trustman:


Your various comments and responses leave many questions unanswered. And by ignoring those issues you have failed to make your position clear.

I actually believe that through out this thread I have made a point of answering every post thrown at me, even those of athiest that I though I wouldnt respond to on a normal day.
I put my thought to words using scriptures. First I explained that biblically an atonement has nothing to do with transfering wrath to an innocent substitute, instead it was an offering of a "gift of value" to the aggrived to appease him for wrong done and avert his wrath. I went on to explain that the bloody sacrifices of the OT used the "life force" blood of the animal as a gift to appease the creator even though that wasn't fully satisfactory. I explain that a ransom in scripture is also something given to avert wrath, i went on to explain that to "bear sins" biblically is to make intercession for sin.... I went one and on to establish that:

*an atoning sacrifice averts wrath by offering a gift not trasfer it.
* the sacrifice of Jesus offer a valueable gift, the "life force", obedience, humility... Of Jesus to the father to appease him for all sins.
* this sacrifice is the ransom that buys us from wrath.
* this sacrifice "bears sin".
* this sacrifice was proposed by the father, done by his son and applied by the holy spirit on our soul.
....
My dear you may point to the unanswered questions.

First, the title of your thread "... Jesus Didn't Die In Place of Anyone" contradicts Romans 5:6-8 and Hebrews 2: 9

Not true, the title of the thread actually starts with the word "penal substitution" and the first post I explained,

"Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins!"

so yeah, I clearly stated that Jesus died for sins, I went on to state he died vicariously, the point of the OP is that he didn't die in the way penal substution teaches he died.

Jesus voluntarily gave up the ghost. What does this tell us? 
One, that he did not bleed to death. Two, he did not give up the ghost as soon as he was nailed to the cross or shortly after but only after noonday darkness, his cries to the father and declaration that "It is finished". 
Three,  he knew that it was only then his work was complete. He was still physically alive on the cross when the work of salvation was completed for him to declare "Tetelestai!" 

God was actively involved in Jesus' sacrificial death. 
See Romans 3:25 "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."(ESV). 
"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished."

The cross was a high point in the work of salvation. 
1 Peter 2:24 "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."(ESV)
The cross was therefore critical to the salvation work of Christ - Col. 2:14

you still haven't defended penial substitution!

Yes Jesus died for sins.

Yes his father brough him as the sacrifice of propitation

Yes the cross is the high point os Salvation!

I didn't dispute those points!

What I disputed is that Jesus was propose as a vehicle of wrath, I said that is untrue in the active sense, I believe that the scripture teaches he was instead a sacrifice of atonement. Something that appeases not something that the father is unjustly punishing.

I point is Jesus paid a ransom on the cross! He gave to God on behalf of humanity something of value his own life force, his will, total obedience, this ransom is superabundant to pay for sins! He has paid the price of our disobedience by his obedience, where we refused to give God our will, our best...Jesus gave his all. The price is paid! The father didn't and cannot actively pour wrath of his son after he has already paid the price.
He didn't active pour wrath nor did he send his son to hell fire out of anger. The price was paid the sacrifice was sweet smelling not a barage of dive wrath.

simplex2:


Really? And he acted surprised when Adam informed him he was na'ked? Must be a good hollywood actor then.

Fastforward few hrs later, why not just scrap Adam and Eve and start creation of man anew? Wasn't that the idea behind wiping out the entire generation of Noah? Sodom? Wouldn't it have been better killing just Adam and Eve (2 people) than killing off all Noah's generation?

Right from the time of Adam, man has never-ever kept God's law; not Adam, not Noah, not Sodom, none!
Can't God take a clue that the ways of man is different - totally different from his ways and at such let man be?

do you believe all laws should be abolished because many fail to keep them?

trustman:


[size=10pt]So what "atoning sacrifice" did Jesus Christ offer ?

Good u saw dt. *sigh* to think I used to like dis guy's reasoning.

Bobbysworld28:

Good u saw dt. *sigh* to think I used to like dis guy's reasoning.

you should know that the use of emotional backmail like the one above does not work on me.

I have explained what an atoning sacrifice is using scriptures you can check my post.


This is my post on the question

Re: Penal Substitution: Jesus Didn't Die In Place Of Anyone.
by Ubenedictus(m): 5:48pm On Mar 25

The Hebrew term "kaphar" (H3722) means to 'make atonement', 'propitiate', 'cover over [sin]', 'cleanse', etc, and is used about 90 times in the Old Testament (mostly in regards to sacrifices, which we would expect). I will highlight some very
clear examples of atonement/propitiation taking place in the Old Testament (where
"kaphar" appears) that doesn't involve a transfer of punishment at all, but rather a 'turning away of wrath' all together.

I went on to explain step by step the meaning if atonement in the bible explaining that is averts wrath not divert wrath. You should read before you criticize. Provide a rebutal to my points if you think I am wrong do not drop your smart-as.s insultive comment.

This is my response to the question on atonement, if you disagree, prepare a rebutal.

www.nairaland.com/2205514/penal-substitution-jesus-didnt-die#31997517

www.nairaland.com/2205514/penal-substitution-jesus-didnt-die#31996985

Ubenedictus:


you should know that the use of emotional backmail like the one above does not work on me.

I have explained what an atoning sacrifice is using scriptures you can check my post.


This is my post on the question

Re: Penal Substitution: Jesus Didn't Die In Place Of Anyone.
by Ubenedictus(m): 5:48pm On Mar 25


I went on to explain step by step the meaning if atonement in the bible explaining that is averts wrath not divert wrath. You should read before you criticize. Provide a rebutal to my points if you think I am wrong do not drop your smart-as.s insultive comment.

This is my response to the question on atonement, if you disagree, prepare a rebutal.

www.nairaland.com/2205514/penal-substitution-jesus-didnt-die#31997517

www.nairaland.com/2205514/penal-substitution-jesus-didnt-die#31996985

U r always so sensitive. U need to chill.
If u reject Jesus and his mission as a whole, I will get u but this ur cherry picking is quite ludicrous

Ubenedictus:


do you believe all laws should be abolished because many fail to keep them?

Man makes his own laws which are as a result of sociological and environmental needs. I don't need to be religious to know that I shouldn't murder, steal, bear false witness, fvckk another man's wife and so on.

My point remains this: God's laws have never worked for man and as a result of this, he keeps killing, murdering and even maiming his own son. Yet after the murder of the son, nothing has changed. Sin abound!

simplex2:


Man makes his own laws which are as a result of sociological and environmental needs. I don't need to be religious to know that I shouldn't murder, steal, bear false witness, fvckk another man's wife and so on.

My point remains this: God's laws have never worked for man and as a result of this, he keeps killing, murdering and even maiming his own son. Yet after the murder of the son, nothing has changed. Sin abound!

did you see the irony in your post? You mentioned the so-called "God law" and said it is right and ok to obey them, infact you said all men should obey them instinctively and yet you say they "never worked for men".

You see the irony, should the so-called good and instinctive law be thrown away because some have failed to do them?

Ubenedictus:


did you see the irony in your post? You mentioned the so-called "God law" and said it is right and ok to obey them, infact you said all men should obey them instinctively and yet you say they "never worked for men".

You see the irony, should the so-called good and instinctive law be thrown away because some have failed to do them?

Nah, those laws are not god's laws. That you saw them in the bible doesn't mean they were initiated by god. I believe the bible has lied to you guys so much that you think everything originated from your god.

What am I even saying, you guys actually believe everything originated from the garden of eden.

I see where you're coming from.

Bobbysworld28:

U r always so sensitive. U need to chill.
If u reject Jesus and his mission as a whole, I will get u but this ur cherry picking is quite ludicrous

my dear this is not cherry picking, I do not cherry pick.

Some guys decided to teach that Jesus who was devine was sent to hell fire by his father to burn with the damned as a payment you sin (a transfer of wrath) and you think I am cherrypicking? You do not think it is outrageous?

Some guy claims the father was actively pouring wrath on the son and was inspiring soldiers to beat him so that the suffering of Jesus is directly attributed to the fathers wrath and you still think that is funny?

Some guy decided that the father cut off his son from the divine Ousia, the manifest divine prescence of his divinity, how can Jesus who is by nature God lose his Godhead? And yet you do not think that is heresy.


Sorry dear I am not cherrypicking, my post are serious and the heresy I am talking about is pretty real, Jesus is not the vehicle the father diverts wrath on, he is the sacrifice that averts. I was saved by the payment of a ransom in biblical terms not by God revenging my sins on his son.

Ubenedictus:
my dear this is not cherry picking, I do not cherry pick.

Some guys decided to teach that Jesus who was devine was sent to hell fire by his father to burn with the damned as a payment you sin (a transfer of wrath) and you think I am cherrypicking? You do not think it is outrageous?

Some guy claims the father was actively pouring wrath on the son and was inspiring soldiers to beat him so that the suffering of Jesus is directly attributed to the fathers wrath and you still think that is funny?

Some guy decided that the father cut off his son from the divine Ousia, the manifest divine prescence of his divinity, how can Jesus who is by nature God lose his Godhead? And yet you do not think that is heresy.


Sorry dear I am not cherrypicking, my post are serious and the heresy I am talking about is pretty real, Jesus is not the vehicle the father diverts wrath on, he is the sacrifice that averts. I was saved by the payment of a ransom in biblical terms not by God revenging my sins on his son.

Now I get u! I see ur point too!
U need to try to simplify ur theology too. The exegesis u poured out is strong meat + bone.
Only a few mature minds will see ur point. But I get u and I am sorry for d earlier post. Cheers!

Bobbysworld28:

Now I get u! I see ur point too!
U need to try to simplify ur theology too. The exegesis u poured out is strong meat + bone.
Only a few mature minds will see ur point. But I get u and I am sorry for d earlier post. Cheers!

thanks.
I sometimes find it hard to put my thought into simple words hence the long congested explanations I gave.

I also know my topic was sensational and it is easy for someone to mistake or misunderstand it.

Hmm. Interesting-looking thread. Will see if I can read it all later tonight.

ihedinobi2:
Hmm. Interesting-looking thread. Will see if I can read it all later tonight.

WOW, IT'S BEEN LONG, ihedinobi how are you doing?

Ubenedictus:
WOW, IT'S BEEN LONG, ihedinobi how are you doing?

I'm fine, my brother. How are you? Sorry, still haven't read through the thread. It's inviting though.