Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?

Brother, I am right here. Talk with me, ignore me, but please don't talk about me (that's poor form).

I am not ignoring that the consequence of sin is death, that God laid our sins upon Him, that He bore our sins, that He was made as sinful flesh, ect. If you have a question about my view of this aspect then please don't hesitate to ask me about the verse in question.

 

Not get born again. Calvin taught that it was necessary that Jesus descend into Hell as this is what we would have experienced as a physical death but that Christ overcame death.

 

I know. It seems the more we move away from Calvin the weaker PSA becomes. What you are saying seems to be that Christ suffered in a way that satisfied the demands of God's justice against us. Rather than standing in our stead and taking the stroke meant for us, He suffered in a unique way (not the punishment we would have suffered, but something that was sufficient).

 

It was more than this. The doctrine worked with Calvin’s theology of substitution within a judicial framework. In his Institutes he acknowledges this descent into Hell was not used in the churches but defends the importance of the doctrine to “the sum of our redemption: if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ’s death will be lost”. This descent, to Calvin, is the expression of the spiritual torment Christ experienced vicariously for us all as we cannot be saved from a fate Christ never suffered (Calvin, Institutes, Bk 2 Ch 16).

I agree with F.F. Bruce on the “wine mingled with myrrh” issue (I don't have the reference with me, but it was in his commentary on John). It was provided to dull the senses, i.e. as a mercy to relieve agony. If this is correct, then the substance would be a temptation or a concession to the flesh (not the Father’s will but the Son’s, so to speak).

 

I also appreciate Calvin while not holding to all of his beliefs.

In regards to Christ's refusal, He did not come to do His will but the will of the Father. We don't need to theorize as this is no different from Christ refusing to make concession for the flesh in other passages.

I understand the significance PSA may assign the verse, but the verse itself does not support the theory. That said, I look forward to discussing the passages you believe support the theory.

Until then, take care.

BTW - how did your presentation on Luther go?

 

Exactly the same thing? You mean Hell (the "second death", damnation, spiritual death) as this is what they will experience.

 

It is only a mystery to you because you believe it yet cannot find one place in Scripture stating that Jesus experienced the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment. The mystery will go away when you stick to Scripture alone as your authority, but so also will that doctrine.

 

Provide a verse stating that Jesus experienced "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment".

 

I agree. He was fulfilling Scripture. The passage you find inapplicable prophesied the Cross.

And this doesn't change the fact you have failed to provide a passage stating that Jesus experienced "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment".

Back to the OP - the type of substitution you are referring to (God punishing Jesus with "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment" )was foreign to Christianity until Calvin's articulation. None of the early church writings, that we know of, presents this type of framework to the Atonement. That said, your entire soteriological view hinges on this relatively new theory. If it is this important, it seems that at one passage would plainly state what you believe to be true.