Penal Substitution and the Trinity

I did.

Not denying that. What I am denying is Christ "not wanting" to do what He came specifically to do.

You present a great proof text for my argument:

And the general impression most have is that is precisely what Christ does, the opposite of His question here which demands a negative response.

I agree, but, I think the dread and horror is His understanding of sin itself.

I don't really see the weather as relevant seeing it was great drops of blood, rather than sweat.

And consider what He tells the disciples:

Luke 22:44-46
King James Version (KJV)

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.


He is appealing to the Father, the Father is with Him, and the Father hears Him.

We would also apply this to His temptation of Satan in the wilderness. Surely He prayed, and, we see Angels minister unto Him there too.

I agree.

Hey, don't try to confuse me...

It's been a good day, so thanks for the blessing. Again, always appreciate the chance to discuss these kinds of issues with someone who has the background you have in the Word of God.

You have to answer one question for me though, is that Mar-prell'-it" or "Mar'-pre-late" in the pronunciation of Marprelate?


God bless.

God bless.

 

What ineffable twaddle.




God bless.

 

Not certain that Spurgeon ever stated that God poured His wrath out on the Son.

He did declare (as the Scriptures state) that the suffering was the cup in which Christ drained, but He also emphazed that such was done willingly.

The presentation of God being wrath filled dumping His whole attitude of wrath upon the His only natural born helpless child was very far from Spurgeon's thinking.

Can you find a quote of his that would suggest differently?

Ultimately, one accepts either that Christ drank the cup dry as a willing participant in the redemption of humankind, or that position that God's wrath was poured out upon the Christ. What you and others on the threads have embraced is the later, and others of us have embraced the first.

 

BUT, Spurgeon was careful to place that God "was withdrawing" his presence - not abandoning. That is EXACTLY as I and JonC have presented. He was withholding support, withdrawing but not abandoning.

Second, Spurgeon is also very careful to note that "when He saw sin laid upon His Son, He made that Son cry..." Did Spurgeon state "God poured His wrath out upon the Son?" No.

"He made Him cry." Did not Christ state, "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak." And was not such a command recorded in Psalm 22?

Thank you for the quote, though.

 

Why the need for separation, either-or? Christ does both.

The Archangel

 

But, there is no Scripture stating that God's was even angry with the Son at the crucifixion. It is purely supposition of human thinking.

For example, some say, "God cannot look upon sin" and assuredly that is Scripture, however, God does look and talk even to the very Father of liars both in Job and in the desert. So, either the Bible lies, or that verse must be examined in the light of all Scriptures.

The divine fellowship between the Father and Son was never broken, can never be broken, and therefore Christ most certainly drank of the cup of suffering and drained it dry but not because God was punishing the Son for what the Son did was the Command of the Father. His suffering from the Garden to the "Finished" was indescribable, though John standing with Christ's mother looking upon the Savior did not turn away in the darkness.

What is not presented in Scriptures is a wrath filled God dumping all stored up animosity vindictively upon the Son.

 

Spurgeon is expounding the PST perfectly, and he is the winner here!

 

NONE who hold to PST are stating that God was angry at Jesus in and by His own accord, but that the father bore upon His Son divine wrath due to sinners, as Jesus became on the Cross our Sin Bearer, and so God was NOT punishing Jesus Himself for who he is, but what he became for our sake at that time!

 

Spurgeon agreed with us that the scriptures clearly teach to us that God laid upon Jesus while upon the Cross the sins that were to be atoned for, the sin debt that we all incurred before a Holy God!

 

This stands firmly against you:

[4] Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
[5] But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
[6] All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4–6 ESV)

The Archangel

 

It holds the meaning of "unspeakable." I only say it because its one of my favorite sayings of Sherlock Holmes, lol.

As far as Spurgeon goes, not a fan. I just don't see the fascination.


God bless.

 

Again I point out that He is in agony at that time, and we see Him asking that the cup be taken away. I know I cannot convince you, but we see Him imploring God that what is in view be taken away, and He receives an answer in that the Angel strengthened Him. We see Angels minister to Him after He is tempted of Satan, and there is a sense of completion implied in that, seeming that the trial is over.

Again, that He is ready to "get it over with" fits better with His predetermined will than asking that the Cross be taken away.

Again, He is already "suffering." To the point where He sweat great drops of blood as it were.

No, but He went silently to the slaughter.

No fear is portrayed in Christ when He stands before His accusers. No wavering can be seen in Him at all. Completely resolved and no longer sweating great drops of blood.

Whereas it would make more sense to see the human suffering in the physical as more logical, but I deny even that. I think He was done with being among men. He was ready to drink the cup, and His request is that this be the time when He drink of it.

I just don't see separation as a possibility. You cannot separate what is eternally united. The same goes for those immersed into Christ, there is no potential for separation because of the nature of the union. If the Son of God can be separated from the Father, then we must equally conclude that believers can be separated from the Father, Son,and Holy Ghost. And Scripture denies that possibility.

Just think of how Christ would feel understanding humanity, sin, and their impending judgment. That is the "suffering" I don't think many consider in regards to what Christ experiences as He prays.

That began in the Incarnation:


Philippians 2:5-8
King James Version (KJV)

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


I just don't see The Son as being able to be separated from the Father. And I have given you numerous statements where we see He wasn't.

This is the one issue that you need to explain, because you yourself have presented these truths. The view you are presenting of the Son separated from the Father doesn't even correlate to what you have said:

These represent my own view, that they are inseparable, acting in unity...always. Eternally.

Even when the Son was on the Cross.


God bless.

 

It seems to me you're reading your understanding of the language of your New Testament passages back into Isaiah to weaken what it actually says.

Does it not say, "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... (Isaiah 53:10 ESV) Does not your statements above contradict this passage?

Of course, men drove the nails, but they were acting--of their own free will while sinning--in perfect unison with the will of God.

The Archangel

 

Has anyone suggested that? I'd like to see a quote if you don't mind.

It means exactly that. That fence you're riding must be pretty uncomfortable.

Or, you...

1. Don't have an understanding of the issue on a deeper level;

2. Aren't paying attention to the discussion;

3. Simply like to make negative statements, regardless of whether they make any sense or not:

Who then was He forsaken by?

How was He forsaken yet is still in unity with the Father?

See the problem there?


God bless.