Mathias321
Puritan Board Freshman
I was listening this video by an Arminian who tried to “refute” the doctrine of penal substitution.
One of his arguments is that the “cup” Jesus mentioned in Luke 22:42 is not a cup of God’s wrath poured out against sin, but merely the physical suffering He would endure at his crucifixion.
His support of this was to look at Matthew 20:22-23 where Jesus said that the two sons would indeed drink the cup themselves. He argued that if the cup means God’s wrath poured out against sin, then that would mean the two sons will undergo God’s wrath for sin - ergo, they’re unsaved.
What do you make of this argument?
Start the video at 23:40:
One of his arguments is that the “cup” Jesus mentioned in Luke 22:42 is not a cup of God’s wrath poured out against sin, but merely the physical suffering He would endure at his crucifixion.
His support of this was to look at Matthew 20:22-23 where Jesus said that the two sons would indeed drink the cup themselves. He argued that if the cup means God’s wrath poured out against sin, then that would mean the two sons will undergo God’s wrath for sin - ergo, they’re unsaved.
What do you make of this argument?
Start the video at 23:40: