Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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?