Challenge from a Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read recently in ‘The Founder of Christianity’ by C.H. Dodd, which is a most excellent tome by the way, that Jesus’ sacrifice was complete when he forgave the apostles for deserting him when he returned from the dead…This was the plan completed.
 
40.png
deb1:
Thank you. I am in RCIA and I didn’t know this. Could you post some links inwhich I could read more about this? Is this why my former Baptist minister always said that Christ became sin? Catholics don’t believe that, correct or do they?
2Cor.5

21
] For our sake he made him to be** sin** who knew no** sin**, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Christ became sin so that it could be nailed to the cross.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Aside from the fact that I don’t know what your challenger is talking about, why would you agree to terms like that? Catholics read and believe the WHOLE Bible. The New Testament doesn’t make any sense unless you have a grip on the Old Testament.
Agreed totally. I used to be a baptist and we used to read the whole Bible then too. It’s a very odd challenge.

There’s lots about Jesus shedding his blood in the NT but it certainly is odd to make excluding the OT compulsory.
 
Matthew 26:28 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

there are lots of NT verses… but, this is the basic ‘truth’…

or so i believe…

🙂
 
I’ve got a feeling I’m being set up with this one, but I have been challenged to explain from the NT only, what is the purpose for the shedding of His blood?
But the NT is full of quotes and references from the OT. Take all those out and what do you have? Thats like trying to color a kindergarden coloring book using only a nbr 2 pencil. Can it be done?
 
40.png
TobyLue:
But the NT is full of quotes and references from the OT. Take all those out and what do you have? Thats like trying to color a kindergarden coloring book using only a nbr 2 pencil. Can it be done?
Yes, but then I am color blind. 🙂 seriously I am color blind.

And, there is such a thing as pencil drawings.
 
40.png
deb1:
Is this why my former Baptist minister always said that Christ became sin? Catholics don’t believe that, correct or do they?
Christ did become sin, but protestants don’t understand it as Catholics do; they portray it as a penal substitution.

But Christ did not win our salvation as much as he purchased our redemption.

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

And with our freedom we are called to be Christ unto justice, even as He was sin for us.

2 Cor 5:21 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.

So we absolutely must live in Christ in order to be saved.

We must take hold of this redemption and persevere to the end to reach salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as the Son in his own house: which house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and glory of hope unto the end.

Romans 13:11 And that knowing the season; that it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed.

hurst
 
40.png
hurst:
Christ did become sin, but protestants don’t understand it as Catholics do; they portray it as a penal substitution./QUOTE]
So how are Catholics supposed to understand ‘Christ became sin’. I’ve even heard Father Larry Richards give the ‘Protestant’ view of this - in that Jesus cried ‘My God, my God why have you foresaken me’. Father Larry said God could not look upon Christ because he was sin and turned his back on him at this moment. I know this isn’t the Catholic view because I’ve read that in a couple different books that God could never ‘forsake himself’ or ‘turn his back on himself’ and I cringed when I heard Father Larry say this because I love his talks!! I know the Church generally has taught that here Jesus is saying the first line of Psalm 21 (22 ? don’t have my bible handy).
**But…all that aside…what does ‘Christ became sin’ mean?
**
 
Daniel Marsh said:
Read the book of Hebrews. There is plently of OT in there to explain the atonement. How does the baptist view of the atonement line up with the catholic?

😉
 
Hello friend…you know it is strange…whenever you or I talk about politics, we cannot seem to agree…however we are both Catholic and that is the most important thing…God Bless. The question you have been dealt with is kind of hard…considering the NT is a fulfillment of the OT…you can not have one without the other…to ask you to explain a point with just one testament is pretty much like saying the other is not the inspired word of God…look at Isaiah 53…it is so beautiful…it explains the role of Christ…the suffering servant.
40.png
FightingFat:
I’ve got a feeling I’m being set up with this one, but I have been challenged to explain from the NT only, what is the purpose for the shedding of His blood?
 
To understand what is being said when people say that…it is important to remember Christ was NOT sinful…even in the least bit. he was Perfect. However…when it is said he became sin, it means that he took upon the sins of THE ENTIRE WORLD as if they were his own…he endured the physical and temporal punishments for all the sins ever committed…past, present, and future…therefore he became sin for us. IF you want an excellent explanation of this…please read Isaiah 53
40.png
Elzee:
**But…all that aside…what does ‘Christ became sin’ mean? **
 
40.png
Elzee:
40.png
hurst:
Christ did become sin, but protestants don’t understand it as Catholics do; they portray it as a penal substitution./QUOTE]
So how are Catholics supposed to understand ‘Christ became sin’. I’ve even heard Father Larry Richards give the ‘Protestant’ view of this - in that Jesus cried ‘My God, my God why have you foresaken me’. Father Larry said God could not look upon Christ because he was sin and turned his back on him at this moment. I know this isn’t the Catholic view because I’ve read that in a couple different books that God could never ‘forsake himself’ or ‘turn his back on himself’ and I cringed when I heard Father Larry say this because I love his talks!! I know the Church generally has taught that here Jesus is saying the first line of Psalm 21 (22 ? don’t have my bible handy).
**But…all that aside…what does ‘Christ became sin’ mean? **
This is what always confused me. I learned, while a protestant, that Jesus literally became sin. That when he died the world became dark because God could no longer look upon his son because God can’t look upon sin. I never understood the concept and I am still confused, especially the part about not seeing sin.
 
40.png
Elzee:
40.png
hurst:
Christ did become sin, but protestants don’t understand it as Catholics do; they portray it as a penal substitution.
So how are Catholics supposed to understand ‘Christ became sin’.
As that He became a sin offering. And He is also the High Priest offering it.

He became sin in order to overcome it and atone for the evil. By His voluntary performance He outweighed the injustice, and offered Himself for us that we might be delivered from slavery to sin and the dominion of the devil. And with our freedom we are called to be Christ unto justice, even as He was sin for us.
Code:
2 Cor 5:21 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, **that we might be made the justice of God in him.**
What does that mean? It means we are to made into His likeness by our good works done in faith

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works.

That He became sin is again mentioned here in clearer terms:

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh; 4 That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

That Him becoming sin means an offering for our being made holy is shown in this passage:

Hebrews 10:10 In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once. 11 And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, 13 From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said: 16 And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: 17 And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.

Notice that we are to be made holy, even such that God will write His laws in our hearts and minds. Protestants tend to think that we stay sinful and are merely shielded from retribution. Thus, they do not feel obliged to put forth any effort to depart from sin, but rather focus on believing more strongly that they are saved in spite of their sins. In fact, they condemn the notion of effort. But they err because while it is true that no effort of ours can earn our redemption, yet we must exert effort in order to take hold of the redemption Christ purchased for us! By faith we must give God our free will.

He offered Himself for us, and we are called to offer ourselves for Him

Matthew 16:25 … he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

This is underscored here:

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church…

We aren’t just supposed to cheer about what Christ did for us; we are supposed to follow Him by doing the same thing!

John 14:12 … Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do.

hurst
 
**But…all that aside…what does ‘Christ became sin’ mean? **
Others are absolutely correct in saying He became the sin offering, but it might help a bit to understand what a sin offering was from a Jewish perspective. The sacrificial goats and bull of Yom Kippur (the yearly high-sacrifice in the temple for the whole nation) were called sin-offerings. The sins of the people would be recited over the sacrifice, for example, in a symbolic “transference”. It’s not so much that the goat became personally guilty of sin, which is an absurd notion, but that it spiritually “became the sins of Israel” to be driven out into the wilderness (which is where we get the term “scapegoat”) or sacrificed (depending on which of the two goats is being spoken of). When the goat is sacrificed, it’s really the sins being sacrificed, or more properly being killed; it is a symbol for the real, spiritual “death to sin”. Incidently, you can see this in Leviticus 16.

This is why the Tanakh, and Temple Judaism in general, is so utterly important in understanding the New Testament. The New Testament is really nothing more or less than a fulfillment of all the symbols and spiritual pointers from the Old. It’s not “Old” because it’s “done away with”, it’s Old because it’s prior to the New. The New Testament is so profoundly Jewish, it’s just dripping with Judaic imagery and theology, and this is a perfect example. This is why, after hearing Paul speak in Acts 17:11, the Jews “searched the Scriptures”; they were double-checking the Tanakh/Old Testament to confirm that his preaching was indeed part of the ancient “deposit of faith”.

To “become sin” is a confusing term for us in modern times, but it would literally have been an expression that every single faithful Jew would have been expected to understand, or at least assent to, through the Temple practice of Yom Kippur. Upon checking the Scriptures (Old Testament), and hearing the story of Jesus, His claims to be the Messiah and God Incarnate, and His death and resurrection, they came to believe that what had happened was not just a very Jewish thing, but the Jewish thing, portrayed throughout the whole Tanakh. This led to an obvious rift in Judaism between those who were Christian and those who maintained the view that the Messiah had not yet come, a division that exists down to this day in our two “seperate” religions.

Peace and God bless!
 
Thank you hurst and ghosty. This helps a lot.

Learning about how the OT helps us understand the NT blows me away every time! God is amazing in how he has woven his plan and passed it on to us.
 
40.png
deb1:
40.png
Elzee:
I never understood the concept and I am still confused, especially the part about not seeing sin.
This comes from Habakkuk – 1:13 (referring to God): Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity. (KJV)
 
everything in OT prefigures and foreshadows the NT, everything in the NT explains and makes clear what was obscure in the OT. The NT is the new covenant, fulfillment of the OT, the old covenant. One is not taken alone without the other, they stand together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top