Featured Is God Intrinsically Just?

Removing sins can be viewed as forgiveness, but not the nullification of guilty. What you are describing IS God clearing the guilty by transferring and punishing sins.

 

I agree.

The only thing I would question is the idea that the animal sacrifice in pagan worship or even in OT worship was viewed as a sacrifice in place of the one offering the sacrifice.

This leads me to the idea of an action of choosing to freely offer oneself in place of another (a self-sacrificing act of love) can actually be described as a just action. I would argue it cannot. It is a sacrifice, it could be mercy, and if it is for a greater good it could be expedient. But it is not a just action.

That is one reason I believe we would be better off to term the idea as Christ as dying for us, dying for our sins, rather than dying in our place. Saying "Christ died in our place" could lead to the misunderstanding of "instead of us" rather than representative (a type of "Adam").

 

I don't believe Jacob and Esau to be an example of justice but if the Potter and the clay. In the passage it is not hate as an emotion but rather an action (like passages of God hating Israel). God chose Jacob to build His nation rather than the elder brother. I believe this has to do with purpose.

 

Great minds think alike

 

Those passages mean what they say (the text of Scripture). You keep looking at Scripture as some kinda hidden message to be decoded. It isn't.

And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all'

This verse means that God has laid on Jesus the sins of all of man.

'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree'

This verse means that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross.


'The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land'

This verse is part of a larger passage giving instruction to Israel. The OT sacrifice system foreshadowed the New Covenant where God will take away our sins.

And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin'

This verse points to Jesus, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. In Him there is no sin.


The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Jesus purchased us with His own blood. He was the price of our redemption.

The cross was God reconciling man to Himself.

God will not clear the guilty (and the guilty are not cleared). God will not punish the innocent (and the innocent are not punished).

Redemption was not a problem God had to solve. Scripture is not a puzzle. The question "how can God be just and justify sinners" is NOT in the Bible. The Bible tells us that God IS just and justified sinners.

 

I do not understand your question.

There is God's Word, which IS Scripture. And then there are various theories about what the Bible teaches, which is not in God's Word (in the text of Scripture).

What is bizarre to me is exactly how some here can read a verse and in reciting that verse in doctrine change the words entirely.

For example, Scripture says that our sins were laid on Christ, that Christ bore our sins bodily. You read that our sins were transferred from us and placed on Christ. BUT that is NOT at all what is actually written in Scripture.

So my question is exactly why do you believe those verses state that God transferred our sins to Jesus?

 

@DaveXR650

To illustrate what I mean -

For most of Christian history believers did not believe that God punished Jesus or our sins on Jesus. They did not believe our sins were transferred to Jesus.

As an example, consider Augustine. Augustine went to great lengths explaining why God allowed Satan to murder Jesus. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he was not unstudied when it comes to the Bible.

No Christian before the Enlightenment believed that our sins were transferred from us or that God punished Jesus or our sins on Him. They held various beliefs about why God allowed Satan to cause Jesus to suffer and why He allowed Satan to murder Jesus, and how God forgives our sins as individuals. BUT they never read what you say is stated in the Bible even though they read what Scripture states.


So what you read, whether your belief is right or wrong, in the Bible is not what is actually in the text of Scripture.

We have to be able to separate our understanding of Scripture from the text of Scripture itself. Otherwise we risk accidentally adding to Scripture when we teach, preach, debate, etc.


I still recommend grabbing a highlighter.

The Bible says Jesus takes away the sins of the World.
The Bible says Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross.
The Bible says God laid our sins on Him.

Don't tell me what you believe that means to you (for this purpose, I don't care...people have different ideas about what that means to them).

Highlight where Scripture states that our sins were transferred from us. Put that text in bold in your reply.

 

Yes. That is my point.

Until the Enlightenment Christians did not believe those verses meant that God transferred our sins from us to Jesus.

There were several ideas about why God sent His Son to suffer Satan's wrath and be murdered by Satan. There were several ideas about how our sins are forgiven. BUT what you read as the only meaning of those passages did not exist for most of Church History.

So the question is exactly why you and @DaveXR650 read those passages as actually stating your belief.

For example....If I said that Scripture stated that Jesus wore a top hat and offered "Jesus wept" as proof, you'd find that bizarre. And I'd say "what?....the Bible clearly stated Jesus wept. He wore a top hat". You'd say "that's not what the Bible states", and I'd say "but that is what the verse teaches, just like the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible".

That's a silly example, but it is exactly what happens here.

Scripture simply does not say that God punished Jesus for our sins, or that our sins were transferred from us to Jesus.