Due to the other thread being closed and not getting the chance to respond to a couple threads, I would like to now address those and perhaps keep the discussion going, since there is some value, in my view, in threshing out this issue:
@JonC
Apart from the fact that God never abandoned Himself I think we both agree on that), I don't think this is going to be a very strong argument, seeing that it deals primarily with Christ after His Death.
And I just want to clarify, the issue is that you are opposed to the concept of God pouring out His wrath on Christ, right?
God bless.
Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ? 2
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Darrell C, Mar 16, 2018.
Page 1 of 9
-
-
Yes,
Ultimately, the problem of penal substitution theory is not that the Christ suffered. I don’t know of any who would even attempt such thinking; rather, it is the presentation that the suffering was God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.
There just is no Scripture support for such thinking. -
Darrell C said: ↑Due to the other thread being closed and not getting the chance to respond to a couple threads, I would like to now address those and perhaps keep the discussion going, since there is some value, in my view, in threshing out this issue:
@JonC
Apart from the fact that God never abandoned Himself I think we both agree on that), I don't think this is going to be a very strong argument, seeing that it deals primarily with Christ after His Death.
And I just want to clarify, the issue is that you are opposed to the concept of God pouring out His wrath on Christ, right?
God bless.Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporteragedman said: ↑Yes,
Ultimately, the problem of penal substitution theory is not that the Christ suffered. I don’t know of any who would even attempt such thinking; rather, it is the presentation that the suffering was God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.
There just is no Scripture support for such thinking.Click to expand... -
@agedman
Agedman said:Darrell C said:Darrell C said: ↑
Secondly, I would like to see the Biblical Basis for "God destroying the City because of the Crucifixion."Click to expand...Click to expand...
We can see God's Sovereignty involved as this was (70 AD) a "Day of the Lord," in that it involved judgment on His people, who had rejected Christ, and were not allowed to continue to worship as they had for so long.
I think we can view Christ as "destroying the Temple," but not the city, that was an act attributed to the wrath of man for the most part.
Agedman said:Darrell C said:Darrell C said: ↑
This has, in my view, particular relevance to the Incarnation, and speaks of His dealing with the weaknesses of the flesh.
He didn't spiritually bear our griefs and sorrows, any more than He spiritually had our sins "poured into Him.Click to expand...
"He took my sin and my sorrows and made them His very own,
He bore my burdens to Calvary and suffered and died alone." (I Stand Amazed by Charles Gabriel)Click to expand...
You are in fact confirming Martin's view in saying you believe this...
Agedman said:"He took my sin and my sorrows and made them His very own,Click to expand...
Agedman said:Darrell C said:Darrell C said: ↑
I would suggest that just being among men was a form of suffering for God manifest in the flesh.
Again, that God is the One that designed the Redemptive Plan and executed it, there is no conflict with God being seen as the One that arranged the sufferings of Christ.
Using words like "torture" might appeal to the emotions, but the fact is God did arrange for that cup, and for that baptism (of suffering), but the Good News is that He is also the One that drank of it.
God bless.Click to expand...Click to expand...
Agedman said:God arranged for the torture, approved of the torture, was pleased by the Crucifixion - for that purpose Christ came into the world.Click to expand...
Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Sacrifice, even that of Christ, was a necessity, not something God took pleasure in.
Agedman said:But the Scriptures do not present that God poured His wrath out upon the Son at the crucifixion.Click to expand...
It is more an annulling of a death sentence (in an eternal perspective) than an exchange of those sentenced.
Agedman said:That is exactly why the PSA theory fails.Click to expand...
Agedman said:Christ suffered, no doubt.
The suffering was purposed, prophecies spoke of such, and types were presents as words in pictures. But throughout, there was no wrath filled God pouring out displeasure upon an abandoned Son (as I have heard some preach). Such is just not Scripture based.Click to expand...
He was able, before giving out His last breath, and giving up the Ghost, to say "It is finished."
All that was left was to proclaim victory to the spirits in prison, liberate the Just from Hades, rise from the dead, return to Heaven, and send the Comforter that men might be made alive in Him.
God bless. -
Iconoclast said: ↑So you sort of think he's suffered as a victim of a hate crime?Click to expand...
What is Scripturally supported is that aspects of the crucifixion from the time of the garden to the resurrection is given in type, prophecy, psalms. and/or even by the words of Christ.
Throughout the presentations, there is no aspect of the treatment as portrayed or stated as being the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son.
Such does not occur in Scriptures and yet has been accepted as the truth. Yet it did not start as such.
Just under a thousand years ago (as best records would indicate) the following poem was written by Bernard (referred to as Bernard of Clairvaux b.1091)
1 O sacred Head, now wounded,
with grief and shame weighed down,
now scornfully surrounded
with thorns, Thine only crown.
O sacred Head, what glory,
what bliss till now was Thine!
Yet, though despised and gory,
I joy to call Thee mine.
2 What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered
was all for sinners' gain;
mine, mine was the transgression,
but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
'Tis I deserve Thy place;
look on me with Thy favor,
vouchsafe to me Thy grace.
3 What language shall I borrow
to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
for this, Thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never,
outlive my love for Thee.
4 Be near when I am dying,
O show Thy cross to me!
And, for my succor flying,
come, Lord, to set me free.
These eyes, new faith receiving,
from Thee shall never move;
for he who dies believing
dies safely in Thy love.
-
JonC said: ↑Yes. Nowhere in Scripture is God presented as being wrathful to His Son.Click to expand...
JonC said: ↑Nowhere is Jesus presented as taking the punishment for our sins in our place so that we can be forgiven.Click to expand...
Romans 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Vicarious death is the very concept seen in the provision of the Old Testament, the animal died in the stead of the sinner.
Christ took upon Himself the death owed to us, His death being vicarious, Himself in our stead.
Above Paul makes the point, "Some might die for a righteous or good man, but Christ died for us though we were sinners." I think we see vicarious death as in view here as well.
We do not die, being in Christ, because He died for us.
One more:
2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 21
King James Version (KJV)
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
I think we need to view the concept given in vicarious animal death the significance it has in regards to Christ dying for us. It is not just a matter that He died, but He died in our stead, just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior, so that the sinner did not have the penalty of sin, which is death, exacted upon himself.
God bless. -
agedman said: ↑1 O sacred Head, now wounded,
with grief and shame weighed down,
now scornfully surrounded
with thorns, Thine only crown.
O sacred Head, what glory,
what bliss till now was Thine!
Yet, though despised and gory,
I joy to call Thee mine.
2 What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered
was all for sinners' gain;
mine, mine was the transgression,
but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
'Tis I deserve Thy place;
look on me with Thy favor,
vouchsafe to me Thy grace.
3 What language shall I borrow
to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
for this, Thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never,
outlive my love for Thee.
4 Be near when I am dying,
O show Thy cross to me!
And, for my succor flying,
come, Lord, to set me free.
These eyes, new faith receiving,
from Thee shall never move;
for he who dies believing
dies safely in Thy love.Click to expand...
Hope everyone has a blessed day, try to save at least one page for when I get back, lol.
God bless. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDarrell C said: ↑Apart from the fact that God never abandoned Himself I think we both agree on that), I don't think this is going to be a very strong argument, seeing that it deals primarily with Christ after His Death.Click to expand...
There are several other things that the Father does to the Son, which are difficult to understand if you think of God doing them to God: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (John 5:26). The Father sends the Son, gives the Son, raises the Son from the dead, exalts the Son and glorifies the Son. The Son loves and obeys the Father and glorifies Him. FWIW, The Spirit sends the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and glorifies Him (John 16:14).
So why should it be thought impossible that the Son should propitiate the Father or that the Father should forsake the Son when it is so clearly written in Scripture that it happened?
[I have had long discussions on this board over whether to 'abandon' is somehow different from to 'forsake.' I hope we can avoid that particular argument] -
Darrell C said: ↑You are in fact confirming Martin's view in saying you believe this...Click to expand...
Christ suffering was not God pouring wrath upon the Son.
Darrell C said: ↑He didn't approve of the Crucifixion, He suffered it:
Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Sacrifice, even that of Christ, was a necessity, not something God took pleasure in.Click to expand...
Hebrews is not discussing the Savior's sacrifice, but all that went before were insufficient to accommodate in full what was necessary for redemption.
Therefore, the words "He taketh away the first (that which He had no pleasure), that He may establish the second."
The pleasing is respondent in the slain lamb taking the scroll in Rev. 5 and of course the Isaiah 53:10 "The Lord was pleased..." (NASB)
This aspect is one of the specific disagreements carried by those who would embrace the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son and those who do not find such as the attitude of God. -
Martin Marprelate said: ↑You are faced, I'm afraid, with the fact that the Father forsook the Son. It may caused you problems in your theological understanding, but it is simply the case. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
There are several other things that the Father does to the Son, which are difficult to understand if you think of God doing them to God: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (John 5:26). The Father sends the Son, gives the Son, raises the Son from the dead, exalts the Son and glorifies the Son. The Son loves and obeys the Father and glorifies Him. FWIW, The Spirit sends the Son into the desert (Mark 1:12) and glorifies Him (John 16:14).
So why should it be thought impossible that the Son should propitiate the Father or that the Father should forsake the Son when it is so clearly written in Scripture that it happened?
[I have had long discussions on this board over whether to 'abandon' is somehow different from to 'forsake.' I hope we can avoid that particular argument]Click to expand...
Taking that you might, then the question arises:
Did not Christ state, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”
How is it that Christ would commit His spirit to one that abandoned Him?
On the matter of the Father raising the Son from the dead:
Did not the Son say, "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."(John 10:18)
Though three, the trinity is not severable. For a short time The Word became flesh, but it never was not The Word. For a more short time The Word suffered, but it was never not The Word.
See, ultimately, there is no authority behind considering The Father abandoning The Word, nor that in some manner The Father would pour wrath out upon The Word. -
Darrell C said: ↑This I agree with.
This I cannot agree with.
Romans 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Vicarious death is the very concept seen in the provision of the Old Testament, the animal died in the stead of the sinner.
Christ took upon Himself the death owed to us, His death being vicarious, Himself in our stead.
Above Paul makes the point, "Some might die for a righteous or good man, but Christ died for us though we were sinners." I think we see vicarious death as in view here as well.
We do not die, being in Christ, because He died for us.
One more:
2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 21
King James Version (KJV)
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
I think we need to view the concept given in vicarious animal death the significance it has in regards to Christ dying for us. It is not just a matter that He died, but He died in our stead, just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior, so that the sinner did not have the penalty of sin, which is death, exacted upon himself.
God bless.Click to expand...
You miss read JonC.
JonC posted about the punishment, not the death.
The punishment did not lead to the death.
The death was purposed by The Christ at the exact time He determined to allow the fleshly form He took on to expire. -
Darrell C said: ↑This I agree with.
This I cannot agree with.
Romans 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Vicarious death is the very concept seen in the provision of the Old Testament, the animal died in the stead of the sinner.
Christ took upon Himself the death owed to us, His death being vicarious, Himself in our stead.
Above Paul makes the point, "Some might die for a righteous or good man, but Christ died for us though we were sinners." I think we see vicarious death as in view here as well.
We do not die, being in Christ, because He died for us.
One more:
2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 21
King James Version (KJV)
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
I think we need to view the concept given in vicarious animal death the significance it has in regards to Christ dying for us. It is not just a matter that He died, but He died in our stead, just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner in all Ages prior, so that the sinner did not have the penalty of sin, which is death, exacted upon himself.
God bless.Click to expand...
I think that you may have misunderstood my comment.
What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus died in our place by God punishing Him with our punishment.
I agree that Christ died for us. I agree that the One died for the all. I agree that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. I agree that Christ died for the ungodly.
I affirm the doctrine of penal substitution (what is taught in Scripture) but not the Theory of Penal Substitution (that all of that was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon His Son as a punishment to satisfy His justice rather than pouring that wrath on me and you). -
Darrell C said: ↑We do not support Doctrine with poems, unless they are Inspired.
Hope everyone has a blessed day, try to save at least one page for when I get back, lol.
God bless.Click to expand...
The early church did support doctrine often taught by singing of songs, and of course especially the Psalms which are taken as inspired.
Much doctrine is referenced to the Psalms. The principles of such doctrine are also found in the earliest known written hymns.
One is the "Phos Hilaron" ("Hail gladdening light") which was an old Hymn when St. Basil the Great (329-379 AD) remarked of how cherished it was in the churches.
Perhaps the one that has retained favor and is still sung in churches in this age is "Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silence." Written and sung probably even before "Phos Hilaron."
Great Hymns always support doctrine.
What is sad is that you do not see that doctrine is supported by "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs."
Such do not create doctrine, but can certainly be supportive of doctrine.
- Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly-minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand. - King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heav’nly food. - Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the pow’rs of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away. - At His feet the six-winged seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
“Alleluia, Alleluia,
Alleluia, Lord Most High!”
- Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
-
agedman said: ↑No, for Martin's view is that God poured wrath upon the Son. I do not.
Christ suffering was not God pouring wrath upon the Son.
In this we disagree.
Hebrews is not discussing the Savior's sacrifice, but all that went before were insufficient to accommodate in full what was necessary for redemption.
Therefore, the words "He taketh away the first (that which He had no pleasure), that He may establish the second."
The pleasing is respondent in the slain lamb taking the scroll in Rev. 5 and of course the Isaiah 53:10 "The Lord was pleased..." (NASB)
This aspect is one of the specific disagreements carried by those who would embrace the Wrath of God poured out upon the Son and those who do not find such as the attitude of God.Click to expand... -
JonC said: ↑Hey Darrell,
I think that you may have misunderstood my comment.
What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus died in our place by God punishing Him with our punishment.
I agree that Christ died for us. I agree that the One died for the all. I agree that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. I agree that Christ died for the ungodly.
I affirm the doctrine of penal substitution (what is taught in Scripture) but not the Theory of Penal Substitution (that all of that was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon His Son as a punishment to satisfy His justice rather than pouring that wrath on me and you).Click to expand... -
Yeshua1 said: ↑Jesus stood in the place of sinners, became the sin offering to God for/in our stead, so God dealt with Him as all lost sinners will be dealt!Its just that Jesus experienced in 3 Hours what lost feel for all eternity!Click to expand...
-
JonC said: ↑Hey Darrell,
I think that you may have misunderstood my comment.
What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus died in our place by God punishing Him with our punishment.
I agree that Christ died for us. I agree that the One died for the all. I agree that He who knew no sin was made sin for us. I agree that Christ died for the ungodly.
I affirm the doctrine of penal substitution (what is taught in Scripture) but not the Theory of Penal Substitution (that all of that was accomplished by God pouring His wrath upon His Son as a punishment to satisfy His justice rather than pouring that wrath on me and you).Click to expand... -
Yeshua1 said: ↑God's judgment against Sin has to have one able and willing to beat the price for sin though!Click to expand...
-
Yeshua1 said: ↑No wrath of God towards sin/sinners being appeased/atoned for, no way God can grant salvation towards lost sinners, as someone has to still atone for own sins!Click to expand...
Page 1 of 9