Yes, the one where the Cup of wrath of God pictured in the OT was delivered to Jesus to take, and he shrank from it in His humanity in the garden, as he knew that meant facing the wrath of God, and a separation from his father for a time!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Author states my position very well here!
The Cup Consumed for Us | Desiring God
Key passages in the Bible connect God’s wrath with the imagery of a cup.Jeremiah 25:15 tells us, “Thus the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: ‘Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it.’” Then Isaiah 51:17 says, “O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath, who have drunk to the dregs the bowl, the cup of staggering.” In Revelation 14, an angel speaks, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger” (verses 9–10).
Jesus confirms this connection in Gethsemane when he prayed, the cross looming just ahead, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39).
The disciples will drink a cup, too — a cup of suffering (Matthew 20:23). But Jesus’s cup of suffering is different from theirs because Jesus’s suffering is under God’s anger. Jesus drinks the cup of God’s wrath, a cup that has accumulated the fury of God against sins of all types. Heinous crimes, adultery, careless words, dishonoring thoughts, lies — all of it will be punished by God.
This is the cup Jesus drinks on the cross.
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.
The verses were listed in that article!
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.
JonC, you are in danger of becoming like one of those people who are convinced that men never landed on the moon. No evidence whatsoever will satisfy you. Moreover, you insist upon taking each piece of evidence by itself, when you should be looking at the Bible as a whole. If you did the same thing with the doctrine of the Trinity, you would be a Unitarian. The truth of Scripture is not found in 'it is written;' it is found in 'It is written again' (Matthew 4:5-7).
'In the hand of the LORD is a cup
full of foaming wine mixed with spices;
He pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth
Drink it down to the very dregs' (Psalm 71:8).
Now, if 'The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed' and if 'the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' and if 'He bore the sin of many' (Isaiah 53) how can it be denied in the light of Matthew 26:39 etc. and Romans 3:25-26 that our Lord has drunk the wine cup of the Lord's wrath on our behalf?
Mark 10:38-39 needs to be taken with Colossians 1:24, but that is a whole extra issue and I haven't time to deal with it right now.
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).
Whatever a lost sinner experiences when facing the judgement of God towards their sin is exactly what Jesus felt, for he became the One who bore the brunt of that wrath and judgement for our sakes!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).
Why do you believe that Jesus was spared the wrath of God that lost sinners will all experience, and that we would have also?
The Father saw Him who was sinless as being at that time the sin bearer, and was treated By Him accordingly!
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.
NONE who hold to PST believe that Jesus died a spiritual death, but we do believe thatHe experience while upon the Cross the full wrath of God directed towards our sins, and that due to Him being the Sin bearer and under that judgement for our sake, knew what it feels to become apart and separated form the presence of the father....
THAT is why he sought to have the bitter Cup removed form Him...
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.
Martin, the Biblist, and myself have ALL explained and shown to you the mistakes that you are making in regards to how you view this issue my Brother, ALL have used the scriptures, its just that you seem very ad versed to accepting that Jesus indeed had to face the full blunt of the Wrath of God placed upon him as our sin bearer!
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?
the scriptures show to us that there is a Cup of divine Wrath mentioned in the OT, to be poured out by God upon the sin bearer, who represents the peoplke as the Messiah, Isaiah 53, and that the death of Messiah by accepting freely the divine wrath of God poured out would bring salvation to His own children saved by that act.
If you want to write my understanding off as fanciful and wrong, you must also classify Calvin and most of the reformers with me as all duped and wrong believing!
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.
Which the scriptures plainly state is the wrath of God directed towards sin!
- Status