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

[DaveXR650]

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

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

This is an example of why it gets a little frustrating. If you go in as a substitute teacher the class is transferred to you. You are the substitute for the teacher.

Your post turns plain communication into nonsense. We can't have a meaningful dialog when this is constantly done.

 

[Aaron]

The difference is context. Scripture speaks of substitution as representation (President Biden is a substitute for every American citizen in the context of international discourse). But you are speaking of substitution differently (as replacement.....Biden is President instead of you).

Substitution IS replacement. Not representation.

But even a legit Prez does not represent the citizenry. A Prez represents the states in foreign policy, and more accurately he seeks the interest of the corporate United States. But he is not a representative, he is an executive. You're as ignorant about secular politics as you are of the Gospel.

 

[Aaron]

It is not a disregard. It is the traditional meaning. What is being discarded is the Reformed customary meaning. The reason is the Reformers were reforming Roman Catholic doctrine and the majority of Christianity (all of Christianity prior to the Reformation) rejects the neo-RCC philosophy.

It is a disregard, and a denial of the Gospel.

 

[Aaron]

This is an example of why it gets a little frustrating. If you go in as a substitute teacher the class is transferred to you. You are the substitute for the teacher.

Your post turns plain communication into nonsense. We can't have a meaningful dialog when this is constantly done.

@JonC

 

[DaveXR650]

I think I understand what you are saying. I don't know if God was filled with wrath toward Jesus. I doubt He was.

Right Austin. And several of the PSA advocates state this specifically. God was not filled with wrath toward Jesus. And that is not what PSA is about.

One thing I have learned in my short time on this site is the importance of organized thought (theology). Advocates of "scripture only" misrepresent creeds and confessions and just local church teaching as automatically being less accurate and inferior to scripture. Scripture is like the Rosetta Stone for sure but unless you are smart enough to remember all scripture at the same time you need organized teaching. Yes, you go back to scripture only and I guarantee you that you can come up with any new doctrine you want especially when you pick out a phrase here and there.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you find scores of references showing that God is wrathful and severe when confronted by sin in humans and that severe punishment is often dispensed you are allowed to say that sin involves the "wrath" of God.

If you then find other verses that indicate that Jesus bore our sin, which we all agree on, it is not wrong to say that Jesus bore God's wrath for our sin. The arguments I see on here are the same as when people say for instance that there is no verse in the Bible that specifically says I cannot engage in this or that specific sexual practice.

 

[AustinC]

The issue is not Scripture. You have shared Scripture, and we all confirm that Scripture.

The issue is in developing doctrine.

With foundational doctrines (really all doctrines, except some things taught are really debatable issues) I believe we have to stick to what is written in God's Word.

Appropriate attire for church, what is modest....what is not...is subjective to an extent. But our redemption is at the very heart of our faith.

The difference between you and I (and I believe @agedman would agree) is what we consider to be a source or test of foundational doctrines. Here I believe it is the text of Scripture, what "is written", God's Word. You, however, base doctrine not on Hod's Word but on what you believe has been reasoned out of Scripture (you dismiss the text of Scripture for what you believe or have been taught that text teaches).

There is a problem with this. Christian sects and even cults base their doctrine not on God's Word but on what they believe Scripture teaches. It becomes subjective. Each sees God as revealing to them truths not actually recorded in the Bible. And each relies on philosophy rather than God's Word.

What you believe cannot be found in God's Word....it is what you (and others since the Reformation) have reasoned out of it. Therefore it is impossible for your faith to be tested against the standard of God's Word. You can only offer passages and philosophical conclusions.

Jon, I would turn this around and say the exact same thing about you. In fact, I would say your proof texts for your philosophy have, so far, been abysmal at best. Therefore, you hold no high ground in this discussion. Certainly you are personally convinced that your theory is sound. Clearly many here find your theory to be filled with holes and they have diligently pointed out these holes in your theory. Most often you respond that such diligence is philosophy, not Bible. This seems to be the unsubstantiated crutch you are using to convince yourself that your theory is better than one that has been held for 2000 years. I leave you to your personal theory, but I note that your claim about me is not accurate.

 

[agedman]

Here you say Christ is not our substitute, and in other places you say He is. Do you really know what you think about this?

View attachment 5959
The Bearer of Sin and Guilt

And the animal WAS the exchange. It was accepted either has a holy thing, and burned on the altar, or it was rejected from the altar as an unclean thing and burned on the ground. In either case, the animal was the substitute for the Israelite.

What did the animal give the Israelite in exchange?

If the sacrifice was rejected, there was no transferring.

Therefore, it was not a matter of exchange, but of a satisfactory sacrifice.

Again, substitution fails to present the more clear picture.

Earlier you quoted me, saying, "I never said he wasn't" but did early present what wording I preferred and why.

Now that you have made a large issue over the words and I see your use of "substitute" is more central to your thinking, I have had to move to a more Scripture focused presentation concerning the sacrifices and offerings in which "substitute" is not the true focus, but satisfaction.

Perhaps, I should not have tried to present with a temperance on the vocabulary used early in the threads.

Substitute as in "taking our place" can only be true if realized that it is NOT a quid pro quo arrangement and that if the sacrifice is NOT pleasing and acceptable to God - therefore "substitute" isn't the true focus it is "satisfaction."

Christ upon the cross was not our substitute, for His sufferings do not replace our own sufferings, and neither did His blood replace our blood.
Paul stated that he bore in his own body the marks of Christ. Paul was so disfigured folks considered him ugly and unworthy. Yet, Paul did not substitute for anyone, but remarked how that he had satisfactorily completed his course, just as we all should attend to accomplish.

The crucifixion was a presentation of pleasing and satisfaction to God. That which only the Son could do as Hebrews expresses.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 330 am EST (Wed) 1230 am PST (Wed)

This thread is closed