Penal Substitution and the Trinity

[Darrell C]

Christ was Man as well as God. did you not read what I wrote above?

I did.

It is clear that this cup is something horrific which the Father requires Him to drink.

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:

John 12:27. "Now My heart is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour? But for this purose I came to this hour. father glorify Your Name!" He was tested in all things, just as we are. He knows what it is to contemplate horror and shrink from it, yet press on.

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

He knows all about it, has willingly (see above) agreed to drink it, but as the cup approaches, He is filled with dread and horror at the anticipation of it.

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

On an night when it was cold enough for a fire to be kindled in the courtyard of the high priest's house (Luke 22:55), the Lord Jesus sweats copiously (Luke 22:44)-- the psychosomatic response of a human to impending trauma.

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.

So? That doesn't stop the anticipation of what was coming being horrific.

I agree.

Yes, I agree with that.

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

Have a super day, and God bless you too!

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.

 

[Darrell C]

The father treated Jesus as being the very fountain of sin, as the chief sinner, as he became the Holy Sin bearer, he who knew no sin became sin for our sake, and yet never ceased being God and Man. and though rejected by God while upon the Cross, was vindicated by His resurrection as really accomplishing salvation!

What ineffable twaddle.




God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

The latter.

What ineffable twaddle.

You may consider it so, but it was the view of many great men of God.
I have been reading Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd-Jones on this subject, and they would both support Y1.
BTW, I think 'ineffable twaddle' is a tautology. Some thing ineffable is too great and wonderful for words.

 

[agedman]

The latter.

You may consider it so, but it was the view of many great men of God.
I have been reading Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd-Jones on this subject, and they would both support Y1.
BTW, I think 'ineffable twaddle' is a tautology. Some thing ineffable is too great and wonderful for words.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

Luke 22:41-44. '.....And He knelt down and prayed, saying, "Father if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Yours be done."
Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him.......' [question for @Aged man: How does an angel strengthen God?] But then it was all great! Jesus sang three verses of Kumbaya, turned a couple of cartwheels and off He went. No! No! No!
'.....And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.' With every fibre of His human nature, He dreaded the ordeal through which He was about to pass. I do not believe that it was the pain, or the shame (Hebrews 12:2) that caused Him such anguish; it was the impending separation from the Father that He was imminently to undergo. Yet still, 'He humbled Himself and became obedient unto [i.e. 'all the way to'] death, even the death of the cross.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

'God cannot look where there is sin with any pleasure, and though as far as Jesus is personally concerned, He is the father's beloved Son in whom He is well pleased; yet when He saw sin laid upon His Son, He made that Son cry, "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was not possible that Jesus should enjoy the light of His father's presence while He was made sin for us; consequently He went through a horror of great darkness, the root and source of which was the withdrawing of His father's presence. More than that, not only was light withdrawn, but positive sorrow was inflicted. God must punish sin, and though the sin was not Christ's by His actual doing of it, yet it was laid upon Him, and therefore He was made a curse for us....God only knows the griefs to which the Son of God was put when the Lord made to meet on Him the iniquity of us all. To crown all, there came death itself. death is the punishment for sin, and whatever it may mean.....in the sentence, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Christ felt.' [MTP, Vol. 12, page 316]

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 latter, and others of us have embraced the first.

Both are true. If you suppose that I believe that Christ was forced to undergo the cross and all its attendant woes, you have not been reading anything I have written. He dreaded it; He was horrified by it, but He willingly embraced the cross. Indeed, His sufferings were agreed in the Everlasting Covenant before the beginning of time

 

[agedman]

'God cannot look where there is sin with any pleasure, and though as far as Jesus is personally concerned, He is the father's beloved Son in whom He is well pleased; yet when He saw sin laid upon His Son, He made that Son cry, "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was not possible that Jesus should enjoy the light of His father's presence while He was made sin for us; consequently He went through a horror of great darkness, the root and source of which was the withdrawing of His father's presence. More than that, not only was light withdrawn, but positive sorrow was inflicted. God must punish sin, and though the sin was not Christ's by His actual doing of it, yet it was laid upon Him, and therefore He was made a curse for us....God only knows the griefs to which the Son of God was put when the Lord made to meet on Him the iniquity of us all. To crown all, there came death itself. death is the punishment for sin, and whatever it may mean.....in the sentence, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Christ felt.' [MTP, Vol. 12, page 316]

Both are true. If you suppose that I believe that Christ was forced to undergo the cross and all its attendant woes, you have not been reading anything I have written. He dreaded it; He was horrified by it, but He willingly embraced the cross. Indeed, His sufferings were agreed in the Everlasting Covenant before the beginning of time

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.

 

[The Archangel]

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.

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

The Archangel

 

[agedman]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

'God cannot look where there is sin with any pleasure, and though as far as Jesus is personally concerned, He is the father's beloved Son in whom He is well pleased; yet when He saw sin laid upon His Son, He made that Son cry, "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was not possible that Jesus should enjoy the light of His father's presence while He was made sin for us; consequently He went through a horror of great darkness, the root and source of which was the withdrawing of His father's presence. More than that, not only was light withdrawn, but positive sorrow was inflicted. God must punish sin, and though the sin was not Christ's by His actual doing of it, yet it was laid upon Him, and therefore He was made a curse for us....God only knows the griefs to which the Son of God was put when the Lord made to meet on Him the iniquity of us all. To crown all, there came death itself. death is the punishment for sin, and whatever it may mean.....in the sentence, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Christ felt.' [MTP, Vol. 12, page 316]

Both are true. If you suppose that I believe that Christ was forced to undergo the cross and all its attendant woes, you have not been reading anything I have written. He dreaded it; He was horrified by it, but He willingly embraced the cross. Indeed, His sufferings were agreed in the Everlasting Covenant before the beginning of time

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

According to Spurgeon, God was not 'withdrawing His support' but 'withdrawing His presence.
When sailors 'abandon ship,' do they withdraw their support or their presence from the boat?

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.

Why did the Son cry, "My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me?"? Because God had, during that time, forsaken Him.
I fail to see how anyone can read that excerpt from Spurgeon without understanding that God's wrath against sin was directed against Christ who was made sin. Otherwise, that wrath is still directed against us.

"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.

The forsaking of Christ was prophesied in Psalm 22 as is the fact that the Father restored His presence afterwards.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

According to Spurgeon, God was not 'withdrawing His support' but 'withdrawing His presence.
When sailors 'abandon ship,' do they withdraw their support or their presence from the boat?

Why did the Son cry, "My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me?"? Because God had, during that time, forsaken Him.
I fail to see how anyone can read that excerpt from Spurgeon without understanding that God's wrath against sin was directed against Christ who was made sin. Otherwise, that wrath is still directed against us.

The forsaking of Christ was prophesied in Psalm 22 as is the fact that the Father restored His presence afterwards.

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!

 

[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.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I will try once more. God was never angry with the Son as to His own person. The Lord Jesus never ceased to be the Beloved Son. Have you got that? What happened on the cross is that Christ, voluntarily, was made sin for us, and took upon Himself the curse of God upon sin and sinners. All the sins of God's elect were laid upon His sinless shoulders and He paid the full penalty for them. God's anger was against sin, and since He cannot look approvingly (that must surely be the interpretation) upon sin, Christ was forsaken upon the cross. I believe that John took Mary home before the hours of darkness (John 19:27), although it is impossible to prove that.

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.

Again, God is not punishing the Son, but punishing our sin in the Son.

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

Indeed not! That is a grotesque misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches and what I, and a host of great Bible teachers and theologians, believe. You should be ashamed of yourself!

I have another Spurgeon quote for you (there are dozens of them) when I have time.

 

[JonC]

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

@agedman is right. Actually, the passage stands against you, brother.

The verse speaks of Christ carrying our sorrows while men, in ignorance (v 5; Acts 3), misunderstood the Cross as God pouring His wrath upon Jesus rather than through Him reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5).

I would point out to you and @Martin Marprelate that while you esteem Christ as stricken, smitten by God and afflicted He was instead pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed - for God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

You made a parallel between the OT sacrifices and the Atonement regarding punishment. On an individual basis, it is interesting that it was the common man who killed the animal while the priest made the offering. Using that analogy (one with which I do not fully agree), man "punished" the animal while the priest made the offering to God (the law of the sin offering in Leviticus 4).

 

[Darrell C]

BTW, I think 'ineffable twaddle' is a tautology. Some thing ineffable is too great and wonderful for words.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Luke 22:41-44. '.....And He knelt down and prayed, saying, "Father if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Yours be done."
Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him.......' [question for @Aged man: How does an angel strengthen God?]

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.

But then it was all great! Jesus sang three verses of Kumbaya, turned a couple of cartwheels and off He went. No! No! No!

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.

'.....And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.' With every fibre of His human nature, He dreaded the ordeal through which He was about to pass. I do not believe that it was the pain, or the shame (Hebrews 12:2) that caused Him such anguish; it was the impending separation from the Father that He was imminently to undergo.

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.

Yet still, 'He humbled Himself and became obedient unto [i.e. 'all the way to'] death, even the death of the cross.'

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:

The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20).

We can surely agree that God's actions reflect His nature. He does what is holy because He is holy; what is god because He is good. Therefore God's nature will be reflected in the actions of each Person of the Trinity and both unity and distinction between the Persons will be reflected in what God does.

So the actions of the Persons reflect their unity.

The Three work in perfect harmony to effect their single goal, but their roles are quite different.

In order to represent this unity and distinction between the Persons, Augustine taught that the Father's actions are not without the Son and the Son's actions not without the Father.

Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently.

Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose-- the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

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

Even when the Son was on the Cross.


God bless.

 

[The Archangel]

@agedman is right. Actually, the passage stands against you, brother.

The verse speaks of Christ carrying our sorrows while men, in ignorance (v 5; Acts 3), misunderstood the Cross as God pouring His wrath upon Jesus rather than through Him reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5).

I would point out to you and @Martin Marprelate that while you esteem Christ as stricken, smitten by God and afflicted He was instead pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed - for God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

You made a parallel between the OT sacrifices and the Atonement regarding punishment. On an individual basis, it is interesting that it was the common man who killed the animal while the priest made the offering. Using that analogy (one with which I do not fully agree), man "punished" the animal while the priest made the offering to God (the law of the sin offering in Leviticus 4).

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

 

[Darrell C]

1. This separation (forsaken) does not mean Jesus no longer existed.

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

2. This separation (forsaken) does not mean that Jesus is not still in unity (in purpose) with the rest of the God Head.

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

To deny that the Son was forsaken you must believe Jesus lied.

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:

2. This separation (forsaken) does not mean that Jesus is not still in unity (in purpose) with the rest of the God Head.

To deny that the Son was forsaken you must believe Jesus lied.

Who then was He forsaken by?

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

See the problem there?


God bless.