He did and he also bore our sins in his own body on the cross. It was out of obedience to the Father, but it was also accomplishing our redemption. This aspect is just as "scriptural" as the idea of a reversal of an unjust death. Penal substitution deals with the scriptures that show God's wrath against sin as well as the cosmic aspects of our redemption. And if you are going to insist on a cosmic justice that demands things happen for it's sake then why would it be difficult to accept the fact that the same cosmic justice demands that God be just as well as the justifier of sinners.
Yes, adding concepts to scripture would be wrong. But all the words we have in our native languages are going to be our attempts a expressing concepts. If Christ bore my sin in his own body on the cross, and it was necessary because of God's will that that be done for my redemption, and the same event is describes as the just for the unjust, then I have done no wrong by using the English word "substitution". By the way, I notice that you use the word "propitiation". I am glad because most of those who oppose penal substitution attack that word first. In fact, as a side note, does anyone know of any theologian who is actually against penal substitution who allows propitiation to stand without wanting to change it to "expiation"?
He did and he also bore our sins in his own body on the cross. It was out of obedience to the Father, but it was also accomplishing our redemption.
Redemption means payment of a price to free someone from bondage. Jesus pays our debt of obedience. That is the redemption. The redemption is the payment of our debt of obedience. Him "bearing our sins" means that we killed him. It also means he suffers the consequences of our sins with us.
I have never denied God's wrath against sin. What I deny is the specific idea that God's wrath was poured out on Jesus instead of me. It is the idea of a very particular act of God's wrath - the pouring it out on Jesus instead of us - that we have a problem with. Not God's wrath in general.
If Christ bore my sin in his own body on the cross, and it was necessary because of God's will that that be done for my redemption, and the same event is describes as the just for the unjust, then I have done no wrong by using the English word "substitution".
Haha yes you have, because you have described nothing in the mechanism that is substitutionary. If you want to use the word substitution, then you need to describe an act that is a substitution. X does something instead of Y so that Y does not do that thing.
Does Jesus die so that we won't die? No.
Is Jesus crucified so that we won't be crucified? No.
Does Jesus drink the cup so we won't drink the cup? No.
Is Jesus baptized so we won't be baptized? No.
Does Jesus lose his life so we won't lose ours? No.
Does Jesus obey so that we won't obey? No.
Does Jesus provide something that we don't have? Yes - infinitely so. But that does not entail a substitution mechanism. Again, if I am dead, and Jesus dies so that I can be raised with him, he provided something that I do not have - but the mechanism is not substitution.
And I don't think that propitiation means expiation. It means wrath aversion or wrath reversal. But it does not mean "wrath displacement" which is the specific claim of penal substitution.
