Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?

Verse, please. And if you will please put in bold those statements.

Thanks

 

Verse, please. And if you will please put in bold those statements.

Thanks

 

I know your position very well. I'm not asking for your philosophy but actual passages of Scripture because you stated that the idea Jesus experienced the separation from and wrath of God the lost will experience at Judgment was "plainly srated" in Scripture.

I am calling you out on this claim and asking you to provide such passages with those plain statements highlighted in bold.

Can you do that? We can bounce back articles all day, but for me the only authority here is Scripture.

 

Please provide the verse you believe states that Jesus experienced the separation and wrath that the lost will experience at Judgment. Please highlight the words by putting them in bold so that I can see clearly that your theory is plainly stated in Scripture.

Are you able to do this, or is your belief really a theory inferred from a few passages instead of a doctrine plainly stated in Scripture? Is there even ONE passage that plainly states Jesus experienced God's separation from Him and God's wrath poured out upon Him as the lost will at Judgment?

 

Jeremiah 25 speaks of God judging Babylon and it does speak of the cup of God’s wrath. And this cup of God’s wrath is indeed seen again as God’s judgment upon the wicked (Isaiah 51; Revelation 14).

But this does not mean the “cup” which Jesus willed to be spared was the cup of God’s wrath/anger. In fact, Jesus tells the disciples that they will also drink the same cup. It is the suffering to come, but it is your own presupposition that makes it the cup of God’s wrath/anger, not Scripture itself. You add that Jesus’ cup was God’s anger (and inconsistently determine this cup becomes less than divine anger when shared).

This new perspective of yours, that the “plain” meaning of Scripture depends on a reformed Roman Catholic context hidden until God revealed it to John Calvin, skews your interpretation to the point I think you cannot see any interpretation beyond your tradition.

BUT AGAIN - the OP is not about which view is correct. The OP is just pointing out the difference between early views (that have what J.I. Packer views as the elements of PSA) and PSA itself. The fact remains that PSA itself is a theory of atonement never expressed before the Reformation.

 

Well...when you look at the moon dust as they walked....

The doctrine of the Trinity is different. In fact, it is a good example of what I'm speaking of here. That doctrine is derived from specific passages evidencing (plainly) that the Father is God, the Spirit is God, and the Son is God. Other aspects can also be defined strictly through Scripture, although developed systematically.

What would have to be shown to prove PSA is the only possible interpretation would be its contextual framework soteriologically applied by Scripture itself. This is where I am arguing PSA went wrong as such a context is foreign to the Bible. In fact, in many ways it could be viewed to be contrary to the work of Christ as presented in Scripture.

To answer your question, historically it has been defined as a righteousness apart from the Law (Romans 3:21): that Jesus bore our sins on the grounds that the Logos became flesh (John 1:14), was tempted in all points (Hebrews 4:15), shared in what it meant to be human and was obedient unto death (Phillipians 2:8), and became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). The substitution was the righteous for the unrighteous (2 Corinthians 5:21;1 Peter 3:18) as a redemption (1 Corinthians 6:23, 7:23; 1 Peter 1:18) and a reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19) with the consequence of sin in full view (1 John 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:19).There was no need to superimpose a secular judicial framework upon the text. Christ suffered and died as man (1 Peter 3:18; Luke 9:22; Mark 8:31), as "sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21), bearing our sin in His flesh (1 Peter 2:24) Christ died as a ransom for all people (1 Timothy 2:6), redeeming us from the sins we've committed (Hebrews 9:15). And the Father vindicated Christ 1 Timothy 3:16), raised Him from the dead (Romans 1:4) so that He would be the firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29). We are not spared death (God is just), but we are redeemed - purchased - out of death (God is the Justifier of sinners) (Romans 3:26).

The difference is that I am exploring the Atonement as a redemption and as God reconciling the world to Himself through the work of Christ - not as retributive punishment (as a substitutionary act of taking another's punishment in their stead to settle an account).

 

Scripture, however, tells us that the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son (and this before the cross). So again you are just continuing without biblical support. When asked point blank you simply wait a couple of days and continue on. Have you noticed that you have not even provided ONE verse that proves your theory?

I don't believe Jesus was spared the consequences of sin we will all experience (as evidenced by the Cross). He bore our sins and became a curse for us. But in terms of the final judgment (which is Christ-centered), the answer is no, Christ did not experience the "second death" the lost will experience.

 

Again, I know what you believe and that your interpretation is based on building theory on theory with no biblical foundation (as evidenced by your inability to provide a passage stating the context which drives your understanding). But if it counts for anything, you do have an interesting tradition insofar as philosophical exercises go.

 

I have used Scripture as well (passages that plainly state my view). The issue is that you have not provided a passage that states what you claim to be plainly stated.

What you assume is a framework whereby the New Covenant is defined by your understanding of the Old Covenant. But you have yet provided even one verse that plainly states Jesus experienced a separation from God and God's wrath as the lost will experience at Judgment.

This leaves me no choice but to define your belief as a product of your tradition and not of Scripture. The problem here is that this theory, which seems to be foreign to Scripture itself, is important in how you view other doctrines. If your theory is not biblical (and thus far this appears to be the case) then your ideas about righteousness and justification are tainted by the error.

What if the New Covenant is really not like the Old Covenant? What if this righteousness of God is apart from the Law, with the Law bearing witness? What if God is truly Just and the Justifier of sinners?

 

I'm not writing your understand off as fanciful, but I am writing it off as wrong. Surely you are not so engulfed in your own theology that you can't identify the connections you make here. Even if you were right it would not be due to the theory being written plainly in Scripture. What is plain is that the death Christ experienced was the cup.