Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?

[JonC]

Which the scriptures plainly state is the wrath of God directed towards sin!

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Or do you think it is the cup of wrath in which we share? What did Jesus say? "My cup you shall drink."

Even when the disciples drank that cup it was not the cup of God's wrath. Scripture teaches that God is never wrathful towards the righteous. Scripture also teaches that God is immutable, He does not change.

It is your theory, not Scripture, that has God being wrathful towards Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Or do you think it is the cup of wrath in which we share? What did Jesus say? "My cup you shall drink."

Even when the disciples drank that cup it was not the cup of God's wrath. Scripture teaches that God is never wrathful towards the righteous. Scripture also teaches that God is immutable, He does not change.

It is your theory, not Scripture, that has God being wrathful towards Christ.

That is due to Jesus at that time being in the sight of God the father a sin offering for us, and has deserving His wrath at that time!

 

[JonC]

That is due to Jesus at that time being in the sight of God the father a sin offering for us, and has deserving His wrath at that time!

Yes, you have said that before. Scripture, however, does not.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, you have said that before. Scripture, however, does not.

It really does, but your understanding of the atonement does not allow for that meaning!

 

[JonC]

It really does, but your understanding of the atonement does not allow for that meaning!

As I said before - quote the passage and highlight by putting in bold the part that says Jesus experienced the separation from God and God's wrath that the lost will experience at Judgment and then it will be settled.

I've been asking you over and over again just to see how long it would take you to realize that PSA is developed systematically. It is not in Scripture but is a theory people use to articulate a meaning for the work of Christ (specifically, His death). It supposes a judicial framework which distinguishes it from other theories. The reason it is a new theory in comparison to some others is the context it presupposes.

I think that by now you are starting to realize what is Scripture itself and what is your reasoning/tradition. You have to at least realize you have failed to provide a plain statement of your theory from Scripture itself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As I said before - quote the passage and highlight by putting in bold the part that says Jesus experienced the separation from God and God's wrath that the lost will experience at Judgment and then it will be settled

It gets wearisome to keep repeating myself, but you have devised your own definition of Penal Substitution just so that you can deny it.

 

[JonC]

It gets wearisome to keep repeating myself, but you have devised your own definition of Penal Substitution just so that you can deny it.

No, brother, you are wrong here. My argument was with @Yeshua1 who has provided that definition of what Jesus experienced. He said that Scripture plainly states Jesus experienced the separation from God and the wrath of God that the lost will experience at Judgment. NOT MY DEFINITION.

That is the great mystery, as He who is sinless and is also God would experience the same wrath and separation from the father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgement.

I understand that you may not hold to that definition, and I respect that. The comment was directed at the person who provided that definition, not towards you. You have my apology if it appeared that I was attributing the definition to you. That was not my intent.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, brother, you are wrong here. My argument was with @Yeshua1 who has provided that definition of what Jesus experienced. He said that Scripture plainly states Jesus experienced the separation from God and the wrath of God that the lost will experience at Judgment. NOT MY DEFINITION.

I understand that you may not hold to that definition, and I respect that. The comment was directed at the person who provided that definition, not towards you. You have my apology if it appeared that I was attributing the definition to you. That was not my intent.

My apologies, but you have trotted out that definition more than once in the past. I have not been following this thread as closely as I should have been and I had not realised that Y1 had committed himself to it.

Carry on! I will re-enter the discussion when time permits.

 

[JonC]

My apologies, but you have trotted out that definition more than once in the past. I have not been following this thread as closely as I should have been and I had not realised that Y1 had committed himself to it.

Carry on! I will re-enter the discussion when time permits.

No problem. It seems that @Yeshua1 and I (and a couple of others who are not here) have argued this definition too many times in the past to count. I apologize if it appears I took for granted this was a common definition for PSA as past conversations prove otherwise.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, brother, you are wrong here. My argument was with @Yeshua1 who has provided that definition of what Jesus experienced. He said that Scripture plainly states Jesus experienced the separation from God and the wrath of God that the lost will experience at Judgment. NOT MY DEFINITION.

I understand that you may not hold to that definition, and I respect that. The comment was directed at the person who provided that definition, not towards you. You have my apology if it appeared that I was attributing the definition to you. That was not my intent.

Jesus never suffered spiritual death, never ceased to be God in the flesh, but he did drink of that bitter cup, and experienced"Hell" while upon the Cross, as the demands of the Father to have sins paid for in full, thru the divine wrath towards them was poured in full upon His own beloved Son!
God that Father had to turn away from Jesus at that time, and have Him suffer for our sins in the same fashion that we would have without Him atoning for us!!

 

[Yeshua1]

My apologies, but you have trotted out that definition more than once in the past. I have not been following this thread as closely as I should have been and I had not realised that Y1 had committed himself to it.

Carry on! I will re-enter the discussion when time permits.

Jon C and my position seems to be disagreeing on the aspect of Jesus experiencing while upon the Cross the active wrath of God towards Him, as being the sin bearer. Hr seems to hold to God accepting the sacrifice of Jesus due to Him obeying the Law fully, and having no divine wrath factored into this atonement.

 

[Yeshua1]

No problem. It seems that @Yeshua1 and I (and a couple of others who are not here) have argued this definition too many times in the past to count. I apologize if it appears I took for granted this was a common definition for PSA as past conversations prove otherwise.

We seem to be disagreeing on the aspect of the wrath of God towards jesus while on the Cross!

 

[JonC]

Jesus never suffered spiritual death, never ceased to be God in the flesh, but he did drink of that bitter cup, and experienced"Hell" while upon the Cross, as the demands of the Father to have sins paid for in full, thru the divine wrath towards them was poured in full upon His own beloved Son!
God that Father had to turn away from Jesus at that time, and have Him suffer for our sins in the same fashion that we would have without Him atoning for us!!

I never said Jesus suffered a spiritual death. I am saying you have not proved your point through Scripture (in fact, you never tried).

 

[JonC]

We seem to be disagreeing on the aspect of the wrath of God towards jesus while on the Cross!

Yes, and more. I think the contest of Christ's work is our primary disagreement. I see the Old Covenant as a witness to the New Covenant with God's righteousness being manifested in the New apart from the Law. You see the New Covenant as coming about through the Old.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, and more. I think the contest of Christ's work is our primary disagreement. I see the Old Covenant as a witness to the New Covenant with God's righteousness being manifested in the New apart from the Law. You see the New Covenant as coming about through the Old.

No, for as a Baptist I see it as being a brand new covenant relationship with God, but that the OT sacrifical system, and the prophets, are the way to understanding the suffderings of the Messiah!
The Law was and is perfect, but there was still a sin debt obligation owed to God by us for violating it, and the wrath of God upon Christ allows us to be now reconciled and saved!

 

[JonC]

No, for as a Baptist I see it as being a brand new covenant relationship with God, but that the OT sacrifical system, and the prophets, are the way to understanding the suffderings of the Messiah!
The Law was and is perfect, but there was still a sin debt obligation owed to God by us for violating it, and the wrath of God upon Christ allows us to be now reconciled and saved!

This is what I mean. You understand the New Covenant as coming from the Old (Christ, on the cross, satisfying the demands of the a old Covenant Law by experiencing its punishment so we will not) instead of the Old Covenant as a witness to a righteousness apart from the Law.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is what I mean. You understand the New Covenant as coming from the Old (Christ, on the cross, satisfying the demands of the a old Covenant Law by experiencing its punishment so we will not) instead of the Old Covenant as a witness to a righteousness apart from the Law.

I see it as Jesus and paul did, while you seem to see it as someone like NT Wright does!

 

[JonC]

I see it as Jesus and paul did, while you seem to see it as someone like NT Wright does!

I don't know what NT Wright believes about the Atonement (apparently you are much more a NT Wright reader than I as I assumed he held to PSA). So I really can't respond except to say that if you are correct it is a validation that such a person has also identified these issues.

I understand you assume Jesus and Paul viewed the New Covenant as arriving through the Old, and the Law as the criteria to be met. The issue is that this is an assumption foreign to Scripture itself.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know what NT Wright believes about the Atonement (apparently you are much more a NT Wright reader than I as I assumed he held to PSA). So I really can't respond except to say that if you are correct it is a validation that such a person has also identified these issues.

I understand you assume Jesus and Paul viewed the New Covenant as arriving through the Old, and the Law as the criteria to be met. The issue is that this is an assumption foreign to Scripture itself.

So John Calvin, and a majority of the Reformers were all wrong?

 

[JonC]

So John Calvin, and a majority of the Reformers were all wrong?

John Calvin was wrong to ascribe to the Atonement a context of retributive justice. But since you believe 15 centuries of Christians to be wrong, I don't see your point. I hold Scripture, not the Reformers, as an authority.

Do you believe that John Calvin and ALL of the Reformers were wrong in holding to infant baptism?