₦airaland Forum

Before I go futher and probably be abused and accused of negleting and abusing scriptures, let me state clearly that I agree with and honour every word of scripture written below, what I disagree with is the interpretations given to them since the 16th century.

trustman:
God the father judged our sins in Christ’s body on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24 “He
himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live
for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been.”
He (Christ) made the payment for our sins on the cross – Isaiah 53: 6 “We all, like
sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid
on him the iniquity of us all.”

1pt and Isaiah are usually appealed to as teaching penal substitution. Comeon why not, the text clearly says he "bore our sins on his body", it also clearly says, "by his wounds we are healed", heck it even says "God laid on him the iniquities of us all", "isn't that convincing enough?" a proponent of the penal theory may ask. And i'll say No!

the passage in question talks of bearing our sins, but it never talks about bearing our punishment. And "bearing our sins" and "bearing our punishment" mean entirely different thing according to the bible.

I repeat, Yes Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the cross", Yes! "his wound have effected healing for me", Yes!! "On him was laid the iniquities of us all", but no in the sense that trustman means! He wasn't undergoing the penalty for the sins of a select few, his father wasn't pouring wrath for our sins down on him instead he was offering to God a sacrifice, allow me to go back to scripture to get back the sense in which those words are used.

By sacrifice is understood in the widest sense, the surrender of some good for the sake of a good aim. The religious meaning attaching to sacrifice in the wider sense is every inner act of self-surrender to God, and every outer manifestation of the inner sacrificial disposition, e.g., prayer, alms-giving, mortification. Cf. Ps 51:19; 141;2; Hos 14:2; Ecclus. 35:4; Rom 12:1 In the narrower liturgical sense one takes sacrifice to mean an external religious act, in which a gift perceptible to the senses is offered by an ordained servant of God in recognition of the absolute sovereignty and majesty of God, and, since the Fall, in atonement to God

trustman:
Q – How did Jesus become an atoning sacrifice?
A – Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment for our sins.

as you can see above a sacrifice is something offered to God, the idea of punishing the sacrifice is weird, an atoning sacrifice is a gift giving to God for forgiveness of sins and avert his wrath, the punishment of the sacrifice is strange.

God the father judged our sins in Christ’s body on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24 “He
himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live
for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been.”
He (Christ) made the payment for our sins on the cross – Isaiah 53: 6 “We all, like
sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid
on him the iniquity of us all.”
Titus 2:14 “ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify
for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”
After Jesus Christ paid our debt in full on the cross he said “It is finished” (John
19:30a) before he died physically.
He was therefore substituted in our place to pay for or atone for man’s sin problem.
He died then as a substitute for us – Romans 5: 8 “But God demonstrates his own
love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
He did not die for his own sins.
He died (as a substitute) for the sins of others – mankind.
“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all …” Romans 8:32a

now this is the main part of your post and it deserves a post of its own.

ladon1:
He is confused. please explain to him better. May be the jesus and god he knows are the one of oyingbo.

calm down dear, you don't need to get worked up.

It is possible to believe Jesus died for you without believing he was penalised in your place. Atonement doesn't mean taking God's wrath, it means offering him a gift, an offering, a payment that appeases him and averts his wrath. the old sacrifices didn't perfectly satisfy for sin because they were inadequate. Jesus made an offering that please his father.

Have a nice day.

That said, there is good reason for us to examine the Levitical sacrifices to see what can be drawn from them.
One of the most definitive texts regarding animal sacrifices comes from Leviticus 17:10-11,

"If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

The reason why blood is forbidden is because it is the 'life-force' of all living things (not to be confused with the soul), and thus carries a sacred function, making
atonement. What is important to note is that the blood makes atonement in virtue of it's life-force, not in virtue of it being spilled.

In other words, the focus here is not that something innocent took the death penalty, but rather that the value of life is of such a worth that it can make atonement for sin.

This point is made especially clear in the New Testament:

[Know] that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ , like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

Here, there is a clear link between "ransom" and the lamb's "blood," as well as a contrast to how Christ's Blood infinitely surpasses
the value of silver and gold. Thus, the point of the blood here has nothing to do with transferring a punishment but instead its value as the life force, thus Penal Substitution is not the framework the Jews were operating within.

With this in mind, the various Levitical sacrifices can be examined.

The four basic sacrifices were the Burnt Offering (Lev 1), the Grain Offering (Lev 2), the Peace Offering (Lev 3), and the Sin Offering (Lev 4). These could be offered individually, or in combination, all
depending on the circumstances (for example, a major Jewish holiday could require multiple sacrifices, even many of the same type). What is interesting, or better yet very revealing, was that while these different offerings varied in function, they none the less were similar in their instructions. For example, advocates of Penal Substitution state that the instructions to 'lay your hand upon the head' (e.g. Lev 4:4) of the animal before killing it entailed the imputing of the sinner's guilt to the animal, and the consequent transfer of the punishment to the innocent substitute. But this is simply
presumption, for nowhere does the text indicate this is intended to 'transfer guilt'.
And that is not all, the biggest flaw in that argument is that sacrifices not involving sin, such as the Peace Offering, involved virtually the same instructions of laying on hands on the animal's head and killing it (e.g. Lev 3:2),
thus pointing away from such an
assumption. Rather, such an act of touching the animal's head must have been some rite of dedication. And the simple fact that sacrifices not involving sin were killed is a
serious blow against the whole Penal Substitution framework.

Another fact that militates strongly against the Penal Substitution system is instructions such as those found in Leviticus 5:11-13, which states that if someone cannot afford an animal for a sin offering, a sack of flour can be used instead. (Clearly, a sack of flour cannot receive the death penalty!)


so I submit that truely atone, involves the doing of something even the giving of something to appease God for sins, it doesn't mean tranfering wrath but instead averting it. Sacrifices were offered as a gifts, offerings which have value that so that God mercifully averts wrath.

If the last few examples were not enough, Numbers 25 describes yet another major sin and rebellion of the Israelites. This time a new hero steps up, makes atonement
("turns away my wrath", and rather than taking the wrath upon himself, he receives a blessing instead.

Numbers 31:49-50 "Your servants
have counted the men of war who
are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. And we have brought the LORD’s offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.

Numbers 31 describes the account in which the Lord led His people successfully into battle, and which they gave to God an offering of the spoils as an "atonement" for
them for His Providential protection and victory. (The term for "offering" here is "korban" which is a term regarding sacrificial gifts and animals, especially in Leviticus.) As with previous examples, it makes no sense that atonement can be made with sacrificial offerings if the Penal theory is correct in that
atonement can only be made if wrath is turned on an innocent substitute.

Proverbs 16:6 By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for

Proverbs 16:14 A king’s wrath is a
messenger of death, and a wise man will appease it.

The first of these two passages is very interesting in that it explicitly says "love and faithfulness" atones for sin! That's very incompatible with the Penal notion, but very much in line with many of the previous passages which demonstrate how atonement is made. The second of the two passages is about wisely appeasing wrath (through pleasing the king in some way),
and makes no sense to say a wise man takes the wrath as a substitute.

Now, you might object that all of the above examples are of a different nature than the Levitical animal sacrifices, and thus any implications drawn from the above examples are (at most) of secondary importance to understanding the 'real meaning' of animal sacrifices (i.e. Penal-
Substitution). While this objection has some merit, the burden is on the you to show why the Levitical sacrifices don't (and cannot!) follow the same principle of the
previous examples - anything less would be begging the question.

Exodus 32:30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

Psalm 106:19-23 They made a calf in Horeb and worshiped a metal image. ... Therefore he [God] said he would destroy them had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

Deut 9:13-29 You had made yourselves a golden calf. ... Then I
[Moses] lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin that you had committed, in doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD to provoke him to anger. For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure that the LORD bore against you, so that he was ready to destroy you. But the LORD listened to me that time also.

Exodus 32 describes the infamous Golden Calf story, which is retold at various other times in Scripture because of it's great scandal and sin. Clearly, the Lord listened to
Moses' intercession and penance, making atonement for them and sparing the entire nation from total annihilation. This is a far cry from God redirecting His wrath onto a substitute, namely Moses himself.

Instead wrath is avered atonement accomplish by the prayers of intercession offered by moses.

Numbers 16:41-50 Moses said to
Aaron, "Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the LORD; the plague has begun." So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the plague had already begun among the people. And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped.


This is another infamous story of Korah's Rebellion, and here the Israelites are grumbling against Moses and God, which resulted in a plague across their camp. As with the previous examples, we see the theme of intercession (through good works, like incense) for the sinners, appeasing/propitiating God's wrath, and not an innocent party taking the fall.

Numbers 25:1-13 "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel , in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. 12Therefore say, 'Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, 13and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.'"

Psalm 106:30-31 Then Phinehas
stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. And that [good work] was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.

Again I submit that by a good deed wrath is averted not deflected to a third party.

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.


Genesis 32:20 [Jacob] thought, "I may appease him [Esau] with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterward I shall see his face. Perhaps he will accept me."

The account of Genesis 32:13-21 is of Jacob reuniting with his brother Esau. For those who know the infamous past between the two, they will know the brothers were not on good terms. In this case, Jacob planned to appease ('atone') his brothers wrath against him by offering him a gift. In no sense was Jacob going to deflect his brother's wrath onto an innocent third-party.

Here we see that to atone isn't necessarily deflecting wrath on the innocent but rather offering something pleasing to the aggrieved.


Exodus 30:15-16 "When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a RANSOM for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. ... The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD’s offering to make atonement for your lives."

Here, Moses is given instructions (Exodus 30:11-16) for a 'census tax' on the Israelites. What is especially interesting is that this 'atonement' is described in terms of a "ransom" ( H3724 "kopher," which is very similar to the Hebrew word for "atonement". This is significant because Christ's Life is frequently described in terms of 'ransom' and 'redemption' (both terms refer to 'buying back' something at a price). Here the ransom/atonement protects them from experiencing a plague due to God's wrath against disobedience. But nothing here suggests wrath is deflected on a substitute.

Instead what we see is that the atonement is a payment that avert wrath.

trustman:
Q – What is an ‘Atoning sacrifice’?
A – A payment made (an amend made) for the sin offense against God.

Q – Why was an ‘atoning sacrifice’ necessary?
A – In order to appease God for the wrong done against him.

Q – What was the wrong done?
A – Mankind’s sin (act of disobedience) against God.

I love the way you define atoning sacrifice, you say it is a payment made to appease God for sins!

I agree to a good extent, but I prefer to be very specific when I use word in discussing doctrines, so i'll go futher and say, it is an offering of something in order to make amends for a wong done.

Put simply, I agree with your definition of atoning but you seem to think atonement happen only when punishment, wrath and discontent is transfered to the innocent, I on the other hand think atonement happens not neccessarily when another takes the just wrath of wrong doings but when the said wrath is averted without been poured. My position is that God the father didn't pour wrath on his son instead his son gave him a "sweet smelling offering" (sacrifice), that averted the wrath.

Please allow me to discuss the word atonement using scriptures.

Goshen360:
Laughing at the OP in 3D. Abi Obadiah777 and\sukkot don hack your username ni? . You can't even stand scriptural verses when it stares at you in your face.

Goshen how are you doing?

Nobody hacked by account, I have not responded to the passages directed at me, not because I do not have a response to them but because of some factors that keep me from doing so.

I am aware that I left large portions of your post unanswered, for some reason my brower didn't post some of the replies and I ended up losing the post.

trustman:
I was not really sure if you had finished responding to my last submission. However look at the following issues.

First you make this statement:


And then this:

What is your understanding of the word ‘sacrifice’?
What is your explanation of ‘he gave himself as a sacrifice’?
What do you understand by your words – ‘I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me’?

Maybe when these are clarified you’ll get a better picture.

Yes, I believe that is the meat of the matter, the issue of sacrifice. For you a sacrifice involves punishing an innocent for me it means something a bit different. Please allow me to go back and answer your post and you'll see why Christ offers a sacrifice but isn't a vehicle of wrath.

mmsen:
What you have admitted is that your god is unjust but you have issues accepting this point.

you have it upside down, my arguement is that penal substitution is not a Christian teaching, its origin is from the 16th century.

Put in other words, many believe wrongly that Jesus was penalised in their place, that teaching is relatively new and inconsistent with who God is.


I didn't claim the Christian God is unjust, I instead condemned the belief system that portrays him as such.

I am of the opinion you are intelligent enough to understand my post and will kindly request you don't misrepresent what I said.

Really silly.

Permit me to break up your post so i can reply each point.

trustman:
Can a third person 'bail out' another who is in need of bail? Certainly 'Yes'
Would it cost such a one who bails another something? Definitely 'Yes'
That is the transaction done in Christ's substitutionary death.
Love motivated it. Grace made it a reality.

I agree that a third party can post bail for another, but i put it to you that a third party cannot be killed in place of the guilty, i put it to you that it is immoral for wrath to be poured on the innocent. God is no unjust, he can allow a third person pay another debt or even post bail, but it will still be injust to send Jesus to hell fire.

Papist:
Wow thanks for the explanation brother. I didn't know that Protestants were involved in the writing of the Novus Ordo. But now I understand why the high altars were destroyed and replaced with tables and why many statues and relics were destroyed in Catholic Churches. I also can't get why the ad orientem was replaced with the versus populum. May the Blessed Virgin pray for us for the restoration of the Roman Mass.

there were protestant observers through out the council, adding them to the liturgy commitee was just suprising, there was a kind of drastic reduction in religious images after the council, fine statues were distroyed, a few structures were accused of been too big and "intimidating the poor", religious vestments were simplified and many lost their meaning, ask a priest the significance of his vestments now and you'll be shocked many do not know.

Facing the people at critical times in the liturgy was an invention of Cramer, Luther and Calvin, they didn't believe the mass is a Sacrifice where the priest in persona Christi offers a victim to God, they believe it was just a banquet, a familiar celebration so instead of facing God and offering a sacrifice, they faced the people and were banqueting. I'm not sure they understood the significance of that change, now the thing been removed from the church are altar rails and kneelers, those were also adopted from the protestants.

Peppyluv:
Abeg is Kamsi a 'brother or sister'?

aha!

Another boy girl, brother-sister Kamsi

SalC:
Hmm na wa o, what's happening, a friend of mine called me earlier today and I asked if he has collected his PVC and he was like " I went to collect mine but they said our badge was forgotten in china"

Na wa o, I don't even know if I will be able to use mine since the guy that registered me look me finish go write my gender "male" smh

I've even gone to INEC office and nothing has been done about it yet. Funny election

lol

girl-boy.

Male gender yet you are a mum,

woman-man

Syncan:
Certain people still don't agree with the sainthood of John Paul II because of this, but God alone knows the heart of men, if he reveals to the church thus, and permits his elevation in our eyes, then i guess... so be it.

St John Paul II, ora pro nobis.

i have no doubt on the sainthood of pope Johnpaul II, I believe in his heart he did what he knew to be right, it wasn't a smooth ride for him and I am sure he made some mistakes or his subordinates made mistakes in his name, but show me any saint who never sinned (among those who weren't God's literal mother) and i'll show u a fake.

Papist:
Ecumenism is good but I think it is fast becoming a new heresy. We can't proclaim the truth of the Catholic faith anymore for fear of offending unbelievers. What did Pope St Pius X say about the primary goal of the Church? He said it is for the salvation of souls not all this false political correctness.

Yeah dear, the salvation of souls is the highest law.

As for ecumenism, i think it is a good thing in itself but the means by which many as using now as just plain unacceptable. We are throwing away good thing and accepting junk just to please the other guy. It there no other ways to draw the unbeliever closer without undermining my own faith?
Nowaday when I read the vat II documents on ecumenism I also get a pre vat 2 encyclical on ecumenism to put things in perspective. We aren't trully practicing ecumenism (bring everyone under Christ through his Church) what we have now is "i am happy with u, you are happy with me, lets just remain were we are and love each other". Our signs of ecumenism are deeply flawed.

Weah96:
LOL, Ubenedictus is tugging at a loose string, not realizing that it is attached to a house of cards.

For thousands of years, the God supposedly rendered preferential treatment to one small tribe of humans, at the expense, often fatal expense, of everyone else. You didn't see any character flaws in that behavior, but this penal substitution business is the one paining you. LOL.

I didn't see anything wrong with virgins giving birth either, just the part where the husband believed the ghost insemination story. That was my own loose string.

i actually liked your comment because I think you have great sense of humour, even though i don't think joking about other peoples beliefs is cool, anyway, I think you'll agree that believing a God that practices favourism is bad enough adding saddist and self hating to the list just makes it worse.

Besides, i do not believe God showed preferential treatment to the Isrealites, i have a pretty bad analogy for it, I'm sure you are aware that before a drug is brought to the open market it is first tried on a small controlled population, would you describe the doctors as been preferential for giving a few people his good drug while allowing others to die?
Well I wouldn't. he covenants before Jesus were preparatory, if you like call it trials drugs, an exibition that prepares the world for salvation, the "preferential treatment" started with a household, d guy d bible calls Noah, a generation with abraham and a nation with moses, those were all steps so that at the right time the whole world may be save through Christ.

It is a bad anology but i think it sticks for a time.

plaetton:
But penal substitution is essence of christian belief that Jesus died to save humankind.

not really!

Penal substutution is actually a new theory, rejected by orthodox Christians and most Catholic theologians. It portrays God as vindictive, a "pourer" of wrath. So no. Penal substitution is not the essence of Christianity Christian have been around for over a thousand year before there ever was a theory that say God was pouring his wrath on his innocent son so tht there will be no more wrath for a select few. I certainly do not believe Jesus went to hell fire was disfellowshiped from his father and man to burn in hell so a few elect gets saved.

That is an unjust God and i do not believe in such a God.

Bishop Anselm put it more elagantly when he wrote Adam comitted infinite sin against god, therefore man owed an infinite debt to God that could only be redeemed, not by finite sacrifices, but by infinite sacrifice, the sacrifice of the infinite one himself.

Anselm's theory implies that the sacrifice of Jesus was simply a celestial Banking transaction where the books just needed to be balanced.

I guess you gat bishop Anslems theory, though i think u may have it messed up, even at that it still isn't penal substitution. Anslem never taught that God got someone beaten because he was unhappy. Anslem did believe that Jesus gave glory to his father that satisfy for all sins of all humanity both past, present and future but to Anslem it had nothing to do with Jesus recieving our penalty.

There is a subtle difference.

trustman:


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

himself, he gave himself as a sacrifice.

Papist:
Which Priesthood? The one that the Lord Jesus conferred on the Apostles like when he gave them the power to forgive sins? And when he told them to offer the bread and wine as His Body and Blood? It should be obvious from the scriptures.

he wants you to quote a passage that says "recieve the priesthood."

Papist:
My brother i bow to your knowledge. I haven't read Sacrosanctum Concilium myself although it's on my list of things to do. But I believe Sacrosanctum Concilium was a mistake. Not that the Ordinary Mass is invalid...it definitely is equal in dignity to the Traditional Mass. But the timing was bad. The 60s were a turbulent time when the modernist heresy was rampant. I'm 28 by the way so don't take me that serious. But I would prefer if the Tridentine Mass had just been translated, like what Sts Cryil and Methodios did to the Liturgy of St Chrysostom. It is shameful that our liturgy, because of the abuses, no longer communicates the Eucharistic reality to the faithful. Having said that I'm aware that all Ecumenical Councils need much time to be fully understood. I hope in after the Holy Father Francis we get a Pope in the mould of St Leo the Great or St Gregory. Blessings

While I have been known to critique the new order liturgy, I think there was a need to actually retouch the liturgy at Vatican II, the main reasons was that new grounds were opening for evangelism and for each culture it was important to communicate first in the language the people understand, that already said, i think the council took a step too far.

The first sentiments that led to the revision of the liturgy were as i said the new evangelism opening and the need to communicate and interact with other cultures but as the council went futher the aim of revising the liturgy changed, the new aim was "ecumenism", infact over 4 people in the liturgy commitee of the council were protestants, the drive was to make the liturgy more appealing and acceptable to the protestant and that led to modeling the liturgy after the examples of Cramer, luther and Calvin. I'll give a few examples,
1. The ancient church celebrated the liturgy ad Orientem, it was the protestant that emphasized the "banquet" nature of the eucharist and celebrated ad Populi.

2. The earlier penitential rites were removed, the sign of peace was moved into the eucharist and a few other changes that seem to make the mass identical to the protestant service.

3. A few words were also shifted in the liturgy, for example, in the old rite one of the prayers said when ordaining a priest is that he should recieve power to "bless, baptise, offer sacrifice..." in the new liturgy it was made to simply say recieve the power for the liturgy without stating clearly d work of d priest. Bearing in mind catholics and protestants disagree on the duty of a pastor.

Infact the definition d new order used in its first missa was protestant and had bishop saying "heresy" so much so the first missal had to be recall and re-revised.

The council itself placed a premuim on inculturation, revision and freedom, so the masses where first experimented before they were promulgated, after the rubrics were defined a few priest decided to add their own rubrics. This lead to deformation.

And yes, as you said modernism was rampart in those days and many priest and bishops interpreted and still interprete the words of the council in the modernist sense.

SalC:
Never heard of this though, but I share your sentiment here, we can't relegate our identity and belief to the background just to please people. They knew it was a Catholic church before they came to seek refuge so why do we have to move the alter and cover the statue. So they won't desecrate it? I think not.

It is a funny sense of ecumenism and charity and the blame throwing for this one leads to the doors of the vatican, they invented the practice of "do not offend the unbeliever".

Papist:
Brothers and sisters good evening. I'm still new here. I'm posting this to express my outrage over what I believe to be sacriledge in a Catholic Church in Belgium. Please forgive me if you don't share my opinion. It is also an old story that I just read now: it's from 2006. Apparently some Muslim refugees were offered a place of safety in a Catholic Church in Brussels. Now to make the Muslims feel comfortable, the Altar was moved and a statue of the Blessed Virgin was covered by a piece of cloth. I once again seek your patience but I got the impression that the guests in the Catholic Church were seen here to be more important than the Holy Altar and the Blessed Virgin and I am outraged. What do you think about this my brothers and sisters?

I think it is distressing!

They came to a Catholic Church for refuge, so i believe they very well knew where they were coming! I believe it is charitable to feed the homeless, to care for them, to shelter them but i believe all this can be done without demeaning a worship place.

How will you chose to remove the center altar from the church because people who clearly knew they were in a catholic church were seeking refuge. Sorry but if this story is true I disagree with the idea.


That reminds me, a similar thing was done at Asisi, it happened I believe under pope st Johnpaul II, it was during an ecumenical gathering where leaders of world religions were invited to pray for peace. Not only were all funny gods honoured inside a catholic basilica and prayed to for peace as though it was within their power to give peace, important icons and images in the basilica where also covered so as not to offend the non-Christians, this again is a wierd sense of Charity. It reminds me of what happened after the council where each church brought their motor saws and cut down the high altars of the church and replaced it with a meal table, while the mables from the high altars were ill disposed.

It is a wierd sense of Charity and i was happy when pope francis used the vatican gardens and not the basilica when he organised prayers for nathanyahu and abbas

Orunto:
Your Discuss is good. God made everything in his own way and to satisfy only Himself. This is not saying that God is Selfish but reinforcing the Righteousness of God. In the original Covenant with us at Creation, humans were to satisfy God in sacrifice of the first fruit of our lives.. In Pneumatology, God reversed this original covenant in two specific ways. First, He sent two Angels(Righteous Spirits) from Himself to Sodom to prove that there was no Righteousness in Sodom. Second, Jesus Christ is the first born of all righteousness. He came not just to die as you have said it all, but to give every body who believes in Him free VISA into ETERNITY.. You see, God's ways are different from ours but we can synchronise very well in communion with Him!

It is true God's ways are unto his glory, and yes God sent is Son to save us and grant us access to heaven, my particular point is that God didn't damn his son. The sacrifice of Jesus isn't about God pouring wrath on earth, it is instead the expression of God's sacrificial love, God who gives himself to show the fullness of his love.

Billia:
http://kjdobbs..com/2015/03/jesus-lookalike-found-in-zambia.html?m=1

this is not related to the topic.

Stop breaking nl rules

Papist:
Well I wouldn't say the SSPX are really schismatics since they commemorate the Pope. I would say they are just disobedient children of the Church. I also sympathise with them a little because of some of our modernist bishops. But they should just reconcile with the Popes like the Transalpine Redemptorists did. We need them for the reformation of our sacred liturgy. Blessings.

You understand the situation correctly.

The SSPX will be the first to shout that the seat to peter isn't empty so they are not sedesvacantist. They also claim to keep communion with the church in doctrine, in sacrament, the only problem is that they have refused to regularised their status in the church and they fail to respect vatican II council.

As for their disrespect of the council, that is even more complicated because i have seen people interprete the council's documents in a modenist sense, and the fluid nature of those documents leave them open to pretty bad interpretation. As for the liturgy i believe a reformation is needed, when sacrosanctum councilium was written nobody saw the problems it would cause, how various priest will twist the liturgy into a quasi form of a banquet lacking in beauty, majesty and lacking in meaning and even at time detrimental to the lex credendi (the law of faith). When Benedict xvi wrote sumorium pontificum he had a hope that the tradentine mass will romance with the new order in such a way that both will be uplifting and may help the people of God better in worship.

Anyway, I still would discourage people from the sspx because they are without recognised ministry in the church and because they do not fully recognise a catholic council.

Even more suprising is the thought that God "poured his wrath" on his son, this is just suprising, because scriptures says Jesus offered up a sacrifices of sweet arroma to God, put simply God was looking down at Calvary and smiling, but this reformed concept claims that God was looking down from heaven with anger, disgust and probably hatred, instead of a sweet smeling aroma this concept says God looked down and poured down his wrath.

The irritation goes futher when penal substitution claim that Jesus went to the hell fire of the damned and suffered like those in hell fire, this theory claims that God was in hell fire. As though its list of blasphemy wasn't enough it says the fellowship in the trinity was broken, it say that God reckon sin to his son and broke off his relationship with him. I hope there are scholars here, it is impossible to break the fellowship of the trinity, to put it bluntly if there is no trinity then we have 3 Gods, this theory claims that 2000yrs ago we had 2 gods, the father disfellowship his son out of the Godhead. This is heresy of the highest degree.



So I wish to ask all who identify themselves as Christians to stay clear of this blasphemous heresy called penal substitution as it is substantially against the nature of God and an insult to the divinity.

A second and more interesting problem with the Reformed
conception is the following dilemma.
If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word. God could hate the Son if and only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion.
And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. That Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine
Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If
Christ loves men, then so does the
Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ. And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself.

God has but One Will he cannot hate himself, if he did he would be a saddistic God, By nature it is impossible for God to hate himself, if you claim the father hated Jesus then you are either an arian or a polytheist, if you claim he hated only the "human Jesus" then you are a nestorian. It is simply not possible for God to hate condem and sentence his own beign to hell, it is against his nature.

Penal substitution say that in Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Reformed conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Reformed thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect
being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished.
For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect.

The 1SR problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment,
then His suffering would be of no
benefit to us.

To put simply, it is unjust to kill an innocent man, command or will that an innocent man dies in place of a sinner.

Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can- not be punished for another. Each one shall die for his own sins:

“The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16)
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)

Penal substitution (also called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed within the Reformed tradition (and the Lutheran tradition, to a lesser degree). It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins of men. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary
atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able
to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ,
to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.


To remove the big english, penal substitution is the doctrine preached on nl by those who claim that God that God couldn't forgive us our sins without first punishing his own son.

Penal substition say that God didn't really forgive us our sins instead he took his son and punished his for all our sins, killed his son for all our sins and then sent him to hell fire for 3 day. It is the theory that says our salvation is in other words a work of divine injustice.

It is like saying your house dog bit your dad and instead to letting go and forgiving the dog, your father went and beat up you brothers for the sin of the dog. That is penal substitution, that someone was kill for another persons crimes.

It is unjust both to punish the innocent and to allow the guilty to go free, thus this theory is heavy suspect and may very well be the most popular heresy in christendom.



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! But I do not believe that God punished or penalise his son in place of me.

I believe penal substitution is against the nature of God and highly suspect for the following reason....