Featured Did Jesus take on the wrath of God as propitiation for our sin?

Jon, I bolded and posted in red the statement that comes across as graceless, works based, salvation. You stated:
"If we do not die to the flesh then we also will face God's wrath.

But if we do die to the flesh, if we are born again,"

Jon, we were dead in our trespasses and sins. God's wrath was upon us. But God made us alive with Christ. By grace we were saved.

Our salvation is entirely by God's gracious choice.

I am wondering what verse says that our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain. Did I miss that verse or have you not yet posted it.
Jon, if sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain, of what value is the sacrificial system that God ordered for Israel. It seems you are trying to make God's word null and void of any purpose.
Please share that verse that says our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain.

Revelation 5:5-10
And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

 

Jon, neither of these two verses say anything to support your claim that our sin cannot be transferred upon the Lamb that was slain. How do you extract anything close to your assertion from those two verses? They have nothing to do with your assertion. Are these actually the verses you are using as your reason for the view you hold?
These verses are for Christians. Followers of Christ. I find your prooftexts very odd.

 

Once again, these verses do not support your assertion.

To answer your question. It isn't just for the Lamb who was slain. The Lamb is slain by order of God. God set the requirement that Lamb slain would ransom the guilty for whom death is just. The sacrifice fulfilled the requirement God set. There is nothing just, regarding Jesus being slain. There is everything obedient about Jesus being the Lamb that is slain.
“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,..."

As to your last paragraph, it is clear you have constructed a position with no biblical support. Take your own advice.

 

You misunderstand the passage in Romans. “The wages of sin is death” .

First, “sin” is personified as a slave master. It was common for Roman citizens who owned slaves to pay them small wages, which they could save and eventually buy their freedom.

The slave master “sin” only gives death as a wage. Death is the only thing earned by the slave. So the sin master controls the person and then turns them over to “death” that is also personified as a master.

Only Christ can free people from the sin master and the death master, because He paid that price on the cross to deliver us freedom from sin and death.

peace to you

 

Jon, you have simply made baseless claims in your post.
I have provided both Old Testament foreshadowing and then connected it to New Testament, not by any philosophy, but purely because the New Testament writers do the connecting for us.
When you have addressed me, you have provided no legitimate proof text from the Bible. Therefore, it seems obvious you are openly guilty of what you have accused me of doing. Nowhere do you make a solid biblical case for whatever your mystery theory is.

 

This seems close to penal substitution. Also, I wouldn't use those verses in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel to disprove penal substitution - those verses are good for human interaction but in the atonement they just lay the groundwork for the reason Christ is uniquely qualified to do this, and why this is such an offense to many.

That is substitution. They were on us. Then God laid them on Christ.

Yes. His Son was a sin offering. Since he never sinned whose sins are in question?

 

Yes...no basis in scripture...vague references pieced together poorly
This does not pass the test of scripture.

 

What you shared of the Scripture disproves PSA thinking that God poured His wrath upon the Son.

In the verse, does it not say, “… Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, …”.


Now, it is plain that Scripture support for PSA is totally lacking, and that those that cling to that thinking do not have the support they think they have from the Scriptures.

Sin did not cause the death of the Saviour. He stated that He, alone, had that authority to both lay it down and take it up.

Unlike the sacrifices of the OT which had no choice, the “Christ gave His life a ransom for many.”

God did not pour wrath upon His Son, there was no need. The Blood of the Son cleanses (us) from all unrighteousness.

Christ did not die as a substitute. There was no quid pro quo, exchange that took place, or such would be an earning of our salvation. But we are redeemed by Grace.

Christ presented a pleasing sacrifice to the Father, a satisfying sacrifice, in which the Father may at His determined will redeem those of His choice.

The death angel does not pass over you, for all have sinned and all do die. What Christ did was remove the judgement to follow for believers. The “sting” - inescapable judgement upon the unbeliever, does not impact us. For when the believer walks that valley, it is but a shadow, there is no fear, but perfect Love presenting what is prepared.

No wrath of God at the crucifixion, no condemnation for believers.

It is the shed blood that made and makes all the difference.

 

The sin offering sacrifice was never a substitute, but an atonement of satisfaction. Had there been no satisfaction, there would have been no atonement.

 

The act of the sacrifice, (Leviticus 1:4) where the head of the family placed his hand upon the animal as it was killed demonstrated a symbolic transfer of sin and guilt to the animal. It is clearly substitution.

peace to you

 

Yet, where are your questions and what Scripture do you offer that has not already been offered?

In another post, I related the number of books already examined in these threads. Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Colossians, Galatians, Hebrews, 1 John, Ephesians, Revelation, and possibly some more that I don’t remember.

in all the examination, not a single verse of support for God pouring His wrath out upon the Son.

You want to test the PSA with the teaching of Scripture?

That is all @JonC and I have been doing for all these threads.

Go ahead, challenge us with Scripture as others have attempted, but we merely ask that you render the Scriptures as they are, and not as some who steep in philosophy cannot separate their rendering from the philosophy.

 

No, for transfer does not imply substitution, but transfer, only.

Substitution requires an exchange. Did the animal give anything in exchange?

No, for the animal whether it wanted or not, was sacrificed.

That sacrifice if valid and pleasing to God brought reconciliation on a temporary basis.

 

I suppose this thread will soon be closed.

I am willing to continue the discussion with anyone who desires.

I am not out to convince, but to share the truth of the Scriptures and how reliance upon a philosophy may be error, no mater how “good” it seems.

What we need is more Scripture sharing.

The more we share, the more we each might come to an understanding, not perhaps agreement, but learning from each other.

Shall, upon the closing of the thread, open another on this topic?

 

Agedman, have I not shared scripture? Have I even once fallen on philosophy?
As I have said, I couldn't care less about some term created by a bean counter about Jesus. What I care about is what the Bible actually says. I care that we see how all of scripture points to Jesus and explains what his death was for and how it affects us personally.