Hypothetical about the canon of scripture

Picture yourself in the situation of a sola-scriptura Christian in the year 100. All the Apostles are dead, so you are just left with the Scriptures since you don't believe the church has the authority to declare the canon of scripture. You only knew one apostle's gospel narrative---Matthew, you read and accept his gospel, you have not seen or read other accounts, you heard some are floating around. Finally one day some comes to town saying they have a new fancy gospel by some guy you never heard of named Luke. And Luke also wrote another book named Acts of the Apostles. You are skeptical since you never heard of Luke, you read Matthew 10--Luke is not a name of an apostle, so you already question this narration. You look through the whole gospel of Matthew--you see no Luke mentioned anywhere (how can you trust this guy, doesn;t even pretend to be someone known or noteworthy). Despite your doubts already, you read Luke's gospel and Acts to give it a chance, if Luke is true, it won't say something contrary to what you know is scripture in Matthew.

So you start off with the genealogies---the book you know is scripture says Joseph's father is named Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but you read this new guy Luke and he says Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Your doubts increase, how could this Luke guy screw up so barely? Perhaps there is an explanation for this, but you have no reason to try to go out of your way on accepting the word of this guy who wasn't an apostle. You read much of the rest of Luke and see many things are in common with Matthew, making you think Luke just borrowed, corrupted and embellished MAtthew's writing--which irritates you. You look at the story of the passion, your gospel said Christ was crucified with two criminals--both mocked Christ. Luke claims one mocked Christ and the other defended Jesus and Jesus told him he would see him in the kingdom! Unbelievable, this Luke guy just have to act like he has special information, he is again contradicting what MAtthew 27 seems to plainly say. Matthew 27:3 said Judas killed himself by hanging, but before that he gave the money back he was paid for betraying Christ, the elders bought a field for foreigners, and the field is called field of blood because it was bought with the money that killed Christ, but Luke in Acts 1 said Judas bought a field himself but had a gruesome death that does not mention suicide, and says the field is called the field of blood because his blood and guts were everywhere. Luke is just getting too hard to believe. You conclude Luke probably has the same faith as you do, but his history is off, and contradicts scripture, since its contradicts what you know to be true, you burn the copy and Luke and Acts since Luke is obviously unreliable.

As a reminder for those who claim that the 4 Gospels were all accepted in the 1st century--this is only true of the group that is now the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but not true of the Ebionites.

Christ under the appearance of stone!

Many Protestants who object to calling Peter the rock in Matthew 16:18 will appeal to a completely unrelated mention of Christ as the rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.--1 Corinthians 10:4 

Now, obviously this is not talking about a rock used for building, but rather the rock mentioned in the Torah that the Israelites drank from after Moses struck it

Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.--Numbers 20:11

Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.--Exodus 17:6

Now, I have not met many Protestants that object to the rock being Christ since it says "the rock was Christ."  Some ignorant of the context initially deny it since they only are familiar with the verse when debating Matthew 16:18. However, what does this mean? Christ appeared to God's people in the Old Testament "under the appearance of stone" from which they drank (on more than one occasion), as St Paul calls the water that it produced "spiritual drink." This is important to note since St Paul speak later in the chapter and in the next chapter (11) about the Eucharist, in which those of us who profess the real presence believe Christ "under the appearance of bread and wine." After mentioning the stone in verse 4 St Paul states:

Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.--1 Corinthians 10:5 

This brings to mind a verse later in St Paul's discourse on the Eucharist in chapter 11.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.--1 Corinthians 11:27-30

youtube "hate speech"

YouTube recently changed their terms of service and removed one of my videos I made in  2014. YouTube declared it hate speech without providing reason, I appealed the decision using 300 words or less explaining the video did not even call homosexuality immoral, but merely pointed out one of the arguments in favor of it was built not awful logic. They upheld it. I doubt they ever listened to the video. I set it up in a logic format. This is not a surprise, large corporations are becoming increasing defensives of homosexuality, to the point of suppressing opposing views. Banning videos like mine disproves YouTube is a platform, but is giving more credence for it being a publisher that has to be legally held accountable for its content.

 

Did Jesus drink the Cup of God's wrath in the Garden?

Before Christ was arrested by the Romans, He prayed in the garden asking that the "cup" pass from Him:

AV Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

AV Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

AV Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 

John's gospel makes a separate mention of the cup shortly after the Roman authorities appear:

AV John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Calvinists, as supporting evidence for Penal Substitutionary Atonement, claim the symbolic cup Jesus said He would drink from  is the Wrath of God (appealing to the book of Revelation 14:10's, and a few Old Testament references mentioning of a cup of wrath). However, when understanding the cup, we should look to Matthew's gospel itself. We see the mention of cup--ποτηριον occurs 7 times in the gospel narration:

AV Mt 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold [water] only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

AV Mt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 

AV Mt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. 

AV Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 

AV Mt 23:26 [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 

AV Mt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 

AV Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. 

AV Mt 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Since Jesus is speaking poetically, not about an actual cup in Matthew 26:37-42, we can rule out the mention of a literal cup like Matthew 10:42, 26:27. Since, Jesus is using a cup for a different purpose in Matthew 23:25-26, that is to say he is using it as an analogy of how the Pharisee are clean externally but inwardly dirty, we can remove this as matching the cup Jesus worried about drinking from.  This leaves us with only Matthew 20:22-23 left. The story is to tell the disciples the only way they will be exalted is to humble themselves, masters must become servants. When He talks about drinking of the cup, in another gospels he also adds they must be baptized with the baptism he will be baptized with.

They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;--Mark 10:39

Luke's gospel mentioning this baptism says:

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!--Luke 12:50 

This last mention of anguish is like the anguish described in Matthew 26 while praying in the garden before His executioners arrived, as we read:

He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death--Matthew 26:37-38

Furthermore, it is interesting that it was the sons of Zebedee that asked said they would drink of the same cup as Christ, and in Matthew 26:37 it says three disciples were asked to wait as Jesus prayer: Peter and the sons of Zebedee. Perhaps, He wanted them to have a first hand glimpse of the cup? James would later die in Acts 12 as a martyr, John would be the only Apostle not to die a martyr's death though tradition says he would be boiled alive and live. Peter, the chief apostle, would be told by Christ in John 21 he will be crucified, as tradition says he was in Rome.

Returning to the issue of Reformed theology, how can the cup of Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 be the wrath of God if two of the Apostle drank from the same cup? The answer is simple. The cup is not the wrath of God. It is a cup that represents suffering and sorrow--they would suffer at the hands of the very people they wanted to help. 

However, what do Reformed apologists do to avoid this treasured piece of evidence from being discounted as evidence that Jesus drank the cup of wrath? Say it the same but different cup:

"Christ was not indicating that James and John would atone for the sins of others—the grammar of His original question makes it impossible for Him to agree that the disciples could offer atonement. Instead, Jesus was pointing to the fact that in a sense, they would share in the ordeal Christ was about to undergo in Jerusalem. In other words, they would not escape suffering for the name of Jesus."--Ligonier.org "The Cup that Jesus drinks"

While admitting they are the same cup, in order to avoid the logical sacrilege implied by mere human apostles drinking the same cup of wrath, they say it means something else--that they would also suffer for Christ.

Premise 1: Jesus would drink a cup.
Premise 2: Two apostles were told they would drink the same cup.
Premise 3: Apostles cannot suffer the wrath of God as in the sense Calvinists suppose Christ suffered.
Conclusion: The cup was not the cup of wrath, therefore Matthew 26:42 cannot be used as support for penal substitution.