Featured Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 2

JonC simply has no basis that He has given to us that shows on what basis God can justify the sinner and yet still remain true to Himself!

 

he refuses to see that our sins were imputed to Christ!

 

I think you need to perhaps reread what JonC has posted. All are basically saying similar things (imo), yet, because of held views concerning PSA, it is assumed the posts are not in agreement to some degree.

Sometimes I get confused in JonC's posts when he is quoting someone when replying.

He is not disputing the Scriptures posted nor dismissing them, but showing how some are presenting the Scriptures with the PSA agenda.
Such an agenda obliges adding a certain thought pattern to the text to conform it to the PSA thinking.

For example: I am definitely not a fan of the word "substitute" for I just do not find it in the NT Scriptures when it pertains to the Christ.

However, I find the word "satisfaction, satisfactory, ..." a far better word. I can understand those who use "substitute" but the use hearkens to a need to be used by the PSA which has "substitute" as a major theme.

 

Martin, I bolded that which I cannot find in the Scriptures.

Would you mind providing me Scriptures so I may see from where you are gathering support?

 

Doesn't the word "bore" mean to accept, lift, sacrifice, offer up?

Does not substitute mean replace? In what did Christ replace the sin? Is there a verse that directly links the replacement?
For example: 1 Peter 2:24 paraphrases Isaiah

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.​

However, that verse isn't showing substitution, but satisfaction, because "... MIGHT die to sin and live...." It shows the human obligation where substitution would resolve to no human obligation.
And again in 2 Corinthians is the same principle:

20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.​

Not substitution, but satisfaction.
The difference in how one looks upon substitution in comparison to satisfaction is very important, wouldn't you agree?

IMO, one must be rather careful in how they present propitiation as only a "wrath removing sacrifice" for propitiation had a more aspects then that single item.

One must also understand why there was no wrath from God upon the sacrifice. The sacrifice removed the wrath, it "propitiated" the wrath, not by enduring the wrath, but satisfying the wrath. Not a single place does the Scriptures present that Christ endured the wrath from God.
Rather, as Hebrews 9:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
...
24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.​

Again, we see the propitiation not in the agenda of the substitute, but that which was, as the OT sacrificial system, done to bring satisfaction.

Satisfaction has no obligation to expunge the wrath of God. For the Scriptures teach that believers can also suffer as did the Christ. Here is an example from 1 Peter 4:

12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18And

“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”c

19Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.​

The obvious question then is were is this not exactly the same as the Christ? Did He not even emulate the end of all by glorifying God and entrusting the Father with His Spirit?

So, WERE on the day of atonement did the wrath of God go? Did it just vanish? OR was the wrath satisfactorily "propitiated?"

Oh, Martin, He did die in our STEAD, not instead.

Two completely different meanings and often mistaken to mean the same, but they do not.


There is no problem with understanding and agreeing with the first part of this part of the post. Christ died. "He died so that ungodly sinners like you and I who believe on Him, will never die."

He died in our stead.

For those who want to see instead and stead used properly, here is one link (there are many) which show how "stead" should be used rather then "instead." https://www.englishforums.com/English/SteadInstead/gpnxz/post.htm

 

We still have yet to see where you have shown to us how and on what basis God can have His wrath and judgement due us be propiated?

 

has got to be one of the most unintelligent idiotic posts on this board. Ever

 

Yes f course ive never done that

 

What clearly says Christ is our substitute has been posted over and over again by many including me. Scripture is clear and it is not debatable.

Yet you see it and refuse what us clear. At this point your obstinance has reached tremendous levels. You work hard to add specific words that must be said in order for you to personally believe this clear and highly important doctrine.

Your personal list of words in order for you to personally believe what is already clear in scripture is not impressive. Its absurd.

I stopped responding to your posts on this because you would cherry pick what parts of my posts you would respond to. I believe you ignored what you cant deal with.

Since in this thread your idiotic posts has reached epic level i pointed that out . You really should be embarrassed.

 

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."—2 Corinthians

This verse right here alone shows Christ is our substitute. Saying Christ was made to be sin for us...those very words mean He is our substitute. I am saying that 1+3=4 and Jonc us saying no it isn't unless it says 1+1+1+=4 then it doesn't mean it = 4. Its absurd.

Isaiah 53:1�6

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.


Who was He smitten by God for? Who was He stricken for? Not simply to get the victory but He suffered those things for us. That in and of itself shows Christ is our substitute, What kind of idiotic thinking says otherwise,? it makes no sense,.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.

Again, crushed for our iniquities, it ws our sin He suffered for. We didn't have to suffer for our sin Jesus did that for us. That right there is Christ our substitute.


6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

God laid the sin of all of us on Jesus. Man, you have to bend your brain inside out to ignore that substitution factor right there, I expect that kind of thing from lost people but it is astounding when those who are believers instantly reject this clear doctrine of scripture. What is wrong with people. Not sure why this needs explaining. Good grief.

 

I just gave you plenty

 

Yes, you and MM have posted more than enough scripture to show the clear teaching of scripture.
When people drift from truth it happens step by step. One error leads to another, then the person says I used to believe as you do,but then...

 

JonC,

Many unsaved people read scripture and cannot figure out what it teaches when properly understood.
Both of us believe what is written, and understand what it teaches at the same time.
Sorry you do not share what most believers share in common