Does the Text of 1 John Demand Penal Substitution Theory ?

Darrell, thank you for at least attempting to address the questions. Below is a response to a few of your answers.

I agree.

Now the "Biblical basis" is the statement of Christ as to the relative future of both those who heard Him and the destruction of the temple. When the leaders said, "Let His blood be upon us and our children," it was not just a statement of their own determination, but as was the case in an earlier account a statement of (Imo) prophetic value which was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans literally plowed the earth so that no trace of the temple would be seen.

But this is off topic, and I am premillennial and not preterits.

God's wrath is nearly always portrayed in the Scriptures from a human view in which God allows catastrophic events that occur when His protection is withdrawn.

I am not certain where you are headed with this, but I agree with the song writer's statement:
"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)

However, at no point was all that was done to the Christ to be considered as God's wrath poured out upon the Son.

God arranged for the torture, approved of the torture, was pleased by the Crucifixion - for that purpose Christ came into the world.

But the Scriptures do not present that God poured His wrath out upon the Son at the crucifixion.

That is exactly why the PSA theory fails.

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.

 

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help laughing. You're a scream! You ought to be on the stage (preferably the first one out of town ). I post 14 Scripture extracts and you moan, "Oh how I wish there was some Scripture to deal with!" But you can't do it. You couldn't exegete your way out of a wet paper bag! You have never made any attempt to deal with either the Scripture or the theology of Penal Substitution. I don't know what you were doing in the Theology 101 lessons at the seminary or whatever it was you went to. Either looking out the window or throwing paper darts at the girl across the classroom, I suppose. You just argue like a J.W. "Where does the Bible say Trinity? Where does the Bible say Trinity?"

You're making a fool of yourself, and try to cover it by beating up on Y1. Either answer my posts in a sensible fashion or admit that you can't do it.

 

My dear friend, Job knew exactly who had grieved him: 'The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away' (Job 1:21).

But what part of it was not according to God's 'purpose determined beforehand to be done' (Acts 4:28). It was not merely 'allowed,' it was determined by God to be done.

But as I have just shown above, it was the desire of a holy God. It was also the desire of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, agreed in the counsels of the Trinity in eternity past. "And truly, the Son of man goes as it has been determined....." (Luke 22:22). "No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself" (John 10:18).

It is simply there in the text: 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him.' Who bruised Christ? The LORD did, and it pleased Him to do so. That is the plain and simple reading of the text.

 

Prove it.

You chose 1 John as a text. I have shown you where Penal Substitution is to be found in it, and quoted two learned commentators who agree with me. You have never made any attempt to answer me.

You're right; I couldn't make it up, but you do. It wasn't my lexicon,

I have provided Scripture supporting the DOCTRINE of Penal Substitution, none of which you have challenged. But you can make amends right now by dealing with my Post #122. But you won't do it; you'll just talk the thread out until it gets closed and think you've won.

You're right; it's not Scripture because you never use any The problem is you.

 

But, Martin, ultimately, nothing you have given in Scripture indicates that God poured His wrath out upon the Son as retribution for the Son doing exactly what the Father had predetermined, pre-prepared, and formed the Son in the flesh to accomplish.

Plain and simple reading does not say, God was pleased to pour his wrath out on the Son, or even, it pleased the Lord to vindictively crush the Son for doing what the Father obliged and form the Son to accomplish.

So, even IF one agrees that God did reach out of heaven with His spiritual hand and smacked the Savior as to bruise and crush Him, there is no indication that it was done out of Wrath. Nor is there any place in Scriptures that even hints that such actually was done, not in the type, not in the statement of the thoughts of Christ on the Cross, and not in the portrayal of the lamb in the Revelation not in any prophecy, nor the sum of all the Scriptures. It just is a human invention that fails from lack of true Scripture support.

More, the only other place in which the word alignment is similar enough to see the action (Job) there is no wrath of God that bruises and crushes.

The support just isn't from the Scriptures.

 

BTW,

The Isaiah 53:10 verse as translated by the NIV gives a clearer understanding:

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes 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.
​

The ESV states Isaiah 53:10:

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.​

The דָּכָא (to crush) can also be translated "caused to crush" as used in Job 6:9 where it says:

“Would that God were willing to crush me,
That He would loose His hand and cut me off!"


​

So in reality, the plain reading from the Hebrew is really not all that supportive of PSA.

But now, it is time that I resolve to leave this thread.

I really appreciate all the wonderful interaction, and trust that we have all grown in wisdom and understanding in the discussion.

Blessing to all.

 

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

WHAT WRATH??? WHAT PENALTY???

Vine has an interesting insight

The subject of the wrath of God recurs throughout the first part of the Epistle (Ro 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22). In this Epistle, which treats especially of the gospel, the differing attributes of God are set forth in a manner which reveals His character as a whole. While the gospel reveals Him as infinitely merciful, His mercy is not characterized by leniency toward sin. The Scriptures never reveal one attribute of God at the expense of another. The revelation of His wrath is essential to a right understanding of His ways in grace." (Collected writings of W. E. Vine)

 

While you havn't "denied" Penal Substitution, you've certainly tried to redefine it. What you are not denying is what your redefinition is; what you are denying is what Penal Substitution actually is. Your claim(s) about affirming Penal Substitution are nothing more than Orwellian double-speak.

The Archangel

 

You assume Scripture does not affirm the "theory," but you haven't proven it. You think you have, but you haven't. Double speak is not what you say it is. In the Orwellian idea, doublespeak is to redefine a term and then to, essentially, affirm the redefinition.

The Archangel

 

Apparently, you don't know it as well as you think you might.

Fallacy: Begging the Question

This. Is. No. Game.

The Archangel

 

I've never asked you to prove penal substitution (as we define it). You've just always assumed that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from scripture, which it is not. What you have not proven and the question you are begging is your assertion that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from scripture.

The Archangel

 

Which has nothing to do with your unproven assumption that penal substitution (as we define it) is absent from Scripture. To call our view a philosophy is to further beg the same question you’ve been begging all along.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk