.:p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. Those are verses pulled out of Scripture. I agree. Now go back and read the entire context without adding your Theory and see what you have. I guarantee it won't be the Theory of Penal Substitution.

    Why put so much weight in a theory anyway, when we have Scripture at our finger tips?
     
  18. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ok, let’s run through this theory of @Martin Marprelate one more time. Maybe this time someone can see the problems associated with it.

    The Father, in eternity past, elected men to salvation.
    The Father chose men to be saved.
    The Father drew these men.
    The Father gave these men to Christ.
    The Father offered Christ as a propitiation for these men’s sins.
    The Father poured out the wrath these men deserved on Christ.
    The Father punished Christ with the punishment reserved for these men’s sins.
    The Father satisfied His wrath towards these men by visiting it on Christ.

    Now Christ advocates for us by standing before the Judge pleading that the Father spare our lives.

    Never mind how far this strays from Scripture, does anyone else see the inconsistency in this theory????
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Propitiation itself is defined as the wrath of God being appeased/paid for by someone, who allows God to now reconcile lost sinners back to Himself!
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus died in our stead, He took the sin penalty due to us, receiving the wrath of God that would come towards us!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...